[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 107 (Wednesday, September 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8445-S8492]
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--Continued


                           Amendment No. 4129

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, very shortly there will be 
a vote on one of the divisions in my amendment to the PNTR legislation. 
This is a particular odious practice that occurs now in China called 
organ harvesting. It is hard to imagine that any nation in the world 
today would conduct activities as odious as this, but it does happen.

[[Page S8446]]

  As we know from the debate that has been occurring on the permanent 
normal trade relations with China, most of the predictions are it is 
going to pass, perhaps overwhelmingly. I personally oppose the 
legislation. But if we are going to pass it, I believe we have an 
obligation to at least call to the attention of the rest of the world, 
and frankly to our own people here in America, the barbaric practices 
that are occurring in this country to which we are about to give 
permanent normal trade status.
  Permanent is a pretty strong word. Permanent means permanent. Under 
the permanent normal trade relations bill, there is a process for 
monitoring the activities. There is a commission that is set up. My 
amendment is very simple. It says:

       The Commission shall monitor the actions of the government 
     of the People's Republic of China with respect to its 
     practice of harvesting and transplanting organs for profit 
     from prisoners that it executes.

  So all my colleagues know, this amendment simply says the commission 
shall monitor these activities in China as best they can and report to 
the American people what they find. I believe very strongly it is wrong 
for us as a nation to look the other way and say it is OK to make 
money, to trade with China, sell our agricultural products, and ignore 
these types of human rights violations.
  In the debate yesterday I discussed this briefly. We heard a lot 
about not delaying the bill. The House has sent us over a bill--which, 
by the way they amended, they added some things to the monitoring--and 
they sent it back to the Senate. Now many of my colleagues who are 
supporting PNTR are saying: Let's not delay this. If we agree to these 
amendments, the Smith amendment or the Thompson amendment or the 
Wellstone amendment or any other amendment that has been offered, we 
are going to delay the process. Maybe it is a good idea to call 
attention to the fact they are harvesting organs obtained unwillingly 
by executing prisoners, but we don't want to mess up the whole debate 
here. We do not want to mess up an agreement we have with the House.
  We go to conference on hundreds of bills year after year. We are 
going to go to conference on 13 appropriations bills. It is what you 
do. That is why we have a House and a Senate. It is what the Founding 
Fathers wanted us to do. So if it takes a few days or a few hours--most 
likely a few minutes--to conference an amendment such as the one we are 
about to vote on, which I am about to speak on in a moment--if it takes 
a few minutes to have the House agree to it, so what. What is the big 
deal?
  This is very disturbing. Yet my colleagues are saying to other 
colleagues: Don't vote for the Smith amendment, the Wellstone 
amendment, the Helms amendment, the Thompson amendment, or any other 
amendment because it is going to require us to have to conference with 
the House, and therefore it might slow the bill down.

  If we are giving permanent status to China, what is a few more 
minutes? If we pass it, the House passes it, we amend it here, send it 
over to the House this morning or this afternoon, by dinnertime the 
House agrees to it, puts it on the President's desk, he has breakfast 
tomorrow morning--has a glass of juice, coffee, whatever, a muffin--and 
then signs the bill. What is lost?
  When we do that, we could get some of these amendments. This 
monitoring language we should have in this bill. To do otherwise, with 
all due respect to my colleagues, is simply to say: I am going to look 
the other way while organ harvesting takes place in China. We don't 
want to rock the boat. We don't want to offend the Chinese. We don't 
want to make anybody unhappy. We don't want to offend the House because 
they didn't put it in, so therefore we are not going to conference 
this. We don't want to rock the boat.
  That is wrong. To put it bluntly, that is wrong.
  Let me speak briefly about the content of my amendment. Organ 
harvesting, there was an expose done on this in 1997 by ABC News. This 
is not Bob Smith talking. This is one of the three major networks that 
televised a documentary on the practice of organ harvesting in 
Communist China. In that documentary, in 1997, it depicted prisoners--
these are not necessarily murderers. These are just prisoners. Some of 
them just put in there, actually charged with nothing--so-called crimes 
against the state. But it showed prisoners who were videotaped, lined 
up against a wall and executed with a bullet directly to the head. 
This, unlike a lethal injection, preserves the organs for harvesting.
  The documentary also claimed the prisoners were executed on a routine 
basis. This was not an exception. Their organs were sold to people who 
were willing to pay up to $30,000 for a kidney, for example.
  Human rights organizations have estimated that at that time, the time 
the documentary aired, more than 10,000 kidneys alone--just kidneys, 
not to mention any other organs--10,000 kidneys alone from Chinese 
prisoners had been sold, potentially bringing in tens of millions of 
dollars to--guess where the money goes--the Chinese military. Does this 
sound like Huxley's ``Brave New World'' or what--executing prisoners to 
get their organs to get the money to the Chinese military.
  The Chinese Government, as it does with most human rights abuses, 
denies this practice takes place. But it is important to keep in mind 
that China does not have a rule of law.
  Prisoners are subject to arbitrary arrest and arbitrary punishment 
without due process. People of religious faith, environmental 
activists, human rights activists, opponents of coercive abortion, 
student demonstrators, and anyone who appears to be questioning or 
challenging the Government of China is subject to harassment, 
intimidation, arrest, incarceration, including in the infamous laogai, 
or slave labor camps, and, in certain cases, execution.
  When Tiananmen Square occurred in 1989, peaceful student protesters, 
including the sons and daughters of the Communist Party's elite, were 
mowed down, run over by PLA tanks. There are far fewer dissidents in 
China than there were 11 years ago after that experience.
  Even the Falun Gong, which practices breathing and meditation 
exercises, has been subject to brutal repression by Chinese 
authorities, and many of these worshipers have disappeared in the 
Chinese gulags, and some have died in police custody--great candidates 
for organ harvesting.
  ABC's report also found that Chinese nationals living on student 
visas were marketing these organs to Americans and other foreigners who 
had the funds to make a $5,000 deposit and who then traveled to China 
to the People's Liberation Army hospital where they received a kidney 
transplant.
  These kidneys are tissue typed and the prisoners are also tissue 
typed in order to achieve an ideal match. Think about that. Prisoners 
are executed, some of them for doing nothing more than protesting 
against the Government of China. They are sent to prison and executed 
so that people can pay up to $30,000 for one of their kidneys or some 
other organ, and the money goes to the Chinese military.
  I ask my colleagues, with all due respect--and I respect the rights 
of Members to exercise their own views and votes; of course, it goes 
without saying, but I ask you: Is it unreasonable to ask my colleagues 
to put this in the monitoring provisions of PNTR so that we can monitor 
these activities and report to the world what is happening? Is that so 
bad? If it delays this bill a few hours, if we have to conference it 
with the House--it is permanent--is that so bad?
  We might save a few lives. The more the world knows about this, and 
the more world public pressure comes to the Chinese, we might save some 
lives. For the sake of a little time before we pass this bill that has 
been debated now for several days--it has been talked about for a year 
or two--is it so bad for my colleagues to vote to allow a commission to 
study and report on this? I ask them, is it really that big a deal for 
us to try to save people whose basic human right, the right to life, is 
being denied for the sake of organ donors? To make it worse, in some 
cases Americans are buying those kidneys, hearts, livers, and other 
organs.
  U.S. law prohibits this activity. It is unlawful in the United States 
for ``any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer 
any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human 
transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce.''

[[Page S8447]]

  Congresswoman Linda Smith, before she left office, introduced a 
resolution 3 years ago which deplored this practice and called upon the 
administration to bar from entry to the United States any Chinese 
official directly involved in the practice of organ harvesting. It 
urged the prosecution of individuals engaged in marketing and 
facilitating these transplants under U.S. law.
  There is no one in the House or Senate who would not recognize the 
name of Harry Wu, the renowned human rights activist and Chinese 
dissident who was arrested in China, detained, and finally released. 
Thanks to the work of Laogai Research Foundation, we are aware of 
ongoing Chinese engagement in organ harvesting of executed prisoners.
  It is unreasonable, it is unfair for us to add this provision that 
will expose this to the world and say, once and for all, that it is 
wrong and that we are not going to allow ourselves to be dragged into 
saying that, for the sake of profit, for the sake of selling wheat, 
corn, rice, and other agricultural products, for the sake of greed and 
profit, we are going to ignore this? How can we do that in good 
conscience?
  The sad part, frankly--the American people may not understand this--
about what is happening in the Senate is that people are saying: Don't 
vote for the Smith amendment because that is going to slow the process 
down; don't vote for it.
  It is not going to slow the process down enough to matter, and this 
is important. It is a commission. It is a study. That is all it is, and 
that is all we are asking.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print an article on 
incidents regarding organ harvesting in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         [From the International Herald Tribune, June 15, 2000]

     An Execution for a Kidney--China Supplies Convicts' Organs to 
                               Malaysians

                           (By Thomas Fuller)

       Malacca, Malaysia.--The night before their execution, 18 
     convicts were shown on a Chinese television program, their 
     crimes announced to the public. Wilson Yeo saw the broadcast 
     from his hospital bed in China and knew that one of the men 
     scheduled to die would provide him with the kidney he so 
     badly needed.
       Mr. Yeo, 40, a Malaysian who manages the local branch of a 
     lottery company here, says he never learned the name of the 
     prisoner whose kidney is now implanted on his right side. He 
     knows only what the surgeon told him: The executed man was 19 
     years old and sentenced to die for drug trafficking. ``I knew 
     that I would be getting a young kidney,'' Mr. Yeo says now, 
     one year after his successful transplant. ``That was very 
     important for me.'' Over the past few years at least a dozen 
     residents of this small Malaysian city have traveled to a 
     provincial hospital in Chongqing, China, where they paid for 
     what they could not get in Malaysia: functioning kidneys to 
     prolong their lives. They went to China, a place most of them 
     barely knew, with at least $10,000 in cash. They encountered 
     a medical culture where kidneys were given to those with 
     money and a doctor could stop treatment if a patient didn't 
     pay up. Surgeons advised them to wait until a major holiday, 
     when authorities traditionally execute the most prisoners.
       China's preferred method of capital punishment, a bullet to 
     the back of the head, is conducive to transplants because it 
     does not contaminate the prisoners' organs with poisonous 
     chemicals, as lethal injections do, or directly affect the 
     circulatory system, as would a bullet through the heart.
       More than 1,000 Malaysians have had kidney transplants in 
     China, according to an estimate by Dr. S.Y. Tan, one of 
     Malaysia's leading kidney specialists. Many patients go after 
     giving up hope of finding an organ donor in Malaysia, where 
     the average waiting period for a transplant is 16 years. 
     Interviews with patients who underwent the operation in China 
     reveal how the market for Chinese kidneys have blossomed 
     here--to the point where patients from Malacca negotiated a 
     special price with Chinese doctors.
       In 1998, two doctors from the Third Affiliated Hospital, a 
     military-run complex in Chongqing, came to Malacca and spoke 
     at the local chapter of the Lions Club about their 
     procedures. Kidney patients worked out a deal with the 
     doctors: Residents of Malacca would be charged $10,000 for 
     the procedure instead of the $12,000 paid by other 
     foreigners. It goes without saying that the kidney 
     transplants these doctors perform are highly controversial. 
     The Transplantation Society, a leading international medical 
     forum based in Montreal, has banned the use of organs from 
     convicted criminals. Human rights groups call the practice 
     barbaric. But patients here who have undergone the operation 
     in China say they were too desperate at the time to consider 
     the ethical consequences. Today they are simply happy to be 
     alive. The trip to Chongqing offered them an escape from the 
     dialysis machines, blood transfusions, dizziness and frequent 
     bouts of vomiting. And why, they ask, should healthy organs 
     be put to waste if they can save lives?
       ``Ethics are only a game for those people who are not 
     sick,'' says Tan Dau Chin, a paramedic who has spent his 
     career working with dialysis patients in Malacca. ``Let me 
     put it this way: What if this happened to you?'' Simon Leong, 
     35, a Malaccan who underwent a successful operation two years 
     ago in Chongqing, says the principle of buying an organ is 
     ``wrong.'' ``But I was thinking, I have two sons. Who's going 
     to provide for them?'' Corrine Yong, 54, who returned from 
     Chongqing two months ago after a successful operation, was 
     told that if she did not receive a transplant she would 
     probably not live much longer. ``I didn't have a choice,'' 
     she says of her decision to go to China. For kidney patients 
     in Malaysia the chances of obtaining a transplant from a 
     local donor are slim. Despite an extremely high death rate on 
     Malaysian roads--in a country of 22 million people, an 
     average of 16 people are killed every day in traffic 
     accidents--the organ donation system is woefully undeveloped.
       Kidneys were transplanted from just eight donors last year. 
     Thousands of people are on the official waiting list. Dr. 
     Tan, the Malaysian kidney specialist, says the small number 
     of donors in Malaysia is partly due to religious and cultural 
     taboos. Malaysian Muslim families in particular are reluctant 
     to allow organs to be removed before burial, although this is 
     not the case in some other Muslim countries, such as Saudi 
     Arabia, which has a relatively high number of donors.
       Organ donation has always been an uncomfortable issue. The 
     terminology is euphemistic and macabre: Doctors speak of 
     ``harvesting'' organs from patients who are brain-dead, but 
     whose hearts are still beating. And when the issue of 
     executed prisoners come into play, transplants become 
     politically explosive. ``It is well known that the death 
     penalty is often meted out in China for things that most 
     people in Western countries would not regard as capital 
     crimes,'' said Roy Calne, a professor of surgery at both 
     Cambridge University and the National University of 
     Singapore. Using organs from executed prisoners is not only 
     ethically wrong, he says, but discourages potential donors to 
     step forward in China: ``If the perception of the public in 
     China is that there's no shortage of organs you're not likely 
     to get any enthusiasm for a donation program.''
       It is impossible to know exactly how many Asians travel to 
     China for organ transplants. But data informally collected 
     from doctors in at least three countries suggest the numbers 
     are in the hundreds every year. Also impossible to confirm is 
     whether all patients in China receive organs from executed 
     prisoners and not other donors. But patients interviewed for 
     this article say doctors in China make no secret of where the 
     organ comes from. The day before convicts are executed--
     usually in batches--a group of patients in the hospital are 
     told to expect the operation the next day.
       Melvin Teh, 40, a Malacca businessman who received a kidney 
     transplant from a hospital in Guangzhou two years ago, says 
     doctors did not offer the names of the prisoners. ``They just 
     tell you it was a convict,'' he said. ``They don't tell you 
     what he did.''
       Mrs. Young says doctors told her that the donors were all 
     ``young men'' who had committed ``serious, violent'' crimes. 
     Chinese officials have admitted that organs are occasionally 
     taken from convicts, but deny that the practice is 
     widespread. ``It is rare in China to use the bodies of 
     executed convicts or organs from an executed convict,'' an 
     official from the Health Ministry was quoted as saying in the 
     China Daily in 1998. ``If it is done, it is put under 
     stringent state control and must go through standard 
     procedures.'' That view does not jibe with the stories that 
     patients from Malacca tell, where kidneys are essentially 
     handed out to the highest bidders, often foreigners.
       Mr. Leong, the Chongquing patient, and his wife, Karen Soh, 
     who accompanied him to China, say money was paramount for the 
     surgeons involved in the operation. They recounted how 
     another malaysian kidney transplant patient who suffered 
     complications while in Chongqing had run out of cash. ``They 
     stopped the medication for one day, ``Mrs. Soh said, 
     referring to the anti-rejection drugs. The patient was 
     already very sick and eventually died of infection upon her 
     return to Malaysia, according to Mrs. Soh. Patients say they 
     are advised by friends who have already undergone a 
     transplant to bring the surgeons gifts. Mrs. Young brought a 
     pewter teapot and picture frame. Mrs. Soh and her husband 
     brought a bottle of Martell cognac, a carton of 555 brand 
     cigarettes and a bottle of perfume for the chief surgeon's 
     wife. ``They call it `starting off on the right foot,' '' 
     Mrs. Soh said.
       After the operation was complete, the couple gave two of 
     the doctors ``red packets'' filled with cash: 3,000 yuan 
     ($360) for the chief surgeon, and 2,000 yuan for his 
     assistant. Other patients also ``tipped,'' although the 
     amounts varied. It might be tempting to see the market for 
     Chinese organs as part of the more general links that 
     overseas Chinese have with the mainland. Many of the patients 
     are indeed, ethnically Chinese and come from countries--
     Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand--with either links to the mainland 
     or large ethnic Chinese populations. Yet if the experience of 
     Malaysian patients is any

[[Page S8448]]

     indication, the tip to China provides a severe culture shock. 
     Patients recalled unsanitary conditions, and for those who 
     did not speak Mandarin the experience was harrowing.
       Mr. Leong, who speaks little Mandarin, was helped by his 
     wife who wrote out a list of phrases for her husband to 
     memorize. The list included: ``I'm feeling pain!'' ``I'm 
     thirsty.'' ``Can you turn me over?'' Mr. Leong would simply 
     say the number that corresponded to his complaint and the 
     nurse would check the list. But more difficult than 
     communicating is paying for the transplant. For the Leongs it 
     involved pooling savings from family members and appealing 
     for funds through Chinese-language newspapers. The cost of an 
     operation amounts to several years' salary for many 
     Malaysians. Yet despite financial problems and culture shock, 
     all four patients interviewed for this article said they had 
     no regrets.
       Mr. Yeo enjoys a life of relative normalcy, maintaining a 
     regular work schedule and jogging almost every day. He says 
     he was so weak before his transplant that he had trouble 
     crossing the street and climbing stairs. Four-hour sessions 
     three times a week on dialysis machines were ``living hell.'' 
     Does it disturb him that an executed man's kidney is in his 
     abdomen? ``I pray for the guy and say, `Hopefully your after 
     life is better,' '' Mr. Yeo said, And has he ever wondered 
     whether the prisoner might have been innocent? Mr. Yeo pauses 
     and stares straight ahead. ``I haven't gone through that 
     part--the moral part,'' he said. ``I don't know. I can't 
     question it too much. I have to live.''
                                  ____


     Wang Chengyong: Brokering Chinese Organs for American Patients

       In February of 1998, an acquaintance informed Harry Wu of a 
     man named Wang Chengyong who was attempting to arrange kidney 
     transplants for U.S. patients in the People's Republic of 
     China. Wu videotaped conversations with Wang, a former 
     prosecutor from Hainan Province in China, who was attempting 
     to sell kidneys from executed prisoners in China to potential 
     recipients in the U.S. Wu turned over the video material to 
     the FBI, who conducted their own sting operation and arrested 
     Wang.
       Mr. Wu participated in several taped conversations with 
     Wang Chengyong discussing the possibility of organ 
     procurement involving executed Chinese prisoners. In these 
     conversations, Harry Wu posed as a doctor from Aruba whose 
     patients were waiting for kidney transplants. Their 
     conversations revealed the entire process by which organs of 
     executed prisoners from China's Laogai are harvested and used 
     in transplant operations. [All quotes and information in 
     reference to conversations of Harry Wu and Wang Chengyong can 
     be found in the transcripts from case files of The United 
     States of America vs. Cheng Yong Wang, United States District 
     Court, Southern District of New York, government exhibit 1T.] 
     This evidence confirms the testimonies and reports from many 
     human rights organizations that have reported on this 
     practice in years past.


                a prosecutor's view of the organs trade

       In conversations negotiating potential organ deals, Mr. 
     Wang revealed many details regarding his own role as a 
     prosecutor within the process of conviction and execution of 
     Chinese prisoners, and how officials at all levels within 
     this process collaborate to harvest the organs of the 
     prisoners they execute. He stated that it could be arranged 
     for a doctor to come into the detention center to perform 
     blood tests on prisoners prior to their execution, matching 
     their blood with potential donors and ensuring that they were 
     in good health. These would be the same doctors who would 
     administer a shot of anti-coagulants directly before a 
     prisoner was shot to ease the process of organ retrieval.
       Mr. Wang informed Mr. Wu that he should prepare his 
     patients for travel to China around the time of a national 
     holiday. ``Executing criminals during the holidays can 
     frighten criminals and maintain social safety,'' Wang 
     explained. ``Back in China, there will definitely be 
     executions before May 1st (Chinese National Labor Day), there 
     is no question about that. I have done that for a long time . 
     . . In China, every year their death-row prisoners total like 
     over 40% of the whole world's. Execution by shooting happens 
     a lot. Every year, right before the four festivities take 
     place, a group of people will surely get killed, one hundred 
     percent. It has been going on like this for decades.'' When 
     patients arrive in China, there would be no problem to 
     arrange a spot in a hospital where the operation would be 
     performed. The Public Security Bureau informs the hospital of 
     execution dates, allowing doctors to predict the time of an 
     operation. Such prediction is completely unheard of in other 
     hospitals where organs come from donors who must first sign 
     their consent for donation and then die of natural causes 
     before their organs can be removed.
       Organs are harvested at the sight of execution. Mr. Wang 
     referred directly to Chinese regulations that forbid vehicles 
     that are market as ambulances from entering execution 
     grounds. [On October 9, 1984, a joint regulation was signed 
     entitled The Provisional Regulations of the Supreme People's 
     Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, Ministry of Public 
     Security, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Public Health, and 
     Ministry of Civil Affairs on the Use of Dead Bodies or Organs 
     from Condemned Criminals. The document stipulates that 
     ``Vehicles from medical institutions may be allowed to enter 
     into the execution ground to remove organs, but vehicles 
     displaying the logo of medical institutions are not be be 
     used.''] Instead, the marked vehicles wait directly outside 
     the execution area and within minutes after the shot is 
     fired, they are permitted inside to retrieve organs from the 
     executed prisoners. Mr. Wang describes the process as 
     follows: ``Regarding the coordination by the hospital, that 
     is, we must tell them about the situation ahead of time. . . 
     . When the time comes, the hospital's vehicle will follow the 
     execution vehicle, from behind. However, the hospital vehicle 
     can't enter within the warning security line, they can only 
     park outside of the line. But once the gun shot is heard . . 
     . the medical vehicle will come in, arriving on the site. And 
     if there's anything that can be done on the scene, do that or 
     just bring it back to the hospital.'' Mr. Wang affirmed that 
     due to this efficient process of retrieval and transport, the 
     organ is only out of the body for a few short hours, 
     preserving its quality. In the US where organs must be 
     retrieved from whatever location a donor happens to die, 
     doctors are often forced to preserve organs outside the body 
     for longer periods of time.


                          The Issue of Consent

       In his conversations with Harry Wu, Wang Chengyong also 
     mentions the issue of consent. According to Wang, consent 
     must only be asked of the accused's family members. If the 
     family gives consent, authorities are free to do what they 
     will with the body after execution. If they refuse their 
     consent, they will be bribed and coerced until they give in. 
     If a criminal has no family, as Wang states the job is easier 
     still because then consent is of no issue whatsoever. When 
     asked about consent of the prisoner, Wang responds, ``. . . 
     in China this thing is different from the United States, 
     regarding this issue of dead people's organs . . . Death 
     penalty prisoners who are being executed . . . have lost all 
     their political rights.'' In reference to family consent, 
     Wang states, ``as long as one gets the family's consent, and 
     if there is no family, once he is executed, we'll just 
     directly take the corpses away . . . It is not necessary to 
     tell them about taking their organs.''
       Due to the phenomenon of migrant labor entering cities all 
     over China, many prisoners have no family in the provine 
     where they were arrested. Wang Chengyong estimated that in 
     the prisons of Hainan (one of China's booming ``special 
     economic zones'') where he had served as a prosecutor, that 
     about one quarter of prisoners had no family in the province. 
     Regarding these migrants, Wang says, ``say you are a 
     wandering criminal . . . And once you wandered to Hainan, you 
     got arrested and you'll be killed over there. Before you are 
     killed, your family members will be notified . . . But the 
     family members may not necessarily come to collect the 
     cadaver, he may not have any family members at all.''


             collaboration in the organ harvesting process

       In China today, this blatant violation of international 
     standards of medical ethics and human rights law is 
     manipulated to create a moneymaking enterprise for all 
     parties involved. As a former prosecutor, Wang Chengyong also 
     benefited from his role in the process, and spoke of how 
     everyone receives their own payoff in collaboration for organ 
     retrieval. Wang named these separate parties as follows: 
     ``these are the several aspects, the Public Security Bureau, 
     the procuratorate, the court, the judicial organization, plus 
     hospitals and the families. Let us say, there ought to be 
     these six aspects.'' In negotiations with Mr. Wu, Wang 
     mentions each of these parties and calculates a large amount 
     of money that he will take from any individual coming from 
     the U.S. to China seeking a transplant operation. As all 
     these governmental units collaborate to make this process 
     possible, this amounts not to black market oriented scandal, 
     but an effort that is sanctioned, coordinated and carried out 
     by the Chinese government.
       Many of Wang Chengyong's most chilling statements involve 
     the vastness of China's system of removal of organs from 
     executed prisoners for use in transplant operations. 
     According to many of Wang's statements, this procedure is 
     highly common in China and well known among all participating 
     levels. He even brags about the execution procedures in 
     Hainan Province that are especially conducive to kidney 
     harvesting. He says, ``In Hainan, they shoot at the heart, 
     from the back. And they have court doctors to confirm . . . 
     where the bullet enters. Once shot, the bullet will just go 
     through the heart . . . the heart and the kidney, they are 
     far from each other. The shots will not be off target, lest 
     damaging the kidney.'' He also quickly and easily estimates 
     that there will be at least 200 executions in Hainan Province 
     every year and that he personally can gain access to kidneys 
     and other body parts from at least fifty of these 200. He 
     tells Mr. Wu, ``Chinese hospitals do not lack for cadavers . 
     . . in China there are too many executions by shooting. The 
     medical schools can just get them any time they want . . . 
     China is not lacking in corpses.'' Later he once again 
     emphasizes this point, ``China has no lack of this . . . 
     China lacks other things. China has lots of people, lots of 
     death-row prisoners.''
       As Wang Chengyong attempted to profit from the harvesting 
     of organs from this seemingly limitless supply of death-row 
     prisoners, he mentions the possibility of procurement of 
     kidneys, corneas and other body parts. He is an integral part 
     of a system that perpetuates this practice all over China to

[[Page S8449]]

     the profit of Chinese governmental officials and adding one 
     more gruesome example to the list of human rights violations 
     that occur in the Chinese Laogai system.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to 
vote for the Smith amendment on organ harvesting. Do not listen to the 
talk on the floor that we need to stay together on PNTR and not have 
any amendments which might slow down the process. I urge my colleagues 
to vote yes not only on the Smith amendment but other amendments that 
are offered by colleagues that will expose some of the basic human 
rights violations that have occurred in China and are still occurring 
in China. It is wrong to look the other way and to sanction it while we 
provide aid, food, and trade to this nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this proposal 
offered by my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire. I must do so 
because its passage will endanger H.R. 4444, not because of the 
sentiments expressed in the proposal.
  As the State Department Human Rights Report of 1999 states, in recent 
years there have been credible reports that organs from executed 
prisoners in China were removed, sold, and transplanted. Chinese 
officials have even confirmed that executed prisoners are among the 
source of organs for transplant. Of course, they maintain that they get 
the consent of prisoners or their relatives before organs are removed.

  Needless to say, China's organ harvesting practices are as gruesome 
as they are indefensible. But ending trade with China is unlikely to 
force the Chinese to change their behavior in this area. Indeed, by 
opening China to trade and to global standards of economic behavior we 
may well prod China to abandon its practices regarding organ 
harvesting.
  Let us remember as well that H.R. 4444 establishes a congressional-
executive commission on China which I believe holds promise for 
pressuring China to curb its human rights abuses, including the 
grotesque practice of harvesting organs.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I must urge my colleagues to vote against 
this proposal.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Smith amendment would require the 
Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China to 
monitor the actions of the Government of the People's Republic of China 
with respect to the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners. I 
believe the allegations that Chinese officials harvest organs from 
executed prisoners are extremely serious. However, the Congressional 
Executive Commission already has jurisdiction to look at this practice 
because it is a human rights violation and the Commission has 
jurisdiction to monitor and report on human rights violations in the 
PRC. This very serious allegation should not be singled out among all 
the human rights abuses of the Chinese government when it is already 
covered as part of what the Commission can monitor and report on.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 4131

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the Byrd amendment No. 4131. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. 
Gorton), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), and the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.--
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 240 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Collins
     DeWine
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--62

     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Akaka
     Gorton
     Jeffords
     Lieberman
     McCain
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Vote On Amendment No. 4129, Division VI

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Smith 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4129, division VI. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. 
Gorton), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), and the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 29, nays 66, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 241 Leg.]

                                YEAS--29

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Collins
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Torricelli

                                NAYS--66

     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Akaka
     Gorton
     Jeffords
     Lieberman
     McCain
  The amendment (No. 4129), division VI, was rejected.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S8450]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized 
at 1:45 p.m. today to call for the regular order with respect to the 
Thompson amendment No. 4132.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. With this agreement in place, all Senators should know that 
a motion to table the Thompson amendment will occur at approximately 
1:45 p.m. Therefore, the next vote will occur at approximately 1:45 
p.m. today.
  I now ask unanimous consent that time prior to votes relative to 
these amendments be limited to 1 hour equally divided per amendment, 
with no second-degree amendments in order prior to these votes. The 
amendments are as follows: Helms No. 4123, Helms No. 4126, and Helms 
No. 4128. I further ask consent that Senator Helms be recognized at 
2:30 p.m. today to begin debate on amendment No. 4128 regarding forced 
abortions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Amendment No. 4132

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we have had a good debate over the last 
2 or 3 days on the amendment Senator Torricelli and I have set forth. 
We have had a good discussion about the continued reports we have that 
the Chinese, Russians, and North Koreans continue to litter this world 
with weapons of mass destruction. And it endangers our country.
  Bipartisan groups all across the board, just over the last 2 years, 
continue to remind us of this threat that is growing--it is not 
diminishing; it is growing. These same people tell us that the key 
suppliers are these three countries.
  As late as 1996, we were reminded, once again, that the People's 
Republic of China was the worst proliferator of weapons of mass 
destruction in the entire world. We have had a good discussion on that. 
We have had a discussion about the fact that the leaders of the PRC 
have told us they are going to continue to do that, whether we like it 
or not, as long as we talk about protecting ourselves with a missile 
defense system and as long as we continue to befriend Taiwan.
  We have sent three delegations of distinguished Americans and 
leaders, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, high-level 
people, to try to get them to relent and stand down from activities 
that endanger us, our children, and our grandchildren and make this 
world a more dangerous place. The leadership of the Chinese Government 
give us basically the back of their hand. They make no pretense that 
they are not going to act any differently in the future.
  So the issue presented to us is: Are we, the United States 
of America, the most powerful country in the world, going to do 
anything about it? That is the issue before us today.

  We have set forth an amendment which basically tracks a lot of 
legislation that is already on the books in terms of cutting off 
military-related items and dual-use items to these governments if they 
are caught in this activity. But what we add is a more extensive 
reporting requirement so we have a better understanding and a more 
detailed understanding than the reports we receive now give us.
  Under our amendment, it makes it a little bit more difficult for a 
President to game the system. The President, of course, has been quoted 
as saying that when the law requires him to impose sanctions on a 
country that he does not want to impose on them, sometimes he has to 
fudge the facts, and the law makes him do that. That kind of attitude, 
when they are caught sending M-11 missiles to Pakistan and they are 
caught sending the ability to enrich uranium to go into nuclear 
materials--they are caught doing all that, with no sanctions imposed--
all of that has resulted in a more dangerous world, not a new 
relationship built upon trust and friendship and a strategic 
partnership--a more dangerous world.
  So this is a good debate. My friends who oppose this amendment say 
all that may be true, we may be facing a situation where these nations, 
including China, are conducting themselves in a way that is detrimental 
to our interests; they may be making the world a more dangerous place, 
and especially the United States. If these rogue nations have the 
ability to hit countries with their missiles, containing biological 
weapons that are indescribable in their effect, I doubt if it is going 
to be Switzerland they choose to threaten with this type weapon. We are 
on the front line. We have a right to be concerned.
  Apparently we are concerned, because we are now in the midst of a 
debate on a national missile defense system because of this very 
threat. Yet as we consider this new trading relationship with China, 
some of us are refusing to consider the fact that China is one of the 
primary reasons we have this threat because they are supplying these 
rogue nations with this weaponry.
  There is no need to go through the list again and again and again and 
again, the public list--not to mention the classified list that cannot 
be disclosed--of proliferation activities and the charts we have shown 
about the missile technology they are sending and the missile 
components they are sending--our CIA reports indicate the missile 
activity with regard to Pakistan is increasing. Practically on the eve 
of the vote for this new strategic relationship, this new partnership 
that is going to enrich us, they are blatantly increasing their 
activity. This is what we are facing.

  It has been a good discussion. I disagree with my friends who think 
even though we have this facing us, we should put it aside for another 
day. We don't have a solution. We haven't done anything in the past. 
There is no reason to think we are going to do anything about it in the 
future. There is certainly no reason for the Chinese Government to 
think we are going to do anything about it in the future.
  Wait for our friends and our allies to come together so we can have a 
multilateral approach. That sounds pretty good, but how long has it 
been since we have had a multilateral approach on anything? We don't 
have the ability in this country anymore to rally our allies as we once 
did, much less do something that might cost them some trade dollars.
  We have a threat to this country. Clearly a multilateral approach 
would be preferable, but if we can't do that, as we obviously can't 
because we haven't, then we have to take action on our own.
  So what do we do? Cut off agricultural products? Cut off trade across 
the board? Cut off automobiles and all that? No. If they are caught 
doing that, we cut off military equipment. We cut off dual-use items 
and others of that nature. We tell them their companies can't continue 
to use the New York Stock Exchange to raise billions of dollars when 
our Deutch Commission tells us that some of the worst proliferators, 
these companies that are doing this activity that are owned by the 
Chinese Government, are raising billions of dollars in our stock 
market. Does that make sense? Surely we have peace and prosperity now, 
but how long are we going to have it? How long can we be oblivious to 
what is going on around us?
  We are having this debate. Reasonable people can disagree. Some say 
we should not get all this caught up in trade policy; We should keep 
our focus on trade; that trade is important; that we need to not 
complicate the trade issue. No one here has had a more consistent 
record than I in terms of free trade. I believe in it; whether it is 
NAFTA or fast track for President Clinton, I believe in it. Free trade 
can lead to open markets. Open markets can lead to more open societies. 
Eventually, in the long run, it can have a beneficial effect. I think 
it is going to be a much longer run in China than a lot of people 
think, but that is another story. I am for that.
  This is different. This is not just a trade issue. In fact, it is not 
a trade issue at all. It should not be lumped in as a trade issue. I 
tried my best to get a separate vote on our amendment for 2 months. The 
supporters of PNTR apparently thought it would be easier to

[[Page S8451]]

defeat me if they forced me on to this PNTR bill. So that is where we 
are. So be it.
  But this is a national security issue. Some would say this is one of 
those rare circumstances that we see every once in a while where we 
have legitimate free trade interests we want to promote and expand, 
even with those who are guilty of human rights violations, even with 
people with whom we strongly disagree, even with people who 
proliferate.
  I intend to support PNTR. But what Senator Torricelli and I are 
saying is that along with that, not in opposition to that, or not as 
substitute for that, we must take into consideration the totality of 
our relationship with this country because they are doing things that 
are dangerous to this Nation. That is the primary obligation of this 
Nation. The preamble to our Constitution says the reason we even have a 
Government is to look after matters such as this.

  It is a good debate. We have had a good back and forth for the most 
part. We steer off course a little bit every once in a while. 
Unfortunate statements are made on all sides, but that happens when 
issues are important. We spend enough time around here on things that 
are not important. It is kind of rejuvenating when we are actually 
talking about something that is. I can't think of anything more 
important than this.
  But it has taken on a new dimension. This issue has taken on a new 
dimension now because what we have seen is unprecedented lobbying and 
pressure efforts to defeat the Thompson-Torricelli amendment. I hope we 
don't flatter ourselves with that assessment. Lobbying and pressure are 
fairly common around here. People have a right to express their 
opinions.
  But on this issue--not on any of these other issues, apparently, but 
on this issue--it has brought out those who fear that in some way some 
trade might be affected. Never mind that we have taken agriculture and 
American businesses off the board; they are not involved in this at 
all. Never mind that it is not a general goods sanction or anything 
such as that that we are narrowly focused on here. They just believe 
that in some way it might irritate the Chinese and they might retaliate 
in some way. We can't afford to irritate them. What we need to do is 
continue down the road of giving them WTO, give them veto power on our 
national defense system, turn a blind eye to their theft of our nuclear 
weapons, turn a blind eye to the proliferation activities, go over to 
Taiwan, adopt the three noes the Chinese want us to do and put our 
allies in Taiwan in a nervous state. We need to continue down that road 
because it has gotten us so far, it has done so much for us, that is 
the way we need to continue.
  I picked up the New York Times this morning and read in an article by 
Eric Schmitt the lead paragraph:

       Corporate leaders and several of President Clinton's 
     cabinet officers intensified pressure today on wavering 
     Senators . . .

  All you wavering Senators out there, I extend my condolences because 
apparently corporate leaders and the White House have stepped up the 
pressure. I don't know why. They have said all along they have the 
votes to beat Thompson-Torricelli. I don't know why all of the 
nervousness. I don't know why all of the intensity. The President now 
has sent out a letter that says, among his complaints, that our 
amendment is unfair. I assume unfair to the Chinese Government. That is 
such a remarkable statement, I don't think I even need to reply to it.
  He also has a problem because he says they have joined the 
nonproliferation treaty. They have joined the Chemical Weapons 
Convention. The Chinese Government has joined the Biological Weapons 
Convention and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. The only 
problem with that is they have routinely violated every treaty they 
have ever joined. And they won't join the ones that require safeguards 
so people go in and inspect these facilities. He complains that it 
applies a different standard for some countries. Well, yes, it does. 
Why is that? Because our intelligence agencies have identified certain 
countries as being key suppliers of weapons of mass destruction. Do we 
not have a right to identify them and single them out? Have they not 
earned that privilege?
  I think the integrity of the Senate is at stake with this kind of 
pressure being brought to bear on a matter of national security by 
those who do not know anything about issues of national security.
  Many of my colleagues here, of course, are experts in this area--some 
of them. But these folks who call themselves corporate leaders--and I 
don't think there are many of them, but they are very intense and are 
interested in trade, so more power to them--apparently now they have 
taken on additional portfolios. They have responded to a higher calling 
involving issues of war and peace. Now they advise us as to what we 
should or should not do with regard to these proliferation issues.
  Why do I say that the integrity of the Senate is at stake, and that 
there are those out here who on this vote are trying to emasculate the 
process with the proposition that the House can act, and when they act 
and put in all of their favorite causes, justified as they are, 
including Radio Free Asia and things such as that, which they try to 
express a concern about and all that, and God bless them, that is fine; 
but it comes over to the Senate and we are supposed to rubberstamp 
whatever it is that is in that House bill.
  Why is that? Even though this is such an overwhelmingly obvious boon 
to the United States, they are fearful that if we add our concerns 
about nuclear proliferation to that list of items, if it goes back to 
the House, even though they won by a 40-vote margin, at the last minute 
people going into an election will switch their votes. They will look 
at our bill and say: My goodness, it has a proliferation aspect to it 
and we can't vote for that.
  Ridiculous. It would not be 24 hours before the deed would be done. 
That battle has been fought and won. We are going to pass PNTR. The 
real question is, Are we going to relent to the pressure being applied?
  Exhibit B is the same New York Times article:

       Thomas J. Donohue, president of the United States Chamber 
     of Commerce, warned of retribution against senators who 
     support the Thompson-Torricelli measure.

  In case anybody thinks they misheard what I said, let me read that 
again:

       Thomas J. Donohue, president of the United States Chamber 
     of Commerce, warned of retribution against senators who 
     support the Thompson-Torricelli measure.

  You know, it would be comical if it were not so serious. One of my 
great disappointments in this debate is that there have been some 
business leaders who have been drawn into this who really have no dogs 
in this fight because their businesses are not even affected, but they 
have been told they are affected. They put their blinders on and they 
justly argue the benefits of trade. But they resent it, when we have 
been elected by the entire population--people who are not corporate 
leaders--when we address in addition to that matters of national 
security.
  That is very disappointing. It should not be that way. I don't think 
some of these people really represent who they pretend to represent. I 
don't know of anybody who has a better record of voting with the 
Chamber of Commerce position than myself, whether it be taxes or 
regulation or any of those matters. Some of my friends in the Chamber 
of Commerce in Tennessee are here. I haven't talked to them yet. But I 
will bet you that to a person they will say: Thompson, we elected you 
to look out for these things. We are for trade and we want trade, but 
if you think that in addition to that we need to send a signal about 
people who are making this a more dangerous world for our kids, you 
send that signal; we expect that of you. And if by some unforeseen 
circumstance we lose a dollar, so be it.

  I think that is the way most people think. I think that is the way 
most businessmen and businesswomen think. I think that these little 
people who strut around up here making implied threats on campaign 
contributions and warning us of how we ought to vote for this, that, 
and the other, who don't know what they are talking about, need to be 
taken down a notch or two. I haven't been around here very long, but I 
have never seen anything such as that. He is warning of those who allow 
these folks to get tangled up in the politics of nuclear proliferation. 
That is

[[Page S8452]]

the small-mindedness we deal with here regarding this statement.
  I feel sorry for the men and women out there in all the Chambers of 
Commerce around this country, to have this kind of representation in 
the New York Times and how people think that that represents their idea 
of the priorities that we have in this country. The lobby is intense. I 
assure you it is on one side.
  You will not see the Halls littered with people out here saying 
``keep our country safe.'' There are no lobbyists being paid to do 
that. No one makes any money off of our amendment. There are no tanks 
bought; there is nothing sold. All of the lobby, all of the pressure, 
all of the threats are on one side. So why it would be that the 
opponents of our amendment who claim they have the votes don't want to 
even give us a vote is something that perhaps ought to be contemplated.
  Could it be that people really don't want to go on record because 
they realize they are casting their fate to the good graces of the 
leadership of the Chinese Government--and they have a consistent 
pattern of this activity and we catch them from time to time? It is 
going to continue and we are going to continue to catch them. Could it 
be that some people don't want to have cast a vote against a modest 
attempt for a better reporting requirement, a more transparent process, 
giving Congress an opportunity, in unusual circumstances, to have their 
say?
  Again, there are two issues here now, it seems to me. One is on the 
merits and another is the integrity of the Senate and how we are going 
to handle this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senator from California finishes, I be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Reserving the right to object, if the Senator will 
amend the request that I be recognized following him, I will not 
object.
  Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, I would like to follow the 
Senator from New Jersey, as well. I have been waiting.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might the chairman present a request in 
writing as to the timing? I think we can get that up right quick.
  Mr. ROTH. In the meantime, let the Senator from California proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Thompson 
amendment, and then I hope I can make a few comments on what I believe 
to be one of the most important pieces of legislation on which this 
Congress will be voting. Let me begin by saying this. If I believed 
this amendment would keep our country safe, I would vote for it. I do 
not believe that is the case. Rather, I believe the amendment is deeply 
flawed and it has major procedural and review problems. I want to point 
those out.
  Let me say, first of all, to most of us, the draft of this amendment 
was available Monday night, a little more than a day ago. Yet it is a 
major, long-range piece of legislation that has major implications for 
national security, for peace, and stability in the Asia Pacific region. 
To pass it without careful analysis, without full hearings, and without 
careful judgment is something to which I am not willing to be a party. 
There have been no hearings on this or any draft of this legislation. 
The National Security Council and the State Department have not had the 
opportunity to provide a full analysis of this latest version of the 
amendment or assess its likely short- and long-term impact.
  I am one of those who believes it would, in fact, doom giving China 
permanent normal trading status. I am simply not willing to do that. 
Most importantly, from what I have been able to perceive, I believe the 
legislation has serious flaws.
  First, it focuses on three countries. It separates them from all the 
other countries. It applies a standard to them that exists for no one 
else. And I do not believe that is in the best interests of sound 
decisionmaking.
  Second, the mandatory sanctions put in place by this amendment have 
hair triggers which are tripped by minimal evidence--indeed not 
necessarily even evidence. The raw intelligence data that provides the 
``credible information'' trigger of this amendment requires followup, 
substantiation, and analysis before it is used to initiate action. It 
should be the starting point for processes that weigh options and 
consider appropriate action, not an end point that instantly triggers 
strong responses.
  Let me give you one example: In 1993, the Yin He incident, where 
based on ``credible information'' the United States publicly accused 
China of shipping proscribed chemical precursors to Iran. The Chinese 
freighter in question was diverted and every single container searched, 
at great cost and inconvenience to all involved. There were no banned 
chemicals aboard. The Thompson amendment would have mandated sanctions.
  Second, there is no way to target the sanctions which would be 
triggered by this amendment, and no effective Presidential waiver for 
national security interests. It is a blunt instrument more likely to 
hurt American interests than to change China's behavior.
  Third, the amendment invites diplomatic and, yes, maybe even legal 
problems with other countries, including allies. The amendment as 
drafted could create a situation whereby sanctions would be placed on 
corporations of allied countries that are not acting illegally.
  Fourth, especially chilling is the way in which the amendment's 
wording could, in effect, blacklist any company tagged as a 
proliferating agent under this amendment's low standard of proof.
  These are just a few of the examples of some of the problems with 
this amendment. Several of my colleagues have discussed other 
shortcomings at greater length.
  Automatic sanctions set off by low thresholds of evidence offer 
little to entice allies to join us in implementing an effective 
sanctions regime, but they most certainly will damage U.S.-China 
relations. They most certainly will weaken our ability to engage the 
Chinese in any kind of worthwhile dialog or influence them to change 
their behavior.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this amendment.
  Let me, if I might, say a few things about the bilateral agreement 
that really is the issue before us today. I reviewed it carefully, and 
I believe that in this agreement China has made significant market-
opening concessions to the United States across virtually every 
economic sector.
  For example, on agricultural products, tariffs will drop from an 
average of 31 percent to 14 percent by January of 2004. Industrial 
tariffs will fall from an average of 24.6 percent in 1997 to 9.4 
percent by 2005.
  China agrees to open up distribution services, such as repair and 
maintenance, warehousing, trucking, and air courier services.
  Import tariffs on autos, now ranging between 80 percent and 100 
percent, are broken down to 25 percent by 2006 with tariff reductions 
accelerated.
  China will participate in the Information Technology Agreement and 
will eliminate tariffs on products such as computers, semiconductors, 
and related products by 2005.
  It will open its telecommunications sector, including access to 
China's growing Internet services, and expand investment and other 
activities for financial services firms.
  The agreement also preserves safeguards against dumping and other 
unfair trade practices. Specifically, the ``special safeguard rule''--
to prevent import surges into the United States--will remain in force 
for 12 years, and the ``special anti-dumping methodology'' will remain 
in effect for 15 years.

  No matter how you look at it, this benefits the United States.
  I think many people have confused this PNTR vote with a vote to 
approve China joining the World Trade Organization. It needs to be 
understood that China will likely join the WTO within the next year 
regardless of our action. The issue will, in fact, be decided by the 
WTO's working group and a two-thirds vote of the WTO membership as a 
whole.

[[Page S8453]]

  Under WTO rules, only the countries that have ``nondiscriminatory'' 
trade practices--that is PNTR--are entitled to receive the benefit of 
WTO agreements. Without granting China permanent normal trading status, 
the United States effectively cuts itself out of China's vast markets, 
while Britain, Japan, France, and all other WTO nations are allowed to 
trade with few barriers.
  In my view, this has been an interesting exercise because it has been 
highly politicized. The bottom line is if we don't grant China PNTR 
based on the November bilateral agreement, an agreement in which the 
United States received many important trade concessions and gave up 
nothing, we effectively shoot ourselves in the foot. We take ourselves 
out of the agreement, China still goes into the WTO, and those other 
strategic trading blocks such as the European Union receive the 
benefits of the bilateral agreement. We do not.
  I think it is much broader than this. But I think there is an 
ultimate issue at stake. That is this: The People's Republic of China 
is today undergoing its most significant period of economic and social 
activity since its founding 50 years ago. The pace is fast and the 
changes are large.
  I am one who studies Chinese history. I have been watching China for 
over 30 years. I made my first trip in 1979. I try to visit China every 
year, if I can, and I have watched and I have seen.
  In a relatively short time, China has become a key Pacific rim 
player, and a major world trader. It is a huge producer and consumer of 
goods and services--a magnet for investment and commerce. Because of 
its size and potential, the choices China makes over the next few years 
will greatly influence the future of peace and prosperity in Asia.
  In a very real sense, the shaping of Asia's future begins with 
choices America will make in how to deal with China.
  I come from a Pacific rim State; 60 percent of the people of the 
world live on both sides of the Pacific Ocean. The trade on that ocean 
long ago over took the trade on the Atlantic Ocean. It is, in fact, the 
ocean of the future.
  We can try to engage China and integrate it into the global 
community. We can be a catalyst for positive change. Few objective 
observers would argue that despite the problems that still remain, 
there have not been significant benefits and advances in China that 
have come from two decades of interaction with the United States and 
the West. Or, we can deal antagonistically with China. We can lose our 
leverage in guiding China along positive paths of economic, political, 
and social development, and sacrifice business advantage to competitor 
nations while gaining nothing in return.
  As I see it, for the foreseeable future America faces no greater 
challenge than the question of how to persuade China that it is in 
China's own national interests to move away from authoritarian 
government and toward a more open, a more pluralistic and freer 
society. How do we convince China to make the political, economic and 
social changes that will help China evolve the leadership that will 
make it guarantor of peace and stability in the Pacific rim, throughout 
Asia and the world?
  I am convinced that Congress will debate few issues more important 
this year than the question of China's entry into the World Trade 
Organization and whether or not we will deal with the Chinese on the 
basis of a permanent normal trade relationship.
  Trade means change in China. Economic engagement with the United 
States has been one of the prime motivating factors in China's decision 
to move toward a market economy and away from its self-isolation of 
decades. The past 20 years have brought massive social reform and 
economic advancement for China's people. I remember the first time I 
traveled to China in 1979. I saw a land of subdued people, grey Mao 
suits, few consumer goods, no conveniences, poor living conditions and 
little personal, economic or political freedom. The economy was all 
centrally controlled; little private property and private business 
existed.
  Today, the goods, services, housing, and freedoms available to 
residents of Chinese cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou are 
greatly improved. People have become interested in what happens outside 
of China. People will speak more freely. Living standards are higher. 
China is increasing turning to private ownership--as much as 50 percent 
of the economy is in private hands in boom areas like the Pearl River 
Delta in Southern China.
  Large, inefficient state enterprises are closing or being converted 
to private ownership. Entrepreneurship is on the rise in the cities in 
much of the countryside. Cutting our bilateral economic ties will 
accomplish nothing except to turn back the clock in China to favor more 
government controls, seek to isolate this growing economy, and very 
likely strengthen repressive political interests linked to 
protectionism and economic nationalism within the PRC.
  It is evident to me that flourishing business relationships have 
developed increased contacts, improved mutual understandings, and 
personal relationships between Americans and Chinese.
  This, in turn, has fostered many positive changes, as different ways 
of thinking percolate through Chinese society at many levels. It is 
there; I have seen it. American firms have brought new management 
styles, innovative ideas, and new work styles to China. Through their 
presence in China's economy, Americans have spread their corporate 
philosophies, teaching Chinese entrepreneurs, managers, and workers 
about market economics, commitment to free flows of information, the 
rule of law--the most important thing--dedication to environmental 
responsibility, and worker rights and safety.
  Yes, it is far from perfect. But are things changing? The answer by 
any objective criteria has to be yes. Are there flaws? Are there 
problems? Does China very often do stupid things? Yes: The crackdown on 
Falun Gong, in my view a stupid thing, an unnecessary thing, something 
that, once again, pushes it backwards rather than forwards. Its 
treatment of Tibet--has China done the wrong thing? Absolutely. For 10 
years I have been saying that and will continue to say it. It makes no 
sense for a great nation to treat a major minority the way in which the 
Tibetan people are treated. I will say that over and over again. I will 
work to change it. And one day we will succeed and do that, too. But we 
cannot do it if we isolate China. We cannot do it if we play into the 
hands of the hardliners. We cannot do it if we create the kind of 
adversarial relationship that is determined to make China into the next 
Soviet Union. I believe that firmly, and 30 years of watching has 
confirmed it.
  American firms exercise a very real influence over the changes 
occurring in Chinese society. That influence will not survive the 
elimination of PNTR. American businesses in China bring American values 
to China. But, they cannot bring them if their ability to operate is 
undercut. History clearly shows us a nation's respect for political 
pluralism, human rights, labor rights, and environmental protection 
grows alongside that nation's positive interaction with others and 
achieving a level of sustainable economic development and social well-
being.
  People who have a full stomach then begin to say: What is next? 
People who have an education then begin to question the leadership. 
That will happen in China just as it did in Taiwan, just as it did in 
South Korea. Not too long ago, both were governed by dictatorships. 
Given a chance, China can change as well.
  If we are serious about building a peaceful, prosperous and stable 
Asia, if we are serious about being a force for good in the Pacific rim 
in the 21st century, if we are serious about working to bring about 
democratic reforms, human rights reforms, and labor reforms in China, 
we also must establish permanent normal trade relations with China. 
This is part of the equation for making China into a member of the WTO 
and the world community as a whole, and saying that China must, in 
return, play by the same rules all other members follow. It also 
exposes China to sanctions in the WTO should they not. As a WTO member, 
China commits to eliminate barriers to its markets; to accept WTO 
rulings concerning trade practices and procedures; and to abide by WTO 
decisions concerning trade disputes.

[[Page S8454]]

  The November 15, 1999 U.S.-China WTO Agreement marked successful 
completion of 13 years of difficult U.S.-China negotiations.
  I, for one, am convinced that normalizing our trade relationship with 
China is absolutely in our own best interest. But it is absolutely in 
the best interests of seeing China becoming a pluralistic society, of 
developing the concern for human rights that we in the Western World 
hold so dear, of understanding the freedoms provided to us because of 
our due process of law, of understanding how important it is that a 
judiciary be independent from the politics of government, having a 
modern commercial code and a modern criminal code. None of these things 
China has today.

  As has often been said, it has to be remembered that China, for 5,000 
years, has been ruled by despotic emperors and for 50 years by 
revolutionary leaders who had no education. This is really, in over 
5,000 years, the first time this largest nation on Earth has had an 
educated leadership who is now, today, striving to open the door to the 
Western World.
  Remember the Boxer Rebellion? Remember what happened? Remember the 
humiliation, the isolation of China, and look what happened. We now 
have a chance in this legislation to take a different course. Most 
importantly--and this is what has amazed me so much about this debate--
PNTR is nothing special. It simply means we will conduct our trade with 
China in the same manner and under the same rules that we conduct trade 
with almost every other nation in the world. In fact, there are only 
six countries with which we do not have normal trade relations--
Afghanistan, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Serbia-Montenegro, and Vietnam. 
All of them are small nations.
  In my view, the damage of denying China permanent normal trade 
relations would strike even deeper. Punitive U.S. economic policies 
aimed at unpalatable Chinese domestic practices will not only cut into 
American jobs, it will slice at China's newly emerging market-oriented 
entrepreneurial class, the driving force behind the very changes we 
seek to cultivate without eliminating the targeted abuses in Chinese 
society. What kind of sense does that make?
  Responsible American voices in business, in education, in law, and in 
religion understand that attacking China through economic ties is 
counterproductive. It endangers the very social elements within China 
that are most compatible with ethical American norms.
  Trade relations do not only benefit business. They are a key part of 
the foundation that supports the entire U.S.-China relationship. I 
believe that not only do we shoot ourselves in the foot by denying 
PNTR, we strike a blow against encouraging China to see that it is to 
its interest to make the necessary changes, to understand that it, too, 
by open doors, more ties across the Pacific, more pluralistic 
government, more freedoms for its people evolves as a stronger nation, 
not a weaker nation. That was the case with Taiwan. That has been the 
case with South Korea. I submit to you, Mr. President, it is the case 
of virtually every country that lives under dictatorship or absolute 
rule.
  Pluralism results from an evolution and a growth in human standards, 
in economic standards, in interaction with the rest of the world. China 
will be no different if we enable it to open itself to the world. We 
should be prudent, we should be watchful, we should be strong, we 
should confront them where wrong--no question about that. I believe we 
have the adequate tools to do it.
  I have seen sanctions placed since I have been in this body, and I do 
not believe the amendment before this body will encourage the kind of 
behavior that can enable China to eventually be a stable, sound partner 
anywhere in the Pacific or elsewhere. I feel very strongly about this. 
I thank the Chair for his forbearance. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I support and will vote for granting 
permanent normal trade relations status to the People's Republic of 
China .
  I will do so because the agreement negotiated between the United 
States and China will help level the playing field for a wide range of 
American companies who seek to do business in China.
  I also support the bipartisan amendment offered by Senators Fred 
Thompson and Robert Torricelli to require certain reports and to impose 
sanctions on entities identified by the President for their sale or 
transfer of dangerous technology to rogue regimes.
  We cannot stand idly by while China continues to proliferate nuclear 
weapon and missile technology to unstable regions.
  There are numerous reports that this pattern of dangerous behavior by 
Beijing is continuing. For example, the CIA Director George Tenet 
recently issued a report to Congress on recent developments in 
proliferation.
  That report asserts that China has increased its missile-related 
assistance to Pakistan and continues to provide missile-related 
assistance to Iran, North Korea, and Libya.
  These are governments which our own State Department has labeled as 
state sponsors of terrorism.
  Who are the ultimate targets for these missiles and nuclear and 
chemical weapons in the hands of terrorist states? It is the American 
people, our friends and allies, and our military forces deployed in 
hot-spots such as the Persian Gulf.
  Let me state it differently: When China proliferates dangerous 
technology to dangerous states, it directly and very negatively affects 
our national security.
  The Clinton administration says it, too, is concerned about this 
behavior. But it has failed--resoundingly failed--to stop it. Our CIA 
tells us that these activities are on-going today.
  So we need to do more, and this bipartisan amendment makes a strong 
statement that either this proliferation behavior stops or real and 
credible penalties will be imposed.
  I say to my colleagues who, like me, support granting PNTR for China: 
Let's not lose sight of the national security issues at stake here.
  I, like Senator Thompson, would have preferred to consider this 
important legislation on another bill and not on H.R. 4444. In fact, I 
made every effort to see to it that the Thompson-Torricelli legislation 
could be considered either as a free-standing measure or as an 
amendment to some other piece of legislation.
  However, my efforts to have the Thompson-Torricelli amendment 
considered separate from the China PNTR legislation was blocked.
  Therefore, we now are faced with a vote on the Thompson-Torricelli 
amendment on H.R. 4444. Given this situation, I will support the 
amendment and oppose the motion to table.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I share Senator Thompson's and Senator 
Torricelli's concerns about weapons proliferation, and I appreciate 
their bringing this important matter up for debate in a non-partisan 
fashion. However, I believe that the amendment they have offered to 
H.R. 4444, legislation that will grant permanent normal trade relations 
to the People's Republic of China, does not address the issue in the 
most positive way.
  My first concern with the China Nonproliferation Act is with the name 
itself. The original legislation proposed by the sponsors of this 
amendment specifically singled out China. But, the current amendment 
adds North Korea and Russia as nations that are named as covered 
countries under this proposal. I believe it is correct to expand the 
list of initial countries beyond China, but I still feel that on the 
issue of proliferation, every country should be treated with a uniform 
standard.
  The second concern is that this amendment attempts to curtail the 
spread of weapons with a unilateral rather than a multilateral 
solution. It is clear to me that this issue is sufficiently complex to 
demand the cooperation of the international community in stopping the 
proliferation of weapons. While this amendment singles out North Korea, 
Russia, and China as covered countries, it also opens the door to 
possible sanctions on our closest allies. This is because of the 
requirement that countries listed in the annual section 721 report that 
is mandated under the fiscal year 1997 Intelligence Authorization Act 
be covered by this amendment. This report singles out those nations 
that are a source of dual-use technology which, in recent years, has 
included such countries as

[[Page S8455]]

Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. I do not believe that 
sanctioning our closest allies--those that traditionally support our 
interests--will further our non-proliferation goals. Furthermore, using 
unilateral sanctions rather than working with our allies to develop 
multilateral strategies is not the most effective means of curtailing 
proliferation.
  Another concern with the amendment is that the sanctions would deny 
all state-owned enterprises of a covered country access to U.S. capital 
markets. This was one reason why Alan Greenspan publicly spoke out 
against this amendment at a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee. He 
stated that ``. . . to the extent that we block foreigners from 
investing or raising funds in the United States, we probably undercut 
the viability of our own system.''
  Finally, I am concerned that this amendment will not provide the 
necessary flexibility for the executive and legislative branch to 
conduct policy on proliferation issues. The amendment gives the 
President only 30 days from the time he issues a report to Congress on 
proliferation to impose five unilateral mandatory sanctions. After the 
President makes this determination, the amendment allows for as few as 
20 Senators to initiate a reversal of the President's decision. It 
would take only 20 Senators to ensure that a resolution of disapproval 
be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The committee would 
then only have 15 calendar days to consider such a resolution. If the 
resolution is not reported in that timeframe, it would be sent to the 
floor with debate limited to 10 hours and a vote required within 15 
days. Given the inadequate evidentiary standard of ``credible 
information'' that is provided for in this amendment, this expedited 
procedure is a recipe for bad policy.
  I do look forward to discussing this matter further both here on the 
Senate floor and within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This 
complex issue requires further review and debate separate from the 
current business of granting permanent normal trade relations to the 
People's Republic of China.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
Thompson-Torricelli amendment, or the ``China Nonproliferation Act.''
  I do so as a Senator who has long been concerned about the threat 
posed by China's reckless proliferation of nuclear, missile and other 
technologies, and as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, with 
responsibility for our intelligence efforts against this critical 
national security threat.
  While this amendment applies to other countries, including Russia and 
North Korea, we are considering it in the context of Permanent Normal 
Trade Relations for the People's Republic of China, or PNTR. Therefore, 
my remarks will, for the most part, focus on that country.
  I should say at the outset that I intend to support PNTR because I 
believe that, on balance, taking this step will further U.S. national 
interests.
  But China remains, in the words of the Director of Central 
Intelligence, a ``key supplier'' of sensitive technologies to Iran, 
Pakistan and other countries.
  I remind my colleagues that the Intelligence Committee has prepared 
and made available to Members a summary and compendium of recent 
intelligence reporting on PRC proliferation. It remains available for 
your review.
  I understand that only a handful of Senators have availed themselves 
of this opportunity. I urge each of you to review this very disturbing 
and revealing material. Without having done so, you will be voting on 
this amendment ignorant of the facts as we know them.
  Whether you choose to vote for or against this amendment, you must 
not do so without a full appreciation of the facts.
  Suffice it to say that China has not improved its poor proliferation 
record.
  In light of the poor Chinese proliferation record, I believe that 
risks associated with approving PNTR are managed better if the 
Thompson-Torricelli amendment is enacted with our new trade 
relationship with China.
  Since the sponsors and other Senators are addressing the threat to 
our national security posed by Chinese proliferation, I will focus 
primarily on some of those aspects of the problem of greatest concern 
to the Intelligence Committee.
  Tracking the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has been 
among the Intelligence Committee's very highest budgetary priorities.
  This is because proliferation is one of our most daunting and 
resource-intensive intelligence challenges. The materials and 
technology to build nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and the 
missiles to deliver them are not shipped in the open. They are smuggled 
across borders and shipped under false documents.
  Vital technical support to a country's missile or nuclear program may 
fit on a single computer disk or take the form of clandestine visits by 
technical experts.
  The materials used in making weapons of mass destruction and their 
means of delivery are often dual use, meaning that they may also be 
used for peaceful purposes.
  Our intelligence analysts must compile all the facts to determine the 
likely use of these materials. This really is rocket science, and 
nuclear science, and biological and chemical science.
  Tracking proliferation is not only difficult, it is a critical 
mission. Timely intelligence provides us with the information we need 
to support our efforts to deter or dissuade countries, like the 
People's Republic of China and Russia, from selling nuclear, chemical, 
biological or missile technologies to rogue states or regions of 
instability.
  When deterrence and dissuasion fail, timely intelligence also will 
support efforts to counter the proliferation and use of missiles and 
weapons of mass destruction.
  What is especially frustrating for me, as chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee, is that while the Intelligence Community is 
doing its job, gathering intelligence at great expense and risk about 
who is selling and who is buying technologies of mass destruction, this 
intelligence is ignored by policymakers.
  Policy makers have frequently circumvented our sanctions laws by 
avoiding reaching a determination that could trigger sanctions. They 
have ensured that the bureaucratic process for reaching a determination 
that would lead to sanctions is never started, or completed, or 
impossible standards of evidence are set, so that a judgment never has 
to be reached.
  A case in point is the notorious M-11 missile. After years of closed 
door deliberations on this issue, in September of last year, for the 
first time, the Intelligence Community stated publicly its longstanding 
conclusion that ``Pakistan has M-11 SRBMs [Short Range Ballistic 
Missiles] from China. . . .''
  Lest anyone miss the significance of these Chinese missiles now in 
the hands of Pakistan, or their contribution to instability in South 
Asia, the community assessed further that these missiles may have a 
nuclear role.
  Sales of M-11 technology have twice triggered sanctions against the 
PRC under the Arms Export Control Act and Export Administration Act. 
The sale of M-11 missiles should, under current law, have triggered 
additional, even stricter, sanctions.
  But despite the clear, and public, conclusion of the Intelligence 
Community, the State Department has suggested that the Intelligence 
Community's finding that the M-11 missiles were sold by the PRC to 
Pakistan did not meet its ``high standard of evidence.''
  Failure to follow through on the facts, however unpleasant the facts 
may be, undercuts the credibility of our entire nonproliferation 
policy.
  I am hopeful that the Thompson-Torricelli amendment will force a more 
robust response to the intelligence collected on proliferation. Under 
this amendment, policy makers will be forced--on an annual basis--to 
collect the evidence of proliferation and provide a report to Congress.
  This report will be more comprehensive and focused than those we have 
received to date.
  The report must identify persons from China, Russia, North Korea and 
other states when there is credible evidence that this person has 
contributed to the design, development, production, or acquisition of 
nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or ballistic missiles.
  The report also will identify any person of a covered country that is 
engaged in activities prohibited under the

[[Page S8456]]

relevant treaties and agreements regarding the possession and transfer 
of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
  The President is directed in the China Nonproliferation Act to report 
information on noncompliance with international arms control and 
proliferation agreements by the covered countries.
  Finally, the report must include an assessment of the threats to our 
national security, and that of our allies, resulting from 
proliferation--whether or not this proliferation can be determined to 
meet the legal or evidentiary standards the State Department asserts to 
avoid reaching sanctions judgements.
  This will go a long way towards compelling the State Department to 
acknowledge serious instances of nuclear and other proliferation.
  Furthermore, the Director of Central Intelligence is required to 
reach a determination regarding what transfer or sale of goods, 
services, or technology have a ``significant potential to make a 
contribution to the development, improvement, or production of nuclear, 
biological, or chemical weapons or of ballistic or cruise missile 
systems.''
  Again, mandating this report will allow us to avoid the unpleasant 
situation we have been in for years in which the President has been 
able to avoid reaching necessary judgements about proliferation 
activities and their consequences.
  This report will contribute significantly to the ability of the U.S. 
Congress to conduct oversight and to make informed judgements on 
matters of national security.
  The information detailed in the report should better enable us to 
judge the appropriateness and, over time, the effectiveness of the 
sanctions provided for in this amendment.
  Some have complained that this bill forces the President to impose 
sanctions. This is not the case.
  The amendment provides adequate flexibility to the President since he 
can waive the sanctions.
  However, he must specify his reasons for doing so, and Congress may 
disagree through procedures set out in the bill. This legislation will 
make Presidential decision-making more transparent and will ensure that 
the President's decisions are based on the best intelligence available.
  Mr. President, would our citizens want to continue to sell items on 
the United States Munitions List to an individual that has 
``contributed to the design, development, production, or acquisition of 
nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or ballistic or cruise 
missiles'' for a third party or state.
  Would our citizens want to continue to license dual-use items that 
could contribute to this individual's proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction?
  Would our citizens want to continue to provide that individual 
Government assistance in the form of grants, loans, or credits?
  Would our citizens want to continue co-development or co-production 
of items on our munitions list with that individual?
  Of course not. Of course not.
  I hope we can agree that the United States should neither reward nor 
contribute to proliferation of the weapons that threaten our own 
Nation.
  Without question, the imposition of sanctions against another nation 
or foreign companies is always a serious matter.
  The imposition of sanctions has significant foreign and economic 
policy consequences for the United States and should not be undertaken 
lightly.
  Because sanctions can be costly for our own American industries, we 
must be sure there is a clear national security interest that will be 
advanced by the sanctions.
  Curbing proliferation meets this test. The President has declared the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to be a ``national 
emergency,'' and I think most of us agree with that declaration.
  I support the Thompson-Torricelli amendment because it takes a 
balanced, measured approach to the problem of sanctioning Chinese 
proliferation activities, and similar activities of other countries.
  In particular, it creates a process to ensure that the U.S. response 
to future activities of proliferation is never again the inaction, 
indifference, and self-deception that characterizes the current 
process.
  I believe this bill will bring us closer to a situation in which the 
PRC and other supplier nations clearly understand--for the first time--
that there will be serious consequences when they engage in 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United 
States, its allies, and friends.
  Mr. President, I again urge my colleagues to review the available 
intelligence. The facts speak for themselves, and they speak very 
loudly indeed.
  I urge adoption of the Thompson-Torricelli amendment and yield the 
floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, as this body discusses the China Non-
proliferation amendment, I would like to comment briefly on Chinese 
actions that have not only damaged the national security of the United 
States, but are antithetical to the peace and stability of the entire 
world--weapons of mass destruction and missile proliferation. I am 
dismayed that the government of the People's Republic of China has 
consistently brutalized its own population, intimidated its neighbors, 
and provided the world's most dangerous technology to ``States of 
Concern''--in direct violation of international agreements, domestic 
law, and fundamental international standards of behavior. It is time 
for the Senate to speak in a clear, definitive voice against China's 
actions.
  The facts are that China has provided nuclear, biological, and 
chemical weapons technology, along with ballistic and cruise missiles 
to ``States of Concern''--previously referred to as ``Rogue Nations''--
including Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Algeria. 
Congress should not stand idly by as China continues these practices. 
Passage of the China Non-Proliferation amendment is a prudent step in 
the right direction to address this problem. The amendment is both a 
reasonable and measured response to the serious situation that this 
Administration has allowed to continue.
  While I prefer to see this bill, the China Non-proliferation Act, 
passed as a separate measure and not as an amendment to the China-
Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, bill, it is now clear that the 
critical and timely nature of this issue, combined with the 
counterproductive actions of those trying to prevent its consideration, 
have left us in the position of having to vote on this today. I reject 
the notion that a vote on this amendment is a vote against granting 
PNTR to China. This is simply not the case. The Thompson amendment will 
not kill PNTR or even place conditions on granting PNTR for China. This 
amendment will simply stem the flow of unauthorized information on 
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons technology by creating real 
consequences for proliferating countries. I believe that these 
consequences, coupled with strong leadership by the Executive Branch, 
can dramatically slow proliferation.
  Senator Thompson's amendment addresses proliferation concerns by 
requiring the President to submit a report to Congress identifying 
every person, company, or governmental entity of the major 
proliferating nations--China, Russia, and North Korea are currently on 
this list--against which credible evidence exists that the entity 
contributed to the design, development, production, or acquisition of 
nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or ballistic or cruise 
missiles by a foreign person. Based on this report, the President would 
then be required to impose specific measures against foreign companies 
in these countries who have been identified as proliferators. For 
example, under this amendment if a Chinese company provided nuclear 
technology to Iran, the United States would deny all pending licenses 
and suspend all existing licenses for the sale of military items and 
military-civilian dual-use items and technology as controlled under the 
Commerce Control List to that company. Additionally, the President 
would be required to impose an across-the-board prohibition on any U.S. 
government purchases of goods or services from, and U.S. government 
assistance, including grants, loans, credits, or guarantees, to this 
company.
  In addition to the mandatory sanctions imposed on proliferating 
foreign

[[Page S8457]]

companies, the amendment would also authorize the President to impose 
discretionary measures against the key supplier countries. Foreign 
companies do not act alone in the proliferation of weapons; it is quite 
clear that China, Russia, and North Korea all actively support 
proliferation activities, and therefore must be held accountable for 
their actions. This amendment recognizes this truth and would empower 
the President to apply discretionary measures against them as well, 
such as:
  Suspension of all military-to-military contacts and exchanges between 
the covered country and the United States;
  Suspension of all United States assistance to the covered country by 
the United States Government;
  Prohibition on the transfer or sale or after-sale servicing, 
including the provision of replacement parts, to the covered country or 
any national of the covered country of any item on the United States 
Munitions List, which includes all military items, and suspension of 
any agreement with the covered country or any national of the covered 
country for the co-development or co-production of any item on the 
United States Munitions List.
  Suspension of all scientific, academic, and technical exchanges 
between the covered country and the United States;

  Prohibition on the transfer or sale to the covered country or any 
national of the covered country of any item on the Commerce Control 
List, which includes military-civilian dual-use items, that is 
controlled for national security purposes and prohibition of after-sale 
servicing, including the provision of replacement parts for such items;
  Denial of access to capital markets of the United States by any 
company owned or controlled by nationals of the covered country;
  Prohibition on the transfer or sale to the covered country or any 
national of the covered country of any item on the Commerce Control 
List and prohibition of after-sale servicing, including the provision 
of replacement parts for such items.
  Due to the highly sensitive national security issues involved in 
cases of proliferation, any of the sanctions can be waived by the 
President if he determines: (1) that the person did not engage in the 
proliferation activities; (2) that the supplier country was taking 
appropriate actions to penalize entities for acts of proliferation and 
to deter future proliferation; or (3) that such a waiver was important 
to the national security of the United States.
  I believe that these measures, affecting both the proliferating 
company and country, if applied consistently and fairly by the 
President, can and will stem the serious problem of weapons 
proliferation. China, along with Russia and North Korea, must 
understand that there are real consequences for continuing this 
reckless behavior, and the United States must take a stand and lead the 
charge to stop such proliferation. Passage of the Thompson amendment 
will accomplish that goal.
  A firm stand against proliferation is desperately needed. Chinese 
proliferation, along with that of Russia and North Korea, is continuing 
unabated to the detriment of America's national security. It is well 
documented that China has provided sensitive technology to at least 
seven States of Concern, including Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North 
Korea, and Algeria. Most of these states have explicitly threatened the 
security of the United States and actively sponsored terrorism. The 
remaining countries are in regions where war is commonplace and the 
consequences for the use of WMD would be especially devastating. Of 
these proliferation cases, the two most horrendous cases are Pakistan 
and Iran.
  Pakistan is a nation of tremendous unrest and instability, and China 
has provided it with extensive nuclear and missile technology. Born in 
conflict, Pakistan was created with India out of one people and one 
territory, and conflict has defined this nation throughout its history. 
Pakistan fought three wars and numerous border skirmishes against 
India, its principal adversary. These battles have been mostly fought 
over the hotly contested Kashmir region bordering northeast Pakistan. 
The Kashmir conflict is widely accepted by International Affairs and 
Defense experts as one of the most likely conflicts to erupt into a 
nuclear war. China, to a great extent, has not only fostered the 
conflict through political posturing and land-grabbing, but it has also 
provided the nuclear weapons that would be used in such a war. China 
continues to provide critical nuclear and missile related technology to 
Pakistan, thereby further escalating the arms race and underlying 
conflict.
  In May 1998, India and Pakistan tested a total of eleven nuclear 
devices. This ushered Pakistan into--and reestablished India as part 
of--the world's most exclusive club of nuclear weapon states. Although 
India's nuclear program was created from mostly indigenous sources, 
Pakistan's nuclear program was purchased from the People's Republic of 
China. A recently declassified Central Intelligence Agency report 
states that during the early 1980's, China provided Pakistan blueprints 
of a full Chinese nuclear design that was tested in 1966. It appears it 
took Pakistan almost 20 years to test a weapon because they had 
difficulty translating the blueprints from Chinese.
  Since the 1980's, China has consistently provided Pakistan additional 
nuclear components and missiles. China has operated the Pakistani 
Cowhide Uranium-enrichment plant (needed for nuclear weapons 
production), provided designs for additional bombs and reactors, sold 
weapons grade uranium, sold 5,000 ring magnets for a nonsafeguarded 
nuclear enrichment program, and continues to provide assistance to 
nuclear facilities that are not safeguarded by the International Atomic 
Energy Agency, IAEA. The IAEA ensures that nuclear facilities are not 
producing nuclear weapons grade material.
  China has also provided Pakistan with complete nuclear-capable 
missile and missile components. The most widely reported missile 
transfers are the M-11 missile, also called the CSS-7 or Ababeel. This 
nuclear capable missile, designed and produced in China, has a 300-
kilometer range--placing many highly populated Indian cities at risk. 
Although it is unclear how many M-11s Pakistan currently possesses, it 
appears that China has been providing these missiles for almost a 
decade.

  Pakistan's nuclear-capable Medium Range Ballistic Missiles, (MRBM), 
named Ghauri and Shaheen, were developed as a result of extensive 
Chinese technology and assistance. The Ghauri has a quoted range of 
1500 km, but during the actual flight test, the Ghauri flew only 600 
km. Even at this shorted range, some of India's largest cities, 
including New Delhi and Bombay, would be at risk. The Shaheen, although 
not flight tested, is reported to have a range of 700 km, making its 
strike distance comparable to the Ghauri.
  What is especially disturbing is that this is just the beginning of 
the Chinese proliferation record regarding Pakistan. These transfers 
have allowed Pakistan to amass an incredibly capable and frightening 
nuclear and missile force. These transfers are in direct violation of 
international and domestic law. It is apparent that China and Chinese 
businesses have violated the Missile Technology Control Regime, the 
Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act, the Non-
Proliferation Treaty, the Export-Import Bank Act, and the Nuclear 
Proliferation Prevention Act.
  With all these violations of international and domestic law, one must 
ask the question, ``What has the Clinton Administration done to stem 
the flow of nuclear and missile technology?'' The answer is sadly, 
``very little.'' The Clinton Administration imposed only mild sanctions 
on China for providing the M-11 technology. However, these sanctions 
were quickly lifted when China ``agreed'' not to continue providing 
missile technology to Pakistan. Despite this ``agreement,'' China has 
not stopped the provision of missile and nuclear technology.
  I am troubled that the President seems to have accepted Chinese 
promises and reassurances without thoroughly examining the facts. For 
example, a July 1997, CIA report concluded that ``China was the single 
most important supplier of equipment and technology for weapons of mass 
destruction'' worldwide, and that China continues to be Pakistan's 
``primary source of nuclear-related equipment and technology. . .'' The 
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Cui Tiankai, responded 
characteristically to these charges by stating that ``China's position 
on nuclear proliferation is very

[[Page S8458]]

clear . . . It does not advocate, encourage, or engage in nuclear 
proliferation, nor does it assist other countries in developing nuclear 
weapons. It always undertakes its international legal obligations of 
preventing nuclear proliferation . . . China has always been cautious 
and responsible in handling its nuclear exports and exports of 
materials and facilities that might lead to nuclear proliferation.'' 
The Clinton Administration was apparently reading from the Chinese 
script when Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary of State, said during a 
Congressional hearing that, `` . . . we (the United States) have 
absolutely binding assurances from the Chinese, which we consider a 
commitment on their part not to export ring magnets or any other 
technologies to unsafeguarded facilities . . . The negotiating record 
is made up primarily of conversations, which were detailed and 
recorded, between US and Chinese officials.'' With the overwhelming 
evidence, it is mystifying that the Chinese spokesman could make such 
statements with a straight face, and it is extremely disappointing that 
the Administration apparently took China at its word.
  More than one and half billion people live in South Asia. I believe 
that Pakistan would not be in the position to start a nuclear war 
without Chinese assistance. Although we cannot reverse proliferation in 
Pakistan, we can, and should, take a stand to stop further transfers to 
Pakistan and other countries through passage of the China Non-
Proliferation Act. Without taking a stand here, what will stop China 
from providing nuclear and missile technology to Palestine, or Sudan, 
or the renowned terrorist Osama Bin Ladan? The United States must take 
the lead, as the world's only Superpower, and stand against nuclear 
proliferation, which damages the security of the entire nation.
  Not only has China provided nuclear and missile technology to the 
dangerous and unstable region of South Asia, China has provided 
sensitive technology to Iran. Iran has been identified by U.S. 
government agencies, organizations, and entities, along with 
independent national security experts, as one of the major threats to 
US security. Iran's threat stems from several significant factors 
including its large population and armed forces; its geo-strategic and 
political location in the Middle East--along the straits of Hormuz and 
the Caspian Sea; an Islamic fundamentalist government; a drive to 
obtain weapons of mass destruction along with their associated delivery 
vehicles; stated opposition to the United States and United States' 
national interests; opposition to the Israeli-Palestinian Peace 
Process; the de-stabilization of Lebanon--Israel's northern neighbor; 
and the use and sponsorship of terrorism in its own country and around 
the world. Due to these facts, the idea of providing nuclear, 
biological, chemical, and missile technology to Iran seems 
unbelievable, but it is a sad reality.

  According to a 1999 CIA report, ``Iran remains one of the most active 
countries seeking to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD, and 
Advanced Conventional Weapons, ACW, technology from abroad. In doing 
so, Tehran is attempting to develop an indigenous capability to produce 
various types of weapons--nuclear, chemical, and biological--and their 
delivery systems.'' Iran is obtaining much of this technology from 
China and Russia.
  The CIA report continues, ``for the second half of 1999, entities in 
Russia, North Korea, and China continued to supply the largest amount 
of ballistic missile-related goods, technology, and expertise to Iran. 
Tehran is using this assistance to support current production programs 
and to achieve its goal of becoming self-sufficient in the production 
of ballistic missiles. Iran already is producing Scud short-range 
ballistic missiles, SRBMs, and has built and publicly displayed 
prototypes for the Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, MRBM, which 
had its initial flight test in July 1998. In addition, Iran's Defense 
Minister last year publicly acknowledged the development of the Shahab-
4, originally calling it a more capable ballistic missile than the 
Shahab-3, but later categorizing it as solely a space launch vehicle 
with no military applications. Iran's Defense Minister also has 
publicly mentioned plans for a ``Shahab 5.'' Such statements, made 
against the backdrop of sustained cooperation with Russian, North 
Korean, and Chinese entities, strongly suggest that Tehran intends to 
develop a longer-range ballistic missile capability in the near 
future.'' These longer ranged missiles would be capable of striking 
targets in Europe and perhaps in the United States.
  China is ``a key supplier'' of nuclear technology to Iran, with over 
$60 million annually in sales and at least fourteen Chinese nuclear 
experts working at Iranian nuclear facilities. In 1991, China supplied 
Iran with a research reactor capable of producing plutonium and a 
calutron, a technology that can be used to enrich uranium to weapons-
grade. (Calutrons enriched the uranium in the ``Little Boy'' bomb that 
destroyed Hiroshima, and were at the center of Saddam Hussein's effort 
to develop an Iraqi nuclear bomb.) In 1994, China supplied a complete 
nuclear fusion research reactor facility to Iran, and provided 
technical assistance in making it operational. China also continues to 
work with two Iranian nuclear projects, a so-called ``research 
reactor'' and a zirconium production facility. It is well documented 
that China has provided Iran ``considerable'' chemical and biological 
weapon-related production equipment and technology. China has also 
provided sensitive ballistic missile technology for Iran's growing 
missile capability. Among other transfers, in 1994, China provided 
hundreds of missile guidance systems and computerized machine tools. 
This is just the beginning of Chinese proliferation to Iran.
  The sad fact is that Iran would not have these capabilities without 
Chinese assistance and American inaction. Although these transfers 
violate almost every non-proliferation law on the books, the Clinton 
Administration has only taken small and random acts against selected 
Chinese companies. These meaningless acts have done nothing to stem the 
proliferation, and without stronger laws, Chinese proliferation will 
continue.
  It is time for the United States to respond with authority to the 
continued threat of weapons proliferation. Although we need a President 
who is willing to lead, we also need more effective laws mandating the 
President to impose sanctions on foreign companies when they engage in 
proliferation, and authorizing him to take actions against nations 
violating international law. This is what the China Non-Proliferation 
Act will do, and I support passage of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be permitted to speak for up to the designated times in the 
following order: Senator Kyl, 5 minutes; Senator Biden, 10 minutes; 
Senator Torricelli, 10 minutes; Senator Hutchison, 10 minutes; Senator 
Gramm, 10 minutes; Senator Thompson, 10 minutes; Senator Roth, 5 
minutes. I further ask consent that the vote occur no later than 1:45 
p.m. this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from 
California. To return the debate to the Thompson amendment, the 
question before us immediately is not whether PNTR should be granted 
but whether the Thompson amendment dealing with national security 
issues should be supported. PNTR is going to pass this body early next 
week. The question is whether at about 1:45 p.m. or so this body will 
table the Thompson amendment.
  The Thompson amendment would set up a regime that would help stop the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China. In the past, 
each year we have been able to review the Chinese trade, national 
security, and even human rights issues, and because we had an annual 
review, we were able to deal with those issues in this body, as well as 
from a diplomatic point of view the administration's dealings with 
China.
  PNTR will remove that annual review, the requirement that we 
affirmatively act each year. It will allow China then to join the WTO, 
and that is fine as a matter of trade. But we have to have some 
parallel way of ensuring

[[Page S8459]]

from a national security standpoint that China stops the proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction.
  The Thompson amendment sets up a process whereby the Chinese actions 
are reviewed and the President can impose sanctions, if it is 
appropriate, but if he does not impose sanctions in those 
circumstances--he does have a waiver authority--he is required to 
report to Congress why not. There is nothing unreasonable about this 
particular proposition.
  Yesterday I talked at length about the reasons for it. I will mention 
two: The proliferation of M-11 missiles by China to Pakistan, for 
example, which has not resulted in appropriate sanctions by the United 
States and, more recently, the transfer of sea-based cruise missiles to 
Iran.
  We remember what happened to the Stark, the U.S. destroyer in the 
Persian Gulf, when several Americans lost their lives as a result of a 
sea-based cruise missile. The question here is particularly interesting 
because the Senate voted 96-0 that the Chinese actions in supplying 
these cruise missiles to Iran was a violation of the Gore-McCain Iran-
Iraq Nonproliferation Act. In other words, China is not supposed to 
send this kind of weapon to countries such as Iran. The Senate has been 
on record unanimously that it was a violation of the act. The 
administration has done nothing to impose sanctions or otherwise act to 
stop China from that kind of proliferation. That is why the Thompson 
amendment is necessary.
  Trade, in other words, cannot be the only thing that defines the 
relationship between the United States and China. The Senate has to 
balance other things than trade, including our national security 
obligations.
  It has been said that we cannot support the Thompson amendment, not 
because it is not a good idea but because if there is any change to 
this bill in the Senate, if it goes back to the House of 
Representatives, they will not pass it. One of two things is true: 
Either there is support for PNTR and the House of Representatives will 
quickly act on the Thompson amendment, and, in fact, if the two are 
joined and sent to the House, as I was advised yesterday, support would 
fall off in the House to the point where there are 40 people over there 
who no longer support PNTR and would not vote for the bill.
  Obviously, it would be an anti-democratic action for us to proceed 
with something that no longer enjoys a majority support in the House of 
Representatives. I cannot believe that many people would switch their 
vote on PNTR. They still, of course, can vote against the Thompson 
amendment if we send it over to them.
  The fact is, we have 5 weeks to go. The House of Representatives has 
plenty of time to deal with this issue. They are committed to PNTR, as 
I know the leadership of the Senate is. I cannot believe amending the 
bill with the Thompson amendment would destroy PNTR. Remember, too, 
that it is the opponents of the Thompson amendment who forced Senator 
Thompson into using this vehicle of amending PNTR as the only way to 
achieve his goal of establishing a nonproliferation regime with respect 
to China. He offered to do it in freestanding legislation. He was 
rebuffed. He offered to do it after the debate. He was rebuffed. In 
effect, they knew they had the best chance of defeating him if they 
could force him to offer an amendment to PNTR because then they could 
argue they were all for it in substance, but they did not dare let it 
pass as a procedural matter because the House then would have to deal 
again with PNTR.
  I think this is the most cynical of strategies. I wish the issue had 
not come up in this way. I urge my colleagues at the appropriate time, 
in about 45 minutes, not to table the Thompson amendment. Give Senator 
Thompson an up-or-down vote on his amendment. It is the fair thing to 
do. It is the right thing to do and, from the standpoint of the 
responsibilities of all of us in this Chamber as Senators who have 
responsibility both for trade and for national security, the Thompson 
amendment is the right thing to support.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Under the previous order, Senator Biden was to be 
recognized at this point. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
proceed under his time and that, in turn, he proceed following the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I think it is important to remind the 
Senate of the issue before the body. It has been argued that China 
should be allowed into the World Trade Organization. That is not a 
question of this amendment. China is coming into the World Trade 
Organization under PNTR.
  It has been argued that there should not be an interference in trade 
between China and the United States; it was argued strenuously by my 
friend and colleague from California. That is not before the Senate 
under this amendment.
  It has been argued that the internal politics of China should not 
interfere with trade. That is not before the Senate. The Senate has 
defeated the measures on internal matters in China. It is going to 
support WTO and the PNTR. The issue before the Senate is narrowly 
defined.
  Under Thompson-Torricelli, there is a single issue before this body: 
Whether repeated acts of violations of nonproliferation agreements by 
Chinese companies will give the President the authority, which he will 
have the right to waive, to interfere with Chinese access to American 
capital markets. That is the only issue before the Senate.
  I recognize that we come to this institution with a variety of local 
interests. Some of us represent agriculture and some industry; some 
labor and some business; some in the West, some in the North; some in 
the South; some in the East; some rural; some suburban. We have one 
unifying common interest--the national security of the United States. 
Wherever we are from, whatever our priorities, whatever our philosophy, 
that single guiding responsibility unites us all.
  I recognize there are economic interests in the country that are on 
different sides of the issue of PNTR. But on this single issue, the 
proliferation of dangerous weapons of mass destruction that are a 
threat to the life and the security of the United States of America, we 
can find common ground.
  Indeed, as enthusiastic as any individual farmer in America may be to 
get access to Chinese markets, notwithstanding the fact that this 
amendment does not deal with agricultural exports, I would challenge 
any Member of this Senate to find an individual American farmer who, 
even if this amendment did threaten agricultural exports, would trade a 
single sale for the United States not being resolved in denying Chinese 
companies the ability to export missile or nuclear or biological 
technology that threatens the American people.
  Find me a single high-tech executive, given the choice between an 
individual contract and the ability to restrict a single Chinese 
company from selling technology that threatens the United States of 
America, find me one who would not take a stand for this amendment.
  Individual interests, I understand them.
  My friend and coauthor of this amendment, Senator Thompson, stood on 
the floor reciting comments by the president of the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, who threatened retribution against Senators who support 
Thompson-Torricelli and cited the ``politics of nuclear 
proliferation.''

  What have we come to as an institution? The ``politics of nuclear 
proliferation''? I thought the issue of nonproliferation knew no 
politics, was supported by Democrats, Republicans, liberals and 
conservatives. We can all differ on some of the strategies of defending 
the United States. We may differ on the question of a missile shield 
defense. We may differ on how we allocate our national defense 
resources. But I thought the question of proliferation was the one 
uniting aspect of our foreign policy that knew no bounds--we are all 
united in the question that there are some governments that are so 
irresponsible, some nations that live so far out of the norms of 
accepted behavior, that they must be denied these weapons.
  The evidence is unmistakable that the People's Republic of China, 
despite

[[Page S8460]]

20 years of commitments to accede to this policy of denying these rogue 
nations these technologies, continues to export this dangerous 
technology. The evidence is overwhelming.
  The Director of Central Intelligence reported to this Congress, last 
month, that China has increased its missile-related assistance to 
Pakistan, continues to provide assistance to Iran, North Korea, Libya; 
that China has proliferated to Pakistan.
  This Senate has debated what to spend and how to spend to defend 
ourselves against the possibility, by 2005, of nuclear-tipped missiles 
from North Korea. We have all lived in anguish with the destruction of 
American citizens by the terrorism in Libya and Iran.
  Now before this Senate is the most modest of amendments--not an 
interference with trade; not a restriction on exports, though indeed 
that may be justifiable; not a sanction against the violations of 
workers' rights or human rights, though that may be arguable. We have 
not dared, in the most modest of positions, to ask, to request, to 
suggest any of those things. Just this: That the authority exists to 
deny companies in the People's Republic of China that consistently, 
regularly are found, by overwhelming evidence, to be proliferating 
dangerous technologies that threaten the United States of America, 
access to our capital markets. But, indeed, that would be too ambitious 
to ask, so we have given the President waiver authority to cancel that 
restriction and simply tell the Congress why he did so.
  Is there a man or woman in the Senate who thinks this request is so 
ambitious, would so threaten the economic life of the United States, 
that we cannot ask this? I challenge my colleagues in the Senate, if 
you will not accept the evidence from the Director of Central 
Intelligence on this proliferation, if you will not cede the warning, 
accept the overwhelming evidence of this proliferation and the threat 
it constitutes to the United States of America, then have the 
intellectual honesty and courage to rise on the floor of this Senate to 
say the Central Intelligence Agency no longer provide this evidence. 
Because if you will not read it, you will not accept it, and you will 
not act upon a request that is this modest in scope, then have the 
intellectual honesty not to even receive it.
  I say to my colleagues, it has been stated on this floor that the 
history of economic sanctions has been uniformly disappointing; that 
there is no evidence that they succeed. In the long history of economic 
sanctions, this would be the most modest. We interfere with no trade, 
restrict no product, restrict no market, only the raising of capital, 
and only then if the President does not exercise a waiver.
  But even if this were a more ambitious amendment, do my colleagues in 
the Senate really want the record to reflect that we do not believe 
economic sanctions are ever justifiable or ever successful, 
particularly members of my party?
  The birth of economic sanctions was from Woodrow Wilson, former 
Governor of my State, who believed they were the civilized alternative 
to avoiding armed conflict and war. They are not a perfect weapon, but 
they have avoided conflict.
  Who here would rise and say that unilateral sanctions by European 
states against South Africa and apartheid was wrong, or against 
Rhodesia or against the Soviets after invading Czechoslovakia? Who here 
would argue that they were wrong against Cambodia after the death 
camps? Who would argue they were wrong against fascist Italy, against 
Abyssinia and Ethiopia? Who here would argue that Roosevelt was wrong 
in using them against the Nazis or the Japanese invasion of Manchuria 
or Wilson himself against unrestricted submarine warfare in the North 
Atlantic? For the entire 20th century, these sanctions have been used--
not a perfect tool, not always successful, but always an alternative to 
conflict and in defense of the national security.
  That issue is before the Senate again. Because while these may not be 
sanctions, because it may appear the Senate, given the economic 
opportunity, would not accept them, Senator Thompson and I have offered 
something far less ambitious, a simple standby authority. But it is an 
alternative.
  What will we say to the American people if one day we discover that 
missile or nuclear or biological weapons are in the hands of our most 
feared enemies threatening the lives of the American people? Someone on 
this floor would be right to rise and quote the old Bolshevik maxim: 
They will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.
  No one on this floor wants to provide that explanation. I urge 
support for the Thompson-Torricelli amendment. It is right. It is 
modest. I believe the Senate would be proud to take this stand.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, the Senator has 10 
minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment by the Senator from 
Tennessee.
  Although well-intentioned, the Thompson amendment--the so-called 
``China Nonproliferation Act''--is a deeply flawed approach to 
addressing the proliferation problem.
  At the outset, let me stipulate to a couple of points about which the 
Senator is correct.
  First, I fully agree with the Senator that the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction poses a serious threat to our national 
security. I commend him for his concern, which I know is sincere.
  Second, I agree with the Senator's assertion that the People's 
Republic of China has a poor proliferation track record. China's 
exports of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them 
have made the world a more dangerous place.
  Unfortunately, our concerns are not all historical. You won't find 
much argument in this body if the Administration decided today to 
impose sanctions on China--using existing law--for its continuing 
export of ballistic missile technology to Pakistan.
  The debate isn't about whether China has a clean record in the area 
of nonproliferation. It does not. Period. No, this debate is about how 
we get the Chinese and other proliferators to clean up their act. So I 
ask my colleagues to keep their eyes on the ball.
  The question each of us should ask as we evaluate the Thompson 
amendment is this: At the end of the day, is the Thompson amendment 
likely to improve U.S. security by reducing the spread of weapons of 
mass destruction and the means to deliver them?
  I believe the answer is no. The legislation offered by Senator 
Thompson is deeply flawed. Since its introduction, the Thompson 
amendment has been revised at least three or four times. I give the 
Senator credit for trying to fix the bill's many flaws. Unfortunately, 
with each version, this bill has not substantially improved.
  In its earliest iteration, at least we knew what this bill was all 
about. It was all about undercutting the very normal trade relations 
that we are about to vote to make permanent with China and instead 
treating China like a virtual enemy.
  The likely effect of the original version of the ``China 
Nonproliferation Act'' was to gut normal trade relations with China, 
shut down trade in dual-use items, deny China access to our capital 
markets, end educational and scientific exchanges, and suspend the 
bilateral dialog on a range of important issues, including counter-
narcotics and counter-terrorism.
  It was clear-cut. It was unambiguous. And it was unambiguously 
contrary to the national interest.
  The current version of the amendment does not have that coherence. 
Rather, it is a legislative stew containing an assortment of 
ingredients, not all of which go together. It has several major flaws.
  The first major flaw is that although the sponsors have advertised 
the amendment as targeting certain rogue states, in fact it also 
targets American firms and firms located in several western nations.
  On its face, the amendment purports to target only those countries 
highlighted by the Director of Central Intelligence in a seminannual 
report as ``key suppliers'' of weapons of mass destruction and missile 
technologies. Those countries, under the most current version of this 
report, released

[[Page S8461]]

earlier this summer, are China, Russia, and North Korea.
  But closer examination of the amendment reveals that it would likely 
expose some of our closest allies--and even U.S. firms--to scrutiny 
under this bill.
  Let me explain. This is a bit complicated, so I hope colleagues will 
bear with me.
  Under the amendment, the President must submit a report to Congress 
annually--``identifying every person of a covered country for whom 
there is credible information indicating that such person'' has 
transferred dangerous technology to other foreign entities or has 
diverted U.S. technology in such a way so as to contribute to 
development of weapons of mass destruction.
  A ``covered country'' is a term that is defined in the bill: it is 
any country identified by the Director of Central Intelligence as a 
``source or supply'' of dual-use or other technology in the most 
current report required under Section 721 of the Intelligence 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. A country is also a ``covered 
country'' if it was so identified in this report at any time within the 
previous five years.
  Guess what? In 1997, this report by the Director of Central 
Intelligence specifically named the United States, as well as several 
Western European nations, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany 
and Italy, as ``favorite targets of acquisition for foreign weapons of 
mass destruction programs, especially for dual-use goods not controlled 
by [certain] multilateral export control regimes.'' That makes those 
nations a ``source or supply'' of dual-use or other technology under 
the terms of the Thompson amendment.
  So what does this mean?
  It means the President will have to report to Congress on any 
``credible information'' that the Executive Branch has on either (1) 
United States firms, or (2) European firms regarding transfers of 
dangerous technology. Sanctions are unlikely to result against U.S. or 
European firms, for two reasons.
  First, after this report is provided to Congress, the President must 
then formally determine that the firm has actually engaged in the 
proliferation activity--not merely that there is credible information 
that it has.
  Second, even if the President makes such a determination, the 
amendment exempts from the sanctions any nation that is part of a 
multilateral control regime on proliferation--as the United States and 
the major Western powers are.
  But for the firms named in this original report, the damage will have 
been done.
  First, the companies will surely be subject to negative publicity 
based on the very low ``credible information'' standard--and suffer 
financial and other damage that may flow from such publicity. Second, 
Section 8 of the amendment requires the firm, if its stock is listed on 
U.S. capital markets, to make this information--that is, the 
information that they have been cited in the presidential report--
available in reports and disclosure statements required under the 
Securities Exchange Act.
  In short, the bill places a ``scarlet letter'' on the reputation of 
firms--based on information that may later prove to be unfounded.
  This is a pretty breathtaking provision--which requires the President 
to shoot first, and ask questions later.
  The second major flaw of the bill is that the amendment is its 
rigidity. It imposes a one-size-fits-all straitjacket on the 
President--forcing him to impose numerous sanctions against an 
offending company, no matter the gravity of the violation, and it 
requires him to impose the same set of sanctions in every instance.
  Under the amendment, if the President determines that a person or 
firm has engaged in prohibited proliferation activity, then the 
President must apply five different penalties on such firms--including 
a ban on military and dual-use exports from the United States to such 
firms, and a ban on the provision of any U.S. assistance, including any 
loans, credits, or guarantees to such firms.
  This would include Export-Import Bank financing and assistance from 
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
  The President has no flexibility to tailor the penalty to fit the 
crime. He must impose all five punitive measures against the offending 
person for at least one year--even if the behavior is corrected 
immediately. He cannot dangle carrots encouraging the firm or nation to 
clean up its act.
  The only flexibility he would have is to invoke a national security 
waiver. And I doubt such a high waiver will be justifiable in each and 
every case.
  I believe it is extremely unwise to tie the President's hands in this 
manner.
  We are not clairvoyant, and we should give the President flexibility 
to calibrate his response--and the power to cope with changing 
circumstances which we cannot foresee.
  It is also unwise to impose the same set of penalties on different 
cases. Should we treat the transfer of an item on Category Two of the 
Missile Technology Control Regime the less serious of the two 
categories in that regime--such as telemetry software--the same as a 
transfer of a complete missile system? Current missile sanctions law 
permit this sort of differentiation. The Thompson amendment does not.
  On Monday the Senator from Tennessee implied that the sanctions under 
this provision are somehow discretionary--that the President has the 
flexibility on whether or not to impose sanctions under Section 4 of 
the amendment. This is simply not true.
  Under Section 4 of the amendment, ``if the President determines that 
a person identified in a report submitted pursuant to section 3 has 
engaged in an activity described under section (3)(a)(1), the President 
shall apply to such person'' the sanctions for not less than one year.
  In other words, if the President finds that a person engages in a 
proliferation activity, he must apply the sanctions. He has no 
discretion--if he sees that the requisite facts exist, he must impose 
sanctions.
  Don't take my word for it.
  A few years ago, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of 
Justice interpreted similar language in another non-proliferation law--
the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act 
of 1991. It concluded that the President ``has a duty to make 
determinations, not merely the discretion to do so.'' And once he makes 
those determinations, then the sanctions under the law are triggered.
  So, too in the Thompson amendment. If the President determines that 
the proliferation action has occurred, then the sanctions must be 
imposed.
  To be sure, the bill allows the President to waive the sanctions. But 
the act of making the initial determination is not waivable.
  The third major flaw is that the bill will undermine the credibility 
of existing sanctions laws because it has an extremely low burden of 
proof and does not differentiate serious violations from trivial ones.
  Let me explain first how sanctions are triggered in the bill.
  Two kinds of behavior are sanctionable: the first is any transfer of 
technology of any origin by a person of a covered country--and 
remember, ``covered country'' includes the United States and several 
European allies--which contributes to the ``design, development, 
production, or acquisition of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons 
or ballistic or cruise missiles'' by a foreign person.
  The second action that is sanctionable is any contribution to a 
weapons of mass destruction program made by the diversion of U.S.-
origin technology to an unauthorized end-user. Such diversions are 
sanctionable even if they occur within China or Russia.
  The bill penalizes either of these actions--technology transfers or 
diversion--regardless of whether they are either ``knowing'' or 
``material.''
  Nearly all of our current proliferation sanctions laws contain these 
``knowing'' and ``material'' requirement--they do not attempt to punish 
transfers that are unintentional or are relatively inconsequential.
  For example, Section 73 of the Arms Export Control Act--the existing 
missile sanctions law--requires sanctions whenever a foreign person 
``knowingly'' transfers equipment or technology controlled by the 
Missile Technology Control Regime, MTCR.
  Items controlled by the MTCR meet the test of ``materiality'' because 
they

[[Page S8462]]

involve either complete missile systems or significant components of 
such systems.
  The Thompson bill, however, punishes all transfers--regardless of 
whether the firm intentionally engaged in the prohibited conduct or 
whether the transfer made any difference to the program of the 
recipient nation.
  The only standard is whether is it ``contributes'' to the ``design, 
development, production, or acquisition'' of weapons of mass 
destruction programs. This, potentially, has a very broad sweep.
  Does a vehicle supplied by Russia, the United States or a western 
country and used by the People's Liberation Army to transport goods 
from one weapons plant to another ``contribute'' to ``production'' of 
Chinese missiles?
  Does cement for a Chinese cruise missile plant ``contribute'' to the 
``production'' of such missiles? Does advice from an efficiency expert 
``contribute'' to ``production''?
  Surely they do ``contribute'' in some way to the production occurring 
at the facility.
  Under the Thompson amendment, all ``contributions''--even these 
relatively inconsequential examples I just cited--would appear to be 
treated equally.
  If we are going to impose sanctions, we should have a rule of 
reason--and punish transfers that matter. Do we really want to trigger 
the vast machinery of sanctions over transfers that are not of serious 
concern?
  Additionally, do we want to trigger a vast array of sanctions if the 
company did not act intentionally?
  The fourth major flaw of the amendment is that it could undermine our 
proliferation policy by singling out China, Russia, and North Korea.
  A law that singles out the worst proliferators might, at first blush, 
make sense. But it sends an odd message to the world that we care only 
about proliferation from those countries. Why shouldn't we care just as 
much about proliferation by Libyan or Syrian firms as by Chinese firms?
  To be effective, U.S. sanctions law should be defensible to the 
world. We can logically explain that proliferation to Iran or Iraq 
deserves special attention--because of the rogue behavior of those 
countries. But what is the logic for treating proliferation from China, 
Russia, and North Korea more seriously than proliferation from other 
countries?
  Moreover, country-specific legislation is unnecessary.
  If China, Russia, and North Korea are the worst actors in this area, 
then any law that applies generally will fall on them 
disproportionately.
  In fact, current proliferation sanctions laws have been used against 
these three countries more than most others.
  The fifth major flaw of the amendment is that it will impose an 
incredibly burdensome reporting requirement on the intelligence 
community and the Executive Branch officials responsible for enforcing 
non-proliferation policy.
  The amendment requires that all ``credible information'' about 
proliferation activity, no matter whether it is proven or not, no 
matter whether the activity is significant or not, be included as part 
of a new magnum opus. This low ``credible information" standard is 
derived from the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000. Under this 
standard, one piece of information from a source deemed to be credible 
must be reported--even if that evidence later proves to be false.
  Congress has yet to receive the first report required under that Act. 
But we do have some information about the burden it is imposing.
  To date, the Intelligence Community has found 8,000 pages of 
information that is ``credible'' just on chemical and biological 
weapons and missile proliferation alone.
  Many thousands of staff hours will be required to assemble and 
analyze the information for this report. Does it really make sense to 
have our government's non-proliferation specialists devoting so much 
time to assembling yet another report--rather than combating the 
proliferation danger?
  Congress hardly suffers from a lack of information about 
proliferation. We already require a range of reports on the subject. 
For example:
  Congress receives an annual report on proliferation of missiles and 
essential components of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons--
required since 1991;
  Congress receives an annual report on the threat posed to the United 
States by weapons of mass destruction, ballistic and cruise missiles--
required since 1997;
  Congress receives an annual report on the efforts of foreign 
countries to obtain chemical and biological weapons and efforts of 
foreign persons or governments to assist such programs --required since 
1991;
  Congress receives an annual report on the transfer of chemical agents 
and the trade precursor chemicals relevant to chemical weapons--
required since 1997 under the Senate resolution consenting to the 
Chemical Weapons Convention;
  Congress receives an annual report on compliance with international 
arms control agreements, which includes a detailed assessment of 
adherence of other nations to obligations undertaken in 
nonproliferation agreements or commitments--required since the mid-
1980s.
  In addition, Members of Congress have full access to a range of 
regular intelligence reports on the subject of proliferation.
  In sum, we do not need another report that will divert officials in 
the Executive Branch from the daily business of trying to actually stop 
proliferation.
  Mr. President, I understand the motivation at work here. 
Proliferation by Russia or China makes me angry too! I would have 
thought that the limitations of this kind of sledgehammer approach that 
I have just described would have been made evident by now.
  So I remind my colleagues: Keep your eye on the ball! This 
legislation is not likely to be effective in reducing proliferation by 
irresponsible actors.
  Let me make one final point.
  One underlying assumption of the Thompson bill seems to be that there 
are few non-proliferation statutes on the books. Any such assumption 
would be false--over the last decade Congress has enacted numerous 
proliferation laws. Let me highlight a few:
  The Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination 
of 1991 contains numerous provisions restricting technology to, or 
imposing sanctions on, to countries or persons proliferating chemical 
or biological weapons technology;
  The Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 bars U.S. Government 
procurement in the case of foreign persons who materially contribute to 
the efforts of individuals or non-nuclear weapons states to acquire 
nuclear material or nuclear explosive devices, and requires sanctions 
on financial institutions that finance the acquisition of nuclear 
material or nuclear explosive devices.
  The Foreign Assistance Act bars U.S. foreign assistance to nations 
that engage in certain proliferation activities;
  The Arms Export Control Act provides for sanctions against nations 
that transfer unsafeguarded nuclear materials or against non-nuclear 
states which use nuclear devices, including the Glenn Amendment 
sanctions which were imposed on India and Pakistan in 1998.

  The Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992 requires sanctions 
against persons or countries who knowingly and materially contribute to 
the efforts by Iran or Iraq to acquire chemical, biological, or nuclear 
weapons or to acquire destabilizing numbers and types of advanced 
conventional weapons.
  The Export-Import Bank Act bars financing for U.S. exports to any 
country or person which assists a non-nuclear weapons state to acquire 
a nuclear device or unsafeguarded special nuclear material.
  Finally, a Presidential Executive Order (#12938) requires the 
Secretary of State to impose certain sanctions against foreign persons 
who materially contribute or attempt to contribute to the efforts of 
any foreign country to obtain weapons of mass destruction or a missile 
capable of delivering such weapons.
  In short, it is a delusion to think we have a shortage of laws.
  What the senator is complaining about is a failure to use these laws 
to punish the Chinese and other bad actors. This failure is hardly 
unique to this Administration.
  During President Reagan's term, China provided nuclear know-how to 
Pakistan and missiles to Saudi Arabia. The United States responded by 
selling

[[Page S8463]]

advanced conventional weaponry to the People's Liberation Army--
torpedoes for its navy, advanced avionics for its air force, and 
counter-battery artillery radars for its army.
  In President Bush's administration, China sold missile technology to 
Pakistan. The United States responded by briefly imposing sanctions--
and then subsequently liberalizing export controls on a wide range of 
high technology, including the launch of U.S.-made communication 
satellites by China.
  The Clinton Administration has twice sanctioned China for 
proliferation of missile and chemical technology, but has balked at 
imposing sanctions in response to China's most recent misdeeds.
  The failure of Executive Branch to use sanctions authority occurs in 
both Republican and Democratic administrations. It is often lamentable. 
But the appropriate response is not enactment of a severely flawed 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, let me sum up.
  I understand the Senator's concerns. I agree with him that Chinese 
proliferation is a serious problem. I disagree with his remedy.
  I would be pleased to work with him next year in trying to move 
serious legislation to fill any gaps that may exist in our 
proliferation laws through the Committee on Foreign Relations--the 
committee of jurisdiction.
  But I believe that it would be extremely unwise to pass this 
legislation, as well-intentioned as it is--because I believe it has so 
many flaws that it is beyond fixing at this late date. This 
legislation, as currently written, would not succeed, and could 
seriously harm our non-proliferation efforts.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Thompson amendment.
  To reiterate, the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from 
Tennessee have made some good arguments but on the wrong bill. If you 
listen to the debate of the proponents, you would assume there is no 
sanction legislation that exists now relative to China. The irony is 
that there is significant sanction legislation on the books now.
  This quarrel is about two things. Half the people who are for this 
amendment are against trade with China. The other half of them--I don't 
mean literally half--are made up of a mix of people, people who are 
against the bill, the permanent trade relations bill which my senior 
colleague is managing, and some who are desperately concerned about the 
prospect of further proliferation by China.
  The truth is, what the real fight should be about is why President 
Bush, President Reagan, and President Clinton have not imposed the laws 
that are on the books now. We don't need any new sanction laws. We 
particularly don't need ones that are so desperately flawed as this 
one, which lowers the threshold so low you can't be certain that, in 
fact, there is proliferation going on, raises so many questions that we 
will spend our time litigating this among ourselves more than we will 
be doing anything about the problem. And further, this is a 
circumstance where I don't think there is anyone on the floor who would 
rise up and criticize this administration if they did what I have 
publicly and privately suggested to them: Impose sanctions now under 
existing law.
  I am sure none of my colleagues would do this but their staffs may. I 
refer them to the last third of my statement where I laid out in detail 
how many laws are on the books now which were enacted relative to 
proliferation: the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare 
Elimination Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994, the 
Foreign Assistance Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the Iran-Iraq Arms 
Nonproliferation Act, the Export-Import Bank Act, which bars financing 
of U.S. exports, the Executive Order No. 12938, which requires the 
Secretary of State to impose certain sanctions, et cetera. All the laws 
are there now. They exist.
  What this is really about is the unwillingness in the minds of our 
colleagues, some of our colleagues, for this administration to once 
again impose sanctions, or the last administration to impose sanctions.
  We became fairly cynical around here because of what happened during 
the terms of the last two Presidents. What was the response to 
documented proliferation by China, for example, during President 
Reagan's term; when China provided nuclear know-how to Pakistan and 
missiles to Saudi Arabia? The U.S. response, under President Reagan, 
was to sell advanced conventional weaponry to the People's Liberation 
Army, torpedoes for its navy, advanced avionics for its air force, and 
counterbattery artillery radars for its army.
  In the Bush administration, China sold missile technology to 
Pakistan. The United States responded by briefly imposing sanctions and 
then subsequently liberalizing export controls on a wide range of high-
technology issues, including the launch of U.S.-made communications 
satellites by China.
  This isn't about whether or not nonproliferation laws exist. It is 
about whether or not we have the will to impose upon the President the 
requirement that he enforce the law now.
  Why not pass a resolution here and now and say that the Senate goes 
on record saying, Mr. President, you should impose sanctions on China 
now? There is enough of a case to do it now. Why not do that, if you 
are really concerned about sanctions? This goes beyond that.
  Everybody knows if this or any other amendment passes attached to 
this bill, the larger issue of trade with China is dead, for this term 
anyway.
  In the brief time I have remaining, let me jump to another point. My 
friends talk about this in terms of--and I don't doubt their 
sincerity--their strategic concerns. They talk about the fact of what 
is going to happen if China sells technology again; what are we going 
to do? The implication being, had we acted on this amendment favorably 
and passed it, then China wouldn't sell any more weapons technology. 
That is a bit of a tautology. They would sell it whether or not this 
amendment is here. The question is what retribution we take and in what 
form we take it.

  I ask the rhetorical question to my friends from Tennessee and New 
Jersey, and others who support this amendment. Right now we are trying 
very hard to deal with two things in North Korea: the existence of 
fissile material that is able to make nuclear bombs, and their ability 
to produce a third stage for their Taepo Dong missile that would allow 
that missile to reach the United States, although it is problematic 
whether they could put a nuclear weapon on it even if it had a third 
stage because of the throw-weight requirements.
  So what have we been doing? Former Secretary of Defense Perry, and 
the last administration as well, have been trying to get the Chinese to 
use their influence on North Korea not to develop long-range missiles. 
And what has happened? It is kind of interesting that the first 
amelioration, the first thawing of the ice came with the Agreed 
Framework during Perry's tenure. The Agreed Framework made sure that 
North Korea would not be able to acquire more fissile material for 
nuclear weapons. They stopped making fissile material. It is working. 
Surprise, surprise.
  The second thing is, because of our intercession with China, at least 
in part, the Chinese had a little altar call, as we say in the southern 
part of my State, with the North Koreans. The North Korean leader, the 
guy we were told was holed up, who is manic depressive, a guy who was 
supposedly schizophrenic, everything else you hear about him, went to 
Beijing. He came back. Guess what. He had a public meeting with South 
Korea. Guess what. He concluded that they would stop testing their 
missile, the third stage of their missile. He further concluded that 
there should be some rapprochement with the south.
  And lo and behold, Kim Jong-il concluded that he, and the North 
Koreans, wants American troops in South Korea. Surprise, surprise. Why? 
They don't want the vacuum filled by an Asian power if we leave. China 
doesn't want North Korea to have a nuclear capacity. It is not in their 
interest for that to occur.
  Now, somebody tell me how we solve the problem of the proliferation 
of sophisticated nuclear weapons on the subcontinent of India, 
including Pakistan and India, as well as China, if we are not engaging 
China. I don't get this. From a strategic standpoint, I don't get how 
this is supposed to accomplish the strategic goal because my

[[Page S8464]]

friend from Tennessee and my friend from New Jersey parse out and make 
a clear distinction between the strategic objective of their amendment 
and the economic objective. They say they have no economic objective. 
Therefore, they are for free trade.
  They don't want to scuttle the trade agreement. They say their 
interest is in the strategic problem of proliferation. I respectfully 
suggest that amendment is not going to, in any way, change China's 
proliferation instincts. What is going to change China's proliferation 
instincts will be a larger engagement with China on what is in our 
mutual interests--discussions about strategic doctrine, national 
missile defense, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. That will effect relations 
with China, potentially, in a positive way.
  Passing this amendment, as my friend from New York said in another 
venue when I was with him yesterday, will be the most serious foreign 
policy mistake we will have made in decades. I share his view. I 
realize it is well intended. My friend from Tennessee says no one has 
an answer as to how we are going to stop China. I don't have an answer, 
but I have a forum in which you do that. It is not in the trade bill. 
It is engaging them in their mutual interests and ours on the future of 
North Korea, and engaging them and making it clear to them that it is 
not in their interest to see India become a nuclear state with multiple 
nuclear warheads and hundreds, if not thousands, of ICBMs. This isn't 
the way to do it.
  I thank my colleagues. I realize my time is up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is a very important vote. It is a 
very important issue. I have been a strong supporter of opening 
relations with China, of opening trade with China, not because China 
has been the kind of ally we would all hope it would be but because I 
have believed that having open trade relations with them would improve 
the relationship; that if we had some leverage in a trade relationship, 
we would be able to ask them and have some leverage for them to have 
fair trade, to recognize intellectual property rights, and to become a 
part of the community of nations.
  But it seems to me we are saying we want free and open trade and 
nothing else should matter; that if we have free and open trade, we 
should not stand up for our national security interests. That is what I 
have been hearing on the floor now for 2 days. If we are going to 
engage China on issues such as North Korea and weapons proliferation to 
Iran and Iraq, as was proposed by the Senator from Delaware, how can we 
engage them if we say, by the vote today, it is not really a big issue 
to us, that weapons proliferation takes second place to trade?
  For me, national security doesn't take second place to anything. I 
think it should be the position of the Senate that we are responsible 
for the national security of our country and that that is our most 
important responsibility. If we know China is sending its nuclear 
formulas to places such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and that that is 
going to put American citizens in direct harm's way and stop the 
balance of power between North and South Korea and make it heavily 
favoring North Korea, are we really going to stand by and say we will 
try to engage them when we have not spoken to them in any way when we 
had the chance to do it, as we do right now? I hope not.
  It has been said that it will kill this bill if we add an amendment. 
I wasn't elected to the Senate to rubber stamp the House of 
Representatives. I wasn't elected by the people of Texas to rubber 
stamp the President. I was elected to the Senate to do what I think is 
right and to fulfill my responsibilities to the people I represent. 
National security is my No. 1 responsibility. If it kills a bill 
because the Senate adds an amendment and allows us to talk to the 
President about it and talk to the House of Representatives, then I 
think that is our role and our responsibility. I reject totally those 
who would say don't vote for this amendment; it is a killer amendment; 
it will kill the bill.
  It will not kill the bill. We have brains. We know we might have to 
compromise in some way, but we want to be forceful that we are not 
going to allow China to spread nuclear weapons of mass destruction 
around the world, especially to rogue nations that would do our country 
wrong. We are not going to stand up and say today, I hope, that we are 
afraid to amend a bill because it might kill it. No, that is not why I 
was elected to the Senate. I was elected to the Senate to do what I 
think is right. I hope the Senate will speak very forcefully today that 
we can work with the House and with the President and we will pass free 
trade with China, with national security addressed. That is the issue.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for their people, as they were 
elected to do. Let's work this out and have a free and fair trade 
agreement that is good for both countries. Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senator Gramm from 
Texas is recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Thompson 
amendment. I oppose it because it is a bad amendment. Its logic is 
flawed. It would hurt America more than it would punish China. Let me 
try to explain why.
  First of all, the Thompson amendment goes far beyond denying China 
access to American dual-use technology that could have defense 
applications. The Thompson amendment would take American capital 
markets and inject politics into them by denying access, for the first 
time, to a nation that is not engaged in a direct conflict with the 
United States of America, under our traditional definition of conflict.
  Some people seem to have the idea that by adopting PNTR we will be 
having a marriage with China--that somehow, because we are endorsing 
normal trade relations with China, we would in effect be endorsing 
Chinese policies on how they treat their workers, how they protect 
religious freedom, how they protect the environment, and how they 
conduct their foreign policy. We are not doing any of those things.

  Every criticism of China that has been made is valid. Senator 
Thompson talked earlier about not wanting to irritate the Chinese. I am 
perfectly willing to irritate the Chinese. But this legislation is 
about establishing normal trade relations--the same relations we have 
with virtually every country in the world except countries directly 
involved in terrorism--with China. We are not talking about a military 
alliance or a political marriage. We are talking only about normal 
trade relations.
  The Thompson amendment to the PNTR bill would impose political 
controls on the American capital market with regard to China. Federal 
Reserve Chairman Greenspan says that the Thompson amendment's financial 
sanctions ``would undercut the viability of our own system and would 
harm us more than it would harm others.'' The Securities and Exchange 
Commission says the Thompson amendment is ``antithetical to the United 
States approach to capital market access and free movement of 
capital.'' The Securities Industry Association, which represents 
securities markets nationwide, says the Thompson amendment ``could 
seriously disrupt investor confidence in United States markets and 
jeopardize their continued vitality, debt and liquidity.''
  Senator Thompson says he wants a vote on his amendment. I have no 
objection to Senator Thompson having a vote. But he doesn't want 
anybody else to have a vote on it. If we are going to consider major 
legislation like the Thompson amendment, as chairman of one of the 
committees with jurisdiction over major elements of that amendment I 
would like to have an opportunity to offer my own amendments to it. I 
know we can get carried away with amendments. And Senator Thompson 
makes a good point. Committees of jurisdiction aren't everything. But I 
think it is important that we get Alan Greenspan and other people who 
understand our financial markets to give us input before we take a 
major step like instituting controls on America's capital markets.
  The capital markets and financial institutions controls in the 
Thompson legislation go against what we have been trying to achieve 
with the Chinese for many years. For years we negotiated with the 
Chinese to get them

[[Page S8465]]

to open their markets to American financial services companies. We want 
citizens in China to be able to own a piece of the rock and to invest 
in retirement accounts in America. Senator Thompson's amendment would 
set up a mechanism to deny them the very rights for which we negotiated 
so long and hard.
  I am not here to endorse China's practices--far from it. I condemn 
their policies with regard to the environment, with regard to their 
workers, with regard to religious freedom, and with regard to 
proliferation. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are 
talking about establishing normal trade relations. And the key point 
is: Does anybody believe any one of these areas of concern will be 
better if we reject PNTR?
  I remind my colleagues that in 1948 there were 23 countries that 
signed the agreement that founded the GATT, now called the WTO. Their 
common goal was to expand economic trade. One of those 23 countries was 
China. But one year later, China turned to the dark side. They wanted 
to remake their society. They wanted to build a ``ladder to heaven.'' 
They wanted to create equality, except for their political leaders. And 
they did it--they made everybody poor. Chinese per capita income 
nosedived. By 1978, Taiwan, which started with fewer economic 
resources, had a per capita income of $1,560 a year. China's was $188. 
Today, Taiwan has a $13,000 per capita income, while China's is just 
$790.
  But the good news is that fifty-two years later, China wants to 
reverse the terrible decision she made back then, and re-enter the 
world of trade. China is turning away from the dark side. She is back 
knocking on the door. Now the question is, Are we going to slam the 
door in their face?
  I say no. Trade promotes freedom. If you are concerned about workers 
rights in China, do you believe that workers will have more rights in a 
growing private sector, where they can work for somebody other than the 
Government? I don't see how you can help but believe that. And if you 
believe it, then you are going to be for normal trade relations with 
China. If you want political and religious freedom in China, then give 
people economic freedom, which ultimately promotes political freedom, 
as we have seen in Korea and in Taiwan. Developing economic growth in 
China, so that people have a stake in economic freedom, will ultimately 
produce a demand on their part for political freedom. And in the 
process they will begin to change China.

  The Thompson amendment is legislation that needs dramatic changes. If 
we don't table this amendment, it is not going to be adopted. We are 
going to offer amendments to it. I would be perfectly happy to see this 
amendment brought up as a freestanding bill, but I want the opportunity 
to debate it and to amend it. Senator Thompson wants to have a vote on 
his legislation, but he doesn't want anybody else to have a vote on 
their amendments to his legislation. I think that is what ultimately 
brought us to where we are now.
  There are security concerns with China. They need to be dealt with. 
But they cannot be dealt with within the context of PNTR, with a bill 
that has never been through a committee, that has never had a hearing 
on its impact, that has not been looked at it to see whether it makes 
sense. Will it do what we want it to do? Will it hurt us more than it 
hurts other people?
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to adopt normal 
trade relations with China. We are not endorsing China. We are trying 
to trade with them. We are trying to promote economic freedom because 
we know economic freedom not only enriches us and them, but ultimately 
produces an irresistible demand by people to have political freedom. 
When they have economic freedom, China will change.
  This is a bad amendment. It is not ready to be adopted. I hope we 
table it. As I said, if we don't table it, we are going to amend it; 
and then we are going to be in a long debate about a subject that is 
relevant and important. But it is a subject that does not have to do 
with establishing normal trade relations with China, which is the point 
of the underlying legislation and which I support.
  I will, therefore, vote to table this amendment. I urge my colleagues 
to do the same. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the end of 
the list of speakers my name be placed next in order to speak not to 
exceed 15 minutes in opposition to the motion to table.
  Mr. ROTH. Reserving the right to object, I must say we have agreed 
that we would have the vote at quarter of 2. If there is any time left 
that I have allotted, I will yield it. It looks to me as if I am not 
going to have any time.
  Mr. BYRD. I wouldn't want to take away the Senator's time.
  Mr. ROTH. I ask the distinguished Senator--I regret the situation has 
developed this way, but we have a number of Senators who are leaving so 
we have fixed a time for the vote specifically at quarter of 2.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I didn't know anything about that agreement 
until I heard it put and accepted.
  Mr. ROTH. I have to object to the request, with all due deference.
  Mr. BYRD. I know the Senator regrets doing that.
  Mr. ROTH. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I will ask for a quorum before the vote that will take 
longer than 15 minutes. I am entitled to that.
  Mr. ROTH. Parliamentary inquiry: Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum call is in order before the vote.
  Mr. ROTH. I ask the Senator from Tennessee to please proceed.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request for the time being so 
the Senator may speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, one brief comment and then I am going to 
yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Ohio.
  I say in response to Senator Gramm, surely I did not hear the basic 
proposition that I would not do something for him on something else and 
therefore he is not going to do something for me? Surely I 
misunderstood that part.
  The only other response I would have is at least the Senator from 
Texas interjected a new way to address this proliferation we are seeing 
coming from China. His response is trade with them and one day we will 
magically wake up and they will be dismantling their armaments; they 
will be quitting selling weapons of mass destruction to these rogue 
nations, and they will be happy and friendly. All we have to do is have 
more and more and more trade, and that will solve the proliferation 
problem.
  When that happens, Mr. President, I will present the tooth fairy on 
the floor of this body.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Thompson-
Torricelli amendment. This amendment will give us more of a chance to 
hold the People's Republic of China, or any nation, accountable for 
proliferating weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver 
them.
  This amendment would not have been necessary had this administration 
shown effective leadership in nonproliferation policy. When the 
administration sat down with China last year to negotiate an agreement 
on China's admission to the World Trade Organization, that was an 
extraordinary opportunity to discuss China's weapons proliferation 
practices. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity to insist that China 
change its ways on proliferation once and for all and advance the 
security of all nations.
  That opportunity, sadly, was lost.
  The bilateral agreement reached between China and the United States 
last November is the price China has to pay for our Nation to agree to 
PNTR and China's admission into the WTO. So the fundamental question is 
this: Have we imposed a high enough price on the Chinese Government? 
Sadly, I think the answer is clearly no.
  Yes, the bilateral agreement arguably is a good economic document for 
both countries. However, it is by no means an acceptable document for 
our own national security. If we are going to sacrifice our annual 
review of normal trade relations with China, then our next President 
and the next Congress must have new tools in place to pursue our 
national security objectives.

[[Page S8466]]

  It is that simple. And that is why we need to adopt the Thompson 
amendment.
  As my colleagues know, China is a signator of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty. Article VI of that treaty states that nuclear 
powers are to:

       . . . pursue negotiations in good faith on effective 
     measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an 
     early date. . . .

  No nation has violated that specific article in the NPT more 
egregiously, more openly, and more willingly in the last decade than 
the People's Republic of China. That is the truth.
  In Asia and the Middle East, our Nation and China hold two 
fundamentally different visions of the future direction of these two 
regions. Right now, China has used its expertise in nuclear and missile 
technology to effectively advance their interests and destabilize the 
region.
  For example, at the beginning of the last decade, Pakistan possessed 
a very modest nuclear weapons program inferior to India's.
  That was then. Now the balance of nuclear power has shifted, and it 
is a far more different and far more dangerous region today.
  In the Middle East, it is the same story. News reports have 
documented China's contributions to Iran's nuclear development, and 
ballistic and cruise missile programs, including anti-ship missiles 
that are a threat to our naval presence and commercial shipping in the 
Persian Gulf. And published news reports say a CIA report issued last 
month confirmed that Chinese Government multinationals are assisting 
the Libyan Government in building a more advanced missile program.
  China certainly does not see our Government as a serious enforcer of 
nonproliferation policy--and why should they? As a result, weapons of 
mass destruction are in far more questionable hands and the world is a 
far more dangerous place.
  The high priority China placed on WTO membership certainly presented 
our Government with an opportunity to reassert its nonproliferation 
credentials.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DeWINE. I ask for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ROTH. I object.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Under the previous order, 
the Senator from Delaware is to be recognized.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, did I not have additional time?
  Mr. ROTH. No, the vote is set for 1:45. But, we are trying to work 
this out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote was to occur at 1:45.
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. ROTH. I ask consent Senator Byrd now be recognized for up to 10 
minutes and, following those remarks, I be recognized in order to make 
a motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I will certainly not object, but I just 
add to that, if I can have 2 additional minutes to finish my comments 
and we can then proceed?
  Mr. ROTH. Unfortunately, we are in a very tight timeframe. I 
respectfully ask the Senator from Ohio to please comply. We must 
proceed. I have tried to satisfy everybody. I ask him not to proceed.
  Mr. DeWINE. I certainly will not object to the request of the 
chairman of the committee. I have enough respect for my colleague, if 
that is what my colleague thinks is absolutely necessary to not object.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we also had a unanimous consent for an 
additional, I think, 5 minutes that was allotted to me. I think the 
Senator from Ohio should be given at least an additional 2 minutes, if 
that is the case. I certainly agree Senator Byrd should be given some 
time. There is no reason why we cannot work this out.
  Mr. ROTH. Let me say to the distinguished Senator, I am yielding my 5 
minutes. I am not speaking.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I am not speaking either, and I will yield the 
remainder of my time after the Senator from Ohio is finished. I will 
yield the remainder of any time I have.
  Mr. ROTH. All right. We will let the Senator from Ohio have--what is 
it, 2 minutes?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we can make up for this lost opportunity 
by passing this amendment. It is vitally important, I believe, that we 
do this and we move forward.
  This amendment is not just about holding other nations accountable as 
proliferators, it is also about holding our President accountable as 
the world's principal nonproliferation enforcer.
  With this amendment, Congress would receive a comprehensive report 
each year from the President about the proliferation practices of other 
nations. This report would require comprehensive information on 
proliferation practices, how these acts threaten our national security, 
and what actions are being taken by the President in response to these 
violations.
  This reporting requirement will prevent future administrations from 
repeating the approach taken by the current administration, which ran 
and hid from our nonproliferation laws and responsibilities.
  The amendment of the Senator from Tennessee would dramatically 
improve the PNTR legislation. I say this because PNTR is not just about 
trade--it is about U.S. foreign policy. We cannot let our trade policy 
with China supercede our national security policy. The lessons learned 
from the Cox Commission were clear: foreign policy and national 
security policy must drive trade policy and not the other way around.
  I ask my colleagues: Have we asked enough of China? Has this 
administration done enough to advance our foreign affairs with China? I 
believe the answer to both is a resounding ``no.'' The Thompson-
Torricelli amendment gives the Senate a chance to insist on more from 
China and more from this administration. If both China and future 
administrations are going to take this Senate seriously as a clear and 
strong voice in our national security policy, we should stand together 
to support this amendment.
  I thank my colleagues, I thank my colleague from Tennessee, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Senator Fred 
Thompson and Senator Torricelli. They are speaking the people's 
language. They are talking plain, commonsense. They are right in 
offering this amendment.
  Senator Thompson is asking that we in this Senate pay attention to 
the national security concerns of this Nation, asking that we put 
national security ahead of greed. What is wrong with that? He is asking 
that we put the national security of the United States of America ahead 
of election-year politics.
  What is the matter with this Senate? Can we not see the handwriting 
on the wall?
  The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--nuclear weapons, 
ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons--is a growing 
menace to world stability. Can we not see that? The acquisition of 
nuclear weapons by such rogue nations as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq is 
the driving force behind the costly and complicated effort by the 
United States to deploy a national missile defense system. Can we not 
see that?
  The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is forcing the 
nations of the world, including the United States, to reevaluate their 
own national security and to confront once again the nightmarish 
possibility of nuclear war. Can we not see that?
  The main perpetrators behind the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction are China, Russia, and North Korea. According to the 
Central Intelligence Agency, in a report to Congress released last 
month, this unholy trinity of proliferators were the key contributors 
to the pipeline of ballistic missile related supplies and assistance 
going into the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa.
  It seems ludicrous to me that we would even consider standing here 
and debating the merits of extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations 
status

[[Page S8467]]

to the People's Republic of China without addressing the issue of 
China's leading role in the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction. The Thompson-Torricelli amendment, of which I am a 
cosponsor, is essential to tightening our scrutiny of and control over 
the illegitimate trafficking in weapons of mass destruction by Chinese 
entities.
  What weak dishwater is the excuse that we cannot add anything to the 
House-passed bill that would force a conference that might make some 
members of the House uncomfortable. What a sorry spectacle is a Senate 
completely cowed by the possibility that we might upset the Chinese if 
we add this provision.
  What a travesty that the Secretary of Defense is reported to be 
calling Senators to oppose an amendment that puts the Chinese on notice 
about their egregious actions regarding the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction--weapons that threaten the safety of the planet.

  I care nothing about a President's legacy if this is the price. I 
care nothing about profits for multinational companies if this is the 
price.
  I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the Unites States 
against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and so did every other 
member of this body. Are we to tear up that oath for the election-year 
politics and greed?
  Do we think that the American people are watching this debate with 
pride today? Do we think the American people are willing to auction off 
this Nation's security interests for the low bid of a Chinese promise 
to reduce tariffs?
  China's string of broken promises is longer than its Great Wall.
  We are talking here about the wanton export of nuclear weapons, of 
chemical weapons, of biological weapons and of long-range missiles. And 
what do we hear as a defense against addressing such dangerous and 
diabolical behavior? We hear the tepid, water-logged response that such 
action we might take would endanger passage of this trade bill.
  I have been in legislative bodies for 54 years, Mr. President. This 
is the first time I have ever seen anything such as this. When I was in 
the House of Delegates in West Virginia, I objected to being bound by a 
caucus, and I have never yet intended to be bound by any cabal or any 
commitment that, regardless of what the merits may be on a given 
amendment, we will vote against it. I have never seen that happen. I 
have never been one to believe in that approach.
  I say to my friend from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, the world's 
greatest deliberative body is quaking and wringing its hands over an 
amendment that would send a shot over the bow of the rogue elephant 
behavior of the Chinese.
  We tremble at the thought of Chinese displeasure. Our lips quiver at 
the thought of displeasing big business or the president of the Chamber 
of Commerce or Cabinet members of the Clinton administration or the 
President himself as they dial for dollars and for votes. Those of us 
who refuse to roll over like good dogs just don't get it. We know that 
the fix is in on this fight, but we just keep slugging anyway. Maybe we 
will land a good punch or two if we fight on. Maybe the powers that be 
in China will notice there were some in the Senate who refused to 
legitimize China's outrageous disregard for the safety of the world by 
handing them the trophy of PNTR. Thank God for the likes of Senator 
Paul Wellstone, Senator Fred Thompson, Senator Fritz Hollings, and 
Senator Bob Torricelli, and the 33 brave souls--33 brave souls, I want 
you to know--who dared to vote with me on a couple of modest amendments 
to this ill-advised trade bill. I thank them.
  I believe the American people know what we are trying to do, and I 
believe they will put patriotism over pandering for profit any day.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an item from the New 
York Times titled ``Wavering Senators Feeling Pressure on China Trade 
Bill.'' I will have more to say about that later.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 13, 2000]

         Wavering Senators Feeling Pressure on China Trade Bill

                           (By Eric Schmitt)

       Washington, Sept. 12.--Corporate leaders and several of 
     President Clinton's cabinet officers intensified pressure 
     today on wavering senators to reject an amendment that could 
     jeopardize passage this year of a trade bill with China.
       As the Senate girds for a crucial vote on the measure this 
     week, supporters of legislation to establish permanent normal 
     trading relations with China are pressing for a bill free of 
     amendments. Those supporters say there is not enough time 
     before Election Day to reconcile an amended Senate bill with 
     the version that the House passed in May.
       At a White House meeting with Congressional leaders today, 
     Mr. Clinton urged speedy approval of an unamended bill. The 
     measure is one of his top remaining foreign policy goals and 
     a necessary step for American companies to benefit fully from 
     a deal reached last year by the United States and China that 
     paves the way for China's entry into the World Trade 
     Organization. That 135-member trade group sets rules for 
     global commerce.
       At issue is an amendment sponsored by Senators Fred 
     Thompson, Republican of Tennessee, and Robert G. Torricelli, 
     Democrat of New Jersey, that would impose sanctions on 
     Chinese companies if they were caught exporting nuclear, 
     chemical or biological weapons or long-range missiles.
       Defense Secretary William S. Cohen; Treasury Secretary 
     Lawrence H. Summers; Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, 
     Samuel R. Berger; and the United States trade representative, 
     Charlene Barshefsky, began telephoning senators today, 
     arguing that the amendment would not only imperil the trade 
     bill, but would also actually hamper American efforts to 
     combat the spread of sophisticated weaponry.
       Senate aides negotiated the timing of votes. Senators could 
     take up Mr. Thompson's amendment on Wednesday or Thursday. 
     Final passage of the overall bill, which has overwhelming 
     support, could occur as early as Friday or as late as next 
     Tuesday.
       China will enter the W.T.O. no matter how the Senate votes. 
     But without Congress's blessing, Beijing could withhold some 
     of the trade benefits, including lower tariffs, from the 
     American farmers and companies that it will extend to other 
     members in the trade group.
       Thomas J. Donohue, president of the United States Chamber 
     of Commerce, warned of retribution against senators who 
     support the Thompson-Torricelli measure.
       ``Should this vote get tangled up in the politics of 
     nuclear proliferation and other amendments to the extent that 
     it might not be passed,'' Mr. Donohue said, ``I think that 
     would have a very serious political implication for those who 
     were a party to that action.''
       Senators easily dispatched several other amendments today, 
     including those on prison labor and human rights in China, as 
     well as subsidies from Beijing to Chinese companies. But on 
     the floor and in news conferences, the focus was on the 
     Thompson-Torricelli amendment. ``This is the vote on 
     P.N.T.R.,'' Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana said as 
     he used the bill's abbreviation.
       Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, 
     stated that opponents ``have the votes to defeat Senator 
     Thompson's amendment.''
       Even Mr. Thompson acknowledged that he faced an uphill 
     battle. ``We've always known it was going to be a tough 
     vote,'' Mr. Thompson told reporters. ``A lot of people are 
     saying they would like to vote for it. But since it is on 
     P.N.T.R., they're afraid it will complicate P.N.T.R.''
       Supporters said the measure was necessary to clamp down on 
     Chinese exports of sophisticated weaponry to Iran, Libya, 
     North Korea and Pakistan.
       ``What is especially troubling about the Chinese activities 
     is that this sensitive assistance is going to the most 
     dangerous nations in the most volatile areas of the world,'' 
     said Mr. Torricelli.
       Backers of the amendment scoffed at fears that amending the 
     bill would doom the larger bill this year. ``To say we cannot 
     amend a bill that has been passed by the House would be the 
     height of irresponsibility,'' said Senator Kay Bailey 
     Hutchison, Republican of Texas.
       But amendment critics, including farm-state Republicans, 
     said it was senseless to jeopardize a trade bill that would 
     lower barriers to China's vast markets. ``Approval for this 
     bill will keep the United States economically and 
     diplomatically engaged with one-fifth of the world's 
     population,'' said Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas. 
     ``I cannot support a redundant and counterproductive 
     amendment that would effectively kill this legislation.''

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I close by thanking Senator Roth, Senator 
Moynihan, and other Senators who have been so considerate and 
courteous. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I spoke at length about my opposition to the 
Thompson amendment on Monday. But I want to briefly reiterate that I 
believe this amendment, while well-intentioned, is seriously flawed. In 
particular, this legislation relies on unilateral sanctions that are 
too widely drawn and too loosely conceived to prove effective in 
countering proliferation. In a global economy, shutting off

[[Page S8468]]

Chinese and Russian access to American goods, agricultural and capital 
markets will not change Chinese or Russian behavior. Indeed, such 
actions would isolate the United States, not China, giving our 
competitors an open road to the world's biggest nation and fastest-
growing market.
  And make no mistake about it: though there have been changes to the 
bill to reduce the impact on farmers, virtually every member of the 
farming community--from the Alabama Farmers Federation to the National 
Chicken Council--has said in a letter that they are absolutely against 
the Thompson amendment. Moreover, for the first time, U.S. securities 
markets will be used as a sanctioning tool. That's why Alan Greenspan 
opposes this legislation.
  The unilateral sanctions in this amendment are also indiscriminate in 
their application and could be applied to some of our closest allies, 
such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and France. Surely such 
actions will make future multilateral cooperation--which is absolutely 
essential to solving proliferation problems--far more difficult. 
Another problem with this amendment is that even though the President 
is theoretically able to waive sanctions, Congress gains the power to 
overturn the President's waiver through a procedure exactly the same as 
the counterproductive one we currently use in annually renewing normal 
trade relations with China.
  In addition, the evidentiary standard used to trigger sanctions, one 
of ``credible information,'' is too low. Surely, critical national 
security actions should be based on a higher standard, especially when 
they are could very well be applied to our closest allies. It also 
appears that the Thompson amendment could have a disastrous effect on 
our Cooperative Threat Reduction Program--better known as the Nunn-
Lugar Program--with Russia and Russian entities.
  Section 4 of the Thompson amendment contains language that would ban 
Nunn-Lugar assistance to any Russian entity identified in the report 
required by the amendment of the President. And so this amendment could 
actually have the perverse effect of decreasing our ability to stem 
proliferation problems in Russia. The Thompson amendment also raises 
serious constitutional concerns. For example, Congress' disapproval of 
the President's determination could result in severe sanctions against 
persons for actions that were perfectly legal when taken. The ex post 
facto effect raises serious due process questions. The standard of 
proof, which could result in sanctions against individual U.S. citizens 
based on suspicions, rather than proof, raises separate due process 
concerns. The congressional disapproval procedures raise separation of 
powers problems. In reversing the President's determinations regarding 
sanctions, Congress will, in effect, implicitly be second-guessing the 
exercise of the President's prosecutorial discretion.
  Proliferation is a matter of vital national interest. I applaud my 
friend from Tennessee for raising this issue, and I hope he will 
continue his work in this critical area next year, when I hope we can 
come to agreement on a measure that will gain the support of an 
overwhelming majority of this Chamber. But I must urge all my 
colleagues to join me in opposing the Thompson amendment.
  Mr. President, I move to table the Thompson amendment No. 4132, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 242 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mack
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Collins
     Conrad
     DeWine
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka
     Gorton
     Lieberman
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. 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 Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I think under the 
order, my colleague and friend from North Carolina is to be recognized 
to offer an amendment at this juncture. I have had a brief discussion 
with my colleague from North Carolina. I don't know whether I need to 
ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes prior to Senator Helms 
being recognized or not in order to achieve that result. May I inquire 
what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Recognition of the Senator from North Carolina 
is to occur at 2:30. The Senator from Connecticut has the floor.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Does the Senator from Connecticut need the full 10 
minutes? I wanted to speak for a few minutes as in morning business if 
he didn't need it all.
  Mr. DODD. If the Chair will inform the Senator from Connecticut when 
8 minutes have transpired, I will leave a couple minutes for my friend 
from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I intended to offer these remarks prior to 
the consideration of the Thompson-Torricelli amendment, but time did 
not permit it. I am pleased with the outcome of the vote in this 
Chamber regarding the Thompson amendment. I do regret, in a sense, that 
we had to take the vote. I am concerned that the powers that be in the 
People's Republic of China, or elsewhere, may misread the vote as 
somehow rejection of our concern on the issue of nuclear proliferation. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. This vote that occurred is 
obviously one where most of us felt very deeply that the underlying 
agreement is of critical importance, as is the subject matter of the 
amendment offered by our friends and colleagues from Tennessee and New 
Jersey. But it is the strong view of many of us that this was an 
unrelated matter and the amendment, as drawn, was flawed in several 
respects.
  Specifically, the amendment called for the imposition of unilateral 
sanctions against the People's Republic of China, Russia, and North 
Korea for past and prospective proliferation activities. Although the 
amendment did give the President the authority to waive these sanctions 
under certain circumstances, it also provides for the congressional 
challenge of the President's use of that authority under expedited 
procedures. Clearly, the issue the sponsors sought to address in this 
amendment is a deeply serious one, with significant national security 
and foreign policy implications.
  I, for one, would not attempt to stand here and argue that the 
People's Republic of China, or North Korea, or Russia, or several other 
nations for that matter, have always steadfastly adhered to the 
international standards

[[Page S8469]]

set forth in the existing multilateral nonproliferation agreements and 
arms control regimes. Nor would I suggest that China does not have the 
same obligations that every other nation has to ensure that its exports 
of sensitive nuclear weapons-related technology to North Korea, Iran, 
Libya, and other states seeking to acquire such dangerous weapons 
capability cease to occur.
  I do wonder, however, whether the underlying legislation is the 
appropriate place to be having a debate about an issue that is, after 
all, a global problem that goes well beyond our trade relations with 
one nation.
  Nor is the is problem likely to be solved by our simply legislating 
sanctions against one country or another. This is a multilateral 
problem that isn't going to be contained without meaningful cooperation 
and the involvement of all nations with a stake in containing the 
spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
  I am also fearful that whichever way the vote turned out--and in this 
case it was defeated--it will be misinterpreted by those who want to 
believe that the U.S., and specifically the U.S. Senate, does not care 
about the issue of nuclear proliferation, and therefore potential 
proliferators are free to do whatever they want.

  I don't believe that is an accurate nor wise message to be sending. 
Nor do I think it serves to further international nuclear 
nonproliferation cooperation.
  As to the specifics of the amendment just adopted, I am puzzled by 
how the sponsors have chosen to approach what is, after all, a global 
problem. They have chosen to single out three countries--China, Russia, 
and North Korea--for their participation in proliferation activities, 
while effectively ignoring similar actions taken by other smaller 
nations. The list is much larger than those three nations. Any action 
taken should be global in its focus.
  I also don't understand why our existing nuclear nonproliferation 
laws don't provide at least what I believe for the time being 
sufficient authority to the President to respond accordingly to 
violations of international nonproliferation standards by China or any 
other potential exporter.
  These laws include: the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, Arms Export 
Control Act, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Export 
Administration Act, Chemical and Biological Weapons Control Elimination 
Act, Iran-Iraq Nonproliferation Act, Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 
Act, and the Iran Proliferation Act of 2000. These laws cover a full 
range of dangerous proliferation activities.
  The mechanics of the amendment just rejected also gave me great 
pause. The low evidentiary standards in the amendment could 
automatically trigger a number of mandatory unilateral sanctions that 
would ultimately hurt, or could hurt, our foreign policy, economic, and 
technological interests. We must ensure that only those who traffic in 
arms are affected by those sanctions.
  Proliferation is a very delicate and complex issue that affects our 
economic and foreign policy agendas. Ensuring the fullest cooperation 
of all the major participants in this sector is by its very nature a 
dynamic process with significant diplomatic ramifications. Attempting 
to legislate the mechanics of this effort is akin to attempting to 
perform brain surgery with a hacksaw, in my view.
  China has problems--serious ones--with proliferation. Nobody here is 
going to claim that China is a benevolent democracy, and I am sure we 
all agree that there is much China must do to meet the standards we 
expect of civilized nations who are going to join the World Trade 
Organization. Yet, I also believe we should recognize that there has 
been some positive movement in this area.
  Recent efforts at U.S. engagement have resulted in China joining a 
number of major multilateral arms control regimes in assisting us to 
defuse a nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula, and in participating 
constructively in international efforts to contain the escalating arms 
race between India and Pakistan.
  How can we build on that progress? Are we going to do it by denying 
China PNTR or mandating the imposition of unilateral sanctions? Surely, 
there has to be a better way to encourage additional cooperation from 
Chinese authorities in this area.
  I respectfully suggest that the Thompson amendment should not be 
misinterpreted because, as important as it is, it would be misguided, 
in my view, to include it as was attempted in this particular 
legislation. There is a far greater chance that we are going to get the 
kind of cooperation as a result of China being a part of the World 
Trade Organization than isolating them further.
  I hope we will have another opportunity to address the proliferation 
issue. It is one that needs to be addressed. This would have been the 
wrong place.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for me to deliver my remarks seated at my desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 4128

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, during the course of the Senate's 
consideration of handing China the permanent most favored nation 
status--that is what it amounts to; just giving it to them--several of 
us have highlighted the abhorrent human rights record of the Communist 
Chinese Government.
  China's practice of forcing its women citizens to submit to abortions 
and/or sterilization--usually both--is not only revolting; it is 
shameful, because it is a practice that has been repeatedly documented 
for 20 years now. In fact, the most recent State Department Human 
Rights Report on China contains a detailed account of the cruel, 
coercive measures used by Chinese officials, such as forced abortion, 
forced sterilization, and detention of those who even dare to resist 
this inhumane treatment.
  My pending amendment proposes to put the Senate on record as 
condemning the Chinese dictatorship's barbaric treatment of its own 
people.
  Although the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party officially 
says--and I say absurdly says, and they say it--that forced abortion 
has no role in China's population control, it is, to the contrary, a 
known fact that the Chinese Government does indeed, absolutely, and 
without question, force women to submit to forced abortion and to 
sterilization. Communist Chinese authorities strictly enforce birth 
quotas imposed on its citizens. They pay rewards to informants tattling 
on the women for having more than one child while making certain that 
local population control officials using coercion are left absolutely 
unrestrained in the way they conduct themselves.
  For example, I have in hand reports of this cruel situation from many 
Chinese citizens. I received this information in my capacity as 
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. These citizens have 
witnessed firsthand countless episodes of this bloody cruelty. A 
defector from China's population control program testified before a 
House International Relations Committee hearing in June a couple of 
years ago that the Central Government policy in China strongly 
encourages local officials to use every conceivable coercive tactic in 
enforcing the one-child policy. They have described to me in person the 
results of women crying and begging for mercy simply because they were 
prepared to deliver a child.
  Furthermore, Communist China's population control officials routinely 
punish women who have conceived a child without Government 
authorization. They subject the women to extreme psychological 
pressures, enormous fines which they can't possibly pay, along with the 
loss of their jobs, and with all sorts of other physical threats.
  If women in China dare to resist the population control policy on 
religious grounds, they have to confront especially gruesome 
punishment. Amnesty International reported to us, and publicly, that 
Catholic women in two villages were subjected to torture, to sexual 
abuse, and to the detention of their relatives for daring to resist 
China's population program.

[[Page S8470]]

  Very credible reports indicate that if ``these'' methods aren't 
enough to convince women in China to abide by the regime's population 
control program, forced abortions are carried out publicly in the very 
late stages of pregnancy.
  I think it was back in 1994 when it began. Since that time, forced 
abortion has been used in Communist China not only to regulate the 
number of children born but under the policy known as the ``Natal and 
Health Care Law,'' pregnancies are terminated on a mandatory basis if a 
Government bureaucrat arbitrarily declares that an unborn child is 
defective. Nobody checks on him. He doesn't have to present any 
evidence. He just says the child is defective. That is it.
  I believe it is common knowledge that I am a resolute defender of the 
sanctity of life. I have tried to do that ever since I have been a 
Senator, and prior to that time. But the pending amendment is not 
merely about life; it seems to me it is about liberty. Bureaucrats 
terrorizing women into unwanted abortions or medical operations 
permanently depriving them of their capability to have children, it 
seems to me, is the ultimate appalling affront to freedom.
  My pending amendment urges the President to ask the Chinese 
Government to stop this ungodly practice. My amendment also calls on 
the President to urge the Chinese Government to stop putting Chinese 
women in jail whose crime is resisting abortion of a child or 
sterilization.
  I think this is a modest measure. It doesn't condition PNTR on 
China's Government changing its abhorrent behavior. It simply asks the 
President of the United States to say to the Chinese that we want to 
defend the rights of women in China and ask the Chinese officials to 
see that that happens.
  The question that comes to my mind is, Can the Senate proceed to 
award China with permanent trade privileges while refusing to express 
our revulsion at a basic violation of women's freedom?
  The amendment I shall propose and call up in just a moment will not 
at all endanger passage of PNTR. We need not worry about that. I don't 
think PNTR ought to be approved at this time. But this amendment will 
not forbid or do any danger to the enactment of PNTR. It will simply be 
a matter of the Senate doing and saying the right thing before it 
happens.


                           Amendment No. 4128

 (Purpose: To express the Sense of Congress regarding forced abortions 
                   in the People's Republic of China)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 4128.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4128:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 702. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FORCED ABORTIONS IN 
                   CHINA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Forced abortion was rightly denounced as a crime 
     against humanity by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.
       (2) For more than 18 years there have been frequent, 
     consistent, and credible reports of forced abortion and 
     forced sterilization in the People's Republic of China. These 
     reports indicate the following:
       (A) Although it is the stated position of the politburo of 
     the Chinese Communist Party that forced abortion has no role 
     in the population control program, in fact the Communist 
     Chinese Government encourages forced abortion and forced 
     sterilization through a combination of strictly enforced 
     birth quotas, rewards for informants, and impunity for local 
     population control officials who engage in coercion.
       (B) A recent defector from the population control program, 
     testifying at a congressional hearing on June 10, 1998, made 
     clear that central government policy in China strongly 
     encourages local officials to use coercive methods.
       (C) Population control officials of the People's Republic 
     of China, in cooperation with employers and works unit 
     officials, routinely monitor women's menstrual cycles and 
     subject women who conceive without government authorization 
     to extreme psychological pressure, to harsh economic 
     sanctions, including unpayable fines and loss of employment, 
     and often to physical punishment.
       (D) Especially harsh punishments have been inflicted on 
     those whose resistance is motivated by religion. According to 
     a 1995 Amnesty International report, the Catholic inhabitants 
     of 2 villages in Hebei Province were subjected to enforcement 
     measures including torture, sexual abuse, and the detention 
     of resisters' relatives as hostages.
       (E) Forced abortions in Communist China often have taken 
     place in the very late stages of pregnancy, including 
     numerous examples of actual infanticide.
       (F) Since 1994 forced abortion has been used in Communist 
     China not only to regulate the number of children, but also 
     to destroy those who are regarded as defective because of 
     physical or mental disabilities in accordance with the 
     official eugenic policy known as the ``Natal and Health Care 
     Law''.
       (3) According to every annual State Department Country 
     Report on Human Rights Practices for the People's Republic of 
     China since 1983, Chinese officials have used coercive 
     measures such as forced abortion, forced sterilization, and 
     detention of resisters.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the President should urge the People's Republic of 
     China to cease its forced abortion and forced sterilization 
     policies and practices; and
       (2) the President should urge the People's Republic of 
     China to cease its detention of those who resist abortion or 
     sterilization.

  Mr. HELMS. I thank the clerk. I thank the Chair.
  I ask for the yeas and nays. I don't believe I will be able to get 
them at this moment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I simply want to inquire about how much 
time I have remaining on my side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 21 minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for 
me to request and to receive a rollcall on the pending amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. Reserving the right to object, I think the hope is that we 
will set the vote aside and have several votes later.
  Mr. HELMS. Do I have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. I say to the distinguished chairman that I am aware of 
that and I favor it. However, I do want to get the yeas and nays on my 
amendment. The scheduling of a whole series of amendments suits me just 
fine.
  Mr. ROTH. We join the Senator in asking for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
China's record on family planning and its use of forced abortion is 
indefensible. The country's policy violates the most fundamental human 
rights. That is why the United States does not contribute funds 
directly or indirectly to China's family planning programs.
  My good friend and distinguished colleague from North Carolina is to 
be commended for bringing the matter of Chinese forced abortions to our 
attention. I do not oppose his amendment on its merits. I only oppose 
it as an amendment to H.R. 4444.
  As I said, if PNTR is amended, a conference and another round of 
votes on H.R. 4444 will be necessary, likely destroying any chance for 
PNTR. Therefore, I must ask that my colleagues join me in voting 
against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one yields time, time will be equally 
charged on both sides.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, we have a Senator on the way to the Chamber 
to speak on the pending amendment. I suggest, to save time, the pending 
amendment be laid aside temporarily so I can call up a second 
amendment.

[[Page S8471]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator making a unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and I hope 
everyone will agree to the unanimous consent--to lay aside the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I wish to renew my request that it be in 
order for me to be seated during the presentation of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4123

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Commerce to consult with leaders 
of American businesses to encourage them to adopt a code of conduct for 
           doing business in the People's Republic of China)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4123 and ask it be 
stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4123.
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. __. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BUSINESSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Chief Executive of Viacom media corporation told 
     the Fortune Global Forum, a gathering of hundreds of 
     corporate leaders in Shanghai to celebrate the 50th 
     anniversary of communism in China in September 1999, that 
     Western media groups ``should avoid being unnecessarily 
     offensive to the Chinese government. We want to do business. 
     We cannot succeed in China without being a friend of the 
     Chinese people and the Chinese government.''.
       (2) The owner of Fox and Star TV networks has gained favor 
     with the Chinese leadership in part by dropping programming 
     and publishing deals that offend the Communist Government of 
     China, including the book by the last British Governor of 
     Hong Kong.
       (3) The Chief Executive of Time Warner, which owns the 
     Fortune company that organized the Global Forum, called Jiang 
     Zemin his ``good friend'' as he introduced Jiang to make the 
     keynote speech at the conference. Jiang went on to threaten 
     force against Taiwan and to warn that comments by the West on 
     China's abysmal human rights record were not welcome.
       (4) The Chief Executive of American International Group was 
     reported to be so effusive in his praise of China's economic 
     progress at the Global Forum that one Chinese official 
     described his remarks as ``not realistic''.
       (5) The founder of Cable News Network, one of the world's 
     richest men, told the Global Forum that ``I am a socialist at 
     heart.''.
       (6) During the Global Forum, Chinese leaders banned an 
     issue of Time magazine (owned by Time-Warner, the host of the 
     Global Forum) marking the 50th anniversary of communism in 
     China, because the issue included commentaries by dissidents 
     Wei Jingsheng, Wang Dan, and the Dalai Lama. China also 
     blocked the web sites of Time Warner's Fortune magazine and 
     CNN.
       (7) Chinese officials denied Fortune the right to invite 
     Chinese participants to the Global Forum and instead padded 
     the guest list with managers of state-run firms.
       (8) At the forum banquet, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji lashed 
     out at the United States for defending Taiwan.
       (9) On June 5, 2000, China's number two phone company, 
     Unicom, broke an agreement with the Qualcomm Corporation by 
     confirming that it will not use mobile-phone technology 
     designed by Qualcomm for at least 3 years, causing a sharp 
     sell off of the United States company's stock.
       (10) When the Taiwanese pop singer Ah-mei, who appeared in 
     advertisements for Sprite in China, agreed to sing Taiwan's 
     national anthem at Taiwan's May 20, 2000, presidential 
     inauguration, Chinese authorities immediately notified the 
     Coca-Cola company that its Ah-mei Sprite ads would be banned.
       (11) The company's director of media relations said that 
     the Coca-Cola Company was ``unhappy'' about the ban, but ``as 
     a local business, would respect the authority of local 
     regulators and we will abide by their decisions''.
       (12) In 1998, Apple Computer voluntarily removed images of 
     the Dalai Lama from its ``Think Different'' ads in Hong Kong, 
     stating at the time that ``where there are political 
     sensitivities, we did not want to offend anyone''.
       (13) In 1997, the Massachusetts-based Internet firm, 
     Prodigy, landed an investment contract in China by agreeing 
     to comply with China's Internet rules which provide for 
     censoring any political information deemed unacceptable to 
     the Communist government.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of Senate that in 
     order for the presence of United States businesses to truly 
     foster political liberalization in China, those businesses 
     must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects basic 
     American values of democracy, individual liberty, and 
     justice.
       (c) Consultation Required.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce 
     shall consult with American businesses that do business in, 
     have significant trade with, or invest in the People's 
     Republic of China, to encourage the businesses to adopt a 
     voluntary code of conduct that--
       (1) follows internationally recognized human rights 
     principles, including freedom of expression and democratic 
     governance;
       (2) ensures that the employment of Chinese citizens is not 
     discriminatory in terms of sex, ethnic origin, or political 
     belief;
       (3) ensures that no convict, forced, or indentured labor is 
     knowingly used;
       (4) supports the principle of a free market economy and 
     ownership of private property;
       (5) recognizes the rights of workers to freely organize and 
     bargain collectively; and
       (6) discourages mandatory political indoctrination on 
     business premises.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending amendment proposes that the 
Secretary of Commerce be requested to consult with American businesses 
on drafting and adopting a voluntary code of conduct for doing business 
in China. Such a voluntary code of conduct would follow internationally 
recognized human rights, work against discrimination and forced labor, 
support the principles of free enterprise and the rights of workers to 
organize, and discourage mandatory political indoctrination in the 
workplace.
  The purpose of this amendment is this: So often in this debate, the 
argument has been advanced that only by exposing the Chinese Government 
and the Chinese people to our values through expanded trade and 
investment can we hope to bring about political change in China, and 
the only way we can help that desired achievement is to do as the 
amendment proposes.
  I have always been skeptical about this because businesses are not in 
the business of expanding democracy. I am not going to comment on what 
the businesses support in PNTR and the way it is being supported. Be 
that as it may, businesses exist, quite frankly, to make money. I 
certainly have no problem with that. But let's be honest on the process 
of what we are doing here in this Senate Chamber. American businesses, 
even if viewed in the most charitable light, are not likely to lift a 
finger to promote democracy in China. Unfortunately, it is difficult to 
view some of the American businesses charitably when we examine their 
attitude toward China. If I step on some toes here, I am sorry, but I 
believe I must have my say for the benefit of the Senate.
  The powerful lure of potential huge Chinese markets has obviously 
clouded the judgment of some of our top companies and some of their 
executives. With regret, I have concluded that some of America's top 
businesses have been willing to supplicate to the Communist Government 
of China, hoping that the Chinese Government will allow them someday to 
make a profit there.
  I want the Senate to consider the following statements and actions by 
American businesses in China, which are stated as findings in the 
pending amendment:
  No. 1, the chief executive of Viacom media corporation told the 
Fortune Global Forum, a September 1999 gathering of hundreds of 
corporate leaders in Shanghai gathered to celebrate--get this--the 50th 
anniversary of communism in China--They gathered to celebrate the fact 
that western media groups, ``should avoid being unnecessarily offensive 
to the Chinese Government.''

  No. 2, the owner of Fox and Star TV networks has repeatedly gained 
favor with the Chinese leadership by dropping programming and 
publishing deals that offend the Communist Government of China, 
including a book written by the last British Governor of Hong Kong.
  No. 3, the Chief Executive of American International Group was 
reported to be so effusive in his praise of China's economic progress 
at this global forum that one Communist Chinese official described the 
remarks as ``not realistic.''
  No. 4, the founder of CNN, one of the world's wealthiest men, proudly 
told the global forum, ``I am a socialist at heart.''
  No. 5, in 1998, Apple Computer voluntarily removed images of the 
Dalai Lama from its ``Think Different'' ads in Hong Kong, stating at 
the time,

[[Page S8472]]

``Where there are political sensitivities, we did not want to offend 
anyone.''
  No. 7, in 1997, the Massachusetts-based Internet firm, Prodigy, 
landed an investment contract in China by agreeing to comply with 
China's Internet rules which provide for censoring any political 
information--now get this--``deemed unacceptable to the Communist 
government.''
  I am forced to wonder if some of our business leaders understand what 
they are doing when they make such statements and make such decisions. 
Obviously, they are trying to curry favor with the Communist Government 
of China in which they aim to do business. But isn't there a limit to 
what they would do to accomplish what they seek? To say things that are 
so clearly untrue, or to agree to self-censorship when some of them are 
in the media business, it seems to me, undermines the ultimate goal of 
these companies--their higher profits--by legitimizing a Communist 
government that manifestly does not even believe in the free enterprise 
system.
  In any event, some U.S. businesses certainly did not seem to get a 
very good return on their investment of goodwill. Just consider how the 
Chinese Government repaid Time-Warner, for example. At the very moment 
that Time-Warner was sponsoring a conference in Shanghai for American 
business leaders to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Chinese 
communism, Chinese leaders banned the then-current issue of Time 
magazine, which is owned, of course, by Time-Warner. They removed it 
from the Chinese news stands--because of what? Because that issue 
happened to include commentaries by some Chinese dissidents and by the 
Dalai Lama. Then China blocked the web sites of Time Warner's Fortune 
magazine, as well as CNN, the founder of which is a self-described 
socialist. I didn't say it; he said it.
  Chinese officials denied the conference organizers the right to 
invite certain Chinese participants to the forum. Instead, the Chinese 
leaders padded the guest list with managers of--what? Chinese-run 
firms.
  That is the way they do business over there. That is the crowd that 
everybody in this country seems to be clamoring to bow and scrape to.
  I have to say this for the Chinese leaders: at least they stood up at 
the banquet at the conclusion of the conference and harshly lashed out 
at the United States for daring to speak about human rights while in 
Communist China, and for defending democratic Taiwan, of course.
  So I wonder if our corporate executives woke up the next morning 
feeling a little bit underappreciated. But even if they did not, one 
thing is for certain. This type of attitude and conduct by American 
businessmen will never, never, never promote democracy in China, let 
alone participate in causing it to come about. If the presence of 
American businesses truly purports to aid in bringing democracy to 
China, then those businesses, it seems to me, must conduct themselves 
in a manner reflecting basic American values--such as individual 
liberty and free expression and free enterprise.

  That is what the pending amendment's voluntary--and I repeat 
voluntary--code of conduct calls for. Of course, I realize that some 
American firms have already adopted their own ethical rules and codes 
for international business, but they generally are limited, narrow 
business practices, don't you see, and certainly have not prevented the 
sort of kowtowing to China's ruling Communists whom I have just 
described.
  The point is this, and I will conclude. I fail to see any reason on 
the face of the Earth why the Senate should not take this step at least 
before concluding that trade will automatically bring democracy to 
Communist China.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, let me request, by the same 
method as previously, that I be granted the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 4128

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
return to the Helms amendment No. 4128.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time is remaining 
on the amendment--on Senator Helms' time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina retains 20 
minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from 
North Carolina, if he desires to finish the debate on this, please 
interrupt me and I will be happy to yield to him.
  Mr. HELMS. Inasmuch as the Chair has yielded me the right to comment 
from my seat at my desk, let me say I yield all the time to the Senator 
that he requires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, let me take the 
opportunity to say again publicly on this floor to the Senator from 
North Carolina what an honor it is to serve with him and to know him as 
a friend. He is one of the finest people I have ever met in my life. I 
don't say that lightly. There are a lot of people, especially the 
unborn children of this world, who know who has been carrying the torch 
here for children who cannot speak for themselves in the womb. They owe 
you a lot. We owe you a lot. I am proud to be here in the Senate with 
you.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am proud to stand in 
support of the Helms amendment. On August 24 of this year, publications 
all around the world ran headlines very similar to this:

       Chinese kill baby to enforce birth rule.

  The article went on to describe how five Chinese Government officials 
intruded into the home of a woman who had given birth against the 
state's oppressive ``one child'' policy. They waited in her living room 
until she returned from the hospital. When she arrived, the officials 
ripped the baby boy from her arms where--to the horror of his mother 
and onlookers--they walked outside to a rice paddy and drowned the 
child in front of his parents' eyes.
  A wave of anger obviously enveloped this small township in the 
following hours of the child's murder. However, this is China. 
Villagers are kept from speaking out against this atrocity, and they 
find themselves in a terrible state of unified silence as a fear of 
retribution, harm, or even death for their own families settles upon 
them.
  This is the China to which we are giving permanent trade status with 
this bill. I find it unbelievable that we cannot get these kinds of 
human rights atrocities addressed in this permanent normal trade 
relations bill for China. We are saying this is fine, we will ignore 
it, not talk about it, as long as we can sell them wheat, corn, 
whatever, and make money. So we can ignore this.
  I am the first to admit we cannot intrude, unfortunately, into the 
policies of the Government of China, but we can make known these 
policies to the world and we can say as a nation, supposedly the moral 
leader of the world, that this is wrong.
  I am proud of Senator Helms for bringing this to the attention of the 
Senate during this debate, and I cannot understand, for the life of me, 
why we cannot allow simple sense-of-the-Senate language to this 
permanent normal trade relations bill in an effort to stop this 
horrible, barbaric behavior.
  The Helms amendment simply expresses the sense of Congress that, one, 
Congress should urge China to cease its forced abortion and forced 
sterilization policies, and two, the President should urge China to 
cease its detention of those who resist abortion and sterilization. It 
is a good amendment. There is nothing wrong with this amendment. It is 
fair and it is reasonable.
  In addition, I also believe that Chinese women should have the right 
to choose. It is interesting, those who have been the strongest 
proponents of abortion in this Chamber--when it comes to a Chinese 
woman's right to say, ``I want to have my child,'' the silence is 
deafening. When a woman says, ``I have the right to choose to have an 
abortion,'' they are out here in full force. A little inconsistency?
  The point is, a Chinese woman is told, in spite of the fact she wants 
to

[[Page S8473]]

have her child, that she cannot, and not only can she not have it, it 
is aborted forcefully.
  I had constituents, a young couple, a few months ago come to me. They 
were both Chinese. They had been visiting America. She was about 5 or 6 
months pregnant and was told if she went back to China the child was 
going to be aborted. I turned all hands on deck to get that case 
resolved so they did not have to go back, and she did not go back. She 
had that child, now an American citizen, born in freedom, but that 
child would have been aborted in China against the wishes of the 
mother. We cannot even get this issue addressed with sense-of-the-
Senate language before we pass on the fast track permanent normal trade 
relations.
  There is so much talk about choice, but the choice only runs one 
way--when one is talking about the woman's ``right'' to an abortion. 
When it comes to the right to choose to have her baby, silence.
  It is a stated position of the Chinese Communist Party that forced 
abortion and forced sterilization have no role in the population 
control program. In fact, the Chinese Communist Government encourages 
both forced abortion and forced sterilization. I emphasize ``forced.'' 
They accomplish this through a combination of strictly enforced birth 
quotas and immunity for local population control officials who use 
coercion to force abortion.

  Nobody really knows for sure how many women undergo these abortions. 
We do not exactly have a population count on that score. Most women are 
afraid to report. The numbers are kept secret.
  According to Harry Wu, the director of the Laogai Research 
Foundation, who once lived in China and now monitors and writes about 
his native homeland, the city of Janjiang alone experienced 1,141 
forced abortions in one 9-month period in 1997. Those were women who 
wanted to have their children and were forced to have an abortion.
  One can imagine the horror of the woman who has to go through that. I 
say with the greatest respect for those who disagree with the issue, 
where are you today? If you are for a woman's right to choose to have 
an abortion, why can you not be for a woman's right not to have one? 
Why the silence? Where are the votes on this amendment?
  I want to spend the next minute or two telling about one brave woman 
who dared to come out of Red China to talk about this so-called planned 
birth policy. Her name is Ms. Gao. She testified before the House 
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights a couple of 
years ago. According to Ms. Gao, in order to successfully carry out the 
policy, precise records of the women in her province were compiled, 
noting their names, births, marriages, pregnancies, reproductive 
cycles--all sorts of information.
  Women who met the planned birth committee's criteria were then issued 
a ``birth allowance,'' while those women who did not meet the criteria 
were given ``birth not allowed'' notices.
  This is the country to which we are giving permanent normal trade 
relations. Senator Helms is not forcing us to do anything except to put 
this language in the bill as a sense of the Senate that alerts the 
world to this practice. That is all he is asking. We are told if we 
support Senator Helms, we are going to delay the passage of the bill. 
So? Permanent is permanent. What are a few more days, hours, minutes? I 
venture to say, if we sent this back to the House with the Helms 
language in it, it would take the House about 5 minutes to approve it, 
and that would be the end of it.
  What they are really afraid of is offending the Chinese--that is what 
this is about--because we do not want to lose the sales of our 
agricultural products. Sales of agricultural products are more 
important than the lives of children who are forcibly killed in front 
of their parents. If a woman is found to be pregnant and does not 
possess a birth-allowed certificate, she is immediately given an 
abortion, no matter how far along the pregnancy is. I repeat--no matter 
how far along the pregnancy is.
  Enforcement is a crucial component of China's planned parenthood 
policies. Mandatory medical inspections for women of childbearing age 
is required. One can imagine the secrecy, trying to hide the fact you 
are pregnant if you want to have the child, maybe even keeping it from 
your own family, certainly friends, relatives, for fear you are going 
to be turned in to Big Brother, Communist China Government. Those who 
fail to undertake these medical examinations at the preordained time 
face jail and monetary fines.
  Night raids to apprehend women in violation of state policy are 
frequent. Where are the proponents of women's rights on this debate? 
Why are they not standing with Senator Helms?
  If the Chinese Government cannot locate the woman, they will detain 
her husband or her parent or anyone in her family until she comes 
forward and surrenders to have that abortion.
  This is happening in China. Let's not kid ourselves. Let's not 
pretend it does not happen. It is happening in China.
  I want to read from Ms. Gao's testimony in 1998. It is pretty 
compelling, and it is not pleasant. She said:

       Once I found a woman who was 9 months pregnant but did not 
     have her birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy, 
     she was forced to undergo an abortion surgery. In the 
     operation room, I saw how the aborted child's lips were 
     sucking, how its limbs were stretching. A physician injected 
     poison into its skull, and the child died and was thrown into 
     a trash can. To help a tyrant do evils was not what I wanted 
     . . . I could not live with this on my conscience. I, too, 
     after all, am a mother.

  She goes on to say:

       All of those 14 years, I was a monster in the daytime, 
     injuring others--

  and killing babies--

     by the Chinese communist authorities' barbaric planned-birth 
     policy, but in the evening, I was like all other women and 
     mothers, enjoying my life with my children. I could not live 
     such a dual life anymore. Here, to all those injured women, 
     to all those children who were killed, I want to repent and 
     say sincerely that I'm sorry! I want to be a real human 
     being. It is also my sincere hope that what I describe here 
     today can lead you to give your attention to this issue, so 
     that you can extend your arms to save China's women and 
     children.

  Senator Helms has fulfilled that lady's expectations by bringing this 
to the attention of the Senate, the American people, and the world, on 
behalf of China's women and children.
  What is a real shame is, what the Senator is asking here will be 
rejected as we vote no.
  Finally, Ms. Mao stated:

       My conscience was always gnawing at my heart.

  You see, because the official religion of the Chinese Government is 
atheism, as it is with all Communist regimes, their policies and 
officials do not have to answer to any higher power except to the 
state. There is no sense of morality behind their Government's 
decisionmaking process.
  But let me ask a very poignant question. Is there a sense of our 
morality to ignore it? What does it say about our morality to say we 
will sell corn and wheat and make a profit and ignore this? Why not 
say: Stop this and we will sell you the corn and the wheat? Isn't that 
better? Aren't we supposed to be the moral leader?
  When God is absent, human life is invaluable, isn't it? It does not 
have much meaning because we are children under God. If you do not 
believe that, then life has no meaning other than how it exists here on 
this Earth.
  That is why you have forced abortions. That is why you have 
persecution. That is why you have guns pointed at students' heads. That 
is why you have tanks poised to run over protesters.
  That is why you have harvested organs. I talked about that this 
morning in my amendment, I say to Senator Helms, which got 29 votes, 
including the Senator's, for which I am very grateful. They also do 
that. That is another issue. China harvests organs--not from willing 
donors--from prisoners who sometimes do nothing more than protest 
against the state. They are executed by being shot in the head, and 
then organs are taken and sold for $30,000 apiece for a kidney, and the 
money is given to the Chinese military.
  We lost on that amendment, I say to Senator Helms, by a vote of 60-
something to 29. What does that say? That we are unwilling to send this 
back to the House for 5 or 10 minutes in conference and pass it?
  That is why I am strongly supporting this amendment by Senator Helms. 
I am proud to support this amendment. I am proud to stand here on the 
floor of the Senate and say that this is wrong.

[[Page S8474]]

Sometimes you have to say things whether you win the debate or not. 
Sometimes it does not matter whether you win the debate or not; it is 
just having the debate that matters.
  His amendment would encourage the Chinese Government to stop this 
atrocity, to stop this barbaric act, to stop forcing abortion on unborn 
children and forcing women to have those abortions.
  It is not unreasonable to ask my colleagues to support this amendment 
which is vital to human rights in China. It is vital to the rights of a 
woman and it is vital to the rights of a child.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the remarks from Harry Wu on forced abortions in China.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Forced Abortion and Sterilization in China--The View from Inside


                        A Burgeoning Population

       It has been over twenty years since the People's Republic 
     of China, which has 22% of the world's population, began 
     implementing its population-control policy, or planned birth 
     policy in mainland China. In the years following the 1949 
     victory of the Communist Party in the PRC, Communist leader 
     Mao Zedong promoted population growth, regarding a large 
     population as an asset for both production and security. In 
     the most recent decades, as the focus of the Chinese 
     government has shifted towards economic development, the 
     Communist government has taken to blaming the cultural 
     traditions of its own people for the population explosion. 
     The need to promote growth and combat the traditions of large 
     families became justifications for one of the most barbaric 
     abuses of government power ever revealed: the infamous ``one 
     child'' policy.
       Since 1979 when the population-control policy was first 
     implemented, it has been a top-down system of control: the 
     central government establishes general policy guidelines, and 
     local governments institute and enforce specific directives 
     and regulations to meet these guidelines. In addition to the 
     original one-child policy itself, the Marriage Law of 1980 
     requires the practice of family planning. The law encourages 
     the policy of late marriage and late birth, and sets the 
     minimum marriage age at 22 years of age for men and 20 years 
     of age for women. Provincial regulations enacted in the 
     eighties established artificial quotas, which planned birth 
     cadres were to enforce strictly. Leaders in Jiangxi, Yunnan, 
     Fujian, and Shaanxi provinces, for example, received orders 
     to strictly limit the number of births in excess of their 
     authorized targets by forcing women to have abortions, 
     euphemistically referred to as ``taking remedial measures.''
       In May of 1991, the Chinese Communist Party Central 
     Committee enacted the ``Decision to Intensify Planned-Birth 
     Work and Strictly Control Population Growth.'' This policy 
     paper contains provisions suggesting the use of IUD's, 
     sterilization, and pregnancy termination in some 
     circumstances. In all, the policy aims to create a greater 
     uniformity between central and provincial family planning and 
     laws. While there have been alternate tightenings and 
     relaxations of the policy, evidence brought to light at 
     the June 10, 1998 hearing before the House Subcommittee 
     and International Operations and Human Rights revealed 
     that the coercive practices first implemented in the 
     eighties persist to this day. Never before has this system 
     been exposed to the world in its entirely. In fact, up 
     until this point, the Chinese government has been 
     internationally applauded for its effective population 
     control efforts. The Chinese government has always 
     insisted that it uses only voluntary methods for 
     controlling the amount of children born into Chinese 
     families. Unfortunately, the evidence repeatedly 
     contradicts this empty assertion.


                   china's population policy exposed

       Gao Xiao Duan, a former cadre in a planned-birth office in 
     Yonghe Town in Fujian Province, testified before the House of 
     Representatives Subcommittee on International Operations and 
     Human Rights on June 10, 1998, and exposed the system of 
     oppression before a packed hearing room. Gao, still Chinese 
     citizen, was employed as an administrator at the Yonghe town 
     planned-birth, where her job was to ``work out and implement 
     concrete measures pursuant to the documents of the Central 
     Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, and the State 
     Council on planned-birth.'' In other words, she was to carry 
     out the dictates of the communist regime in accordance with 
     the ``One child'' policy. Her day-to-day duties were as 
     follows:
       To establish a computer data bank of all women of child-
     bearing age in the town (10,000+ women), including their 
     dates of birth, marriages, children, contraceptive ring 
     insertions, pregnancies, abortions, child-bearing 
     capabilities, menstruation schedule, etc.
       To issue ``birth allowance'' certificates to women who met 
     the policy and regulations of the central and provincial 
     planned-birth committees, and are therefore allowed to give 
     birth to children. Without this certificate, women are not 
     allowed to give birth to children. Should a woman be found to 
     be pregnant without a certificate, abortion surgery is 
     performed immediately, regardless of how many months she is 
     pregnant.
       To issue ``birth-not-allowed notices.'' Such notices are 
     sent to couples when the data concludes that they do not meet 
     the requirements of the policy, and are therefore not allowed 
     to give birth. Such notices are made public, and the purpose 
     of this is to make it know to everyone that the couple is in 
     violation of the policy, therefore facilitating supervision 
     of the couple.
       To issue ``birth control measures implementation notices.'' 
     According to their specific data, every woman of child-
     bearing age is notified that she has to have contraceptive 
     device reliability and pregnancy examinations when necessary. 
     Should she fail to present herself in a timely manner for 
     these examinations, she will not only be forced to pay a 
     monetary penalty, but the supervision team will apprehend her 
     and force her to have such examinations.
       To impose monetary penalties on those who violate the 
     provincial regulations. Should they refuse to pay these 
     penalties, the supervision team members will apprehend and 
     detail them as long as they do not pay.
       To supervise ``go-to-the-countryside cadres.'' The 
     municipal planned-birth committee often sends cadres from 
     other areas to villages, for fear that local cadres could 
     cooperate with villagers, or that a local backlash would 
     develop against the cadres who conscientiously carry out 
     their duties.
       To write monthly ``synopses of planned-birth reports,'' 
     which are signed by the town head and the town communist 
     party, and then are submitted to the municipal people's 
     government and the communist party committee. They wait for 
     cadres for superior government organs to check their work at 
     any time.
       To analyze informant materials submitted in accordance with 
     the ``informing system,'' and then put these cases on file 
     for investigation. Some materials are not conclusive, but 
     planned-birth cadres are responsible for their villages, and 
     to avoid being punished by their superiors and to receive the 
     bonuses promised for meeting planned-birth goals. The cadres 
     are under tremendous pressure from the central and 
     provisional regulations to carry out the policy. Even if the 
     cadres brutally infringe on human rights, there has never 
     been evidence of cadres being punished for their actions.
       Whenever the planned-birth office calls for organizing 
     ``planned-birth supervision teams,'' the town head and 
     communist party committee secretary will immediately order 
     all organizations--public security, court, finance, economy--
     to select cadres and organize them into teams. They are then 
     sent to villages, either for routine door-to-door checking or 
     for punishing of local violators. Supervision teams are 
     makeshift, and to avoid leaks, cadres do not know the village 
     to which they will be sent until the last minute. Planned-
     birth supervision teams usually exercise night raids, 
     encircling suspected households with lighting speed. Should 
     they fail to apprehend a woman violator, they may take her 
     husband, brother(s), or parent(s) in lieu of the woman 
     herself, and detain them in the planned-birth office's 
     detention room until the woman surrenders. They then would 
     perform a sterilization or abortion surgery on the woman 
     violator.
       Gao also outlined several policies that are carried out in 
     the wake of ``planned-birth supervision''.
       House dismantling. No document explicitly allows 
     dismantling of a violator's house. To the best of her 
     knowledge, however, this practice not only exits in Fujian 
     Province, but in rural areas of other provinces as well.
       Apprehending and detaining violators. Most planned-birth 
     offices in Fujian Province's rural areas have their own 
     detention facilities. In her town, the facility is right next 
     door to her office. It has one room for males and one room 
     for females, each with a capacity of about 25-30 people. To 
     arrest and detain violators, the planned-birth office does 
     not need any consent by judicial or public security 
     institutions, because their actions are independent of those 
     organizations.
       Detainees pay Y8.00 per day for food. They are not allowed 
     to make phone calls, or to mail letters. The majority of 
     detainees are, of course, either women who are pregnant 
     without ``birth allowance certificates,'' women who are to be 
     sterilized, or women who have been slapped with monetary 
     penalties. As stated previously, if they do not apprehend the 
     women themselves, they detain their family members until the 
     women agree to the sterilization and abortion surgeries.
       Sterilization. The proportion of women sterilized after 
     giving birth is extraordinarily high. Sterilization can be 
     replaced with a ``joint pledge,'' with 5 guarantors jointly 
     pledging that the woman in case shall not be pregnant again. 
     Much of the time, however, this kind of arrangement is 
     impossible, because five people are unlikely to be willing to 
     take on the liability of having to guarantee that a woman 
     will not become pregnant. It is important to remember that if 
     she does, by some chance, become pregnant, they are 
     responsible for her actions, too.
       Abortion. According to government regulations, abortion for 
     a pregnancy under 3 months is deemed ``artificial abortion,'' 
     and if the pregnancy exceeds three months, it is

[[Page S8475]]

     called ``induced delivery.'' In her town, an average of 10-15 
     abortion surgeries are performed monthly, and of those 
     surgeries, one third are for pregnancies exceeding 3 months.
       Every month her town prepares a report, the ``synopsis of 
     planned-birth report.'' It enumerates in great detail the 
     amount of births, issuing of birth-allowed certificates, and 
     implementation of birth-control measures in Yonghe Town; 
     Following its completion, it is submitted to the planned-
     birth committee. For instance, in January-September 1996, of 
     all the women of child bearing age with 1 child, 1,633 
     underwent device-insertion surgeries, or underwent 
     subcutaneous-device-insertion surgeries, and 207 underwent 
     sterilization surgeries; of women of child-bearing age with 2 
     children, 3,889 underwent sterilization surgeries, 167 
     underwent device-insertion surgeries, and 10 took birth-
     control medications (among the group with 2 children, of the 
     186 women who had 2 daughters, 170 were sterilized). In 
     January-September 1996, a total of 757 surgeries in five 
     categories were performed. They included: 256 sterilization 
     surgeries (35 for two daughters), 386 device-insertion 
     surgeries (23 cervical ring insertions), 3 subcutaneous-
     device-insertions, 41 artificial abortion surgeries, and 71 
     induced delivery surgeries. In the first half of the year of 
     1997, a total of 389 surgeries in 5 categories were 
     performed. They included: 101 sterilization surgeries (12 for 
     two daughters), 27 induced delivery surgeries, 228 device-
     insertion surgeries, and 33 artificial abortion surgeries. 
     Gao's office had to submit all of this data to the municipal 
     planned-birth committee monthly and annually so that it could 
     be kept on file.


                        personal tales of sorrow

       Gao and her husband were married in 1983, and gave birth to 
     their daughter one year later. Despite their desire to have 
     more children, they were not allowed to give birth to a 
     second child due to the planned-birth policy. In late 1993, 
     Gao and her husband adopted a boy from Harbin, a province in 
     northeast China. They had no choice but to keep him in 
     someone else's home. For fear of being informed against by 
     others in the town, the child never referred to Gao as 
     ``mama'' in the presence of outsiders. Whenever government 
     agencies conducted door-to-door checks, her son had to hide 
     elsewhere.
       Her elder sister and her elder brother's wife have only two 
     daughters each. Both of them were sterilized, their health 
     ruined, making it impossible for them to ever live or work 
     normally.
       During her 14-year tenure in the planned-birth office, she 
     witnessed how many men and women were persecuted by the 
     Chinese communist government for violating its ``planned-
     birth policy.'' Many women were crippled for life, and many 
     were victims of mental disorders as a result of their 
     unwanted abortions. Families were ruined or destroyed. Gao, 
     with tears streaming down her face, told during her testimony 
     of how her conscience was always gnawing at her heart.
       She vividly recalled how she once led her subordinates to 
     Yinglin Town Hospital to check on births. She found that two 
     women in Zhoukeng Town had extra-plan births. In a move 
     approved by the head of the town, she led a planned-birth 
     supervision team composed of a dozen cadres and public 
     security agents. Sledge hammers and heavy crowbars in hand, 
     they went to Zhoukeng Town, and dismantled the women's 
     houses. Unable to apprehend the women in the case, they took 
     their mothers and detained them in the planned-birth office's 
     detention facility. It was not until a month and a half later 
     that the women surrendered themselves to the planned-birth 
     office, where they were quickly sterilized and monetary 
     penalties were imposed. Gao spoke at length about how she 
     thought she was conscientiously implementing the policy of 
     the ``dear Party,'' and that she was just being an exemplary 
     cadre.
       Once Gao found a woman who was nine months pregnant, but 
     did not have a birth-allowed certificate. According to the 
     policy, she was forced to undergo an abortion surgery. In the 
     operation room, she saw the aborted child's lips sucking, its 
     limbs stretching. A physician injected poison into its skull, 
     the child died, and it was thrown into the trash can. ``To 
     help a tyrant do evils'' was not what she wanted.
       Also testifying at the hearing was Zhou Shiu Yon, a victim 
     of the Chinese planned-birth policy. Zhou, who had known her 
     boyfriend since childhood, became pregnant at age nineteen. 
     She did not have a birth allowance certificate, so her 
     pregnancy was considered illegal. When she became ill and was 
     hospitalized, it was discovered that she was pregnant, she 
     had her boyfriend pay the nurse to leave the window open; she 
     jumped out, and her boyfriend was waiting with a car to flee 
     to Guangzhou where they boarded a boat to the United States. 
     On the boat, Zhou became extraordinarily seasick, and had 
     complications with her pregnancy. Once in the United States, 
     she lost her baby while being treated in a San Diego 
     hospital. Now, she is unsure of whether or not she will ever 
     be able to have children again. Stories like hers are all too 
     common in China today. Congressman Christopher Smith of New 
     Jersey, chair of the subcommittee, said that the Chinese 
     policy is ``so vile that [it] will cause people to recoil in 
     horror across the centuries.''


                     The Population Policy Analyzed

       I testified at the hearing to show how the Chinese policy 
     is truly a top-down system. For many years I have collected 
     many stories about the tragic experiences of people who are 
     affected by the planned-birth policy. Their personal 
     experiences may be more emotionally shocking, but I want to 
     explain China's internal documents that I have collected over 
     the years. The basic arguments for China's population policy 
     are:
       China's living and land resources are limited, which 
     tremendously impedes its development, added to which is 
     population growth. To become a prosperous nation, China must 
     control its population growth.
       Limited economic resources and overpopulation cause 
     disruption of education, the environment, health services, 
     and negatively affect quality of life issues in China.
       In short, the Chinese government wishes people, especially 
     Chinese citizens, to believe that overpopulation makes China 
     a backward nation, and that controlling it will allow them to 
     develop as a nation. Such a point of view is preposterous, 
     and is countered by the following two observations:
       Certain nations such as Japan have even more limited per 
     capita living resources than China, but are nevertheless 
     extraordinarily prosperous.
       Is it not the lack of a rational social and economic system 
     that retarded China's development in the years following the 
     rise of the Communist Party? For several years after the 1949 
     Communist victory, China's economy did in fact make great 
     strides--without a population control policy. Economic 
     backwardness resumed because of failed communist economic 
     experiments. After economic reforms that started in the late 
     70's under Deng, the economy has again improved. The economic 
     advances that China has made in the last two decades should 
     be attributed to economic reforms rather than to the strict 
     population policy. This is not to say that population control 
     had nothing to do with the economic growth China has 
     experienced, but it is a well-known observation that as 
     economies prosper, fertility rates decrease. This explains 
     why fertility rates have declined more naturally in the urban 
     areas of China; the relatively economically progressive 
     cities do not have to be as coercive with the policy, because 
     the couples who live there today do not wish to have as many 
     children as their rural counterparts.
       It is the communist political and economic system that 
     makes it difficult to develop China's economy, and is the 
     fundamental reason for the contradiction between an exploding 
     population and a retarded economy. Therefore, the fundamental 
     way to solve China's population problem is to change its 
     irrational political and economic system. Planned-birth 
     targets every family, every woman.
       If you are interested in obtaining full copies of the 
     testimonies, along with pictures and videotapes, please 
     write, call, fax, or email the Laogai Research Foundation in 
     Washington, DC. Our contact information is listed below. Help 
     us stamp out this egregious abuse of government power. 
     Millions of women and children need your support. If China 
     requires a population policy, it must be based on 
     volunteerism and education, not coercion and intimidation. To 
     give birth and plan one's family is a fundamental human 
     right, and should be deprived from no one.
           Sincerely,

                                                     Harry Wu,

                                               Executive Director,
                                       Laogai Research Foundation.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in the remaining couple of 
moments, I will just conclude by saying, I have been out here a number 
of times following, frankly, in the huge footsteps of Senator Helms, in 
a very small way, to talk about protecting the lives of unborn 
children.
  But this goes far beyond that. This debate now has taken a new level. 
It is now forcing abortions on women against their wishes. I hope that 
someday Senator Helms and I, and others, will have the opportunity to 
stand here in the well and see this practice of abortion ended in this 
country. Because who knows what is next? If we do not respect the lives 
of our children, then what do we respect?
  Children are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. I have 
raised three. A lot of you out there listening to me now have raised 
more than that. They are smart. They know when you say: Johnny, go off 
to school, be a good boy today, mind your teacher--meanwhile we will 
abort your sister.
  Forty million children have died in this country alone from abortion. 
Those 40 million children will never get to be a Senator, a spectator 
in the gallery, a mother, a pastor, a CEO. They are never going to have 
the chance to be a page. They never had a chance, 40 million of them. 
We did.
  So maybe we should not be too surprised that the Senate is willing to 
look the other way while they do it in China. We should not be real 
surprised. But someday I pray that I will be able to stand here and say 
thank you to at least 67 of my colleagues who put a

[[Page S8476]]

stop to it. Maybe that day will happen some time in my lifetime. I sure 
look forward to it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. 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. 4123

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to my colleague's 
amendment.
  The amendment is designed to force the Secretary of Commerce to 
impose so-called ``voluntary codes of conduct'' on American businesses 
operating in China. The fact is, if the proposed codes were truly 
voluntary, there would be no need to compel the Secretary of Commerce 
to pressure U.S. businesses into adopting such codes.
  More importantly, American businesses already do operate under codes 
of conduct. The most important code of conduct is, of course, U.S. law.
  Another code of conduct American companies are bound to follow is 
local law, which American companies are bound to operate under when 
selling abroad.
  In addition, U.S. companies also follow their own internal codes of 
conduct. There has been a revolution in corporate thinking over the 
last decade about compliance issues and corporate business practices. 
American business has applied the philosophy of ``best practices'' that 
began in the manufacturing sector, but now has also been used as a risk 
management tool.
  In other words, adopting an internal--and truly voluntary--internal 
code of conduct has become a way of minimizing the risk, both legal and 
financial, that flows from some part of a company operating in a manner 
that is at odds with the law or corporate ethical standards.
  Bluntly, there is a reason that corporations do this and it is not 
altruism. The greatest force ensuring the adoption of these internal 
codes of conduct is the capital markets. Poor corporate behavior, even 
if it does not violate the law, has an immediate impact on share prices 
in today's capital markets.
  As a consequence, American businesses take their environmental and 
employment standards with them when they operate overseas.
  I have with me a copy of a report prepared by the Business Roundtable 
that details precisely what American companies are doing in China in 
the way of ``best practices'' in terms of the environment and 
employment and other social concerns.
  The way those companies operate is one of the primary reasons that so 
many Chinese workers are leaving state-owned enterprises to look for 
work with American companies in China whenever they can find the 
opportunity. Their wages, benefits and working conditions are almost 
invariably higher than any other workplace they can find.
  My point is that there is no need to force American companies to 
adopt so-called voluntary codes of conduct with respect to their 
operations in China. They are already providing opportunities in China 
that confirm that there is a race to the top, not a race to the bottom, 
when American firms operate overseas.
  Given the potential beneficial impact that our firms can have in 
direct contacts with employees, other businesses in China and directly 
with consumers under the WTO agreement, I would think we would want to 
do everything we could to ensure that American exporters were free to 
operate in China, rather than compelling the Secretary of Commerce to 
dictate to American companies on exactly how they should conduct their 
operations in China.
  The reason I say that and the reason I oppose this amendment and 
support PNTR is that each American company hiring a Chinese employee is 
sowing the seeds of political pluralism at the same time. That is 
precisely how we can best foster both economic and peaceful political 
reform in China.
  For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the Executive Summary 
contained in the Business Roundtable report to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Executive Summary

       U.S. companies with operations in China are contributing to 
     the improvement of social, labor, and environmental 
     conditions in China. By exporting to China not only their 
     products and services, but also their operating standards, 
     best business practices, values, and principles, U.S. 
     companies serve as agents of change. When U.S. companies set 
     up operations in China, they bring with them U.S. ethical and 
     managerial practices. These practices shape the way they run 
     their factories, relate to their employees, and contribute to 
     local community activities. Through these practices, U.S. 
     companies set a positive example of corporate citizenship and 
     contribute to the evolution of norms within Chinese society. 
     Indeed, many of these practices are increasingly being 
     adopted by domestic enterprises in China.
       U.S. companies with international operations often 
     establish global business practices that are implemented in a 
     similar and appropriate way across all the countries in which 
     they operate. In pursuing such policies in China and 
     elsewhere, U.S. companies advance the cause of important 
     social, labor, environmental, and economic objectives, 
     including improved health, safety, and environmental 
     practices; consistent enforcement of high ethical standards; 
     increased compensation, training, and educational 
     opportunities for workers; accelerated market reforms; 
     transparent government regulation; and the rule of law.
       To highlight the positive impact of U.S. companies, we have 
     compiled a sample of the best practices currently in use by 
     U.S. companies in China. Together, these practices tell a 
     remarkable story about the role of companies in China beyond 
     providing goods and services.
       These practices span eight principal areas:
       Ethical and responsible business behavior;
       Corporate codes of conduct;
       New ideas and information technology;
       Western business practices;
       Environmental, energy efficiency, health, and safety 
     standards;
       Compensation, benefits, and training;
       Volunteerism, charitable giving, and community activism; 
     and
       Rule of law.


  I. U.S. COMPANIES PROMOTE ETHICAL AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS BEHAVIOR 
     WITHIN THEIR FACILITIES AND WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS AND SUPPLIERS

       U.S. companies strive to integrate their Chinese operations 
     seamlessly into their world-wide operations. They conduct 
     substantial ethical training for their employees in China, as 
     they do for their employees worldwide. This training is more 
     than simply a set of rules to follow. The training 
     concentrates on fundamental concepts such as 
     integrity, mutual respect, open communication, and 
     teamwork. And it is collaborative: company officers go on-
     site to Chinese locations to offer guidance on compliance, 
     to listen to employees' concerns, and to observe the 
     practices in use. In addition, to facilitate candid 
     communication, the companies also have procedures for 
     employees to communicate with management confidentially.


  ii. u.s. companies uphold comprehensive corporate codes of business 
                           conduct and ethics

       These corporate codes cover an array of topics, from 
     managing supplier relationships, to protecting the 
     environment, abiding by antibribery laws, supporting equal 
     employment opportunity, and offering job advancement based on 
     merit. The codes are translated into local languages, and as 
     with ethics training, companies back up these codes with 
     programs to ensure compliance. For example, companies conduct 
     ethical renewal workshops to keep concepts fresh in 
     employees' minds, keep employees current with revisions to 
     the code, and underscore the importance of compliance.


 iii. u.s. companies contribute to a more open chinese society through 
      the introduction and dissemination of ideas and information 
                              technologies

       By giving Chinese employees and consumers access to 
     information technology, U.S. companies are giving individual 
     Chinese citizens the opportunity to communicate with people 
     inside and outside China, in the United States and in the 
     rest of the world. U.S. companies are exposing Chinese 
     citizens to new information, ideas, values, and behavior. 
     They do so by giving their employees in China access to the 
     Internet, Chinese-language web pages, and worldwide e-mail, 
     which allow them to exchange information with people around 
     the world instantaneously. U.S. companies provide access to 
     international business, political, and financial news. They 
     also sponsor employee newsletters to exchange information 
     among sites across China. In addition, U.S. companies expose 
     Chinese government officials to new ideas, such as through 
     informal roundtable discussions with officials in Chinese 
     ministries to exchange ideas and experiences.


  iv. u.s. companies accelerate exposure to, and adoption of, western 
                        best business practices

       U.S. companies accelerate adoption of Western business 
     practices in two ways: by--

[[Page S8477]]

     bringing Chinese professionals to the United States to see 
     the practices in action, and by bringing the practices to 
     China to show them in action there. Accordingly, U.S. 
     companies support substantial foreign travel by their Chinese 
     employees, as well as Chinese officials, to give them direct 
     exposure to market economy forces and Western social and 
     political structures. U.S. companies with operations in China 
     send literally thousands of their employees, Chinese 
     officials, and students to the United States every year. 
     And these visitors spend a substantial stay in the United 
     States, from several weeks to as much as six months. They 
     come to the United States to see U.S. practices first-
     hand--touring factories and offices across the United 
     States. They also visit Washington, D.C. to observe our 
     democratic political process and meet with Members of 
     Congress and other government officials. For many of the 
     Chinese visitors, this trip is not only their first trip 
     to the United States, it is also their first opportunity 
     to travel outside China.
       In addition, U.S. companies teach global workforce, 
     management, and manufacturing principles to all of their 
     employees in China. This training is a comprehensive, 
     ``hands-on'' experience which covers principles and practices 
     such as participative management, empowered workforce, 
     employee teaming, total quality management, and just-in-time 
     systems. Chinese managers also receive training in 
     fundamental market economics, and cutting-edge management 
     practices; some even receive Western MBAs through these 
     programs. And to further exposure to Western business 
     practices, U.S. companies in China organize symposia on 
     economics, finance, management and other business topics. 
     These symposia bring Chinese professionals in contact with 
     Americans and other foreigners from a wide array of 
     corporations, academia, government, and other institutions to 
     exchange ideas and experiences.


V. U.S. Companies Provide for and Promote Higher Environmental, Energy 
Efficiency, Health, and Safety Standards within Their Facilities and in 
             the Communities in Which They Operate in China

       U.S. companies apply, and achieve, higher environmental, 
     energy efficiency, health, and safety standards than Chinese-
     owned factories achieve--higher even than Chinese law 
     requires. U.S. multinational companies set worldwide 
     operating principles for their international facilities, 
     including China, and these principles are based on U.S. 
     standards. By setting an example of exceeding the Chinese 
     standards, U.S. companies put pressure on domestic Chinese 
     enterprises to comply with these higher, international 
     standards. And U.S. companies not only bring higher 
     standards, they bring the technology to meet these higher 
     standards, by providing advanced environmental protection and 
     energy efficiency technology and by sponsoring environmental 
     protection symposia in China to exchange information about 
     these standards and how to meet them. Finally, by creating 
     jobs and raising living standards in China, U.S. companies 
     are creating the wealth necessary to help China pay for 
     higher environmental, worker safety, and energy efficiency 
     standards.


VI. U.S. Companies Provide Desirable Employment Alternatives to Chinese 
   Workers, Including Enhanced Compensation, Benefits, and Training 
          Opportunities for Advancement on the Basis of Merit

       U.S. companies are raising the bar for employment 
     opportunities. They provide enhanced compensation and 
     benefits, sponsor on-going training opportunities, and 
     offer advancement on the basis of merit. U.S. companies 
     pay their Chinese employees substantially higher wages 
     than Chinese-owned firms do. In addition, U.S. companies 
     offer forward-looking benefits programs, such as subsidies 
     to encourage home ownership, and on-site day care. 
     Companies also offer performance-linked rewards systems 
     and incentives for good safety practices. Together, these 
     benefits lead to low employment turnover rates.
       U.S. companies also offer comprehensive technical training. 
     They have technical training centers located throughout 
     China, some so comprehensive that the companies call them 
     their corporate ``university.'' Many companies establish 
     minimum training hours for each worker per year, which they 
     offer substantially exceed. In addition, companies offer 
     scholarships to students at China's leading universities to 
     ensure that the next generation of Chinese workers has the 
     technical skills necessary to succeed in a more competitive 
     workplace.


  vii. u.s. companies export u.s. concepts of volunteerism charitable 
                     giving, and community activism

       U.S. companies in China are setting an example of 
     volunteerism and community activism. They have donated 
     millions of dollars to support a variety of charitable causes 
     in China including scholarships for students to attend 
     university, donations to flood victims, medical care for 
     children, and support for primary education in rural 
     districts. These funds empower local communities, and 
     individuals, to work toward improving their own 
     circumstances. Company volunteers add a human link, through 
     tutoring and mentoring programs.


 viii. u.s. companies support advancement of the rule of law in china 
                   and effective enforcement measures

       U.S. companies have taken an active role in encouraging and 
     developing the rule of law in China. They have been working 
     with Chinese officials to develop new laws governing property 
     rights, taxation, corporations, and other commercial areas. 
     Industry-by-industry, they provide expertise and set an 
     example of how to operate successfully while respecting the 
     rule of law.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       While this summary gives some flavor of the practices in 
     place by U.S. companies, the real story is in the details. We 
     encourage you to take a look at the full paper, which 
     provides a unique opportunity to see the steps being taken by 
     individual companies.

  Mr. ROTH. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have what I think is pretty good news for 
my colleagues in the Senate and for the administration which I would 
like to share and which relates directly to the legislation pending 
before us.
  I believe that by this time next week, the Senate----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair inquires about whose time the 
Senator is using.
  Mr. KYL. I presumed I would be using time on the majority. I inquire 
of the Chair, am I correct that Senator Feingold was to speak at 4 
o'clock and prior to that time there would be time I could use on this 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We don't have an order for Senator Feingold. 
We simply want to know whose time the Senator is using.
  Mr. KYL. If I may take the majority time, I don't need unanimous 
consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may do so.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the point is that we are going to be considering PNTR 
for China, which will enable China to join the World Trade Organization 
within the week, and presumably that will be done in accordance with 
the bill passed by the House of Representatives.
  It is important that we ensure the other party to this equation is 
taken care of because there don't appear to be any more roadblocks to 
the Senate's consideration of PNTR and China's entry into the body from 
a legislative perspective. But there could have been.
  It is also important that Taiwan enter into the WTO. I believe 
virtually every Senator and every Member of the other body is committed 
to that. I know the administration is committed to that. But there 
could have been a roadblock to China's PNTR and WTO accession had we 
not clarified something with respect to Taiwan.
  It has been agreed since 1993 that Taiwan would enter the WTO. It has 
been virtually ready to do so. But out of deference to China and to 
ensure China could enter first and then Taiwan second, Taiwan's entry 
has been delayed. But we believe neither China nor anyone else in the 
world would object to Taiwan's entry into the WTO, and indeed the 
working group that deals with the specifics of Taiwan's entry I think 
is in very good shape.
  There has been a commitment by the administration to ensure that when 
the Senate and the House have approved PNTR for China, the United 
States can therefore move forward with China's accession and that we do 
so with respect to Taiwan as well. Unfortunately, however, since the 
House acted, there has been an unfortunate string of comments made by 
high Chinese officials that have cast some doubt on whether or not 
China would make good on its commitment to support Taiwan's accession 
into the WTO.
  While the leaders of China had said they would support Taiwan's 
entry, they said it must be under terms provided by China. 
Specifically, that meant it had to be Taiwan entering the WTO as a 
province of China. That, of course, is contrary to the agreement that 
heretofore had been worked out, contrary to all the wishes of the 
members of the working study group and the United States, and of course 
Taiwan.
  The administration has taken a firm position that they will not 
support that kind of language; that Taiwan must come in as a separate 
customs territory or separate trading territory and not as a province 
of China.

[[Page S8478]]

  This has been enough of a matter of concern--these statements made by 
Chinese leaders--that we sought assurances from the administration and 
had meetings with administration officials to clarify. Specifically, a 
group of Senators met with Charlene Barshefsky to inquire about the 
status of the matter, particularly since Jiang Zemin is quoted as 
having made statements in New York a few days ago that China would only 
agree to Taiwan's entry under this term expressing Taiwan as a province 
of China.
  I will have printed in the Record some items. One is a Wall Street 
Journal lead editorial from yesterday in which the Wall Street Journal 
notes:

       Addressing a business group during his visit to New York 
     for the United Nations summit, Mr. Jiang said of course 
     Taiwan could join the WTO, but only as part of China.

  The editorial goes on to note that is unacceptable to the United 
States, and that the Senate needed to act with respect thereto.
  Ms. Barshefsky confirmed that President Clinton told Jiang that 
Taiwan would have to come in under the terms originally negotiated, not 
as a province of China. Jiang responded with the Chinese position, and 
the President then responded with the U.S. position again. The 
controversy, in other words, was not put to bed.
  Earlier, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Yuxi is reported to 
have said: The Chinese side has a consistent and clear position. Taiwan 
can join WTO as a separate customs territory of China.
  These comments, of course, are of concern to us. The House has 
already acted to approve PNTR, but you now have high Chinese officials 
saying Taiwan's accession must be as a province to China, contrary to 
the position of the working group, of the United States, of Taiwan. As 
a result, we thought something had to be done to clarify this.
  Some time ago, a group of 40 Senators had written to the President 
and asked for his assurances that he would support Taiwan's entry into 
the WTO simultaneous with that of mainland China. In a letter to me and 
to other Senators, dated August 31, the President said:

       China has made clear. . . that it will not oppose Taiwan's 
     accession to the World Trade Organization.
       Nevertheless, China did submit proposed language to their 
     working party stating Taiwan is a separate customs territory 
     of China. We have advised the Chinese that such language is 
     inappropriate and irrelevant to the work of the working party 
     and that we will not accept it. We believe that this position 
     is widely shared by other WTO members.

  When we met with Ms. Barshefsky yesterday, we noted other statements 
have been made and clearly some action needed to be taken by the United 
States to make it crystal clear that we would not approve PNTR with 
this issue outstanding. I prepared an amendment and filed it with the 
clerk. I have not offered it yet, but that amendment would have made it 
very clear our approval of PNTR was subject to Taiwan acceding to WTO 
membership under the original terms negotiated--not as a separate 
province of China. The administration strongly opposes any amendments 
being attached to PNTR because of its concern that the House of 
Representatives would not, a second time, pass the legislation, and, as 
a result, inquired whether other kinds of assurances would suffice in 
lieu of action by the Senate on this matter.

  We indicated our purpose was not to try to derail the PNTR but rather 
to have an assurance that the administration would insist upon the 
entry of Taiwan under the original terms and that it would not allow 
entry by China and not entry by Taiwan in the appropriate way.
  A day later, yesterday, the President sent a letter to the majority 
leader, with copies to those who had been in the meeting, dated 
September 12, in which the President advises the leader on two matters 
pending. One was the Thompson amendment dealt with earlier today, but 
the other was the matter that we discussed, and as I understand it, 
this was explicitly inserted in the letter to provide the assurance 
that we had requested the day before.
  Let me quote from the President, indicate what I think this means, 
why it is important, and why as a result it will not be necessary to 
proceed with the amendment which I filed earlier.
  The President says:

       There should be no question that my Administration is 
     firmly committed to Taiwan's accession to the WTO, a point I 
     reiterated in my September 8 meeting with President Jiang 
     Zemin. Based on our New York discussions with the Chinese, I 
     am confident we have a common understanding that both China 
     and Taiwan will be invited to accede to the WTO at the same 
     WTO General Council session, and that Taiwan will join the 
     WTO under the language agreed to in 1992, namely as the 
     Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 
     Matsu (referred to as ``Chinese Taipei''). The United States 
     will not accept any other outcome.

  That is important because the President of the United States has 
defined exactly the appropriate language for Taiwan's accession to WTO 
as a separate customs territory of Taiwan, not as the Chinese had been 
insisting, as a province of China. And the President notes, and I again 
quote the last sentence: ``The United States will not accept any other 
outcome.''
  I can't think of a clearer statement by the President of the United 
States that we will insist upon Taiwan's accession under appropriate 
terms--those specifically identified here--and, at the same time, that 
China is admitted to the WTO. In my view, this provides the necessary 
assurance that the President, those working on his behalf, will see to 
it that this is done in a proper way. As a result, it seems to me 
unnecessary to pursue the amendment which I had earlier filed.
  As a result, I spoke with Senator Murkowski, Senator Helms, Senator 
Sessions, Senator Roth, and others who I thought were interested in the 
issue. They have all concurred that this language is sufficient, and as 
a result I will not be offering the amendment.
  I applaud the President's action in this regard. I appreciate the 
action of Ms. Barshefsky and her counsel, and certainly reiterate my 
intention of working with the administration on this important matter. 
Of course, Taiwan represents an extraordinarily important trading 
partner for the United States and a very good ally, an ally of which we 
need to continue to be supportive.
  I will identify specifically the documents I will have printed in the 
Record at this time. First, a letter to me from the President of the 
United States dated August 31; second, a letter to the majority leader 
from the President of the United States dated September 12; third, a 
Wall Street Journal editorial dated September 12; fourth, a letter a 
group of Senators had sent to the President initially dated July 27, 
2000; and finally, a copy of an AP story I quoted from earlier, the 
headline of which is ``China Asserts Claim Over Taiwan,'' dated 
September 7, 2000. I ask unanimous consent to have these documents 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                      Washington, August 31, 2000.
     Hon. Jon Kyl,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kyl: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     Taiwan's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). My 
     administration remains firmly committed to the goal of WTO 
     General Council approval of the accession packages for China 
     and Taiwan at the same session. This goal is widely shared by 
     other key WTO members.
       China has made clear on many occasions, and at high levels, 
     that it will not oppose Taiwan's accession to the WTO. 
     Nevertheless, China did submit proposed language to their 
     working party stating that Taiwan is a separate customs 
     territory of China. We have advised the Chinese that such 
     language is inappropriate and irrelevant to the work of the 
     working party and that we will not accept it. We believe that 
     this position is widely shared by other WTO members.
       Again, thank you for writing concerning this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
                                 ______
                                 


                                              The White House,

                                   Washington, September 12, 2000.
     Hon.Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader: I want to commend you for commencing 
     debate on H.R. 4444, which would extend Permanent Normal 
     Trade Relations to the People's Republic of China. This 
     crucial legislation will help ensure our economic prosperity, 
     reinforce our work on human rights, and enhances our national 
     security.

[[Page S8479]]

       Normalizing our trade relationship with China will allow 
     American workers, farmers, and businesspeople to benefit from 
     increased access to the Chinese market. It will also give us 
     added tools to promote increased openness and change in 
     Chinese society, and increase our ability to work with China 
     across the road range of our mutual interests.
       I want to address two specific areas that I understand may 
     be the subject of debate in the Senate. One is Taiwan's 
     accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). There should 
     be no question that my Administration is firmly committed to 
     Taiwan's accession to the WTO, a point I reiterated in my 
     September 8 meeting with President Jiang Zemin. Based on our 
     New York discussions with the Chinese, I am confident we have 
     a common understanding that both China and Taiwan will be 
     invited to accede to the WTO at the same WTO General Council 
     session, and that Taiwan will join the WTO under the language 
     agreed to in 1992, namely as the Separate Customs Territory 
     of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (referred to as ``Chinese 
     Taipei''). The United States will not accept any other 
     outcome.
       The other area is nonproliferation, specifically the 
     proposals embodied in an amendment offered by Senator Fred 
     Thompson. Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass 
     destruction and the means to deliver them is a key goal of my 
     Administration. However, I believe this amendment is unfair 
     and unnecessary, and would hurt our nonproliferation efforts.
       Nonproliferation has been a priority in our dealing with 
     China. We have pressed China successfully to join the Non-
     Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the 
     Biological Weapons Convention, and the Comprehensive Test Ban 
     Treaty, and to cease cooperation with Iran's nuclear program. 
     Today, we are seeking further restraints, but these efforts 
     would be subverted--and existing progress could be reversed--
     by this mandatory sanctions bill which would single out 
     companies based on an unreasonably low standard of suspicion, 
     instead of proof. It would apply a different standard for 
     some countries than others, undermining our global leadership 
     on nonproliferation. Automatic sanctions, such as cutting off 
     dual-use exports to China, would hurt American workers and 
     companies. Other sanctions, such as restricting access to 
     U.S. capital markets, could harm our economy by undermining 
     confidence in our markets. I believe this legislation would 
     do more harm than good.
       The American people are counting on the Congress to pass 
     H.R. 4444. I urge you and your colleagues to complete action 
     on the bill as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
     Bill Clinton.
                                  ____


           [From the Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2000]

                        Jiang Muddies the Waters

       Chinese President Jiang Zemin is nothing if not a gambler. 
     Just days before this week's crucial U.S. Senate vote on 
     granting China permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with 
     the U.S. Mr. Jiang raised an issue that will have many 
     Senators seeing red. He said, in effect, that Taiwan should 
     not be admitted to the World Trade Organization on any 
     conditions other than those set by Beijing.
       Addressing a business group during his visit to New York 
     for the United Nations summit, Mr. Jiang said that of course 
     Taiwan could join the WTO, but only as a part of China. Now, 
     this statement is subject to various interpretations, and 
     some might say it is only semantics. But many Senators will 
     want to know whether they are being asked to approve PNTR 
     under conditions laid down solely by China, with little 
     regard for U.S. interests.
       We have argued here that granting China PNTR as a prelude 
     to China's admission to the WTO is a good idea. It would open 
     China further to Western trade and investment, hastening the 
     development in China of free enterprise and a propertied 
     middle class. A more enlightened and influential electorate 
     will gradually demand more explicit civil rights and require 
     governments at all levels to become more responsive to the 
     wishes of the people.
       But we also have supported the right of the Taiwanese, who 
     already have a functioning democracy, to chart their own 
     course toward better relations with the mainland, without 
     undue pressure from Beijing. This attitude toward Taiwan is 
     shared by an influential bloc in Congress that won't 
     appreciate Mr. Jiang laying down conditions for Taiwan's WTO 
     membership. It is well known in Congress that Taiwan 
     qualified, in a technical sense, for membership a long time 
     ago. It was thought that Taiwanese membership was an implicit 
     part of the deal that grants China PNTR.
       If there has been a dangerous misunderstanding here, it is 
     largely Bill Clinton's fault. On his visit to China in 1998 
     he imprudently agreed to what the Chinese government called 
     the ``Three No's.'' At the root of these three demands was 
     the requirement that the U.S. not grant Taiwan admission to 
     any world body that required statehood as a condition of 
     membership. While that didn't specifically apply to the WTO, 
     Mr. Clinton's agreement was tantamount to allowing China to 
     set the conditions for future Western policy toward Taiwan. 
     It came close to an acknowledgement that Taiwan is a Chinese 
     province.
       So now Mr. Jiang feels emboldened to come to the U.S. and 
     give speeches implying that Taiwan must accept China as it 
     parent if it wants to get the same trading privileges that 
     the Senate is about to grant to China. No doubt Mr. Jiang was 
     inspired by other recent U.S. concessions.
       For example, because of Chinese objections, the Dalai Lama 
     was not allowed to participate in the religious gathering 
     that preceded the summit. China's harsh control of Tibet, 
     like its hoped-for acquisition of Taiwan, is seen by Beijing 
     as nobody else's business, and one might easily get the 
     impression that the Clinton Administration agrees.
       Given all the kow-towing that Bill Clinton has done, not to 
     mention the China angle in the Clinton-Gore campaign fund-
     raising scandals, it was no surprise that the Chinese 
     president treated him with some disdain when the two sat 
     down for a chat last Friday. Mr. Clinton, in yet another 
     concession to China, had just announced that his 
     Administration would make no further efforts to build a 
     national missile defense. When Mr. Clinton raised the 
     issue of missiles as a threat to Western security, Mr. 
     Jiang responded with silence. And when Taiwan came up, he 
     favored Mr. Clinton with a long monologue laying out 
     China's historical claims to Taiwan. In short, Mr. Clinton 
     got a cold shoulder on both of these important issues.
       These are the fruits of a Clinton policy that has, in 
     effect, left Taiwan blowing in the wind. Try as he may now, 
     Mr. Clinton is hard pressed to put a positive spin on his 
     China legacy. The nuclear proliferation issues that have 
     bedeviled Sino-U.S. relations since he took office in 1993 
     remain essentially unresolved. And by violating the security 
     assurances of his Republican Party predecessors, he has left 
     his successor a tinderbox situation in the Taiwan Strait.
       That is why Mr. Clinton knows China's accession to the WTO 
     is about much more than the mutual benefits of expanded 
     global trade. He's gambling it will head off--Communist Party 
     or no--the kind of militant Chinese nationalism that could 
     spark a shooting war across the Taiwan Strait, force a U.S. 
     military response and perhaps envelop the rest of Asia.
       Thus, the peace dividend; within China, WTO will empower a 
     bloc of interests favoring outward-oriented growth and the 
     conditions required to secure it, including peace and the 
     rule of law. Dependent on Taiwanese and Western commerce, 
     China would reconsider military adventurism as too costly and 
     counterproductive.
       It all sounds good. Indeed, China's membership in the WTO 
     is, in the words of one observer, the ``Rubicon of its 
     opening to the outside world,'' since all previous efforts to 
     integrate its economy with the world trading community have 
     been unsuccessful. But this assumes a lot.
       It assumes China's behavior amid change will be 
     predictable, that it will set aside the longstanding 
     historical grievances and nationalist claims that fuel its 
     commitment to an extension of regional power in Asia through 
     the acquisition of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. 
     It assumes that, in the absence of stronger cooperative 
     security ties with Europe and Japan and deterrents such as 
     theater missile defense, future U.S. administrations will be 
     able to ``manage'' relations with China.
       In the best of the possible worlds we imagine, 
     international economic institutions like the WTO may very 
     well help spread among some nations the practice of a 
     decentralized and pluralistic brand of governance. But trade 
     agreements and their trickle-down effects alone cannot 
     suffice for a coherent, long-term national security policy 
     that squarely faces up to the realities of America's emerging 
     strategic threats.
       At the least the debate will serve notice that some very 
     sensible people in the Senate realize the U.S. cannot hang 
     its future security relationship with China, and Taiwan, on 
     WTO, as President Clinton seems to have done. It remains for 
     the next Administration to fix this mistake.
       For now, WTO is the matter before the Senate. It is too bad 
     that Mr. Jiang and Mr. Clinton have gone out of their way to 
     make it difficult for Senators to vote in favor of this 
     otherwise positive step in U.S.-China relations.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2000.
     President William J. Clinton,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As the Senate nears consideration of 
     legislation extending permanent normal trade relations to the 
     People's Republic of China (PRC), we are writing to express 
     concern that Beijing may be planning to take actions that 
     would have the effect of blocking Taiwan's accession to the 
     World Trade Organization (WTO). According to press reports, 
     the PRC recently offered a proposal at the WTO calling for 
     that organization to recognize the PRC's position that Taiwan 
     is part of the mainland. Taiwan is the United States' eighth 
     largest trading partner, and we support its admission to the 
     WTO as soon as it meets the criteria for membership.
       On several occasions, Administration officials have 
     indicated that Taiwan's accession to the WTO would closely 
     follow the PRC's. For example, in February, U.S. Trade 
     Representative Charlene Barshefsky testified to the House of 
     Representatives that ``. . . the

[[Page S8480]]

     only issue with respect to Taiwan's [WTO] accession . . . 
     pertains to timing . . . there is a tacit understanding . . . 
     among WTO members in general--but also, frankly, between 
     China and Taiwan--that China would enter first and China 
     would not block in any way Taiwan's accession thereafter, and 
     that might be immediately thereafter or within days or hours 
     or seconds or weeks. . . .'' Later that same month, in 
     response to a statement by Sen. Roth that ``there's a great 
     deal of concern that Taiwan might be blocked [from entering 
     the WTO] once China secures such membership,'' Ambassador 
     Barshefsky testified ``. . . the United States would do 
     everything in our power to ensure that that does not happen 
     in any respect because Taiwan's entry is also critical.''
       We respectfully request that you clarify whether your 
     Administration continues to believe that Taiwan's entry to 
     the WTO is critical, whether you remain committed to that 
     goal, and whether you remain convinced that Taiwan will enter 
     the WTO within days after the PRC's accession. Furthermore, 
     is the Administration aware of any efforts by the PRC to 
     impose extraordinary terms and conditions on Taiwan's 
     accession to the WTO? What specific assurances has Beijing 
     provided regarding the timing and substance of Taiwan's 
     accession to the WTO? And what steps has your Administration 
     taken to ensure that Taiwan will in fact join the WTO 
     immediately following the PRC's accession?
       We would appreciate a response to this inquiry by August 
     18, in order to consider its contents prior to Senate debate 
     on extending permanent normal trade relations to the PRC.
           Sincerely,
         Jon Kyl, Orrin Hatch, Larry Craig, Mike Enzi, Don 
           Nickles, Trent Lott, Bob Smith, Frank Murkowski, Conrad 
           Burns, Gordon Smith, Wayne Allard, James Inhofe, Mike 
           DeWine, Fred Thompson, Mitch McConnell, Slade Gorton, 
           Pete Domenici, Jesse Helms, Connie Mack, Tim 
           Hutchinson, Mike Crapo, Arlen Specter, Strom Thurmond, 
           Jeff Sessions, Jim Bunning, Spencer Abraham, Craig 
           Thomas, Robert Bennett, Phil Gramm, Susan Collins, Dick 
           Lugar.
                                  ____

                                                September 7, 2000.

                    China Asserts Claim Over Taiwan

       Beijing (AP).--Pushing its claim over Taiwan into complex 
     trade negotiations, Beijing insisted Thursday that the World 
     Trade Organization only admit Taiwan as a part of China.
       The demand by Beijing threatens to impede Taiwan's 
     membership bid as both the island and China near the end of 
     their separate years-long negotiations to join global trade's 
     rule-setting body. It also complicates a debate in the U.S. 
     Senate this week on whether to approve a WTO pact with China.
       Influential senators released a letter from President 
     Clinton on Wednesday weighing in on Taiwan's side. Clinton 
     wrote that his administration opposes Chinese efforts to call 
     Taiwan ``a separate customs territory of China.''
       Brushing aside the opposition, Chinese Foreign Ministry 
     spokesman Sun Yuxi said Thursday that China wanted its 
     sovereignty claim to Taiwan written into the terms for 
     Taiwanese membership to WTO.
       ``The Chinese side has a consistent and clear position: 
     Taiwan can join WTO as a separate customs territory of 
     China,'' Sun said at a twice-weekly media briefing. He 
     accused Taiwan of using the WTO negotiations to engage in 
     separatism.
       The dispute over what the WTO should call Taiwan 
     underscores the 51-year split between the island and the 
     mainland and China's attempts to coax Taipei into 
     unification. It also revives a debate that has simmered for 
     years in working groups negotiating terms for Taiwan's entry 
     to WTO and its predecessor, GATT.
       Taiwan applied to join the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
     Trade in 1990 as ``the customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
     Kinmen and Matsu,'' thereby avoiding the questions of 
     sovereignty and statehood. Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu are small 
     island groups under Taiwan's control. GATT and now WTO rules 
     allow regions in control of their trade but without full 
     statehood to join as separate territories.
       Under a 1992 agreement that allowed separate working groups 
     to negotiate Chinese and Taiwanese bids, GATT members 
     acknowledge China's sovereignty claim to Taiwan and out of 
     deference said Taiwan could only join after Beijing.
       Sun, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, insisted that the 1992 
     agreement recognized Taiwan as a separate customs territory 
     of China.

  Mr. KYL. In conclusion, as I said in the beginning, I think this is 
good news for the Senate, for the House, for the administration, and 
for all friends of Taiwan and for those who believe both in permanent 
normal trade relations with China, as well as the entry into WTO of 
both China and Taiwan; certainly Taiwan entering in terms that are 
appropriate as a trading partner of the United States, as a separate 
customs territory and not as a province of China.
  This is good news. I hope it portends an early conclusion to the 
discussions that will form the basis for accession by both China and 
Taiwan into WTO. I appreciate the cooperation, as I said, of my 
colleagues here as well as the representatives of the President and the 
President himself.
  Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. I yield.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator for the 
leadership role he has played on this important matter. I think all of 
us feel very strongly that Taiwan must and should become a member of 
WTO. Under no circumstances should this imply a change in its trading 
status. Taiwan is our eighth largest trading partner--isn't that 
correct? It would be ironic if her status did not change. She is 
qualified. I think all the work has been completed for her to become a 
member.
  I want to tell my colleague how much I appreciate the leadership he 
has provided.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, just 2 days ago, the Washington Times 
carried a fine article by our former colleague, Rudy Boschwitz, and 
Robert Paarlberg, who is a professor of political science at Wellesley 
College, entitled ``China Trade Boosts Farmers,'' subtitled, ``Senate 
should back PNTR.''

       Farm state legislators should be particularly sensitive to 
     the fact that China's joining the WTO will be a pre-emptive 
     strike benefiting American farmers. Membership in the WTO 
     will preclude China from later raising trade barriers on 
     agricultural products.

  It is a very thoughtful, factual, and persuasive article. In view of 
the serendipitous visit to this Chamber by our former colleague, I ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Washington Times, Sept. 11, 2000]

                       China Trade Boosts Farmers


                        senate should back PNTR

                (By Rudy Boschwitz and Robert Paarlberg)

       Executive branch officials routinely exaggerate the 
     expected payoffs from new trade agreements to win support for 
     those agreements in Congress. The recent U.S.-China agreement 
     setting terms for China's protocol for accession to the World 
     Trade Organization (WTO) has been hyped accordingly. Yet in 
     the area of agriculture, the gains from this new agreement 
     are actually greater than U.S. officials have so far dated to 
     claim.
       Additionally, farm state legislators should be particularly 
     sensitive to the fact that China's joining the WTO will be a 
     preemptive strike benefiting American farmers. Membership in 
     the WTO will preclude China from later raising trade barriers 
     on agricultural products. Every other nation has raised such 
     barriers as it has become industrialized.
       Furthermore, on joining the WTO, China would undoubtedly 
     find reason to curtail internal subsidies. Such subsidies 
     would surely further increase China's agricultural 
     production. China has already found such subsidization to be 
     costly and to cause grain surpluses that are both hard to 
     store and cope with.
       The official claim, from the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture, is that China's participation in the WTO will 
     produce an annual gain of $1.6 billion in new U.S. exports of 
     grains, oilseeds and cotton by 2005. It will also lead to 
     $350-$450 million annually in additional U.S. exports of 
     other products such as poultry, pork, beef, citrus, other 
     fruits and vegetables, and forest and fish products.
       This optimism is well-founded, since under the agreement 
     China has agreed to allow imports of a minimum of 7.3 million 
     tons of wheat virtually duty-free (only a nominal 1 percent 
     tariff), and this quantity will increase to 9.3 million tons 
     over five years. Those tonnages represent 11 to 15 percent of 
     the wheat crop in the United States. For soybean and soybean 
     meal imports, China's current tariffs will be located in at 3 
     percent and 5 percent respectively, and for soybean oil China 
     will reduce and bind its current tariff from 13 percent to 9 
     percent--and increase the quota of imports allowed under this 
     lowered tariff from 1.7 to 3.2 million tons over the six year 
     implementation period.
       Those numbers also represent a meaningful percentage of our 
     production. For corn, China has agreed to allow imports of 
     4.5 million tons (at just a 1 percent tariff) increasing to 
     7.2 million tons. It also promises to stop using export 
     subsidies to dump its own surplus production (roughly 8 
     million tons of corn this year) onto other markets in East 
     Asia, opening up still more trading space for highly 
     competitive U.S. corn exporters.
       These market-opening gains are impressive measured against 
     the standard of China's

[[Page S8481]]

     current farm trade policies. Yet they are even more 
     impressive if measured against China's likely future farm 
     trade posture, absent any WTO disciplines. The new agreement 
     does not simply codify future farm trade liberalizations that 
     China might have been expected to undertake anyway. Instead, 
     it operates pre-emptively against what might have otherwise 
     been a damaging increase in Chinese farm sector protection.
       The tendency of all nations as they industrialize is to 
     increase policy protection in the agricultural sector.
       Earlier in the 20th century, industrial development has 
     also helped bring differing degrees of farm sector protection 
     to most of Europe and to the United States. Continued rapid 
     industrial development in China might thus have been 
     expected, before long, to trigger an increase in China's farm 
     trade protection from the current level. It is fortunate that 
     China will now come into the WTO and bind its protection 
     levels for agriculture before this natural, post-industrial 
     tendency to extend lavish protection to relatively 
     inefficient farmers has expressed itself.
       This is good for U.S. agricultural exporters, but the 
     Chinese know it is good for them as well, which is why they 
     are doing it. The Chinese do not want to be stuck several 
     decades from now struggling, like the Japanese and the 
     Europeans, to escape a costly and burdensome system of 
     subsidies to inefficient farmers. China's agricultural 
     policies, which are not yet heavily protectionist, have 
     nonetheless already begun to generate periodic surpluses of 
     corn, wheat, and rice, and officials have learned these 
     surpluses are expensive to store at home and costly to export 
     under subsidy. China welcomes the import policy disciplines 
     it is accepting in WTO as an incentive to avoid moving toward 
     costly farm subsidy policies in the years ahead.
       All that remains is for the U.S. Senate to approve 
     Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for China, so that 
     U.S. farmers will be able to share in the gains from this new 
     trade liberalizing agreement. Without a PNTR policy in the 
     United States, the expanded agricultural trade benefits from 
     China's accession to the WTO are likely to be captured more 
     by farmers in Canada or Australia, and less by the United 
     States.
       With the U.S. farm sector currently struggling under a 
     burden of low prices brought on in part by sluggish exports 
     to East Asia, the China option is not one to be missed. Farm 
     state legislators in Congress need to see these facts clearly 
     when the time comes to vote on PNTR status for China.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, seeing no Senator seeking recognition, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Is it appropriate for the 
Senator from New Mexico to speak at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this bill before us is a decisive step 
toward normalizing trade relations with China. Chairman Roth has 
characterized this vote, the one we will make on this bill, as the most 
significant vote we will take this Congress. I agree.
  While we will be concerned with many more issues that seem more 
important to individual Senators, and certainly we will be looking 
after our parochial interests in our sovereign States as we work as 
Senators--and that is all very important--but when we look at America 
and what she stands for in the world as it is evolving and developing, 
the final vote on this measure is probably the most significant vote we 
will take this year and maybe in many years.
  Senator Roth, I repeat, said that. I agree wholeheartedly. I am quite 
sure the tenor of Senator Moynihan's suggestions--I have not been 
privileged to hear them here with the Senate--would agree with that. 
This is a very important issue.
  This is the one vote that will be heard around the world. This is the 
one vote which recognizes that countries must play by the same rules in 
a globalized market if the market is to be efficient and function 
properly.
  We hear so much talk about what is happening to the world--
globalization. International trade, as part of globalization, must be 
efficient and effective.
  This is the one vote that will do a great deal to encourage democracy 
for one in five people living on this Earth. I say encourage democracy 
because I truly believe this is the one vote that invites China to be 
our trading partner and, at the same time, determines whether American 
manufacturers, farmers, and service industries will get the benefit of 
trade and of an agreement pursued and negotiated by three different 
American Presidents.
  They cannot all be wrong. As a matter of fact, they were all right. 
China is joining the WTO and have implemented a lot of reforms in order 
to be eligible. Furthermore, it has made promises to do certain other 
things. So that the U.S. can benefit from this new WTO members' market, 
Congress needs to grant permanent normal trade relations to China. It 
just took us a long time to understand and to work our way to this day 
when granting China permanent trade relations is finally before us.
  On the subject of PNTR for China, Chairman Greenspan said:

       History has demonstrated that implicit in any removal of 
     power from central planners and broadening of market 
     mechanisms . . . is a more general spread of rights to 
     individuals. Such a development will be a far stronger 
     vehicle to foster other individual rights than any other 
     alternative of which I am aware.

  That is precisely what globalization and international trading--China 
trading with America--have a chance to do.
  Exposure to democracy and capitalism, information, and 
telecommunications and communication technology will increasingly 
influence the course of global affairs, without any question.
  Imagine what Internet success means to a one-party, authoritarian 
state such as China. Even if China's economic growth and military 
modernization appear to be threatening, our relationship with China 
will evolve within the context of a very different world, a world 
increasingly reliant on information to achieve economic growth, 
prosperity, and jobs.
  Anyone who has gone to China recently or, for that matter, watched 
recent television programming regarding what is going on with the labor 
force in China will know that Chinese men and Chinese women will move 
to get good jobs. They are already moving from the countryside to the 
cities without any retribution. They are smiling. They are taking risks 
because they see the opportunity to get a good paycheck. Make no bones 
about it, they want jobs that pay them money so they can move up their 
standard of living in this world.
  That force, if turned loose in China, will change China forever. In 
particular, since China does not have the kind of central government 
the Soviet Union had, although we have from time to time called them 
both Communist countries, they are certainly very different in terms of 
the ability to control people and whether or not the central government 
really has as much control or is as despotic as the government that was 
managed by a small oligarchy in the Soviet Union.
  I am not suggesting the trade, the Internet and computers will topple 
authoritarian structures in China overnight, but I do believe that for 
many years information control was equivalent to people control, but 
information control is quickly becoming more and more impossible.
  Exposure to our economic system through trade, telecommunications, 
and the Internet will encourage strides toward freedom, in my humble 
opinion. For every argument that China is a risk to America's future, I 
argue that China trading with America is a move in a direction of 
freedom that takes away from the risk of the future, takes away from 
the risk of a centralized powerful Chinese Government being dangerous 
to the world. Not that they are not, not that they could not be, but I 
submit it will be more and more difficult for that to occur as free 
trade permeates the cities and suburbs of China and the people who live 
there and the businessmen who will prosper by it.

  I offer that while it is not at issue, education is another catalyst 
for economic freedom and democracy. Chinese students attending American 
universities is an important part of any effective economic trade and 
foreign policy for the United States. I know there are a lot of young 
Chinese coming to American universities to be students here, and living 
our way of life while they get educated. I asked my staff to find out 
just how many. Fifty thousand Chinese students from China now, not 
Taiwan--attended American universities last year. The number grows by 
the thousands every year.

[[Page S8482]]

  The important thing is that these students are not studying math and 
science and culture by remote control. They are doing this by being 
physically present in American cities across this land. I submit, the 
more the young people of China experience America and are exposed to 
American freedom and watch capitalism work in America, the more likely 
it becomes that the future of China will be subtly but unalterably 
influenced in a positive direction.
  Whether these Western-educated, young Chinese people are involved in 
politics or business--I would add in science or math or physics--their 
views about democracy and the free market economics will not be 
controlled or dominated by the so-called party.
  Over the long run, experience and exposure will have a direct and 
significant impact on mainland China. And the leaders know what is 
happening.

  The Chinese leaders do not attempt to stop their students from coming 
to the greatest universities in the world and get educated in the best 
way in the world. In fact, sometimes I think they must be aware that 
there is a better way than what they have in their country, and to some 
extent they may think a better way is substantially the free way, the 
American way.
  China is a big, big market. It has been estimated that the PNTR would 
increase U.S. exports to China by about $13 billion annually and will 
grow every sector of this economy. China is densely populated. It is a 
country in which one in five people alive today live. Think of that. 
This is largely an open, untapped market, both for the mind and for 
substances of trade.
  I will comment on my State, which is not looked at as an exporting 
State, but direct exports from New Mexico to China totalled $235 
million in 1999; and adding indirect exports through Hong Kong, brings 
our total to about $320 to $350 million.
  We often hear the expression ``everything from soup to nuts'' to 
describe something very comprehensive, something widespread. An apropos 
variation of this colloquialism is ``China-New Mexico trade covers 
everything from chips to cheese.''
  Agricultural tariffs will be cut by more than half. New Mexico has, 
believe it or not--and this is not because Pete Domenici is of Italian 
extraction, whose mother and father came to New Mexico as immigrants--
the largest mozzarella cheese plant in all the world. The mozzarella 
cheese for all of those delis they have in New York, where does it come 
from? New Mexico. And so is the case for China; it comes from New 
Mexico. They are one of our large importers of that cheese, and many 
other cheese products made in our State.
  Incidentally, I say to Senator Moynihan, while time has been passing, 
New Mexico has been growing in terms of dairy cows and as part of 
American milk production. Everybody thinks dairy product production is 
a Wisconsin issue, but New Mexico is now ninth among all of the 
sovereign States in terms of the production of dairy products. That is 
why it turns out we are working with China.
  PNTR and China joining the WTO will be a big help for the New Mexico 
producers of milk products, as the Chinese people get the opportunity 
to compare the comparative culinary merits of Domino's, Pizza Hut, and 
even Papa Johns. I know my friend from New York is not here working on 
this agreement because he wants to see more Pizza Huts in China, but I 
think he would not disagree that the United States has an array of 
export opportunities from State to State. When you add all those up, 
they do go as far as the ingredients that go into a pizza, all the way 
to the ingredients and intellectual knowledge that goes into making 
fancy computer chips or to make anything that China makes and sells to 
the world.
  The tariff on agricultural products will drop. It will drop from 50 
percent to 10 percent on cheese products; from 35 percent to 10 percent 
for lactose and whey, both of which are produced in large quantities in 
the States of the United States that have many dairy cows and much milk 
production.
  It is not well known that Intel Corporation manufactures flash memory 
microchips in its Rio Rancho plant in New Mexico, right next to 
Albuquerque. Flash memory chips are used in cellular phones, digital 
cameras, personal computers.
  The flash memory chips are sent to Shanghai for assembly and testing 
before they are shipped to customers worldwide. In 2000, Intel earned 
over $500 million in revenue from the flash memory chips manufactured 
in New Mexico and tested in China. Both China and New Mexico added 
profit to the product as it moved its way to market.
  If we do not grant PNTR status to China, it is quite obvious that 
somebody else will take our place in each of these markets that I have 
described for my State in terms of being a manufacturer of products. 
Obviously, someplace else in the world can decide, if we are going to 
leave that trade barrier up, instead of reducing it 50 percent and 30 
percent, as I have described, to get the business and the profit 
margin, where a foreign business could have the tariff rate that is not 
being adjusted.

  China is discovering the necessity for cellular phones. I am talking 
about a product with which we are all becoming very familiar. There 
were 40 million cellular phones in China last year. This year, the 
estimate is 70 million. By 2003, China has projected to have more cell 
phones in use than any other country on the globe.
  You can understand that because, you see, to some extent cellular 
phone use in America was inhibited by poles, with telephone lines, and 
telephones that are attached to them. We had that before cellular 
phones were invented. While we think that is great, it is a burden to 
the growth of cellular phones. Maybe the word ``burden'' is wrong, but 
at least cellular will not grow as fast.
  Now enter into a Chinese city where they do not have any telephone 
poles, and all of a sudden they have cellular phones. They will never 
build telephone lines. That is why you can say they will go from 40 
million to 70 million in 1 year. And who knows thereafter?
  I guess we could then ask, how many telephone poles could they put in 
the ground? And how many telephone lines could they put up? While this 
was not part of my prepared text, I would speculate that they are not 
doing hundreds of thousands of miles of telephone lines. Why would 
they? They would just leapfrog to the newest technology. And that is 
what they began to use. That is what they will use for a long time 
hereafter.
  Some have argued that PNTR is an attempt to move manufacturing jobs 
overseas. That is an argument we have to confront every time we talk 
about lowering trade barriers with some country in the world. It was 
the same argument when created the North American Free Trade zone with 
Mexico, I say to my good friend from New York.
  Let me illustrate that this is not the case with reference to that 
contention. Last week, Intel broke ground on a new fabrication plant in 
Rio Rancho, NM. This expansion had a total cost of $2 billion.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Two billion.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It will provide 500 to 1,000 more jobs for New Mexico, 
highly paid, skilled jobs.
  Obviously, local businesses will also profit from this expansion. 
That is what expanded trade with China means to Americans and to New 
Mexicans.
  I gave you the example of the $2 billion investment because that 
investment is made to make one phase of the computer chip that I just 
described. The other phase will be done in China. Both countries will 
gain employment and will gain in terms of the production of items that 
add to our respective gross national products. I do not know which will 
have more. I would assume they would have a few more workers doing 
theirs, but we will have the master plant with the most modern 
technology.
  The challenge to America in an international global market is the 
risk that we are taking, and it is singular. It is one. It is that we 
will not be able to produce the high-tech, high-paying jobs ahead of 
the rest of world and keep them here. That is really the only 
challenge. If we can do that, and train our people sufficiently to do 
that, we will win all the time because we will keep the high-paid, 
highly skilled jobs here, as we are currently doing vis-a-vis a country 
such as China or other countries in the world.
  So granting PNTR to China makes practical economic policy, and it

[[Page S8483]]

makes good foreign policy. I think they are tied together in this case.
  I have had an opportunity to talk to Henry Kissinger, who I happen to 
know quite well from a long, long time ago, when he came to my State 
with his young son who is now grown up and is involved in the movie 
production business. He was 13 when he joined his father in my city 
doing an event for me when I was a young Senator. He talked about the 
global policy significance, not just its economic significance. I 
agree. I agree that there is no doubt that this is good trade policy 
and good foreign policy.

  Grant PNTR is practical economic policy, but it is also inescapable 
economic policy because it is impossible, in this era of globalization, 
for the United States to fence off 20 percent of the world's population 
and refuse to trade with them on the same trade terms we trade with 
others. Trade relations with China are not the same as they were in 
1979 when China and the United States first resumed diplomatic 
relations. At that time, all trade flowed through the Chinese 
Government in the form of state-owned enterprises. Today the private 
sector accounts for nearly 70 percent of China's output. Maybe I would 
put it differently because some of these centers of trade, we don't 
know whether they are private sector, as we understand them, but the 
nongovernment sector, nonowned by the Government, is nearly 70 percent 
of the Chinese output compared with 30 percent Government-owned.
  We understand the Government is not too happy with owning even the 30 
percent because they really don't know how to run it. They are seeing 
what is happening in the competitive world, and big policy discussions 
are occurring there as to what do they do about that situation. They 
have observed and have learned what happened to state-owned businesses 
in the former Soviet states, and they went from total ownership to 
nobody wanting ownership. There was nothing in between. We have the 
former Soviet Union, at least Russia, with an economic production 
machine that has been reduced to almost nothing. We will soon be 
comparing the total gross domestic product of Russia with one of the 
smaller countries in Europe. Imagine that.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will my distinguished friend yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Would he know that the current best estimate is that 
the GDP of Russia is now approximately that of Switzerland?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wouldn't.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. And that sequence, exactly as he has described it, 
total ownership to no ownership, as against the transformation before 
our eyes, is taking place in the PRC.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is absolutely correct. I might add that what is 
happening in Russia, the Chinese have seen very clearly. They are never 
going to let that happen. We went from Government ownership to no 
ownership to oligarchs who substituted here in the middle who became 
powerful, rich people who put these businesses together; bought them 
from the Government. Now a few groups own more businesses than anybody 
expected in Russia and do not run it in any way consistent with 
Russia's future. It is just their own. Whether they pay taxes or not is 
their business. That is the way things go. It is not so good.
  Let me talk about this trend that is occurring in China. I think it 
is excellent. It is a great sign because a growing market-based economy 
is the most effective path to democracy for China and should be 
encouraged as part of the American policy with other free nations in 
the world.
  There have been a lot of amendments offered to this bill. I owe the 
Senators who offered them, individually or for themselves and others, 
an explanation of why I voted against each and every one. Some of them 
are very good. Some of them, if freestanding and not burdening a 
measure of this magnitude, I probably would have come down and even 
debated. I did not. I did not come and talk on any of them because I 
was not going to vote for any. It appeared to me that my responsibility 
as a Senator was to see that this legislation got through here, at 
least as much as I could. That meant don't add amendments to it that 
are apt to make it impossible for this legislation to get passed and 
sent to the President for signature.

  I consider this to be the most important event of this year and maybe 
of a couple years. While it does not come out of my committee, I have 
been informed on it. I worked on it. I am very proud of the Finance 
Committee and in particular the chairman, the distinguished Senator 
from Delaware, Mr. Roth, and obviously, the ranking member, the 
distinguished Senator from New York.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, before our beloved chairman of the 
Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, leaves, may I thank him 
for his remarks. All anyone need say is what he has said. I would just 
supplement them with one comment to reinforce what he has said. We, the 
Finance Committee, held a long series of hearings on the bill. It 
happens, in the last paragraph of the last witness, the Honorable Ira 
Shapiro, who has been previously our chief negotiator for Japan and 
Canada at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said thus:

       This vote is one of an historic handful of congressional 
     votes since the end of World War II. Nothing that Members of 
     Congress do this year or any other year could be more 
     important.

  He was not simply speaking of trade and the standard of living. He 
was talking about the large geopolitical fact of do we include one-
fifth of mankind in the world's system we wish to create, we have 
created, and are creating, or do we say, no, you are out, and invite 
hostility that could spoil the next half century?
  We have not. Today we voted by a two-thirds majority to go forward. I 
thank the Senator for his vote and his leadership throughout. It is a 
cheering experience in what has not been always a cheering year.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Moynihan for those kinds 
words and for his last observation.
  Perhaps Mr. Shapiro said it more eloquently than I. I consider it one 
of the most important events, and I described that early on as I see 
it.
  I would add one observation. I ask the Senator if he shares this. 
Frankly, I think it is very important, when China is granted PNTR, when 
it becomes a member of WTO, that they not leave with the American 
people in the next few years, that they not let activity on their part 
happen which would let Americans think that they are discriminating 
against the purchase of American goods and services. If we are 
competitive in this world, whether it be in services or in products or 
in agricultural products, we don't expect China to control that through 
its Government but rather leave it to the free and open market or, 
indeed, Americans will look at this as a sham.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, sir.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Our companies are telling us they can compete. I know 
of many areas they can compete, and they are not competing because of 
trade barriers, because of tariffs, and because of the selectivity of 
some of the governmental entities in terms of who they pick and choose. 
That part is a little risky on their end. It may be a small amount of 
product, but it could be a very big wave if they are not careful.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if I might respond, there is an 
extraordinary symmetry to what we are doing today. Toward the end of 
the Second World War, when China was our ally, we gathered at Bretton 
Woods in New Hampshire and drew up the plans for what became the World 
Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and an International Trade 
Organization to establish common rules for trade that would be abided 
by, a rule of law that could be adjudicated and settled. China was a 
full participant at the Bretton Woods Conference. China joined the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade after the International Trade 
Organization, sir, was defeated in the Senate Finance Committee.
  They withdrew after the Chinese Red Army overran the mainland. But 
now the People's Republic has asked to come back and join the revived 
International Trade Organization, now the

[[Page S8484]]

World Trade Organization, which has rules that are to be abided by, and 
nondiscrimination is the first rule.
  That is why this measure is so important because we could not be in 
the WTO with China if we had a provision that we must renew normal 
trade relations status once a year. No, but each of us must abide by 
the rules. It is now up to the vigilance of our Department of Commerce, 
the Trade Representative, American business, and labor unions to see to 
it that the rules are abided by. You can't hope for more.
  Let us go forward in confidence and determination, as the Senator 
described. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Wisconsin has 
been here before me. I have been asked by the majority leader to make a 
unanimous consent request. As soon as I make it, I hope the Chair will 
recognize my colleague from Wisconsin.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes 
equally divided for debate relative to the Feingold amendment regarding 
a commission, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the 
vote.
  I further ask consent that following that debate, Senator Wellstone 
be recognized in order to resume debate on amendment No. 4120.
  I further ask consent that following the use or yielding of that 
debate time, the Senate proceed to a series of rollcall votes in 
relation to the following amendments, with 2 minutes for closing 
remarks prior to each vote. Those amendments are as follows: Helms 
amendment No. 4128; Helms amendment No. 4123; a Feingold amendment 
regarding a commission; Wellstone amendment No. 4120.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might I inquire, I understand there are 
to be 2 minutes of debate between each of the specified votes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Yes, 2 minutes for closing remarks prior to each vote. So 
I assume that is 1 minute to each side. I understand this has been 
agreed to by the leadership on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside so I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4138

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4138.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make technical changes relating to the recommendations of 
  the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of 
                                 China)

       On page 44, beginning on line 4, strike all through page 
     45, line 12, and insert the following:
       (g) Annual Reports.--The Commission shall issue a report to 
     the President and the Congress not later than 12 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, and not later than the 
     end of each 12-month period thereafter, setting forth the 
     findings of the Commission during the preceding 12-month 
     period, in carrying out subsections (a) through (c). The 
     Commission's report shall contain recommendations for 
     legislative or executive action, including recommendations 
     indicating whether or not a change in China's trade status is 
     merited.
       (h) Specific Information in Annual Reports.--The 
     Commission's report under subsection (g) shall include 
     specific information as to the nature and implementation of 
     laws or policies concerning the rights set forth in 
     paragraphs (1) through (12) of subsection (a), and as to 
     restrictions applied to or discrimination against persons 
     exercising any of the rights set forth in such paragraphs.
       (i) Congressional Priority Procedures.--
       (1) Introduction and referral of resolutions.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 10 session days after 
     receipt of the Commission's report by a House of Congress, 
     the Majority Leader of that House shall introduce a joint 
     resolution in that House providing for the implementation of 
     such recommendations of the Commission's report as require 
     statutory implementation. In the case of the Senate, such 
     resolution shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations and, in the case of the House of Representatives, 
     such resolution shall be referred to the Committee on 
     International Relations. In the consideration of resolutions 
     referred under this subparagraph, such committees shall hold 
     hearings on the contents of the Commission's report and the 
     recommendations contained therein for the purpose of 
     receiving testimony from Members of Congress, and such 
     appropriate representatives of Federal departments and 
     agencies, and interested persons and groups, as the 
     committees deem advisable.
       (B) Session day defined.--The term ``session day'' means, 
     with respect to a House of Congress, any day on which the 
     House of Congress is in session.
       (2) Procedure for discharge of committees.--If the 
     committee to which is referred such resolution has not 
     reported such resolution at the end of 15 calendar days after 
     its introduction, such committee shall be discharged from 
     further consideration of such resolution and such resolution 
     shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of the House 
     involved.
       (3) Motion to proceed.--When the committee to which a 
     resolution is referred has reported, or has been deemed to be 
     discharged (under paragraph (2)) from further consideration 
     of, a resolution described in paragraph (1), notwithstanding 
     any rule or precedent of the Senate, including Rule 22, it is 
     at any time thereafter in order (even though a previous 
     motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) for any 
     Member of the respective House to move to proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution, and all points of order 
     against the resolution (and against consideration of the 
     resolution) are waived. The motion is highly privileged in 
     the House of Representatives and is privileged in the Senate 
     and is not debatable. The motion is not subject to amendment, 
     or to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business. A motion to reconsider the 
     vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall 
     not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration 
     of the resolution is agreed to, the resolution shall remain 
     the unfinished business of the respective House until 
     disposed of.
       (4) The provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) are 
     enacted by

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment will increase the 
strength and the relevance of the Congressional-Executive Commission on 
the People's Republic of China.
  It is no secret that I oppose H.R. 4444, the bill extending permanent 
normal trade relations to China. I believe it is a mistake to 
institutionalize a separation between our trading relationship with 
China and our concerns regarding the deteriorating human rights 
situation in China. I believe this compartmentalization of American 
interests makes for policy that is confused, contradictory, and 
ultimately ineffective.
  I am not blind to the numbers; I am not blind to the likely votes. 
This bill stands an excellent chance of passing the Senate, and we are 
dealing with legislation likely to become law. So I choose to take 
seriously the efforts made in the other body to somehow integrate human 
rights concerns into this legislation.
  Perhaps I am supposed to assume those efforts are simply window 
dressing, mere political cover for those who feel obligated to address 
human rights issues but who are also disinclined to impede this trade 
initiative with inconvenient complications. But I reject that 
assumption. If this bill passes, as it probably will, the 
Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China 
will be important both in substance and as a symbol. It may well be the 
only remaining bridge in our China policy between this country's 
highest values and the pursuit of profit for the few. It will be the 
watchdog, in a sense, responsible for ensuring that our trade policy 
undermines neither our national values nor our national character. Its 
structure and its mandate will carry this burden. So I do think this 
commission deserves our serious consideration.
  As currently constructed, the commission would produce an annual 
report. But it would not be required to include policy recommendations 
in this report, and neither the House nor the Senate would actually be 
required to debate the report or to hold any kind of vote on it. In 
short, the commission would be extremely weak and then, of course, 
could be easily be marginalized.
  My amendment would strengthen the commission in several ways. First, 
it would require that the commission's report contain recommendations 
for legislative and/or executive action,

[[Page S8485]]

rather than simply permitting such recommendations. As the debate on 
this bill has shown, we do not lack for reports of gross human rights 
violations in China. But simply stating the facts is not enough; our 
actions must reflect acknowledgement of those facts. Thick reports and 
handwringing in and of themselves do not serve U.S. interests. Policy 
recommendations have to be an explicit part of the commission's 
mandate.
  In addition, this amendment would require that legislative proposals 
contained in the report be considered by both the House International 
Relations Committee and by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As 
it now stands, this commission reports only to the House. I urge my 
colleagues in this body, the Senate, to recognize that the Senate needs 
to consider this report and its recommendations as well. We cannot 
leave this important work solely to our House colleagues and, in 
effect, wash our hands of it. We must protect the Senate's prerogatives 
and ensure that both Chambers of this Congress engage with this 
important commission.
  Finally, this amendment lays out a procedure by which 
this commission's recommendations could be considered by this body 
rather than simply gathering dust and assuaging consciences on our 
office shelves. It would establish a procedure, one that is not 
unfamiliar or unprecedented, whereby commission recommendations, in the 
form of a resolution, would be considered by the appropriate 
committees. These committees would then hold hearings to review these 
recommendations, allowing for public comment and opening up this 
process to democratic participation and actual debate.

  Critically, after committee consideration, any Member of the House or 
Senate would have the right to call up the resolution on the floor. 
This amendment ensures that the crucially important issues covered by 
the commission can be considered by any Member, not only the members of 
certain committees. As it now stands, only members of the House 
International Relations Committee would have the power to consider and 
weigh the commission report. That seems very odd to me for a bicameral 
legislature. This amendment provides a mechanism for moving the 
substance of commission recommendations onto the floor and into the 
realm of full congressional consideration.
  This is hardly an extreme proposition. My amendment would give this 
commission greater relevance, rather than relegating it to bureaucratic 
limbo. Relevance seems like an eminently reasonable goal for a body 
charged with the critically important work of reconciling U.S. support 
for human rights with the U.S. trade policy toward China.
  Those toiling in forced labor camps are relevant. This body ought to 
behave as if they are relevant. The Tibetan and Chinese people, 
fighting every day for religious freedom, are relevant. Victims of 
torture are relevant. The Congressional Executive-Commission on the 
People's Republic of China is where these people will now have to find 
their place in U.S. policy. I urge my colleagues to take this seriously 
and give it the strength it needs to be meaningful.
  I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Republican floor manager has indicated 
I could use his time to talk about this important piece of legislation. 
I don't have any remarks I am going to direct specifically to the 
amendment; although, I find myself in the same position as the Senator 
from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, in that there are many amendments that, 
under different circumstances, I may very well have found myself 
supporting. But because I think this is such an important piece of 
legislation, I have decided to oppose any amendments that will be made 
to this bill because I think it will put it in jeopardy, and the 
chances of it passing the House are, from what I understand, not good 
if we put Senate amendments on this side.

  I think we will have an opportunity in the future to address some of 
the amendments that were attempted to be made to this particular piece 
of legislation. Under those circumstances, as I mentioned earlier, I 
will probably support them.
  I think this is a very important piece of legislation for this 
country. It is a very important piece of legislation as far as the 
State of Colorado is concerned. The State of Colorado has experienced 
tremendous growth in exports, and I attribute that to the type of 
industry we have in the State of Colorado. We are primarily agriculture 
and light manufacturing, which includes high-technology. Those are 
areas where we have had a lot of growth in exports nationwide. Colorado 
has been the benefactor of that.
  I have come to the belief that we need to work to open trade 
barriers. When we open these trade barriers, democracy is exported and 
we prosper economically. Colorado would be one State in the Nation that 
would be a good example of that.
  Western civilization has been trading in some manner with China since 
the Roman Empire anchored one end of the Silk Road. But it will not be 
until we pass this bill before us that our culture will have access to 
free and open trade with this massive country called China.
  I am glad most of us have recognized that the term ``most favored 
nation'' was a misnomer. This country needs to remember that China will 
not actually be ``favored.'' China will be equally treated as we treat 
the other 137 World Trade Organization countries such as Cyprus, 
Jamaica, and Djibouti, or the newest WTO member nation, Albania. We are 
not singling China out for special treatment, nor are we ushering them 
into the community of nations. The World Trade Organization exists 
separate from our decision.
  I am struck most by this fact: That if the United States does not 
pass permanent normal trading relations, it does not keep China out of 
the WTO. It just keeps America from benefiting from China's presence in 
it.
  China has 1.3 billion people, a purchasing power of $4.42 trillion, 
and a yearly import market of $140 billion. Nearly 20 percent of the 
world lives within its borders--a fifth of the world. And many of the 
Chinese people are just beginning to desire Western products such as 
those made in Colorado--luxury goods, communication gear, computers, 
software, western beef, wheat, and so much more. The rest of the world 
is scrambling ferociously to pass their own version of PNTR to capture 
the China market.
  If we turn down this opportunity or if we amend it into practical 
nullification, we will not stop China's human rights problems; we will 
not force China to accept freedom of religion, speech, or other 
individual liberty. All that will happen is the United States will be 
denied the loosening of tariffs and import controls that the rest of 
the world nations will gain.
  If Congress balks at PNTR this year, 137 nations other than the 
United States will benefit from free trade with China while American 
workers, farmers, ranchers, and small businesses are denied equal 
access.
  Everyone knows we trade with China now. Colorado exported $166 
million worth of goods to China in 1998. Colorado Springs alone, one of 
our larger metropolitan areas, exported $41 million. Denver, another of 
our larger metropolitan areas, exported $16 million to China. And these 
numbers are only going to grow. If we grant China PNTR, Colorado will 
be assured a more prosperous future. Why? Because with PNTR-WTO 
membership, China will have to lower their average tariffs on U.S. 
goods from 24 percent to 9 percent. They will have to cut average 
agricultural tariffs in half and eliminate all tariffs on high-tech 
goods. But Colorado and the United States will not have to undergo 
similar market restructuring. The United States already has open 
markets and engages in free trade.
  It is China that will have to open their markets and end their 
protectionism to benefit from WTO membership. This will then facilitate 
more trade and higher profits for Colorado companies and Colorado 
workers.
  Why is China doing this? Because they know what we do. Free trade 
benefits those who practice it.
  Many export producing jobs pay better than basic service sector jobs. 
Increasing trade generates more jobs of a higher quality, and that 
presents more opportunities for workers.

[[Page S8486]]

  For instance, since NAFTA, Colorado has increased exports to Mexico 
by $300 million. China PNTR will add to this export total.
  If we were to set aside economic reasons, there are still many other 
reasons to favor PNTR. The first is humanitarian.
  History has shown that it is the isolated, closed societies that are 
the most brutal and repressed. International contact--such as would be 
brought about by increased trade, with businessmen, foreign goods, 
exchanges, corporate presence and marketing--would serve to increase 
access to a higher standard of living and a better quality of life.
  We would be able to up-grade the everyday lifestyle of the ordinary 
people of China, and that is not an opportunity to be ignored by those 
who seek to aid the world's less fortunate.
  The number one export from America is democracy.
  PNTR will not only tear down the trade barriers for Colorado's 
workers, farmers, and small businesses, it will also flood the Chinese 
culture with the American ideals of liberty and democracy.
  When the freedom protesters took over Tiananmen Square in 1889 and 
built a replica of the Statute of Liberty, they were not just 
expressing support for the type of freedoms enshrined in our political 
documents.
  They were expressing a desire for the liberty and benefits of a 
modern, vibrant, and free United States that they saw on the current 
world stage.
  By increasing our relations with China, we can side step the 
admittedly authoritarian regime in Beijing, and deal with the people 
themselves through our products and our communications.
  The Soviet Union did not fall because we passed resolutions against 
them. It did not fall because we had bitter debates about their human 
right records, and it did not fall because we regularly reviewed their 
civil liberties.
  It fell for two reasons that remain relevant today: The Soviet Union 
fell because the oppressed people of Eastern Europe grew tired of being 
left behind by the western prosperity they saw, and because their 
leaders realized that President Reagan would not let them take that 
prosperity by force. Unable to keep up with the western nations, they 
fell behind and eventually fell apart.
  We need to remain aware of and secure against China's sometimes 
blatant hostility to us and our ideals. But we have less to fear from a 
China that shares an engaged, mutually beneficial relationship than 
from an excluded China shut out of our markets.

  Taiwan, the nation most under the gun from an aggressive China, 
supports Chinese PNTR/WTO membership for this very reason. It suggests 
that they too hope that increased trade will overwhelm the communist 
system and force it to grow and develop into a more mature, efficient, 
and equitable system.
  Some oppose trade agreements because of security concerns. Trade 
agreements are not the reason for the loss of our nation's military 
secrets.
  We have seen serious security lapses in the Department of State, 
Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and our national 
laboratories. The responsibility of protecting our national secrets 
lies with the Administration, not our trade policies.
  The most recent Department of Energy security blunder, losing two 
hard drives, coupled with the discovery of bugging devices in State 
Department conference rooms and the mishandling of classified 
information by the recently dismissed Director of the Central 
Intelligence Agency, builds a very strong case for this 
administration's blatant disregard for protecting our national security 
secrets.
  However, these wrongs pale in comparison to the Secretary of Energy's 
decision to ignore the public law enacted by Congress last year to 
establish a semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Agency to correct 
known security deficiencies within his department.
  Fortunately, the recent Los Alamos incident expedited what had become 
a stalled effort to confirm General John Gordon as Director of the 
newly formed NNSA. With General Gordon in place, I sincerely believe we 
will finally get some action to hasten security reform within this 
agency.
  But these acts, all pre-PNTR, highlight a simple truth--weapons 
proliferation, national security, and defense are functions of a 
nation's leaders, not its merchants.
  If we want a strong, pro-active national defense that diligently 
maintains our vital interests, we can not expect to let trade 
agreements alone shoulder that burden.
  It is my hope that the upcoming vote will confirm America's 
commitment to free trade, international participation, and mutually 
beneficial capitalism. That is why I will be voting in favor of China 
PNTR and against any amendments.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. It is my understanding that the Senator from Colorado 
has yielded time in opposition to my amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield my time on the floor and I reserve the time we 
have in opposition.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am prepared to yield back my remaining time.
  Mr. ALLARD. I want to make sure the floor manager is comfortable 
yielding back on our side; if so, I yield back the remainder of time.
  Mr. ROTH. I suggest to the Senator from Colorado that I will make a 
few comments.
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield my time.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Feingold 
amendment.
  This amendment would change the mandate of the Levin-Bereuter 
Commission created by H.R. 4444 by mandating that it make 
recommendations to the Congress on legislative actions. Such 
recommendations would have to be introduced in each body, be referred 
to the Foreign Relations Committee and the International Relations 
Committee, and be considered by those committees and the Congress under 
rules similar to ``fast track.''
  I oppose this amendment for many reasons. As a jurisdictional matter, 
I oppose a change in the rules of the Senate that would refer a revenue 
measure to a committee other than the Finance Committee, as this 
amendment would do if the Commission recommended a change in the trade 
status of China, and I urge all Finance Committee members to support 
me.
  Second, I see no need to compel a recommendation out of the 
Commission. As outlined in the mandate of the Commission, if they 
choose, they may make a recommendation to the Congress on legislative 
action. Compelling the Commission to do so strikes me as misguided.
  Third, I see no need to fast track a recommendation by the 
Commission. The Congress can consider any recommendation by the 
Commission under the regular order, just as we are considering PNTR.
  Finally, as I have outlined with every amendment, I believe the 
adoption of this amendment would unnecessarily risk slowing the 
underlying bill down. Therefore, I view a vote for this amendment as a 
vote to kill PNTR.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will briefly respond to the comments 
of the distinguished chairman.
  Yes, this amendment, in terms of the commission that was established 
in the House consideration of the bill, says there ought to be some 
recommendations coming out of this commission, there ought to be some 
reality. This is all we will have left of the opportunity to consider 
issues such as human rights in connection with China's trade status.
  Instead of just having a series of documents or volumes on a shelf 
gathering dust, we suggest there ought to at least be a requirement 
that there be recommendations coming forward. That seems to me to be 
very modest. This is not something that would in any way undercut the 
legislation or the purpose of the legislation. It would simply make 
sure that the work of the commission results in some recommendation.
  What strikes me as even more strange about opposition to this 
amendment is that the distinguished chairman would leave this 
commission to be only a commission that reports to the House of 
Representatives. He would prefer that a commission that apparently is a 
serious commission, one that the chairman will support, as

[[Page S8487]]

he votes for final passage of the bill, should not report to this body. 
I would think his institutional concerns of having to do with proper 
referral to one committee or another in a revenue bill would also apply 
to the notion that a report should go to the Senate as well as to the 
House on something as significant and weighty as the question of human 
rights and other issues in connection with China's trade status. I find 
it baffling that the main proponent of this bill would not agree that 
this Senate should receive the report, as well as the House.
  The Senator makes the point, as well he should as chairman of the 
Finance Committee, that he believes there may be some concerns about 
proper jurisdiction in terms of committees. I am a member of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, so I definitely believe this should go to 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  But I have no problem with certainly inviting an amendment that calls 
for a joint reporting to both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
and the Senate Finance Committee. It seems to me that would take care 
of that concern. I know of a number of cases in my brief time in the 
Senate where we have had these joint referrals, and that would take 
care of the chairman's concern.
  Not only is this amendment not threatening to the underlying purpose 
of this legislation, it is simply an amendment that balances the 
purpose of this commission so that it has some relationship to the 
structure of our Congress. It says there ought to be recommendations 
given and they should be reported to the Senate as well as to the 
House; that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should continue to 
consider these recommendations, as it has done in the past.
  I can't think of a more modest amendment one could raise with regard 
to this bill. It is based on a commission that was already approved 
overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives and supported by all of 
those who support this legislation. All we are trying to do is have a 
similar requirement with respect to a report in the Senate. It couldn't 
be more modest. It is a sign of how desperate the proponents of this 
legislation are to get this thing through without even the possibility 
of a modest, logical change such as having the Senate as well as the 
House receive a report.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time if the 
opposition to the amendment will do the same?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time on our 
side.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4120

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is we are now 
considering amendment No. 4120.
  Mr. President, this amendment would delay the effective date of PNTR 
until the President can certify that China has provided a full 
accounting of activists who have been detained or imprisoned for their 
labor activities and China is making ``substantial progress'' in 
releasing these activists from prison.
  What we are really talking about here is that this amendment calls 
upon the President to delay the effective date of PNTR until we get 
from China an accounting of those citizens who have now been imprisoned 
in China because they have tried to exert their human rights to 
organize and bargain collectively so they can make a decent wage, so 
they can work under civilized working conditions, so they can support 
their families.
  What we are talking about is we want to see some evidence that China 
has made substantial progress in releasing these activists from prison. 
We do not have an exhaustive list of all the labor activists who are 
now serving prison terms in China. There are many of them about whom 
the facts are unknown. That is one of the reasons this amendment calls 
on China to provide a full accounting. But I will draw from what 
empirical evidence I have as a Senator, a Senator who is concerned 
about human rights and the right of people to be able to organize their 
own independent unions. I will draw from two sources of information. 
The first is the U.S. State Department Human Rights Report which 
actually confirms that the Chinese Government has been persecuting and 
incarcerating labor activists.
  According to the State Department:

       Independent trade unions are illegal. . . . Following the 
     signing of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, 
     and Cultural Rights in 1997, a number of labor activists 
     petitioned the Government [Chinese Government] to establish 
     free trade unions as allowed under the Covenant. The 
     Government has not approved the establishment of any 
     independent unions to date.

  Now I will talk about some specific examples. First, I will draw from 
the State Department report--our State Department report of this past 
year.
  Two activists in January were sentenced to reeducation through labor 
for 18 months and 12 months, respectively. Why were they arrested? They 
were leading steelworkers in a protest because they had not been paid 
wages.
  In January of this year, another activist, the founder of the short-
lived Association to Protect the Rights and Interests of Laid-Off 
Workers, unsuccessfully appealed a 10-year prison sentence he 
received--10 years in prison. He had been convicted--for what? 
``Illegally providing intelligence to a foreign organization.'' What 
was that foreign organization? It was a Radio Free Asia reporter, and 
he was talking about worker protests in Hunan Province. For that, a 10-
year prison sentence. Do we not care about this?
  In April of this year workers announced the formation of the Chinese 
Association to Protect Workers' Rights. In July, a labor activist and 
China Democracy Party member was arrested on subversion charges. He was 
arrested after taking part in a workers demonstration outside the 
provincial government building. He was sentenced to 6 years in prison.

  In July, another labor activist was sentenced to 10 years, and two 
others were sentenced to 2 years in prison for subversion. What is it 
that they had done wrong? They were out there trying to organize 
workers and the family of one of these activists alleged that the 
police hung him by his hands in order to extract information on fellow 
dissidents.
  In August, another labor activist in China was given a 10-year prison 
sentence for illegal activities in the 1980s, and more recently he was 
also thrown in prison because he had organized worker demonstrations. 
This time he was convicted for providing human rights organizations 
overseas with information on protests--a 10-year sentence, prison 
sentence, for a man who had the courage to try to organize people and 
who then went to human rights organizations overseas with information 
about worker protests in China. He is now serving 10 years in prison.
  Don't you believe we could at least ask China to provide us with some 
credible information that they were now letting these people out of 
prison; that they were doing something about all of the people who have 
been imprisoned?
  This list is compiled by the ILO--Senator Moynihan talked about the 
ILO yesterday on the floor of the Senate. A 28-year-old worker in a 
Hunan Province electrical machinery factory, was sentenced in 1989 to a 
life sentence for hooliganism. His reduced sentence is being served in 
prison and he now has been told he will get out in the year 2007.
  A manual worker in Shanghai and a member of the Workers Autonomous 
Federation was sentenced in 1993 to 9 years in Shanghai prison for 
organizing a counterrevolutionary group. That from the ILO--my 
evidence.
  A worker, organizer of another Workers Autonomous Federation was 
sentenced to 13 years imprisonment--for hooliganism again. That is the 
charge any time you demonstrate, any time you try to organize people, 
any time you have the courage to stand alone and speak up for 
democracy.
  Another worker in Hunan, again, Yueyang City in Hunan, organizer of 
the Workers Autonomous Federation, was sentenced to 15 years--same 
charge, hooliganism.
  A 39-year-old lecturer in the Comparative Literature Department at 
the Language Institute in Beijing was sentenced in 1995 to 20 years in 
Prison No. 2 for organizing and leading a counterrevolutionary group, 
and for committing counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement.

[[Page S8488]]

  A 30-year-old medical researcher in the Department of Psychiatry at 
Beijing's Anding Hospital was sentenced to 17 years in Prison No. 2 in 
Beijing for organizing and leading a counterrevolutionary group.
  A 40-year-old worker at a chemicals accelerator fluid plant in 
Beijing was sentenced to 13 years in Prison No. 2 for organizing and 
leading a counterrevolutionary group.
  Another activist was sentenced to 11 years in prison for organizing 
and leading a counterrevolutionary group.
  Colleagues, I have other names and other examples. But I think there 
are several reasons why we should be concerned about the persecution 
and imprisonment of labor activists in China.
  First of all, labor rights, the right to organize, recognized by 
international law, are a fundamental human right. When men and women 
have the courage to stand up for justice at the workplace, they ought 
not be locked up, they ought not be treated like animals, they ought 
not be serving 10-, 12-, 14-year prison sentences in China, and we 
should speak up for them.
  Labor rights have been recognized in the documents that enshrine the 
most basic principles of human rights. The Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights in 1948 states, ``Everyone has the right to peaceful 
assembly and association. Everyone has the right to form and join trade 
unions for the protection of his''--and I would add ``or her''--
``interests.''
  In a speech before the Industrial Relations Research Association in 
Boston this past January, former World Bank chief economist Joseph 
Stiglitz laid out an argument that economic development needs to be 
seen as part of a transformation of society and that workers 
organizations, the right to form a union, is key to this developmental 
process.
  Do my colleagues know what he was saying? He was saying what we know: 
Independent unions and the right to form an independent union means you 
make a better wage; it means you have people who have enough money to 
consume; it means you are building a middle class; it means you have 
more economic justice; it means you have more stability. That is what 
Mr. Stiglitz was trying to say.
  I will give my colleagues one more example of this brutality. An 
April 23, 2000, story in the Washington Post reported:

       The number of labor disputes in China has skyrocketed -- to 
     more than 120,000 in 1999--as workers, in unprecedented 
     numbers get laid off, are paid late, or not paid at all 
     and feel cheated by corrupt officials who sell state 
     property for a pittance to friends, relatives, and 
     colleagues.

  We are talking about unsafe working conditions. We are talking about 
low wages. We are talking about the fundamental right of workers in 
China to organize and the compelling need, I believe, for us to support 
this right.
  I will finish in a moment so we can have some votes, although I am 
anxious to hear whether there is any response. Above and beyond the 
human rights question, above and beyond the fact that we should not be 
silent--I have said this for the last several days--above and beyond 
the fact that we should be willing to speak up and vote for the rights 
of people to organize independent unions in China, we should not let 
this Government with impunity put people in prison for 12, 14, or 16 
years because they have done nothing more than try to speak up for 
themselves and form a union so they can make a decent wage and they can 
support their families.
  There is another reason. Senator Sarbanes spoke about this on the 
floor of the Senate the other day. It is this: What we are going to see 
is not necessarily more exports to China but more investment in China. 
If we do not speak up for the right of workers to organize in China, 
China will become the export platform in this new international economy 
that we talk about, and it will be a magnet for any kind of company 
that wants to go there that knows it can freely exploit workers, pay 
workers 3 cents an hour, 10 cents an hour, 6 cents an hour, 20 cents an 
hour, all of which is happening right now, working people from 8 in the 
morning until 10 at night with a half an hour, at most, for a break. 
That is what we are going to see.
  I do not know how many Senators will consider this before they vote, 
but if you do not want to vote for this amendment for human rights for 
workers in China, vote for this amendment for the people you represent 
in your own States because I am telling you--and this is just the 
future I am predicting--that our failure to adopt these amendments, our 
failure to focus on human rights, our failure to vote on human rights, 
our failure to vote on religious freedom, our failure to vote on the 
rights of people to organize and bargain collectively is going to lead 
to a new international economy where China, with the size of the 
country and the population, will become a magnet, it will become a low-
wage export platform, and the people in your States are going to say to 
you: Where were you when you were asked to vote for us? Now you are 
saying to us, Senator, that you want us to compete against people who 
get paid as little as 3 cents an hour under the most brutal, 
exploitative labor conditions, and now we are losing our jobs as 
companies are leaving our States to go to China, and you had a chance 
to vote for the right for people to organize in China so they could 
make a decent wage and those workers would not be played off against 
us, and you didn't vote for it?
  My colleagues should vote for this amendment because a vote for this 
amendment is not only a vote for human rights in China, not only a vote 
for the right of people to organize in China, but, most important of 
all, what this amendment is really about is simply saying to the 
President, before going forward with normal trade relations with China, 
at least--and I want to read this again--at the very minimum, the 
President needs to certify China has provided a full accounting of 
these activists who are detained or imprisoned for their labor 
activities.

  That is all the amendment asks, and China can show it is making 
substantial progress in releasing these activists from prison. That is 
what this amendment is about.
  In a broader sense, this amendment is also about the right of people 
to organize and bargain collectively, and this is an amendment that 
says why should the people we represent in our States be put in a 
situation where they lose their jobs and where our communities lose 
businesses that go to China because they know they can pay miserably 
low wages, where people wind up in prison if they should dare get a 
better job, where they can actually export products made with prison 
labor, and we are not voting for amendments that give the people we 
represent in our own States some comfort that they themselves are not 
going to lose their jobs because of these absolutely brutal working 
conditions.
  I do not think it is too much to vote for an amendment that asks for 
only one little piece of this. We will delay the effective date of PNTR 
until the President can certify that the Chinese Government has 
provided a full accounting of those people who have been detained or 
imprisoned for doing nothing more than trying to organize or trying to 
stand up for themselves and their families, and some accounting that 
this Government is releasing these innocent men and women from prison 
who have done nothing more than protest deplorable working conditions 
or tried to form an independent union. That is what this amendment is 
about.
  I conclude this way, which is the way this debate started. We are 
forever being told that we live in a global economy, and that is true. 
For some reason, too many of my colleagues do not want to recognize the 
implications of this. For me, if we are now working and living in a 
global economy, that means if we are truly concerned about human 
rights, we can no longer just concern ourselves with human rights at 
home.
  If we are truly concerned about religious freedom, we can no longer 
only concern ourselves with religious freedom at home. If we are truly 
concerned about the right of workers to organize and bargain 
collectively, and earn a better living for themselves and their 
families, then we can no longer concern ourselves with labor rights 
only at home. If we are truly concerned about the environment, we can 
no longer concern ourselves with the environment only at home.
  I will say it one final time: The men and women in this world, who 
have been engaged in human rights issues, have long understood an 
essential, basic truth which is this: Americans,

[[Page S8489]]

Senators can never be indifferent to the desperate circumstances of 
exploited and abused people in the far reaches of the globe. When the 
most basic human rights and basic freedoms of others are infringed or 
endangered, we are diminished by our failure to speak out.
  This amendment is a test case of whether or not we are willing to 
speak out. I say to my colleagues, since this is my last amendment, I 
believe we have made a big mistake--we will see what history shows us--
in the rush to pass this piece of legislation. I think we have made a 
mistake because I believe the consequences, over the next 2, 3, 4, 5, 
6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years will be very harsh.
  I believe the economics in this global economy we are all talking 
about will become a major axis of American politics. I believe the 
people that we represent are going to want to know where each of us 
stood. I believe we should have been making the effort to make sure 
this new global economy--with China being such a major actor--would be 
an economy not only working for big multinational corporations and big 
financial institutions, which I know are very interested in passing 
this, but it would also be a global economy that works for working 
people, a global economy that works for human rights, a global economy 
that works for children, a global economy that works for the 
environment.
  I will say--and I am sorry because none of us can be sure we are 
right; and I understand that--I have not, in the course of this debate, 
seen very many Senators come out and present any empirical evidence to 
the contrary of what I have had to say about these basic rights of 
people. Why is it that we just turn our gaze away from this? I do not 
understand it.
  I also think we have made a mistake in another way, I say to the 
Presiding Officer. I think we have made a mistake in the stampede to 
pass this legislation, in this rush to passage, in this argument that 
we dare not even pass an amendment. Even if it deals with the right of 
people to practice their religion, even if it puts the U.S. Senate and 
our country and our Government on the side of human rights, we cannot 
do that because then it would go to conference committee. I do not 
understand that argument, not when you think about what the stakes are, 
not when you think about this in personal terms.
  Whatever happened to the voice of the Senate? Whatever happened to 
the strong clarion call for the Government of China, and all 
governments in the world, to respect the human rights of their 
citizens? Whatever happened to our justice voice? Whatever happened to 
our human rights voice? Why were these concerns trumped by this 
headlong stampede and rush to pass this legislation?
  I conclude my remarks this way: We will see what happens in the 
future.
  I thank my colleagues for their graciousness. I hope Senators will 
vote for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  (Disturbance in the galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The galleries are advised not to show any type 
of approval or disapproval.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to my colleague's 
amendment. I do not intend to address the merits of his proposal as a 
matter of U.S. labor law. Rather, my point is a far simpler one.
  The current business of this body is a bill to normalize our trade 
relationship with China. This amendment simply does not belong on H.R. 
4444 and has nothing to do with China's trade status under our law.
  But, the price of adopting the amendment could be very high for every 
working man and woman in the United States. The reason is that the 
amendment could result in delay or defeat of PNTR and the grant of PNTR 
is the one step we absolutely must take to ensure that American 
workers, together with American farmers and American businesses, reap 
the benefits of China's market access commitments under the WTO.
  What we would be sacrificing is, according to independent economic 
analysis, $13 billion in additional U.S. export sales annually. 
Expanding our export sales, as has been reiterated a number of times 
already in this debate, creates new jobs. And I point out, jobs in U.S. 
export sectors pay 15 percent more and provide 32 percent more in 
benefits than average.
  What that means in practical terms is that the passage of PNTR and 
the exports we expect to expand under the WTO agreement with the 
Chinese provide real, tangible benefits to workers in American society.
  I ask, as a consequence, that my colleagues join me in opposing the 
proposed amendment.
  I ask the Senator from Minnesota, are you ready to yield back time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I have a very quick response to my colleague.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article in the 
Washington Post, dated January 11, 2000, entitled ``No Workers' 
Paradise'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 11, 2000]

                          No Workers' Paradise

                           (By John Pomfret)

       Shenzhen, China--Fei Mingli, a slight teenager from Sichuan 
     province, came to this bustling Chinese factory town in 1998 
     to seek her fortune in a textile factory, cranking out 
     bluejeans and tank tops for the Western world. Sometime after 
     midnight July 22, she went out for a walk.
       Dogs patrolling the factory grounds attacked the 17-year-
     old, breaking her right leg and ripping chunks from her nose, 
     head and elbows. Fei had violated a company rule that ordered 
     all workers locked in their dormitories by midnight. She was 
     hospitalized for 62 days.
       When her father came to Shenzhen asking for compensation, 
     the factory bosses added insult to her injuries by firing the 
     girl and paying only medical expenses.
       Fei's case could have sunk into the oblivion of hundreds of 
     thousands of others like hers in China, where workers' rights 
     are routinely sacrificed at the altar of economic 
     development. But Fei and her father beat a path to a man who 
     has become famous for standing up for workers in a country 
     with one of the worst occupational safety records in the 
     world.
       Lawyer Zhou Litai took the case, and late last year, after 
     proving that the factory did not have a dog permit and that 
     there had been six similar attacks since 1994, he won Fei a 
     $6,000 settlement--a big chunk of change in a country where 
     millions of laborers barely clear $1,000 a year.
       ``Lawyer Zhou is a good man,'' said Fei Zhongming, Mingli's 
     father. ``Without him, we would have had nothing. He won 
     justice for us.''
       China once advertised itself as a socialist workers' 
     paradise. But in its mad rush to become a modern 
     industrialized nation in the 20 years since economic reforms 
     opened doors to the West, China's cutthroat system has 
     victimized average laborers. With China preparing to enter 
     the World Trade Organization, the United States and other 
     advanced nations have pushed for some type of binding 
     international labor standards; this was one of the issues 
     behind demonstrations during he WTO's meeting in Seattle in 
     November. But China and other developing countries have 
     opposed such standards.
       In the first nine months of last year, 3,464 miners died in 
     China--about the same as 1998--one of the worst rates per ton 
     of minerals mined in the world. The only place where official 
     statistics have been released for industrial accidents is 
     Shenzhen. In 1998, 12,189 workers were seriously injured and 
     80 died in industrial accidents in its 9,582 factories, 
     although the real number is believed to be much higher.
       More than 90 percent of those injured lost a limb. 
     Statistics from the state hospital in Shenzhen's Bao'an 
     county tell a gruesome tale. In the hospital's Building 7, 47 
     patients have lost hands; in Building 6, 21 patients have 
     third-degree burns; in Building 5, 42 patients have lost 
     legs.
       After a ferry sank in November, killing 280 people, China's 
     Communist Party leadership called for a nationwide workplace 
     safety inspection campaign and acknowledged that despite 
     years of hand-wringing about the importance of safety, 
     serious health and safety hazards remain.
       ``Since 1980, labor standards in China have gotten worse,'' 
     said Anita Chan, a senior research fellow of the Australian 
     Research Council and an expert on China's labor issues. ``In 
     the state sector, workers are losing their jobs, so labor 
     standards are almost as bad as foreign-funded or private-
     sector factories in inland provinces. . . . As for foreign-
     funded factories, exploitation and abuses have not diminished 
     in the 1990s. If anything, because of the Asian economic 
     crisis, it has gotten worse.''
       Attempts by workers to seek help from the government 
     usually end in failure. The Communist government only allows 
     one union to exist--the All-China Federation of Trade 
     Unions--and it has crushed any attempt to organize 
     independent unions. The ACFTU is generally viewed as a 
     mouthpiece for the Communist Party, although in recent years 
     it has fought quietly against some policies and laws that are 
     clearly antilabor.
       Born in Sichuan 42 years ago, Zhou was yanked out of school 
     by his parents in third grade and put to work on the land. 
     When he was 17, his father sent him to the forbidding

[[Page S8490]]

     Tibetan plateau as a soldier. He served for five years in 
     some of the harshest conditions on earth.
       In 1979, he returned to Sichuan but again had to leave home 
     because his family was too poor to feed him. Zhou found work 
     in a brick factory in Hunan province, making a few dollars a 
     month lugging 220-pound bags of coal and handling scalding 
     bricks that singed the skin off his hands, arms and chest.
       ``It was normal for the factory not to pay the workers,'' 
     Zhou recalled. ``People were fired for nothing. People were 
     beaten. It was bad.''
       A friend encouraged Zhou to learn a skill. He took to law, 
     perhaps, he said, because he was infuriated by the 
     exploitation around him. In 1986, he set up shop in Kaixian, 
     his home town, in a poor county close to the smoky metropolis 
     of Chongqing.
       Ten years later, Zhou took the first case that would 
     catapult him into national prominence but also land him in 
     serious debt. In May 1996, a husband and wife, both workers 
     at the Happy Toy Factory in Shenzhen, were walking on the 
     factory grounds when they were killed by a delivery truck. 
     The factory denied responsibility for their deaths, leaving 
     the couple's three young children and their aging parents 
     penniless.
       The grandparents and the children were living in Sichuan--
     source for most of the cheap labor that has driven the 
     economic miracle along China's eastern coast. They came to 
     Zhou as a last resort. No lawyer in Shenzhen would take such 
     cases because local governments had warned them against 
     ``affecting the investment environment,'' Zhou said.
       As an outsider, Zhou could run a risk. He sued the Happy 
     Toy Factory and won $40,000--marking the first time in 
     Communist China that a court had ordered a factory to pay 
     damages to the family of deceased workers.
       Zhou's experience in Shenzhen, meeting maimed workers with 
     tales of exploitation, 18-hour shifts, dormitory lock-downs, 
     dog attacks and decrepit machinery, convinced him that his 
     life's work lay not in Sichuan, but with the Sichuanese who 
     had come to Shenzhen.
       ``If you don't protect your workers, it doesn't matter how 
     good your products are,'' he said. ``You are creating a 
     social volcano.''
       Since the toy factory case, Zhou has filed 200 other 
     lawsuits in courts around Shenzhen. He has won 30; most of 
     the others are still pending. He sometimes works on 
     contingency and also receives donations. Along the way, he 
     has angered the Shenzhen city government, which tried to 
     disbar him in 1997 but lost in court.
       In late 1997, Zhou found a house in a rough-and-tumble 
     neighborhood on the outskirts of Shenzhen. Since then, 70 
     injured workers, out of jobs and penniless, have lived with 
     him.
       Running the house has thrown Zhou into debt to the tune of 
     thousands of dollars. It has not helped that some of his 
     guests have skipped town after winning their cases without 
     paying him for room and board.
       Most of Zhou's adversaries are factories run by Taiwanese, 
     Hong Kong or South Korean companies, which work on a contract 
     basis for Western firms. He has yet to sue a Japanese or 
     American company, he said, because their labor conditions are 
     better.
       Workers in Shenzhen say the most dangerous machine is a 
     mold for plastic products called a piji. One false move and a 
     limb can be crushed by huge metal slabs at pressures varying 
     from 40 to 500 tons.
       It was on such a machine that Peng Guangzhong lost his 
     right arm last spring. The factory had failed to buy 
     insurance, so his employers fired the 20-year-old 
     immediately. Then, because of his injury, Peng's girlfriend 
     dumped him. He attempted suicide. An arbitration committee 
     said the factory should pay him $4,500. With Zhou's help, 
     Peng sued and won $21,000 in court.
       ``Lawyer Zhou saved my life,'' Peng said. ``Without him, 
     I'd be dead.''

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will read a couple of paragraphs from the article. 
This was written by John Pomfret:

       China once advertised itself as a socialist workers' 
     paradise. But in its mad rush to become a modern 
     industrialized nation in the 20 years since economic reforms 
     opened doors to the West, China's cutthroat system has 
     victimized average laborers.

  Then it goes on to say:

       ``Since 1980, labor standards in China have gotten worse,'' 
     said Anita Chan, a senior research fellow of the Australian 
     Research Council and an expert on China's labor issues.

  I could go on and on.
  I say to my colleague from Delaware, there are three parts to his 
argument that trouble me. First of all, this amendment has everything 
in the world to do with what is going on in China. This is not an 
amendment about labor law reform in the United States. That is an 
amendment I will bring to the floor at the very beginning of the next 
Congress. We will have a full debate about the right of people to 
organize in our country.
  This is about China. This is about labor conditions in China. This 
amendment is about people who have been imprisoned because they have 
done nothing more than to speak out and protest against working 
conditions or trying to form a union.
  This amendment just says, before the President goes forward, let's 
certify that China is willing to let these people out of prison, and 
that we are going to get some certification of some progress in that 
area. That is all this amendment is about.
  The second thing I would say to my colleague from Delaware --we have 
had some of this discussion before--is that even if I believed he was 
right--and I think he is wrong--that actually we are going to see more 
exports that will lead to higher wages for American citizens, I do not 
believe people in the United States of America would be comfortable 
with the proposition that is being made on the floor of the Senate, at 
least by some, that since there is profit to be made, and more money to 
be made, and maybe more workers will do better in our country--which I 
will question in a moment--we should, therefore, turn a blind eye, turn 
our gaze away from these deplorable conditions; that we should not be 
concerned about the persecution of people who are trying to practice 
their religion; that we should not be concerned about human rights; 
that we should not be concerned about people who are imprisoned because 
they are trying to form a labor union. I do not believe most people in 
Minnesota or people in the country believe that.
  Most people in Minnesota and the country believe these issues should 
be of concern to the U.S. Senators. We, after all, are representing 
people in our Nation. I think it is a very sad day when the United 
States of America refuses to speak out for human rights in any country.
  Indeed, this will be a debate that will go on. What will happen is, 
given the fact that we have Wal-Marts paying about 13 cents an hour--
and I have given examples of companies paying far less--China is going 
to become the export platform where people know that if they should 
dare to try to organize a union, they are going to be thrown in prison. 
So all these multinational corporations have carte blanche approval to 
go to China, pay hardly anything in wages, have people working under 
deplorable working conditions, and we are going to lose jobs.
  We are not going to see a lot more exports. We will see a lot more 
investment. What better place to invest for some of the multinational 
corporations than a country where you know you don't have to worry 
about paying good wages, you know you don't have to worry about safe 
working conditions because, if people dare to protest or challenge this 
for the sake of themselves or their families, they wind up in prison. I 
see a very different economic future.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 4128

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Helms 
amendment No. 4128.
  Mr. ROTH. Has all time been yielded back on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment. There 
are 2 minutes prior to the vote.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back the 2 
minutes on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 243 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell

[[Page S8491]]


     Collins
     Conrad
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Reid
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--53

     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Akaka
     Gorton
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 4128) was rejected.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4123

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the three 
remaining stacked votes, they be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, who is going to pay attention if we agree to have 10-minute 
votes? Does anyone want to take a bet on it? We will not defer to that 
request. It will still be the same old thing--15 minutes, 20 minutes, 
25 minutes, 30 minutes.
  I would be embarrassed. I would be embarrassed to keep this Senate 
waiting on me for a vote. I hope if I am ever out and the time is up, 
they will call it. They won't hear a peep out of me.
  We ought to respect the convenience and inconvenience of our 
colleagues who are kept waiting here.
  I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we dispense 
with the 2 minutes before each of the other amendments on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I object to that.
  Mr. LEAHY. I object to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided on the 
Helms amendment No. 4123.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Might I inquire of the Chair whether they are 15-minute 
votes or 10-minute votes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They are 10-minute votes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Who yields time on the Helms 
amendment?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Senator yields his and I yield mine. I 
yield the 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 4123.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 73, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 244 Leg.]

                                YEAS--23

     Ashcroft
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Collins
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Mikulski
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--73

     Abraham
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Akaka
     Gorton
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 4123) was rejected.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Could the Chair inform the Senate as to how long that 10-
minute vote took?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, could we have order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The last vote took 16 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say, through the Chair to my friend from 
West Virginia, that I agree with him. I think that if we are going to 
have 10-minute votes, we should have 10-minute votes. We started these 
votes at 6 o'clock. It is now quarter to 7. In fact, we started before 
6.
  I would hope we could stick to the 10-minute limit. People have all 
kinds of things to do rather than sit around and wait to vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may the Senate be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  There are now 2 minutes equally divided on the Feingold amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Chair can see that the Senate is not in 
order. May we have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will those Senators having conversations in 
the well please take them to the Cloakroom.
  The pending amendment is the Feingold amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that there be order in the Senate, 
that staff in the Senate take seats, that staff in the Senate get out 
of the well.
  I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 4138

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 1 minute.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment is eminently reasonable. 
This body is considering a bill that is very likely to become law. We 
have a responsibility to take that bill seriously, to actually examine 
its contents.
  All my amendment will do is, first, require the Congressional-
Executive Commission to make recommendations in its report. Secondly, 
we would require the commission to report to the Senate as well as to 
the House. Currently, under the bill, the commission reports only to 
the House International Relations Committee. And third, it will create 
a mechanism whereby any Member of the Senate can call the commission 
recommendations up on the floor so that these issues are not the 
exclusive purview of certain committees.
  The amendment will not require the commission to affirmatively 
approve extension of PNTR. It will not infringe on any Member's right 
to amend legislation on the floor.
  I think it is difficult to argue that this amendment does not improve 
the commission and the bill. I urge my colleagues to take this process 
seriously. I urge them to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The Senator from Delaware has 1 minute.

[[Page S8492]]

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose the Feingold amendment. Congress 
would, in effect, once again be asked to vote on China every year 
regarding the commission's recommendations on a fast-track basis. I 
believe adoption of this amendment would unnecessarily risk the 
underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4138. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?--
  The result was announced--yeas 18, nays 78, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 245 Leg.]

                                YEAS--18

     Byrd
     Collins
     DeWine
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Thompson
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--78

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Akaka
     Gorton
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 4138) was rejected.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided on the 
Wellstone amendment.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may we have order in the Chamber before 
I start?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Chamber will come to order.

                          ____________________