[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 110 (Monday, September 18, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8644-S8647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          PROVIDING PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TO CHINA

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, last week I spoke on the floor about how 
strongly I feel against providing permanent normal trade relations to 
China. I touched on a number of subjects, including human rights, 
China's antagonism toward Taiwan, and the threat that it poses to our 
own national security.
  Unfortunately, over the last 2 weeks I have watched these issues be 
swept under the rug as the Senate has given away its voice on our trade 
relations with the most populous nation on the globe.
  But while I expect the Senate will pass this PNTR, I do not intend to 
go down without one final swing. It is too important for our Nation not 
to sum up why the opponents of PNTR believe it is such a dangerous 
mistake.
  For the last decade, I have been a vocal opponent of providing most 
favored nation or normal trade relations to China. For me, it all boils 
down to putting profits over people. I think that is just plain wrong 
and un-American. But while we were never able to stop Congress from 
approving MFN, at least we had an open and public debate on the issue 
every year. But by passing PNTR, we will even lose this right.
  For years we have been able to use the annual debate to discuss the 
wisdom of granting broad trade privileges to Communist China. When the 
students were massacred in Tiananmen Square, or when the Chinese 
military threatened democracy in Taiwan, or when the revelations came 
to light about China spreading weapons of mass destruction to 
terrorists, we had a chance in the House and in the Senate to shine the 
spotlight on Communist China.

  By passing PNTR, that spotlight will grow dim and the stick we were 
once able to wield under the most-favored-nation-status law will now be 
replaced by a rubber stamp bearing the letters, ``W-T-O.''
  My opponents on this issue talk as if the American economy will fail 
if we do not pass this bill, that it is so important we should sweep 
aside all of the concerns about China and all of the evidence of 
wrongdoing because we should not ``rock the boat.'' That is ridiculous.
  I say, on something as fundamental as our national security, we 
should not just say we have to go along to get along. If this is as 
important an issue as supporters of PNTR make it out to be--that it is 
one of the most monumental votes in years--then we should have done it 
right. Instead, we have seen the deliberate process short circuited by 
blood oaths among Senators to oppose all amendments no matter how 
worthy. We have watched the supporters of PNTR move Heaven and Earth to 
avoid a conference with the House.
  Remember, the Congress of the United States is supposed to be writing 
this bill, not the business community, not the U.S. Trade 
Representative, and especially not the Chinese.
  The American people are listening. The cameras are rolling. The 
pressure is on to do what is right. But in this instance I think we 
have failed.
  But before we hand over the keys of our economic engine, I think it 
is important that we take one last cold, hard look at who is exactly 
doing the driving. This is China's record.
  China ships weapons of mass destruction to terrorist nations.
  China operates one of the most oppressive regimes in the world, 
brutalizing and slaughtering its own people.
  China threatens other free nations such as Taiwan and snubs its nose 
at the international community by occupying Tibet.
  China tried to buy access to our Government through illegal campaign 
contributions and to influence our own elections.
  There it is in black and white. But in the name of expediency and 
Presidential legacy, we are about to grant this nation full and open 
trade relations. I do not care how you spin it, that does not make any 
sense.
  For over a decade, the supporters of free trade with China have been 
making the argument over and over again that China is changing, that 
things are getting better, and we will soon reap the benefits of free 
trade with China. All the facts prove them wrong.
  It has been over 10 years since Tiananmen Square, and the Chinese are 
still slaughtering their own people. They are still selling weapons to 
terrorists. And they are still bullying other nations and threatening 
the United States. Nothing is any different with China now. In fact, it 
might be worse. Those who say otherwise are only fooling themselves.
  While the annual debates on MFN or PNTR, or whatever you want to call 
it, might not have turned the tide in China, to now provide even less 
debate and scrutiny can only make things worse for the Chinese people.
  I think the supporters are right about one thing. The final vote on 
this bill is going to be one of the most pivotal votes in years, one we 
will look back upon as a fateful moment in our history. I am afraid 
history is not going to be kind to Congress for passing this 
legislation, for abdicating our role in overseeing trade relations with 
China.

  Mr. President, it is a sad day in Congress. I am sorry to say we are 
going to do the wrong thing at the wrong time.
  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 (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the Presiding 
Officer's statement with respect to PNTR. We will have a vote on that 
tomorrow. I share many of the Senator's sentiments with respect to the 
concerns of the American people about PNTR. My constituents, frankly, 
from the correspondence I have received, are overwhelmingly opposed to 
it.
  I also share the concerns he expressed about some of the remaining 
problems we will continue to face with respect to China, not only 
continuing trade problems but also problems that relate to our national 
security. I would like to discuss some of these remaining concerns and 
how I have attempted to resolve those concerns which is why, at the end 
of the day, I am going to vote to support PNTR notwithstanding those 
concerns.
  But I will continue to urge my colleagues that we be able to address 
both the continuing trade disputes that will not be resolved by China's 
accession into the WTO and also the national security concerns that 
will certainly continue to exist after China's accession into the WTO.
  Mr. President, as the Senate's debate about whether to grant China 
permanent normal trade status comes to a close this week, and a 
lopsided vote in favor of granting such status is anticipated, it is 
imperative for the United States to continue to address numerous 
important issues in our country's relationship with China.
  As I outlined last week, the concerns posed by China's aggressive 
military modernization, threats by its leaders to attack the United 
States or our ally Taiwan, and its irresponsible proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles to rogue nations, 
must command attention and should

[[Page S8645]]

not be forgotten after passage of this trade bill. I believe the Senate 
missed an opportunity to address some of these important concerns last 
week, when an amendment offered by Senator Fred Thompson to impose 
sanctions on organizations in China that engage in the proliferation of 
ballistic missiles and nuclear, biological, chemical weapons failed. It 
is also important to take steps to counter China's military moves that 
threaten the U.S., such as its targeting of nuclear-tipped missiles on 
American cities. Here too we missed an opportunity earlier this year, 
when President Clinton decided to delay deployment of a national 
missile defense system.
  With regard to Taiwan, I believe it is important that the United 
States support our long-standing, democratic ally. The communist regime 
in Beijing uses every available opportunity to undermine international 
support for Taiwan, and this extends to trade issues as well. Despite 
earlier promises to the United States that it would not block Taiwan's 
admission to the World Trade Organization, in recent weeks, China has 
nonetheless sought to do just that. I had originally intended to offer 
an amendment to the PNTR legislation that would have conditioned the 
extension of normal trade relations to China on Taiwan entry into the 
WTO, but agreed to withdraw the amendment after receiving assurances 
from President Clinton and U.S. Trade Representative Charlene 
Barshefsky that the U.S. would insist on this result.
  I will have more to say about these national security concerns, but I 
would first point out that China's record on trade compliance must be 
closely monitored, and the United States must insist on action when 
China fails to comply with the very set of international trade rules it 
has agreed to adhere to through the WTO. The United States must also be 
diligent about efforts to pressure China into drastically changing its 
record on human rights, religious freedom, forced abortions and the 
harvesting of baby and adult human organs. It is unfortunate that the 
Senate did not pass a number of other amendments offered or debated 
last week that sought to deal with these issues.
  Despite unacceptable behavior by the Chinese government on a range of 
issues, I intend to vote for PNTR for China, because of other benefits 
this step will bring. Trade with China has become an increasingly 
important issue for the United States, due to the expansive growth of 
its economy, and the desire of American firms to compete in the Chinese 
market. The United States and China has been negotiating a bilateral 
trade agreement for twelve years. With the passage of PNTR, and China's 
subsequent admittance to the WTO, this bilateral trade agreement will 
take effect.
  China is the world's fifth largest trading market, and the United 
States could gain substantially from a lowering of Chinese tariffs on 
U.S. goods and services. Under the negotiated trade agreement, overall 
Chinese tariffs on American industrial goods will fall from 24.6 
percent today to 9.4 percent by 2005--May 2000 report, ``The U.S. 
Economy and China's Admission to the WTO, Joint Economic Committee. 
Arizona, in particular, should benefit. According to the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Arizona exported $243 million in goods and 
services to China in 1998, up from $67 million in 1993. Of those 
exports, 58 percent were in electronics and electric equipment; under 
the trade agreement tariffs on this type of equipment will be reduced 
from 13 percent to 0 percent at the time of China's accession to the 
WTO. Over the next five years, tariffs will be significantly reduced on 
beef, cotton, fruits, and vegetables, all which represent potential 
export opportunities for Arizona. As tariffs are reduced in China and 
demand for U.S. goods and services increases there, significant numbers 
of jobs should be created in the United States, particularly in 
Arizona.
  It is also possible, though perhaps not yet probable, that increased 
trade with the United States could also have a liberalizing effect on 
China itself, exposing its people to free ideas and making the regime 
improve its dismal human rights record. PNTR for China, and the 
subsequent U.S.-China trade agreement, may also increase chances for 
economic improvements in China. Dismantling state-operated enterprises 
in favor of private sector investment may produce better, higher-paying 
jobs for its Chinese citizens.
  If the United States does not grant PNTR to China and make effective 
the U.S.-China trade agreement that will benefit U.S. workers and 
businesses, I am certain other countries will step in and take 
opportunities away from our U.S. manufacturing and service sectors.
  As I outlined briefly in the opening of my statement, however, a 
number of issues will continue to plague the United States' 
relationship with China. Trade alone does not define our relationship 
with China, and as I have stated repeatedly, national security and 
human rights issues must continue to command the attention of the 
Administration and the elected representatives of the American people 
in Congress.
  China poses a special challenge for America, not merely because of 
its growing economy and increasingly capable military, but because the 
path of its evolution remains unknown. We need to be realistic in our 
dealings with China and take steps to defend our security when 
warranted.
  Although China has embraced some elements of a free-market economic 
system, the country is still led by a repressive communist regime that 
still tries to maintain tight control over its people and their 
exposure to Western ideas. The Chinese government has also been hostile 
to the United States in several areas, despite the efforts of the 
Clinton Administration to ``engage'' its leaders.
  For example, China has targeted some of its long-range nuclear-tipped 
missiles on American cities and has threatened to use them if the U.S. 
came to the aid of Taiwan. As a commentary in the state-owned People's 
Liberation Army Daily stated in February, ``China is neither Iraq or 
Yugoslavia, but a very special country . . . it is a country that has 
certain abilities of launching a strategic counterattack and the 
capacity of launching a long-distance strike. Probably it is not a wise 
move to be at war with a country such as China, a point which U.S. 
policymakers know fairly well also.'' Another editorial published in 
March of this year in a different state-owned paper was even more 
blunt, warning that, ``The United States will not sacrifice 200 million 
Americans for 20 million Taiwanese.''
  It is important that the United States takes steps to protect 
ourselves through the deployment of a national missile defense system. 
We need to deploy such a system as soon as the technology to do so is 
ready, and we should pursue sea- and space-based defenses that offer 
tremendous advantages when combined with the ground-based system 
currently under development.
  We also need to send clear signals to China about our intentions 
behind the deployment of a national missile defense system and our 
commitment to our long-standing ally Taiwan. For example, I'm 
disappointed that the Senate did not pass the Taiwan Security 
Enhancement Act earlier this year. This bill would have increased 
training for Taiwan's military officers at U.S. military schools, 
permitted U.S.-flag officers to visit Taiwan, and established a secure 
communications link between the U.S. and Taiwan militaries. It was a 
modest piece of legislation that should have been passed to demonstrate 
our support for Taiwan.
  Another area where the U.S. needs to stand by Taiwan is in supporting 
its admission to the WTO. I though it was particularly important to 
address this specific issue during the Senate's consideration of the 
China PNTR bill in light of recent moves by China to block Taiwan's 
admission to the trade group.
  Taiwan has been negotiating to become a member of the WTO since 1990 
and has met the substantive criteria for membership. Furthermore, based 
on its importance to the world economy, Taiwan should be admitted to 
the WTO. It has the 19th largest economy and is the 14th largest 
trading nation in the world. Taiwan's economy is also closely linked to 
the U.S. It is America's 8th largest trading partner and purchases more 
American goods than many of our other major trading partners, like 
mainland China, Australia, and Italy.
  On several occasions, Chinese officials had assured the United States 
that China would not block Taiwan's

[[Page S8646]]

entry to the WTO as a separate entity. According to the Wall Street 
Journal, earlier this month, however, Chinese President Jiang Zemin 
told President Clinton and a business group in New York that Taiwan 
could only be admitted to the WTO as a province of China. This 
statement by President Jiang was particularly concerning since it came 
on the heels of other troubling moves by China. On September 7, Chinese 
Foreign Ministry Spokesman Sun Yuxi said that China wanted its claim to 
sovereignty over Taiwan written into the terms of the WTO's rules, 
stating, ``The Chinese side has a consistent and clear position: Taiwan 
can join WTO as a separate customs territory of China.''
  Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal reported in July that:

       . . . as WTO staff members draw up the so-called protocol 
     agreements--the reams of paper that define exactly what 
     concessions China will make in order to gain entry into the 
     organization--China is insisting that its claim over Taiwan 
     be recognized in the legal language . . . chief Chinese 
     negotiator Long Yongtu said . . . such a stand ``is a matter 
     of principle for us'' . . . That would upset a consensus 
     within the WTO that Taiwan should be allowed to enter the 
     club as a separate economic area--that is, not an independent 
     country, but also not as an explicit part of China. Some WTO 
     members have argued that Taiwan has long since fulfilled its 
     requirements to join the club and its application has been 
     held up only to satisfy China's demand that Taiwan shouldn't 
     win entry to the organization first.

  In order to help ensure that China lived up to its promises to the 
United States, and that Taiwan's entry to the WTO was not unnecessarily 
impeded, I filed an amendment to H.R. 4444, the bill we are currently 
debating. The text of H.R. 4444 stated that the extension of permanent 
normal trade relations to China ``shall become effective no earlier 
than the effective date of the accession of the People's Republic of 
China to the World Trade Organization.'' My amendment would have added 
one additional condition, stating that permanent normal trade relations 
with China ``shall become effective no earlier than the effective date 
of the accession of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan as 
separate customs territories to the World Trade Organization.''
  Late last week, I agreed not to offer this amendment because of the 
strong assurances I received from President Clinton and U.S. Trade 
Representative Barshefsky that the United States would insist on 
Taiwan's entry to the WTO as a separate entity. As the President said 
in a letter dated September 12:

       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 [Chinese] President 
     Jiang Zemin . . . 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.

  Based on this strong, written assurance from the President of the 
United States and others provided privately by Ambassador Barshefsky, I 
decided not to formally offer my amendment for a vote. It is important 
that Congress and the Administration stand together in insisting that 
China live up to its promises and in showing support for Taiwan. In 
this instance, I am pleased we could work together toward that end.
  Finally, I want to discuss an area where I believe the Senate missed 
an opportunity to address serious concerns about China's proliferation 
of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction--our failure to 
adopt the Thompson amendment.
  Over the past decade, China has been the world's worst proliferator 
of the technology used to develop and produce nuclear and chemical 
weapons and ballistic missiles, narrowly edging Russia and North Korea 
for this dubious distinction. Beijing has sold ballistic missile 
technology to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan. It has 
sold nuclear technology to Iran and Pakistan. And it has aided Iran's 
chemical weapons program and sold that nation advanced cruise missiles.
  Chinese assistance has been vital to the missile and weapons of mass 
destruction programs in these countries. And because of this 
assistance, the American people and our forces and friends abroad face 
a much greater threat.
  Sadly, the efforts of the Clinton Administration to end Beijing's 
proliferation have not succeeded. Since taking office in 1993, the 
Administration has engaged in numerous discussions with senior Chinese 
officials concerning their failure to live up to international 
nonproliferation norms. But it has failed to impose sanctions on 
Chinese organizations and government entities, as required by several 
U.S. laws. Time and time again, the Clinton Administration has either 
refused to follow laws requiring sanctions or has done so in a way 
deliberately calculated to undermine the intent of the sanctions.
  For example, the Administration has not imposed the required 
sanctions on China for the sale of M-11 missiles to Pakistan. Despite 
the unanimous judgment of our intelligence agencies that this sale has 
taken and incriminating evidence such as photographs of M-11 missile 
canisters in Pakistan and training exercises by Pakistani troops with 
the missile, the Administration has said the evidence was not strong 
enough for it to impose sanctions, since it can not be sure the missile 
transfer actually took place.
  Another example of the Administration's failure to act concerns the 
transfer of anti-ship cruise missiles from China to Iran. I would 
remind my colleagues of one example of this danger; in 1987, a similar 
Exocet cruise missile killed 37 sailors on the U.S.S. Stark.
  Iran's possession of this missile was first disclosed in January 1996 
by Vice Admiral Scott Redd, then-commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. 
Admiral Redd said the C-802 gave the Iranian military increased 
firepower and represented a new dimension to the threat faced by the 
U.S. Navy, stating, ``It used to be we just had to worry about land-
based cruise missiles. Now they have the potential to have that 
throughout the Gulf mounted on ships.''
  According to the Washington Times, in 1995, Defense Department 
officials recommended declaring that China had violated the Gore-McCain 
Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992, which requires sanctions 
for the transfer to either country of ``. . . destabilizing numbers and 
types and advanced conventional weapons . . .'' Yet State Department 
officials opposed involving sanctions to avoid damaging relations with 
China.
  In his Senate testimony in 1997, Assistant Secretary of State Einhorn 
acknowledged the transaction, stating, ``. . . the question of whether 
china transferred the C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran is not in 
doubt.'' He noted that, ``Such missiles increase China's maritime 
advantage over other Gulf states, they put commercial shipping at risk, 
and they pose a new threat to U.S. forces operating in the region.'' 
But Mr. Einhorn maintained that the transfer was not ``destabilizing'' 
and thus did not meet the legal requirement for sanctions to be 
imposed.
  In September 1997, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and 
Pacific Affairs Stanley Roth further explained the Administration's 
position, claiming the C-802 sale ``. . . does not have to be 
destabilizing if you define it as overturning the ability of the United 
States to operate in the Persian Gulf. It hasn't done that.'' Mr. Roth 
added, ``. . . the U.S. Navy tells us that despite the increased threat 
from the sale of cruise missiles, it can continue to operate and carry 
out its mission to the Persian Gulf. And so even though [the Navy] is 
exceedingly unhappy with this new development, it is not, on the face 
of it, destabilizing at the point.''
  Such thinking illustrates how the Clinton Administration has refused 
to implement nonproliferation laws. If the arrival of weapons which 
directly threaten the U.S. Navy is not ``destabilizing,'' it is hard to 
imagine what the Administration might find sufficiently destabilizing 
for sanctions under the Gore-McCain Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation 
Act.
  The Senate has specifically addressed the issue of Chinese cruise 
missile sales. In June 1997, we passed an amendment offered by Senator 
Bennett by a vote of 96 to 0, stating: ``The delivery of cruise 
missiles to Iran is a violation of the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation 
Act of 1992. It is the sense of the Senate to urge the Clinton 
Administration to enforce the provisions

[[Page S8647]]

of the [Act] with respect to the acquisition by Iran of C-802 model 
cruise missiles.'' Despite this unanimous expression by the Senate of 
the need to enforce the law, the Administration has refused to take 
action in this case.
  There are many more examples of Chinese proliferation and the 
Administration's failure to enforce current laws in this area that 
provide the rationale for the Thompson amendment. In the interest of 
time, I will not describe them all, but will simply make the point that 
the Thompson amendment would have helped to combat this deadly trade by 
making it clear to China that it would have faced economic penalties 
from the U.S. if it continued to proliferate.
  Mr. President, I would just say in conclusion that trade with China 
is important, and I intend to vote for the PNTR bill. But I believe it 
is imperative that we not forget these important national security 
issues once the debate on PNTR is completed. The challenge before us is 
to deal with China in a way that protects America's national security, 
promotes free trade, demonstrates our support for our democratic ally 
Taiwan, and improves human rights in China. This is a tough job, but 
one that I am sure all Senators agree is too important to ignore.

                          ____________________