[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17462-17466]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 17462]]

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Chafee). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume the consideration


of H.R. 4444, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Wellstone amendment No. 4118, to require that the President 
     certify to Congress that the People's Republic of China has 
     taken certain actions with respect to ensuring human rights 
     protection.
       Wellstone amendment No. 4119, to require that the President 
     certify to Congress that the People's Republic of China is in 
     compliance with certain Memoranda of Understanding regarding 
     prohibition on import and export of prison labor products.
       Wellstone amendment No. 4120, to require that the President 
     certify to Congress that the People's Republic of China has 
     responded to inquiries regarding certain people who have been 
     detained or imprisoned and has made substantial progress in 
     releasing from prison people incarcerated for organizing 
     independent trade unions.
       Wellstone amendment No. 4121, to strengthen the rights of 
     workers to associate, organize and strike.
       Smith (of N.H.) amendment No. 4129, to require that the 
     Congressional-Executive Commission monitor the cooperation of 
     the People's Republic of China with respect to POW/MIA 
     issues, improvement in the areas of forced abortions, slave 
     labor, and organ harvesting.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Senate Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, and myself have been here 
for several hours for the purpose of making progress on the 
consideration of the permanent normal trade relations with China. We 
both agreed that this is the most important vote we will face this 
year. In fact, it may be the most important vote we have had this 
decade. But I am deeply concerned that we are not having any of our 
colleagues making themselves available to come down to bring up the 
amendments that they say they want to offer.
  Time is running out. This is the third day we have been on this bill. 
I thought we made some very good progress yesterday. We considered a 
number of amendments. But it is absolutely critically important that we 
continue to make that kind of progress today and next week.
  I point out that the regular order of business is that if there are 
no amendments we ought to proceed to the vote on the legislation 
itself.
  I want every Senator to have the opportunity to offer any amendments 
they may care to offer because there is no question about the 
importance of this legislation. But we cannot wait indefinitely. I ask 
my friends on both sides--on the Republican side and on the Democratic 
side--who have amendments that they want to offer on this critically 
important piece of legislation to please come down now. Time is running 
out.
  Would the Senator from New York not agree with that?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I wholly agree with the statement by our 
revered chairman of the Finance Committee. The operative part of this 
measure is two pages. It is a simple statement. It came out from the 
Finance Committee almost unanimously.
  Mr. ROTH. That is correct.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. That would be four months ago, in mid-May. There has 
been plenty of time to examine it. The House bill has a few additional 
features we find attractive and which we think we could adopt and send 
right to the President who would sign it. It is a bipartisan measure.
  There are those who do not want this legislation.
  It has been avowedly, unashamedly, and legitimately their desire to 
prolong the debate until time runs out. If they could just add one 
amendment, the measure would have to go back to the House, then to 
conference, then to the floor. Time would run out.
  We have passed two appropriations bills. We are in a Presidential 
election year. That election is less than 60 days away. The desire to 
get back to our constituencies is legitimate and proper. Therefore, the 
device of delay is a legitimate, recognized, and familiar strategy.
  However, this is not a matter on which to delay. The Chairman was 
absolutely right, this may be the most important vote we take this 
decade. In my opening statement, I referred to the testimony of Ira 
Shapiro, our former Chief Negotiator for Japan and Canada at the Office 
of the U.S. Trade Representative. He, just by chance, concluded his 
testimony, in the last testimony we heard, as it happened:

       . . . [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.

  Well, let us be about it. We look around and we are happy to see our 
friend from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, who wishes to speak on 
behalf of the measure. We welcome any other Member who wishes to speak. 
We have heard many. The real matter before the Senate is those who wish 
to offer amendments. A good friend, a distinguished Senator, the 
chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, laid down a 
measure last evening. We had to juggle our schedule to go to the water 
appropriations measure. But he is not here this morning. He claimed a 
place--which is fine, legitimately--but the place is empty. When I 
arrived, as when the Chairman arrived, looking to start the amendment 
process, no one was here.
  Now, sir, there can be only one response, and the Chairman has stated 
it. On Tuesday, I hope the Majority Leader will move to close debate by 
invoking cloture. It is a process with which we are familiar. We are 
not cutting off amendments; amendments will be in order afterwards. But 
we are sitting here asking for amendments, and none comes forward. This 
matter is of the utmost gravity, urgency, the issues that are in 
balance, and not just economic issues but political, military issues of 
the most important level. That is what is at stake. If nobody wishes to 
debate it, let's proceed to a final vote.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me say to my distinguished colleague, I 
could not agree more with his statement as to the importance of 
offering any amendments Members desire to offer. I am told we have 
actually been on this bill 4 days this week.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. And before we had the August recess.
  Mr. ROTH. And before we had the August recess, we had discussion; 
that is correct.
  I say to Senator Moynihan, I think it is important we take some time 
today. I am delighted our friend from South Dakota is here. We will 
call upon him to make his remarks. I think it is important that the 
American people fully understand why this legislation is of such 
critical importance. It is important to our economy and to our growth. 
It is particularly important to provide better and more jobs to the 
working people of America. I can't stress how much I think it is 
important to agriculture in my little State of Delaware.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Did you say the ``little State of Delaware''? Do you 
mean the first State to ratify the Constitution of the United States?
  Mr. ROTH. You are absolutely right. I stand corrected.
  In my State of Delaware, the people are waiting to see action on 
this.
  For farmers, take poultry. It is critically important to the economy 
of my State. China is the second largest importer of poultry and has 
offered to cut the tariff in half. This makes a tremendous opportunity.
  The same thing with automobiles. I bet the Senator didn't know this.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I bet I did, sir, because I heard it from your very 
self several times. I believe you are the second largest producer of 
automobiles in the Nation.
  Mr. ROTH. We have more workers, percentage-wise, than any other 
State, including Michigan. There are significant concessions made with 
respect to automobiles.
  Chemicals, likewise, are critically important to my State.
  After my distinguished friend from South Dakota finishes, it might be

[[Page 17463]]

worthwhile to spell out to the American people why this legislation is 
of such critical importance.
  Perhaps we ought to recognize Senator Johnson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators from 
Delaware and New York.
  Mr. President, my purpose today is to share some thoughts about the 
critical importance of PNTR legislation. Because my good friend and 
colleague from Idaho, just prior to my opportunity this morning, 
discussed the role of my good colleague from South Dakota, Senator 
Daschle, relative to the timing of legislation, I do feel compelled to 
make a remark or two in that regard.
  No one in this body has done more than Senator Daschle of South 
Dakota to move legislation forward in an expeditious and well-timed 
manner. Whether it is PNTR, where Senator Daschle has for months been 
trying to bring this bill to the floor, or the Patients' Bill of 
Rights, prescription drugs, school construction, minimum wage, and down 
the entire list of legislative agenda items before this body, Senator 
Daschle has been tireless in his efforts to bring them to the floor, to 
have consideration in a full manner. For anyone to suggest that somehow 
our good colleague from South Dakota would be playing some role in 
slowing down progress on these or other matters, I think, is a point 
simply not correct.
  I comment as well that while the President of the United States is 
seeking additional fuel from Saudi Arabia, it strikes me, and strikes 
others who are not concerned about the partisan politics of this, that 
is what we would expect the President of the United States to be doing 
at this summit conference in New York--trying to address the various 
components of energy policy necessary to reduce costs and increase the 
availability of fuel for American consumers. If the President were not 
doing that, there is no doubt there would be criticism leveled at him 
for doing nothing to negotiate and use American leverage with our OPEC 
neighbors and the world.
  I think some of this discussion earlier this morning has to be seen 
and evaluated in light of the fact that we are in this last month or 
two before a Presidential election. The partisan swords clearly have 
been drawn this morning. I should never be shocked at that, I suppose, 
particularly in an election year at this time of the year. But it is my 
hope that through all of this partisan political rhetoric, the American 
public will see through that. I think it is transparent.
  We need to work together in a bipartisan fashion. One of the things I 
am pleased about this morning is the bipartisan nature of our support 
for permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of 
China. Our distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, who, among his 
other talents, is perhaps the finest scholar in this body--for many 
years, many generations--has observed that this may be one of the half 
dozen most critically important votes that we as Senators will take 
since the end of World War II.
  Obviously, this issue is of enormous import in terms of economic 
policy, economic strategy for the United States. It is a win situation 
for us. It is one sided. They give up limitations against the export of 
Americans goods. We give up nothing. But even if economic issues were a 
wash, even if there were not these kinds of obvious economic benefits 
for the United States, the geopolitical consequences of integrating the 
People's Republic of China's 1.3 billion people into the world rule of 
law, into the international community of nations to help stabilize the 
ongoing process of democratization and the free flow of ideas and 
scholars and business leaders is, in itself, reason enough for support 
for permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of 
China.
  So I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 4444, legislation 
which would grant PNTR to the People's Republic of China. In the past, 
Congress has had to pass legislation each and every year to ensure 
mutually beneficial relations between our two nations. Now we have 
reached the point where permanent normal trade relations with the 
People's Republic of China is appropriate and will help pave the way 
for the World Trade Organization, WTO, membership for the PRC, and will 
strike a blow for the rule of law throughout the world.
  I am joining the leadership of both parties to oppose all amendments 
to PNTR, due to the very late stage of the congressional session in 
which we are taking up this bill. Many Senators will offer important 
amendments to H.R. 4444 concerning worker's rights, religious freedom, 
and human rights in the PRC. I support efforts to improve China's human 
rights record, the right of workers to organize, and religious freedom 
in China. But, I believe that jeopardizing H.R. 4444 is exactly the 
wrong approach. As a nation, we have attempted to promote global human 
rights, democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. While 
each nation ultimately determines for itself whether to pursue 
democracy and other American-supported values, I support efforts to 
open China to trade with democratic cultures. I am also opposed, 
obviously, to religious persecution and will support efforts to 
discourage it in China. However, there are other pieces of legislation 
that can be used to achieve these goals. The PNTR bill must be adopted 
in an amendment-free fashion if we are to avoid its ultimate defeat. 
With few days remaining in Congress, a PNTR bill adopted by the Senate 
that differs from the clean bill passed in the House of Representatives 
would force us to convene a conference committee to iron out the bill's 
differences. The result--significant delay which would be compounded by 
the margin in which the House adopted H.R. 4444 in May. Sending PNTR 
back to the House for another vote very likely means its ultimate 
defeat for this year. At this late stage in Congress, that is not an 
acceptable strategy for any of us to endorse.
  It is true this vote is of significant importance to family farmers, 
ranchers, and independent businesses in South Dakota and the entire 
country. However, this vote means much, much more--I believe this vote 
signifies one of the most critical geo-political votes the U.S. Senate 
will take since World War II.
  China, with its 1.2 billion people and one of the fastest growing 
economies in the world, needs to be required to live by the discipline 
of international law. That is what World Trade Organization--[WTO] 
membership would mean. China would have to open up its agricultural and 
other markets to the world, and it would not be permitted to violate 
international rules on copyright or patents. As a result of PNTR, I 
believe the presence of western consumer products, the exchange of 
democratic principles, and the free flow of ideas via technology and 
internet communication will do more to undermine authoritarian aspects 
of China's government than any kind of isolation could possibly 
accomplish--particularly unilateral isolation on the part of the United 
States. I feel very strongly that we need to build more bridges of 
understanding and cooperation between western democracies and the PRC, 
rather than work for the contrary. In the meantime, the biggest winners 
of all in establishing the same normalized trading relationships with 
China that we have with almost every other nation on the planet will be 
American farmers and ranchers and small businesses.
  The bilateral deal struck between the United States and China on 
November 15, 1999 is a completely one-sided trade agreement. China will 
be required to allow more of our goods into their country, while the 
United States will not be required to change a thing. Frankly, a 
failure to enact PNTR will simply mean that every other country in the 
world would have open access to Chinese markets, but the United States 
would have virtually none. Since the United States has few barriers to 
trade, and current trade restrictions are almost exclusively on the 
part of China and other nations, WTO agreements in general are 
overwhelmingly to the benefit of the United States.
  I have been to China and witnessed first-hand the opportunities for 
greater

[[Page 17464]]

market access there. Since 1998, I have facilitated a series of trade 
missions to improve relations with China. The relationships we have 
built in this course of time may open markets for the farmers and 
ranchers of South Dakota and the United States.
  In March of 1998, my office hosted senior trade and agriculture 
officials from the Chinese Embassy on a trade mission to South Dakota. 
The officials toured the John Morrell meatpacking plant in Sioux Falls, 
the South Dakota Wheat Growers Cooperative in Aberdeen, and the Harvest 
States Feed Mill in Sioux Falls. During their visit, the Chinese trade 
officials also witnessed the ingenuity of South Dakota businesses like 
Gateway of North Sioux City, Daktronics of Brookings, and Wildcat 
Manufacturing of Freeman. The officials were impressed with our 
diversified economy and the quality and pride in our products.
  In a follow-up mission, in December of 1998, I led a delegation of 
South Dakota farmers to the PRC. We met with trade officials and 
scholars at the Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing University, and 
Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation.
  Finally, in May of 1999, a 29-member delegation of Chinese trade 
officials traveled to South Dakota at my request to further explore 
agricultural trade opportunities. These Chinese officials met with farm 
group leaders, toured farming and ranching operations, and visited the 
South Dakota Soybean Processors plant near Volga.
  My visit to China, and discussions with Chinese trade officials, 
indicate that family farmers and ranchers in South Dakota are ideally 
situated to help satisfy the needs of China's 1.2 billion residents, 
who exhibit a growing appetite for a more sophisticated diet. China's 
agricultural production capabilities just cannot satisfy their people's 
needs right now, especially considering the country represents a mere 7 
percent of the world's arable land.
  South Dakota agricultural exports in 1998 reached $1.1 billion and 
supported nearly 17,000 jobs. While Congress needs to place a much 
greater emphasis on improving domestic policies--like reforming the 
1996 farm bill--greater access to closed-off markets will provide a 
boost to our agricultural economy too. Two-thirds of the prosperity or 
decline in South Dakota agriculture still depends upon a fair 
marketplace price here at home. I believe Congress has failed to make 
common sense reforms to the farm bill which may allow farmers to take 
advantage of a fair market. Nonetheless, one-third of our agricultural 
economy requires trade with other nations. Under the agreement we 
struck with China, South Dakota farmers and ranchers will no longer 
have to compete with unfair tariffs, unscientific bans, and export 
subsidies on China's agricultural goods.
  Beef cattle receipts represent the largest share of South Dakota's 
agricultural economy. China currently imports very little beef, but a 
growing middle class and rising demand from urban areas are expected to 
result in significantly increased demand for beef imports. China has 
agreed to lower tariffs on beef meat products from 45 to 12 percent, 
which may mean better returns for independent cattle ranchers in South 
Dakota. In addition, tariffs on pork imports into China will decline 
from 20 to 12 percent, aiding South Dakota's pork products as well.
  Wheat farmers in South Dakota desire greater access to the Chinese 
marketplace. As a result of our agreement with China, they will 
eliminate their unscientific ban on Pacific Northwest wheat imports 
from the United States. They will also agree to a substantial increase 
in the amount of wheat they purchase under their tariff rate quota. In 
1998 China imported a mere 2 million metric tons of wheat. Our 
agreement will allow China to purchase up to 9.6 million tons of wheat 
below tariff rate quotas. In fact, in February of this year, China 
bought nearly 800,000 bushels of hard red winter and spring wheat from 
South Dakota and several other wheat growing states. While a relatively 
small transaction, their commitment to more open trade with the U.S. is 
exhibited with this purchase.
  Furthermore, as a large soybean producer, South Dakota's soybean 
farmers and farmer-owned processors of soybeans will benefit from a 
tariff cut China agreed to make on United States soybean exports. South 
Dakota farmers also produce substantial bushels of feed grain and corn. 
China agreed to make market-oriented changes to their tariff rate quota 
system on corn, nearly doubling the amount of corn they import under 
their tariff quota rate.
  While South Dakota agriculture is poised to benefit from greater 
trade with China, other businesses in our state are set to become major 
exporters under a more market-oriented trading system granted by PNTR 
for China as well. In fact, electronics and electronic equipment today 
comprise 78 percent of total South Dakota exports to China. More than 
half of the South Dakota firms, 58 percent, that export to China are 
small and mid-sized enterprises--with fewer than 500 employees--and 
several are family owned. China will liberalize quotas on manufacturing 
equipment, information technology products, and electronic goods 
produced right in South Dakota. This means our computer manufacturers 
like Gateway and equipment firms like Wildcat Manufacturing will find 
greater access to that nation.
  From 1993 to 1998, South Dakota's exports to China nearly doubled--
increasing by over 91 percent. I believe that if the Senate adopts H.R. 
4444, South Dakota farmers, ranchers, and businesses will see 
tremendous new trade opportunities.
  Now is the time for the Senate to take advantage of this historic 
opportunity before us. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting passage of a clean PNTR bill so that it can be sent to the 
President and signed into law in a proper fashion.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Kentucky will 
indulge me for a 90-second comment, I thank my friend from South Dakota 
for that superb address of the importance of a mixed economy and the 
contacts they already have. I ask to be indulged a moment from an 
academic past.
  I was once a colleague and remained a good friend of Raymond Vernon, 
an economist who developed the theory of the product cycle: How a 
product begins to be produced in one nation, then will be exported, 
consumed abroad, then produced abroad and exported back. This goes on.
  The soybean--I now have to invoke my age in this regard. I remember 
as a boy in the 1930s reading in the Reader's Digest about this magic 
little bean that was grown in China and contained proteins of 
unimaginable consequence and would some day come to our country and be 
grown, and we would all be so much healthier and happier.
  That happened, and now those very Chinese are coming to South Dakota 
negotiating the sale of soybeans back to China. This is Vernon's 
product cycle, part of the dynamism of trade. It is never one way. It 
goes back and forth, not to be feared, not by us. Mr. President, I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to granting 
permanent normal trade relations to China, and in support of Senator 
Thompson's China Non-proliferation Act.
  It is a sad time in the Senate. Soon we are going to vote on 
extending permanent normal trade relations--PNTR--to China. And it 
looks like it is going to pass.
  If we grant PNTR and give our seal of approval to China's application 
to join the World Trade Organization, Congress will not only relinquish 
its best chance to scrutinize China's behavior on a regular basis, but 
it will also give away what little leverage we have to bring about 
real, true change in China. I think that is a serious and dangerous 
mistake.
  For years, we have been able to annually debate trade with China in 
Congress, and to use the debate to discuss the wisdom of granting broad 
trade privileges to Communist China.
  When the Chinese troops massacred the students in Tiananmen Square, 
or when the Chinese military threatened democracy on neighboring 
Taiwan, or

[[Page 17465]]

when revelations came to light about China spreading weapons of mass 
destruction to terrorist nations, we had a chance in the House and 
Senate to shine the spotlight on Communist China.
  I served on the House Ways and Means Committee for 8 years, and every 
year we debated most-favored nation trade--so-called MFN status--for 
China. Supporters of MFN always had the votes to pass it, but it was 
still an important opportunity to focus attention on China's misdeeds 
and to make sure the American public knew about China's dirty little 
secrets. Now we are going to lose that ability.
  I would like to take some time today to talk about why we should not 
grant PNTR to China and explain my reasons for opposing it. While I 
know that the votes are probably there to pass PNTR, I want to lay out 
for the record what is at stake and also to argue that we should at a 
minimum take the step of also passing Senator Thompson's bill to 
maintain some semblance of accountability for Communist China.
  First, let's look at China's record when it comes to arms control and 
the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
  There is no doubt that China's practice of making weapons of mass 
destruction available to rogue states like North Korea, Iran, and Libya 
has made the world a more dangerous place.
  The commission led by Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that 
recently examined this problem pointed out in its final report that 
China is ``a significant proliferator of ballistic missiles, weapons of 
mass destruction and enabling technologies.''
  We know Communist China has sold nuclear components and missiles to 
Pakistan, missile parts to Libya, cruise missiles to Iran, and that it 
shared sensitive technologies with North Korea.
  In the last few months it has even been reported in the press that 
China is building another missile plant in Pakistan, and is illegally 
using American supercomputers to improve its nuclear weapon technology.
  Many of these technologies are being used by enemies of America to 
develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.
  In short, Beijing is guilty of spreading the most dangerous weapons 
imaginable to some of the most treacherous and threatening states on 
the globe.
  That is about as bad as it gets.
  From experience, we know that China doesn't change its policies just 
because we ask them to. China only makes serious non-proliferation 
commitments under the threat of the actual imposition of sanctions.
  We have to hold their feet to the fire. A memorandum from the 
assistant director at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency to the 
Clinton White House in 1996 makes the case:

       The history of U.S.-China relations shows that China has 
     made specific non-proliferation commitments only under the 
     threat or imposition of sanctions. Beijing made commitments 
     [to limit missile technology exports] in 1992 and 1994, in 
     exchange for our lifting of sanctions.

  Over the years, it is only when the United States has clearly brought 
economic pressure to bear on China that we have seen real, hard results 
from Beijing.
  For instance, economic pressure in the late 1980s and early 1990s led 
to China's agreement to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 
1992.
  In 1991, the Bush administration applied sanctions against China 
after Beijing transferred missile technology to Pakistan. Five months 
later, China made the commitment to abide by the missile technology 
control regime.
  In 1993, the Clinton administration imposed sanctions on Beijing for 
the sale of M-11 missile equipment to Pakistan in violation of 
international arms control agreements. Over a year later, Beijing 
backed down by agreeing not to export ground-to-ground missiles in 
exchange for our lifting of sanctions.
  Time and time again we have seen that Chinese respond to the stick, 
and not the carrot. And this experience certainly points to the fact 
that the threat of sanctions like those in the Thompson bill, and not 
the olive branch of greater trade, is what the Chinese will respect.
  Beijing's behavior has not been much better when it comes to 
democratic Taiwan.
  I have been to Taiwan, and seen how its commitment to democracy and 
the free market has enabled that country to build one of the most 
vibrant economies in the world.
  Taiwan is a friend of the United States and a good ally.
  But time and time again Communist China has rattled its saber and 
threatened the very existence of free Taiwan. Less than 5 years ago, 
China actually fired missiles over Taiwan.
  Since then China has conducted a massive military buildup across the 
Taiwan strait.
  Last year, CIA Director Tenet reported to Congress that while China 
claims it doesn't want conflict with Taiwan, ``It refuses to renounce 
the use of force as an option and continues to place its best new 
military equipment across from the island.''
  This belligerent attitude threatens not only Taiwan, but more 
ominously relations throughout East Asia.
  The Pentagon's 1998 East Asian strategy report notes that many of 
``China's neighbors are closely monitoring China's growing defense 
expenditures and modernization of the People's Liberation Army, 
including development and acquisition of advanced fighter aircraft; 
programs to develop mobile ballistic systems, land-attack and anti-ship 
cruise missiles, and advanced surface-to-air missiles; and a range of 
power projection platforms.''
  Recently there seems to have been a thaw in relations between China 
and Taiwan. This is a hopeful sign. But who knows when Beijing will 
change course and revert to its belligerent ways. We need to help keep 
the pressure on.
  Eliminating the annual debate on China trade in Congress will remove 
one of our most effective and high-profile options in pressuring the 
Chinese. In dealing with an adversary as tenacious and patient as 
China, this is exactly the wrong philosophy to adopt.
  Even more ominous than threats to Taiwan have been recent signs of 
increased Chinese belligerence toward the United States.
  In February, 1999, the CIA reported to Congress that China is 
developing air and naval systems ``intended to deter the United States 
from involvement in Taiwan and to extend China's fighting capabilities 
beyond its coastline.''
  And we should not forget the recent threat from a Chinese general to 
fire a nuclear weapon at Los Angeles if the United States were to 
interfere in Taiwan-China relations.
  There are even indications that China's military could be 
anticipating a confrontation with the United States.
  In January, 1999, the Washington Times reported that for the first 
time, China's army conducted mock attacks on United States troops 
stationed in the Asia-Pacific region.
  Intelligence also reported that United States troops in South Korea 
and Japan were envisioned as potential targets of these practice 
attacks.
  President Reagan used to talk about adopting a policy of peace 
through strength in approaching the Russians during the cold war. That 
policy worked then, and it should be the policy we follow in 
confronting the Chinese.
  All of the experts tell us that China potentially poses the strongest 
military and economic threat to America in the 21st century.
  Passing PNTR sends the signal to China that we want trade more than 
we want peace.
  Instead, we should heed the lessons we learned in winning the cold 
war and understand that the Communist Chinese are more likely to 
respect our strength than to fear our weakness.
  Finally, the strongest case against PNTR can be made based on China's 
pathetic, indefensible human rights record.
  Let me quote from the very first paragraph of our own State 
Department's most recent report on human rights in China:

       The People's Republic of China is an authoritarian state in 
     which the Chinese Communist Party is the paramount source of 
     all power. At the national and regional levels, party members 
     hold almost all top government, police and military 
     positions. Ultimate authority rests with members of the 
     Politburo. Leaders stress the need to maintain stability and 
     social order and are committed to perpetuating the rule of 
     the Communist Party and its hierarchy. Citizens

[[Page 17466]]

     lack both the freedom peacefully to express opposition to the 
     party-led political system and the right to change their 
     national leaders or form of government.

  The report goes on to note that in 1999:

       The government's poor human rights record deteriorated 
     markedly throughout the year, as the government intensified 
     efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent.

  That is our own State Department saying that. It doesn't sound like a 
nation that we want to encourage with expanded trade privileges.
  Many of my friends in this body argue that China is making progress 
on human rights, and that expanded trade and western influence will 
help turn the tide. They tell me that in China things have improved 
dramatically in recent years.
  I say, tell that to the tens of thousands of members of the Fulan 
Gong who have been hunted down and punished by Beijing over the past 2 
years.
  Tell that to the prisoners in China's Gulags who continue to suffer 
under conditions that, in our own State Department's words, are 
``harsh'' and ``degrading''.
  Tell that to the political dissents who are jailed out without charge 
only because they threaten the communist party's political dominance.
  Tell that to the children who were murdered because of China's brutal 
one child per family policy.
  Tell that to the people of Tibet.
  Mr. President, all those who say that things are getting better in 
China and that PNTR will help improve conditions in China are wrong.
  It's been 11 years since the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and the 
Chinese Government still carries out the same brutal, repressive 
tactics.
  Things aren't getting any better in China. They're only getting 
worse.
  The supporters of PNTR made the same argument year after year during 
the annual debates on most-favored-nation status for China. And year 
and year, Beijing showed no sign of changing its ways. None.
  In one way, this is a hard vote for me, Mr. President. Many of my 
friends support expanded trade privileges for China, and they make an 
enthusiastic argument for expanding access to Chinese markets in order 
to help American business compete with their overseas competitors.
  My gut reaction is to vote for free and expanded trade. In my mind, 
there isn't any doubt that the world is really drawing closer and 
closer together, and that it will be through trade that the United 
States can take advantage of its economic and technological advantages 
to maintain our dominant position in the world.
  But in other, more important, ways this vote is easy is for me--
because the issues are so clear when it comes to China, and because 
China's behavior has made it so undeserving of improved trade ties with 
the United States.
  Mr. President, I've tried to simplify this issue in my mind and I've 
boiled it down to a single question that I've asked of everyone I have 
talked to about China trade:
  Why should we give the best trade privileges possible under our law 
to a communist nation that so clearly threatens us and our values?
  We didn't grant most-favored-nation status to Russia during the cold 
war. But now we are on the verge of passing the most privileged trade 
status we can give to the communist nation that is bent not only on 
supplanting America as the dominant economic power in the world, but is 
also actively supporting dangerous, rogue nations that threaten our 
citizens and our way of life.
  It just doesn't make sense.
  In conclusion, I urge a ``no'' vote on the China PNTR bill, and a 
``yes'' vote on the Thompson bill. The Chinese have not earned the 
right to trade with us, and they have show no inclination to change 
their ways.
  Senator Thompson's proposal is at least a modest attempt to preserve 
our options and to keep closer tabs on Communist China in case things 
take a turn for the worse.
  For years, the pro-China trade forces have argued that expanding 
trade with China is the carrot we can use to bring about democratic 
change in that country. The evidence has proven them wrong time and 
time again.
  Years of continuing MFN, or NTR, or whatever you want to call it 
haven't changed things in China. When it comes to China, the old saying 
still holds true: the more things change, the more they stay the same.
  Trade has not worked before as a carrot, and it certainly won't work 
in the future if we remove the stick of annual reviews and possible 
sanctions. That's why it's so crucial that we pass the China Non-
Proliferation Act.
  Mr. President, when President Reagan negotiated arms control with the 
Russians, he used an old Russian phrase to sum up his approach--trust 
but verify. That strategy worked.
  But by granting PNTR we are trusting, but failing to verify. In fact, 
we are even giving up what little ability we even have to verify. The 
Chinese certainly haven't given us any reason to take them at their 
word.
  We need to verify and the Thompson bill is our best hope of insuring 
that China will live up to its word. Otherwise, why should we blindly 
trust a country that has proven time and time again that it doesn't 
live or play by the rules.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________