[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17595-17627]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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


                           amendment no. 4125

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, may I ask the situation on the time 
limitation on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limitation.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, around this place I have learned, in 28 
years, that you are fortunate in many instances to be able to work with 
people with whom you have not earlier worked, and you learn of their 
interest and their dedication. Such is the case with the distinguished 
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, with whom I have worked in the 
preparation of this amendment. He is a principal cosponsor of it.
  The pending amendment, simply said, directs the President to certify 
that China has met a series of human rights conditions prior to 
granting PNTR to Communist China. The conditions set forth in this 
amendment are straightforward. The President would be required to 
certify formally and officially that China has, among other items:
  No. 1, dismantled its system of reeducation through labor;
  No. 2, has opened up all areas of China for U.N. human rights 
agencies;
  No. 3, has accounted for and released political and religious 
prisoners; and,
  No. 4, has provided human rights groups with unhindered access to 
religious leaders.
  So what this amendment really does is to remind Communist China, and 
all the rest of the world, that we Americans stand for something--
something other than for profits, for example. In this case, what this 
amendment makes clear is that we believe China should not be welcomed 
into international organizations such as the WTO just so long as the 
Chinese Government continues to repress, to jail, to murder, to 
torture, its own citizens for their having opposed the Beijing 
dictatorship.
  It seems to me, to fail to take this stand would be a double whammy 
against even the possibility of freedom for the people of China. First, 
the Senate will be sending a signal to Beijing that the Government of 
the United States will turn a blind eye to Communist China's grave 
abuses against humanity if this amendment is not approved, if only 
China will just let U.S. businesses make a profit in dealing with 
China.
  Second, it will send a message to those miserable souls who languish 
in China's gulags that the United States is willing to ignore their 
misery just so some in America can profit from it. If we do not send 
the signal that this amendment proposes to send, that will happen.
  I realize the WTO is not, itself, a paragon of virtue, let alone a 
democracy, given the membership already held by thuggish regimes such 
as Cuba and Burma and a host of African dictatorships. But that does 
not justify further sullying the WTO by adding Communist China to its 
membership. Rather, it is a reminder of the absurd notion that this so-
called rules-based WTO will somehow help transform China into a 
democracy.
  As does Cuba and Burma, the Chinese Government continues to have one 
of the worst human rights records in the world, despite two decades, 20 
years of having received so-called most-favored-nation status from the 
U.S. Government. The findings in the pending amendment, mostly verbatim 
quotes from the U.S. State Department's own annual reports, provide a 
sketch of the disgraceful conduct, the disgraceful situation in China. 
For example, this is

[[Page 17596]]

a quote from the U.S. State Department's 1999 human rights report shown 
on this chart. The chart shows:

       The Government of the People's Republic of China's poor 
     human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the 
     year, as the Government intensified efforts to suppress 
     dissent.

  Note two key words in that passage, ``deteriorated'' and 
``intensified,'' because these words describe a trend, a trend for the 
worse as reported by the U.S. State Department. That is not Jesse Helms 
talking. That is the State Department's official report to this Senate.
  I doubt that even the most enthusiastic supporter of Communist 
China's admission to the WTO will claim that China's human rights 
record is good. I don't know how they could do it, but some will do it. 
But year after year, we have become accustomed to hearing that China's 
human rights record is improving, don't you see. The trouble is, the 
State Department's own report, as I have indicated, emphasizes over and 
over again that this simply is not true and never has been true.
  Consider, if you will, this passage from the U.S. State Department, 
reproduced on this chart:

       Abuses by Chinese authorities included instances of 
     extrajudicial killings, torture and mistreatment of 
     prisoners, forced confessions, arbitrary arrest and 
     detention, lengthy incommunicado detentions, and denial of 
     due process.

  That is in the U.S. State Department's annual report, delivered to 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of which I am chairman.
  What is that report, when you get down to the nitty-gritty? The 
official report of our State Department, which advocates giving away 
the store to Communist China, is telling the truth on one hand and asks 
to reward China on the other.
  Are we to dismiss China's vicious crackdown on the Falun Gong 
movement? The bloody numbers are staggering: More than 35,000 people 
detained, more than 5,000 people sentenced without trial, and more than 
300 put on makeshift trials and sentenced to prison terms of up to 18 
years.
  I have some photographs I want the Chair to see. The first one is how 
the Chinese Government treats its own people whose worst offense has 
been their daring to meditate in public, to sit alone and think.
  At least 37 of these people died of mistreatment while they were in 
custody. According to human rights groups, one Falun Gong practitioner 
who had been confined in a psychiatric hospital by the Chinese 
Government died of heart failure 2 weeks after being forcibly injected 
with nerve agents. Another died after being force-fed by authorities. 
These reports are reminiscent of those worst days long ago in the 
Soviet Union and in Germany under Adolf Hitler.
  But there is more. The merciless extinction of Tibet continues. In 
this past year, China has perpetuated its so-called reeducation 
campaign aimed, in fact, at destroying Tibetan culture, border patrols 
have been tightened, and the arrests of Tibetans have increased 
greatly.
  There is a fine lady named Dr. Elizabeth Napper who works with 
escaped Tibetan nuns in India. She testified before the Foreign 
Relations Committee that if a nun peacefully demonstrates saying, for 
example, ``Free Tibet,'' she is immediately arrested and taken into 
custody for saying, ``Free Tibet.''
  Basing her testimony on accounts by victims of China's cruelty, Dr. 
Napper added:

       The beatings start in the vehicle on the way to the police 
     station and continue through an interrogation that can take 
     place over several days. Various instruments of torture are 
     routinely used, such as electric cattle prods inserted in the 
     orifices of the body and electric shocks that knock a person 
     across the room.

  These victims, mind you, are nuns. They are defenseless women.
  The Chinese Government refuses even to talk with the Dalai Lama. Why 
should they? Nobody in the U.S. Government ever does anything tangible 
to help the Dalai Lama. Some of us who know him and are his friends do 
our best to help him. I have taken him to North Carolina to meet with a 
group there, specifically to Wingate University. It was announced he 
was coming, and there was standing room only on the campus of that 
university. People came from everywhere just to see him. They did not 
have a chance to meet him; they just had a chance to see him.
  Permanent normal trade relations with China is not merely a routine 
foreign policy matter. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, 
I have never viewed it as such. The future direction of Chinese foreign 
policy will depend upon whether the rulers of China agree to 
democratize its Government and begin to treat its own citizens with 
some respect, which they are not doing now.
  It will be a tragic mistake to pass this legislation now precisely at 
the time the Chinese Government has succeeded in almost emasculating 
all opposition to its tyrannical rule.
  Without requiring some kind of improvement in China's terrible human 
rights situation before bringing China into the WTO and granting China 
permanent normal trade relations will be welcoming China into the club 
of supposedly civilized nations. It seems to me this would throw away 
the most effective leverage we could ever have with China and would 
deal a terribly severe blow to the millions of Chinese people who 
oppose their regime and are totally incapable by circumstances of doing 
anything to improve it.
  Question, Mr. President: Would that not be profoundly immoral on the 
part of the Senate in consideration of this measure? I know the words 
have been passed: Don't let any amendment be adopted; don't let any 
amendment be approved; don't let anything happen to derail or to delay 
the enactment of this piece of legislation.
  The answer is, yes, it would be immoral; it is going to be immoral. I 
do not hold my distinguished colleagues accountable on this, but I 
think it is a strategic mistake on their part, a mistake of historic 
proportions, that the American people will one of these days profoundly 
regret the move the Senate is about to take.
  Mr. President, this unanimous consent request has been approved on 
both sides. I therefore ask unanimous consent that prior to a vote on 
or in relation to the Helms amendment No. 4125, there be 90 minutes of 
debate on the amendment, with 60 minutes for the proponents and 30 
minutes for the opponents, with no second-degree amendment in order, 
and that the vote occur by 3:30 p.m. or at a time to be determined by 
the two leaders. I further ask unanimous consent that the time consumed 
thus far on the amendment be deducted from the above limitation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see other colleagues on the floor. I 
shall not take up all of our time. I am certainly interested in what 
the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from New York have to say in 
this debate.
  First, I thank my colleague, Senator Helms from North Carolina, for 
offering this amendment. Also, there are probably not too many times I 
can remember over my 9\1/2\ years in the Senate that I have been a 
cosponsor of a Helms amendment, but I am very proud to support this 
amendment and to speak, debate, and advocate with him on this question.
  I say to my colleague from North Carolina and other Senators as well, 
I want to guard against appearing to be self-righteous about this, but 
I feel strongly about the question before us. I feel strongly about 
this amendment which says that China ought to abide by basic human 
rights standards. We ought to insist on that before we automatically 
extend normal trade relations with China, before we give up our right 
to annually review normal trade relations with China.
  Before I speak in giving this some context and talking about why, let 
me, one more time--I have heard some discussion on the floor and also 
seen in the press discussion about this debate--try to correct the 
record.
  No one is arguing that we should now have an embargo on trade with 
China.

[[Page 17597]]

Nobody is arguing for a boycott. Nobody is saying that we should not 
have trade with China. We do; we will. It is a record trade deficit, as 
a matter of fact. That is not the issue. Nobody is arguing that we 
should have no economic ties with China at all. We do; we will.
  The question is whether or not we give up our annual right to review 
trade relations with China, which is what little leverage we have as a 
nation, as a country, to speak up about the violations of human rights, 
to speak up for religious freedom in China. That is the question before 
us.
  I have always been intensely interested in human rights questions, 
whether it is as to China or whether it is as to any other country. I 
am sorry to say on the floor of the Senate that there are some 70 
governments in the world today that are engaged in the systematic 
torture of their citizens.
  I think it is important for the Senate, I think it is important for 
our Government, I think it is important for the American people, to 
speak up about these kinds of basic violations of people's human 
rights.
  I say it for two reasons. First of all, I come from a family where my 
father was born in the Ukraine; then lived in the Far East; then lived 
in China before coming to the United States of America at age 17 in 
1914, 3 years before the revolution in Russia. He thought he could go 
back, and then the Bolsheviks took over. His parents told him: Don't go 
back. And all his family, from all I can gather, were probably murdered 
by Stalin. All contact was broken off. No longer did my father receive 
any letters from his family. He never saw them again.
  I say to my colleague from North Carolina--I am getting a little 
personal before getting into the arguments--at the end of my dad's life 
we were trying to take care of him so we would go over and spend the 
night with him. He had lived in this country for, oh, almost 70 years. 
He spoke fluent English. I don't know that I detected even any accent. 
But it was amazing; all of his dreams--they were nightmares; there was 
shouting and screaming--were in Russian. None of it was in English. He 
lived in this country all of those years; I only heard him speak 
English--talk about the child being father of man or mother of woman--
and I think that is what happens when you are separated from your 
family at such a young age; your family is probably murdered. You never 
can go back to see them. You can never see your family again.
  I believe strongly in human rights. I thank the Senator from North 
Carolina for his leadership on this question.
  Then I had a chance to meet Wei Jingsheng. I say to my colleague, you 
know Wei very well. Here is a man who spent, I think, about 17 years in 
prison, several years in solitary confinement. What was the crime that 
he committed? The crime he committed was to continue to write and speak 
out for democracy and freedom in his country. That was the crime he 
committed.
  I say to my colleagues that I really believe the rush for the money 
and the focus on the money to be made by our trade policy with China 
within the new global economics that we talk about--this kind of rush 
for money, this focus on commercial ties on the money to be made has 
trumped our concerns about human rights, trumped our concerns, whether 
it is a Buddhist or a Christian or a Jew, you name it--it makes no 
difference--about whether people can even practice their religion 
without winding up in prison, trumped our concerns about whether or not 
we have a relationship with a country that has broken the 1992 and 1994 
agreements where they said they would not export products to our 
country made by prison labor in the so-called reeducation labor camps, 
trumped our concerns about all of the women and men who were imprisoned 
because of the practice of their religion or because they spoke out for 
democracy, trumped our concerns about women and men who tried to 
improve their working conditions and found themselves serving 3 years, 
8 years, 14 years, 15 years, trumped our concerns about a country that 
has more prison labor camps--it is like the equivalent of the gulags in 
Russia, in the former Soviet Union. And we do not want to speak out on 
this?
  We don't want to at least say: wait a minute, we reserve our right, 
when it comes to normal trade relations, to insist that you live up to 
just basic standards of decency? We reserve our right to speak up for 
human rights. We reserve our right to speak up for religious freedom. 
We reserve our right to speak up against products that are exported to 
our country made by prison labor. We reserve our right to speak up for 
the right of people in China--and people all over the world--to bargain 
collectively to try to improve their standard of living. We do not want 
to consider any of that? We do not consider any of that?
  I think we diminish ourselves, I say to Senator Helms, when we do not 
support the kind of amendment the Senator has brought to the floor. I 
say to my colleagues, I hope there will be strong support for this 
amendment.
  I have heard a number of Senators--all of whom I like, all of whom I 
like a lot--who have said, first of all: We cannot isolate ourselves.
  We are not isolating ourselves. All we are saying is, don't we want 
to at least keep our leverage, so that we continue to have what little 
leverage we have to annually review our trade relations to make sure 
China lives up to the trade agreements, lives up to the human rights 
standards?
  Then the other argument is: We have had all this trade with China, 
and it is so important, that, actually, when you automatically have 
trade relations with China, you promote human rights. I have heard that 
said at least 10, 15 times. But I say to Senators, where is your 
evidence?
  I will tell you, if you look at the State Department reports of this 
year and last year, they talk about an absolutely brutal atmosphere in 
China. Your evidence certainly is not our own State Department report 
about human rights. Is your evidence the commission that we appointed, 
the Commission on International Religious Freedom, chaired by Rabbi 
Saperstein? They said, on the basis of their careful examination, we 
should not automatically renew trade relations with China because of 
the brutality, the denial to people of their right to practice their 
religion.
  I say to Senators, where is your evidence that we have had this trade 
with China and it has led to more freedom and less violation of human 
rights? Where is your evidence for that? You do not have any evidence. 
I have not heard one Senator come out here with any evidence.
  My evidence, on behalf of this amendment, is that according to the 
State Department--this is last year's report--

       The Government's poor human rights record deteriorated 
     markedly throughout the year, as the Government intensified 
     efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent. 
     Abuses included instances of extrajudicial killings, torture, 
     mistreatment of prisoners, and denial of due process.

  That is the evidence.
  Hundreds of thousands of people languish in jails and prison camps 
merely because, I say to my colleague from North Carolina, they dare to 
practice their Christian, Buddhist, or Islamic faith. Respected 
international human rights organizations have documented hundreds of 
thousands of cases--hundreds of thousands of cases--of arbitrary 
imprisonment, torture, house arrest, or death at the hands of the 
Government.
  That is the record. I welcome any Senator to come out here and 
present other evidence to the contrary.
  In recent months, we have witnessed--and I heard my colleague from 
North Carolina talk about this--a brutal crackdown against the Falun 
Gong, a harmless Buddhist sect. According to international news media 
reports, at least 50,000 Falun Gong practitioners have been arrested 
and detained, more than 5,000 have been sentenced to labor camps 
without trial, and over 500 have received prison sentences in show 
trials. Detainees are often tortured, and at least 33 practitioners of 
this religion have died in Government custody. Senators, we are silent 
about this.

[[Page 17598]]

  Chinese courts recently sentenced three leading members of the 
Chinese Democracy Party, an open opposition party. That is what we 
believe in. We believe in our country people should have the right to 
join parties. They should have a right to speak out. They should have 
the right to run for office, and they certainly should not wind up in 
prison. Three leading members of the Chinese Democracy Party, an open 
opposition party, were sentenced to terms of 11, 12, and 13 years. 
Their crime was ``for conspiring to subvert state power.''
  Charges against these three political activists included helping to 
organize the party, receiving funds from abroad, promoting independent 
trade unions, using e-mail to distribute materials abroad, and giving 
interviews to foreign reporters. That is their crime. They have been 
tried in closed trials with no procedural safeguards. The Government 
has crushed the party by doling out huge prison sentences to any man or 
woman who should dare to form their own political party.
  I would think if there was any example that would resonate with every 
single Senator here, regardless of party, it would be this.
  My colleague from North Carolina already talked about Ms. Kadeer's 
case. I will not go over that.
  I will just say to Senators, I hope that on this amendment we will 
get your support. With all due respect, I hope that you do not make the 
following argument because I don't think it works. I hope you do not 
make the argument: No, I am going to turn my gaze away from all of 
these human rights abuses. I am going to turn my gaze away from 
supporting religious freedom. I am going to turn my gaze away from this 
record of brutality. I am going to turn my gaze away from the 
extrajudicial killings and torture. I am going to turn my gaze away 
from human rights because if an amendment passes, this will go to 
conference committee.
  We have conference committees all the time. That is the way we 
operate. That is our legislative process. We have a conference 
committee and then it reports back.
  With all the support for this overall bill, the conference committee 
would meet, the bill would come back, and then we would have a vote. 
But to say to people in our States, we couldn't vote for what was 
right, we couldn't vote for this amendment which was all about human 
rights, which is what our country is about, because, you see, it might 
go to conference committee and we have to have a bill with the exact 
same language between the House and the Senate, people will look at you 
and say: Senator, just vote for what is right.
  I say to my colleagues, vote for what is right. Vote for this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, noting the presence of the distinguished 
managers of the bill, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly to the important 
issues my friend, the Senator from North Carolina, has raised and to 
suggest that we have the necessary international agreements already in 
place to address the more fundamental issues with which he is 
concerned, as is my friend from Minnesota.
  It happens I have spent a fair amount of my early years as a student 
of the International Labor Organization which was created as part of 
the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1918. Samuel Gompers of the AFL-CIO was 
chairman of the commission in Paris that put it together. A very major 
matter in the mind of President Wilson as he campaigned for the treaty, 
he talked about the ILO as much as any other thing.
  The first international labor conference met here in Washington, just 
down Constitution Avenue at the building of the Organization of 
American States. It was a dramatic time.
  President Wilson had been struck down by a stroke. The Congress, the 
Senate was tied up with the question of ratifying the treaty. But the 
treaty provided that this meeting should take place in Washington, and 
it did. It did so with great success. International labor standards 
were set forth, and China was one of the nations present at the 
international labor conference. The person who provided most of the 
facilities for it was the young Assistant Secretary of the Navy, a man 
named Franklin D. Roosevelt, who later became involved. One of the 
first things he did when he became President was move to join the ILO.
  Now, over the years the United States has been an active member of 
the ILO. We had the Secretary General at one point, Mr. Morris, a 
former Under Secretary of Labor.
  We have not ratified many conventions. I have come to the floor at 
least four times in the last 24 years and moved a convention. Once it 
was done by our revered Claiborne Pell, who then turned the matter over 
to me. We think of there being eight core conventions. The simple fact 
is that the United States has only ratified one of them, in a 
membership that goes back to 1934.
  However, it is not necessarily the case that if you have ratified a 
lot of conventions, you are very much in compliance with the principles 
there involved. I once suggested, not entirely facetiously, that there 
was an inverse relationship between the number of ILO labor conventions 
that had been signed by a country and the actual condition of labor 
relations in that country. But no matter.
  In 1998, at the 86th session of the International Labor Organization, 
the oldest international organization in the world of this nature--the 
postal union is the oldest--adopted an ILO declaration on fundamental 
principles and rights at work and its followup. I will read this 
provision:
  The international labor conference declares that all members, even if 
they have not ratified the conventions in question, have an obligation, 
arising from the very fact of membership in the organization, to 
respect, to promote, and to realize, in good faith and in accordance 
with the Constitution, the principles concerning the fundamental rights 
which are the subject of those conventions; namely:(a), freedom of 
association and the effective recognition of the right of collective 
bargaining;(b) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory 
labor;(c) the effective abolition of child labor; and (d) the 
elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
  These are international obligations. They obligate the People's 
Republic of China, and they obligate the United States. The provision 
for bringing the issues to the International Labor Conference which 
meets every year in June in Geneva are well established.
  I find it very curious, almost at times sinister, that just at the 
point the ILO has said these are the world's standards, international 
standards, binding legal commitments, and here we are to do something 
with them, suddenly people are saying, no, these matters should be 
dealt with in the World Trade Organization, which can't deal with them.
  It is interesting that the WTO now occupies the original buildings on 
Lake Leman in Geneva of the ILO. But why not stay with the ILO and work 
with this history and hold China to its commitment as China can hold 
us? It is something we have believed in and worked with from 1918 on.
  The issue of trade and its effect on the internal behavior of 
government is an elusive one. But, if I may say, I was in China during 
the regime of Mao Zedong. I stood there in Tiananmen Square and looked 
up at these two enormous flagpoles. On one pole were two 19th century 
German gentlemen, Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels. What they were doing in the 
center of the Middle Kingdom, I don't know. Over on the next pole was 
the rather Mongol-looking Stalin, and Mao.
  That is gone.
  At one of the entrances to the Forbidden City there is a sort of 
smallish portrait of Mao. That is all. That world

[[Page 17599]]

is behind us. The world is looking forward from the 1960s.
  The Cultural Revolution, which Mao declared because there had always 
been revolutions, may have resulted--I don't think anybody knows, and I 
don't think we will ever know--in somewhere between 20 million and 40 
million persons murdered, starved, dead. It is beyond our reach of our 
imagination. It happened. That doesn't happen anymore. Do disagreeable 
things happen? Do illegal things happen? Do bad things happen? Yes. But 
a certain sense of proportion, I thought, that was very much in 
evidence in testimony that our revered chairman will perhaps recall, I 
am sure he will.
  Before the Finance Committee on March 23 of this year, Professor 
Merle Goldman, who is at the Fairbank Center at Harvard University--a 
name for a great Chinese scholar and very fine group of people--said:

     . . . the linkage of economic sanctions to human rights is 
     counter-productive. As Wang Juntao [a Tiananmen Square 
     coordinator who was sentenced to 13 years of prison] says, it 
     arouses the antagonism of ordinary Chinese people toward the 
     U.S. and fuels increasing nationalism in China, which 
     ultimately hurts the cause of human rights in China. Even 
     when the threat of economic sanctions in the past led to 
     China's release of a small number of famous political 
     prisoners, it did not in anyway [sic] change or end the 
     Chinese government's abuse of human rights.
       Nevertheless, China's views on human rights have been 
     changing ever so slowly in the post Mao Zedong era primarily 
     because of China's move to the market and participation in 
     the international community. During the Mao era (1949-1976) 
     when China was isolated from the rest of the world, China's 
     government did not care about human rights and international 
     pressure. But as China opened up to the outside world 
     politically as well as economically during the Deng Xiaoping 
     period (1978-1997) and during that of his successor Jiang 
     Zemin (1989-    ), China began to care about how it was 
     viewed. It wants to be considered a respected, responsible 
     member of the world community. . . .
       Human rights abuses continue and in fact, increased in 
     1999, but compared with the Mao era when millions were 
     imprisoned and silenced, the numbers in the post-Mao era are 
     in the thousands.

  That was from Professor Merle Goldman.
  I say in conclusion of these small remarks that the head of the 
Chinese Government, Jiang Zemin, last week was in New York City talking 
to a luncheon of business executives. That is a world that would have 
been inconceivable when I visited George Bush in Peking, as it then was 
in 1975. A quarter century has gone by, and there is the President of 
China in a blue suit and a white shirt with the correct tie at the 
Waldorf Astoria or somewhere talking to a luncheon of businessmen 
interested in trade and development and such matters. That is another 
world. Let's not put that in jeopardy by losing this extraordinary 
important trading agreement.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do we have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 29\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take a couple of minutes to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, let me say to the Senator from New York 
that there is a bit of irony in his remarks because I had intended in 
this debate to also quote the Declaration of Fundamental Principles and 
Rights of the ILO which states:

       All members, even if they have not ratified the convention 
     in question, have an obligation arising from the very fact of 
     membership in the International Labor Organization to 
     respect, promote, and to realize in good faith, in accordance 
     with the ILO Constitution, the principles concerning the 
     fundamental rights which are the subject of those 
     conventions; namely freedom of association and effective 
     recognition of the right to collective bargaining.

  I could not agree more with my colleague from New York. It is very 
relevant language.
  Here is the problem: the ILO has no enforcement problem.
  Here is the problem: China has belonged to the ILO since 1918. How 
much longer are we supposed to wait for the Chinese Government to live 
up to this? This has been a pretty long time now.
  My colleague raises a very fair question. Why is this amendment 
necessary? Given this declaration of principles, and given the 
establishment of the ILO, my point is: (a) no enforcement power; (b) we 
have seen no evidence that the Chinese Government has lived up to it.
  I quote from our own State Department's human rights report of the 
past year which confirms the Chinese Government has been persecuting 
and incarcerating labor activists. According to our State Department:

       Independent trade unions are illegal. Following the signing 
     of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Culture 
     Rights in 1997, a number of labor activists petitioned the 
     Government, the 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.

  The State Department then goes on. My colleague says: Why is this 
needed? I will take a couple of minutes to list what has happened to a 
number of these different citizen activists. This is directly from our 
State Department report.
  The Senator from New York is the intellectual force of the Senate. He 
makes the point that the harsh repression during Mao's years has 
improved. I have no doubt that the situation has improved. But I would 
just have to say, look, go to our State Department report. I can only 
go from the empirical evidence over the last number of years and 
looking at our own Commission on International Freedom and their 
recommendations. They did a very careful study. We commissioned them to 
do the study of what the situation is on religious freedom. It is a 
picture of repression. It is not a picture of the ILO having 
enforcement power making any difference. It is not a picture of a 
country that has a respect for human rights. It is not a picture of a 
country respecting people who practice their religion.
  From our own State Department report: Two labor activists were 
sentenced in January to reeducation through labor--and the Chinese 
Government insists their reeducation through labor camps are not 
prisons. They give no human rights organizations any access. They say 
they are not prisons. Where have we heard this before on reeducation 
through labor--for 18 months and 12 months, respectively. The two were 
arrested in 1998 after leading steelworkers in a protest because they 
had not been paid wages.
  Another example: In January, the founder of a short-lived association 
to protect the rights and interests of laid off workers unsuccessfully 
appealed a 10-year prison sentence he received. He had been convicted 
of ``illegally providing intelligence to foreign organizations,'' after 
informing a Radio Free Asia reporter about worker protests in the Hunan 
province.
  I could go on and on. In August, in our own State Department report, 
another activist was sentenced to 10 years for subversion. They were 
arrested in January after establishing the China Workers Watch, an 
organization to defend workers rights. The family of one of these 
activist alleges that the police hung him by his hands in order to 
extract information on a fellow dissident. That is from a State 
Department report this year that I am now using as my evidence.
  In August, another labor activist was given a 10-year prison sentence 
for illegal union activities in the 1980s, and more recently because he 
organized demonstrations in Hunan. This time he was convicted for 
providing human rights organizations overseas with information on the 
protests.
  I have about 30 examples from this 1 report.
  I say to the Senator from New York, I understand the ILO, its 
mission, its history--not as well as the Senator. I understand it does 
not have enforcement power and that China has belonged to it since 
1918. I understand that China is not abiding by or bound by this. I 
also understand that all the reports we have over the last several 
years do not paint a picture of improvement. We do not have an 
amendment that says we don't have trade

[[Page 17600]]

with China; we do not have an amendment that says we should boycott 
China or we should have an embargo of trade with China. We have an 
amendment that just says that before automatically extending trade 
relations every year or before automatically extending PNTR, our 
Government should insist that the Chinese live up to basic human rights 
standards.
  My colleague from New York cited one of the great heroines of 
Tiananmen Square. I take what these brave people say very seriously. 
But it is also true that others, including Harry Woo and other men and 
woman who were at Tiananmen Square who are now in our country leading 
the human rights organizations, say the opposite. We know there are two 
different views.
  I think we should not be silent on these basic human rights 
questions. We should not be silent when it comes to repression against 
people. We should not be silent about the prison labor conditions.
  In 1992, the memorandum of understanding, and in 1994, we had another 
agreement with China where they agreed they would not export products 
to our country made by prison labor. They haven't complied with any of 
these agreements.
  I think this amendment is timely. I think there is plenty of evidence 
that speaks for this.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Since the 1930s, section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
and the Smoot-Hawley tariff, has made it illegal to send prison labor 
products to this country. If it still continues to be done, doesn't 
that problem involve our vigilance? Shouldn't we focus our attention on 
our own Customs Service, the law is ours to be enforced.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator is right, but the irony is that by this 
law the Chinese shouldn't be exporting and we shouldn't be importing. 
The problem is, because of the good work of Senator Lautenberg and 
Senator Harkin, for the first time in 3 or 4 years we were finally able 
to go to one of these factories and do an on-site investigation.
  The problem has been not that we haven't tried; it is that every 3 
months we make a request and every 3 months we have been turned down. 
This has been going on for years now. It is hard to argue that this 
amendment is not timely, relevant, and important in terms of whether or 
not we go on record for human rights.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am as concerned about China's repression 
of its citizens as anyone in this Chamber. But I believe that in 
passing PNTR, Congress will actually take its most important step by 
far in fostering democracy and improving human rights in China.
  That's because by enacting H.R. 4444, we will permit Americans to 
fully participate in China's economic development, thereby opening 
China to freer flows of goods, services, and information. Ultimately, 
that opening will change China's economy from one based on central 
planning to one based on free markets and capitalism. Moreover, H.R. 
4444 will create a special human rights commission that will expose, 
and suggest remedies for, China's abusive human rights practices.
  The forces unleashed by American and other foreign participation in 
China's market opening will help sow the seeds of democracy and human 
rights.
  As Ren Wanding, the brave leader of the 1978 Democracy Wall Movement 
said recently, ``A free and private economy forms the base for a 
democratic system. So [the WTO] will make China's government programs 
and legal system evolve toward democracy.''
  We should remember that in East Asia, the flowering of democracy in 
such former authoritarian countries as South Korea, Taiwan, and 
Thailand did not occur until economic growth in each had produced a 
substantial middle class.
  American trade and investment, which will be fostered by PNTR, will 
help create just such a middle class in China, a group who will wield 
influence, and whose interests will inevitably diverge from the 
interests of the Communist Party.
  But American companies will do more than simply assist in the 
development of a middle class. These firms will also bring with them 
business practices which coincide with traits best suited to 
democracies.
  As Michael A. Santoro, a professor at Rutgers University who has 
studied the impact of foreign corporations on human rights conditions 
and democratization in China for over a decade, said in testimony 
before the Finance Committee, ``When Chinese workers learn the lessons 
of the free market they are also learning an important lesson about 
human rights and democracy.''
  Unlike workers in state-owned enterprises whose advancement often 
depends on fealty to the Communist Party, workers in American firms 
advance based on merit.
  Such workers, who acquire wealth, status, and power through their own 
hard work instead of connections to the Communist Party are far less 
likely to respect the party or its functionaries. And make no mistake, 
today's best and the brightest in China all want to work for foreign 
businesses rather than in stifling state-owned enterprises, let alone 
for the government itself. Moreover, American firms are almost 
uniformly considered the most desirable because of the opportunities 
they offer.
  Now, to compete in the global market place, foreign firms doing 
business in China must permit free flows of information. And such flows 
of information, of course, are the lifeblood of democratic government.
  Professor Santoro stated the case well before the Finance Committee: 
``In the same way that information sharing is essential to good 
decision-making and operational effectiveness in a corporation, free 
speech is essential to good decision-making in a democracy. It is hard 
to imagine that ideas about the importance of information flow can be 
confined to corporate life. Inevitably, those who work in foreign 
corporations and have gotten used to the free flow of economic 
information will wonder why their government restricts the flow of 
political information.''
  In addition to introducing ideas about information flow within their 
organizations, foreign corporations are at the leading edge in terms of 
pressing the Chinese government toward greater legal reform and 
regulatory transparency. Indeed, if China is to realize the full 
benefits of trade with the rest of the world and comply with its WTO 
obligations, it has no other choice than to institute the rule of law.
  In fact, China is readying itself for this transformation by 
engaging, among others, Temple University in providing training in the 
development of China's business law system with a special emphasis on 
WTO compliance. Temple Law School has been asked by senior officials of 
the Chinese government to educate more judges and government officials 
and to establish a business law center.
  This endeavor will enable American and Chinese legal scholars to do 
joint research on issues related to business law and WTO compliance in 
China. It will also enable American legal scholars, attorneys, judges 
and government officials to meet with their Chinese counterparts on a 
regular, organized basis to provide input into proposed or needed 
legislation and enforcement in an emerging Chinese legal system that 
will regulate aspects of a market economy.
  Mr. President, foreign firms, in a very real sense, constitute the 
vanguard of social change in the PRC. As Professor Santoro said, 
``Ultimately these social changes will pose a formidable challenge to 
China's government, as profound contradictions emerge between the 
Communist Party's authoritarian rule and China's increasingly free 
economy and society being created by private enterprise and the free 
market.''
  Meanwhile, the United States and other countries must continue to 
press China on its human rights abuses. Such public condemnation 
complements the special changes that will accelerate with China's 
accession to the WTO.
  That's why the Congressional-Executive Commission on human rights in

[[Page 17601]]

China that is created by H.R. 4444 is so important and potentially so 
effective. Among the tasks of that commission will be monitoring 
China's compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 
Specifically, the Commission will monitor: the right of Chinese 
citizens to engage in free expression without fear of prior restraint; 
the right to peaceful assembly without restriction; religious freedom, 
including the right to worship free of interference by the government; 
the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose a residence 
within China and the right to leave from and return to China; the right 
of a criminal defendant to a fair trail and to proper legal assistance; 
the right to freedom from torture and other forms of cruel or unusual 
punishment; protection of internationally-recognized worker rights; 
freedom from incarceration for political opposition to the government 
or for advocating human rights; freedom from arbitrary arrest, 
detention, or exile; the right to fair and public hearings by an 
independent tribunal for the determination of a citizen's rights and 
obligations; and free choice of employment.
  In addition, the Commission will compile and maintain lists of 
persons believed to be persecuted by the Government of China for 
pursuing their rights. It will monitor the development of the rule of 
law, including the development of institutions of democratic 
governance.
  And the Commission will give special emphasis to Tibet by cooperating 
with the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues in the Department of 
State.
  Finally, the Commission will submit to Congress and to the President 
an annual report of its findings including, as appropriate, 
recommentdations for legislative and/or executive action.
  Given the breadth of the Commission's work and the impact of foreign 
firms in China, it should come as no surprise that so many of China's 
most prominent dissidents and human rights advocates support the United 
States providng permanent normalized trade relations to China.
  Wang Juntao who was arrested after June 4, 1989, and was sentenced in 
1991 to thirteen years in prison as one of the ``black hands'' behind 
the Tiananmen demonstrations provided the Finance Committee with the 
following statement, and I quote, ``. . . if one needs to choose 
between whether or not China should be admitted [to the WTO], I prefer 
to choose `Yes' . . . In an international environment, independent 
forces will be more competitive than the state-owned enterprises. Such 
independent forces will eventually push China toward democracy . . . An 
overemphasis on economic sanctions will contribute to the growth of 
nationalism and anti-westernism in China. This will limit both the 
influence of the U.S. as well as that of the democracy movement in 
China.''
  Wang Dan, who was one of the principal organizers of the 1989 
democracy movement; and who during the crackdown that followed, was 
listed as number one on the Chinese government's black-list of student 
counter-revolutionaries provided the Finance Committee with a similar 
statement. ``I support China's entry into the WTO,'' he said, because 
``I feel this this will be beneficial for the long-term future of China 
because China will thus be required to abide by rules and regulations 
of the international community.''
  Martin Lee, the brave and outspoken leader of the pro-democracy 
Democratic Party of Hong Kong, which yesterday took the largest share 
of seats in Hong Kong's elections, said that the ``participation of 
China in WTO would not only have economic and political benefits, but 
would also bolster those in China who understand that the country must 
embrace the rule of
law. . . .''
  Mr. President, it was when China was most isolated in the 1950s 
through the early 1970s that the Chinese people suffered the most 
severe depredations. The so-called Great leap Forward and the Cultural 
Revolution led to tens of millions dying from starvation and untold 
millions more suffering social dislocation and the worst forms of human 
rights abuses.
  Mr. President, at a very minimum, China's opening to the world 
through its accession to the WTO will make a repeat of atrocities on 
such an unthinkably vast scale far, far less likely.
  But I am convinced, Mr. President, that in passing PNTR we will do 
more. I believe that in passing PNTR we will have taken our most 
important step in advancing human rights and democratic values in 
China.
  I'd like to close with another quote from Ren Wanding, the leader of 
China's Democracy Wall Movement. Here's what he said: ``Before the sky 
was black. Now there is light . . . [China's WTO accession] can be a 
new beginning.''
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
amendment.
  I yield back all the time on both sides.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, Mr. President. I believe the yeas and nays have 
been ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. 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. 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.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4125. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams) 
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 239 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Ashcroft
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Collins
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--63

     Abraham
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Akaka
     Grams
     Jeffords
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 4125) 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. 4131

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of the Byrd amendment No. 4131.
  The time period is 3 hours equally divided.
  The distinguished Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I don't think it is 
necessary to spend 3 hours on this amendment. I would like to have a 
vote on the amendment tomorrow morning.
  Mr. ROTH. The Senator probably could have the vote tonight, if he 
wanted to.

[[Page 17602]]


  Mr. BYRD. If I had my druthers, as they say back in the hill 
country--all right.
  Mr. President, I yield such time as I may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to improve the 
certainty of the implementation of import relief in cases of 
affirmative determinations by the International Trade Commission with 
respect to market disruption to domestic producers of like or directly 
competitive products. The amendment is simple and straightforward and 
it may be vital to many U.S. industries, such as steel, footwear, and 
apples. It certainly causes no harm.
  U.S. trade law provides for import relief authorities under sections 
201, 202, 203, and 204 of the Trade Act of 1974, and relief from market 
disruption by imports from Communist countries, such as China, under 
section 406 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. These safeguard 
actions are intended to provide temporary import relief from serious 
injury to domestic producers. These provisions are essential in order 
to provide U.S. manufacturers or farmers with an opportunity to address 
sudden waves of imports--such as those brought on by economic crises in 
foreign markets, and under other unexpected conditions beyond domestic 
control.
  Regrettably, however, the import relief procedures are widely 
recognized as overly complicated and generally ineffective. Import 
relief authorities require exhaustive investigations and must meet 
tough litmus tests. Remedies granted under these authorities are so 
difficult to achieve that only a handful of the most egregious cases 
ever receive an affirmative verdict. The number of cases that have 
received relief under the import relief provisions speak for 
themselves: In the last five years, only six Section 201 cases resulted 
in some form of remedy out of 21 cases filed.
  Market disruption caused by imports from a communist country, such as 
China, is even more complicated. Traditional remedies for import surges 
and unfair trade practices, such as Section 201 and the antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws, are inadequate to deal with a sudden and 
massive influx of imports that can be manipulated by government control 
of state-owned enterprises, including pricing and distribution schemes. 
The Trade Act of 1974 attempted to address these complications through 
the establishment of Section 406. Although similar to Sections 201, 
202, 203, and Section 406 was intended to provide a lower standard of 
injury and a faster relief procedure, and requires the investigation to 
focus on imports from a specific country. Given the difficulty of 
proving Section 406, however, only 13 cases have received remedy under 
the laws since the provisions were enacted in 1974.
  In other words, in 26 years only 13 cases have received remedies 
under the law. It is not a very good batting average.
  The United States Trade Representative acknowledged that the import 
relief authorities provided under current law are flawed, and, thus, to 
her credit, the Product-Specific Safeguard protocol language in the 
U.S.-China bilateral agreement was negotiated to enhance the ability of 
the U.S. to respond more genuinely and immediately to market 
disruptions caused by Chinese products entering the United States.
  Nevertheless, the House of Representative recognized that the 
protocol language could not provide real relief to U.S. industries that 
might be threatened by a surge of imports from China, and, therefore, 
the House-passed PNTR measure includes the Levin-Bereuter language on 
import surges. This language is a significant improvement over current 
law and the language included in the protocol to the U.S.-China 
bilateral agreement.
  However, the House import surge safeguard provisions continue to lack 
an essential element. They continue to fall short on a point of utmost 
importance. While very, very close to providing meaningful benefits, 
the Levin-Bereuter import surge safeguard language does not provide a 
reasonable assurance to U.S. industry or workers that remedies against 
harmful import surges will be taken in a timely manner.
  One of the most serious problems encountered with the use of import 
surge safeguards is the delays in taking action. Whether required by 
law or not, the administration can never seem to meet specific dates, 
and days turn into weeks and weeks turn into months. Meanwhile, U.S. 
industries and workers must sit by, unable to respond, as they watch 
their market share, their profits and their jobs dwindle away.
  My amendment finally adds a certainty to the import surge safeguards. 
It is simple and to the point. My amendment would put into effect the 
relief recommended by the International Trade Commission (ITC) in the 
case of an affirmative determination of market disruption in the event 
that no action is taken by the President or the U.S. Trade 
Representatives, seventy days after the ITC report is submitted. Again, 
my amendment assures U.S. manufacturers and farmers and workers that 
action will occur on an ITC affirmative determination that a market 
disruption has occurred, and under the exact time frame as provided 
under the Levin-Bereuter provisions.
  The Levin-Bereuter provisions provide legislative time frames on 
market disruption investigations. First, the Levin-Bereuter provisions 
require an ITC determination within 60 days of the initiation of an 
investigation, or 90 days in the investigation of confidential business 
information. Following the ITC action, the U.S. Trade Representative 
has 55 days to make a recommendation to the President regarding the 
case. Within 15 days after receipt of a recommendation from the U.S. 
Trade Representative, the President is directed to take action. Thus, 
the Levin-Bereuter provisions were intended to initiate action within 
70 days following the ITC affirmative determination.
  In real life, however, Section 401 cases have not existed for years, 
and many of the six Section 201 decisions that received some remedy 
over the last five years were delayed by weeks and even months beyond 
the current statutory deadline! U.S. firms have lost confidence in 
these provisions, and they cannot afford to pay legal expenses for 
decisions that might never be.
  I have been particularly concerned about the U.S. steel wire-rod 
case. Wire-rod producers had to wait almost five months beyond the 
statutory deadline to receive a decision by the President that remedies 
would be put into place! The U.S. steel wire rod industry filed for 
relief under Section 201 of the trade law on December 30, 1998, and 
followed lengthy, costly procedures consistent with the statute. The 
domestic wire rod industry was encouraged after a recommendation for 
relief was provided by the International Trade Commission, and the 
industry looked eagerly to the President's decision, which was required 
under statute within 60 days, or by September 27, 1999. The U.S. steel 
wire rod company officials, workers and their families and communities 
waited, and waited, and waited. However, September 1999 came and went, 
the fall foliage dropped from the trees, leaving them bare to the 
north, south, east and west, the Thanksgiving feast was held and the 
family gathered round and sang songs, and the Christmas season came and 
the Christmas season went--there was no Santa Claus, Virginia--New 
Year's Day was celebrated--and yet, no action. As the days slipped from 
the calendar, imports rose! In fact, imports rose 12 percent from 
November to December 1999 and were up 15 percent over 1998.
  The real story is that, with each passing day, production was lost 
and American jobs were sacrificed. Lost income to the company became 
lost income to the bankers, to the company suppliers, to the tax base 
that supports local schools and roads. Worse, there was lost income to 
American families. Who pays for the Christmas presents that every 
little child dreams of?
  Time is money. That is what they say.
  In February 2000, the President announced that relief would be 
granted to

[[Page 17603]]

the U.S. steel wire rod industry. This was very happy news and received 
joyfully in the steel community. But, the fact remains that the money 
lost in the wait for a decision was lost forever.
  China's trade with the U.S. continues to skyrocket. Imports of 
consumers goods, agricultural goods, and manufactured products from 
China are currently entering the U.S. market at an unprecedented rates! 
The United States has it largest bilateral deficit with China, which 
grew $910 million to a record $7.22 billion in June 2000 alone.
  Why is my amendment necessary? Because when we are successful in 
plugging one hole in the Chinese dike, thousands more seem to spring 
through, gushing imports. According to official Department of Commerce 
import statistics, low-priced Chinese imports of steel rail joints have 
increased approximately 788 percent from 1997 to 2000. As in the steel 
wire rod situation, these Chinese imports have resulted in lost sales 
and depressed prices for the American industry. I have a manufacturer 
of steel rail joints in Huntington, West Virginia, the Portec Rail 
Products, Inc.
  Speaking of Huntington, my recollection reminds me that there was a 
congressman from West Virginia who resided in Huntington, WV, around 
the turn of the century. His name was Hughes. He had a daughter on the 
Titanic when that great ship went down and carried with it his daughter 
along with more than 1,500 other victims. Only 713 persons were rescued 
off that Titanic that went to its watery grave on the morning of April 
15, 1912.
  I care about the future of this manufacturer of steel rail joints in 
Huntington, WV. I care about its future, and I care about the future of 
the people who work there. There are thousands and thousands of small 
manufacturers that have a critical need for strong trade laws and a 
critical need to have an assurance that the laws will work as intended. 
Portec Rail Products, Inc., is a small business. It makes steel rail 
joints that hold rail sections together and allow the construction of 
the many miles of railroad that provide smooth transit in this country 
for both commercial and passenger trains.
  Portec has provided solid, semiskilled manufacturing jobs for many 
hard-working West Virginians. It also supports the State's economy by 
purchasing high quality steel bars from other West Virginia steel 
producers. This company has added to the prosperity of my State of West 
Virginia and to the Nation. This company is facing a flood of Chinese 
imports, however. During the first quarter of 2000, for example, 
Chinese imports were at a record pace of 175,000 pounds, a figure 
which, if annualized, would amount to a 788-percent increase since 
1997. The situation facing Portec is an authentic, true-life example of 
why this Senate should adopt the Byrd amendment. The workers of Portec 
are being bled dry under this hail of imports. I urge the Senate to 
help these workers to ensure that they are not subject to the ugly 
situation that the U.S. steel wire rod workers endured. Let us not sit 
by idly, twiddling our thumbs and biting our fingernails and watching 
our toenails grow, by watching also these workers' savings, so 
painfully secured, become washed away, and watch the slow erosion of 
morale and confidence. This amendment would help Portec to fight back.
  I say to my colleagues, help me to help Portec and other U.S. 
manufacturers and farmers.
  Chinese state-owned enterprise continues to remain a major source of 
jobs in China. Many of these state-owned enterprises are directly 
controlled by the Chinese Government and they play a central role in 
China's monetary scheme. In fact, the Bureau of National Affairs 
reported on July 21 of this year that the China Daily quoted Yang 
Zilin, President of the Export-Import Bank of China, as saying that 
China's state-backed financing played a strong role in boosting China's 
exports in the first half of this year. That's right, a Chinese 
official readily acknowledges the systematic use of export subsidies to 
help boost China's skyrocketing exports. In case anyone is wondering, 
export subsidies directly impede the ability of American firms to 
compete with the Chinese.
  My amendment is consistent with the goals of the House-passed China 
PNTR bill. It improves the certainty of the implementation of import 
relief in cases of affirmative determinations by the International 
Trade Commission of market disruption to domestic producers of like or 
directly like products. It has been widely proclaimed by the White 
House and many in Congress supporting the China PNTR legislation that 
the product-specific safeguard provisions are a critical component of 
the U.S.-China bilateral agreement. My amendment ensures compliance to 
the timeframe that Congress intends. More importantly, it provides a 
standard upon which American workers and American businesses can rely.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. 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.
  The distinguished Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my 
good friend.
  I do so with some reluctance because I am actually quite supportive 
of taking whatever action necessary to ensure that the President takes 
seriously the deadlines set forth in our trade remedy statutes.
  In fact, I would like to take a few minutes now to express my 
mounting concern about the White House's actions--or should I say, 
inaction?--in administering our trade laws. Frankly, I am very unhappy 
about the President's failure to issue decisions in sensitive trade 
matters by the deadlines set forth in the statutes.
  There are many examples. The most notable may be two recent section 
201 cases, the first involving lamb meat and the second relating to 
steel wire rod.
  Both these decisions languished somewhere at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue for weeks--in direct violation of the law--before 
the President finally issued his decision. We are seeing the same thing 
now in the context of the President's decision on modifying the 
retaliation list in the bananas dispute.
  I may agree or disagree with whatever decision the President 
ultimately chooses to make in each of these cases. But the credibility 
of the trade laws rests on the process being handled with a great deal 
more respect and seriousness than it has been thus far.
  With that said, I must still oppose this amendment.
  As a practical matter, there are many instances in which the process 
established in the proposal will simply be unworkable. For example, it 
is not unusual for the ITC to be divided on its recommendation of 
relief in a particular case. Because the Commission often speaks with 
many voices, it is unclear which of the Commissioner's recommendations 
would take effect under my colleague's amendment.
  This problem may be remedied easily, but it clearly underscores the 
importance of allowing my committee the time to consider the proposal 
of Senator Byrd to ensure that we have considered its full 
implications. At least some of the problems that will arise if this 
amendment were to become law are already apparent to me, so I must 
oppose this amendment for the time being.
  I am also concerned that we are isolating the Chinese for 
differential treatment in how a trade remedy is applied.
  While this provision may not be inconsistent with the United States-
China bilateral agreement, applying different rule to China in how we 
administer our trade laws could well jeopardize our ability to secure 
the benefits of the uderlying trade agreement.

[[Page 17604]]

  I must also oppose the amendment for the reasons that I have stated 
many times during these deliberations, and that is because of the 
potential impact that amendments will have on the passage of this 
legislation. In my view, a vote for any amendment, including this one, 
is a vote to kill PNTR.
  The stakes are too high for our workers and farmers to allow this 
legislation to die. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against 
the amendment of my good friend.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I was wondering if I can take some time, 
if the distinguished chairman has finished.
  Mr. ROTH. I ask the distinguished Senator how much time would he 
like.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, it depends on what his plans are. If I 
can have 20 minutes, it will be greatly appreciated. I understand we 
have 3 hours on this amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized for 20 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 4132

  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Roth for his 
generosity.
  Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment to a couple of things 
that have come up in the debate today with regard to the amendment on 
China proliferation offered by myself and Senator Torricelli. Of 
course, once again, our reason for offering this amendment is because 
we have been told time and time again by various bipartisan commissions 
that we are facing an imminent threat; that China, Russia, and North 
Korea--but historically as of 1996, for example, China--have led the 
way in selling weapons of mass destruction to rogue nations. We are 
told that these rogue nations pose a threat to our country.
  The question now is whether or not we intend to do anything about it. 
Some say diplomacy should work. Perhaps it should. However, we see that 
diplomacy has not worked. The problem is getting worse. Our 
intelligence estimates, which have been made public, have shown that 
the problem is getting worse with regard to missile technology, 
especially with Pakistan, instead of getting better.
  A couple of my colleagues, speaking on behalf of PNTR, have pointed 
out that the Chinese have signed several nonproliferation-type 
agreements that should give us some cause for optimism, and that is 
true. The problem is that they have repeatedly violated every agreement 
they have ever made. I emphasize that. At this time, when we are 
getting ready to engage in a new trading relationship, hoping for the 
best, we should acknowledge that China has violated every 
understanding, agreement, and treaty they have ever made.
  My concern is proliferation, although human rights is very important 
and religious freedom is very important. There is only one activity of 
the Chinese Government that poses a mortal threat to this Nation, and 
that is the one of proliferation, spreading weapons of mass destruction 
around the globe. How in the world can we claim we need a missile 
defense system because of the threat of rogue nations and the nuclear 
missiles they are developing that will have the capability of hitting 
us, when we will not address the folks such as the Chinese who are 
supplying these rogue nations? It is all carrot and no stick. They 
cannot take us seriously when we express concern about proliferation.
  Let's talk about the proliferation agreements they have signed. In 
March of 1992, China ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 
However, in 1994, China sold to Pakistan 5,000 unsafeguarded ring 
magnets which can be used in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium.
  In 1995, China built in Iran a separation system for enriching 
uranium.
  As we know, China has outfitted Pakistan from soup to nuts. Under our 
watchful eye, they have made it so that Pakistan can now build their 
own missiles. We have watched them do this over the last few years in 
total violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which some of 
my colleagues so optimistically claim they signed; therefore, they must 
be abiding by it. They are not.
  In May of 1996, China reaffirmed its commitment to nuclear 
nonproliferation. Again, however, in 1996, China sold a special 
industrial furnace and high-tech diagnostic equipment to unsafeguarded 
nuclear facilities in Pakistan.
  In 1997, China was the principal supplier of Pakistan's nuclear 
weapons program.
  In 1997, China transferred to Iran a uranium conversion facility 
blueprint.
  In 1997, China promised not to begin a new nuclear cooperation 
agreement with Iran after completing a small nuclear reactor and a 
factory for building nuclear fuel rod encasements.
  In 2000, U.S. intelligence reports state that ongoing contact between 
PRC entities and Pakistan's nuclear weapons program cannot be ruled 
out.
  China is a member of the Zangger Committee which considers procedures 
for the export of nuclear material and equipment under the NPT but is 
the only major nuclear supplier of the 35-nation nuclear suppliers 
group whose nations agreed to guidelines covering exports for peaceful 
purposes to any non-nuclear weapon state and requires full-scope 
safeguards. The Chinese Government has agreed to a list of 
nonproliferation treaties and agreements and then violated them, but 
with regard to those treaties that require safeguards, where someone 
can come in and inspect whether or not they are doing it, they will not 
agree to those, and that has been the history.
  Are we so eager for trade that we accept this kind of behavior as in 
some way acceptable to us?
  In February of 1992, China pledged to abide by the missile technology 
control regime and renewed this commitment in 1994. However, I have an 
entire list which I will not read, but in 1993 they transferred M-11 
short-range missile equipment to Pakistan. In 1996, China helped 
Pakistan build an M-11 missile factory. In 1997, telemetry equipment to 
Iran.
  In 1999, China supplied specialty steel, accelerometers, gyroscopes, 
and precision-grinding machinery to North Korea; a wind tunnel to 
Libya--on and on and on--the roughest nations on the face of the Earth 
in terms of their proliferation and dangerous activities. China 
consistently supplies them in violation of their own agreement.
  In 1997, China ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention; however, 
they have violated it on numerous occasions.
  In 1997, the PRC transferred chemical weapons technology and 
equipment to Iran.
  In 1998, the PRC entities sold 500 tons of phosphorus materials, 
which is controlled by the Australia Group, to Iran--and on and on and 
on and on.
  We cannot turn a blind eye to this. We can trade even with people 
with whom we have strong disagreements. We can trade with China. But 
can we really address a trade issue with them and envelop them into a 
new understanding with trade, from which we believe we will get some 
economic benefit, without telling them that they cannot continue to 
make this world a dangerous place? And it is the United States of 
America that is going to be most vulnerable to this; Belgium and 
France, with all due respect, are not going to be the primary targets 
of these rogue nations if and when they get the ability to hit foreign 
nations. It is going to be the blackmail that they will try against us.
  What if Saddam Hussein had this capability in the gulf war? Do we 
really think it would have turned out the way it did? How much activity 
will breach the tolerance level of the Senate when it comes to the 
Chinese? We do not have to jeopardize trade with China. We must have 
some measures to get their attention.
  What our bill does, when all is said and done, is provide a report on 
those proliferation activities and provide the President the 
opportunity to do something about it. It makes it a little

[[Page 17605]]

more difficult for him to turn a blind eye to these proliferation 
activities because if he does not do something about it, he has to tell 
Congress why.
  It also provides that if Congress feels strongly enough about it--if 
enough people sign up--we can actually take a vote on the President's 
decision.
  That is what it boils down to. We have had people come to this floor 
and say: If we pass this amendment, these unilateral mandatory 
sanctions, the sky will absolutely fall. It will mess up everything. It 
will make the Chinese mad. We might lose trade.
  No. 1, even if all those things happened, I ask, what is the primary 
obligation of this body? To protect ourselves from these problems and 
trying to address them or not? But these things are not going to happen 
because we already have laws on the books that are unilateral sanctions 
that this body has voted for oftentimes without a dissenting vote, time 
and time again, to impose sanctions on various entities for various 
reasons. Perhaps we have done too much in some respects. Perhaps we 
have not done enough in others. But there are numerous laws on the 
books.
  What our amendment does is provide for a more extensive report and 
provide for congressional input, as I have said. But in terms of 
sanctions, it is right along the lines of what we have done on numerous 
occasions. It is only when it comes to China, it is only when we 
identify China that everyone comes rushing to the floor saying: My 
goodness, we can't do this; Our allies will be against us; China will 
be against us; It will upset Russia; It will be a bad example to the 
world, and all of that. It is only when someone thinks that we are 
complicating the China trade deal that all of these concerns come to 
the fore. We can do better than that.
  People say we need hearings, that no committee of jurisdiction has 
had hearings. My committee, the committee I chair, is a committee of 
jurisdiction. We have had 30 hearings on the issue of proliferation. 
There have been 60-some-odd hearings on the issue of proliferation.
  Some people say: Thompson's committee has had several drafts. They 
keep coming up with different drafts. That is true because we keep 
trying to satisfy the critics who do not want to do anything to 
irritate the Chinese Government.
  They have said: You identified China specifically. We broadened it to 
include Russia and North Korea because they are also major suppliers.
  They say: You do not give the President enough discretion. Now we 
give him almost total discretion. He has to make a determination before 
anything happens.
  They say: You are going to hurt farmers or small businessmen. We 
specifically eliminated any potential involvement of farmers or small 
businesses.
  Some people say: Farmers still don't like it because if we are mean 
to the Chinese Government, they might retaliate, and it might be 
against farmers. Not my farmers in Tennessee. I think if my farmers in 
Tennessee had a choice between us responding responsibly to this 
irresponsible behavior on the part of the Chinese Government and 
risking their getting mad, and in some way affecting them in some 
export that they might have, they would be willing to take that chance. 
The farmers are not involved in this.
  Some said that any Member of Congress could force a vote to override 
the President. So we made it so it had to be 20 Members of Congress.
  Yes, there have been several reiterations of this bill because we 
have been trying to answer the reasonable complaints.
  What it boils down to is that not all of these various complaints are 
the reason for the opposition. My opinion is that the root of it is a 
genuine desire not to irritate the Chinese Government at a time we are 
trying to enter into a new trading relationship with them.
  Generally speaking, I think that is a laudatory idea. I cannot 
complain about that as a general rule. But these are not times to apply 
the general rules. These are extraordinary circumstances. We have been 
getting reports on what they have been doing for years now and have not 
done anything about it.
  Now we are about to enter into a new trade relationship which they 
want desperately. They have a favorable trade balance with this Nation 
of $69 billion. They are not going to turn their back on that. They 
want this.
  If we do not have the wherewithal to raise the issue of the fact that 
they are making this a more dangerous world and threatening our country 
now, when are we going to do it?
  A Senator actually said yesterday that one of the problems he had 
with this bill, in light of the nuclear proliferation that we are 
dealing with, is that this report will be too onerous, this report 
which we are requiring on these activities will be too voluminous for 
our intelligence. Why would it be so voluminous? I agree with him. It 
would be. Why? Because of all of the proliferation that is going on. Do 
we not want to know about it because it is too voluminous?
  I suggest that we get serious about this. Some complained that we 
might catch up some innocent Chinese company, where there is credible 
evidence that they are selling these dangerous weapons, but they may 
later prove to be innocent. That is not a major problem is all I have 
to say.
  If I have to come down on the side of doing something to address this 
problem or running the risk that we may for a period of time unjustly 
accuse a Chinese company and, therefore, cut off military exports to 
them, I am willing to run that risk.
  Others say we have to give engagement a chance. One of the most 
distinguished Senators ever to serve in this body spoke a little while 
ago, someone I respect tremendously, the senior Senator from New York. 
He talked about the fact that Jiang Zemin met with our President last 
Friday at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York. He also mentioned the fact 
that he met with American businessmen, and it was a good thing for the 
leader of the Chinese Government to be meeting and talking with 
American businessmen. I think, generally speaking, that is true. But we 
have to consider the context in which this happened.
  According to the New York Times story the next day, that luncheon 
meeting with America's top business executives was to declare that 
China was plugging into the New World. Jiang Zemin said: We have over 
18 million citizens, more than 27,000 World Wide Web sites, over 70,000 
Chinese domain names, and 61 million mobile phones in China.
  It goes on to say what he did not mention: China's recent efforts to 
crack down on the use of the Internet for the spread of dissenting 
opinions in China. Mr. Clinton said that he never broached the subject.
  It went on to say that President Clinton brought up the proliferation 
which we all know, and they admit that we know, they were doing and 
asked him to do something about it.
  He smiled and wished the President well in his retirement and thanked 
the President for his assistance with regard to getting China into 
WTO--smiled and went on, knowing there would be no repercussions.
  We have sent three delegations to China this year beseeching them, on 
the eve of this PNTR vote, to stop some of their activities. According 
to our own people who were there in the meetings, they were told by the 
Chinese Government officials that they intended to continue their 
policies with regard to weapons of mass destruction unless we backed 
off on our missile defense system and our positions on Taiwan.
  You have to give the leadership of the Communist Chinese Government 
credit for being up front about it. They are doing it and telling us 
they are going to continue to do it. We are over here worried about 
whether or not to upset them because it might cost us some trade or it 
might in some way be counterproductive and we need to exercise 
diplomacy.
  What has diplomacy gotten us so far? They say: Unilateral sanctions 
never work; we need to get our allies together. What have we been able 
to get

[[Page 17606]]

our allies together on in the last several years? When you can't get 
multilateral action on something that is dangerous to your country, 
what do you do, go home? We can't get a U.N. resolution to criticize 
China's behavior with regard to human rights. We can't get our European 
friends to let us send them bananas. Yet we are supposed to sit back, 
in light of this nuclear and biological and chemical threat to our 
Nation, until we can get all of our allies together to do it at once. 
Otherwise, it would be ineffective and somebody might be critical of 
us?
  Some say Chairman Greenspan thinks our provision that allows the 
President to cut some of these companies out of our capital markets is 
a bad idea. What we did is list one option. The President has this 
authority anyway, but I think it has a salutary effect to have it 
listed up front, telling the world this is what we intend on doing as a 
possibility. One of the options the President has, when he catches 
these folks doing this and he makes a determination--or when it comes 
to a country, in his complete discretion, one of the options he has is 
to tell the companies that are in our capital markets in the New York 
Stock Exchange that they can't be raising any more money.
  The Deutch Commission, comprised of distinguished Americans, told us 
one of the things that is happening to us--and the American people 
ought to know about it--is that proliferating companies under the 
control of the Chinese Government are raising billions of dollars on 
the New York Stock Exchange from American citizens who don't know what 
they are doing. The Deutch Commission suggested the capital markets are 
among a wide range of economic levers we could use as carrots or sticks 
as part of an overall strategy to combat proliferation. That is from 
this thoughtful commission of experts in this area. How many Americans 
know that these companies are raising billions of dollars on the New 
York Stock Exchange? That is an option the President could or could not 
use as he sees fit.
  Some of my colleagues--in fact, all of my colleagues--who oppose this 
amendment have quoted Mr. Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve. 
He was in the Banking Committee. I am not sure what the subject was. I 
can assure you it was not nuclear proliferation. Opponents of my 
amendment asked him this specific question: Basically, do you oppose 
the idea of cutting people out of our capital markets? He said, no, he 
thought that was not a good idea generally, and went on to explain why.
  I have a couple of comments about that. This is not a capital market 
issue, this is a proliferation issue. I have extreme respect for 
Chairman Greenspan, but I would not ask a proliferation expert whether 
or not he thought interest rates ought to be raised. I don't think 
Chairman Greenspan would claim to be an expert on the nature of the 
problem this country faces and what we should do about it.
  As a general proposition, I agree with him. I think we ought to be 
expanding all of our markets, including our capital markets. But on an 
occasion, if we catch a company and our intelligence agencies come 
forth and say there is credible evidence that this company just sold 
missile capabilities to Libya, and we have caught them, we have the 
intelligence on it, the President looks at it, makes his own evaluation 
and says, yes, I believe it is true. I hereby make that determination, 
and this same company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, should 
we not do something about that, raising money from the very American 
citizens who would be targeted potentially by a Libya?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time requested by the distinguished 
Senator has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I urge adoption of the amendment, Mr. President. I 
thank the Chair and my chairman, Senator Roth, for their indulgence.
  I yield the floor.
  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. ROTH assumed the Chair.
  Mr. ROBERTS. 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. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am going to be speaking on the PNTR 
issue. From the time allotted, I yield myself 15 minutes.
  The pending business is the Byrd amendment, but I was intensely 
interested in the comments and remarks by my good friend and colleague, 
Senator Thompson.
  I thought now would be an appropriate time to urge my colleagues to 
oppose the China nonproliferation act--that is how the act is 
described--offered as an amendment to the legislation. But, again, I 
want to point out to my good friend and distinguished colleague from 
Tennessee that as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and as 
chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, I 
speak with at least some understanding on this very serious subject of 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The fact is the 
distinguished majority leader has appointed Senator Bob Bennett to be 
on the task force, as well as Senator Thompson, myself, Senator Kyl, 
and Senator Gregg on this very issue.
  More especially, in regard to the threat of terrorism, which is a 
very serious threat, among its many duties the Emerging Threat 
Subcommittee is responsible for congressional oversight of programs 
called the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction programs. They 
annually authorize the use of Defense Department funds--the fact is we 
are right in the middle of the defense authorization bill--to assist 
with the safe and secure transportation, storage, and dismantlement of 
nuclear, chemical, and other weapons of the former Soviet Union. We 
would hope we could do similar activities with the other nations 
concerned more specifically mentioned by my distinguished colleague.
  In that enterprise, I have spent countless hours in committee 
methodically and hopefully meticulously debating these issues. This is 
a very important issue to me.
  As the Senator pointed out, our first obligation is our national 
security. Our first obligation as Senators is to do what we can to 
safeguard our national security. There is no question about that.
  As the distinguished Senator and, I guess, all of my colleagues, I 
have very serious concerns about China. I have no illusions about 
China. They are spreading, as he has indicated, weapons of mass 
destruction technology all around the world, more specifically to 
nations of concern. But I don't think this is the reason to erect what 
we call trade barriers, which is exactly what I think this amendment 
will do. Quite the opposite. It seems to me we should really reject 
this amendment because trade, on the other hand, has a stabilizing 
effect on international relations. The more that two nations trade and 
invest in regard to the economics of both countries and each other, the 
less likely it is that they will engage in any kind of military 
conflict.
  Let me spend a few moments explaining to my colleagues why I think 
this amendment, which requires the President to once again impose 
sanctions on China, would be counterproductive.
  First, again, I don't know how many times we have to say this on the 
floor. I have had the privilege of being in public service in the other 
body since 1980, and, as a matter of fact, I was working as a staff 
member 10 or 12 years prior to that time. In speech after speech after 
speech, primarily involved with agriculture, we have tried to point out 
that unilateral sanctions simply don't work as a foreign policy tool. 
Study after study by respected foreign policy experts and economists, 
academics, not to mention the farmer who has gone through this I don't 
know how many times, all agree that unilateral sanctions are overused; 
that they are ineffective and counterproductive. I know that they send 
a message.
  I know from the intervention standpoint the sanctions we have on 
approximately 71 countries around the

[[Page 17607]]

world send a very strong perception. We have them on almost virtually 
everything that we are worried about. But unilateral sanctions do 
little to change the behavior of the offending country. Yet they put 
American businesses and American workers and farmers at a huge 
competitive disadvantage.
  I remember so well the 1980 embargo by President Carter. The Russians 
had invaded Afghanistan--something we all disagreed with without 
question and viewed as a great tragedy. I remember that the United 
States canceled the Olympics. At that time, President Carter said no 
more grain sales to Russia. Not one Russian troop left Afghanistan. 
And, yet, in terms of contract sanctity and our trade policy, our 
export policy was like shattered glass. I tell you who paid the price. 
It wasn't Russia. The fact is they were becoming more dependent on our 
food supply, and the Russian people were demanding more in that regard 
because of a higher protein diet.
  It was the Kansas wheat farmer and farmers all over this country. Our 
export policy suffered for years afterwards. It took us 2 years after 
that to get any contract sanctity. The price of wheat at the country 
elevator in Dodge City, KS, went from $5 down to about $2. Boy, did we 
feel good, except that Vietnam veteran who went out there to harvest 
his field and who had a good crop all of a sudden found it diminished 
in value and price. He was wondering and scratching his head: Wait a 
minute, these sanctions are not helping quite the way I thought they 
would.
  I am saying again that sanctions simply don't work as a foreign 
policy tool. Unilateral sanctions are often used as an easy substitute 
for the harder work of finding more effective and long-term responses 
to foreign policy problems. They create the false impression that these 
problems have been solved. We need to take, it seems to me, a harder 
look at alternatives such as multilateral pressure and more effective 
U.S. diplomacy.
  The Senator from Tennessee indicated what time we had in regard to 
multilateral pressure in regard to China. He makes one excellent point: 
We have not been successful to the degree that we should have been.
  More effective U.S. diplomacy. Let's see, 18 months ago, or 2 years 
ago, we were going ahead with this trade agreement. We worked on it for 
years. All of a sudden, it was pulled back. Then we got into a conflict 
in regard to Kosovo. We had the unfortunate incident of the Belgrade 
bombing. I am going to be very frank. This is after about six times of 
drawing lines in the sand in regard to Bosnia and Kosovo, the Balkans, 
and the former Yugoslavia.
  It seems to me that our word in regard to standing firm with what we 
would do in reference to foreign policy objectives would go a long way 
in convincing the Chinese, more especially the hard liners and the 
Communists in that country, that we mean what we say. It seems to me 
that a clear and rational and defined foreign policy of the United 
States where we define precisely what our U.S. vital national security 
interests are and make that very clear to the Chinese would go a long 
way to helping this matter rather than sanctions.
  Let me point out that unilateral economic sanctions almost never help 
the people we want to help and almost always fail to bring about the 
actions that we seek to promote. By acting alone, America only ensures 
that its responses are ineffective since the target country can always 
circumvent a U.S. unilateral sanction by working with one of our 
competitors. That certainly will be the case and would be the case with 
regard to China. Unilateral sanctions should be one of the last tools 
out of America's foreign policy toolbox--not the first.
  Second, the China nonproliferation act requires the mandatory--I have 
it in caps, in a higher type case here, to underline it--imposition of 
sanctions rather than allowing the President the discretion in 
determining whether sanctions or some other response will promote our 
U.S. goal.
  The measure requires the imposition of the full complement of U.S. 
sanctions for even minor infractions instead of mandating a 
predetermined one-size-fits-all response. It seems to me that history 
and prudence tells us that the President's hands should not be tied. 
Flexibility is a must when dealing with sensitive foreign policy 
issues.
  The thought occurs to me that if we are unhappy about the President 
not using all the venues, all of the opportunities, and all of the 
various means at his disposal to send strong messages to China in 
regard to this specific issue, we might want to quarrel with the 
policies and the recommendations and the actions of the President--not 
impose more unilateral mandatory sanctions that, quite frankly, might 
be followed up by more wrong-headed policy decisions, say, by the 
Executive.
  First, this amendment is redundant. A substantial body of law already 
exists in regard to governing the real proliferation of weapons. The 
President already has authority to adequately respond and report to the 
Congress on this issue, on this concern, which is real, about China and 
other nations. Examples include the Arms Export Control Act. I know the 
criticism will be; we haven't done that. Let's get back to the people 
who are implementing the policy. It is certainly not the alternative 
that is there.
  Second, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
  Third, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act. All those are on the 
books.
  Fourth, the Export Administration Act.
  Fifth, the Export-Import Bank Act.
  And many others too numerous to list. You can go on and on.
  Let's utilize and enforce the laws already on the books instead of 
hastily creating new statutes without properly studying the issue in 
the committee process, although, the Senator from Tennessee has spent 
many long hours on this subject area. I truly appreciate that.
  Finally, it seems to me we must defeat this amendment because of the 
obvious: Its success will kill the effort to achieve trade concessions 
with China. It will kill the PNTR. My former House colleagues have 
assured me. I know it is easy to say let's pass it and see. In my view, 
in talking with people on both sides of the aisle on this issue, from 
the Speaker to the rank-and-file Members of the House, this is a killer 
amendment.
  I also know the Senator from Tennessee has tried for a free-standing 
amendment. I understand that. That is a different matter. But tied to 
this particular effort, it represents the death of I don't know how 
many years of work in regard to PNTR. I think Senators must understand 
a vote for this amendment, or any amendment, serves ultimately as a 
vote against PNTR.
  It will be a tough vote for many of my colleagues simply because, as 
the Senator has pointed out, that is our first obligation. That is why 
we are here. It is such a serious issue.
  I am much more discouraged by the thought of explaining to the 
American people why we failed to rise to the occasion and remain 
economically and diplomatically engaged with one-fifth of the world's 
population. I think that course of action would help us in regard to 
our national security.
  I took some notes while I had the privilege of being the acting 
Presiding Officer, and perhaps this will be a little redundant. 
Hopefully, it will be helpful. Senator Thompson said the reason he has 
introduced the amendment, he has told all of us--especially those 
privileged to serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senate Armed 
Services Committee, bipartisan commission, and virtually all Members of 
the intelligence community--that we have a problem here in regard to 
the real, certain spread of weapons of mass destruction and selling 
these weapons to rogue nations. We don't call them rogue nations 
anymore; we call them nations of concern. I am not too sure what the 
difference is. We all know who they are.
  The Senator from Tennessee is exactly right. He says the problem is 
getting worse. He refers to Pakistan and says, What do we do about it? 
Then he

[[Page 17608]]

says the Chinese have violated virtually all the agreements we have 
entered into with them prior to this date. I am not sure they have 
violated each and every one, but obviously we have not reached the 
progress we would like to reach with the Chinese.
  He says, How on Earth can we claim the need for a national missile 
defense when these adversaries are causing the proliferation of weapons 
of mass destruction?
  Excellent point.
  Then he indicated that he could read a considerable amount of the 
intelligence reports--the itemized situation there in regard to the 
nations of concern and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
  That is true. But my question is, How can killing trade answer that 
challenge? How can killing this bill answer that challenge from a 
practical standpoint? With our competitors all over the world and the 
concessions we have arranged for in this trade bill, how can taking 
those sales away from American businesses, American farmers, and 
American ranchers help this situation? I don't understand that. I 
understand the means, but I don't understand the end.
  If nothing else happens, China will become a member of the WTO and 
one- fifth of the world's population will be a market to all the rest 
of the population, except the United States, and our competitors will 
take those markets. Kansas sales will not go to China; they will go to 
our competitors. I don't understand how that affects the Chinese 
decision in regard to these matters of grave national concern.
  Will the Chinese change their military policy? I doubt it. I have no 
illusions. I share the Senator's concerns about Taiwan. I have been to 
Taiwan several times. I share the concern in regard to human rights. I 
share the concern, as I have indicated, about the spread of weapons of 
mass destruction. I sit on those subcommittees. I am worried about the 
espionage.
  I worried a great deal 2 years ago when the distinguished Senator 
from Tennessee led the effort to have a little transparency, to shine 
the light of truth into darkness in regard to the campaign contribution 
violations involving China. He was stymied in that effort--we won't go 
into that--and tried very hard to reach a logical conclusion.
  The Senator mentioned it is our primary obligation in regard to 
national security. I agree. But it seems to me, again, a partial answer 
is a clear foreign policy.
  I am very hopeful with a change of administration we can achieve 
that, so that the Chinese fully understand what is acceptable and what 
isn't in regard to our national interests. It is not only China; it is 
all nations of concern. As a matter of fact, this administration has 
already announced we have exempted food and medicine sanctions in 
reference to all these nations of concern. They have not gone ahead and 
said that we can compete with our competitors and use our export credit 
programs, which is another step. Right now, with Iran we are trying to 
work this out as best we can. Obviously, we have a lot of concerns 
about the nation of Iran.
  So it involves all of the nations. The same thing with Cuba. You can 
make the same argument with Cuba, except obviously Cuba today does not 
pose a national security threat. We hear the same arguments with regard 
to sanctions.
  Trade is not a productive way to achieve foreign and military policy 
goals. I mentioned the Carter embargo. I will not go back over that. 
The issue is in regard to all of the reports. Send strong signals. We 
should be willing to take a strong stand. We should be able to draw a 
line in the sand and have reasonable policy discussions with the 
Chinese.
  If we don't have that kind of engagement with the current leadership 
in regard to trade, to whom does it turn over the decisionmaking? Who 
gains ascendancy if we kill PNTR? I will tell you who it is: It is the 
two generals who wrote the book on how they can gain supremacy with the 
United States by the year 2020. I haven't read all the book, but I read 
a portion of it. It is a chilling book. Equal superpower status with 
the United States. I think they probably wrote the last chapter after 
we were involved in the bombing of the embassy in Belgrade because they 
worry about NATO going outside of its boundaries and taking action like 
this. I think that crosses the T's and dots the I's. I am not saying 
that was a one-for-one cause, but I think that certainly was the case. 
If we don't remain engaged with trade, it will turn that decisionmaking 
over to those very people.
  Let's say we pass the Thompson amendment, the House doesn't take the 
bill up, and PNTR is dead. We sure showed them. We showed them. 
Basically, the Chinese hardliners will gain ascendancy, the Chinese 
will buy some Ericsson cell phones, and the Chinese will buy French 
wheat and the Airbus aircraft. The President will still have the 
options he should be using right now to convince the Chinese we ought 
to be making progress on this, but we won't be trading with Chinese. It 
seems to me that is the question.
  I thank Senator Thompson for making this such an issue of concern and 
having what I think has been excellent dialog and debate. I share his 
concern about the national security risk this poses. I do think this is 
the wrong way to get it done. I think this is a killer amendment. It is 
as simple as that. We have come far too far in our efforts to engage 
the Chinese with trade and, yes, with a serious national policy dialog 
with regard to our national security, to go down this road.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent I may have 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas for the 
level of his debate. This is a good discussion. This is what we ought 
to be doing. This is what we should have been doing for some time now. 
These are legitimate problems and legitimate disagreements.
  But let me disagree with my good friend on a couple of very important 
points. The trade we talk about here, the only trade that would be 
stopped by my amendment, is trade that is already prohibited in other 
legislation. It is trade that is basically on the munitions list; that 
is, armaments and things of that nature, munitions and dual-use items. 
Under the Export Administration Act, if these entities are caught 
proliferating, it is already required that we stop that. We are 
certainly not arguing, are we, that the President should not enforce 
that law? It is already on the books. The worst that can be said about 
ours is that it is duplicative.
  I have had a lot worse things said about things that I have done than 
that I have been duplicative. I hardly think that is a major problem, 
in light of the fact there are additional items in our bill which help 
which are not on the books now.
  But in terms of the trade that we would be losing, if that is the 
case, we would be losing it now if the President was applying the law 
the way he is supposed to apply the law. It is already on the books. 
Suppose it was not. Do we really want to be sending munitions list 
items and dual-use items to companies we find are proliferating? Can't 
we stand to lose that trade? We are not talking about Kansas farmers. 
We are not talking about Tennessee farmers. We are talking about those 
folks in this country--if you are in the business that would be 
affected by the munitions or the dual-use items that have either 
domestic or military capability, you would be affected if the President 
decided he wanted to go that route. That is the limitation. I think it 
is over $1 billion a year in exports that we have in a $9 trillion 
economy. Can't we afford that in light of this threat? Can't we afford 
that?
  My friends on the other side say this is a killer amendment. Let's 
analyze that for a minute. I submit to you that is not the case. It is 
being used, but it is not the case.
  The House of Representatives passed PNTR by about a 40-vote margin--
more

[[Page 17609]]

than anybody thought. All of us in this body have had a chance to 
express ourselves, and the votes are overwhelming here. The support and 
the leadership in the House is solid. You cannot stir with a stick the 
lobbyists in support of it around this town. The fight is over. We are 
going to have PNTR. The idea that we would send it back to the House 
with a proliferation amendment on it and people will say, ``My 
goodness, we are trying to do something about Chinese proliferation. We 
can't have that. I voted for it before but I am going to change my vote 
now and vote against it,'' is ludicrous.
  People say: Who is going to change their vote? With that 40-vote 
margin, who is going to change? Is it going to be the Republicans 
because we added a proliferation amendment? Of course not. Is it going 
to be the Democrats because the labor unions are pressuring them? When 
the Democrats are so close to taking back control of the House? When 
the labor unions have already lost this PNTR battle, and they know it, 
they are going to put their members in that kind of position so they 
can go into the election with a vote for it and a vote against?
  With all due respect, that is not going to happen. If we add a 
proliferation amendment and do what we should have been doing a long 
time ago--and say we are just going to ask for a report, and if we 
catch you, we are going to give our President the clear option to do 
something about it or, if he does not, he is going to have to tell us 
why--if it went back to the House, it would be ratified within 24 hours 
and that would be the end of it.
  We are not going to know until it happens. If we are so intent on 
avoiding what I consider to be a minute risk that we will turn a blind 
eye to what is going on because we are so intent on this trade 
agreement that we cannot even do the minimal of requiring an additional 
report, requiring some additional congressional involvement and making 
it a little tougher for the President to game the system--the way, 
quite frankly, this President has--then we have bigger troubles than I 
think we have.
  How can this help? My friends ask: How can this help? I will ask a 
question. Why is the PRC so against this amendment? Is it because it is 
ineffective or duplicative? They are against this amendment because 
they don't want the additional attention on their activities. They 
don't want the President to have it highlighted that he has this 
discretion and has to give a reason why he does not take action. They 
think it will be effective. I think it will be effective. I think it 
will have an effect on them where they will think at least one more 
time before they do something that they know is going to be another 
major debate on this floor. That is my belief.
  My friend makes a good point with regard to the issue of sanctions in 
general. That has been the source of a great debate for a long time. He 
makes some good points. But I reiterate: Sanctions are not sanctions 
are not sanctions. There are different kinds of sanctions. We can't 
lump all sanctions in one group. There are sanctions that differ in 
terms of the targeted country. There are sanctions that differ in terms 
of the activity that is going to be addressed. There are sanctions that 
are different in terms of the commodities or goods on which you are 
placing some limitation. We have had sanctions that have dealt with 
agriculture, as he points out. They have dealt with goods in general in 
times past. What we are dealing with here basically is munitions and 
dual-use items. Should we not stop that, if we catch these companies 
proliferating weapons of mass destruction?
  Over the years when the U.S. has been serious about implementing 
measures to signal our displeasure with a foreign government's actions, 
these measures have had an effect. For example, U.S. economic pressure 
in the late 1980s and early 1990 led to China's accession to the 
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1992. In June of 1991, the Bush 
administration applied sanctions against the PRC for missile technology 
transfers to Pakistan.
  They have been doing this for a long time, folks. These measures led 
to China's commitment 5 months later to abide by the Missile Technology 
Control Regime. They systematically violate it, but perhaps, hopefully, 
not as much as if they had not even agreed to abide by it.
  In August of 1993, the Clinton administration imposed sanctions on 
the PRC for the sale of M-11 missile equipment to Pakistan in violation 
of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Over a year later, Beijing 
backed down by agreeing not to export ground-to-ground missiles if 
sanctions were lifted. They entered into this agreement in order to get 
sanctions lifted. I wonder why they wanted those sanctions lifted--
because they were having no effect? And that occurred in 1994.
  Some of these examples were provided to me by Sandy Berger, the 
National Security Adviser, to illustrate how unilateral sanctions and/
or the threat of sanctions have been effective when dealing with the 
PRC in the past.
  The President's security adviser opposes my amendment because he 
doesn't want any complications to PNTR. We respectfully disagree with 
that. We certainly disagree over the extent to which they have 
attempted to do something about China's activities, but they have, on 
occasion, taken some action. He cites these particular instances when 
they have taken action, and he acknowledged they had some effect.
  So we cannot have it both ways. We cannot lump all this together and 
say sanctions are bad, period, forever, regardless. We can't say, 
``Let's not tie the President's hands,'' when all of this is 
discretionary. He has to make a determination. I do not know how many 
times I have to repeat this. We are not tying the President's hands. He 
can do it if he wants to and he doesn't have to do it if he doesn't 
want to. That is not tying the President's hands. We are not talking 
about agriculture or any other general goods. We are talking about 
dual-use items.
  So we have a legitimate debate here. Some think we should go ahead 
and pass PNTR and have no amendment strategy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The time requested by the 
distinguished and articulate Senator from Tennessee has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The chair hears none. The 
distinguished Senator is recognized.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Legitimate debate. Some think we ought to pass this: No 
complications, no amendments, no muss, no fuss; worry about this later.
  If not now, when? I thank the Chair and relinquish the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to take a couple of moments. I 
already mentioned my concerns about the Thompson amendment, but I have 
to say it is interesting that the Senator is curious as to why there 
are objections to this amendment. He ought to recall that the Senate 
has already rejected three or four amendments for the same reason, and 
that is, we want to send a clean bill to the President.
  The idea that his is being rejected because of certain things is just 
not the case. There is a notion here that this bill ought to be sent, 
right or wrong. I happen to think that he is exactly right. There is 
also the implication that if you do not agree with this amendment, you 
do not care about these things. That is not true, either. We do 
separate things. There are seven or eight bills now in place.
  The Senator says we are not going to tie the President's hands and 
then on the other hand says this is going to force the President to do 
something. We need to get it clear.
  I wanted to make the point that there is no evidence that people do 
not care about these things. They do, indeed. There is a belief that 
these issues ought to be separated and we ought to deal with PNTR and 
then deal with the other issue. We should not think this is going to 
cause the President to do a number of things when we already have in 
place at least seven laws that are not being adhered to.

[[Page 17610]]

  Those are the things on which I wanted to be clear. I yield to the 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire 
is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak on the underlying bill as in morning business so as not to take 
time away from the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, yesterday and today we 
heard my distinguished colleague, Senator Thompson, speak eloquently on 
the whole issue of the Chinese nonproliferation amendment. It is 
interesting that no one in the Senate wants to give us the opportunity 
to amend the legislation for fear somehow it might mess it up. On the 
other hand, it did not bother the House. They amended HR 4444 and sent 
it over here, and I believe the Senate has a responsibility to do 
likewise. Frankly, I believe we have that right to offer amendments, 
such as the Thompson amendment, whether I agree or disagree with it. I 
believe people ought to vote on those amendments based on how they feel 
about it.
  This is a very important issue. Permanent meant permanent when I went 
to school. When you say ``permanent normal trade relations with 
China,'' permanent means permanent. I am going to touch on a number of 
issues, including the subject Senator Thompson has spoken so eloquently 
on over the past couple of days, but there are many other issues one 
might want to stop and have serious reflections on whether or not this 
is really what we want to do.
  To the leader's credit, he has given us ample opportunity to have 
these debates. As Senator Thompson just said, one gets the feeling that 
it is a foregone conclusion; that we are wasting our time; we are 
basically taking the Senate's time for no apparent reason; that it is 
already in the cards; that everybody is for permanent normal trade 
relations; we do not have to worry; we are just wasting time.
  We waste a lot of time around here. I suppose we can say some of the 
greatest debates of all time have taken place in this Chamber. If it is 
a waste of time, so be it, but I believe these comments should be made, 
and I believe they ought to be considered. If people want to vote 
against the Thompson amendment, a Smith amendment, or other amendments, 
they have every right to do so. If they want to say proliferation 
matters, then they have a right to do so, and they will have a right to 
vote.
  I applaud Senator Thompson for adding this amendment to the PNTR 
debate. He has been involved in the committee investigating some of 
these matters. He is able. He knows about these issues. It would be a 
shame if the Senate did not heed what he has advised them to consider.
  I believe one of the greatest threats to the U.S. today is China's 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, chemical, and 
biological, all three--and the means to deploy them; not just produce 
them, but have the mechanism to deploy them. We do not know whether 
they have the will or the desire. We do not deal with will and desire. 
What we deal with is capability.
  This is a fact. This is not opinion, as Senator Thompson has pointed 
out. It is a fact that the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction--biological, chemical and nuclear--are occurring today by 
the Chinese. It is a fact. Despite words to the contrary, China 
continues to transfer technology to Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and 
Libya. One can say: Fine, I do not care; it is more important to sell 
my agricultural products to China than it is to worry about 
proliferation of nuclear and missile technology.
  That is fine if that is your opinion, but do not come to the floor 
and say that it is not happening because it is happening. This 
technology is being transferred to North Korea, to Libya, to Iran, and 
to Pakistan. It is happening, and that is a fact. One can say: Fine, I 
don't care about that; we will go ahead and feed the people who are 
doing it, but it is a fact that this technology is being transferred.
  The Director of Central Intelligence reported on August 9 that China 
remains a ``key supplier,'' his words, of these technologies, 
particularly missile or chemical technology transfers. Some of these 
transfers have raised questions about violations of the Non-
Proliferation Treaty which China signed and contradictions to the 
Missile Technology Control Regime which China promised to abide by, and 
U.S. laws, violations which may require sanctions.
  China has not joined some of the international nonproliferation 
groups. The Clinton-Gore administration policy of ``comprehensive 
engagement'' with Beijing seeking to improve bilateral relations has 
failed. It is time for a tougher approach to advance U.S. 
nonproliferation interests.
  This is not about coming out here and beating up on a country. The 
facts are the facts. They threatened Taiwan. They have threatened us if 
we interfere with them threatening Taiwan. They have actively engaged 
in seeking to control the Long Beach naval shipyard, the Panama Canal, 
and other regions in the Caribbean, and yet we are supposed to stand by 
and ignore this threat, all of it in the name of free trade.
  Not only are we supposed to ignore it, we are not even supposed to 
have a vote on it; we are just wasting the Senate's time to point out 
that this is happening in the world today.
  Maybe Senators have made up their minds, but I want to speak to the 
American people because, frankly, I am not sure the American people 
have made up their minds on this issue. Maybe they need to know.
  I ask you: If you are a parent with a 17- 18- 19-year-old son or 
daughter--I have one 21 and one 18--whether or not you feel safe in 
providing this country of China with permanent normal trade relations; 
that is, giving them the best opportunities we can to trade with them 
and you are not worried about the fact that they are spreading weapons 
of mass destruction all over the world. If you are not, then I think 
you should sit silently and say to yourself: I am going to get my way; 
the Senators are going to vote the way I want them to vote. But if you 
are not satisfied, then you ought to let your Senators know because we 
are going to have a vote on this in the very near future.
  Many in this body are adamantly opposed to amending this trade 
legislation. They argue that trade and national security concerns are 
not connected. We should go ahead and trade with China. We open up our 
country. We open up the dialog. We open up debate and just ignore all 
the other issues. Proliferation, human rights abuses, religious 
persecution, and all the other issues I plan to speak about will take 
care of itself. Don't worry about China. They will not hurt us. Don't 
worry about it. Just keep trading with them and provide more 
assistance.
  No one is talking about ignoring 1 billion-plus people in the world. 
That is not what this debate is about. No one proposes to ignore them. 
I do not propose to ignore them. No one proposes to not talk with them 
or not to have relations with them. That is not what we are talking 
about.
  What we are talking about is permanently establishing these normal 
trade relations, which gives them benefits that American companies do 
not even have and American citizens do not have. So if you want people 
who are trying to spread weapons of mass destruction all over the 
world--chemical, biological, and nuclear--to have better situations--
their companies don't have to abide by environmental standards; they 
put people in slave labor in the textile mills, or whatever, for 50 
cents a day--if that does not bother you, then fine, don't call your 
Senators and tell them. Leave it alone. They are going to vote your 
way. But if it does bother you, you may want to speak up.
  This amendment, the Thompson amendment, is very relevant. People 
should be heard on it. Every Senator should be heard on it.
  The Chinese Government realizes we are willing to abdicate our 
national security concerns to gain access to their

[[Page 17611]]

meager markets at all costs. You think the Chinese are not watching 
this debate? You think they don't know what is going on? Here is what 
they are hearing: You know what. These guys will do anything to get our 
business. They will do anything to get our business. They will let us 
go ahead and spread weapons of mass destruction all over the world. 
They don't care about that. The United States will let us move into 
Panama and threaten the people of Taiwan as long as we can buy their 
corn and their wheat. Man, that is a good deal for us.
  Boy, I will bet they are laughing in Beijing right now at this 
debate. But I will tell you what. If it ever comes, God forbid, to a 
conflict in the future, if you have a son or a daughter in that 
conflict, you are not going to be laughing. That is the reality. That 
is the way life is.
  Ronald Reagan stood firm against the Soviet Union; and it worked. 
When President Reagan told Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall down, he 
tore it down. We won the Cold War because we stood firm. We did not 
kowtow to the threats and the intimidation to sell products. Some 
wanted us to, but we didn't.
  Leaders in China believe the actions of this body are a foregone 
conclusion--over and done. The Chinese have acted accordingly by 
continuing to proliferate nuclear and missile technology during this 
whole process. It is still going on, as is evident by the latest report 
from the Director of the CIA. They are still doing it. And we are still 
going to give them permanent normal trade relations.
  Sometimes--and I have been on both sides of many issues; I have lost 
debates and I have won debates--sometimes you have to have the debate. 
You know what. I want history to judge me on what my position is on 
this issue. I hope to God that I never ever have to come back to the 
Senate floor and say: See, I told you so.
  I hope tomorrow the Chinese all become democrats--little ``d''--and 
we become one big, happy world family between the Chinese and the 
Americans. I hope that happens.
  You know what, folks. Are you sure that is going to happen? Do you 
feel real good about that happening based on what is occurring right 
now as we speak? Spies spying, stealing our secrets, stealing the whole 
arsenal of our weapons, and we are about to let the person who stole 
that--he is going to go free very shortly. We are the laughingstock of 
the world. Unbelievable. Yet we sit here--so many of us--without even 
uttering a whimper and criticize those of us who speak up and talk 
about it, criticize us for even offering amendments to try to stop it.
  I commend Senator Thompson. I admire him. I respect him. I served 
with him on that committee when he did this investigation. I respect 
what he has done. He is right. History will judge him right. Those of 
us who stood up and spoke out, history will judge us right as well.
  That is all that matters because when you stand up here, you can 
speak and you can vote. That is about it on the Senate floor. And 
sometimes you lose. But it doesn't mean you shouldn't be heard. It 
doesn't mean you are always wrong when you lose. It doesn't mean you 
are always right, either.
  The recent release of the State Department's annual human rights 
report states that China's human rights record has worsened, not 
improved. Are these the actions of a country that we believe are going 
to curb their dismal record of missile and weapons of mass destruction 
proliferation, atrocious human rights violations, or honor their trade 
agreements signed with the United States?
  Quite frankly, actions speak louder than words--a trite expression. 
China has not even attempted to clean up its act. As Congress has 
debated this issue this year, they have not even attempted to clean it 
up because they know what the result will be. They have known all 
along: Free and open trade, and reduced vigilance. Free trade will 
facilitate the proliferation of technologies and systems for weapons of 
mass destruction and the means to deploy them. Make no mistake about 
it. Free and open trade, permanent normal trade relations with the 
Chinese, will foster the ability of this nation, China, to send weapons 
of mass destruction around the world, and the means to deploy them. We 
should speak up on the Senate floor about it. Frankly, we should adopt 
the Thompson amendment. If that means it defeats PNTR, good.
  The same technologies that create Chinese space threats to the U.S. 
also enhance Chinese capabilities. We in Congress should not stand by 
passively and watch that happen, either.
  Voting against the Thompson amendment will send a green light to Red 
China to continue to destabilize regions already mired in centuries-old 
conflicts. China's proliferation activities have sparked a nuclear arms 
race on the Indian subcontinent and have assisted Iran's nuclear 
missile programs, not to mention Libya's desire to become a nuclear 
power--a very comforting thought. The Chinese are helping Libya, Mr. 
Qadhafi, to become a nuclear power. I am sure that will comfort 
everyone. Why not? Let's help them. Let's feed them. Let's trade with 
them. Let's treat them as if they are a nice nation that does not do 
any of this; ignore it all, and let Libya be a nuclear power. That will 
be nice.
  It is time that this body takes action. I urge Members to reconsider. 
Those of you who believe that Thompson is wrong, I urge you to 
reconsider that in the face of this debate.
  It would seem that the main argument against these and every other 
amendment that is being offered is that since it was not in the House 
bill, as I said before, then we can't have it in the Senate bill. That, 
frankly, is an insult to all of us in the Senate. We have an 
obligation, as I said, to amend if we want to.
  The proponents argue there can be no conference; that is, don't have 
the House and Senate sit down to work out any deal. That takes too much 
time. That is too much trouble. We just want to pass what the House 
sent over, even though they amended it.
  Are the proponents suggesting that the Senate will not ask for any 
more conferences between now and the end of the session on any bill? 
Are we going to conference appropriations bills?
  We do 13 conferences usually on appropriations bills. But we can't do 
a conference on permanent normal trade relations with China? That is 
the process. The process calls for conferences between the House and 
the Senates. Even if we conceded that it was too late for a conference, 
the suggestion that a conference is needed is totally inconsistent with 
our framework of government.
  When we pass a bill, it does not go to conference. It goes to the 
House. We all know that. If the Senate--given the overwhelming support 
for PNTR in this body--approves some commonsense modifications, then 
those amendments would eagerly be accepted by the House. It would not 
be a big deal. If there is an argument over it, fine. We settle the 
argument, as we do in every conference.
  So if we amend the bill, it goes to the House. It takes no time. The 
clerk engrosses the amendments and sends it over. We can pass an 
amended bill at lunchtime, have it passed in the House in time for the 
Members to be home for dinner; President Clinton wakes up in the 
morning, has a little breakfast, and signs the bill. Over and done 
with.
  What is the big deal? We make things too complicated around here. 
Frankly, they are phony arguments, as if this conference is going to 
take decades to finish. We are going to finish the conference. The fact 
that we might add a couple of amendments, whether it is proliferation 
or anything else, to this bill and that it is going to delay the 
conference and somehow mess up PNTR is nonsense, total nonsense.
  I taught history. I taught civics. I taught how a bill becomes law. I 
have been on conferences. I am on two right now, the Department of 
Defense and the Water Resources Development Act. I can assure you, 
those bills are much larger and have many more time-consuming issues 
than this one. But I might ask you, are those bills any more important 
than this one? I don't think so. So why, then, are we conferencing them 
and not wanting to conference here?

[[Page 17612]]

  Some have argued that the annual debate over whether to renew this 
was counterproductive. I would argue that it served as one of the few 
constraints on Chinese behavior. The fact that we had this debate in 
the Senate is good. At least China knows there are some of us who are 
concerned about it.
  If we yield permanent MFN on PNTR to China, then we forever 
relinquish one of the few tools we have to foster change in China, 
which is our agricultural leverage. Unfortunately, since 1989, when MFN 
was once again renewed despite the carnage at Tiananmen Square 
witnessed by the rest of the world, the Chinese came quickly to 
understand that the U.S. Government valued its trading relationship 
with China above all else. It is a fact; that is how they view it.
  What is of greatest concern is that a majority in Congress, like the 
CEOs of many major companies, appear to be mesmerized by this mythical 
Chinese market and are willing to ignore the egregious conduct. China's 
conduct should have, at a minimum, postponed China's admittance in the 
WTO. It is the kind of conduct you cannot ignore. You cannot ignore the 
atrocities that are occurring in this country. We don't have to ignore 
it. We can pass amendments to PNTR that highlight those atrocities in 
an effort to leverage the Chinese to stop it. I will get into some of 
those in a moment.
  We are familiar with the 1996 campaign finance scandal where millions 
of dollars were delivered from China through conduits in an attempt to 
buy the White House. It was a big embarrassment for our country. We 
know that China plundered nuclear secrets from our national labs and 
that in fact, according to our own intelligence agencies, Chinese 
agents continued to steal that technology in the United States, 
including from DOE labs. This is happening. Countless news articles 
have underscored China's dangerous proliferation of missile technology 
and weapons of mass destruction to rogue regimes all over the world. As 
I said, two Sovremenny-class destroyers equipped with Sunburn missiles, 
these missiles were specifically designed to defeat our Aegis system 
and our carrier battle groups. That is the specific purpose of this 
class of destroyers. This represents a great leap forward on the part 
of the Chinese Navy and a serious threat to the 7th fleet and our 
allies in the Pacific. Are we so blinded by trade and the lure of 
profits that we can't recognize the danger to our strategic vital 
interests? Are we that blind?
  In Hong Kong, only recently turned over to the Chinese Government, 
news reports over the weekend indicated that pollsters are being 
discouraged from reviewing information which shows the declining 
popularity of Hong Kong's Chief Executive. The Chinese Government has 
warned businessmen on Taiwan they cannot be pro-independence if they 
expect to do business with Beijing. The Chinese military on a regular 
basis truly speaks of invading Taiwan, and the proliferation of 
missiles aimed at Taiwan lends credibility to this threat. While the 
Clinton administration rewards Beijing with support for MFN and PNTR 
and has supported military-to-military exchanges with the People's 
Liberation Army, it has opposed the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act 
which seeks to bolster the capabilities of the degraded Taiwanese 
military and upgrade United States-Taiwan military relations.
  Most recently and, frankly, most shamefully, the Clinton 
administration discouraged members of both parties of Congress from 
even meeting with the democratically elected leader of Taiwan. What an 
insult. I just don't understand it. We are going to give permanent 
normal trade relations to China, sell them our products and feed them, 
and we are not going to offend them by talking to the leader of Taiwan. 
We are the world's greatest superpower. The rest of the world, I hope, 
still views us as the land of liberty and the beacon of freedom. And we 
are afraid to offend China by talking to the leader of Taiwan? What 
must they think when the administration denies the freedom of assembly, 
that all Americans enjoy, to a visiting democratically elected 
dignitary? Think about that. What signal are we sending? Are we not 
rewarding the intelligence of the regime in Beijing by snubbing the 
duly elected leader of the Chinese democracy? It is un-American and it 
is inexplicable. It just can't be about money because, in fact, we sell 
more goods to Taiwan than we do to China.
  So why are we doing it? If we sell more goods to China than we do to 
the People's Republic, why are we snubbing the leader of Taiwan? We 
won't even talk with him. What is it about this administration that 
makes it so eager to kowtow to Communist leaders?
  It may not be an accident. I ask unanimous consent that this be 
submitted as part of the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                         House of Representatives.

 Vote With America's Veterans on Memorial Day--Vote ``No'' on PNTR for 
                                 China

       Dear Colleague: This week the VFW, the Military Order of 
     the Purple Heart and AMVETS, joined the American Legion, and 
     several other veterans organizations in opposition to PNTR 
     for China.


            veterans organizations opposed to pntr for china

       Veterans of Foreign Wars, Military Order of the Purple 
     Heart, AMVETS, The American Legion, United States Army 
     Warrant Officers Association, Reserve Officers Association, 
     Naval Reserve, and Fleet Reserve.
       This vote is scheduled just a few days before Memorial Day, 
     a day which honors our armed forces personnel who have given 
     their lives for our freedom. We should heed the voices of our 
     men and women in uniform and America's veterans who are 
     asking us to vote no on PNTR for China.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Frank Wolf,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. This is from Congressman Frank Wolf, 
which is a listing of the organizations opposed to PNTR. It is not an 
accident that most of the veterans organizations are opposed. They are 
the folks who have sacrificed. The Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
Naval Reserve, Fleet Reserve, Amvets, Order of the Purple Hearts; these 
are the guys who paid the price. They are not for PNTR. They have a 
right to talk. They have a right to be heard. They have a right to this 
debate occurring. They have a right to say to those folks who say let's 
not debate this, let's just pass it: Sorry, we paid the price; we paid 
the price to have this debate, and we should have this debate.
  I am standing up for the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars and the Military Order of the Purple Heart and others. I am proud 
to do it. They are right. They have been right before. They have been 
right in the past and they are right now.
  I conclude on six very brief amendments I have already offered but 
didn't get an opportunity to speak on the other day because of time 
constraints.
  There is a commission that is created under this permanent normal 
trade relations bill to monitor certain levels of Chinese cooperation. 
One of the amendments I introduced last week was called the POW-MIA 
amendment. The purpose is to monitor the level of Chinese cooperation 
on the POW-MIA issue and to pass this information on to the American 
people as part of an annual report the commission will issue. All I am 
asking is that this be part of the commission's report, that we do a 
study on this, put it into the report. That is all the amendment is.
  I have been a longtime advocate of the POW issue. I believe the U.S. 
Government should make every effort to account for its missing 
servicemen in our Nation's conflicts, all of them. I am sure my 
colleagues would agree that we have a solemn obligation to these brave 
men and women and their families. There are over 10,000 accounted for 
American soldiers, airmen, and marines from the North Korean, Vietnam, 
and cold wars. The fate of many of these Americans, especially from the 
Korean war, could be easily clarified and determined by the People's 
Republic of China.
  I have written to the People's Republic of China. They have basically 
ignored my letters. They are not willfully coming forth with 
information. This is a humanitarian issue. What is wrong with having an 
amendment that says the Chinese should cooperate and

[[Page 17613]]

help us account for our missing? Yet the sponsors of this bill are 
saying don't vote for the Smith amendment--it is being put around here 
on all the desks--don't vote for the Smith amendment because it will 
cause a problem. If we sent it over to the House, the House would have 
to agree that we should account for our missing POWs, that we ought to 
ask the Chinese to help us. Don't complicate things, don't put that 
amendment on.
  I hope the American people are listening. Don't complicate PNTR by 
having China help us find our missing. Really. Unbelievable.
  Let me share a small fraction of information that leads me to believe 
China knows a lot more than they are telling us. It is precisely this 
type of information that makes it all the more important for the 
Chinese to cooperate. I know some people say that is just a bunch of 
baloney, the Chinese don't have any information on POWs and MIAs. There 
are numerous declassified CIA intelligence reports from the 1950s that 
indicate Chinese knowledge about American POWs from the Korean war. I 
will enter all of these in the Record, but let me cite a couple of 
them.
  Central Intelligence Agency, May of 1951, subject: American prisoners 
of war in Canton, China. It goes on to describe the sighting. June 
1951, subject: American prisoners of war in South China. It goes on to 
talk about it. Fifty-two American prisoners were incarcerated in a 
Baptist church in Canton, on and on. A staff member of the state 
security bureau in Seoul on 12 February stated--this is 1951--that all 
American prisoners of war were sent to camps in China, Manchuria, where 
they were put to hard labor in mines and factories. Documented, and yet 
they don't give us any answers.
  Prisoners of war in Communist China is another subject. In 1961, 
another report; another report in September 1951. American prisoners of 
war in Communist China; Chinese student had a sighting.
  Whether these are true or not--I make no representation whether or 
not they are, but they have been brought to our attention. We know the 
Chinese have information as to what happened to those people. Yet, I 
repeat: We are told not even to amend PNTR because it is going to cause 
a couple of minutes of delay over on the House side to conference this 
and get it in there.
  That is a real fine ``how do you do'' for the people who served our 
Nation and are now missing Americans. That is a fine ``how do you do.''
  I hope Senators who oppose this amendment can look into the eyes of 
the families of those prisoners and say: I had to do this because I 
wanted China's permanent status so badly, I couldn't care less whether 
I got any information on POWs and MIAs; I am going to be able to look 
in the mirror quite fine.
  I could go on and on through 100 more. I have them. But I am not 
going to do that.
  Secretary Cohen, to his credit, raised this issue with the Chinese 
during his visit to China last summer at my request. He raised it very 
forcefully. Once again, the Chinese simply said: We don't have any 
information on your POWs. And under their breath, as they walked out of 
the room, they said: What the heck, we have going to get PNTR anyway. 
Why bother? It is a foregone conclusion.
  They make billions and billions of dollars in trade with the United 
States. Shame on us if we fail to demand that they provide answers on 
our missing servicemen. Shame on us for the sake of a few minutes in a 
conference with the House of Representatives--shame, shame, shame, 
shame.
  Three-hundred and twenty-thousand Chinese military personnel served 
in Vietnam from 1965 to 1970. It seems to me pretty likely that some of 
those troops could tell us something about what they saw in Vietnam 
that may account for 1, 2, 3, 10, or 100 of our missing. We need the 
Chinese to tell us what they know.
  Although I am opposed to permanent normal trade relations with China, 
this amendment would address these concerns. And at least, if it 
passes, it would be in there so that we would be saying to the Chinese: 
Here is your PNTR, but at least we care about our missing; help us. No. 
It might take a few minutes in conference. We can't do that.
  The second amendment I offered deals with Chinese companies.
  According to the proponents of PNTR, surrendering America's only real 
leverage to Communist China's actions on a myriad of national security 
and human rights issues is being heralded as a win-win scenario for the 
American people and the oppressed Chinese. This not only false, but it 
is detrimental to the American people and U.S. national security.
  In the zeal to gain potential profits in China, we will be 
surrendering our most useful leverage tool that can be used to redirect 
China's atrocious human rights, religious persecution, and increasingly 
belligerent military. The proponents of PNTR have claimed that the 
Chinese citizens will enjoy economic prosperity and eventually 
democratic freedoms.
  Both of these assumptions are uncertain. However, what is certain and 
can be tangibly observed right now is that the PLA and their 
companies--many of them increasingly high-tech in scope--are eagerly 
anticipating the benefits and profits of increased exposure to American 
consumers in the United States. It is almost ``laugh-out-loud funny'' 
to hear people say those companies in China don't have anything to do 
with the Government, that they are private companies. Hello. Private 
companies in China? Maybe you ought to look at the Lippo flow chart, 
and how all of that works, and find out where it leads. Where does the 
trail lead to all of these companies? It leads directly to the People's 
Liberation Army. That is where it leads--to the Chinese Communist 
leaders.
  Without a doubt, PNTR will facilitate and improve the People's 
Liberation Army's military capabilities. The profit they will make and 
the money we are going to provide them in these sales is going to go 
directly into the technology spread of weapons of mass destruction and 
improve their military capabilities, which--may God forbid and I hope 
not--may be used against us in the future.
  Experts have concluded that the U.S. trade deficit with China is 
expected to grow if China wins PNTR. Our deficit will grow. That means 
more capital for China to modernize its military. That is what it 
means. Let's face it. Fine. OK. We sell wheat. Great. Sell corn. Great. 
Enjoy your profits, because let me tell you where it is going: More 
capital to China to modernize its military.
  As PLA companies gain increased access to U.S. high-tech, dual-use 
technology, they will be able to buy increasingly advanced weapons from 
Russia and other nations. What they can't build they can buy.
  To illustrate, the PLA navy has been aggressively improving its 
surface fleet by purchasing, as I said earlier, state-of-the-art 
Sovremenny-class destroyers from Russia. The Chinese military's ability 
to purchase these types of weapon platforms poses a direct threat to 
U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle groups in the Pacific and our friends 
in Taiwan.
  Is there anyone out there listening with a son or a daughter on a 
military or Navy ship in the South Pacific? You ought to be worried. 
You ought to be thinking about what your Senators are going to shortly 
do here. They are going to provide the capability of the Chinese 
military to knock those carriers and those destroyers right out of the 
water with the most sophisticated technology known to mankind. We are 
going to help them do it. We are going to help them do it.
  If somebody wants to come down here and debate that and tell me that 
is not the case, come on down.
  Currently the U.S. Navy has no defense--none--against the Sunburn 
missile which the Sovremenny destroyers of the Chinese military could 
use against U.S. aircraft carriers with 3,000 or 4,000 people, and some 
have as many as 6,000 people. It is a vulnerable city out there with 
your sons and daughters on it, and we are helping them to have the 
capacity to knock it out.
  While many have opted to dismiss the national security risks that 
will

[[Page 17614]]

accompany China PNTR, our own intelligence apparatus--that is the worst 
part of this for me to deal with. Our own intelligence has identified 
the threat the United States faces from trade. They have told us. It is 
not an opinion. They have directly told us trading with China threatens 
our national security. It threatens our national security, and we still 
ignore it. Not only do we ignore it, but we are being told not to 
debate it.
  According to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, the PLA has 
established ``sixteen character'' policy guiding the mission and 
profits as companies realize from the sale to U.S. consumers. 
Specifically, these companies wish to profit from the manufacture of 
ordinary consumer goods to pay for the development and production of 
weapons; subsidize and profit from these industries in times when the 
PLA does not need to use their manufacturing infrastructure to produce 
defense-related weapons and goods; and to seek foreign trade and 
investment to modernize its defense infrastructure.
  According to reports in the South China Post, the PLA has kept 1,346 
companies, dumping thousands that were not profitable for the Chinese 
military.
  Think about that--dumping companies that were not profitable to their 
own military.
  These military-owned companies produce and ship a wide variety of 
goods to the United States for sale to unknowing American consumers.
  What do we do? We say to them: As long as we can sell our corn and 
our wheat, we don't care. No problem here.
  Regrettably, these same U.S. consumers were unaware that the People's 
Liberation Army goods they purchased in 1989--do you want to know what 
happened when American consumers purchased goods in 1989? They helped 
to fund the Chinese Communist Party's brutal crackdown and massacre of 
the countless pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. That is 
where the money went.
  Currently, President Clinton and his administration have impeded the 
process by which the United States monitors and keeps track of PLA 
businesses allowing American citizens to fill the PLA coffers 
unchecked. The increased trade embodied in PNTR may only contribute to 
a future of more brutal crackdowns by the PLA and Chinese security 
forces funded by unknowing American citizens.
  I am trying to help American citizens know: Don't do it. Urge your 
Senators to vote against this.
  I propose at the very least that the Senate consider and accept a 
simple commonsense amendment, which I am offering, which would allow 
the Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States and the FBI to 
monitor and report to Congress on the activities and national security 
assessments and implications where U.S.-consumer-generated money is 
being directed within the PLA. That is all my amendment asks.
  I believe the American people would be aghast if they knew that their 
hard-earned money was greasing Communist China's brutal crackdowns, 
dangerous saber-rattling toward the democratic island of Taiwan, and 
increasing the credibility of the Chinese Communist Army's weapons of 
mass destruction as top generals in Beijing threaten to vaporize cities 
on the American west coast should the U.S. come to the defense of our 
democratic friends in Taiwan.
  That is an eye opener. Not a comforting thought if you live on the 
west coast.
  As this Nation's top decisionmakers, I believe the American people 
deserve to have a Congress that watches out for their best interests. 
Sometimes in the short run what one thinks is in the best interests are 
not the best interests in the long run; it is nice to make a little 
profit on the sale of food, but look at the long run.
  I know I am not supposed to be up here taking all this time to talk 
about this. ``Permanent'' is a long time after this debate--a long, 
long time. Once the damage is done, recovery is going to be difficult.
  I have an amendment regarding space and the implication of the 
Chinese and what PNTR will do to that. Space is of huge importance. 
Whoever controls the skies in the future, I believe, is the winner in 
the next war. The U.S. is becoming ever more reliant on space 
capability, especially in the areas of command and control. While we 
are ahead of any potential rival in exploiting space, we are not 
unchallenged, and our future dominance is by no means assured. We have 
already observed major national efforts to conceal the Indian and 
Pakistan nuclear tests and the North Korean space launch capability 
from U.S. space assets. It would be naive to think our adversaries are 
not considering and capable of a wide range of methods to counter U.S. 
military muscle in general, and our current space advantage, in 
particular.
  A 1998 report said, one, China is constructing electronic jammers 
that can be used against our GPS receivers; two, China's manned space 
program will contribute to an improved military space system.
  We hear the argument in the United States, let's not put weapons in 
space. That is exactly what the Chinese are doing. That is their goal. 
We will help them do it. We will help them out. Feed them, trade with 
them, have them make some money, and help them to move right on and get 
their technology into space while we sit back and argue whether or not 
we should militarize space.
  I will not go into all of the arguments on that other than to simply 
say this amendment directs the Congressional Executive Commission on 
the People's Republic of China, which was created in the House 
language, to monitor--that is all I am asking--a number of important 
issues so that we can report annually on Chinese space capabilities and 
the activities that affect the development. All we are asking in this 
amendment is it be monitored as part of this Commission.
  Again, same argument; same old story: Don't waste the Senate's time, 
don't amend it. If we amend that we have to confer with the House--it 
might take a couple of hours, who knows--to come to a conclusion. No 
amendments. We don't want to delay this. But look at the long-term 
implications.
  Another amendment that I have offered, No. 4, is in the area of 
environment. I serve as the chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee in the Senate. I will briefly explain this. In America, 
if you run a business, there are environmental regulations; strict, 
EPA-regulated laws that you have to abide by. It costs money. I am not 
complaining. I think some of the environmental regulations are good. 
Some have been a little bit too harsh. On the whole, the Clean Water 
Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, all the bills and laws 
we have passed through the years have been effective in cleaning our 
air, lands, and water. I think companies now realize that.
  However, it has cost a lot of money. We have accepted it. Why do we 
want to allow the Nation of China, which we are now giving permanent 
normal trade relations to, to not enforce any environmental laws? Why 
do we want to say to China, you can produce a product, dump it on 
America's market to one-third or one-fourth, or one-tenth of what we 
can sell it for, and not have to abide by any of the environmental 
regulations?
  China is part of the world. America is part of the world. The 
atmosphere and the oceans and the land are all part of the globe. Why 
do we let them off the hook? Why do we punish our people and not even 
ask that the Chinese be forced to somehow abide with basic 
environmental laws? That is why we need this amendment. It simply says 
that the Commission will monitor the lack of environmental regulations 
and use that as leverage for when we trade with them.
  Here again, the same old argument: Let's not debate it. Let's not add 
it on. Don't vote for the Smith amendment on environmental regulations 
because we may have to go to conference and it might slow the bill 
down.
  Why is the environment such a disaster in China today? The answer is 
simple: Because the people in China

[[Page 17615]]

don't enjoy political and economic freedom. They don't have any choice. 
They have no choice but to breathe that filthy air. Per capita 
emissions in China are 75 percent higher than in Brazil which has an 
economy of similar size. The difference is, communism doesn't work. A 
prosperous economy and healthy environment can go together. A free 
people wouldn't consent to this type of environmental disaster. We 
shouldn't consent to it, either. But we are. We are saying: No problem, 
don't want to have a conference, don't want to waste any time, don't 
want to take an extra day or two to add an amendment here that says we 
will monitor China's lack of environmental standards and regulations. 
No problem. We don't want to slow it down.
  That is what my amendment does. If you feel it is fine that China 
continues to pollute at a 75-percent higher rate than any other country 
in the world, for the most part you don't care, you want to keep right 
on trading with them and keep on making profits, keep on feeding them, 
fine.
  Former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick once criticized my 
colleagues across the aisle on the Democrat side for their tendency to 
``blame America first,'' for their belief that there must be something 
wrong with this great Nation that causes the world's ills.
  Keep that in mind when you consider my amendment. If laws such as the 
Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are necessary for the 
environmental health of this Nation, shouldn't they be beneficial to 
China as well? Do we really want to make a profit so badly that we are 
willing to say let those people live in that filth, in that dirty air; 
let that dirty air move out of China and across the ocean and into 
other parts of the world? Do we really want to make a profit that 
badly? If we do, shame on us.
  I have two more amendments.
  No. 5, one of the most shameful experiences regarding human rights 
violations in the country of China. I have already heard the argument 
and been told by colleagues, don't offer this amendment because we 
don't want to delay the process again. I think the picture that I am 
showing is not pleasant to look at. I don't like to look at it. But the 
American people need to see this picture. My colleagues need to see it. 
This amendment that I am offering seeks to improve the quality of life 
for orphans such as this little girl who are currently waiting to be 
adopted out of Chinese orphanages. What a horrible experience, to be a 
child in a Chinese orphanage.
  What are we saying? No problem, no problem, that is China. We need to 
sell our wheat, man. We need to sell our corn. We need to make a 
profit. We will just ignore that. That will take care of itself. Don't 
worry.
  What would happen if that was an orphanage in the United States? We 
all know what would happen, and justifiably so; it would be shut down. 
The Government would be in there like hornets, as well they should be.
  But we are not going to worry about it, it is China, it is not our 
country.
  We can't shut their orphanages down. I am not proposing to do that. 
But we can monitor it and we can say to the Chinese if PNTR passes, you 
keep this up and we are not going to trade with you.
  But, oh no, that might mess up the deal. This amendment would 
encourage the Chinese Government to provide specific data such as the 
survival rates of orphans--like this young lady, certify that orphans 
are receiving proper medical and nutritional care, and show that all 
efforts are being made to help the children--particularly those with 
special needs, who are the ones who are the most punished in these 
orphanages--to be adopted into loving homes by way of Chinese 
international or U.S. adoption agencies.
  How can we ignore this? How can anybody in good conscience say: 
Senator Smith, you are right, this is a terrible atrocity but we are 
not going to put this on the bill because it might delay the bill and 
it might cause a problem with the Chinese and we might not get PNTR 
passed. How can you say that?
  The conditions of millions of orphans in China are deplorable, just 
like this. Many Chinese people want--and frankly feel they need--to 
have a baby boy with the expectations that a son will take care of them 
when they are old. A son carries the family name. It is considered 
honorable to have a son. Not so with a girl. A girl is expected to grow 
up and leave the family with her husband and will not care for her 
parents when they are old. If a Chinese woman bears a baby girl, many 
times they will drop her off anonymously at an orphanage, abandon her, 
kill her outright, or throw her into the garbage. Or even worse, as I 
think Senator Helms is going to talk about shortly--abort the child 
without the consent of the mother.
  It is unbelievable what these little children suffer. Some are lucky 
and they get adopted, but believe me, not many. Americans have adopted 
20,000 Chinese baby girls. Some babies leave China for America every 
month. However some of these little girls and baby boys with special 
needs are left to languish and die in dark rotting rooms in state-run 
orphanages in China.
  How can you ignore it? How can you come down here and say we are 
going to ignore all this and give them permanent normal trade 
relations?
  One of my constituents, a young couple, came to me a few months ago. 
They were here on a green card. They said: Senator, if I go back, I am 
pregnant, they have told me they are going to abort my child. I want my 
child.
  One of the greatest experiences I have ever had was crying with them 
when we got their deportation blocked and she had that baby right here 
in America. You cannot ignore this kind of horrible atrocity.
  Many of these babies were not even fed or given water. Some are 
starved to death. Why is it so bad? Why is it so harmful, I plead with 
my colleagues, to say let's ask the Commission to report on this in 
PNTR? It is not so bad. Is that so terrible that maybe the House has to 
agree with me and the conferees have to agree and send it back over for 
another 5 minutes of debate? Really?
  This baby girl is Mei-Ming. Do you know what Mei-Ming means in China? 
``No name.'' She was discovered in one of these orphanages in 1995 and, 
according to the orphanage staff, Mei-Ming became sick. They had no 
medication for her--none. So they put her in a back room under a pile 
of clothes and they shut the door.
  This is a picture of her at 10 days without food or water--in an 
orphanage. She lived another 4 days just like this and then she died. 
The orphanage denied that she even existed. They said she was never 
there, this Chinese Government that allows this, the Government that 
allows this to take place.
  The only remaining memory of Mei-Ming--let's hold it up here--the 
only remaining memory of Mei-Ming is this photograph right here. I say 
to my colleagues, in the name of Mei-Ming: Please, agree to this 
amendment; agree to this amendment. Let the House take a few minutes to 
add language in there that the Commission, in the name of Mei-Ming, 
could report on this kind of atrocity as you reap your profits. Is that 
asking too much?
  Some orphanages in the 1990s had death rates estimated as high as 90 
percent. I have heard reports that, since the public scrutiny of the 
last decade, the conditions in the Chinese orphanages have improved. I 
would like to thank the Chinese Government if that is, indeed, true. 
But it would be nice to have this as part of the language, to find out.
  The last amendment and then I will not delay the Senate any longer, 
Senator Bob Smith will no longer hold up the Senate business, you will 
be able to pass PNTR, ignore all these things, ignore all the 
amendments and we will be able to move on and make our profits. Just a 
few more minutes.
  Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. You think that's 
bad? It is bad. Let me tell you about organ harvesting.
  In America what organ harvesting means is in America you are willing 
to donate your kidney to your sister or brother or mother or dad; or 
your heart when you die in an accident you give so someone else may 
have life. That is organ donors.

[[Page 17616]]

  Organ harvesting in the Peoples Republic of China, sponsored by this 
Chinese Government that we are so hell-bent to help--let me tell you 
what they do. They take prisoners--we are not talking about murderers 
here, we are talking about prisoners who have, for the most part 
sometimes minor crimes--and they take their organs so they can place 
them in the military officers or other high, important people in the 
Communist hierarchy.
  In 1997, ABC News televised a very shocking documentary on the 
practice of organ harvesting in Communist China. The documentary--this 
is ABC, now, not Bob Smith talking--depicted prisoners who were 
videotaped lined up, executed by a bullet to the head--a technique of 
execution which unlike lethal injection preserves the organs for 
harvesting.
  Don't tell me it doesn't go on and don't tell me you are going to 
ignore it, because it goes on, it happens. Probably right now as we 
speak. This documentary claimed that prisoners are executed routinely 
and their organs are sold to people willing to pay as much as $30,000 
for a kidney. Human rights organizations estimated at the time the ABC 
documentary aired, that more than 10,000 kidneys alone--not to mention 
other organs--from Chinese prisoners had been sold, potentially 
bringing in tens of millions of dollars. Guess where those dollars 
went? To the Chinese military. That is where the money went.
  The Chinese Government, as it does with most human rights abuses, 
denies that this happens. My amendment simply requires the commission, 
under permanent normal trade relations, to monitor this, to try to 
secure as much information as they can so they can report on it 
annually as we continue the process under PNTR.
  It is important to keep in mind that China has no rule of law, 
therefore prisoners are subject to arbitrary arrest and punishment 
without any due process. Can you imagine a young man or woman being 
arrested, not told what they are charged with, because there is a need 
for an organ, to be shot in the head, executed with no due process, no 
trial, and then their organs are donated to somebody who is willing to 
pay $30,000 to the Communist Chinese Government.
  Pretty bad. After the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, when 
peaceful student protesters, including the sons and daughters of the 
Communist Party's elite, were mowed over by PLA tanks, there are far 
fewer dissidents in China than there were 11 years ago. It is pretty 
tough to speak up against China. Do you want to go to jail for publicly 
speaking out against the Government? That is the good news. The bad 
news is you will be shot in the head and your kidneys, your heart, and 
other organs will be donated to somebody in the Chinese military.
  ABC's report also found that Chinese nationals living on student 
visas were harvesting these organs to Americans. Hello? That is right, 
harvesting these organs to Americans and other foreigners who have the 
funds to make a $5,000 deposit, who then travel to China to the PLA, 
People's Liberation Army, hospital where they receive the kidney 
transplant. The kidneys are tissue typed, and the prisoners are also 
tissue typed in order to achieve an ideal match.
  Can you imagine the horror of being thrown in jail for a political 
crime--speaking out against the Government, perhaps--and having your 
tissue samples taken, knowing full well what it is for, then to be 
summarily shot and your kidneys sold perhaps to an American? There is 
no way anyone in the Senate or the House 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 the Laogai Research Foundation, we are aware of ongoing 
Chinese engagement in organ harvesting of executed prisoners. I will 
not go into any more detail on this.
  In conclusion, we are talking about the most unbelievable and 
atrocious violation of human rights. I have just identified six. There 
are dozens more. I did not want to come down and offer 40 amendments. I 
believe I made my point. I had about 20 of them identified, and we were 
looking at another 20 more, but I said I am going to take some of the 
worst. I do not support PNTR, but all I am asking is for those of who 
do, allow these amendments--the proliferation amendment of Senator 
Thompson and the other six amendments I have outlined, and maybe others 
as well. Allow them to pass. What harm does it do? Take a few minutes 
and go to conference for the sake of people such as this little girl or 
somebody right now who may be fattened up for execution for kidneys.
  It is time that America wakes up and understands what is happening in 
the world. I know some are going to say this is Smith again beating on 
China. It is not a matter of beating on China. These are facts. These 
are not opinions. These are facts. These are documented. Every single 
thing I read to you, every single thing I said to you is documented 
from proliferation to organ harvesting. It is documented.
  The issue before the Senate when we vote on PNTR and on these 
amendments is very simply this: I am against PNTR and not going to vote 
for any of it, which is fine, that is my position. Or I am for PNTR and 
I am willing to pass these amendments to at least monitor these kinds 
of atrocities in an effort to stop them.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from South 
Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily laid aside so the Senator from South Carolina 
can call up four amendments. They are short. I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Tennessee and the distinguished Senator from New York, the 
manager of the bill. It is not my purpose to debate these amendments 
but to call them up so they can be printed in the Record. I will not 
consume over 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is laid aside.


               Amendments Nos. 4134 Through 4137, En Bloc

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I call up four amendments which are at 
the desk, and I ask the clerk to report them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:.

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes 
     amendments numbered 4134 through 4137, en bloc.

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


                           Amendment No. 4134

 (Purpose: To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to require 
corporations to disclose foreign investment-related information in 10-K 
                                reports)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . FOREIGN INVESTMENT INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN 10-K 
                   REPORTS.

       The Securities and Exchange Commission shall amend its 
     regulations to require the inclusion of the following 
     information in 10-K reports required to be filed with the 
     Commission:
       (1) The number of employees employed by the reporting 
     entity outside the United States directly, indirectly, or 
     through a joint venture or other business arrangement, listed 
     by country in which employed.
       (2) The annual dollar volume of exports of goods 
     manufactured or produced in the United States by the 
     reporting entity to each country to which it exports such 
     goods.
       (3) The annual dollar volume of imports of goods 
     manufactured or produced outside the United States by the 
     reporting entity from each country from which it imports such 
     goods.
                                  ____



                          AMENDMENTS NO. 4135

   (Purpose: To authorize and request the President to report to the 
 Congress annually beginning in January, 2001, on the balance of trade 
  with China for cereals (wheat, corn, and rice) and soybeans, and to 
             direct the President to eliminate any deficit)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . BALANCE OF TRADE WITH CHINA IN CEREALS AND SOYBEANS.

       (a) In General.--Beginning with the first business day in 
     January of the year 2001 and on the first business day in 
     January of each

[[Page 17617]]

     year thereafter, (or as soon thereafter as the data become 
     available) the President shall report to the Congress on the 
     balance of trade between the United States and the People's 
     Republic of China in cereals (wheat, corn, and rice) and on 
     the balance of trade between the United States and the 
     People's Republic of China in soybeans for the previous year.
       (b) Commitments From China to Reduce Deficit.--If the 
     President reports a trade deficit in favor of the People's 
     Republic of China under subsection (a) for cereals or for 
     soybeans, then the President is authorized and requested to 
     initiate negotiations to obtain additional commitments from 
     the People's Republic of China to reduce or eliminate the 
     imbalance.
       (c) 6-Month Follow-Up.--The President shall report to the 
     Congress the results of those negotiations, and any 
     additional steps taken by the President to eliminate that 
     trade deficit, within 6 months after submitting the report 
     under subsection (a).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4136

   (Purpose: To authorize and request the President to report to the 
Congress annually, beginning in January, 2001, on the balance of trade 
 with China for advanced technology products, and direct the President 
                       to eliminate any deficit)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . BALANCE OF TRADE WITH CHINA IN ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The trade deficit with the People's Republic of China 
     in advance technology products for 1999 was approximately 
     $3.2 billion.
       (2) The trade deficit with the People's Republic of China 
     in advance technology products for 2000 is projected to be 
     approximately $5 billion.
       (b) Report.--Beginning with the first business day in 
     January of the year 2001 and on the first business day in 
     January of each year thereafter, (or as soon thereafter as 
     the data becomes available) the President shall report to the 
     Congress on the balance of trade between the United States 
     and the People's Republic of China in advanced technology 
     products for the previous year.
       (c) Commitments From China to Reduce Deficit.--If the 
     President reports a trade deficit in favor of the People's 
     Republic of China under subsection (b) in excess of $5 
     billion for any year, the President is authorized and 
     requested to initiate negotiations to obtain additional 
     commitments from the People's Republic of China to reduce or 
     eliminate the imbalance.
       (d) 6-Month Follow-Up.--The President shall report to the 
     Congress the results of those negotiations, and any 
     additional steps taken by the President to eliminate that 
     trade deficit, within 6 months after submitting the report 
     under subsection (b).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4137

 (Purpose: To condition eligibility for risk insurance provided by the 
 Export-Import Bank or the Overseas Private Investment Corporation on 
                        certain certifications)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . RISK INSURANCE CERTIFICATIONS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, 
     and in addition to any requirements imposed by law, 
     regulation, or rule, neither the Export-Import Bank of the 
     United States nor the Overseas Private Investment Corporation 
     may provide risk insurance after December 31, 2000, to an 
     applicant unless that applicant certifies that it--
       (1) has not transferred advanced technology after January 
     1, 2001, to the People's Republic of China; and
       (2) has not moved any production facilities after January 
     1, 2001, from the United States to the People's Republic of 
     China.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the first amendment to H.R. 4444, No. 
4134, has to do with jobs and the trade deficit. It says:

       The Securities and Exchange Commission shall amend its 
     regulations to require the inclusion of the following 
     information and 10-K reports required to be filed with the 
     Commission:
       (1) The number of employees employed by the reporting 
     entity outside the United States directly, indirectly, or 
     through a joint venture, or other business arrangement, 
     listed by country in which employed.
       (2) The annual dollar volume of exports of goods 
     manufactured or produced in the United States by the 
     reporting entity to each country to which it exports such 
     goods.
       (3) The annual dollar volume of imports of goods 
     manufactured or produced outside the United States by the 
     reporting entity from each country from which it imports such 
     goods.

  It is not a burdensome amendment. They report where they are working 
and the number of employees in those countries. I was intrigued by the 
report from the National Association of Manufacturers that came out 
today. I quote from it:

       Of the total $228 billion U.S. merchandise trade deficit so 
     far this year, 77 percent has been in manufacturing.

  We are losing our manufacturing capacity, and as Akio Morita, the 
former head of Sony, said some years back, the world power that loses 
its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.
  The second amendment has to do with technology and the export of 
technology. Our distinguished Ambassador engaged in the conduct of 
trade, Ambassador Barshefsky, said before the press and the Finance 
Committee:

       The rules put an absolute end to forced technology 
     transfers.

  This particular amendment is to then monitor that statement:

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The trade deficit with the People's Republic of China 
     for . . . 1999 was approximately $3.2 billion.

  It is estimated that it will be $5 billion this year. So beginning 
with the first business day of January 2001 and thereafter, ``the 
President shall report to the Congress on the balance of trade between 
the United States and the People's Republic of China in advanced 
technology products . . . .''

       If the President reports a trade deficit in favor of the 
     People's Republic of China . . . in excess of $5 billion--

  I want to be realistic; it probably will get to that $5 billion this 
year--

     the President is authorized and requested to initiate 
     negotiations to obtain additional commitments from the 
     People's Republic of China to reduce or eliminate that 
     imbalance.

  And, of course, report.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article entitled 
``Raising the Technology Curtain.''
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Financial Times (London), August 16, 2000

Raising the Technology Curtain: China's Burgeoning High-Tech Sector Is 
                        Squeezing Out US Imports

               (By Ernest Hollings and Charles McMillion)

       The US faces sharply worsening deficits with China in the 
     trade of crucial advanced technology products. Moreover, 
     these losses are accelerating and spreading to new products 
     even after China's tariff cuts and official promises 
     regarding the protection of intellectual property and an end 
     to technology transfer requirements.
       Although high-tech companies are enthusiastically lobbying 
     to end the annual negotiation and review of China's trade 
     status--a vote in the US Senate is expected in September--
     they could be big losers if US trade law and commercial 
     leverage is permanently forsaken in dealings with China's 
     unelected rulers.
       Advanced technology products have represented a rare, 
     consistent source of earnings for the US: during the last 
     decade alone the surplus in global sales is Dollars 278bn.
       During the same period, US trade deficits with China 
     totaled Dollars 342bn, and have worsened sharply each year. 
     That has occurred in spite of numerous agreements with China 
     to end the obligatory transfer of technology from US 
     companies to their Chinese counterparts, to protect 
     intellectual property and to assure regulatory transparency 
     and the ``rule of law''. Failure to implement these 
     agreements goes a long way in explaining why the total US 
     deficit with China has doubled from Dollars 33.8bn in 1995 to 
     Dollars 68.7bn in 1999.
       The US also lost its technology trade surplus with China in 
     1995 and has suffered deficits in this area every year since 
     then. Last year, US technology exports to China fell by 17 
     percent while imports soared by 34 percent. The record 
     Dollars 3.2bn technology trade deficit in 1999 may reach 
     Dollars 5bn this year as technology imports now cost twice as 
     much as US falling exports.
       Quite simply, China is developing its own export driven 
     high-tech industry with US assistance.
       A recent Department of Commerce study found that 
     transferring important technologies and next-generation 
     scientific research to Chinese companies is required for any 
     access to China's cheap labor force or market. Three of the 
     most critical technology areas are computers, 
     telecommunications and aerospace.
       The US lost its surplus in computers and components to 
     China in 1990 and now pays seven times as much for imports as 
     it earns from exports.
       Compaq and other foreign computer brands dominated the 
     Chinese market a decade ago but now are displaced by local 
     companies such as Legend, Tontru and Great Wall that are also 
     beginning to export.
       After 20 years of ``normal'' trade relations with China, no 
     mobile phones are exported from the US to China. Indeed, US 
     trade with China in mobile phones involves only the payment 
     for rapidly rising imports that now cost Dollars 100m a year.

[[Page 17618]]

       China has total control of its telephone networks, recently 
     abrogating a big contract with Qualcomm. Motorola, Ericsson 
     and Nokia sold 85 percent of China's mobile phone handsets 
     until recently. But last November China's Ministry of 
     Information and Industry imposed import and production quotas 
     on mobile phone producers and substantial support for nine 
     Chinese companies. The MII expects the nine to raise their 
     market share from the current 5 percent to 50 percent within 
     five years.
       The US now has a large and rapidly growing deficit with 
     China in advanced radar and navigational devices. Nearly half 
     of all US technology exports to China during the 1990s were 
     Boeing aircraft and 59 percent were in aerospace. But 
     according to filings by the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, Boeing's gross sales to--and in--China have 
     generally fallen since 1993. The first Chinese-made Boeing 
     MD90-30 was certified by the US Federal Aviation 
     Administration last November with Chinese companies providing 
     70 percent local content.
       More troubling, with the help of Boeing, Airbus and others, 
     China has developed its own increasingly competitive civilian 
     and military aerospace production within 10 massive, state-
     owned conglomerates and recently announced a moratorium on 
     the import of large passenger jets.
       China is a valuable US partner on many matters but it is 
     also a significant commercial competitor. Experience in the 
     US with deficits worsening after tariff cuts and other 
     agreements shows this is not the time to abandon strong US 
     trade laws but rather to begin to apply them, fairly but 
     firmly. Since 42 percent of China's worldwide exports go to 
     the US--and their value is equal to China's total net foreign 
     currency earnings--the US certainly has the commercial means 
     to enforce fair trade laws.
       That is the type of real world engagement that can help to 
     assure both peace and prosperity for the two countries in the 
     future.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the next amendment is the Export-Import 
Bank:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, 
     and in addition to any requirements imposed by . . . the 
     Export-Import Bank . . . or the Overseas Private Investment 
     corporation . . . .

  The applicant, in making those applications before those entities, 
will certify that they have not transferred advanced technology after 
January 1, 2001, to the People's Republic of China, and, two, have not 
moved any production facilities after January 1, 2001, from the United 
States to the People's Republic of China.
  With more time, I can go into the reason for it. I only want to 
substantiate what the distinguished Ambassador said.
  Finally, the fourth amendment has to do with agriculture. I ask 
unanimous consent to print in the Record a schedule of commodity 
groupings of the trade balances with the People's Republic of China in 
the years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               UNITED STATES AGRICULTURAL TRADE BALANCE WITH CHINA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      In millions of dollars each year--
                   HS Community groupings                    ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1996         1997         1998         1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Agricultural Trade Balance............................       $1,512         $937         $615        -$218
01  Live Animals............................................          6.2          6.1          4.3          3.9
02  Meat And Edible Meat Offal..............................         64.2         61.8         53.4         58.3
03  Fish And Crustaceans, Molluscs, Other Aquatic...........       -179.5       -181.2       -228.9       -266.6
04  Dairy Produce; Birds' Eggs; Honey; Edible...............        -28.2        -16.8        -11.6        -14.8
05  Products Of Animal Origin, Nesoi........................        -65.2        -77.3        -96.2        -93.7
06  Live Trees And Other Plants; Bulbs, Roots...............         -6.2         -2.7         -2.5         -3.7
07  Edible Vegetables And Certain Roots, Tubers.............        -34.5        -36.8        -48.9        -55.8
08  Edible Fruit And Nuts; Peel Of Citrus Fruit.............        -20.1        -20.5        -13.3        -30.6
09  Coffee, Tea, Mate And Spices............................        -35.6        -38.8        -45.9        -43.1
10  Cereals (Wheat, Corn, Rice).............................  ...........         43.4         90.1         39.6
11  Milling Industry Products; Malt; Starches; Inulin;......         -2.8         -3.3         -1.4         -1.2
12  Oil Seeds, Oleaginous Fruits; Misc Grain (Soybeans).....        366.7        355.1        224.6        288.1
13  Lac; Gums; Resins And Other Vegetable Saps..............        -33.3        -49.4        -70.3        -44.9
14  Vegetable Plaiting Materials And Products...............         -4.4         -1.2          0.2          0.5
15  Animal Or Vegetable Fats And Oils (Soy Oil).............        106.1        160.1        310.3         67.9
16  Edible Preparations Of Meat, Fish, Crustaceans..........        -23.6        -24.4        -22.6        -69.9
17  Sugars And Sugars Confectionary.........................         -4.8         -7.9         -8.1         -7.8
18  Cocoa And Cocoa Preparations............................        -32.4        -42.4        -29.2        -15.2
19  Preparations Of Cereals, Flour, Starch Or Milk..........        -17.7        -16.1        -20.7        -23.1
20  Preparations Of Vegetables, Fruit, Nuts.................       -133.6       -146.2       -136.6       -118.9
21  Miscellaneous Edible Preparations.......................         -9.1        -10.3         -8.4        -17.1
22  Beverages, Spirits And Vinegar..........................         -6.1         -6.5         -6.4         -6.6
23  Residues And Waste From Food (Soy Residues).............        131.2        103.4        187.1         25.7
24  Tobacco And Tobacco Substitutes.........................         -7.4         -4.2         -4.3         -2.7
41  Raw Hides And Skins.....................................        115.6        134.5        157.4        126.3
520 Cotton: Not Carded/Combed...............................        728.3        575.9        118.4        -12.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census and MBG Information Services.



                          ____________________


  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, amongst all articles, you can see, 
generally speaking, China has a glut in agriculture. Their problem, of 
course, is transportation and distribution. But there is no question 
that once that problem is solved, that 7800 million farmers can 
certainly outproduce, if you please, the 3.5 million farmers in the 
United States.
  All of the farm vote is in strong support of PNTR because they think, 
of course, it is going to enhance their agricultural trade. The fact is 
there are only a few here--the significant ones--and I have picked 
those out; cereals--wheat, corn, rice--and soybeans. Yes, there is a 
plus balance of trade in the cereals--wheat, corn, and rice--but it has 
gone from 440 million bushels down to 39 million bushels. With 
soybeans, it has gone from 366 million bushels, in the 4-year period, 
down to 288 million bushels.
  So this particular amendment states that beginning on the first day 
of next year:

       [T]he President shall report to the Congress on the balance 
     of trade between the United States and the People's Republic 
     of China in cereals (wheat, corn, and rice) and on the 
     balance of trade between the United States and the People's 
     Republic of China in soybeans for the previous year.
       If the President reports a trade deficit in favor of the 
     People's Republic of China . . . for cereals or for soybeans, 
     then the President is authorized and requested to initiate 
     negotiations to obtain additional commitments from the 
     People's Republic of China to reduce or eliminate the 
     imbalance.
       The President shall [also] report to the Congress the 
     results of those negotiations . . . .

  In a line last week, I saw the Prime Minister of Great Britain at the 
conference in New York. He was all stirred and upset with respect to 
1,000 cashmere jobs in the United Kingdom. He was really going to bat 
for them. The story had his picture politicking, trying to convince the 
United States in particular not to take retaliatory action against his 
1,000 cashmere jobs.
  Here I stand, having lost 38,700 textile jobs in the State of South 
Carolina since NAFTA--over 400,000 nationally. According to the 
National Association of Manufacturers, we are going out of business. 
And I can't get the attention of the White House and I can't get the 
attention of Congress.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from New York for permitting me to 
have these amendments called up and printed, and then, of course, 
obviously set aside. Let me take my turn in behind the distinguished 
Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from West Virginia. The Byrd 
amendment is up, and I think several others. I will take my turn.
  But I want my colleagues to look at these reasonable, sensible, 
pleading

[[Page 17619]]

kind of amendments so that we can fulfill, as a Congress, under the 
Constitution, article 1, section 8: The Congress of the United States 
shall regulate foreign commerce.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say again that I think we have made 
good progress. We have had good debate on both sides of the underlying 
China PNTR bill, and also on the amendments. But we are reaching the 
point where we really need to pick that speed up. We need to get an 
agreement on what amendments will be offered, time agreements for them 
to be debated, and votes. And we ought to do it tomorrow. Without that, 
certainly we will have to file cloture; and I may have to anyway. But I 
think the fair thing to do is give everybody who is serious a chance to 
offer amendments, have a time for debate on both sides, and then have 
votes.
  I am going to try to get that started with this request. And we may 
have other requests. We are working on both sides of the aisle to 
identify amendments that really must be moved.
  I just want to say to one and all that in the end we are going to get 
the bill to a conclusion. It is going to pass. We have been fair to 
everybody. But it is time now we begin to get to the closing. With a 
little help, we can finish this bill Thursday, or Friday, or, if not, 
early next week. I just have to begin to take action to make that 
happen so we can consider other issues.
  I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to the 
pending Thompson amendment at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, and the time 
between 9:30 and 10:30 be equally divided in the usual form, and that 
no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote in relation 
to the amendment.
  I further ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the pending Byrd 
amendment immediately following the 11 a.m. vote and there be time 
between 10:30 and 11 a.m. for closing remarks on that amendment to be 
equally divided in the usual form.
  Before the Chair rules, I want to say that if any objection is heard 
to this agreement, we will attempt to set two votes tomorrow on these 
or other issues beginning at 11 a.m.
  Therefore, there will be no further votes this evening, and votes 
will occur at 11 a.m.--hopefully including the Thompson amendment in 
those 11 o'clock votes. But if there is a problem with that, then we 
will ask consent to put in place two of the other amendments.
  With that, I ask the Chair to put the request to the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have a 
great deal of respect for Senator Thompson and the issues he has 
raised. The problem is these issues fit more closely on the Export 
Administration Act. They have not been considered in committee. I think 
they represent a very real problem in this bill. I think it is 
important that if we are going to debate issues such as this, they be 
not just fully debated but they be subject to amendment.
  On that basis, let me yield. Senator Enzi wants to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there isn't 
just an amendment that is being put on. It is an entire bill--33 
pages--of very important information that has been changed each and 
every time we have seen a copy. My staff and I on the International 
Trade Subcommittee of the Finance Committee have been working on these 
issues for a long time. We have tried to take this moving target and 
worked on some amendments that could be put on it. It would need to be 
extensively amended to keep both national security and industry moving 
forward in the United States.
  On that basis, I have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe there will be another consent 
request propounded later so that we can have two--the Byrd amendment 
and another--considered and voted on at 11 o'clock.
  I note that the Senator from Tennessee will want to respond to the 
objection just heard.
  Let me say on that issue that I have been supportive of the Export 
Administration Act and tried several different ways earlier to get that 
to the floor. There were problems raised by a number of our committee 
chairmen. We were not able to get that done. I think the Thompson 
amendment is a very serious and legitimate amendment that has been 
considered, and it should be voted on. I think we should go ahead and 
vote on it tomorrow. I think people know where we are. We ought to go 
ahead and have that vote and move on.
  I also must say I am trying to get these votes done so that the 
largest number of Senators can be accommodated and be here for the 
vote.
  I also want to say I don't know exactly what the Senator from 
Tennessee is going to do. But I predict right now that if we don't get 
this agreement to vote on the Thompson amendment tomorrow, we are going 
to vote on it at some point--I believe probably on or in relation to 
this bill.
  I don't think it serves anybody's purpose to try to put this off or 
to object to it. In fact, it may make the situation worse, not better. 
I think we are ready to go. I think everybody knows how they are going 
to vote. I think while it may be a close vote, everybody pretty much is 
reconciled to getting it done tomorrow.
  I regret that there was objection. I hope we can still find a way to 
get a vote on it in the next sequence that we will try to put together.
  By the way, on the Export Administration Act, I believe we are 
prepared to try to find a way to consider that because I think we need 
to act on it, making sure that we consider national security interests. 
That, obviously, is an underlying factor on the Export Administration 
Act. I have no doubt that the Senator from Wyoming wouldn't be for it 
if he had any doubts in that area himself because he has worked so 
extensively on it.
  The same thing applies on this amendment. Senator Thompson is trying 
to raise a general concern about national security interests. The 
Chinese are not complying with the nuclear proliferation regimes to 
which they have committed.
  What worries me is we are going to have this vote, we are going to 
pass this bill, and in a month or 6 months we may have a lot of 
explaining to do. I spent 2 months trying to get a way to have this 
issue considered separately. That is the way it should have been 
considered. But it will be considered, I predict, before we get out of 
here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. First, I thank the majority leader and agree with him 
completely on the proposition that we will have a vote on this issue. 
It might not be the exact wording of this bill, but we will have a vote 
on this issue.
  We introduced this bill last May because, as chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee that has jurisdiction on 
proliferation matters under the statute, we receive briefings, as a few 
committees do, on proliferation developments, for example. In that 
position, we have had numerous hearings and have been told there is a 
longstanding and growing threat because of proliferation of China, 
primarily, and Russia and North Korea.
  We haven't had a lot of attention with regard to that, or a whole lot 
of interest, until we started discussing it in the context of trade. 
Trade interests everybody because there is money to be made. That is 
understandable. I am all for it.
  We introduced this bill because we were told by our intelligence 
people

[[Page 17620]]

that there was a threat to this country. I can't think of anything more 
serious that we could possibly be dealing with than a nuclear, 
biological, or chemical threat, and the fact that rogue nations are 
rapidly developing the capability to hit this country with all three of 
those. Let that sink in for a little bit.
  All the time that we spend around here in budget and other votes that 
take up most of our time, trying to divide up the money, we are being 
told by our experts--whether it is the Rumsfeld Commission, the Deutch 
Commission, the Cox Commission, or the biennial intelligence 
assessment--there is a present danger and it is growing, and the 
Chinese are actually increasing their activities as far as missiles are 
concerned.
  That is why we introduced the bill. People raise various objections. 
Last night some were saying the report that we want to have produced is 
too extensive and we might catch up some innocent Chinese companies 
that might later prove to be innocent when we accuse them of 
proliferating. Frankly, I am willing to take that risk.
  We tried to get a separate vote. We said: Let's not put it on PNTR. 
Our amendment shouldn't be considered a trade measure. The bipartisan 
bill shouldn't be considered a trade bill. It is a proliferation bill. 
So let's discuss it in the context of our overall relationship with 
China, but don't force us to put it on the China trade bill.
  No, you wouldn't have that. We couldn't have that. You wouldn't give 
me a separate vote on that because it might complicate things.
  So I said OK, if you don't do that, I will put it on the bill. So I 
put it on bill. Senator Torricelli and I did. And now it is an 
amendment to the China trade bill.
  They said: My goodness, we wish you wouldn't have done that. We wish 
it was a freestanding bill now that we see you are serious, but we 
can't possibly vote on it as an amendment to the trade bill because it 
might complicate the trade bill.
  So we have gone through all of that.
  Frankly, we were told from the minority side that our Democratic 
colleagues were the ones who sunk--a few over there were the ones who 
had a problem with this. We have discussed this since May and there 
have been some changes. Anybody who wanted to discuss this bill--and 
there were staffers from many, many Senators, Democrats and 
Republicans, who have worked with Senator Torricelli and my staff--
anyone who wanted some input certainly had the opportunity to do that 
for months. There have been changes because we have been trying to 
accommodate the concerns: It is too tough; we didn't give the President 
enough discretion. We made changes because of that. We have been 
discussing this since May, with all of the foot-dragging that we have 
seen along the way.
  We had a good debate last night, and we had a good debate today. We 
debated over sanctions and whether or not they were effective--things 
that we ought to be debating. Good things, good substance, important 
subjects that we ought to be debating, and raising the issue now. When 
we are obviously getting ready to engage in this new trade relationship 
with China, what better time to address the fact that they are the 
world's worst in selling weapons of mass destruction to these rogue 
nations.
  We claim we need a national defense system because of the threat of 
these rogue nations. How can we talk to the Chinese Government without 
addressing it? That is what the debate has been about. It has been 
good.
  Now it is time for a vote. I have been around here a few years. I 
don't remember another occasion where a colleague has objected to a 
vote under these circumstances. My Democratic colleagues have raised no 
objection, but my two good friends on this side of the aisle raise 
objections. I am sad to say that it appears the real objection all 
comes down to one of jurisdiction. My friend from Wyoming apparently 
believes this should be a part of his bill if it is going to be 
anything, the Export Administration Act; and that this should be 
presumably under the purview of the Banking Committee if it is going to 
be considered. He will have the opportunity to correct me if I am 
wrong, but I thought that is what I heard.
  I think that is a sad set of circumstances, if after all of that we 
finally flush out the real reasons for the objection to even having a 
vote. Oppose it if you will, but the objection to even having a vote is 
because somebody got somebody else's jurisdiction.
  All my colleagues should know that according to the Parliamentarian, 
this bill, if it were referred to committee, would be referred to the 
Foreign Relations Committee.
  Let's look at some of the hearings we have had in the Governmental 
Affairs Committee. The Banking Committee has some jurisdiction with 
regard to export administration. The Governmental Affairs Committee has 
some jurisdiction with regard to proliferation. I can't believe we are 
even talking about this, but here goes. It is like kids squabbling in 
the back of the schoolbus.
  If the issue is that nobody has paid any attention to this and nobody 
has had any hearings, this committee of jurisdiction, the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, in May of 2000, had a full committee hearing on 
export control implementation issues with respect to high-performance 
computers.
  In April of 2000: Full committee hearing on the Wassenaar Arrangement 
and the future of the multilateral export controls;
  February of 2000: Subcommittee on Internet Security, Proliferation 
and Federal Services hearing on National Intelligence Estimate on the 
Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States;
  June of 1999: Full committee hearing on Interagency Inspector 
General's Report on the Export-Control Process for Dual-Use and 
Munitions List Commodities;
  June of 1999: Full committee hearing on Dual-Use and Munitions List 
Export Control Processes and Implementation at the Department of 
Energy;
  May of 1999: Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation 
and Federal Services--that is Senator Cochran's subcommittee. He had a 
hearing on the Report of the House Select Committee on U.S. National 
Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of 
China.
  Senator Cochran's subcommittee, of course, has been in this area, the 
proliferation area, the missile area, the whole problem with China and 
Russia in particular, the problem with the rogue nations--Senator 
Cochran has been dealing with this for years and has put out published 
reports. The last one was within the last couple of weeks, for anybody 
who is interested.
  September of 1998: Subcommittee on International Security, 
Proliferation and Federal Services hearing on GAO Reports on High 
Performance Computers;
  June of 1998: Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation 
and Federal Services hearing on the Adequacy of Commerce Department 
Satellite Export Controls;
  March of 1998: Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation 
and Federal Services hearing on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and 
Nuclear Proliferation;
  October of 1997: Subcommittee on International Security, 
Proliferation and Federal Services hearing on North Korean Missile 
Proliferation--again Senator Cochran's subcommittee. Once again, in 
September of 1997, his Subcommittee on International Security 
Proliferation and Federal Services had a hearing on Missile 
Proliferation in the Information Age.
  In June of 1997, his subcommittee had a hearing on Proliferation and 
U.S. Export Controls.
  In May of 1997, his subcommittee had a hearing on National Missile 
Defense and the ABM Treaty. Senator Cochran, of course, is chairman of 
this subcommittee. He is the leader on the national missile defense 
issue and has been for some time. Of course, again, it is directly 
relevant because the reason we are claiming we need a national missile 
defense is the very issue our amendment brings up.
  April of 1997: Subcommittee on International Security--again, Senator

[[Page 17621]]

Cochran's subcommittee--hearing on Chinese Proliferation--Part II;
  April of 1997: His subcommittee, Chinese Proliferation hearing, Part 
I.
  So, for the uninformed, we have various committees here with various 
jurisdictions. Sometimes jurisdiction overlaps, where more than one 
committee has jurisdiction in the subject area. This is one of those 
cases.
  Over the past 4 years, the Governmental Affairs Committee alone has 
held 15 hearings on proliferation; over 30 hearings have been held by 
my committee, the Armed Services Committee, and in the Foreign 
Relations Committee. Furthermore, this legislation has the full support 
of the chairman of jurisdiction, Senator Helms, chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee. The issue of proliferation, of course, has had a 
full, full consideration for some time now.
  So we will have an opportunity to discuss this further, including 
further tonight. I don't know if anyone wants to speak to this. I will 
give them the opportunity, give my colleague from Wyoming an 
opportunity to further address it. But it is a sad situation, when our 
country faces this kind of threat, that we cannot even get a vote on an 
amendment that would address that threat.
  Vote it down if you must. Oppose it if you will. But the very idea of 
us not having a vote because it has not been considered enough by the 
right committee or that it is more properly a part of somebody else's 
bill instead of our bill? Surely it has not come to that.
  I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his 
comments. I want to assure him I am not doing this on a jurisdictional 
basis. I am a little incensed at the implication of that accusation, 
and, in the objection I raised, I did not mention anything about 
jurisdiction. In the speech I gave yesterday, I didn't mention anything 
about jurisdiction. I mentioned the concerns about items that are in 
this bill and there are amendments that would need to be made to this 
bill. I am sure, if it went through the normal process--and one of the 
things I am learning about here is process. I learned a lot about 
process as I did the bill my colleague mentioned, the Export 
Administration Act. I took it through a process. I got a 20-0 vote on 
it. I brought it to the floor. I learned a little bit about process 
that sometimes, even when you think you have the right to bring it up 
on the floor, people can object after that point and you can have it 
taken down. But it went through a process there. That process has 
undoubtedly been effectively stopped for this year. I have not been 
whining about that.
  But I did learn a lot of things through that process because it 
involved going into a number of the reports the Senator from Tennessee 
has mentioned. I did not just go through the public part of those 
reports. I took the time to go over to the Intelligence Committee and 
have the special briefings and read the documents from a number of the 
things that have been cited, and particularly the Cox report. So I 
learned a lot of things about these areas of problems.
  There are some problems there, and they need to be solved, but they 
ought to be solved through the regular process so we do not wind up 
with some things we are going to be embarrassed by, or believe are 
lacking, or have pointed out to us later that just a little bit more 
deliberation would have changed.
  We have been suggesting changes. We can make some amendments. It is 
very difficult to go into another person's bill and make extensive 
amendments, but we have mentioned the need for some pretty extensive 
amendments. I am certain if this would have gone through the process of 
going through the Foreign Relations Committee first--not just hearings. 
Hearings are valuable. They build some basis for building things. I 
know these extensive hearings that have been done are where this bill 
came from. But it goes through another step in that process called a 
markup. That is where very detailed amendments are made to a bill by 
people who have a wide knowledge of the items that are included. It is 
kind of a free-for-all, putting on amendments. A number of them do not 
make it and should not make it. But it gives a more thorough review 
than if one of us drafts a bill, or two of us get together and draft a 
bill, and then occasionally talk to other people and occasionally 
listen to part of their criticisms but discard large parts of their 
criticism.
  I know this bill was originally drafted in May and we have been 
registering objections to things that are in it since May. They have 
been tweaked a little bit, and part of the process is, if you are not 
going to make the changes, then you have to go through this process 
here on the floor, which the Senate designs to be an extremely 
excruciating one--as I learned on my EAA bill.
  It is a part of the process. There needs to be additional work on it. 
There needs to be additional amendments.
  As I mentioned yesterday, if one listens to the debate, it sounds as 
if we can solve the export-import imbalance by doing PNTR, and that is 
not going to happen. The way that imbalance gets solved is if U.S. 
folks stop buying Chinese products or we get extensive sales over 
there. Extensive sales over there probably is not going to happen 
because the people over there on an average wage do not make much, so 
they cannot buy much. We do have a hope of getting in the door with 
some of the bigger equipment items. To listen to the debate, everything 
will be solved by PNTR, and that is not going to happen.
  I have to congratulate the Senator from Tennessee for the title he 
put on the bill. I noticed when he expanded the bill to include a 
couple of other countries in light of our objection, that it was aimed 
solely at China and they are not the only proliferators. A couple of 
others were stuck in there. But the title was not changed because the 
title is so great. One of the things I learned a long time ago in 
legislation is one does not vote on a bill because of a good title. One 
votes on it because it is good through and through.
  Those have been the reasons for my objections. I am sorry if the 
Senator from Tennessee put in all of that work. This delays his plan 
for a vote, but it does not stop it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, first, I am sorry if I drew the wrong 
conclusion this might be jurisdictional. When the Senator mentioned 
this would be a better part of the Export Administration Act 
legislation, which happens to be his legislation, and it was not 
referred to the right committee, I just thought that might be 
jurisdictional. That is where I got that idea. If he resents that 
implication, I am sorry, but that is the source of that idea.
  I think back to a time not too long ago when the Senator from Wyoming 
and the Senator from Texas worked long and hard on a bill called the 
Export Administration Act. Several of us who are committee chairmen had 
problems with that because of some of the same things we are talking 
about.
  In my view, and I think my colleagues' view, it liberalized our 
export rules at a time when we should have been tightening them up. The 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee, the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, and myself as chairman of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, looked at this and said that it had some major problems. The 
statement was made by the sponsors of the bill that they would not 
bring it up, as I recall, without our signing off on it, and we never 
signed off on it.
  If the hangup here is the fact my colleagues have not gotten a vote 
on their Export Administration Act, I suggest they offer it as an 
amendment to my amendment. Let's have a second-degree amendment. If 
that is the problem, then let's have a vote on both of them.
  Let's be frank with each other. The Senator's opposition is the same 
opposition and arguments in many respects that we have heard from four 
other

[[Page 17622]]

amendments that have been considered. The only difference is we have 
had votes on those four other amendments. The Senator was not over here 
complaining that we had not had sufficient process, I guess, with 
regard to the Wellstone amendment or the Byrd amendment or the Hollings 
amendment or the Helms amendment. The process was OK with regard to 
those, but now we have an amendment, the only amendment that deals with 
a direct threat to this Nation, and we are talking about process.
  One of the big complaints of the opponents of the Thompson-Torricelli 
amendment has been that we have changed it so much they hardly know 
what is going on here anymore. The reason we changed it is we kept 
responding to the complaints. Staffs met numerous times. Everybody knew 
these meetings were going on. It was not an open forum for somebody to 
come down and lay down a bunch of requirements if they did not get what 
they wanted the first day, leave, and not show up again. It was an 
open, rolling forum with various staff members.
  I sat in on an occasion or two. It was very open since May that we 
were talking about trying to come together because we all appreciate 
the proliferation problem and we need to do something.
  While we are talking about trade with China, we ought to be talking 
with them also about the fact they are endangering this country by 
arming these rogue nations, and we tried to work it out. Some Members 
objected. We had mandatory sanctions and they said we did not give the 
President enough discretion. We gave him more discretion. Some people 
claimed we are singling out the Chinese; it will make them angry; and 
it will be counterproductive. We broadened it. Some people claimed we 
were giving Congress too much authority; that any Member of Congress 
could come in and have a vote to override a Presidential decision in 
this regard, so we raised the requirement to 20 Members. There have to 
be 20 Members who have to have that concern. We made all of these 
changes.
  Now I understand the complaint is that we did not change it enough, 
or is it the process? Is that process? Is that a process issue? There 
are still problems with it. Everybody who has spoken against this bill 
has raised problems with it, but none of them have raised an objection 
to taking a vote.
  I just received the latest in a series of fliers I have been graced 
with over the last several days; this one from an industry coalition. 
The first thing we got today was a report from the president of the 
Chamber of Commerce who came out against our bill. Somebody told me 
they were at a Chamber of Commerce meeting not long ago and they 
mentioned my bill, and most of the people there broke into applause. I 
ought to be careful talking about the Chamber of Commerce.
  This is coming from the president of the Chamber of Commerce, who I 
do not think speaks for the average business person in America on this 
issue. Let's get that straight. First of all, he complains that it is 
limited to one country--obviously, he has not read the bill--that if we 
do this, it will effectively kill the bill, not that we have this 
serious problem and we should do something about it, but effectively it 
will kill the bill.
  Then he says he is getting ready to leave for a tour of Asia and 
going to wind up in Beijing, but before he leaves, he delivers his last 
salvo against my amendment, purporting to speak for all the members, I 
suppose, of the Chamber of Commerce. I hope while he is in Beijing, he 
will ask them to quit selling weapons of mass destruction to our 
enemies. I hope that is on his agenda while he is talking about his 
trade.
  The latest has been a sheet put out by the High-Tech Industry 
Coalition on China, the American Electronics Association, Business 
Software Alliance, Computer Systems Policy Project, Computer Technology 
Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, Electronic 
Industry Alliance, Information Technology Industry Council, National 
Venture Capital Association, Semiconductor Industry Association, 
Semiconductor Equipment Materials International, Software and 
Information Industry Association, Telecommunications Industry 
Association, and United States Information Technology Offices.
  All of them have joined together to put out this opposition sheet to 
this bill. Some people have been so crass as to imply that maybe it was 
this feverish lobbying that is going on from exporters that might have 
something to do with the opposition to this bill.
  But I have the greatest respect, from what I know, about this entire 
group here. Our high-tech industry has done phenomenally well. They are 
creative. They have contributed mightily to our economy. They want to 
export; I understand that. They want to make more money; I understand 
that. God bless them. More power to them. But I do not see any 
association listed on here that has any responsibility for the 
protection of this country.
  We can vote on human rights, religious freedom, and all the other 
important things, but the only thing that poses a danger to this 
country we can't get a vote on because we didn't go through the 
``process'' because it needs to go back to a committee. The chairman of 
that committee gave the most eloquent statement that has been given on 
behalf of my amendment. One Senator just said he wants to send it to a 
committee that does not want it, whose chairman, Senator Helms, says we 
do not need it; that we have had enough hearings; that we know what the 
problem is.
  Give me a break. There will be a vote on this issue. But let's get 
back to the latest salvo, which may or may not have something to do 
with what we are dealing with tonight. The information they are putting 
out says this undercuts China PNTR; that it will undo PNTR; that it 
will return us to inflammatory annual votes on China.
  I have been involved in a few annual votes on China. I do not 
remember the flames, but be that as it may, this will not kill PNTR. 
The die is cast on PNTR. The House has passed PNTR. We are going to 
pass PNTR. The only issue is whether or not in doing so, we raise the 
issue with our new ``strategic trading partners,'' the issue that we 
are making this world a more dangerous one.
  The House passed it by a 40-vote margin. Are you here to tell me that 
if we passed it and added on a nuclear proliferation component, that it 
would make it more difficult for the House to pass it again? It would 
have to go back to the House if we add anything new. So for the folks 
who might be listening and watching, the deal is, they say: You can't 
pass the Thompson amendment because it is different from what the House 
passed. If you make any changes, it has to go back to the House for 
another vote, and they might not vote for it again. That is the bottom-
line argument for those who oppose this amendment.
  My first response is, so what. If we have a serious national security 
problem and issue that is paramount, it begs the question: Is this 
problem serious enough for us to address? I can join issue on that 
argument and respect my friends who disagree with it. But don't tell me 
that even though it may be that serious, we can't add it on over here 
because the House might have to take another vote. That is an insult to 
this body. Since when did we stop being the world's greatest 
deliberative body and become a rubber stamp for the House of 
Representatives?
  The practical answer to this particular accusation is that it will 
not kill PNTR. Before the sun sets, they will have it back over there, 
and they will revote on it. Nobody is going to go into an election just 
having cast a vote for it and then a vote against it, and the vote 
against it has a proliferation tag-on. That is going to make it more 
difficult to vote for it? Give me a break.
  Please, be serious in your arguments, I say to my friends. There are 
some serious arguments to be had around here. I had a good discussion 
with the Senator from Kansas today on sanctions in general--a good 
discussion. But don't tell me, as a Senator, I have to rubber stamp 
something, when the House of Representatives identifies problems--

[[Page 17623]]

religious persecution, slave labor, Radio Free Asia--and then it comes 
over here, and we can't identify the only thing that is a threat to 
this Nation.
  All those things are things that ought to be identified. They were 
correct in doing that. But to tell us that we have to rubber stamp it, 
that the benefits of PNTR to this country are so great, and so obvious, 
and so overwhelming, and so clear, that we are afraid to risk letting 
the House, with a 40-vote margin, with a nuclear proliferation add-on, 
have another shot at it because it is going to cost us a few more 
days--while the Chinese Government, as we speak, is trying to undercut 
the WTO agreement. That is just kind of a sideline. We see this in the 
paper now. We understand. They are trying to mess with Taiwan coming 
into the WTO later. They are trying to renege on some of the agreements 
that they have previously made in their bilateral agreement with us. 
They must not have any respect at all for us right now. We have danced 
to their tune now for a few years. We do not make any big fuss about 
the theft of nuclear secrets. We say: Boys will be boys. Everybody does 
that.
  The Chinese military puts money into our campaigns, and they say, 
again: Maybe the higher-ups didn't know about it. We give them WTO. We 
give them a veto on a national missile defense system. That is the 
reason the President put off that decision, because the Russians and 
the Chinese objected to it.
  We send delegations over there asking them to please stop their 
proliferation activities. They give us the back of their hand and say: 
We're going to continue our activities as long as you continue with the 
missile defense system and your friendship with Taiwan.
  Then the President meets Jiang Zemin at the Waldorf in New York on 
Friday. According to the New York Times, the President once again 
raised the issue of what they were doing with regard to Pakistan. They 
have outfitted Pakistan. They took a nation, a small nation with no 
nuclear capability, and have outfitted Pakistan, soup to nuts. Not only 
do they have missiles, M-11 missiles, goodness knows what else, but 
they now have, apparently, missile plants where they can make their 
own.
  The Chinese are probably ready to sign a new agreement now not to 
ship any more in there. They do not need to. They have equipped 
Pakistan so they can do it themselves. They have made that place a 
tinderbox. So the President rightfully brings this up, according to the 
New York Times.
  Jiang Zemin's response, apparently, according to the New York Times, 
was to smile, wish the President well on his pending retirement, and to 
thank him for his assistance in getting them into the WTO. They must 
not have much respect for us anymore.
  And we are over here saying we are afraid to give our House of 
Representatives another vote on this, regardless of the merits of the 
case. It would kill, as they say, the PNTR. They are incorrect. They 
are wrong. They are brilliant people. They have contributed mightily to 
our economy. I am talking about all these high-tech people. I want to 
help them in every way I can. I am with them on most things. But they 
do not know this subject. We are supposed to know it. We are given 
access to classified information. We are paid the big bucks to spend 
long hours poring over these documents that the intelligence people 
bring to us--and the Rumsfeld Commission and the Deutch Commission and 
the Cox Commission, and all the rest. It is not their responsibility.
  But they are papering this town. I said today, you can't stir the 
lobbyists with a stick. Everybody is petrified of this amendment. I 
think the reason is because they fear it will irritate the Chinese and 
maybe cause us some problems, trade retaliation, or something like 
that. But the Chinese want this mightily. They want this PNTR badly. 
They have a $69 billion trade surplus with us.
  There will be no killing of that golden goose. They are not foolish 
people.
  They also said that it is ineffective because it is a unilateral 
sanction. Unilateral sanctions rarely achieve the intended results of 
the targeted country, but they penalize American companies, workers, 
and investments. Let me tell you when an American company or worker 
would be penalized. If we catch the Chinese entities selling missile 
parts or the ability to make bombs, nuclear weapons, to Libya, let's 
say, then we are going to cut off military and dual use that can be 
used for military purposes, we are going to cut those sales off. So if 
you make those items, you are going to be affected. The President has 
the discretion--let me add that--and it does not happen automatically.
  The process, under our bill, is that we have a report. Our 
intelligence agencies give a report. It identifies these entities, 
companies that are doing these things. Then our President has the 
discretion or he has to make a determination, depending on the 
category, but it is within his power to exercise the appropriate 
remedy. We are not talking about cutting off sales of wheat or food or 
shoes--we would not be selling them shoes--or any other commodity. We 
are talking about munitions and dual-use items.
  If you are affected by that, you will be affected by this bill. I 
don't know about the company president, but I will bet you, if you said 
to the average worker--that is 2 percent, by the way, of our dual use 
and munitions; our entire trade with China is 2 percent of our exports; 
2 percent is what we are so afraid of here--if you said to the average 
worker: we are going to impose these restrictions or these sanctions on 
China for a year to try to get them to clean up their act because we 
have caught these Chinese companies doing these things. Obviously, it 
is going to make it a more dangerous place for your kids if we keep on 
down this road. We need to get their attention. It is going to mean 
some loss of sales for the company you work for. Do you think we ought 
to do it?
  I don't think there is any question about that. I have more faith and 
confidence in the American worker and the American farmer.
  They talk about farmers being concerned. Well, agriculture is not 
directly affected, but what if the Chinese get mad at us and decide to 
cut off some of our agricultural exports?
  I think my Tennessee farmers are willing to take that chance. If that 
is the price we have to pay to sell corn, then that is too high a price 
to pay. I am like all these other agriculture Senators here. I have 
agriculture. I have farmers. They are concerned about these issues. But 
they are also very patriotic. When you come right down to it, there are 
a lot of organizations running around using the names of various 
people, but when you come right down to the workers of America and the 
farmers of America, you are not cutting off exports of goods across the 
spectrum, and you are certainly not cutting off agricultural exports. 
They would see through that. They would say, well, yes, there is an 
indirect possibility, if I am in a certain area, that there might be 
some ramifications down the road. But if that possibility were to 
occur, if that is what I have to do to help make this place a little 
bit safer and get their attention because, goodness knows, if we can't 
get their attention while we are about to give them this trade bill, we 
are never going to get their attention, I think they would be willing 
to go along with that.
  What else do they say? It duplicates current U.S. proliferation laws. 
The last point was the unilateral sanction. Of course, this was drafted 
by some lobbyists downtown. We all know that that works for these 
folks. All the points are always the same. They hand them around town. 
Everybody uses them. Do you really think their real concern is that 
these sanctions won't work or that we are duplicating current laws? Is 
that what is stirring up all this activity, that we are being 
inefficient in some way? Please.
  Unilateral sanctions don't work. Well, some don't. And there is a 
chance these might not. But there is a good chance they might.
  Why is the Chinese Government so upset? If you read the French 
newspapers--and I assure you, they are

[[Page 17624]]

translated in English before I read them--or the Chinese, you will see 
that there is tremendous consternation over the Thompson-Torricelli 
amendment. Why do you think that is, if we are only duplicating what is 
already on the books and unilateral sanctions don't work? Do you think 
they are concerned because we are about to do something that doesn't 
work, or do you think they are going to maybe think twice before they 
continue their activity because they know that at least the Congress is 
serious about this? They are going to continue to get highlighted and 
embarrassed in the world community for making this a more dangerous 
world. I think it is the latter.
  I have had Mr. Berger, the President's national security adviser, 
tell me that on occasions when they have actually used or threatened 
unilateral action in times past, that it has had an effect. I don't 
think they have done it nearly enough, and we have strong disagreements 
about that. That is part of the problem we have had. They have gone 
around the barn to apologize for 95 percent of what the Chinese 
Government has done here. That is the reason we are here tonight. But 
when they have on occasion done this, he has told me it has had effect.
  You can't have it both ways. Unilateral sanctions sometimes do work. 
We are not talking about these blanket agricultural sanctions or going 
towards some particular country. We are going to the supplier and 
saying that we are going to cut off the relevant goods and items if we 
continue to catch you doing these things that you are flaunting 
disrespectfully.
  Unilateral sanctions undercut PNTR, will kill PNTR, and duplicates 
current laws. To a certain extent that is right. There are laws on the 
books now that require sanctions, just as we are proposing, or close to 
it.
  So you say, Thompson, why are you doing this? Well, because we have 
other provisions, such as a little more congressional oversight, such 
as a more extensive report where it would make it more difficult for a 
President to game the system and do what President Clinton said he had 
to do on occasion--that is, to fudge the facts--because if he made a 
finding against a company that he didn't want to move against for 
diplomatic reasons, the law would require him to do that. He didn't 
want to do that.
  What this does is make it more transparent. The President can still 
do it, but he has to give Congress a reason why he is not imposing 
sanctions on an entity that has been found to have been selling weapons 
of mass destruction.
  While it duplicates current law in many respects, which is a point in 
our favor because we are not doing something new and dangerous and 
onerous and burdensome, the President should already be doing some of 
these things. What we are doing is saying, yes, that, but also in 
addition to that, a mechanism whereby we can have some enforcement to 
it, have some congressional oversight and highlight the fact that the 
President has some options here.
  The President can address the capital markets issue. One of the 
things the opponents have complained about is the fact that our bill 
actually gives the President the authority to say to a particular 
Chinese company or, for that matter, a Russian or a North Korean 
company, but the big players right now, such as Petro China or the 
Chinese companies, raising billions of dollars in our stock markets, in 
the New York Stock Exchange, going back, in some cases, to enhance the 
Chinese military--and in many cases, according to the Deutch Commission 
and according to the Cox committee, these are proliferators of weapons 
of mass destruction, raising all this money in our capital markets. How 
many people know about that? You know, we don't want to close our 
capital markets. We can't do that without thought. But, for goodness' 
sake, that is a privilege; that is not a right for them to come in and 
raise money from our people who do not know who they are dealing with--
raise billions of dollars, while at the same time selling stuff that is 
making the world more dangerous for that investor's kids. Do we really 
want to keep financing these people that way? I don't think so.
  According to this latest leaflet, it is inconsistent with current 
nonproliferation regimes. It would be activated by a hair-trigger 
mechanism--a hair-trigger mechanism--based on credible information. 
Well, that just comes from a misunderstanding of the law and what the 
bill says.
  What the bill says is that if you get credible information that they 
are doing these things, you have to put it in the report. That is the 
only thing it activates. That is the hair-trigger they are talking 
about. If our intelligence people find that you are selling these 
things to these rogue nations, you have to put it in the report.
  Now, the President takes a look at that. If it has to do with a 
country, he has total discretion as to what to do. If it has to do with 
a company, an entity, say a state-owned company in China, as so many of 
them are, the President has to make a determination that in fact the 
credible evidence is true. Then the President has an option to have a 
waiver. Even after he makes a determination that the allegations are 
true, he still has a waiver that he can exercise before all of this 
happens, before any sanctions are levied. That is the hair-trigger they 
are talking about.
  They are just misinforming folks. I think it comes from a lack of 
understanding of what is in the bill. Somebody downtown, hopefully, 
will read it more carefully. You can have a lot of complaints about it, 
and so be it, but let's not misrepresent what it does. There is no 
hair-trigger, there is no automatic sanction, no automatic anything; it 
is discretionary with the President. If it is credible evidence, it 
goes into the report.
  Some people say: Well, it might be credible evidence, but it might 
not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt; we might catch up some innocent 
Chinese company. We are not trying a criminal lawsuit here. We are 
talking about information to go into a report for the American people 
to see and for Congress to see. If it turns out we are incorrect, we 
can correct that when the time comes.
  I don't want to be callous about this just because they are Chinese 
companies and maybe had proliferation problems in the past. I don't 
want to accuse anybody of anything of which they are not guilty. My 
guess is, if our intelligence community takes the time and effort and 
concludes that this information is credible enough to go into the 
report, they probably did it. Considering the fact that they are the 
world's leading proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, somebody 
over there is doing it--not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but, then 
again, we are not putting anybody in the penitentiary. We are trying to 
protect the American people.

       Contains automatic overbroad sanctions. The bill mandates 
     automatic U.S. sanctions against any private or governmental 
     entity, even for acquisition of commodity level products.

  Somebody is not paying attention, are they? ``Mandates automatic U.S. 
sanctions.'' It is just not true. The bill doesn't do that. There is 
nothing automatic about it. It is within the power and determination of 
the President if he chooses to do that. Then he has a waiver if he 
wants to use that. It is a modest step.
  I think this report is the most important part of this legislation. 
It is a more extensive report. We get these halfway jobs, summaries, 
but this is a more extensive report. The President will know we are 
getting it, and we will have a dialog about who is on it and why and to 
the extent the President is doing anything about it. The report 
requires the President to tell us what he intends to do about it. He 
doesn't have to do anything. But there is the pressure, I would think, 
for most Presidents, to want to have a pretty good reason if they 
didn't choose to do anything about it once that credible evidence was 
there.
  So, my friends who may be listening to this, there is an awful lot of 
false information going around. I know these people didn't intend to do 
this. They are in the business of advancing technology. They are the 
world's best, and

[[Page 17625]]

God bless them. But they are not in this business. Somebody downtown is 
doing this who wants to win too badly. There are no automatic 
sanctions.

       Underwent an inadequate public process.

  Well, we are getting back to my friends from Wyoming and Texas.

       Deserves a full vetting by the Senate, not the hurried and 
     nonpublic process that has characterized the consideration of 
     this bill. Subsequent drafts and basic proposals have not 
     addressed the bill's deficiencies. Should not be substituted 
     for critical processes, such as public hearings.

  In other words, we haven't had any public hearings. Somebody is not 
paying attention. I just read off two pages of the public hearings that 
we have had on this general subject matter. Nobody paid attention then 
because trade was not involved; it was only national security. Now they 
are shocked to find out that all this time we have been having public 
hearings, and we have been getting the reports from bipartisan 
commissions all this time warning us, warning Congress, warning the 
American citizens, that it is becoming more dangerous. Countries such 
as North Korea will have the capability of hitting us within 5 years of 
their decision to do so. We know that some time ago they decided to 
have that capability. We know that some years ago they already decided 
to have the capability.
  Shortly after we got the report, they fired a two-stage rocket over 
the country of Japan--another one of our allies. I guess, now that I 
think about it, that delivered more than one message, didn't it? It 
told the good old USA: Yes, we have that capability that you are 
debating over there. This is what we have. It shocked our intelligence 
community and surprised us. The Rumsfeld Commission told us they feared 
that was the case, and then they showed us the capability. Of course, 
Japan is one of our closest allies. So I suppose that accentuated it.
  So we have gone through all that. How much does it take? And now my 
friends from Texas and Wyoming say we can't have a vote. We can't even 
have a vote on an issue that poses a direct threat to the security of 
this Nation because it hasn't sufficiently gone through the process.
  Then we had the Deutch Commission telling us some of the same things. 
And then the Cox Commission told us that, relevant to our export laws, 
the Chinese Government was using our technology and the supercomputers 
we were sending to them to perfect and enhance their nuclear 
capability.
  Was it Lenin who said, ``The U.S. would sell the rope with which to 
hang itself''?
  That is what that issue is all about. That is serious business. That 
opens another whole question about our export laws. That is why we have 
this debate and concern. My friends from Wyoming and Texas and I 
disagreed. So did these other Senators from various other committees, 
chairmen of these committees. It wasn't just me. At this particular 
time, while we can't put the genie back in the bottle, we can't keep 
technology from circling the globe eventually. But there is great 
dispute among experts as to what people can get their hands on and how 
long it will take other countries to get their hands on our technology. 
We shouldn't ship it out willy-nilly and let the Commerce Department 
decide. Some of our friends would let the Commerce Department decide 
whether or not these things ought to be sent around. The Commerce 
Department is in the business of business. Again, more power to them. 
But this is not a commerce issue. This is a national security issue. We 
should not be blind to our commercial interests, and we should not be 
unreasonable about that.
  But there are more important things than whether we should be 
loosening our export laws and saying, well, if we can make it, 
everybody is going to have it eventually. So we might as well give it 
to them tomorrow. Even if we are able to slow them down somewhat, this 
is a dangerous world. I am looking to the day we find out the direct 
proof that one of these rogue nations has what we shipped to China and 
China just passed it along. I assume it has already happened, but we 
don't have any proof of that. That is what all of this is really about, 
in my opinion.
  It goes on to say here--this is the last objection--it provides for 
dangerous procedures and fast-track procedures would inevitably lead to 
highly politicized annual votes.
  Our bill, of course, says the President's actions have been, frankly, 
inadequate. I think some of President Clinton's actions have been 
totally inadequate with regard to some of these decisions.
  Our intelligence has proof that the Chinese Government sent M-11 
missiles to Pakistan, and the response from the State Department is: 
No. We are not going to impose sanctions there because we cannot prove 
it. We only see canisters on the ground that we know were put there by 
the Chinese on Pakistani docks. But we do not really know that there 
are missiles inside the canisters.
  What can you say to that?
  Then there was another occasion where we proved that they sent ring 
magnets to the Pakistanis, and those go to enhance the uranium 
enrichment process that goes into these nuclear weapons. The answer 
there was that we did not have sufficient proof that those high up 
enough in the Chinese Government really signed off on that.
  We are requiring courtroom-level proof. Instead of requiring them to 
bear the burden, you had better prove to us that you didn't do it 
because it sure looks as if you did it. No, we are putting the burden 
on ourselves to have a level of proof that no one can ever reach 
because our diplomats and some of our administration officials are 
living in another world. They think if they can continue to dialog with 
the leadership of the Communist Chinese Government that things are 
going to magically fall into place.
  In this bill we said if we run into one of those situations Congress 
ought to have some input. Congress hasn't done enough in this regard. 
We can't sit back and say that we can't mess with the President's 
authority. We have done that too much--go into wars, and everything 
else--partially under the jurisdiction of this body. And we really do 
not want to take the political heat for making the decisions.
  Our tendency, it seems to me nowadays, is to sit back and let the 
President do the tough stuff and make those decisions. We will 
criticize him every once in a while. We don't want to be involved. That 
exposes us to criticism if we make a mistake.
  If you look at the national political polls, national security and 
foreign affairs ranks, only 2 percent of the people in this country 
would put it at the top of their area of concern--2 percent. That 
doesn't get the attention of a lot of people around here. So we sit 
back. We have done it too long. The problem is that this administration 
has sat back right along with us. The result of that has been a more 
dangerous world.
  We signal to our allies that we claim we need a national missile 
defense system because of rogue nations. But the signal is we are 
really not that worried about it; Trade is more important. We are 
signaling to the leadership of the Chinese Government that we may or 
may not be concerned about this. We may issue a sanction in one out of 
every five times we catch it.
  That is still going to lead to a more dangerous world because they 
somewhere along the line are going to misjudge how far we will go in 
response to some action.
  What we need to do is have something right now that is measured, that 
is reasonable, and that is not extreme to put in place to simply send a 
signal that while we are approving the trade bill, that trade is not 
the only thing that is important to us and that we are going to blow 
the whistle on them and maybe cut off some of their dual-use 
technology. Yes--perhaps even with hardship on one or more of those 
conferences. That is the signal we need to send.
  So we fashioned the provision in this bill that said if 20 Senators 
agree that we should disagree with the President's action--that we 
think it is clear and he is doing nothing, or that we think it is not 
so clear and he is doing something and we believe we should become 
involved--if 20 of us think that way, we can become involved in a 
variety of actions. He can veto that. Or it would

[[Page 17626]]

take a tremendously unusual situation for us to actually get anything 
done, quite frankly. Everybody knows that. I know that. Overriding the 
President's veto on something like that would be tremendous. It would 
have to be an egregious situation. That is the kind of thing we need to 
signal to the world that we are willing to do, at least in an egregious 
situation.
  They say that it is dangerous. I say to them that we already have 60 
laws on the books that in one form or another have this general 
procedure I just described. They are making it look as if it is a 
dangerous, unusual thing. We have at least 60 laws on the books which 
provide for expedited procedure in one way or another.
  We will have an opportunity to discuss this further. As I say, I 
particularly want to get a vote on this. I guess I am having a hard 
time absorbing what has happened here. After all of this debate, all of 
this discussion, this clearly would not cause any harm and would not 
cause any problem, except some people think it would complicate the 
trade bill. It is not as if we are about to do something dangerous or 
we are about to do something where some of our critics say the law is 
already on the books and you don't need to do it. That is the level of 
danger we are talking about.
  Our colleagues are keeping us from even having a vote. And we let all 
of these other things go? The Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from 
Texas say we haven't gone through the process enough. It has nothing to 
do with the fact that we couldn't get our Export Administration Act up 
for a vote, or chose not to. Frankly, I don't know which. If that is 
the case, that is the case. I take them at their word. I don't want to 
accuse them of having jurisdictional concerns. I say when it is in the 
wrong committee and it is on the wrong bill, to me that is a 
jurisdictional problem. If I am using the wrong word, I apologize. But 
the very idea that in light of this threat and in light of the good 
debate that we have had--and we have pros and cons on the Republican 
side and pros and cons on the Democratic side as to whether or not we 
ought to pass this. We have had a good debate. We are talking about one 
of the few things that really matter around here.
  Our first obligation in the preamble of our Constitution is the 
reason for the creation of this Government, the kind of matters we are 
considering here tonight.
  To come down to this, after all these hearings and all this time, 
with no one denying the nature of the threat, saying it needs to be 
sent to the committee of jurisdiction--they know by now, of course, 
that the Parliamentarian has said it would go to the Foreign Relations 
Committee; it would not even go to their Banking Committee. The only 
problem they have with that is Senator Helms is chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee and says he doesn't want that to happen. He wants 
my amendment to pass.
  I don't understand. It has nothing to do with anything other than 
some jurisdiction. We need to go back and massage this a little bit 
more, send it back to a committee that doesn't want it. Maybe we can 
offer some amendments. Why not offer it now, I ask my friends from 
Wyoming and Texas. If you want to offer amendments, offer them now. I 
don't understand the nature of the problem. I cannot for the life of me 
understand the nature of the problem.
  But we will have a chance, perhaps, to explore that further.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have heard a lot on the Senate floor 
the last few days about the advantages to the United States of granting 
PNTR to China. In commercial terms, PNTR means that American farmers, 
ranchers, workers, manufacturers, and service providers can take 
advantage of what will be an unprecedented liberalization in the 
world's most populous market, and an economy that has grown almost ten 
percent annually for two decades. PNTR and China's accession to the WTO 
means that China will enter the global trade community, liberalize and 
open up much of its economy, and be subject to the operating rules and 
regulations of the WTO.
  I would like to focus my remarks on the effect of PNTR on one very 
important sector of America's economy--agriculture.
  We are in the third year of a severe agricultural crisis in the 
United States. Our farmers are suffering terribly from drought, record 
low prices, increased costs, and now damage due to unprecedented forest 
fires this summer. At the same time, the American food market is a 
mature one with almost no room for growth for our farmers and ranchers. 
Therefore, one part of the solution to the agricultural crisis lies in 
increasing the quantity and value of our agricultural exports, bringing 
the products of the world's most efficient farming to the people of the 
world.
  That means ensuring that our producers are not besieged by dumped 
imports. That means our producers need time to adjust to surges in 
imports. That means working to dismantle the European Union's system of 
massive trade-distorting export subsidies to its farmers. That means 
reversing the trends that have reduced our agricultural exports by ten 
billion dollars since 1996. And that means bringing China into the WTO 
and granting them PNTR so that our farmers and ranchers can benefit 
from the significant liberalization commitments that China is making.
  Let me review those changes that China has agreed to make as part of 
its WTO accession commitments. And remember, if we don't grant China 
PNTR, our competitors can take advantage of this new liberalization in 
China, while our ranchers and farmers will lose out.
  First, the US-China Agricultural Cooperation Agreement. Although this 
was technically separate from China's negotiations for WTO accession, 
it was an integral part of our bilateral negotiations. This 
agricultural agreement provides three specific benefits to American 
producers.
  On wheat, China agreed to end a thirty year ban on Pacific Northwest 
wheat. This ban was based on spurious sanitary and phyto-sanitary 
standards. We completed the first shipment of Pacific Northwest wheat 
to China earlier this year.
  On beef, under the agricultural agreement, China will accept meat and 
poultry from all USDA Food Safety Inspection Service-approved plants, 
honoring USDA inspection certificates.
  On citrus, the agreement provided for a series of measures that would 
approve citrus for export to China. Chinese officials made several 
inspection trips to the United States, and the first shipment occurred 
earlier this year.
  Second, China made significant trade concessions on bulk commodities. 
For example, China agreed to a tariff rate quota on wheat of 7.3 
million metric tons for its first year of membership in the WTO, 
increasing to 9.6 million tons in 2004. This contrasts with recent 
annual import of wheat at around two million tons. Ten percent of the 
tariff rate quota will be allocated to non-state trading entities. If 
state trading entities do not use their portion of the quota, the 
unused part will be given to non-state entities. Tariff rate quotas at 
similarly high levels will also be in effect for other commodities such 
as corn, cotton, rice, and soybean oil.
  Third, tariffs themselves will be cut significantly. By January, 
2004, the overall average for agricultural products of importance to 
the United States will drop from 31 percent to 14 percent. Beef goes 
down from 45 percent to 12 percent for frozen and to 25 percent for 
fresh. Pork drops from 20 percent to 12 percent. Poultry goes from 20 
percent to 10 percent.
  Fourth, foreigners will have the right to distribute imported 
products without going through a state-trading enterprise or middleman.
  Fifth, China has committed not to use export subsidies for 
agricultural products. They have also committed to cap, and then 
reduce, trade-distorting domestic subsidies.
  Sixth, there are several provisions that most people think apply only 
to manufactured goods, but, in fact, apply to agriculture as well. The 
United States can continue to use our non-

[[Page 17627]]

market economy methodology in anti-dumping cases for 15 years, an 
important protection against dumped Chinese products. Also, for the 
next 12 years, we can take safeguard measures against specific products 
from China that cause, or threaten to cause, disruption in our market.
  In short, once we grant China PNTR and the WTO accession process 
concludes, our farmers, ranchers, and food processors can begin to take 
advantage of vast new opportunities in China. Americans need to move 
aggressively to follow-up on these Chinese commitments. And we in the 
Congress and in the Executive Branch must put resources into monitoring 
closely Chinese compliance with those commitments.
  Following my own advice about follow up, I will lead a delegation of 
Montana ranchers, farmers, and business people to China in December. I 
encourage all my Congressional colleagues to do likewise. I have also 
sent a letter to Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji insisting that China fully 
comply with its agriculture commitments.
  We have a lot to do in the Congress this year and next to help our 
farm economy. Approving PNTR is one important part of that agenda.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to explain why I oppose 
all amendments offered to H.R. 4444, a bill to establish Permanent 
Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China.
  Much is at stake here; the effects of this vote may be felt for years 
to come. I am convinced that amendments at this stage create a 
procedural problem that could derail passage of this important bill. 
Adopting any amendments would mean sending this bill to conference, 
where it could become mired in wrangling over differences of language 
and content. It is clear to me that we do not have time remaining in 
this Congress to resolve a bicameral conflict over this bill. We can 
allow nothing to interfere with what may be this Congress's most 
important decision concerning China.
  I am convinced we must not let our focus be drawn away from the real 
point in question: pure and simple, this vote is about deciding whether 
or not the United States wishes to join with the world community in 
having normal trade relations with China, and whether we are prepared 
to conduct our dealings with China according to the terms and 
conditions established by that community under the World Trade 
Organization framework (WTO).
  This vote is about protecting U.S. interests in an increasingly 
competitive global marketplace and about ensuring that American 
workers, managers, entrepreneurs, and investors do not miss out on the 
opportunities that are bound to grow as China brings itself further 
into the modern world.
  I do not think we further U.S. interests by undermining this nation's 
ability to function effectively in the world's most important 
multinational trade organization, or by cutting Americans off from the 
full benefits of WTO membership.
  This is what will happen if we pass a bill that does not conform to 
WTO requirements, or if we are forced to send the bill to conference, 
and fail to pass a bill, at all. I believe it is in America's best 
interests that this body pass a clean, focused bill establishing 
permanent normal trade relations with China that is the same as the 
House bill and does not need conferencing.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. 
on Wednesday there be 60 minutes for closing remarks for two 
amendments, with the following Senators in control of time: Senator 
Roth, 15 minutes; Senator Moynihan, 15 minutes; Senator Byrd, 15 
minutes, Senator Bob Smith, 15 minutes. I further ask consent that the 
vote on the pending Byrd amendment occur immediately at 11 a.m., to be 
followed by a vote in relation to division 6 of Senator Smith's 
amendment, No. 4129.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________