Floor Statement - MFN Status for Communist China

In opposition to MFN Status for Communist China

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974 and the rules of the Senate, I do make a privileged motion that the Senate Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 27, a resolution disapproving the President's June 3, 1999 extension of normal trade relations with China.

It is my understanding that based on the parliamentary decisions made earlier, the 1 hour will be equally divided, a half hour under my control and a half hour under the control of the other side, not by majority/minority, but by the two sides, pro and con.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. It is also my understanding, for the benefit of my colleagues, that there will be two consecutive rollcall votes, the first one being on the China discharge and the second one on the Vietnam discharge.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, notice of my intention to do these discharge motions was made to both the majority and minority leaders, the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, and several other Senators on July 7, so there would be ample time for the leaders to adjust the time so we could have a vote prior to the House voting on this matter.
Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes out of my allotted time.

Despite President Clinton's 1992 campaign promise to link MFN certification to China's human rights record, the administration has chosen annually to grant Beijing what had been known as most-favored-nation status and is now called normal trading relations. It is amazing to me that that certification could be granted, given the dismal record of China in so many ways that we have talked about on this floor for so many weeks, especially in the area of human rights.

By offering this motion, I am asking the Senate to discharge S.J. Res. 27 from the Finance Committee. This legislation would disapprove the President's recommendation of normal trade relations status for China. Because of the rules of the Senate, it is in the Finance Committee. If I don't discharge it out, then it doesn't come out, and we don't get the opportunity to debate this issue.

This is a very important issue. Let me say, again, as I said earlier this morning on the Vietnam issue, whether my colleagues agree or disagree with me is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they will let us debate this on the floor. That is the issue. If they vote against my discharge motion, then they have said they do not want the Senate to debate this issue at all. They don't want to hear about the human rights violations in China or Vietnam. I would find that regrettable if the Senate made that decision.

If they feel strongly that they are right and there are not any problems in China which would justify holding up the NTR, normal trading relations, then they ought to come down on the floor and defend that.

I have a few things I could share with Senators that I think will give them the opposite impression. I would want the opportunity to do that on behalf of so many Americans who are fed up with the fact that we keep giving MFN, or most-favored-nation trading status, to a country who has been so abysmal on human rights violations, not to mention stealing our nuclear secrets.

I have come to expect the President to ignore China's total disregard for human rights, its proliferation of nuclear weapons, and its piracy of U.S. technology by continuing Beijing's trading relationship with our country, but what I don't understand is why. Why are we doing this? Why are we afraid to debate this? Are we afraid we are going to find out how much technology has been pirated? Are we going to find out how much proliferation of nuclear weapons has actually occurred, how many human rights violations have occurred in China?

The answer is, yes, of course, we are going to find out, because I am going to present this on the floor if I get the opportunity to do it. Regrettably, the opposition is going to try to deny me that opportunity and probably will win. They win; the American people lose.

I will point out a few facts—I only have 30 minutes; I don't get the 10 hours I would have under the law, if, in fact, my discharge petition motion is approved. Unfortunately, I have to assume I am not going to get it and make the point as fast as I can in 30 minutes.

Since 1949, Communist China has operated one of the most brutal and repressive regimes the world has ever known. Indeed, the Beijing government has committed large-scale genocide in Tibet. It has killed millions of its own citizens, outlawed religion, obliterated freedom of the press, and fought against the United States in Korea and Indochina.

In 1989, the Chinese Government authorized a crackdown on thousands of students who had the courage to stand up for human rights and democracy, and crack down they did. We all know the sad stories that came out of that period of time in China's history. The actions of the Beijing government have also served to undermine international stability and U.S. national security interests. China continues to violate the missile technology control regime, exporting to rogue states like Iran, North Korea, and other nations. They export our most sensitive technology, which in some cases they stole and in other cases they bought, believe it or not, from the United States.

Moreover, China has failed to assist the United States in fully accounting for American POWs held by the Chinese forces during the Korean war. Certainly, the theft of our nuclear secrets by Chinese agents has been on our minds in the past several months. The Cox report provides extensive evidence on the damage done to our national security by Chinese espionage. But I am also very concerned about China's notorious and seemingly blatant disregard for U.S. intellectual property laws.

Over the last decade, Chinese exports to the United States have increased seven times in comparison to American exports to China, creating a significant trade imbalance. During this time, some of the most rapidly growing and most competitive U.S. industries have been adversely affected by China's failure to enforce intellectual property rights. These include computer software, pharmaceuticals, agricultural and chemical products, and trademarks.

American businesses are losing billions because of this persistent problem. Yet the President marches forward saying normal trade relations is perfectly acceptable. I don't understand it. How can the administration justify their decision to reward the Communist Chinese Government NTR status when that government has such a deplorable record of protecting just one issue—U.S. intellectual property rights—not to mention many others which I will be getting into.

Peace and economic stability in Asia are in America's interest and require Chinese-American cooperation. Unfortunately, the President's decision to reextend NTR status to Communist China effectively rewards Beijing for rejecting reasonable American demands for protection from this intellectual property rights piracy, for cooperation on international nonproliferation efforts, and for a greater respect for basic human rights.

Now we are hearing the ominous signs of the saber rattling around Taiwan. These threats of military acts of violence threaten the stability of the entire region in the Pacific rim. How can you justify giving a nation that has done this, and is doing this, most-favored-nation trading status?

Perhaps the most egregious are the human rights violations which we appear to condone by granting this NTR status to China. It has a terrible human rights record. I have heard so many times from my colleagues, some of whom are going to be denying me by a vote the access to be able to debate this, how terrible the human rights violations are in China. Their policies on the political dissidents, religious freedom, and population control are abhorrent. The State Department report on China's human rights practices illustrates an appalling picture. It provides example after example of torture, forced confessions, suppression of basic human rights, denial of due process, and, worse of all, forced abortion and sterilization. Is this a government to which the United States of America should give most-favored-nation status? I don't think so.

All I am asking for is the opportunity to go into these matters in detail and debate this on the floor of the Senate. This is not a vote on whether you agree or disagree. It is very interesting. I was thinking as I walked down to the floor from my office a few moments ago that the President of the United States took the U.S. military, put them in harm's way and bombed the sovereign nation of Yugoslavia to protect the human rights of the Albanian Kosovars. I can't even get the Senate to give me the opportunity to debate human rights violations in Vietnam and China. That is the bottom line. That is what we are talking about today.

The President—I will repeat this—went to war in Yugoslavia to protect the human rights of the Albanians in Kosovo, and I am going to be denied on this floor, by a vote, the opportunity to debate—just to debate—human rights violations in China and Vietnam. They don't want to hear it. That is the bottom line. If you can live with that in your conscience, fine.

It is a sad, sad situation.

All I am asking for is what is required under the law. Give me 10 hours and I will agree to reduce the 10 to 2. I will say to my colleagues, wherever you are out there, it is 10 hours by requirement; but I will agree to 2 hours on my side if you will support my motion. Give me the opportunity to show you on this floor what China and Vietnam are doing by voting for both of these motions.

Mr. President, at this time, I yield the floor to give some time to the other side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. How much time remains?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes 55 seconds remaining.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I cannot let go unchallenged on the floor the accusation that I am circumventing the legislative process. I think my colleagues know that is not true. This is the act, the Trade Act of 1974. I have it in my hand. I would encourage my colleague to read it before making accusations that are simply false.

In the committee of either House to which a resolution has been referred, that has not been reported at the end of 30 days after its introduction, and counting any day which is excluded under section 154(b) it is in order to move either to discharge the committee from further consideration of the resolution or to discharge the committee from further consideration of any other resolution associated with this.

The bottom line is, this went to the committee on June 3. It has remained there to this day. More than 30 days have passed. The bottom line is, which is perfectly legitimate under the rule, the Finance Committee does not have to discharge it. If they do not discharge it, what happens is China gets its NTR status, and Jackson-Vanik is waived.

So I am exercising my right in doing what I am doing. And for colleagues to come down here and say I am circumventing the legislative process simply is not true. I would like to go back and see how some of my colleagues voted on some of these matters.

I have heard on the floor that it is inappropriate to debate this issue; it is inappropriate to talk about it. 'Take morning business and come down here,' or 'speak at midnight when nobody is watching.'

There is a process here. It is written in the law that the Senate has an hour on the motion to determine whether or not to discharge, and then if we pass these motions I am offering on China and Vietnam, we have the opportunity to debate this.

So I am hearing that it is inappropriate for the Senate to debate something provided under the law. Why in the world is it inappropriate to debate anything on the floor? If you want to know what is wrong with this place, this is a pretty good example. 'It is inappropriate to debate what's going on in China and Vietnam on the Senate floor.'

Let me tell you what is inappropriate. With all due respect, what is inappropriate is the fact that the Communist Chinese are threatening Taiwan with missiles. What is inappropriate is what the Chinese Communist Government did to the people of Tibet. What is inappropriate is the fact that the Chinese Government put hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars into U.S. elections. What is inappropriate is that they have tried to take over the Long Beach shipyard. What is inappropriate is that the Chinese have gobbled up the port leases on both sides of the Panama Canal. What is inappropriate is population control. What is inappropriate is forced sterilization. What is inappropriate is killing unborn children, female children. That is what is inappropriate. What is also inappropriate is trying to run over peaceful protesters with tanks in Tiananmen Square.

So do not tell me it is inappropriate to debate something on the floor. It is an outrage that this Senate will not approve this motion and allow the opportunity to do that.

Let me come to the floor and debate these issues. They do not want me to come to the floor, I say to the American people. That is why my resolutions are going to go down, because they do not want to hear about it, because the administration has made a decision to grant most-favored-nation status, normal trade relations—a decision to look the other way while China does these appalling things.

I say, with all due respect—I said it earlier, and I will say it again—this President went to war and put American forces in harm's way to protect the human rights of the Albanians in Kosovo. And I can't get a resolution passed to debate human rights violations in China or Vietnam. What does that tell you? Is this America? Do you want to know what is wrong with politics? This is what is wrong with politics.

In China, they can do what they want. China is a sovereign nation. I guess, under the Clinton policy, we may be bombing them tomorrow. I do not know if it is human rights violations. Apparently, we cannot talk about them in the Senate. However, let me read you a little bit about what goes on in China from the 1998 State Department Human Rights Report.

Disciplinary measures against those who violate policies can include fines (sometimes a 'fee for an unplanned birth' or a 'social compensation fee'), withholding of social services, demotion, and other administrative punishments . . . intense pressure to meet family planning targets set by the Government has resulted in documented instances where family planning officials have used coercion, including forced abortion and sterilization, to meet government goals. During an unauthorized pregnancy, a woman often is paid multiple visits by family planning workers and pressured to terminate the pregnancy.

It goes on and on and on.

Are we going to give most-favored-nation status to this country? This is the issue. We are going to give it to them without giving me and other Senators in this body the opportunity to debate it on the floor? Welcome to America, for goodness sakes.

I thought the Senate was the greatest deliberative body in the world where all of the great debates took place. I am standing at Daniel Webster's desk. He would probably turn over in his grave if he heard that we would refuse to debate something as important as this. Daniel Webster stood on this floor, the strong advocate, year after year, against the outrage of slavery—and we cannot talk about China and Vietnam because my colleagues will not allow me to bring these resolutions out.

It is outrageous. I just do not understand it. It is exactly everything that is bad and wrong and outrageous about politics and about the process around here. I am sick of it. It is wrong.

Yes, bringing these motions is within the rules. Somebody put it in there. But for goodness sakes, what is fair is fair. It is not a question of me coming to the floor and saying: Well, nothing is happening in China; I'm just going to come down on the floor and create some problems here and tell you about things I made up, or I'm going to say nothing is going on in Vietnam.

I am not making this up. Right today, in the Washington Times: Chinese companies transferred missile components to North Korea last month in a sign Beijing is stepping up arms sales in response to the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. 'We are concerned about Chinese entities providing material for North Korea's missile program,' a senior administration official told the Times. 'In our judgment, the Chinese government has no interest in seeing North Korea develop its missile technology.' The Pentagon believes that some of the missile technology contains material of U.S.-origin, and that the transfers violate Chinese promises not to ignore international missile export controls barring such sales to rogue states, said U.S. intelligence officials.

Apparently we are not upset enough, are we? We are going to give them normal trade relations and look the other way. You steal our secrets; you abort your children; you forcibly abort female children; you saber rattle in Taiwan; you threaten to run over peaceful demonstrators with tanks. A priest was murdered a couple of months ago on the streets of Beijing. You give contributions to one of the major political parties in America, and we are going to look the other way.

We are not even going to debate it. I say to the people out there in America: Watch the vote. You will see it. One right after another, they will come down here and Smith will lose on Vietnam and Smith will lose on China. And the American people will lose the opportunity to debate it.

I cannot do this in 30 minutes. I would like to go into some of these matters in detail, but I do not have the time. That is the rule. I have 30 minutes, an hour equally divided. That is it.

So I just say to my colleagues, give me the opportunity to debate these matters on the floor so I can point out to you the human rights abuses and the flagrant violations of both of these countries. Vietnam does not deserve the Jackson-Vanik waiver and China does not deserve to be given normal trade relations.

Mr. President, I see my time has expired. I yield back the last minute.