Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Inasmuch as the Chair has yielded me the right to comment from my seat at my desk, let me say I yield all the time to the Senator that he requires.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4123 and ask it be stated.

Mr. HELMS. I say to the distinguished chairman that I am aware of that and I favor it. However, I do want to get the yeas and nays on my amendment. The scheduling of a whole series of amendments suits me just fine.

Mr. HELMS. Do I have the floor?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending amendment proposes that the Secretary of Commerce be requested to consult with American businesses on drafting and adopting a voluntary code of conduct for doing business in China. Such a voluntary code of conduct would follow internationally recognized human rights, work against discrimination and forced labor, support the principles of free enterprise and the rights of workers to organize, and discourage mandatory political indoctrination in the workplace. The purpose of this amendment is this: So often in this debate, the argument has been advanced that only by exposing the Chinese Government and the Chinese people to our values through expanded trade and investment can we hope to bring about political change in China, and the only way we can help that desired achievement is to do as the amendment proposes. I have always been skeptical about this because businesses are not in the business of expanding democracy. I am not going to comment on what the businesses support in PNTR and the way it is being supported. Be that as it may, businesses exist, quite frankly, to make money. I certainly have no problem with that. But let's be honest on the process of what we are doing here in this Senate Chamber. American businesses, even if viewed in the most charitable light, are not likely to lift a finger to promote democracy in China. Unfortunately, it is difficult to view some of the American businesses charitably when we examine their attitude toward China. If I step on some toes here, I am sorry, but I believe I must have my say for the benefit of the Senate. The powerful lure of potential huge Chinese markets has obviously clouded the judgment of some of our top companies and some of their executives. With regret, I have concluded that some of America's top businesses have been willing to supplicate to the Communist Government of China, hoping that the Chinese Government will allow them someday to make a profit there. I want the Senate to consider the following statements and actions by American businesses in China, which are stated as findings in the pending amendment: No. 1, the chief executive of Viacom media corporation told the Fortune Global Forum, a September 1999 gathering of hundreds of corporate leaders in Shanghai gathered to celebrate--get this--the 50th anniversary of communism in China--They gathered to celebrate the fact that western media groups, ``should avoid being unnecessarily offensive to the Chinese Government.'' No. 2, the owner of Fox and Star TV networks has repeatedly gained favor with the Chinese leadership by dropping programming and publishing deals that offend the Communist Government of China, including a book written by the last British Governor of Hong Kong. No. 3, the Chief Executive of American International Group was reported to be so effusive in his praise of China's economic progress at this global forum that one Communist Chinese official described the remarks as ``not realistic.'' No. 4, the founder of CNN, one of the world's wealthiest men, proudly told the global forum, ``I am a socialist at heart.'' No. 5, in 1998, Apple Computer voluntarily removed images of the Dalai Lama from its ``Think Different'' ads in Hong Kong, stating at the time, ``Where there are political sensitivities, we did not want to offend anyone.'' No. 7, in 1997, the Massachusetts-based Internet firm, Prodigy, landed an investment contract in China by agreeing to comply with China's Internet rules which provide for censoring any political information--now get this--``deemed unacceptable to the Communist government.'' I am forced to wonder if some of our business leaders understand what they are doing when they make such statements and make such decisions. Obviously, they are trying to curry favor with the Communist Government of China in which they aim to do business. But isn't there a limit to what they would do to accomplish what they seek? To say things that are so clearly untrue, or to agree to self-censorship when some of them are in the media business, it seems to me, undermines the ultimate goal of these companies--their higher profits--by legitimizing a Communist government that manifestly does not even believe in the free enterprise system. In any event, some U.S. businesses certainly did not seem to get a very good return on their investment of goodwill. Just consider how the Chinese Government repaid Time-Warner, for example. At the very moment that Time-Warner was sponsoring a conference in Shanghai for American business leaders to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Chinese communism, Chinese leaders banned the then-current issue of Time magazine, which is owned, of course, by Time-Warner. They removed it from the Chinese news stands--because of what? Because that issue happened to include commentaries by some Chinese dissidents and by the Dalai Lama. Then China blocked the web sites of Time Warner's Fortune magazine, as well as CNN, the founder of which is a self-described socialist. I didn't say it; he said it. Chinese officials denied the conference organizers the right to invite certain Chinese participants to the forum. Instead, the Chinese leaders padded the guest list with managers of--what? Chinese-run firms. That is the way they do business over there. That is the crowd that everybody in this country seems to be clamoring to bow and scrape to. I have to say this for the Chinese leaders: at least they stood up at the banquet at the conclusion of the conference and harshly lashed out at the United States for daring to speak about human rights while in Communist China, and for defending democratic Taiwan, of course. So I wonder if our corporate executives woke up the next morning feeling a little bit underappreciated. But even if they did not, one thing is for certain. This type of attitude and conduct by American businessmen will never, never, never promote democracy in China, let alone participate in causing it to come about. If the presence of American businesses truly purports to aid in bringing democracy to China, then those businesses, it seems to me, must conduct themselves in a manner reflecting basic American values--such as individual liberty and free expression and free enterprise. That is what the pending amendment's voluntary--and I repeat voluntary--code of conduct calls for. Of course, I realize that some American firms have already adopted their own ethical rules and codes for international business, but they generally are limited, narrow business practices, don't you see, and certainly have not prevented the sort of kowtowing to China's ruling Communists whom I have just described. The point is this, and I will conclude. I fail to see any reason on the face of the Earth why the Senate should not take this step at least before concluding that trade will automatically bring democracy to Communist China. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, let me request, by the same method as previously, that I be granted the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 4128

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the clerk. I thank the Chair. I ask for the yeas and nays. I don't believe I will be able to get them at this moment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I simply want to inquire about how much time I have remaining on my side.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for me to request and to receive a rollcall on the pending amendment.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 4128.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, during the course of the Senate's consideration of handing China the permanent most favored nation status--that is what it amounts to; just giving it to them--several of us have highlighted the abhorrent human rights record of the Communist Chinese Government. China's practice of forcing its women citizens to submit to abortions and/or sterilization--usually both--is not only revolting; it is shameful, because it is a practice that has been repeatedly documented for 20 years now. In fact, the most recent State Department Human Rights Report on China contains a detailed account of the cruel, coercive measures used by Chinese officials, such as forced abortion, forced sterilization, and detention of those who even dare to resist this inhumane treatment. My pending amendment proposes to put the Senate on record as condemning the Chinese dictatorship's barbaric treatment of its own people. Although the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party officially says--and I say absurdly says, and they say it--that forced abortion has no role in China's population control, it is, to the contrary, a known fact that the Chinese Government does indeed, absolutely, and without question, force women to submit to forced abortion and to sterilization. Communist Chinese authorities strictly enforce birth quotas imposed on its citizens. They pay rewards to informants tattling on the women for having more than one child while making certain that local population control officials using coercion are left absolutely unrestrained in the way they conduct themselves. For example, I have in hand reports of this cruel situation from many Chinese citizens. I received this information in my capacity as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. These citizens have witnessed firsthand countless episodes of this bloody cruelty. A defector from China's population control program testified before a House International Relations Committee hearing in June a couple of years ago that the Central Government policy in China strongly encourages local officials to use every conceivable coercive tactic in enforcing the one-child policy. They have described to me in person the results of women crying and begging for mercy simply because they were prepared to deliver a child. Furthermore, Communist China's population control officials routinely punish women who have conceived a child without Government authorization. They subject the women to extreme psychological pressures, enormous fines which they can't possibly pay, along with the loss of their jobs, and with all sorts of other physical threats. If women in China dare to resist the population control policy on religious grounds, they have to confront especially gruesome punishment. Amnesty International reported to us, and publicly, that Catholic women in two villages were subjected to torture, to sexual abuse, and to the detention of their relatives for daring to resist China's population program. Very credible reports indicate that if ``these'' methods aren't enough to convince women in China to abide by the regime's population control program, forced abortions are carried out publicly in the very late stages of pregnancy. I think it was back in 1994 when it began. Since that time, forced abortion has been used in Communist China not only to regulate the number of children born but under the policy known as the ``Natal and Health Care Law,'' pregnancies are terminated on a mandatory basis if a Government bureaucrat arbitrarily declares that an unborn child is defective. Nobody checks on him. He doesn't have to present any evidence. He just says the child is defective. That is it. I believe it is common knowledge that I am a resolute defender of the sanctity of life. I have tried to do that ever since I have been a Senator, and prior to that time. But the pending amendment is not merely about life; it seems to me it is about liberty. Bureaucrats terrorizing women into unwanted abortions or medical operations permanently depriving them of their capability to have children, it seems to me, is the ultimate appalling affront to freedom. My pending amendment urges the President to ask the Chinese Government to stop this ungodly practice. My amendment also calls on the President to urge the Chinese Government to stop putting Chinese women in jail whose crime is resisting abortion of a child or sterilization. I think this is a modest measure. It doesn't condition PNTR on China's Government changing its abhorrent behavior. It simply asks the President of the United States to say to the Chinese that we want to defend the rights of women in China and ask the Chinese officials to see that that happens. The question that comes to my mind is, Can the Senate proceed to award China with permanent trade privileges while refusing to express our revulsion at a basic violation of women's freedom? The amendment I shall propose and call up in just a moment will not at all endanger passage of PNTR. We need not worry about that. I don't think PNTR ought to be approved at this time. But this amendment will not forbid or do any danger to the enactment of PNTR. It will simply be a matter of the Senate doing and saying the right thing before it happens. Amendment No. 4128 (Purpose: To express the Sense of Congress regarding forced abortions in the People's Republic of China)

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to deliver my remarks seated at my desk.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, September 12, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,684,118,446,519.63, five trillion, six hundred eighty-four billion, one hundred eighteen million, four hundred forty-six thousand, five hundred nineteen dollars and sixty-three cents. Five years ago, September 12, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,964,466,000,000, four trillion, nine hundred sixty-four billion, four hundred sixty-six million. Ten years ago, September 12, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,232,127,000,000, three trillion, two hundred thirty-two billion, one hundred twenty-seven million. Fifteen years ago, September 12, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,823,101,000,000, one trillion, eight hundred twenty-three billion, one hundred one million. Twenty-five years ago, September 12, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $549,340,000,000, five hundred forty-nine billion, three hundred forty million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,134,778,446,519.63, five trillion, one hundred thirty-four billion, seven hundred seventy-eight million, four hundred forty-six thousand, five hundred nineteen dollars and sixty-three cents, during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, September 11, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,680,975,300,511.24, five trillion, six hundred eighty billion, nine hundred seventy-five million, three hundred thousand, five hundred eleven dollars and twenty-four cents. Five years ago, September 11, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,962,944,000,000, four trillion, nine hundred sixty-two billion, nine hundred forty-four million. Ten years ago, September 11, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,231,889,000,000, three trillion, two hundred thirty-one billion, eight hundred eighty-nine million. Fifteen years ago, September 11, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,823,101,000,000, one trillion, eight hundred twenty-three billion, one hundred one million. Twenty-five years ago, September 11, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $548,918,000,000, five hundred forty-eight billion, nine hundred eighteen million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,132,057,300,511.24, five trillion, one hundred thirty-two billion, fifty-seven million, three hundred thousand, five hundred eleven dollars and twenty-four cents, during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4125.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to deliver my remarks seated at my desk.