Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

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 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.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, may I ask the situation on the time limitation on this amendment?

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask it be in order that I yield several minutes to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. Following that period, I will take the floor.

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to deliver my remarks at my desk from my seat.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, for the past two months there has been a deluge of claims regarding the Thompson-Torricelli amendment. While Mr. Thompson, the able Senator from Tennessee, has leaned over backward to accommodate all concerns raised in good faith, there is clearly no satisfying that particular crowd of ``beltway lobbyists'' who will stop at nothing to secure corporate profits. It is just as simple as that. Virtually every argument the pro-Communist China industrial lobby makes regarding this amendment misses one crucial point: Chinese proliferation of weapons of mass annihilation poses a grave threat to U.S. national security. If there cannot be agreement on this basic premise, then there is no common ground to be found on the Thompson-Torricelli amendment. But I, for one, find China's trade in those commodities abhorrent and intolerable. It is especially unconscionable for China to continue supplying the Islamic radicals in Iran with chemical weapons precursors and missile technology. Lest we forget, Iran's interests are antithetical to the United States. For the past twenty years the fanatics in Teheran have poured money, weaponry, and technology into terrorist groups worldwide. The mullahs have orchestrated dozens of bombings and the cold-blooded murder of hundreds of U.S. servicemen and citizens, including the bombing of Khobar Towers, in Saudi Arabia--killing 19 U.S. troops and wounding 240 others--and the Hizbollah bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, which killed 241 Americans. So all this clap trap about reformists in Iran is hogwash--pure and simple. As the saying once went: ``Read my lips''--read mine--Iran is ruled by an Islamic fundamentalist regime that calls the United States the ``Great Satan'' and continues to spew anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli venom between each and every flight test of its new ``Shahab'' medium- range missiles, supplied, by the way, by Russia and China. Iran is the last country on Earth that the United States should want to possess deadly chemical nerve agents, nuclear weapons, or medium- range ballistic missiles. Why on Earth would the United States not do everything possible to stop China's supply of nerve agent precursors and specialized glass- lined production equipment to Iran? Why on Earth would the Senate look the other way as China continues to build a research reactor and other nuclear facilities in Iran, and to supply missile testing equipment, guiding systems, technology, and specialized material to Iran's missile program? Why, Mr. President, why? Surely Iran is the last country on Earth that the United States would ever want to gain possession of advanced cruise missiles capable of sinking warships from the United States of America. According to the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, China's C- 802 missile is ``roughly the equivalent of the French EXOCET missile that Iraq used in 1987 to attack the frigate U.S.S. Stark in the Gulf, killing 37 Americans.'' Why, Mr. President, would the United States not do everything in its power, including the imposition of sanctions, to prevent China from supplying hundreds of these missiles to the Iranian military? Iran is by no means the only dangerous country to which Communist China continues to ship deadly weaponry. There is that little regime in Libya which today is on trial in The Hague for the cowardly terrorist bombing of a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland. Do you remember that, Mr. President? That cruel, beastly attack killed 270 people; 189 of whom were Americans. Libya is getting from the Chinese all sorts of missile testing equipment and training. Just bear in mind, for example, this is a regime that once drew a ``line of death'' across the Gulf of Sidra and launched war planes to attack the U.S. Navy. Under no circumstances would the United States want Libya to possess a ballistic missile capable of dropping chemical or biological weapons on the U.S. troops stationed in Italy. But that is precisely the capability that the PRC-- the People's Republic of China--is supplying to Libya to date. Then there is North Korea. We must not leave out North Korea, that Communist dictatorship that engaged in a massive surprise attack against the United States and South Korea in 1950 which ultimately killed more than 35,000 Americans. North Korea is acting today as if it is going to make amends, and we will see about that. I think it is about time. The point remains that North Korea still maintains a million-man army with thousands of tanks and artillery pieces deployed within a few miles of Seoul. North Korea is a country which recently launched that ballistic missile over Japan--do you remember that?--a missile capable of reaching the United States of America with a small chemical or biological warhead. North Korean boats periodically engage in shooting matches with South Korean ships. North Korea has deployed assassination squads on minisubmarines to infiltrate its neighbors to the south, and they continue to harbor vicious terrorists wanted in Japan for a variety of murders, and they are working overtime on the development of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. This is not a country that the United States wants to possess long-range ICBMs--but Communists insist on supplying Pyongyang with missile technology and specialized steel. I haven't even touched on the subject of Chinese missile and nuclear assistance to Pakistan or its supply relationship with the dictatorship in Syria or the help it was giving to Saddam Hussein's horrible programs. The world today is a very dangerous place, populated with tyrants and despots hostile to the United States. These are countries which have killed Americans by the hundreds. At every turn in the road we discover that Communist China is supplying all of these countries with technology which ultimately can be used in the future to kill Americans again. No matter how many times the United States raises the matter of China's military exports, the Communist leadership in Beijing refuses to cease and desist. They change the subject. Indeed, the history of U.S.-Chinese relations on nonproliferation matters is one littered with broken promises. It is a tale of deceit and trickery by Communist China. I call attention to this chart, which the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania referred to earlier, which shows China has made at least 14 major nonproliferation commitments since 1984, 7 relating to the proliferation of nuclear technology. The People's Republic of China has made five--count them, five--separate pledges regarding the transfer of missile technology and two pledges on chemical and biological transfers. During the past 20 years, the PRC has violated every one of those promises. Immediately following Communist China's 1984 pledge not to help other countries develop nuclear weapons, what do you think happened? Yes, that is right, China signs a little ``secret'' protocol with Iran to supply nuclear materials. Beginning in the early 1980s, China helped Pakistan get the bomb, sharing weapons design information. In 1996, China was caught having to shift a large number of specialized ring magnets for weapons-grade enrichment of uranium to Pakistan. In 1998, at the very time China was telling Congress that China had quit assisting Pakistan--in order to secure congressional support for commercial nuclear cooperation--the Clinton administration knew for a fact about ongoing PRC contacts with Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. It is abundantly clear, 2 years later, that China has never adhered even once to its nuclear nonproliferation pledges. In fact, according to the latest unclassified intelligence assessment of a month ago: Chinese entities have provided extensive support in the past to Pakistan's nuclear programs. In May 1996, Beijing promised to stop assistance to unsafeguarded nuclear facilities, but we cannot preclude ongoing contacts. That is a nice way of saying it is still going on. It is the same old song: second verse same as the first, in the case of missile transfers. Again, China has repeatedly broken its pledges. A claim in 1989 that it had no ``plans'' to sell medium-range missiles to the Middle East was almost immediately contravened by several transactions. A subsequent pledge, in early 1991, to refrain from medium-range sales to the Middle East--also rubbish. So we come to 1992, when China made yet another promise--written down this time--that it would not transfer any category I or category II missile items to Syria, Pakistan, or Iran. A lot of good people just said, OK, that is great; peace, peace, peace is right around the corner. The Chinese pledge specifically covered M-9 and M-11 missiles, and extended to existing contracts. But this, of course, did not stop China from selling M-1 or M-11 missiles to Pakistan or from selling missile technology to Iran and Syria--no siree. So what happened? The Clinton administration extracted a further pledge, don't you know, in 1994--from whom? That's right, China--that it really did intend to abide by the MTCR. China said: Oh, yes, yes, sir; we are going to abide by it. But that Chinese commitment to observe the MTCR guidelines--which, by the way, explicitly, clearly prohibit the transfer of missile production equipment--was observed no better than the earlier pledges. Not only did M-11 sales continue but Communist China was discovered supplying a production facility for such missiles to Pakistan. According to various press accounts, China recently completed work on this facility for Pakistan. Oh, boy, you can trust these Chinese, can't you? ``I think we ought to sign this thing and go ahead and trust them and be done with it.'' If you believe that, you will believe anything because there are a lot of facts regarding the current exports of China's military that I have uncovered. The point is, and I say this reluctantly because these are my friends, too--or they have been--as much as various business lobbyists may wish to portray the Communist leadership in Beijing as being trustworthy and responsible, the truth is that the Chinese regime is neither trustworthy nor responsible. It has never been responsible. It has given terrorist regimes deadly chemical capabilities and nuclear technology to vaporize entire cities and missiles capable of raining terror on innocent people from above. Nor has Beijing proven trustworthy. They have broken pledge after pledge and pledge. I have to say this for the Clinton-Gore administration. It was not the first to allow itself to be duped by the PRC in order to pursue this commercial objective. But the current administration has coupled its willingness to subordinate nonproliferation concerns to trade with an alarming disregard for the law, in my judgment. I deeply regret the appalling legal hijinks of the administration in trying to avoid sanctioning Communist China for its military trade. Maybe somebody else will remember, as I do, that New York Times quote that President Clinton was declared to have made, that U.S. sanctions laws put--as the President put it: . . . enormous pressure on whoever is in the Executive Branch to fudge an evaluation of the facts of what is really going on. The fact that the President would say such a thing, I have to admit, doesn't come as too much of a surprise. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee--of which I happen to be chairman--has in particular been on the receiving end of this sort of business of ``fudging the facts'' for the past 8 years. Time and time again it has happened. I am sick of it. While no administration has ever voluntarily imposed sanctions that it believed would be counterproductive, the Clinton-Gore administration's callous disregard of U.S. law is bouncing around at a new low. Because the administration has no stomach for nonproliferation sanctions, and because the Chinese obviously know it, the United States nonproliferation dialog with China has become nothing more than an opportunity for Beijing to uncover how the U.S. intelligence community knows things about China's weapons trade. At this point, I think it must be patently obvious to Communist China that this administration does not have--what? The right stuff, I guess is the right way to put it--the right stuff to impose missile sanctions and make them stick. The exponential growth in China's deadly exports, clearly shown on this chart, is occurring in the face of weakening U.S. resolve. In the name of my children and grandchildren, your children and grandchildren, Mr. President and all other Senators, that is such a dangerous, dangerous combination. As I see it, the obvious benefit of the Thompson-Torricelli amendment now pending is twofold. First and foremost, the amendment underscores the Senate's concern about Red China's ongoing trade in the deadliest types of weapons technology with terrorist nations. Under no circumstance should the Senate let this moment pass without deploring-- without deploring it loudly--China's behavior and raising the stakes for China's continued assistance to the likes of North Korea and Iran and Libya. It is impossible to overstate how critical this is at a time when the commercial interests of the United States clearly predominate over national security concerns, and that is exactly what is happening. Second, it also raises the ante on an executive branch which has come to think of mandatory sanctions as optional things. You don't have to do them. I recognize that it is clearly impossible to compel this administration to adhere to the supreme law of the land. But surely the Senate can make flagrant disregard for the law a little more uncomfortable for some in the administration by requiring expanded reporting on China's proliferation behavior based on a reasonable evidentiary standard. Mr. President, for all of these reasons I strongly support the Thompson-Torricelli amendment. I not only hope, I pray that other Senators will join in sending a strong message to Beijing that its dangerous exports must stop forthwith. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, September 8, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,680,083,623,060.12, Five trillion, six hundred eighty billion, eighty-three million, six hundred twenty-three thousand, sixty dollars and twelve cents. One year ago, September 8, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,656,210,000,000, Five trillion, six hundred fifty-six billion, two hundred ten million. Five years ago, September 8, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,962,704,000,000, Four trillion, nine hundred sixty-two billion, seven hundred four million. Twenty-five years ago, September 8, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $546,875,000,000, Five hundred forty-six billion, eight hundred seventy-five million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,133,208,623,060.12, Five trillion, one hundred thirty- three billion, two hundred eight million, six hundred twenty-three thousand, sixty dollars and twelve cents, during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, September 7, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,680,707,239,455.93, Five trillion, six hundred eighty billion, seven hundred seven million, two hundred thirty-nine thousand, four hundred fifty-five dollars and ninety-three cents. One year ago, September 7, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,654,527,000,000, Five trillion, six hundred fifty-four billion, five hundred twenty-seven million. Five years ago, September 7, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,968,652,000,000, Four trillion, nine hundred sixty-eight billion, six hundred fifty-two million. Ten years ago, September 7, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,236,567,000,000, Three trillion, two hundred thirty-six billion, five hundred sixty-seven million, which reflects an increase of almost $2.5 trillion--$2,444,140,239,455.93, Two trillion, four hundred forty- four billion, one hundred forty million, two hundred thirty-nine thousand, four hundred fifty-five dollars and ninety-three cents, during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. Mr. President, around this place we customarily say in a case such as this that we are ``pleased'' to support an amendment. I am honored to support this amendment, and I am honored to cosponsor it with my friend from Minnesota. In this case, we both have the same conviction about what our Government and our country ought to do before granting permanent normal trade relations to China. I am sure Senator Wellstone has made it clear, but for the purpose of emphasis, this amendment directs the President, if China has indeed met a series of religious freedom conditions, to certify such before granting permanent normal trade relations with China. This amendment really tells China--and, just as importantly, the rest of the world--that we in America still stand for something, something other than profits, something other than whatever benefit may be imagined by the steps the President is trying to take with China. In this case, we are saying we don't believe China should be welcomed into international organizations such as the WTO while China continues to repress, to jail, to murder, and to torture their own citizens simply because those citizens have dared to exercise their faith. Let me quote a passage from the Clinton State Department's own report on religious freedom that was delivered to the Congress of the United States just this past week. This is the State Department: In 1999, the Chinese government's respect for religious freedom deteriorated markedly. The question is, Are we going to stand here today and ignore this, knowing that China abuses, mistreats, and murders its own people? Are we going to ignore the crackdown on Christians that began just last week, during which three Americans-- Americans, let me emphasize--were arrested by the Communist Chinese? Other crimes against religious believers in China abound. In the past couple of years, China has intensified its so-called patriotic reeducation campaign aimed at destroying Tibetan culture and religion. Similar horror stories are taking place in the Muslim northwest where the Chinese Government is smashing, destroying, and stomping anybody who attempts to display any kind of ethnic or true religious identity. It is naive to believe these abuses will be dealt with by the Commission set up by this legislation. I hope I live long enough to see it happen. I will surpass, I believe, I fear, Senator Thurmond in age before that happens or, more precisely, until hell freezes over because it is not going to happen, not in the lifetime of anybody in this Chamber. The example of the recently created Commission on Religious Freedom is very instructive. After dramatically cataloging the barbaric crackdown on religious freedom in China, the Commission recommended-- how do you like them apples?--that permanent normal trade relations not be granted to China at this time. But nobody pays any attention, similar to a train passing in the night. Here we are today, ready to toss all of those findings, all of the things we know are going on, and say we ought to do it. Not with my vote, Mr. President; not with my vote. That is why we must insist that progress on religious freedom precede China's entry into the WTO. That is precisely what this amendment does. I urge its adoption. I commend the Senator from Minnesota for sponsoring it. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, September 6, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,681,881,776,256.37, five trillion, six hundred eighty-one billion, eight hundred eighty-one million, seven hundred seventy-six thousand, two hundred fifty-six dollars and thirty-seven cents. Five years ago, September 6, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,969,749,000,000, four trillion, nine hundred sixty-nine billion, seven hundred forty-nine million. Ten years ago, September 6, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,243,845,000,000, three trillion, two hundred forty-three billion, eight hundred forty-five million. Fifteen years ago, September 6, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,823,101,000,000, one trillion, eight hundred twenty-three billion, one hundred one million, which reflects a debt increase of almost $4 trillion--$3,858,780,776,256.37, three trillion, eight hundred fifty- eight billion, seven hundred eighty million, seven hundred seventy-six thousand, two hundred fifty-six dollars and thirty-seven cents, during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, September 5, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,678,475,470,839.16, five trillion, six hundred seventy-eight billion, four hundred seventy-five million, four hundred seventy thousand, eight hundred thirty-nine dollars and sixteen cents. Five years ago, September 5, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,968,613,000,000, four trillion, nine hundred sixty-eight billion, six hundred thirteen million. Ten years ago, September 5, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,241,866,000,000, three trillion, two hundred forty-one billion, eight hundred sixty-six million. Fifteen years ago, September 5, 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 5, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $545,270,000,000, five hundred forty-five billion, two hundred seventy million which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,133,205,470,839.16, five trillion, one hundred thirty-three billion, two hundred five million, four hundred seventy thousand, eight hundred thirty-nine dollars and sixteen cents during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I say to my distinguished and long-time friend from Delaware that I seldom disagree with him, but this time I do, and it is a doozy. Madam President, the pending bill, H.R. 4444, which proposes to give permanent most-favored-nation trading status to Communist China, is perhaps the most ill-advised piece of legislation to come to the Senate floor in my 28 years as a Senator. As the Senate considers this issue, the ultimate question is an ominous one: Will granting permanent most-favored-nation status to Communist China advance the foreign policy interests of the United States? My genuine conclusion is that by doing so, the United States Senate will be making a mockery of common sense. Now, there is no question that giving permanent most-favored-nation trade status to China may advance the business interests of various sectors of the U.S. corporate community. But the Senate, amidst all the high pressure tactics, must not confuse business interests with the national interest of the American people. America's principal national interest, vis-a-vis mainland China, is to seek to democratize China, hoping that China will conduct its foreign relations in a civilized fashion, and stop behaving in a rogue fashion, as the Chinese Communists have done for the past 50 years. We must dare to ponder the most realistic of questions--for example: Will granting permanent most-favored-nation trade status to Communist China persuade its rulers to retreat from their threats to invade Taiwan if Taiwan does not negotiate reunification with the Communist mainland? Will China all of a sudden cease its relentless military buildup in the Taiwan Strait? Will China halt its brazen land grabs in the Spratly Islands? Will China stop its reckless proliferation of weapons among its fellow criminal regimes around the world? Any Senator answering any such questions in the affirmative should wait around until the Sugar Plum Fairy dances down Lollipop Lane. The fact is, the United States has had normal trade relations with Communist China for the past 20 years. Yet Communist China's behavior has not improved one iota; it has worsened dramatically on every one of these fronts during those two decades of normal trade. Communist China has become more, not less, threatening to Taiwan during the past 20 years. Twenty years ago Communist China was not making incursions across the maritime boundaries of the Philippines, but today it is arrogantly doing so. Two reports delivered to Congress by the CIA this year make crystal clear that China's weapons proliferation continues apace--flatly contradicting testimony by the Clinton State Department in 1999 before the Foreign Relations Committee of which I happen to be chairman. Let's examine further this exotic pig in a poke. As everyone knows--with the possible exception of anybody on a trip to the Moon for the past few years--Communist China dramatically lowered its threshold for using military force against Taiwan in its notorious White Paper this past February. For years, China has assured that it would invade Taiwan only if Taiwan declared independence. That was preposterous on its face--but now, China says it will invade Taiwan if Taiwan merely delays reunification talks with China for too long. That is not progress to me, Mr. President; it is instead clearly dangerous regression in China's policy toward Taiwan. And guess what. It happened just 3 weeks before the President sent this legislation to Capitol Hill. Angry threats against Taiwan have become more frequent and increasingly venomous, both in the Chinese press and from the mouths of Chinese leaders. Recent headlines in Chinese newspapers have talked of smashing Taiwan and drowning Taiwan in a sea of fire. In a March 28 article in the South China Morning Post, Chinese President Jiang Zemin was quoted as saying ``If we were to take military action, it should be sooner rather than later.'' The Chinese have also directed those threats at us. China has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons against American cities if the U.S. comes to Taiwan's defense. As recently as April 11, an article appeared in another Hong Kong paper entitled: ``Nuclear War Will Certainly Break Out If The United States Gets Involved''--that is to say, Taiwan. If that attitude is the fruit of normal trade relations with China, then by all means, it is indeed bitter fruit. Lest anyone think that China is merely engaging in bluster, consider this: the year 2000 will mark the 11th straight year that China's military budget will increase by double digits. What is China doing with all that money? Well, one thing is a pair of Russian destroyers armed with the Sunburn missile, which skims the sea at Mach 2.5--about 2,000 miles per hour--and has an effective range of 65 miles and can carry nuclear warheads. In answer to a question I asked at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing in February, the Secretary of State replied: ``The terminal flight path of the Sunburn makes it very difficult for any U.S. defense system, including Aegis, to track and shoot down the Sunburn.'' China began shopping for this missile just after we sent carriers near Taiwan in 1996; China has spent over $2 billion for two destroyers and at least thirty-two missiles. Madam President, I doubt that the American people will be heartened to know that our $68 billion trade deficit with China helped pay for this latest Chinese threat to American sailors. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Other Chinese weapons purchases (that the American taxpayers are financing through our trade policies) include Russian advanced fighters, air-to-air missiles, and submarines. Most, if not all, of this weaponry is designed for a Taiwan scenario, helping to tip the balance of power in that region further and further away from democratic Taiwan and toward the Communists in Beijing. This is yet another product of our let's trade-at-any-cost policy with China. That is the reason I am here today to speak against this piece of legislation. It may pass, but it will never do it with my vote or my support. Madam President, I earlier mentioned increased Chinese aggression in the Spratly Islands. We must bear in mind that, in 1995, China seized some small islands called Mischief Reef in the South China Sea. Mischief Reef is just 100 miles off the coast of the Philippines and over 1,000 miles from the Chinese mainland. With this brazen land grab having gone unopposed, even verbally, by anyone other than our Philippine allies, China reached out again in late 1998. In October of that year, China began a crash construction project and by January of 1999, had replaced some ramshackle huts on Mischief Reef with permanent structures that have been frequented by Chinese warships and are deemed as dual-use capable by military experts. Twenty years of annual trade favors to China were not enough to ward off these blatant violations of international norms, but I, for one, await with bated breath the day when China withdraws from Mischief Reef because of pressure from the World Trade Organization. Don't hold your breath, Madam President; it's not going to happen. We can also see the absurdity of U.S. policy toward China by taking a look at China's proliferation record. In 1998, President Clinton certified that China could be trusted--let me repeat that. He certified that China could be trusted with our nuclear materials, paving the way for the longstanding desire of some U.S. companies to export nuclear reactors to China. Then, in testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee in March 1999, Assistant Secretary of State Stanley Roth gave China a clean bill of health on proliferation. I am not kidding. That is so. Mr. Roth stated that China had actually become part of the solution to proliferation problems. It didn't take long for Assistant Secretary Roth's testimony to be exposed as--let me find a gentle word--maybe ``incomplete'' is the nicest word I can find. In April 1999, the Washington Times reported that China was continuing its secret transfer of missile and weapons technology to the Middle East and South Asia. A follow-up story in July detailed China's continuing shipments of missile materials to North Korea. These press reports were verified twice this year by none other than the Central Intelligence Agency in its semi-annual proliferation reports to Congress. But I guess we are supposed to believe that more trade will solve that sort of problem. But I am not convinced--not by my distinguished friend from Delaware, not by all of the businessmen who have called on me, not by anybody. In sum, Communist China's foreign policy behavior has become increasingly antithetical to U.S. national interests during the past 20 years of so-called ``normal'' trade relations. It is difficult to see how making the status quo permanent will cause any improvement whatsoever. Of course, the direction of China's foreign policy will hinge largely on whether the Chinese government democratizes and begins to treat its own people better than under the existing Communist regime. All of us know the horror stories of things perpetuated against the Chinese people by their own government. But here again, the record of engagement--or shall I state it more clearly, appeasement--has yielded miserable results. In fact, China was somewhat more inclined toward reform 15 years ago than it is today. In the mid-and-late 1980s, China's leadership at least express some sympathy for reform, and for the students and others who were demanding it. But these reforms were ousted, replaced by hardline Stalinists who massacred the students and began a decade-long campaign of brutal repression. You can't describe it any way otherwise. Senator Wellstone and I will have more to say about human rights in China at a later time, but I believe the U.S. State Department's 1999 Human Rights Report says it all. This is not Jesse Helms. This is the State Department of the United States of America. And the last time I checked it was under the purview of a fellow named Bill Clinton. The State Department said: The Chinese Government's poor human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the past year, as the Government intensified efforts to suppress dissent. Do you want to hear that again? The State Department of the United States said: ``The Chinese Government's poor human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the past year, as the Government''--meaning the Chinese Government-- ``intensified efforts to suppress dissent.'' Many supporters of this legislation, if not most, insist that the way to improve this miserable situation is to reward Communist China with permanent most-favored-nation trade status. Madam President, I find absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support such an assertion. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, with deep respect, I ask unanimous consent to yield first to the distinguished chairman, Mr. Roth.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I know some of the leaders in the business community around the country--particularly those who went to Shanghai last October to clink champagne glasses with China's dictators and help them celebrate the 50th anniversary of Chinese communism--these business leaders are eager for the Senate to deliver to them their year 2000 Holy Grail. It is called permanent normal trade relations with China, and I imagine there is a little bit of champagne flowing after this vote in the Senate. I say to them, just wait a little bit; maybe the American people will speak up a little more loudly than they have thus far. These business leaders would have liked the Senate to take up this legislation right now and have a perfunctory debate with no amendments and just get it over with. They are convinced they are absolutely right, and I am convinced they are not necessarily right. Some of us, in any case, have some news for them: It is not going to happen. I, for one, have just begun to discuss this issue, and there are other Senators who believe just as I do, that the legislation warrants a lengthy and thorough debate about Communist China. We are not going to just debate and make a bunch of speeches before rubber stamping PNTR. We are going to have some votes. I have been working with several Senators on a series of amendments designed to ensure that before the Senate holds its final vote on PNTR, we will have voted on a gamut of issues that confront U.S.-China relations. This is not just a China trade vote, as someone has attempted to cast it. Voting on whether or not to extend permanent normal trade relations to China will send a powerful message to Beijing and the world as to how the United States views the behavior of the Chinese regime. That is why we must have a full debate and votes on issues such as China's pitiful human rights record, China's brutal suppression of religious freedom, China's increasingly belligerent stance toward the democratic Chinese government on Taiwan, and China's unbroken record of violating agreements one after another, among other matters. You can't trust them. I know there are some in this Senate who argue we must not offer any amendments to PNTR because that would send it back to the House and force that other Chamber to vote again on the legislation. Well, la-di- da. I must confess, I find that argument interesting coming from the Democrat side of the aisle. Until recently, Senator after Senator on the opposite side of the aisle was coming down to the floor to fulminate against the majority leader for his efforts to expedite passage of appropriations bills by restricting the number of amendments that Senators can offer. Now all of a sudden, when their party's President has legislation that he wants to be expedited by the Senate, the leadership on the other side has suddenly and miraculously been transformed into champions of speed and efficiency. Let's hope they keep that spirit up when the Senate completes action on the appropriations bills this fall. The fact is, there is simply no argument now for opposing commonsense amendments to PNTR. Before the House vote, supporters of PNTR were concerned that amendments would somehow endanger final passage of the legislation. Everyone thought the House vote would be razor thin and that requiring the House to vote again now, or a little later, would bring final passage into question. But, in point of fact, PNTR passed in the House by quite a comfortable margin. There is simply no reason why the House could not pass it again with certain commonsense amendments inserted on this side of the aisle by the Senate, and that, Mr. President, is our duty. I can imagine only one reason why Senators would oppose such commonsense amendments today. It is nothing but crass partisan politics. There is a desire to prevent House Members from having to vote again on PNTR because they fear such a vote is likely to antagonize some of the labor union forces right before the fall elections. There are those who do not want to remind big labor that even the Democratic Party is doing the bidding of corporate America now. The partisan interests of either political party do not interest me one bit. What interests me is having a full debate and making certain that the Senate does not send a signal to Beijing that we are willing to look the other way at Communist China's belligerence toward Taiwan, Communist China's proliferation to rogue states, and Communist China's brutal abuses against their own people time and time again in pursuit of the almighty dollar. I opposed the motion to proceed, but I must say I have been disturbed by the single-minded rush to get this vote over with. Since February, we have been barraged by Chicken Little pleas to move this legislation, as though the world will come to an end if Congress does not pass this bill this year. In all likelihood, China will not enter the World Trade Organization until next year at the earliest, and China can get PNTR only when China joins the World Trade Organization. So what is the rush? I think I know the reason for that, and it is the most disturbing one to me. It was articulated by the distinguished minority leader who recently admonished the Senate to expedite PNTR because the longer the Senate waits, the greater the chance is that an international incident of some sort could scuttle the legislation. Let's ponder that just a little bit. To what kind of incident could the distinguished minority leader have been referring? Could it be he is concerned that China--you know that supposedly responsible reformist power with which we are trying to do business--might somehow cause an international incident by, say, doing business with somebody or launching an invasion of Taiwan or launching another Tiananmen Square- style crackdown in which they rode that tank over a protester, a crackdown that would live in the minds of a lot of people because it would be carried live by CNN on display for the entire world. They would show what a despicable bunch of thugs with which we are dealing in this matter. It speaks volumes about the depths to which we have sunk when leading supporters of PNTR openly admit that they are desperate to lock in this transaction before our Communist Chinese business partners do something so unspeakable that the American people would resent our trying to do business with them. That is why, if I have anything to do with it, we are not going to rush PNTR through the Senate. We are not going to rubber stamp the President's plan to reward the Chinese Communists. We are going to have a debate. We are going to have votes. And some of us, maybe more than 12 of us, are going to make clear to China's rulers that all Senators do not and will not endorse, let alone condone, their brutality. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to make my comments from my desk seated.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to yield 5 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from Delaware and 1 or 2 minutes, whatever he needs, to the distinguished Senator from New York, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, countless Americans will be pleased to know that the Senate has unanimously approved the Intercountry Adoption Implementation Act to implement the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. This is a treaty that was approved by the Foreign Relations Committee about 3 months ago--in April of this year. Senator Landrieu and I had offered the Intercountry Adoption Implementation Act a year ago, because when this legislation becomes law it will provide, for the first time, a rational structure for intercountry adoption. This significant legislation is intended to build some accountability into agencies that provide intercountry adoption services in the United States while strengthening the hand of the Secretary of State in ensuring that U.S. adoption agencies engage in an ethical manner to find homes for children. Although, the majority of intercountry adoptions are successful, it is also a process that can leave parents and children vulnerable to fraud and abuse. For this reason, under the Intercountry Adoption Implementation Act, agencies will be accredited to provide intercountry adoption. Mandatory standards for accreditation will include ensuring that a child's medical records be available in English to the prospective parents prior their traveling to the foreign country to finalize an adoption. (The act also requires that agencies be transparent, especially in their rate of disrupted adoption and their fee scales.) Moreover, under this act, the definition of orphan has been broadened so that more children can be adopted by U.S. parents. However, in no way is the power of the U.S. Attorney General (who currently has the authority to ensure that all adoptions coming into the United States are authentic) diminished. Lastly, the Intercountry Adoption Implementation Act will provide much-needed protection for U.S. children being adopted abroad by foreigners. Under this act, it will be required that: (1) diligent efforts be made to first place a U.S. child in the United States before looking to place a U.S. child abroad; and (2) criminal background checks be conducted on foreigners wishing to adopt U.S. children. Senator Landrieu and I have worked together on issues of adoption since her arrival in the Senate in 1997. I am genuinely grateful for her leadership on this issue. In addition, I thank Senator Biden, the ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee, for his hard work (and that of his staff) in finalizing the Intercountry Adoption Implementation Act. I likewise extend my gratitude to Senators Gordon Smith and John Ashcroft--both members of the Foreign Relations Committee--and Senators Johnson, Craig, and Lincoln for their cosponsorship of this legislation. Senator Brownback has been as helpful, Mr. President, in making certain that small intercountry adoption agencies will be protected under the implementation of this act. I also thank all Members in the House of Representatives who have worked to enable the passage of this Act; in particular, Ben Gilman, distinguished chairman of the House International Relations Committee; Congressman Sam Gejdenson, the ranking minority member on the House International Relations Committee; Congressmen Dave Camp and William Delahunt; and, last but by no means least, Congressman Richard Burr-- who introduced the original Senate companion bill in the House. From our own family, the former legislative counsel of the Foreign Relations Committee, now counsel for Senate Intelligence, Patricia McNerney; and my righthand lady, Michele DeKonty. Mr. President, The Intercountry Adoption Implementation Act now awaits approval by the House of Representatives. Needless to say, we hope the House will move swiftly toward final passage.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, July 26, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,669,530,258,286.44 (Five trillion, six hundred sixty-nine billion, five hundred thirty million, two hundred fifty-eight thousand, two hundred eighty-six dollars and forty-four cents). One year ago, July 26, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,636,526,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred thirty-six billion, five hundred twenty-six million). Five years ago, July 26, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,941,609,000,000 (Four trillion, nine hundred forty-one billion, six hundred nine million). Ten years ago, July 26, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,164,872,000,000 (Three trillion, one hundred sixty-four billion, eight hundred seventy-two million). Fifteen years ago, July 26, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,798,967,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred ninety-eight billion, nine hundred sixty-seven million) which reflects a debt increase of almost $4 trillion--$3,870,563,258,286.44 (Three trillion, eight hundred seventy billion, five hundred sixty-three million, two hundred fifty-eight thousand, two hundred eighty-six dollars and forty-four cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 6 minutes while Senators and others have an opportunity to meet a distinguished guest, the President of the Philippines, the Honorable Joseph Estrada.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, July 25, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,670,717,940,248.21 (Five trillion, six hundred seventy billion, seven hundred seventeen million, nine hundred forty thousand, two hundred forty-eight dollars and twenty-one cents). Five years ago, July 25, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,940,346,000,000 (Four trillion, nine hundred forty billion, three hundred forty-six million). Ten years ago, July 25, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,161,885,000,000 (Three trillion, one hundred sixty-one billion, eight hundred eighty-five million). Fifteen years ago, July 25, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,798,533,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred ninety-eight billion, five hundred thirty-three million). Twenty-five years ago, July 25, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $535,316,000,000 (Five hundred thirty-five billion, three hundred sixteen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,135,401,940,248.21 (Five trillion, one hundred thirty-five billion, four hundred one million, nine hundred forty thousand, two hundred forty-eight dollars and twenty-one cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it would be helpful to get a clarification for the Record from the manager of H.R. 1167, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I understand that H.R. 1167, the bill to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide for further self-governance by Indian tribes, contains a provision that would allow Indian tribes to purchase prescription drugs from the Federal Supply Schedule for the purpose of providing health services to Indians under contract with the Indian Health Service.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, passage of the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act is a priority for this Administration, but that is not why I support it. I am aware of the calamity inflicted by HIV/AIDS on many Third World countries, particularly in Africa. Children are the hardest hit and they, Mr. President, are the innocent victims of this sexually transmitted disease. In fact, the official estimate of 28 million children orphaned in Africa alone could easily prove to be a low estimate. This is among the reasons why Senator Bill Frist wrote the pending amendment, which is based on S. 2845, with solid advice from and by Franklin Graham, president of Samaritan's Purse and son of Billy and Ruth. That is why I support it. Several items in the pending bill should be carefully noted. First, authorization for appropriations for the World Bank Trust Fund is scaled back from the House proposal of five years to two years. There is no obligation for the U.S. Government to support the trust fund beyond two years. If the trust fund performs as expected, Congress may decide at that time to make additional funds available. However, if the Trust Fund is not transparent, if there is not strict accountability--and if money is squandered on second rate or politicized projects--I intend to do everything in my power to ensure that Congress does not provide another farthing. The pending bill requires that twenty percent of U.S. bilateral funding for HIV/AIDS programs be spent to support orphans in Africa. That could be as much as $60 million. This is one of the provisions on which I insisted, and I wish it could have been an even higher percentage. I suggest that A.I.D. get together with Nyumbani Orphanage in Nairobi, Kenya, Samaritan's Purse, and the other groups working in the field to develop a plan to address the crisis. Finally, I insisted that the lions share of bilateral funding, specifically, 65 percent--or as much as $195 million, be available to faith-based groups and I am gratified that my colleagues have consented to this. At last, it has dawned on Senators that HIV/AIDS legislation and programs designed to address the spread of AIDS are worthless unless they recognize and address seriously the moral and behavioral factors associated with the transmission of the disease. There is only one 100 percent effective way to stop the spread of AIDS, and that, of course, is abstinence and faithfulness to one's spouse. And it is through churches that this message will be effectively promoted and accepted, not through government bureaucracies. It is no exaggeration to say that policymakers refusing to face up to this obvious fact will be culpable in the deaths of millions. Mr. President, approval of this bill will be an important accomplishment, and if its provisions are properly implemented it will save lives. The Foreign Relations Committee will work diligently over the next two years to ensure that the intent of Congress is understood and carried out.