Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the Presiding Officer's statement with respect to PNTR. We will have a vote on that tomorrow. I share many of the Senator's sentiments with respect to the concerns of the American people about PNTR. My constituents, frankly, from the correspondence I have received, are overwhelmingly opposed to it. I also share the concerns he expressed about some of the remaining problems we will continue to face with respect to China, not only continuing trade problems but also problems that relate to our national security. I would like to discuss some of these remaining concerns and how I have attempted to resolve those concerns which is why, at the end of the day, I am going to vote to support PNTR notwithstanding those concerns. But I will continue to urge my colleagues that we be able to address both the continuing trade disputes that will not be resolved by China's accession into the WTO and also the national security concerns that will certainly continue to exist after China's accession into the WTO. Mr. President, as the Senate's debate about whether to grant China permanent normal trade status comes to a close this week, and a lopsided vote in favor of granting such status is anticipated, it is imperative for the United States to continue to address numerous important issues in our country's relationship with China. As I outlined last week, the concerns posed by China's aggressive military modernization, threats by its leaders to attack the United States or our ally Taiwan, and its irresponsible proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles to rogue nations, must command attention and should not be forgotten after passage of this trade bill. I believe the Senate missed an opportunity to address some of these important concerns last week, when an amendment offered by Senator Fred Thompson to impose sanctions on organizations in China that engage in the proliferation of ballistic missiles and nuclear, biological, chemical weapons failed. It is also important to take steps to counter China's military moves that threaten the U.S., such as its targeting of nuclear-tipped missiles on American cities. Here too we missed an opportunity earlier this year, when President Clinton decided to delay deployment of a national missile defense system. With regard to Taiwan, I believe it is important that the United States support our long-standing, democratic ally. The communist regime in Beijing uses every available opportunity to undermine international support for Taiwan, and this extends to trade issues as well. Despite earlier promises to the United States that it would not block Taiwan's admission to the World Trade Organization, in recent weeks, China has nonetheless sought to do just that. I had originally intended to offer an amendment to the PNTR legislation that would have conditioned the extension of normal trade relations to China on Taiwan entry into the WTO, but agreed to withdraw the amendment after receiving assurances from President Clinton and U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky that the U.S. would insist on this result. I will have more to say about these national security concerns, but I would first point out that China's record on trade compliance must be closely monitored, and the United States must insist on action when China fails to comply with the very set of international trade rules it has agreed to adhere to through the WTO. The United States must also be diligent about efforts to pressure China into drastically changing its record on human rights, religious freedom, forced abortions and the harvesting of baby and adult human organs. It is unfortunate that the Senate did not pass a number of other amendments offered or debated last week that sought to deal with these issues. Despite unacceptable behavior by the Chinese government on a range of issues, I intend to vote for PNTR for China, because of other benefits this step will bring. Trade with China has become an increasingly important issue for the United States, due to the expansive growth of its economy, and the desire of American firms to compete in the Chinese market. The United States and China has been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement for twelve years. With the passage of PNTR, and China's subsequent admittance to the WTO, this bilateral trade agreement will take effect. China is the world's fifth largest trading market, and the United States could gain substantially from a lowering of Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods and services. Under the negotiated trade agreement, overall Chinese tariffs on American industrial goods will fall from 24.6 percent today to 9.4 percent by 2005--May 2000 report, ``The U.S. Economy and China's Admission to the WTO, Joint Economic Committee. Arizona, in particular, should benefit. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Arizona exported $243 million in goods and services to China in 1998, up from $67 million in 1993. Of those exports, 58 percent were in electronics and electric equipment; under the trade agreement tariffs on this type of equipment will be reduced from 13 percent to 0 percent at the time of China's accession to the WTO. Over the next five years, tariffs will be significantly reduced on beef, cotton, fruits, and vegetables, all which represent potential export opportunities for Arizona. As tariffs are reduced in China and demand for U.S. goods and services increases there, significant numbers of jobs should be created in the United States, particularly in Arizona. It is also possible, though perhaps not yet probable, that increased trade with the United States could also have a liberalizing effect on China itself, exposing its people to free ideas and making the regime improve its dismal human rights record. PNTR for China, and the subsequent U.S.-China trade agreement, may also increase chances for economic improvements in China. Dismantling state-operated enterprises in favor of private sector investment may produce better, higher-paying jobs for its Chinese citizens. If the United States does not grant PNTR to China and make effective the U.S.-China trade agreement that will benefit U.S. workers and businesses, I am certain other countries will step in and take opportunities away from our U.S. manufacturing and service sectors. As I outlined briefly in the opening of my statement, however, a number of issues will continue to plague the United States' relationship with China. Trade alone does not define our relationship with China, and as I have stated repeatedly, national security and human rights issues must continue to command the attention of the Administration and the elected representatives of the American people in Congress. China poses a special challenge for America, not merely because of its growing economy and increasingly capable military, but because the path of its evolution remains unknown. We need to be realistic in our dealings with China and take steps to defend our security when warranted. Although China has embraced some elements of a free-market economic system, the country is still led by a repressive communist regime that still tries to maintain tight control over its people and their exposure to Western ideas. The Chinese government has also been hostile to the United States in several areas, despite the efforts of the Clinton Administration to ``engage'' its leaders. For example, China has targeted some of its long-range nuclear-tipped missiles on American cities and has threatened to use them if the U.S. came to the aid of Taiwan. As a commentary in the state-owned People's Liberation Army Daily stated in February, ``China is neither Iraq or Yugoslavia, but a very special country . . . it is a country that has certain abilities of launching a strategic counterattack and the capacity of launching a long-distance strike. Probably it is not a wise move to be at war with a country such as China, a point which U.S. policymakers know fairly well also.'' Another editorial published in March of this year in a different state-owned paper was even more blunt, warning that, ``The United States will not sacrifice 200 million Americans for 20 million Taiwanese.'' It is important that the United States takes steps to protect ourselves through the deployment of a national missile defense system. We need to deploy such a system as soon as the technology to do so is ready, and we should pursue sea- and space-based defenses that offer tremendous advantages when combined with the ground-based system currently under development. We also need to send clear signals to China about our intentions behind the deployment of a national missile defense system and our commitment to our long-standing ally Taiwan. For example, I'm disappointed that the Senate did not pass the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act earlier this year. This bill would have increased training for Taiwan's military officers at U.S. military schools, permitted U.S.-flag officers to visit Taiwan, and established a secure communications link between the U.S. and Taiwan militaries. It was a modest piece of legislation that should have been passed to demonstrate our support for Taiwan. Another area where the U.S. needs to stand by Taiwan is in supporting its admission to the WTO. I though it was particularly important to address this specific issue during the Senate's consideration of the China PNTR bill in light of recent moves by China to block Taiwan's admission to the trade group. Taiwan has been negotiating to become a member of the WTO since 1990 and has met the substantive criteria for membership. Furthermore, based on its importance to the world economy, Taiwan should be admitted to the WTO. It has the 19th largest economy and is the 14th largest trading nation in the world. Taiwan's economy is also closely linked to the U.S. It is America's 8th largest trading partner and purchases more American goods than many of our other major trading partners, like mainland China, Australia, and Italy. On several occasions, Chinese officials had assured the United States that China would not block Taiwan's entry to the WTO as a separate entity. According to the Wall Street Journal, earlier this month, however, Chinese President Jiang Zemin told President Clinton and a business group in New York that Taiwan could only be admitted to the WTO as a province of China. This statement by President Jiang was particularly concerning since it came on the heels of other troubling moves by China. On September 7, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Sun Yuxi said that China wanted its claim to sovereignty over Taiwan written into the terms of the WTO's rules, stating, ``The Chinese side has a consistent and clear position: Taiwan can join WTO as a separate customs territory of China.'' Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal reported in July that: . . . as WTO staff members draw up the so-called protocol agreements--the reams of paper that define exactly what concessions China will make in order to gain entry into the organization--China is insisting that its claim over Taiwan be recognized in the legal language . . . chief Chinese negotiator Long Yongtu said . . . such a stand ``is a matter of principle for us'' . . . That would upset a consensus within the WTO that Taiwan should be allowed to enter the club as a separate economic area--that is, not an independent country, but also not as an explicit part of China. Some WTO members have argued that Taiwan has long since fulfilled its requirements to join the club and its application has been held up only to satisfy China's demand that Taiwan shouldn't win entry to the organization first. In order to help ensure that China lived up to its promises to the United States, and that Taiwan's entry to the WTO was not unnecessarily impeded, I filed an amendment to H.R. 4444, the bill we are currently debating. The text of H.R. 4444 stated that the extension of permanent normal trade relations to China ``shall become effective no earlier than the effective date of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization.'' My amendment would have added one additional condition, stating that permanent normal trade relations with China ``shall become effective no earlier than the effective date of the accession of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan as separate customs territories to the World Trade Organization.'' Late last week, I agreed not to offer this amendment because of the strong assurances I received from President Clinton and U.S. Trade Representative Barshefsky that the United States would insist on Taiwan's entry to the WTO as a separate entity. As the President said in a letter dated September 12: There should be no question that my Administration is firmly committed to Taiwan's accession to the WTO, a point I reiterated in my September 8 meeting with [Chinese] President Jiang Zemin . . . Taiwan will join the WTO under the language agreed to in 1992, namely as the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (referred to as ``Chinese Taipei''). The United States will not accept any other outcome. Based on this strong, written assurance from the President of the United States and others provided privately by Ambassador Barshefsky, I decided not to formally offer my amendment for a vote. It is important that Congress and the Administration stand together in insisting that China live up to its promises and in showing support for Taiwan. In this instance, I am pleased we could work together toward that end. Finally, I want to discuss an area where I believe the Senate missed an opportunity to address serious concerns about China's proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction--our failure to adopt the Thompson amendment. Over the past decade, China has been the world's worst proliferator of the technology used to develop and produce nuclear and chemical weapons and ballistic missiles, narrowly edging Russia and North Korea for this dubious distinction. Beijing has sold ballistic missile technology to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan. It has sold nuclear technology to Iran and Pakistan. And it has aided Iran's chemical weapons program and sold that nation advanced cruise missiles. Chinese assistance has been vital to the missile and weapons of mass destruction programs in these countries. And because of this assistance, the American people and our forces and friends abroad face a much greater threat. Sadly, the efforts of the Clinton Administration to end Beijing's proliferation have not succeeded. Since taking office in 1993, the Administration has engaged in numerous discussions with senior Chinese officials concerning their failure to live up to international nonproliferation norms. But it has failed to impose sanctions on Chinese organizations and government entities, as required by several U.S. laws. Time and time again, the Clinton Administration has either refused to follow laws requiring sanctions or has done so in a way deliberately calculated to undermine the intent of the sanctions. For example, the Administration has not imposed the required sanctions on China for the sale of M-11 missiles to Pakistan. Despite the unanimous judgment of our intelligence agencies that this sale has taken and incriminating evidence such as photographs of M-11 missile canisters in Pakistan and training exercises by Pakistani troops with the missile, the Administration has said the evidence was not strong enough for it to impose sanctions, since it can not be sure the missile transfer actually took place. Another example of the Administration's failure to act concerns the transfer of anti-ship cruise missiles from China to Iran. I would remind my colleagues of one example of this danger; in 1987, a similar Exocet cruise missile killed 37 sailors on the U.S.S. Stark. Iran's possession of this missile was first disclosed in January 1996 by Vice Admiral Scott Redd, then-commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Admiral Redd said the C-802 gave the Iranian military increased firepower and represented a new dimension to the threat faced by the U.S. Navy, stating, ``It used to be we just had to worry about land- based cruise missiles. Now they have the potential to have that throughout the Gulf mounted on ships.'' According to the Washington Times, in 1995, Defense Department officials recommended declaring that China had violated the Gore-McCain Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992, which requires sanctions for the transfer to either country of ``. . . destabilizing numbers and types and advanced conventional weapons . . .'' Yet State Department officials opposed involving sanctions to avoid damaging relations with China. In his Senate testimony in 1997, Assistant Secretary of State Einhorn acknowledged the transaction, stating, ``. . . the question of whether china transferred the C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran is not in doubt.'' He noted that, ``Such missiles increase China's maritime advantage over other Gulf states, they put commercial shipping at risk, and they pose a new threat to U.S. forces operating in the region.'' But Mr. Einhorn maintained that the transfer was not ``destabilizing'' and thus did not meet the legal requirement for sanctions to be imposed. In September 1997, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Stanley Roth further explained the Administration's position, claiming the C-802 sale ``. . . does not have to be destabilizing if you define it as overturning the ability of the United States to operate in the Persian Gulf. It hasn't done that.'' Mr. Roth added, ``. . . the U.S. Navy tells us that despite the increased threat from the sale of cruise missiles, it can continue to operate and carry out its mission to the Persian Gulf. And so even though [the Navy] is exceedingly unhappy with this new development, it is not, on the face of it, destabilizing at the point.'' Such thinking illustrates how the Clinton Administration has refused to implement nonproliferation laws. If the arrival of weapons which directly threaten the U.S. Navy is not ``destabilizing,'' it is hard to imagine what the Administration might find sufficiently destabilizing for sanctions under the Gore-McCain Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act. The Senate has specifically addressed the issue of Chinese cruise missile sales. In June 1997, we passed an amendment offered by Senator Bennett by a vote of 96 to 0, stating: ``The delivery of cruise missiles to Iran is a violation of the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992. It is the sense of the Senate to urge the Clinton Administration to enforce the provisions of the [Act] with respect to the acquisition by Iran of C-802 model cruise missiles.'' Despite this unanimous expression by the Senate of the need to enforce the law, the Administration has refused to take action in this case. There are many more examples of Chinese proliferation and the Administration's failure to enforce current laws in this area that provide the rationale for the Thompson amendment. In the interest of time, I will not describe them all, but will simply make the point that the Thompson amendment would have helped to combat this deadly trade by making it clear to China that it would have faced economic penalties from the U.S. if it continued to proliferate. Mr. President, I would just say in conclusion that trade with China is important, and I intend to vote for the PNTR bill. But I believe it is imperative that we not forget these important national security issues once the debate on PNTR is completed. The challenge before us is to deal with China in a way that protects America's national security, promotes free trade, demonstrates our support for our democratic ally Taiwan, and improves human rights in China. This is a tough job, but one that I am sure all Senators agree is too important to ignore.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I presumed I would be using time on the majority. I inquire of the Chair, am I correct that Senator Feingold was to speak at 4 o'clock and prior to that time there would be time I could use on this side?

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the point is that we are going to be considering PNTR for China, which will enable China to join the World Trade Organization within the week, and presumably that will be done in accordance with the bill passed by the House of Representatives. It is important that we ensure the other party to this equation is taken care of because there don't appear to be any more roadblocks to the Senate's consideration of PNTR and China's entry into the body from a legislative perspective. But there could have been. It is also important that Taiwan enter into the WTO. I believe virtually every Senator and every Member of the other body is committed to that. I know the administration is committed to that. But there could have been a roadblock to China's PNTR and WTO accession had we not clarified something with respect to Taiwan. It has been agreed since 1993 that Taiwan would enter the WTO. It has been virtually ready to do so. But out of deference to China and to ensure China could enter first and then Taiwan second, Taiwan's entry has been delayed. But we believe neither China nor anyone else in the world would object to Taiwan's entry into the WTO, and indeed the working group that deals with the specifics of Taiwan's entry I think is in very good shape. There has been a commitment by the administration to ensure that when the Senate and the House have approved PNTR for China, the United States can therefore move forward with China's accession and that we do so with respect to Taiwan as well. Unfortunately, however, since the House acted, there has been an unfortunate string of comments made by high Chinese officials that have cast some doubt on whether or not China would make good on its commitment to support Taiwan's accession into the WTO. While the leaders of China had said they would support Taiwan's entry, they said it must be under terms provided by China. Specifically, that meant it had to be Taiwan entering the WTO as a province of China. That, of course, is contrary to the agreement that heretofore had been worked out, contrary to all the wishes of the members of the working study group and the United States, and of course Taiwan. The administration has taken a firm position that they will not support that kind of language; that Taiwan must come in as a separate customs territory or separate trading territory and not as a province of China. This has been enough of a matter of concern--these statements made by Chinese leaders--that we sought assurances from the administration and had meetings with administration officials to clarify. Specifically, a group of Senators met with Charlene Barshefsky to inquire about the status of the matter, particularly since Jiang Zemin is quoted as having made statements in New York a few days ago that China would only agree to Taiwan's entry under this term expressing Taiwan as a province of China. I will have printed in the Record some items. One is a Wall Street Journal lead editorial from yesterday in which the Wall Street Journal notes: Addressing a business group during his visit to New York for the United Nations summit, Mr. Jiang said of course Taiwan could join the WTO, but only as part of China. The editorial goes on to note that is unacceptable to the United States, and that the Senate needed to act with respect thereto. Ms. Barshefsky confirmed that President Clinton told Jiang that Taiwan would have to come in under the terms originally negotiated, not as a province of China. Jiang responded with the Chinese position, and the President then responded with the U.S. position again. The controversy, in other words, was not put to bed. Earlier, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Yuxi is reported to have said: The Chinese side has a consistent and clear position. Taiwan can join WTO as a separate customs territory of China. These comments, of course, are of concern to us. The House has already acted to approve PNTR, but you now have high Chinese officials saying Taiwan's accession must be as a province to China, contrary to the position of the working group, of the United States, of Taiwan. As a result, we thought something had to be done to clarify this. Some time ago, a group of 40 Senators had written to the President and asked for his assurances that he would support Taiwan's entry into the WTO simultaneous with that of mainland China. In a letter to me and to other Senators, dated August 31, the President said: China has made clear. . . that it will not oppose Taiwan's accession to the World Trade Organization. Nevertheless, China did submit proposed language to their working party stating Taiwan is a separate customs territory of China. We have advised the Chinese that such language is inappropriate and irrelevant to the work of the working party and that we will not accept it. We believe that this position is widely shared by other WTO members. When we met with Ms. Barshefsky yesterday, we noted other statements have been made and clearly some action needed to be taken by the United States to make it crystal clear that we would not approve PNTR with this issue outstanding. I prepared an amendment and filed it with the clerk. I have not offered it yet, but that amendment would have made it very clear our approval of PNTR was subject to Taiwan acceding to WTO membership under the original terms negotiated--not as a separate province of China. The administration strongly opposes any amendments being attached to PNTR because of its concern that the House of Representatives would not, a second time, pass the legislation, and, as a result, inquired whether other kinds of assurances would suffice in lieu of action by the Senate on this matter. We indicated our purpose was not to try to derail the PNTR but rather to have an assurance that the administration would insist upon the entry of Taiwan under the original terms and that it would not allow entry by China and not entry by Taiwan in the appropriate way. A day later, yesterday, the President sent a letter to the majority leader, with copies to those who had been in the meeting, dated September 12, in which the President advises the leader on two matters pending. One was the Thompson amendment dealt with earlier today, but the other was the matter that we discussed, and as I understand it, this was explicitly inserted in the letter to provide the assurance that we had requested the day before. Let me quote from the President, indicate what I think this means, why it is important, and why as a result it will not be necessary to proceed with the amendment which I filed earlier. The President says: There should be no question that my Administration is firmly committed to Taiwan's accession to the WTO, a point I reiterated in my September 8 meeting with President Jiang Zemin. Based on our New York discussions with the Chinese, I am confident we have a common understanding that both China and Taiwan will be invited to accede to the WTO at the same WTO General Council session, and that Taiwan will join the WTO under the language agreed to in 1992, namely as the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (referred to as ``Chinese Taipei''). The United States will not accept any other outcome. That is important because the President of the United States has defined exactly the appropriate language for Taiwan's accession to WTO as a separate customs territory of Taiwan, not as the Chinese had been insisting, as a province of China. And the President notes, and I again quote the last sentence: ``The United States will not accept any other outcome.'' I can't think of a clearer statement by the President of the United States that we will insist upon Taiwan's accession under appropriate terms--those specifically identified here--and, at the same time, that China is admitted to the WTO. In my view, this provides the necessary assurance that the President, those working on his behalf, will see to it that this is done in a proper way. As a result, it seems to me unnecessary to pursue the amendment which I had earlier filed. As a result, I spoke with Senator Murkowski, Senator Helms, Senator Sessions, Senator Roth, and others who I thought were interested in the issue. They have all concurred that this language is sufficient, and as a result I will not be offering the amendment. I applaud the President's action in this regard. I appreciate the action of Ms. Barshefsky and her counsel, and certainly reiterate my intention of working with the administration on this important matter. Of course, Taiwan represents an extraordinarily important trading partner for the United States and a very good ally, an ally of which we need to continue to be supportive. I will identify specifically the documents I will have printed in the Record at this time. First, a letter to me from the President of the United States dated August 31; second, a letter to the majority leader from the President of the United States dated September 12; third, a Wall Street Journal editorial dated September 12; fourth, a letter a group of Senators had sent to the President initially dated July 27, 2000; and finally, a copy of an AP story I quoted from earlier, the headline of which is ``China Asserts Claim Over Taiwan,'' dated September 7, 2000. I ask unanimous consent to have these documents printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from California. To return the debate to the Thompson amendment, the question before us immediately is not whether PNTR should be granted but whether the Thompson amendment dealing with national security issues should be supported. PNTR is going to pass this body early next week. The question is whether at about 1:45 p.m. or so this body will table the Thompson amendment. The Thompson amendment would set up a regime that would help stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China. In the past, each year we have been able to review the Chinese trade, national security, and even human rights issues, and because we had an annual review, we were able to deal with those issues in this body, as well as from a diplomatic point of view the administration's dealings with China. PNTR will remove that annual review, the requirement that we affirmatively act each year. It will allow China then to join the WTO, and that is fine as a matter of trade. But we have to have some parallel way of ensuring from a national security standpoint that China stops the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Thompson amendment sets up a process whereby the Chinese actions are reviewed and the President can impose sanctions, if it is appropriate, but if he does not impose sanctions in those circumstances--he does have a waiver authority--he is required to report to Congress why not. There is nothing unreasonable about this particular proposition. Yesterday I talked at length about the reasons for it. I will mention two: The proliferation of M-11 missiles by China to Pakistan, for example, which has not resulted in appropriate sanctions by the United States and, more recently, the transfer of sea-based cruise missiles to Iran. We remember what happened to the Stark, the U.S. destroyer in the Persian Gulf, when several Americans lost their lives as a result of a sea-based cruise missile. The question here is particularly interesting because the Senate voted 96-0 that the Chinese actions in supplying these cruise missiles to Iran was a violation of the Gore-McCain Iran- Iraq Nonproliferation Act. In other words, China is not supposed to send this kind of weapon to countries such as Iran. The Senate has been on record unanimously that it was a violation of the act. The administration has done nothing to impose sanctions or otherwise act to stop China from that kind of proliferation. That is why the Thompson amendment is necessary. Trade, in other words, cannot be the only thing that defines the relationship between the United States and China. The Senate has to balance other things than trade, including our national security obligations. It has been said that we cannot support the Thompson amendment, not because it is not a good idea but because if there is any change to this bill in the Senate, if it goes back to the House of Representatives, they will not pass it. One of two things is true: Either there is support for PNTR and the House of Representatives will quickly act on the Thompson amendment, and, in fact, if the two are joined and sent to the House, as I was advised yesterday, support would fall off in the House to the point where there are 40 people over there who no longer support PNTR and would not vote for the bill. Obviously, it would be an anti-democratic action for us to proceed with something that no longer enjoys a majority support in the House of Representatives. I cannot believe that many people would switch their vote on PNTR. They still, of course, can vote against the Thompson amendment if we send it over to them. The fact is, we have 5 weeks to go. The House of Representatives has plenty of time to deal with this issue. They are committed to PNTR, as I know the leadership of the Senate is. I cannot believe amending the bill with the Thompson amendment would destroy PNTR. Remember, too, that it is the opponents of the Thompson amendment who forced Senator Thompson into using this vehicle of amending PNTR as the only way to achieve his goal of establishing a nonproliferation regime with respect to China. He offered to do it in freestanding legislation. He was rebuffed. He offered to do it after the debate. He was rebuffed. In effect, they knew they had the best chance of defeating him if they could force him to offer an amendment to PNTR because then they could argue they were all for it in substance, but they did not dare let it pass as a procedural matter because the House then would have to deal again with PNTR. I think this is the most cynical of strategies. I wish the issue had not come up in this way. I urge my colleagues at the appropriate time, in about 45 minutes, not to table the Thompson amendment. Give Senator Thompson an up-or-down vote on his amendment. It is the fair thing to do. It is the right thing to do and, from the standpoint of the responsibilities of all of us in this Chamber as Senators who have responsibility both for trade and for national security, the Thompson amendment is the right thing to support. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. If I may take the majority time, I don't need unanimous consent.

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have what I think is pretty good news for my colleagues in the Senate and for the administration which I would like to share and which relates directly to the legislation pending before us. I believe that by this time next week, the Senate----

Mr. KYL. In conclusion, as I said in the beginning, I think this is good news for the Senate, for the House, for the administration, and for all friends of Taiwan and for those who believe both in permanent normal trade relations with China, as well as the entry into WTO of both China and Taiwan; certainly Taiwan entering in terms that are appropriate as a trading partner of the United States, as a separate customs territory and not as a province of China. This is good news. I hope it portends an early conclusion to the discussions that will form the basis for accession by both China and Taiwan into WTO. I appreciate the cooperation, as I said, of my colleagues here as well as the representatives of the President and the President himself.

Mr. KYL. I yield.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I will be supporting the Thompson amendment and will explain why in a moment. But before the Senator from Montana leaves the floor, let me say that I am astonished that the Senator from Montana and others in his position have so little confidence in the underlying provision here that their view is that any amendment--the words of the Senator from Montana, ``any amendment''--would have to be opposed because it would jeopardize the passage of PNTR for China. I find that to be astounding. This passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming vote, by over 40 votes. It is supported very strongly by the Clinton-Gore administration. It is supported by the leadership, the minority and majority in both Houses. I am certain it will pass the Senate when it comes to a vote. Given that, it seems to me quite strange, indeed, that any amendment that the Senate puts on this legislation will doom it to failure. Even amendments that arise from circumstances which occur after the House acted, I ask? For example, the representatives of the People's Republic of China, in their twice weekly briefings, have recently begun to insist on a condition to China's support for Taiwan's entry into the WTO. Taiwan, they say, must be admitted as a province of China rather than a separate customs territory, which is the way it has been negotiated among all of the countries involved. The wording is to the effect ``separate customs territory, China, Taipai'' I believe is the way it reads. Then there is the separate customs territory, Matsu, and I think two others. Why is this important? It is a fact that has arisen after the House of Representatives acted. I am certain that everybody who voted for PNTR for China in the House of Representatives and everyone who supports it in the Senate, and I know the Clinton-Gore administration, all support the entry of Taiwan into the WTO as a separate customs territory. We do not support--President Clinton has sent me a letter confirming that he does not support--China's effort to redefine the circumstances under which Taiwan will enter into the WTO as the definition that China wants to make the political point that it believes Taiwan is strictly a province of China. So this is a new fact. Now, are we to ignore this? Here China is asking us to grant them entry into WTO, and we are willing to do that. And China is saying: By the way, you are only going to get Taiwan's entry into WTO as we will define it, not as you all have already negotiated it. The President of the United States and his Trade Representative, Ms. Barshefsky, have said no to the representatives of China, that is not correct. We will not go along with Taiwan's entry in that way. The Chinese continue to insist upon it. Are we, the Senate, to ignore that development? Are we nothing but ciphers here to simply rubber stamp whatever the House of Representatives does? I don't think so. We have a constitutional responsibility, and to absolutely ignore it--in fact, to reject that responsibility, as Members of this body are apparently willing to do all in the name of getting this passed exactly as the House of Representatives did it, is to abdicate our responsibility. I think that is wrong. As my colleagues know, the bill we are debating would grant permanent trade status to China. It is eventually going to pass and become law. Trade with China is an important issue, primarily due to the expansive nature of that country's economy and the desire of U.S. firms to participate in that economy. Trade alone doesn't define our relationship with China, as the present Presiding Officer made clear earlier, and as Senator Thompson made crystal clear in presenting his amendment. There are other troubling aspects to this, such as China's transfer of technology used to make ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that I don't think can be ignored. I am very pleased, therefore, that Senator Thompson has brought this amendment to the floor and that we are now debating it. I, too, would have preferred that it come up in a different context so that we could not have the argument raised against it--not on the merits, but for political reasons you don't dare support the Thompson amendment; otherwise, the bill will have to go back to the House of Representatives, and who knows what will happen. It might not pass. We would not be subjected to that argument if he could have raised the amendment as a freestanding bill. The supporters of PNTR would not permit him to bring it up as a freestanding bill. They knew they would have a better chance to defeat this if he had to propose it as an amendment to PNTR. But then they complain he is presenting it as an amendment to PNTR. That is not an appropriate substantive position, it seems to me. It is clever from a parliamentary point of view, but I don't think it allows Senator Thompson to present the issue in the most dispassionate, objective, and appropriate way. We are now being relegated to the position that if this amendment passes, then PNTR is in jeopardy. Nobody wants that argument to be raised against them. Let me make arguments which I think are on the merits. The Thompson amendment is meant to combat China's irresponsible trade in the sensitive technologies that I mentioned. In response to concerns expressed by the administration, the amendment has been revised to also cover the proliferation behavior of other countries, such as Russia, North Korea, and any other country that engages in this irresponsible behavior. As a cosponsor, as I said, even though my comments will focus on cases of Chinese proliferation, as Senator Thompson has done, I also note that the administration's track record in responding to Russia and North Korea and their proliferation is, frankly, similar to the response with respect to China. I will comment about the proliferation. Senator Thompson made this point earlier, and I will raise a couple of new points. It is very clear that over the past decade China has been the world's worst proliferator of the technology used to develop and produce nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missiles, narrowly edging Russia and North Korea for this dubious distinction. Beijing has sold ballistic missile technology to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan, at least. It has sold nuclear technology to Iran and Pakistan. It has aided Iran's chemical weapons program and sold that nation advanced cruise missiles. China's assistance has been vital to the weapons of mass destruction program in these countries. It is not a trivial matter. Because of that assistance, the American people, our forces, and our friends abroad face a much greater threat. That is what this boils down to. We want trade with China, but we also want to ensure that China doesn't endanger the American people and our allies and forces deployed abroad by their proliferation of these weapons of mass destruction. Sadly, the efforts of the Clinton administration to end Beijing's proliferation have not succeeded. Since taking office in 1993, the administration has engaged in numerous discussions with Chinese officials concerning their failure to live up to international nonproliferation norms. But it has failed to impose sanctions on Chinese organizations and Government entities, as required by several U.S. laws. Time and time again, the Clinton administration has either refused to follow the laws requiring sanctions, or has done so in a way deliberately calculated to undermine the intent of the sanctions. To understand the need for the Thompson amendment, it is instructive to examine a few of the cases of Chinese proliferation and the administration's response. First, the transfer of the M-11 missiles to Pakistan. Since taking office, the Clinton administration has been faced with the issue of China's transfer of M-11 missiles and production technology to Pakistan. The M-11 is a modern, solid-fuel surface-to-surface missile that is more accurate, mobile, and easier to fire than the Scuds that were used in Iraq during the gulf war. For the past 7 years, the administration has ignored mounting evidence in this case and has either failed to impose sanctions altogether or has taken steps to limit their effect. One month prior to President Clinton's inauguration, the Los Angeles Times reported that China had delivered about two dozen M-11s to Pakistan, breaking its pledge to the United States to abide by the Missile Technology Control Regime, the MTCR. The MTCR is a voluntary arrangement under which the 32 member nations agree to restrict exports of ballistic missiles capable of carrying a payload of at least 500 kilograms to a range of 300 kilometers, as well as key missile components and technology to nonmembers of the regime. While the MTCR does not have an enforcement provision, U.S. law requires sanctions to be imposed on nations that transfer technology regulated by this agreement. There are two categories. Category I of the MTCR covers transfers of complete missile systems, such as missile stages and some production equipment. Category II regulates transfers of specific missile components and dual-use goods used to produce missiles. In August of 1993, the Clinton administration imposed sanctions on Pakistan's Ministry of Defense and 11 Chinese defense and aerospace entities for violations of category II of the MTCR. Shortly after the imposition of the sanctions, the Washington Times quoted State Department and intelligence sources as saying that despite ``. . . overwhelming intelligence evidence that China in November of 1992 shipped Pakistan key components of its M-11 missile''--an MTCR category I violation--Secretary of State Warren Christopher decided China had only committed a category II violation and imposed the mildest form of sanctions possible. Under Secretary of State Lynn Davis defended the decision, saying the U.S. did not have conclusive evidence Pakistan had received complete M-11s. In October 1994, the Clinton administration waived these sanctions in return for another Chinese promise not to export ``ground-to-ground missiles'' covered by the MTCR, and for China's reaffirmation to the ``guidelines and parameters'' of the MTCR. Since the waiver, despite a steady stream of press reports, congressional testimony, and unclassified reports by the intelligence community that have described China's continued missile assistance to Pakistan, the Clinton administration has not imposed sanctions as required by law. For example, in 1995, the Washington Post reported that satellite reconnaissance photos, intercepted communications, and human intelligence reports indicated Pakistan had indeed acquired M-11s. The M-11s were reportedly stored at Pakistan's Sargodha Air Force Base where the Pakistani military has constructed storage facilities for the missiles and mobile launchers, as well as related maintenance facilities and housing for the launch crews. Soldiers have reportedly been sighted practicing launches with advice from visiting Chinese experts. The Washington Post also reported in June of 1996 that all U.S. intelligence agencies believe with ``high confidence'' that Pakistan has obtained M-11 missiles and that Islamabad had probably finished developing nuclear warheads for them. An August 1996 article in that newspaper further disclosed that a national intelligence estimate, which represents the consensus judgments of U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded Pakistan was capable of an M-11 launch within 48 hours. It also confirmed Pakistan was constructing a factory to produce M-11s from Chinese-supplied blueprints and equipment. In addition, an unclassified National Intelligence Estimate titled Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015 published in September 1999, states, ``Pakistan has Chinese-supplied M-11 short-range ballistic missiles.'' And lest anyone believe Chinese missile assistance to Pakistan has ceased, on July 2nd of this year, the New York Times reported that ``China [has] stepped up the shipment of specialty steels, guidance systems and technical expertise to Pakistan * * * Chinese experts have also been sighted around Pakistan's newest missile factory, which appears to be partly based on a Chinese design, and shipments to Pakistan have been continued over the past 8 to 18 months. * * *'' According to the Washington Times, evidence of the M-11 sale also includes photographs of missile canisters in Pakistan and electronic intercepts regarding payments by Pakistan to China for the missiles. Yet despite this evidence, the administration has not imposed the sanctions required under U.S. law. As Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation Robert Einhorn said in Senate testimony in 1997, sanctions have not been invoked on China for the sale of M-11's to Pakistan ``* * * because our level of confidence is not sufficient to take a decision that has very far- reaching consequences.'' But the administration appears to have purposely set a standard of evidence so high that it is unattainable. As Gary Milhollin, Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, testified to the Senate in 1997, ``I think the State Department just continues to raise the level over which you have to jump higher and higher as the evidence comes in so that sanctions will never have to be applied and the engagement policy can simply be continued. The effect is to really nullify the act of Congress that imposes sanctions, because unless the State Department is willing to go forward in good faith and complete the administrative process, then the law cannot take any effect.'' Another area where the administration has not lived up to its legal obligations concerns the sale of advanced Chinese C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran. These missiles pose a grave threat to U.S. forces operating in the crowded Persian Gulf. I would remind my colleagues of one example of this danger; in 1987, a similar Exocet cruise missile killed 37 sailors on the U.S.S. Stark. Of course, parenthetically, when these events occur, everyone in the Congress and all of the pundits and a lot of American people say: Who are the people in charge? What are they doing? When did they know? What did they know? Why aren't they doing something to protect our soldiers and sailors and our folks deployed abroad? Why aren't they doing something? The next time Americans are killed by a missile, the technology for which came from China, I am going to answer that question. I am going to say I stood on the floor of the Senate when we were debating PNTR and begged all of you to support an amendment which would at least allow us to impose sanctions on China when it engages in proliferation, and you wouldn't. No, no. PNTR with China is far more important than protecting American sailors or American soldiers or American citizens abroad. God forbid that time should come. I will be here again reminding my colleagues of what they are failing to do today to protect against the threat which probably will have an adverse impact on America in the future. Continuing on about the Iranian issue, it is very interesting. Iran's possession of this missile was first disclosed in January 1996 by Vice Admiral Scott Redd, then-commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Admiral Redd said the C-802 gave the Iranian military increased firepower and represented a new dimension to the threat faced by the U.S. Navy, stating, ``It used to be we just had to worry about land- based cruise missiles. Now they have the potential to have that throughout the Gulf mounted on ships.'' In addition, Secretary of Defense Cohen has said that Iran has tested an air-launched version of the anti-ship cruise missile. According to the Washington Times, in 1995, Defense Department officials recommended declaring that China had violated the Gore-McCain Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992, which requires sanctions for the transfer to either country of ``. . . destabilizing numbers and types of advanced conventional weapons. . . .'' Yet State Department officials opposed invoking sanctions to avoid damaging relations with China. In his Senate testimony in 1997, Assistant Secretary of State Einhorn acknowledged the transaction, stating, ``. . . the question of whether China transferred the C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran is not in doubt.'' He noted that ``Such missiles increase China's maritime advantage over other Gulf states, they put commercial shipping at risk, and they pose a new threat to U.S. forces operating in the region.'' But Mr. Einhorn maintained that the transfer was not ``destabilizing'' and thus did not meet the legal requirement for sanctions to be imposed. Such thinking illustrates how the Clinton administration has refused to implement nonproliferation laws. If the arrival of weapons which directly threaten the U.S. Navy is not ``destabilizing,'' it is hard to imagine what the administration might find sufficiently destabilizing for sanctions under the Gore-McCain Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act. The Senate has specifically addressed the issue of Chinese cruise missile sales. In June 1997, we passed an amendment offered by Senator Bennett by a vote of 96 to 0, stating: ``The delivery of cruise missiles to Iran is a violation of the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992. It is the sense of the Senate to urge the Clinton administration to enforce the provisions of the [Act] with respect to the acquisition by Iran of C-802 model cruise missiles.'' Despite this unanimous expression by the Senate of the need to enforce the law, the administration has refused to take action in this case. I note, parenthetically, that is the reason Senator Thompson is forced to come to the floor and offer this amendment. Time after time after time, we have said to the administration: Enforce the law that exists--the act I just spoke of, and others--and it won't be necessary to take action such as this. But when, time after time, existing laws are ignored or are enforced in ways that undercut their intent, eventually, if you are serious about the defense of the United States, you have to take action. That is what has forced Senator Thompson to bring this issue to a head now at the moment when we are considering PNTR for China. There have been several instances of Chinese proliferation where the administration has not invoked sanctions as required by law. According to press reports, China has sold Iran ballistic missile guidance components, test equipment, computerized machine tools used to manufacture missiles, and telemetry equipment which sends and collects missile guidance data during flight tests. Earlier this year, the Washington Times disclosed that China is assisting Libya's missile program. According to the Times, China's premier training center for missile scientists and technicians is training Libyan missile specialists; the director of Libya's Al-Fatah missile program was planning to visit China; and Beijing is building a hypersonic wind tunnel in Libya used to design rockets and simulate missile flight. China has reportedly supplied missile guidance components and specialty steel to North Korea. This January, the CIA's semi-annual report to Congress on the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction indicated that China has aided Syria's liquid-fuel ballistic missile program. And yet despite this evidence, the Clinton administration has not completed the necessary findings and imposed sanctions as required by law in any of these cases. On rare occasions, the Clinton administration has obeyed sanctions requirements in laws, but only symbolically, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the action. For example, in May 1997, it sanctioned two Chinese companies, five Chinese executives, and a Hong Kong firm for knowingly assisting Iran's chemical weapons program. The companies and executives were banned from trading with the United States for one year, pursuant to the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991. Because the sanctions were not applied to the Chinese government, but only to a handful of Chinese individuals and companies, while they met the bare requirements of the law their impact was minimal. As the Washington Post reported ``The sanctions announced yesterday will have minimal economic effect on China, officials said, because they are aimed at individuals and companies that do little business with this country.'' Secretary of State Albright defended the administration's decision not to sanction the Chinese government, stating that the United States had ``. . . no evidence that the Chinese government was involved'' in the chemical sales to Iran. But other administration officials acknowledge that the U.S. has raised concerns about chemical weapons- related sales to Iran with Beijing on numerous occasions. China's government may or may not have approved the sales, but government officials in Beijing clearly knew of the transfers, if only because of the concerns expressed by U.S. officials. We should not allow China's Government to take a ``see no evil, hear no evil'' approach to proliferation. Finally, let me point out when the Clinton administration has levied modest sanctions, they have had some success in curbing Chinese proliferation. While the China's nuclear proliferation behavior seems to have improved in response to U.S. sanctions, it has not been trouble free. Some nuclear assistance to Pakistan may be continuing. The CIA report from January 21 also states that our intelligence agencies cannot preclude ongoing contacts between Chinese and Pakistani nuclear organizations. In addition, in May of this year, the Washington Times disclosed that sales of U.S. nuclear reactors to China have been held up because China has refused to provide the necessary assurances that it will not re-export U.S. nuclear technology to other countries. The administration has correctly refused to approve 16 export licenses from American firms until China provides these assurances. My point in discussing China's response to even mild sanctions imposed by the U.S. in these particular cases is to illustrate that economic sanctions have altered China's proliferation behavior in the past. They can do so in the future, if we are serious. I am not satisfied that even in this particular area the Clinton administration has lived up to the requirements of the law. The 1994 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act requires additional sanctions beyond the suspension of Export-Import Bank loans by the Clinton administration in the ring magnet case. I referred to Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation Robert Einhorn, who explained in Senate testimony that the administration avoided this legal requirement by claiming that it lacked proof that China's senior most leaders had approved the ring magnet sale and that the transaction, therefore, did not constitute ``a willful aiding or abetting of Pakistan's unsafeguarded nuclear program by the Government of China.'' This is a flawed argument, of course, because the Chinese company involved, the China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation, is owned by the Chinese Government. Most companies owned by the Chinese Government can't act in China without the knowledge of the Government. In fact, most people in China can't act without the knowledge of the Chinese Government. As Professor Gary Milhollin, Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control explained, These [ring magnets] are specialized items. We are not talking about dual-use equipment. We are talking about magnets that are made specifically to go into centrifuges that make enriched uranium for bombs. Those were sold by an arm of the China National Nuclear Corporation, which is an arm of the Chinese government. This was a sale by a Chinese government organization directly to a secret nuclear weapon- making facility in Pakistan of items that were specifically designed to help make nuclear weapon material. In my opinion, it violated China's pledge under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which China signed in 1992. The treaty says if you export something like that, you have to export it with international inspection. China did not. Under Secretary of State Lynn Davis made a similar assessment in testimony to the House International Relations Committee in 1996, saying China's ring magnet sale was ``. . . not consistent with their obligations as a party to the Nonproliferation Treaty.'' It is clear that time and time again the Clinton administration has not lived up to its legal obligations under several U.S. laws requiring sanctions to combat the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. In some very revealing remarks in 1998, President Clinton explained his administration's record in this area. In what it described as ``. . . unusually frank remarks during an appearance before a group of 60 evangelical Christian leaders at the White House,'' the New York Times reported on April 28, 1998 that ``President Clinton criticized laws today that automatically impose sanctions on countries for behavior that Americans find unacceptable. He said such legislation put pressure on the executive branch to `fudge,' or overlook, violations so that it would not have to carry out the sanctions.'' What the President acknowledged is only what many, many people in the know have been saying for a long time; namely, that the relationship with China has gotten to be so important to this administration that it is willing to ``fudge'' the requirements of U.S. law to impose sanctions because they would get in the way of this budding relationship between President Clinton and the People's Republic of China. According to the New York Times, in response to criticism that his administration has ``ignor[ed] or excus[ed] obvious violations of United States sanction laws to justify continuing to do business with certain countries,'' President Clinton said, ``What happens if you have automatic sanctions legislation is it puts enormous pressure on whoever is in the executive branch to fudge an evaluation of the facts of what is going on.'' It might put enormous pressure on the President of the United States to follow the law. When repeatedly he hasn't done so, a Senate that is worth its salt will stand up and finally do what Senator Thompson has done and say: Enough of this. The U.S. Government has got to see to it that our national security needs are protected, at least if we are going now to grant PNTR, permanent trading relations with China, and grant its admission to the World Trade Organization, thus precluding us from a whole series of unilateral actions that otherwise we could have taken. When you are in the WTO, you abide by its rules. You can't just willy-nilly be imposing sanctions on countries; otherwise, you will be held accountable under the WTO. Fortunately, the way Senator Thompson has drafted his amendment, the President of the United States would be able, under limited circumstances, to impose sanctions based upon national security requirements, and he would also incidentally have the ability to waive those requirements in the national security interest. He is not bound to do anything that he shouldn't do. One wonders, however, if a President is suggesting that he needs to ``fudge'' the requirements of the law in order to maintain this great relationship with China, what even the requirements of the Thompson amendment would do. Fortunately, he has accounted for that possibility by also requiring a report of the President to the Congress of why he didn't impose sanctions, if he didn't, and requiring some specificity so we will at least understand what is at stake and whether or not the President should have imposed sanctions so that we might at least take some other steps. Senator Levin, incidentally, summarized the view of many when he said the examination of China's proliferation record at a 1997 Senate hearing had shed light on ``an area where I think we have not lived up fully to our own domestic requirements in terms of the imposition of sanctions where evidence is plenty clear, or clear enough for me, at least.'' Senator Stevens made a similar point during the same Senate hearing in 1997, stating, ``I am coming to the conclusion that maybe the administration is so narrowly interpreting our laws that we would have the situation that if a country moved a missile or a poison gas or bacterial warfare system piece by piece, grain by grain, you could not do anything about it until all the grains were there and then it would be a fait accompli.'' The Thompson amendment would significantly improve the current situation. It would require an annual report to Congress on the people, organizations, and countries on which our government has credible information indicating they have been engaged in the proliferation of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons or ballistic or cruise missiles. This requirement for full disclosure should eliminate the ability of the Clinton administration or those of future administration's to ``fudge'' the facts. They use the President's words. It should greatly improve the ability of the Congress to exercise effective oversight over this and future administrations. Second, it will send a clear signal to organizations in China and other nations, such as Russia and North Korea, that if they engage in proliferation, sanctions will surely follow. As I mentioned earlier, sanctions have been one of the foreign policy tools that have moderated China's behavior. When our Government has been serious about effective change in China and has been willing to use sanctions, we have seen results. Perhaps had the administration been more willing to implement the laws in this area and used sanctions more frequently, we would have seen less proliferation of these extraordinarily lethal technologies to rogue nations. Finally, I point out the amendment contains a waiver provision, as I said before, which allows the President to waive the requirement for sanctions under the legislation if it is important to the national security of the United States not to apply these provisions. So there is no reason for anyone to suggest that this amendment is a poison pill; that it would somehow tie the President's hands; or that it should not be adopted because it would jeopardize the passage of PNTR or the future security of the United States. Madam President, sanctions should not be the first or only tool used in the fight against proliferation. But this tool should not grow rusty from disuse either. As the Washington Post noted in an editorial as recently as July 14 of this year: . . . China's continuing assistance to Pakistan's weapons program in the face of so many U.S. efforts to talk Beijing out of it shows the limits of a nonconfrontational approach. The United States must back our frequent expressions of concern with actions if our words are to be perceived by China and other proliferators as credible. We must enforce our own laws if we are to be successful in persuading other nations to live up to their international commitments in treaties and other international agreements. And we need to be realistic in our dealings with nations such as China, Russia, and North Korea. I urge my colleagues to support the Thompson amendment. It is an amendment which will help to guarantee the national security interests of the United States. It will do nothing to impede trade or otherwise interfere with the operation of the WTO or the passage of the PNTR. Therefore, Madam President, as I said, I urge my colleagues to support the Thompson amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in recent days, there have been some disturbing moves by China to block Taiwan's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), despite China's previous assurances to the United States that it would not do so. As recently as Thursday, September 7, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi said that China wanted its claim to sovereignty over Taiwan written into the terms of the WTO's rules, stating ``The Chinese side has a consistent and clear position: Taiwan can join WTO as a separate customs territory of China.'' This statement by China's Foreign Ministry spokesman comes on the heels of earlier efforts by China to block Taiwan's WTO entry. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July: ``. . . as WTO staff members draw up the so-called protocol agreements--the reams of paper that define exactly what concessions China will make in order to gain entry into the organization--China is insisting that its claim over Taiwan be recognized in the legal language . . . chief Chinese negotiator Long Yongtu said . . . such a stand ``is a matter of principle for us'' . . . That would upset a consensus within the WTO that Taiwan should be allowed to enter the club as a separate economic area--that is, not an independent country, but also not as an explicit part of China. Some WTO members have argued that Taiwan has long since fulfilled its requirements to join the club and its application has been held up only to satisfy China's demand that Taiwan shouldn't win entry to the organization first. In order to help ensure that China lives up to its promises to the United States, and that Taiwan's entry to the WTO is not unnecessarily impeded, today I am filing an amendment to H.R. 4444, the bill to provide permanent normal trade status to China. The current text of H.R. 4444 states that the extension of permanent normal trade relations to China ``shall become effective no earlier than the effective date of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization.'' My amendment would add one additional condition, stating that permanent normal trade relations with China ``shall become effective no earlier than the effective date of the accession of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan as separate customs territories to the World Trade Organization.'' My amendment reinforces the message the Clinton administration has sent to China on previous occasions, and it is my hope that this amendment will remove any ambiguity about America's resolve to support Taiwan's WTO admission. Earlier this week, I received a letter from President Clinton that responded to a letter I sent him in July along with 30 other Senators, that sought assurances that his administration remained committed to Taiwan's entry to the WTO. In the letter the President stated that, ``My administration remains firmly committed to the goal of WTO General Council approval of the accession packages for China and Taiwan at the same session.'' The President's letter went on to say that ``China has made clear on many occasions, and at high levels, that it will not oppose Taiwan's accession to the WTO. Nevertheless, China did submit proposed language to their working party stating that Taiwan is a separate customs territory of China. We have advised the Chinese that such language is inappropriate and irrelevant to the work of the working party and that we will not accept it.'' As the President acknowledged in the letter, despite previous assurances by China and the administration that Taiwan will be admitted to the WTO without opposition, under the surface there is a problem. As it always does, China is using yet another diplomatic opportunity to assert its view that Taiwan is nothing more than a province of China. It is important for the Congress and the administration to work together to support Taiwan's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). First because of the economic benefits that its entry would bring. Secondly, because of the need to meet our commitments to our close and longstanding ally. And third, due to our desire to defend and promote democratic governments, with free markets, that respect the rule of law and the human rights of their people. Based on its importance to the world economy, Taiwan should be admitted to the WTO. It has the 19th largest economy and is the 14th largest trading nation in the world. Taiwan's economy is also closely linked to the U.S. It is America's 8th largest trading partner and purchases more American goods than many of our other major trading partners, like mainland China, Australia, and Italy. U.S. trade with Taiwan should continue to grow. Over two years ago, we signed a bilateral WTO agreement with Taiwan that included significant reduction in tariffs and other barriers for exports of a variety of U.S. goods and services, including agriculture goods, automotive products, and pharmaceuticals. The admission of Taiwan to the WTO ensures that market barriers to U.S. products will remain low and American companies will have a means to solve disputes over intellectual property and other matters. Taiwan has been negotiating to become a member of the WTO since 1990 and has met the substantive conditions for membership. According to the Congressional Research Service, it has completed agreements with each of the 26 WTO members that requested bilateral negotiations, and has held 10 meetings with the WTO Working Party in Geneva, resolving all substantive issues surrounding its admission. China has insisted that Taiwan can get into the WTO only after it does, and has lobbied other countries to support this position. In the past, Clinton administration officials have assured us that Taiwan's accession would closely follow China's. In February, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky testified to the House of Representatives that ``. . . the only issue with respect to Taiwan's accession . . . pertains to timing . . . there is a tacit understanding . . . among WTO members in general--but also, frankly, between China and Taiwan--that China would enter first and China would not block in any way Taiwan's accession thereafter, and that might be immediately thereafter or within days or hours or seconds or weeks. . . .'' Later that same month, in response to a statement by Senator Roth that ``. . . there's a great deal of concern that Taiwan might be blocked [from entering the WTO] once China secures such membership,'' Ambassador Barshefsky testified that ``. . . the United States would do everything in our power to ensure that that does not happen in any respect because Taiwan's entry is also critical.'' The WTO plays an important role in promoting free and fair trade. Under the WTO, member countries agree on a set of rules and principles for trade, which in turn creates a stable and predictable trade environment. Secondly, the WTO provides a mechanism to enforce these rules, including a procedure for countries to resolve trade disputes. And finally, the WTO provides a forum for negotiations to reduce trade barriers worldwide. Since the founding of its predecessor GATT in 1984, membership in the organization has grown from 23 countries to 136 today. The general view among economist is that a more predictable trade environment, and a reduction of trade barriers, has contributed to the unprecedented economic prosperity that most countries currently enjoy. Statistics support this view: In 1998, world exports were 18 times larger than in 1950, and world GDP was 6 times greater in 1998 than 1950, according to the Congressional Research Service. As I mentioned earlier, the United States should support Taiwan's admission to the WTO, not merely for economic reasons, but also to honor our commitments to a close, long-standing ally, and to demonstrate our intention to support democracies that respect the rule of law. When our Nation switched diplomatic recognition to mainland China, we also enacted the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act to state our continued commitment to the security of Taiwan. This law states, ``. . . the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.'' It goes on to say the U.S. would ``. . . consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.'' And finally, it says the U.S. will sell ``. . . defense articles and defense services in such quantity as many be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' China's leaders have steadfastly refused to renounce the use of force in retaking Taiwan, and have issued thinly veiled threats to use nuclear weapons should the U.S. intervene. For example, in March, the main newspaper of China's military said, ``China is neither Iraq nor Yugoslavia, but a very special country . . . it is a country that has certain abilities of launching a strategic counterattack and the capacity of launching a long-distance strike. Probably it is not a wise move to be at war with a country like China, a point which U.S. policymakers know fairly well.'' Another article in a Chinese military- owned newspaper went further, saying, ``The United States will not sacrifice 200 million Americans for 20 million Taiwanese. They will finally acknowledge the difficulty and withdraw.'' In outlining what became known as the ``Truman Doctrine,'' President Harry Truman said: At the present moment in world history nearly every nation must choose between alternative ways of life. The choice is too often not a free one. One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression. The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio, fixed elections, and the suppression of personal freedoms. I believe that is must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or outside pressures. I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way. Harry Truman spoke these words in 1947, at a time when it was very difficult to stand up to communism on the march from the Soviet Union. The challenge we face today in dealing with China and Taiwan should not be as great as the courageous struggle for the cold war. The United States cannot support China's entry into the WTO without equally supporting Taiwan's entry into the WTO. This is but one of many signals we should be sending to the communist regime in Beijing, about America's determination to meet our commitments and our resolve to support Taiwan.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a major part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which is a set of programs and facilities that are designed to allow the United States to maintain the safety and reliability of our nation's vital nuclear deterrent. It is hoped that at some point in 10 to 20 years that the stockpile Stewardship Program can be a replacement for actual nuclear testing. The jury is still out on whether it can in fact eventually accomplish this goal. I support the Stockpile Stewardship Program because it will improve our knowledge about our nuclear weapons. The fact is that, despite our technical expertise, there is much we still do not understand about our own nuclear weapons. As C. Paul Robinson, Director of the Sandia National Laboratory has said, ``Some aspects of nuclear explosive design are still not understood at the level of physical principles.'' America's nuclear weapons are the most sophisticated in the world. Each one typically has thousands of parts, and over time the nuclear materials and high explosive triggers in our weapons deteriorate and we lack experience predicting the effects of these changes. Some of the materials used in our weapons, like plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium, are radioactive materials that decay, and as they decay they also change the properties of other materials within the weapon. We lack experience predicting the effects of such aging on the safety and reliability of our weapons. We did not design our weapons to last forever. The shelf life of our weapons was expected to be about 20 years. In the past, we did not encounter problems with aging weapons, because we were fielding new designs and older designs were retired. As the Department of Energy said in its review of the Stockpile Stewardship Program completed on November 23, 1999, ``The NIF is one of the most vital facilities in the stockpile stewardship program.'' This facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California is roughly the same size as a stadium, and is designed to produce the intense pressures and temperatures needed to simulate in a laboratory the thermonuclear conditions achieved in nuclear explosions. The NIF will accomplish this goal by focusing 192 laser beams on a ``dime- sized'' piece of plutonium. When completed, the NIF will be the world's most powerful laser facility, about 60 times more powerful than the next largest DOE laser facility, the NOVA laser. As a review conducted in 1994 by the so-called, JASON panel, a Defense Department panel of nuclear experts said ``The NIF is without question the most scientifically valuable of the programs proposed for the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship program, particularly in regard to research and `proof-of-principle' for ignition, but also more generally for fundamental science. As such, it will promote the goal of sustaining a high-quality group of scientists with expertise related to the nuclear weapons program.'' There is a consensus among the three national laboratories and at the National Nuclear Security Administration that additional funding above the level in the current version of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for the NIF program needs to be increased. In a joint statement dated September 6, 2000, Dr. Bruce Tarter, the Director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Dr. John Browne, the Director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Dr. Paul Robinson, the Director of Sandia National Laboratory, and Madelyn Creedon, the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration stated. NIF supports the SSP, and is a vital element of the SSP in three important ways: (1) the experimental study of issues of aging or refurbishment; (2) weapons science and code development; and (3) attracting and training the exceptional scientific and technical talent required to sustain the SSP over the long term. NIF is an integral part of the SSP providing unique experimental capabilities that complement other SSP facilities including hydrotests, pulsed power, and advanced radiography. NIF addresses aspects of the relevant science of materials that cannot be reached in other facilities. We concur that the NIF offers a unique, critical capability within a ``balanced'' SSP. As with other elements of the SSP, its long-term role must be integrated within the overall requirements of the Program. Options should not be foreclosed or limited but should be maintained to allow for its further development. At this critical juncture, we agree that in order to maintain the NIF within a balanced program, an additional $95 million [above the President's original budget request] is necessary in FY 2001 for the NIF Project. The NIF program has recently experienced delays and cost overruns. But new management for the program is in place. The facility has undergone and passed intensive scientific and programmatic reviews that were recently conducted. And the management problems and lack of oversight that led to the earlier delays and cost overruns are understood and should therefore be preventable. We are well along toward completion of the NIF facility. Construction of the facility to house the laser beams, a $260 million project itself, is about 90% complete. 80% of the large components for the infrastructure for the laser beams has been procured and is either on site or on the way. The NIF program at Lawrence Livermore Lab has 800 scientists and technicians on the project. Delaying the program, which would result in a standing army of technicians, or canceling it, which would prevent the achievement of the goals of the Stockpile Stewardship Program simply makes no sense. There is bipartisan support for this program and the Administration supports the program. Undersecretary of State John Holum said in a letter on June 12, 2000 that, ``I strongly support this essential national security program. We must avoid the complacency of not doing enough in stewardship. We need to make a long-term commitment to use our scientific prowess to maintain a safe and reliable stockpile of nuclear weapons. . . . The problems with NIF are not scientific. . . . I urge you to support the program.'' The NIF is essential to our Stockpile Stewardship Program, which itself is an essential to maintain our nuclear weapons. dredging of the delaware river

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Five minutes.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Domenici yielding some time to me. I think, while we have accepted this amendment, it is important that the Record be corrected because Senator Harkin said some things that I believe not to be correct. I also think that we need to be careful about how we act around here. The fact that some people made some estimates as to how much it was going to cost to construct the National Ignition Facility and in fact were greatly underestimating the cost of the facility should not be a reason for us to suggest that this facility is unnecessary. They suggest that it is a ``boondoggle,'' to use the word of the Senator from Iowa. They suggest that it is in the same category of some other discretionary projects which we end up not funding in Congress. In fact, the Senator from Iowa and others recognized its importance in their support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty when they argued that we didn't need testing any more because we were going to have this wonderful Stockpile Stewardship Program, a part of which is the ignition facility, and, therefore, they were willing to rely upon the Stockpile Stewardship Program and the National Ignition Facility in lieu of testing forevermore. We are going to give up testing forevermore, Senator Harkin and others who supported the test ban treaty said. Now they are saying: Well, actually we don't need the National Ignition Facility, in our opinion. We are willing to submit the question of whether it is needed to some extraneous body. But I will tell you that I visited with the head of the Lawrence Livermore Lab yesterday, and I talked to any number of Department of Defense and Department of Energy officials, as well as lab people, and every one of them will confirm that the National Ignition Facility is a critical component of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Without it, eventually the Stockpile Stewardship Program provides you nothing in terms of data. And, indeed, our National Laboratories would probably not be able to certificate the stockpile of the United States, which, of course, would require advertising--something I know the Senator from Iowa would not want. The National Ignition Facility is a key component of the Stockpile Stewardship Program because it will actually allow an event to occur that simulates a nuclear explosion. Calculations can then occur based upon that event to either confirm or deny the theory that the scientists have developed that they plugged into the computers. But there is a point at which you can run all the calculations you want. Unless you have something to compare them to, some real event, they are worthless or meaningless. That is why the ignition facility is so important. Even though it is a little miniature thing--it is not like a big nuclear explosion--it can provide them with the data they need to then validate the theories of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which they have run on their computers. The argument of the Senator from Iowa, it seems to me, is a little bit like this: He loans the family car out to his son for a date. He says: Be careful, son. Be in by midnight. The son comes back at midnight: Gee, dad. I am sorry, I wrecked the car. The dad says: It is such a horrible thing you did that we are not going to repair the car. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face. It is true that the cost of this program has gone up. I believe it has gone up because of mistakes that were made on the part of the laboratory in deciding how much this was going to cost. It is easy for us to stand up and criticize it and say you all made a mistake. That is easy to do. I will join my colleague in that criticism. But what do you do about it? Do you decide you are not going to go ahead with the facility that all of the experts say is critical because it is going to cost more? That is true. But it is still critical. You can't just say because it is going to cost more than we thought that we are just going to give up on the whole project. At least you can't advocate the Stockpile Stewardship Program, as I know my colleague from Iowa is. I want to make this point, even though this amendment is going to be accepted. I am hopeful and I presume that it will not be a part of the final legislation that goes to the President for his signature. It would be wrong to cap the funding on this, and it would be wrong to assume that the National Ignition Facility is not a critical part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. I want to be able to correct the record so we don't leave any misimpression that somehow this is a discretionary program, that we may not need it, and because it is going to cost somewhat more than we thought, therefore we should be willing to jettison it. It is a critical component to ensure the viability, the reliability, and the safety of our nuclear stockpile. I assume every one of us in this room is very firmly committed to the proposition that the nuclear stockpile of the United States must be safe and reliable, and if it takes this National Ignition Facility to ensure that, then we ought to be willing to support it even if it is going to cost a little bit more than we originally anticipated. I appreciate the strong work of the Senator from New Mexico on this, and his willingness to yield me this time.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled ``National Ignition Facility (NIF)--An Integral Part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program'' be printed in the Record to make the point that the Clinton administration and five laboratory directors believe this is a critical project and that at least $95 million is necessary in fiscal year 2001 for the NIF projects.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as you know, President Clinton recently announced that he would further delay deployment of a national missile defense system to protect the United States. Regrettably, although the President's decision was disappointing, it was not surprising given the track record of the Clinton-Gore administration. In fact, when one looks back over the past 8 years it is clear that this latest decision is merely the capstone to a string of poor decisions by this administration that have left us defenseless against a growing threat to America's security. Time after time, the administration has taken steps to delay development of a system to defend against a missile threat that the Rumsfeld Commission, our intelligence agencies, and the Defense Department have said is increasingly serious. The administration has failed to pursue development of promising missile defense technologies, such as sea- and space-based defenses, has underfunded the limited programs it has authorized, and has pursued misguided arms control policies. This week, Senator Thad Cochran released a report entitled ``Stubborn Things'' that chronicles the record of neglect by this administration toward missile defense. The report contains ten chapters, corresponding to each year over the past decade. Each chapter includes a chronological recitation of events relevant to ballistic missile defense, including the progression of the missile threat facing the United States, developments in arms control negotiations, as well as data on the level of funding devoted to these vital programs. Senator Cochran named the report after a quote from John Adams, who said in 1770: Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. True to the spirit of John Adams' admonition, Senator Cochran's report simply lays out fact after fact about what has transpired in the area of missile defense over the past decade. It is an excellent compilation of the events and decisions that have led us to our current situation. For example, after the President announced that he would not authorize deployment of a national missile defense system, administration officials said the President had reached this decision in part because development of a booster for the ground-based system has lagged. But as Senator Cochran's report points out, this is a legacy of one of his administration's first decisions after taking office. In February 1993, the administration returned unopened proposals by three teams of companies that had bid, at the request of the Defense Department, to develop a ground-based national missile defense interceptor. The track record of the Clinton-Gore administration on missile defense is clear: they were slow to recognize the threat, failed to pursue the most promising forms of defense, underfunded the limited programs they half-heartedly pursued, and have failed to exercise leadership in addressing the concerns of our allies and other nations like Russia. Senator Cochran and his able staff, Mitch Kugler, Dennis Ward, Dennis McDowell, Michael Loesch, Eric Desautels, Brad Sweet, and Julie Sander, are to be commended for producing this excellent report. By presenting the facts without rhetoric or spin they have significantly advanced the national debate on this important issue. I highly commend the report to my colleagues and to members of the public interested in this subject.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho for bringing the attention to this issue to the Senate floor, to our colleagues here, as well as to people around the country. To my colleague from New Mexico with whom I have been visiting about this matter for 5 or 6 years now, a real thanks for his efforts to bring a $240 million supplemental appropriation which will only begin to scratch the surface of the needs we have. Half of that money goes to the Department of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service and the other half goes to the Department of the Interior for the BLM because in our public forests today we have them spread both in the National Forest System, as well as the Department of the Interior-administered lands of the BLM. Arizona and New Mexico have the largest pine forests in the world. Senator Craig pointed out that we have done some pioneering here. For the last decade or so, Northern Arizona University's School of Forestry has been working on techniques to return the forest to the rather parklike, very natural condition that it was in at the turn of the century, 100 years ago, when you had very broad stretches of grassland with few trees per acre--maybe 100 trees per acre. Big beautiful trees, ponderosa pines, are a little bit reminiscent of a sequoia, for example--very large, yellow bark, a beautiful huge tree. When they are spaced out a fairly large distance from each other in a rather parklike condition, I don't think there is anything prettier. More to the point, there is nothing more beneficial for the flora and fauna in the area. Lush grass feeds the deer and elk and other browsers. We have a healthy environment for birds and other species and, frankly, the entire ecological situation is the way that God created it to be. Then along came man, and through a series of mistakes we mismanaged the forests to the point that today most of the forest is clogged and gnarled into what they call a ``dog hair trimmer,'' meaning that a dog can't run through it without leaving half of his hair behind on the underbrush that has been growing up. What happens is that, first of all, all of this underbrush competes for the nutrients and the water in the soil so none of the trees grow to be the big, beautiful trees we all love, and none of the grass can grow so that the browsers--the deer, elk, and animals such as that-- don't come into the area. And because every bit of nature depends on something else, most of the species simply vanish. Nothing can really survive there. You create two other conditions: disease-prone because they are weak; secondly, fire-prone, where a spark of fire here is like setting off tinder with a larger box around it to burn. Because of the undergrowth and fuel on the ground, as soon as the fire starts, it quickly spreads to the lower branches and then the upper branches of the trees, and that is why you see this almost explosion of fire as it crowns out; it goes right up through the top of these huge, magnificent trees and explodes the trees in the process. What happens is that the soil is baked to a temperature that is unhealthy for regeneration. Ordinarily, nature-caused fire will burn along the ground and burn a little bit of the underbrush that is there but never crown out. As a result, it is not the timber fire that you get here. This literally sterilizes the soil. For years, nothing can regenerate. Perhaps devastatingly, erosion results very quickly--destroying streams, rivers, and lakes. It takes the topsoil that has taken millions of years to be created so things can grow, and wipes that out. It drains all of it right down into the rivers and streams and clogs them up. What is the environment for the flora and fauna? There is nothing. We talk about endangered species. Goodbye species. We had a fire around Four Peaks in Arizona which destroyed about 75,000 acres. I learned that this was the heaviest concentration of black bear habitat in the country and perhaps the world. What happened to all of these black bears? Many of them did not survive. Many of the other animals did not survive. The trees are gone. We have a very large bird population in Arizona. Amazingly enough, many of those birds had nowhere else to go. The point is that when you have this kind of catastrophe, you are not aiding nature; you are destroying it. All of the environment is destroyed in the process--not to mention the waste and the cost. We have now spent about $1 billion this year to fight these fires. That money could have gone a long way toward managing the forests and preventing the fires in the first place. You are not simply saving timber; you are not simply preserving a nice view for people. You are saving the environment for the flora and fauna--preventing erosion, preventing the sterilization of the soil, and all of the rest. As I started to say, work has been done around the country, but most importantly in Northern Arizona University, pioneered by Dean Garrett, and most recently by Dr. Wally Covington at Northern Arizona University. Secretary Bruce Babbitt is a friend of Wally Covington and fully supports the work that he has been doing at Northern Arizona University. In some small projects in northern Arizona, we have been able to acquire funding to do this forest restoration and demonstrate the efficacy of the treatment. The problem is the administration has not carried that on to a larger treatment area. I don't know why because science proves it out. Secretary Babbitt understands that it is the right thing to do. But I think, frankly, it is a fear that the radical environmentalists, which this administration relies upon for a great deal of its support, will object. Indeed, after putting together a wonderful program with the support of Secretary Babbitt, Dr. Covington, the Grand Canyon Trust, and other environmental groups, all of whom were working together to make the area around Flagstaff, AZ, safer, to improve the environment, and to restore the forests to a healthy condition, radical environmental groups sued to stop the process and delayed it for an entire year--to no effect because the project will go on. But it will be delayed a year. The GAO reports that we have 39 million acres to treat in this country. Strike that. With 6 million acres having burned this year, we are now down to 33 million acres. We have to do this within a 20-year period if we are going to save these forests. That is going to require a commitment of the next administration. If the current administration can't do the job, maybe the next one can. Finally, I am holding a document put out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southwestern Region, called ``Arizona's Wild Land Urban Interface.'' To summarize what is in this document, you see areas that haven't been treated that are severely burned. Then you see what happens when they treat the areas. You find, for example, in the Coronado National Forest a before-and-after picture where you see this clogged-up condition of undergrowth. It is not pretty, it is not environmentally sound, and the number of trees per acre are reduced to about 300. Whereas they had about 1,500 before, they are trying to get it down to about 150 per acre. When you do that, you have a beautiful park-like condition that is healthy. I can tell you, having visited the treatment areas around Flagstaff, that after about 3 years you see the pitch content of the trees significantly improved. That prevents the bark beetles from attacking the trees. The protein content of the grass is an order of magnitude higher. All of the elk, deer, and other animals are coming in to browse. Everything about the forest is healthier when you can go in and thin out this underbrush and hopefully follow up with a prescribed burn which simply burns along the ground and burns any of the residue. It doesn't crown out. After that, you can let nature take its course because then you have a healthy forest with larger diameter trees. If lightning strikes, not one of those trees catches fire. It starts with the grass on fire around it. It may burn the grass for several acres. That is all right. That will regenerate in just 1 year. That is acceptable. But it doesn't crown out and destroy the rest of the forest. That is what we have to commit to do in all of our Nation's forests. I commend the small first step that Senator Domenici has taken here with appropriations. I commend the administration to create a budget that will begin to spend, frankly, billions of dollars that are necessary to treat the forests of our country, not just in the southwest but all over the western United States which so desperately needs this new forest management to save our Nation's forest. I appreciate the fact that Senator Craig has offered me the opportunity to speak to this today, and I look forward to continuing to talk about this issue because, unfortunately, like some of the other things, it takes a catastrophe to finally bring out what has to be done. While all of us lament the catastrophe, at least perhaps it will jolt us into doing what is right to save our wonderful forests in the U.S.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, a number of Senators who opposed the Death Tax Elimination Act have spoken on the Senate floor in recent weeks, suggesting that only a few people care about the unfairness of the tax. During the death-tax repeal debate back in July, one of the tax's proponents went so far as to question ``whose side are you on?'' if you favor repeal. I have no difficulty answering that at all. We are on the side of the American people. A June 22-25 Gallup poll found that 60 percent of the people support repeal, even though about three-quarters of those supporters do not think they will ever have to pay a death tax themselves. A poll conducted by Zogby International on July 6 found that, given a choice between a candidate who believes that a large estate left to heirs should be taxed at a rate of 50 percent for anything over $2 million, and a candidate who believes that the estate tax is unfair to heirs and should be eliminated, 75 percent of the people prefer the person supporting death-tax repeal. Other polls similarly put support for repeal at between 70 and 80 percent. Some issues are simply about fairness. It does not matter who benefits. Death-tax proponents just cannot seem to understand that, but the American people do. The American people have an unwavering sense of fairness. They recognize that there is something terribly wrong when, despite having taxed someone for a lifetime, the federal government can come back one more time when a person dies and take more than half of whatever is left. That is not only unfair, it threatens the American dream. That is why repeal scores high with the American people in public- opinion polls. It is why repeal is supported by a broad coalition of small business, minority, environmental, family, and seniors organizations. Among those groups are the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the National Indian Business Association, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Federation of Independent Business, to name just a few. Fairness, that is what the effort to repeal the death tax is all about.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. And I thank the Chairman for the committee's report. Sales of Apache Longbow and Stinger, however, apparently are being jeopardized by what I believe is a misinterpretation of congressional language contained in the FY00 DoD conference report. Therefore, I am seeking his help in clarifying the intent of Congress with regard to that provision. In the FY00 DoD Appropriations bill, section 8138 directs the Army to ``conduct a live fire, side-by-side operational test of the air-to-air Starstreak and air-to-air Stinger missiles from the AH-64D Longbow helicopter.'' The provision further states that the Army is ``to ensure that the development, procurement or integration of any missile for use on the AH-64 [Apache] or RAH-66 [Comanche] helicopters . . . is subject to a full and open competition which includes the conduct of a live- fire, side-by-side test as an element of the source selection criteria.'' My understanding is that the intent of this provision was to direct the Army to conduct a test of two systems in order to ensure that its helicopters are fielded with the best possible air-to-air missile. The problem, is that the Army has interpreted this provision so broadly as to prevent the sale of Apaches equipped with a Stinger air- to-air capability to our allies. Apparently the Army view is that they cannot do so until the operational test is conducted. Is it the Chairman's understanding that this language was intended to in any way obstruct the potential sale of Stinger-equipped Apaches to any U.S. ally?

Mr. KYL. I thank the distinguished Chairman for engaging in this colloquy and for his insight, and I yield the floor. Abrams-Crusader Common Engine Program

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator for his time and compliment our distinguished Chairman for skillfully guiding this bill through the challenging process of mark-up and conference. As the Chairman is well aware, the Stinger air defense missile and the Apache Longbow are two programs of great interest to me and to the state of Arizona. Over 41,000 Stinger missiles have been delivered and over $4 billion has been invested in Stinger weapons and platforms, and over 1,200 Apaches have been delivered to the U.S. and our allied forces.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska, the distinguished chairman of our Defense Appropriations subcommittee, engage in a colloquy with me on the topic of proposed international sales of Longbow Apache helicopters?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, when I was in Arizona this weekend, there were three things that seemed to come up frequently. One, of course, was the Vice Presidential selection of Governor Bush for the Republican nomination this fall. The other two subjects were the issues of tax relief, and I will briefly discuss that, and missile defense, which I will add to the mix, to share some of my constituents' concerns. On the matter of Vice President, obviously, that is a subject of which Governor Bush will speak today or tomorrow, perhaps. Those on the Republican side will be, I am sure, very supportive. If it is former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, I think we will be especially pleased. I can't think of anyone who could make a better contribution, not only to the ticket but also to a future Republican administration, than Dick Cheney. He is from the Presiding Officer's State of Wyoming. He represents the kind of values that both the Presiding Officer and others from that great State represent: Straightforwardness, plain- spokenness, honesty, directness, a good strong sense of values, a willingness to do the hard work without having to take a lot of the credit, traits we treasure in someone such as Senator Paul Coverdell, and which Dick Cheney would certainly bring to the job. His experience and the great respect which people not only in this country but around the world have for Dick Cheney would serve the ticket well. I am not attempting to influence Governor Bush in any way, but if his choice is Dick Cheney, there couldn't be a better choice. Now the other two subjects my constituents raised this past weekend. I was astounded that these were the two things they wanted to talk about: The tax relief that the Republican Congress continues to pass, and pass on to the President; and, secondly, the matter of missile defense, which I will get to in a moment. I was amused to hear the Democratic candidate for President talk about a do-nothing Congress. This is rather strange, considering the fact that we have passed over and over and over legislation to help the American people, particularly to relieve them of some of the tax burden which imposes upon them an extra burden that they need not bear and that is inhibitive of future economic growth. I am surprised that a Congress which has been so active--and, indeed, President Clinton has criticized us for being so active in this regard--would be accused then of being ``do-nothing.'' In truth, it is not the Congress that isn't willing to do these things; it is the Clinton-Gore administration that is unwilling to do these things. Let me give some cases in point. We passed the estate tax relief about which the Presiding Officer talked. It passed overwhelmingly in both bodies, with bipartisan support. But the Clinton-Gore administration says it will veto this tax relief. We passed the marriage penalty, something that President Clinton said, in his State of the Union speech, was a top priority for him. He says he will veto that legislation. We can pass all of these things, but we can't get them into law unless the President signs them. We are doing our best in the Congress. It is now up to the President. He did sign one thing that we passed this year. The Social Security earnings limitation was finally repealed. That was an important part of tax relief for an important part of my constituency, our senior citizens. There is more work to do there. We want to also repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security which was imposed by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Congress when it controlled the House and the Senate, and Vice President Gore is always proud to remind everyone that he had to cast the deciding vote. This was the 1993 tax increase which, among other things, imposes a tax rate of up to 85 percent on the Social Security earnings of our senior citizens. This is wrong and it ought to be repealed. If and when we do it, I will call upon the President to sign that. We will probably send to him a repeal of the Spanish-American War era telephone tax. I think we can safely do this. The war has been over now for some time. We don't need to fund the Spanish-American War anymore. Like many other taxes and programs in Washington, once they are instituted, it is very difficult to ever get rid of them. We are finally going to take the step to do that, as we did with the marriage penalty, as we did with the estate tax, as we did with the Social Security earnings limit. We are going to repeal this tax, as well, and call upon the President to sign this. We have not been doing nothing. We have been doing something, something very worthwhile for the American people. I ask the President to reconsider his threat to veto these important tax cuts. Now, his argument is, maybe we can't afford it; it is a lot of money--this after receiving news that our tax surplus is going to be in the trillions of dollars--not billions, not hundreds of billions, but trillions of dollars. This is not a budget surplus; this is a tax surplus. It is a tax surplus because the taxes we have imposed on the American people bring in far more money than we should or can spend. I say ``can'' because, of course, Congress has the capacity to spend an unlimited amount of money. We have set some standards in the Republican-controlled Congress. We have said we are not going to touch a dime of the Social Security surplus. The Social Security surplus is much larger than the non-Social Security surplus. This is the money that comes in as a result of the payment of our FICA taxes. Those are far greater than the need to pay the benefits under the Social Security program right now. And we are applying every dime of the Social Security surplus to a reduction of our Federal debt. That is why our Federal debt is being reduced so dramatically now. The question is, What should be done with the non-Social Security surplus? It does not seem too much to me to return a dime, a dime on a dollar of that surplus, in the form of the marriage penalty relief and the estate tax relief to the American people. Under the most liberal interpretation of how much that would cost--and it is not nearly as much as this figure would suggest--but under the most liberal interpretation, it would be 10 cents on the dollar of the surplus we have. It seems to me, since we are collecting more in taxes than we need-- even after huge increases in spending in virtually every program we have--it is not too much to return 10 percent of this tax surplus to the American people. That is the magnitude of the issue. When President Clinton says it costs too much, he is saying the Federal Government ought to spend that money, rather then allowing the American people to keep this 10 cents on the dollar. That is arrogance of the first magnitude. That was one of the concerns my constituents presented to me this week. The other had to do with missile defense. My constituents understand the need to protect America. They understand that Secretary Cohen has said we have a threat from North Korea, from Iran. There will be a threat from Iran; certainly China has been rattling its sabers these days. They understand that there is no way we can prevent an attacking missile from landing on the United States today and that it will be at least 5 years before we can do that if we proceed as rapidly as we possibly can. They are anxious we get on with the job of getting a missile defense program in place to protect the American people and to prevent other countries from blackmailing the United States from being involved in issues around the world in which we know we need to be involved. This last weekend, there was a successful test--it didn't get much publicity--of the Patriot missile against a cruise missile target. This is another important component of missile defense. The last national missile defense test was a failure. From that, many people have said they conclude that there can't possibly be a successful program and we ought to just pack up and go home, ignoring the fact that the threat exists; also, Mr. President, ignoring something else. There is a phrase that has found its way into our jargon these days: ``It is not rocket science.'' Mr. President, this is rocket science, and it ain't easy. Sometimes it takes some failures in order to get to the successful conclusion of a program. There are over 20 tests in this particular program scheduled, most of them yet to be conducted. It is rocket science. It is hard. But we can do it. The people involved in the program are confident of that. The failure in this last test, incidentally, was not a failure of any of the high technology. It was one of those quirks that can occur when something you have done hundreds of times before just did not happen to work on this particular occasion. But it was not a failure of the high- tech end of this missile defense program which we need to test to make sure it can work. To my colleagues who may have been concerned as a result of the failure of this last test, I suggest to them we stay the course and continue the program as outlined by the Department of Defense, which I believe will be successful and will enable us to deploy a missile defense to protect the American people. Final point. There are many who have urged the President to defer a decision, that he not make a decision. We have already made that decision when we passed the Missile Defense Act and President Clinton signed it into law. That decision was to deploy a national missile defense as soon as technologically feasible, and we believe it will be feasible. Therefore, we need to move forward with the program. That is why the President should not defer a decision. He should make a decision to go forward, but he should, of course, defer the specifics as to exactly what that program is for the next President to decide. That can be done, but there should be no backing away from going forward, and that is the decision the President should make. Ultimately, of course, I think Governor Bush is correct. There will need to be not just one element of a system but, rather, the flexibility to deploy a multilayered defense for the American people which involves both land-based assets as well as sea-based assets and space-based assets. You need satellites to detect and track the trajectory of a missile. You can also be benefited by other assets in space. Certainly a missile defense would be augmented very well with sea-based capability, which could, under certain circumstances, even have a boost-phase intercept capability because of its proximity to the launching of the offensive missile. All of this is well understood. I believe the Congress should stay the course and urge the administration to go forward with its decision. Of course, the details will be left to the next administration, but we should not signal we are not willing to protect the American people from missile attack. Mr. President, you mentioned, in closing, we are hoping to take up the permanent trade relations with China toward the end of this week. I very strongly support the efforts by Senator Thompson to ensure that at the same time we are moving to open our trade with China, we make it clear to China that there are certain things which are inimical to peace around the world and certainly to our security. Included in that is China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver those weapons to other countries, countries of concern--the so-called rogue nations of Iran and Iraq and North Korea. It may also be proliferating to other countries that we would prefer not have large arsenals of these weapons. The bottom line is that although we can and should move forward in developing closer and more robust trade with China, we cannot allow that kind of activity to suggest to China that we do not care about our own national security and about peace and stability and security in the world. That is why I think it is appropriate for us to also adopt the Thompson legislation which will make it clear that, for those who are involved in the proliferation, sanctions will result. I am hoping we can take that up at the end of this week. Those are concerns that were expressed by my constituents this weekend. I told them I would share them with my colleagues. I have now done that and I appreciate the indulgence of the Presiding Officer, whose time I have been taking. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

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