Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I know Senator Roth will join me in expressing great gratitude and appreciation for Senator Warner's characteristic generosity. It comes from the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, which is doubly important. Mr. President, we are nearly there. In a short while, the Senate will cast an epic vote. At the Finance Committee's final hearing on China this spring, on April 6, 2000, our last witness--Ira Shapiro, former Chief Negotiator for Japan and Canada at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative--put it this way: . . . [this vote] is one of an historic handful of Congressional votes since the end of World War II. Nothing that members of Congress do this year--or any other year-- could be more important. This achievement--for it is a crowning achievement--caps an eventful year. All the more impressive in light of last December's ``global disaster''--as the Economist magazine on December 11, 1999, put it-- that was the Seattle World Trade Organization Ministerial. In January, it was thought that our long-standing trade policy was in serious jeopardy--the trade policy that, for 66 years--ever since Cordell Hull created the Reciprocal Trade Agreements program in 1934-- has contributed so much to our nation's prosperity. But we have prevailed. And more. In May, the Senate took up and passed--the vote was 77 to 19--the conference report on the Trade and Development Act of 2000--establishing a long overdue trade policy for sub-Saharan Africa and putting in place new trade benefits for the Caribbean Basin countries. That measure was the most significant trade legislation passed by the Congress in six years--ever since the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994. Now, just four months later, we are about to give our resounding approval to H.R. 4444, authorizing the extension of permanent normal trade relations to China. And with this action, we will have passed more trade legislation--important trade legislation--in this session of Congress than any session of Congress in more than a decade. It has taken us a long while to reach the point of final passage of the PNTR legislation. We have most certainly not rushed this legislation through the Senate. The House approved the measure nearly four months ago, on May 24, by a vote of 237-197. The Senate, in effect, began its consideration before the August recess--on July 27th, when we invoked cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. The vote was a decisive 86 to 12. By the time this vote is cast, we will have completed eleven full days of debate. We have taken up and debated 19 amendments. We have considered every facet of U.S.-China relations, and we are now ready to give this measure our overwhelming approval. And so we ought to do. We are giving up very little--the annual review of China's trade status that has had at best an inconsequential effect on China's domestic policies. In return, we are bringing China back into the trading system that it helped to establish out of the ashes of the Second World War. For with its accession to the WTO, China merely resumes the role that it played more than half a century ago: China was one of the 44 participants in the Bretton Woods Conference--July 1-22, 1944. It served on the Preparatory Committee that wrote the charter for the International Trade Organization that was to complement the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. And China was of course one of the 23 original Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade--initially designed to be an interim arrangement until the ITO Charter would come into force. It did not: the ITO failed in the Senate Finance Committee and we were left with the GATT. And in China, revolution intervened. The Republic of China (now on Taiwan) notified the GATT on March 8, 1950, that it was terminating ``China's'' membership. It was not until 1986 that the People's Republic of China officially sought to rejoin the GATT, now the World Trade Organization. And now, after 14 years of negotiations, China is poised to become the 139th member of the WTO. It is elemental that China belongs in the WTO. It is in the interests of all trading nations that a country that harbors one-fifth of mankind, a country that is already the world's ninth largest exporter and eleventh largest importer, abide by the rules of world trade--rules that were, I would point out, largely written by the United States. We, too, must abide by the WTO's rules. And thus we will approve today the legislation extending permanent, unconditional normal trade relations to China--fulfilling the most basic of our obligations under the WTO's rules--nondiscriminatory treatment. Let me leave the Senate with the following observations from Joseph Fewsmith, an associate professor of international relations at Boston University and a specialist on the political economy of China. He writes in the National Bureau of Asian Research publication of July 2, 2000: Some historical perspective is necessary when thinking about PNTR. When President Nixon traveled to China in 1972, China was still in the throes of the Cultural Revolution. Mao Zedong was still in command, there were no private markets, intellectuals were still raising pigs on so-called ``May 7 cadre schools,'' and labor camps were filled with political prisoners. Nixon was treated to a performance of ``The Red Detachment of Women,'' one of only eight model operas that were permitted to be performed. Nearly three decades later-- not a long period in historical terms--China has changed dramatically. Communes are gone, the planned economy has shrunk to a shadow of its former self, and incomes have increased dramatically. Personal freedoms, while by no means perfect, are greater than at any other time in Chinese history. China's opening to the United States is a major reason for these changes, a dramatic demonstration of the impact of international influence. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cast their votes in support of H.R. 4444. I would like to attenuate my remarks simply to take up the question of Taiwan and its accession to the WTO. This ought to be explicit and perhaps the last thing said in this debate. Just as China ought to be in the WTO--will be in the WTO--so will Taiwan. Despite the bluster of senior Chinese officials, intermittently, and recently as well, Taiwan is on track to be invited to join the WTO at the same General Council session that will consider China's application. Article XII of the Agreement Establishing the WTO provides that: . . . any State or separate customs territory possessing full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations . . . may accede to the WTO. In September 1992, the GATT Council--for the WTO was not yet in existence--established a separate working party to examine Taiwan's request for accession. The nomenclature was carefully chosen. Taiwan was called the ``Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.'' That is the formulation under which Taiwan will enter the WTO. The President has confirmed this and confirmed in the strongest possible terms that the United States will not accept any other outcome. The President was adamant on this point in his letter of September 12. A copy was sent to me, and I believe a copy was also sent to our distinguished chairman. It says this: 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President's letter of September 12 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if China should attempt to block Taiwan's accession, I suggest to the Senate that there is a remedy. H.R. 4444 gives the President the authority to extend permanent normal trade relations status to China upon its accession to the WTO, but he need not do so. Indeed, if Taiwan's membership in the WTO is blocked, I would urge--and I am sure my beloved colleague, Senator Roth, would urge, as I see him nodding--the President to simply refrain from extending PNTR to China. So we ought to put this matter to rest. I have no doubt that there will continue to be bumps--some serious crises indeed--in our relationship with China. Neither membership in the WTO nor normalized trade relations with the United States will magically impose the rule of law in China or institute deep-seated respect for human rights. But certainly it has the potential to advance those purposes. That is why we are here and why we will shortly make this epic decision. Finally, if I may have the indulgence of the Senate--and I know this is shared by the chairman--I want to read a short paragraph. My only regret today is that with the final vote on PNTR for China, we must bid farewell to our chief trade counsel, Debbie Lamb, who joined the Finance Committee staff over 10 years ago, in June 1990. Ms. Lamb has played an integral part in every major piece of trade legislation over the past decade--from the NAFTA and the Uruguay Round to our attempts to renew so-called fast-track negotiating authority to the two pieces of trade legislation that we passed this year: The Trade and Development Act of 2000, and now, at last, PNTR for China. Her knowledge and dedication to our committee's work has been exemplary. She is something that is very rare in Washington--a person with great breadth and great depth. The committee and I will miss her deeply as she leaves today to pursue the next phase of a distinctly distinguished career. Exhibit 1 The White House, Washington, September 12, 2000. Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Moynihan: I want to commend you for commencing debate on H.R. 4444, which would extend Permanent Normal Trade Relations to the People's Republic of China. This crucial legislation will help ensure our economic prosperity, reinforce our work on human rights, and enhance our national security. Normalizing our trade relationship with China will allow American workers, farmers, and businesspeople to benefit from increased access to the Chinese market. It will also give us added tools to promote increased openness and change in Chinese society, and increase our ability to work with China across the broad range of our mutual interests. I want to address two specific areas that I understand may be the subject of debate in the Senate. One is Taiwan's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). There should be no question that my Administration is firmly committed to Taiwan's accession to the WTO, a point I reiterated in 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. The other area is nonproliferation, specifically the proposals embodied in an amendment offered by Senator Fred Thompson. Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them is a key goal of my Administration. However, I believe this amendment is unfair and unnecessary, and would hurt our nonproliferation efforts. Nonproliferation has been a priority in our dealings with China. We have pressed China successfully to join the Nonproliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and to cease cooperation with Iran's nuclear program. Today, we are seeking further restraints, but these efforts would be subverted--and existing progress could be reversed by this mandatory sanctions bill which would single out companies based on an unreasonably low standard of suspicion, instead of proof. It would apply a different standard for some countries than others, undermining our global leadership on nonproliferation. Automatic sanctions, such as cutting off dual-use exports to China, would hurt American workers and companies. Other sanctions, such as restricting access to U.S. capital markets, could harm our economy by undermining confidence in our markets. I believe this legislation would do more harm than good. The American people are counting on the Congress to pass H.R. 4444. I urge you and your colleagues to complete action on the bill as soon as possible. Sincerely, Bill Clinton.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, of course.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I say to our chairman, as evidenced by the fact that this measure was reported 19-1 in the Finance Committee. I thank the Chair. We are at a moment of history and the omens are excellent.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Sir, we have the best staffs. (Laughter.)

Mr. MOYNIHAN. My honor, sir.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we would be honored if the distinguished Senator from Utah would proceed, as he will do, and at what length he chooses.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, seeing no other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have a simple proposition to make, after discussions with the Treasury Department, which is simply to say the amendment is burdensome in the extreme and would discourage U.S. listings. The amendment would place an enormous, costly, and pointless regulatory burden on publicly traded companies in the United States. Firms would be required to list every single one of their overseas employees as well as every single employee of any foreign company with which they do business. They would also be required to calculate the total value of all their exports and imports. Such a regulatory burden would be a nightmare for both such firms planning to go public--for most firms planning to go public. On the other hand, it would not discourage foreign firms from listing in the United States. This is not a regulation we want to impose on American business--startup businesses, small cap businesses. I hope we will not approve this. I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4137

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, could I respond in the most emphatically sympathetic and supportive way to the statement of the Senator from Texas. In 1993, this Congress passed legislation to create the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy in the United States. We had a fine commission. Senator Helms and I represented the Senate, and in the House, Larry Combest and Lee Hamilton, and John Deutch of the CIA. The commission came up with a unanimous finding. We began with the proposition--and I can say to a fellow academic; he will recognize it--Max Weber set forth that secrecy is the natural weapon of a bureaucracy against the parliament and against the other agencies of the political system. We found the most extraordinary things. I later wrote about this. In December 1946, a brilliant crypto analyst at Arlington Hall Girl's School, not far from the Pentagon, and broke the first of the Soviet KGB codes. These are one-time pads. You ``can't break them'' but they got a little careless, used once or twice. There were the names of all the physicists at Los Alamos, the principal ones. A measure of the extent of the KGB operation in this country? As our crypto analyst worked along, an Army corporal cipher clerk handing him pencils, coffee, whatever, an Army corporal cipher clerk, a KGB spy. In very short order, the KGB knew we were breaking their code. Then, of course, Kim Philby was at the British Embassy and we shared some of these findings with the British--we probably still do. Then he defected. In no time at all, they knew that we knew, and we knew that they knew that we knew. People might be interested to learn, who was the one person in the U.S. Government who did not know? The President of the United States. On whose orders was this the case? Omar Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is Army property. I guess he had a sense that if he said, ``Give everything to the White House,'' it gets out. President Truman never knew any of these things. With the exceptions of the Rosenbergs, none of these persons were ever prosecuted. One of them, the most important, Hall, teaches physics at Cambridge University in England, and comes back and forth to this country. He had been part of that tremendous effort. He was from an immigrant family living in Manhattan, went to Queens College. They spotted him at Queens College, and they sent him up to Harvard. Then he was sent to Los Alamos. He was never prosecuted because to prosecute, it must be stated where we got the information and so forth. Secrecy can be so destructive to the flow of information that is needed. It will continue long after there is any conceivable need for secrecy. We estimated recently that the classified documents we have in place now would be 441 times stacked up the height of the Washington Monument. A trivial example, but a characteristic example, President Ford at one point had in mind that I might be Librarian of Congress. I was in India, leaving the post as Ambassador and had a cable exchange with the head of personnel in the White House. I was going back through Peking, staying with the Bushes, stopped at Pearl Harbor, and then would be here. An historian writing about the Library of Congress--an interesting post; there have only been seven or eight in our history-- picked this up and went to the Ford Library. Yes, there is information; but no, she couldn't see it, it was classified. It took months to get the cable to Washington declassified. One could argue that there was good reason to keep that classified for seven days, but 30 years later? That is a pattern. It is a pattern that the people who deal with these things as classified don't know the material, the subject matter; they don't know the physics taught to first-year graduate students at MIT, but information is still classified ``top secret, no form,'' in some bureaucracy in Washington. The absolute standard operating procedure is to classify something ``Top secret'' and then send it to the President in the hopes that it will get on his desk if it looks really enormous. There are endless examples of clippings from Newsweek magazine stamped ``Confidential.'' Just a bureaucratic mode. The idea that Dr. Lee was imprisoned is hard to understand. Solitary confinement, worse. But leg irons? There were leg irons so one could not run off to Mexico. Obviously, much needs to be explained. I say also for Dr. Deutch, this is a man of utmost patriotism. What was his offense? I don't think it is a crime at all. He took work home with him. After dinner he would sit down and work. There is a penalty for that, and he accepted it. He has had all his clearances removed, which is a heavy price for a scientist, but he has accepted that. The idea that he has done anything wrong beyond that is to say to people: Don't go near the clandestine services of the United States, don't go near the atomic laboratories. I have no standing as a scientist, but I was a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee, and I am a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and having been a member of the board and vice president at one point, I can say I know a fair number of scientists. Their postdoctorate students don't want anything to do with the Federal laboratories. If you want to do something to the national security of the United States, keep the best minds out of the weapons labs. That will do it faster than any transfer of information, which has a half-life of nine months before others catch up or they think it up on their own. I can speak to this. For example, with atomic secrets, we have a wonderful person, a great man, Hans Bethe, who was standing alongside Oppenheimer at Los Alamos. A man of luminous intelligence. There is nothing that he is more skeptical about than the idea of keeping physical science secret. He tells the story that after the atomic bomb was detonated, he and the other physicists involved said: All right, but no hydrogen bomb. No, that is too much. And there was the further advantage: And thank God, nobody knew how. It was not possible to make one. It can't be done. The physics just won't work. And then he said: Stanislaw Ulam and Edward Teller figured out how it could be done. And we said: Oh, Lord, if Ulam can think of it, Sakharov will think of it. So we had better go through with it. He and Oppenheimer said: You have to go through to a hydrogen bomb because science is not in a box that you can put in a closet. I also want to say on this floor that I have not known a more patriotic man than John Deutch; absolutely committed to this country's security. Provost at MIT, a physical chemist, a man of great science, who made the error of working after supper at home. Nothing was ever transferred to anybody. He was working. What do I do in the morning? That kind of thing. And the very idea we would try to punish him for that is to put, I say, in jeopardy the whole reputation of American classified science and clandestine service. We do that at a great cost, which you will not recognize for half a century, perhaps. But it will come. I thank the Senator from Texas for what he has said. I appreciate his indulgence in what I have joined him saying. I see my colleague seeks recognition. I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Two billion.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will my distinguished friend yield for a question?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Would he know that the current best estimate is that the GDP of Russia is now approximately that of Switzerland?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. And that sequence, exactly as he has described it, total ownership to no ownership, as against the transformation before our eyes, is taking place in the PRC.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might the chairman present a request in writing as to the timing? I think we can get that up right quick.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I object.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.