William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at 1:45 p.m. today to call for the regular order with respect to the Thompson amendment No. 4132.

Mr. ROTH. With this agreement in place, all Senators should know that a motion to table the Thompson amendment will occur at approximately 1:45 p.m. Therefore, the next vote will occur at approximately 1:45 p.m. today. I now ask unanimous consent that time prior to votes relative to these amendments be limited to 1 hour equally divided per amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to these votes. The amendments are as follows: Helms No. 4123, Helms No. 4126, and Helms No. 4128. I further ask consent that Senator Helms be recognized at 2:30 p.m. today to begin debate on amendment No. 4128 regarding forced abortions.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. I object.

Mr. ROTH. No, the vote is set for 1:45. But, we are trying to work this out.

Mr. ROTH. I ask consent Senator Byrd now be recognized for up to 10 minutes and, following those remarks, I be recognized in order to make a motion to table.

Mr. ROTH. Unfortunately, we are in a very tight timeframe. I respectfully ask the Senator from Ohio to please comply. We must proceed. I have tried to satisfy everybody. I ask him not to proceed.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I spoke at length about my opposition to the Thompson amendment on Monday. But I want to briefly reiterate that I believe this amendment, while well-intentioned, is seriously flawed. In particular, this legislation relies on unilateral sanctions that are too widely drawn and too loosely conceived to prove effective in countering proliferation. In a global economy, shutting off Chinese and Russian access to American goods, agricultural and capital markets will not change Chinese or Russian behavior. Indeed, such actions would isolate the United States, not China, giving our competitors an open road to the world's biggest nation and fastest- growing market. And make no mistake about it: though there have been changes to the bill to reduce the impact on farmers, virtually every member of the farming community--from the Alabama Farmers Federation to the National Chicken Council--has said in a letter that they are absolutely against the Thompson amendment. Moreover, for the first time, U.S. securities markets will be used as a sanctioning tool. That's why Alan Greenspan opposes this legislation. The unilateral sanctions in this amendment are also indiscriminate in their application and could be applied to some of our closest allies, such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and France. Surely such actions will make future multilateral cooperation--which is absolutely essential to solving proliferation problems--far more difficult. Another problem with this amendment is that even though the President is theoretically able to waive sanctions, Congress gains the power to overturn the President's waiver through a procedure exactly the same as the counterproductive one we currently use in annually renewing normal trade relations with China. In addition, the evidentiary standard used to trigger sanctions, one of ``credible information,'' is too low. Surely, critical national security actions should be based on a higher standard, especially when they are could very well be applied to our closest allies. It also appears that the Thompson amendment could have a disastrous effect on our Cooperative Threat Reduction Program--better known as the Nunn- Lugar Program--with Russia and Russian entities. Section 4 of the Thompson amendment contains language that would ban Nunn-Lugar assistance to any Russian entity identified in the report required by the amendment of the President. And so this amendment could actually have the perverse effect of decreasing our ability to stem proliferation problems in Russia. The Thompson amendment also raises serious constitutional concerns. For example, Congress' disapproval of the President's determination could result in severe sanctions against persons for actions that were perfectly legal when taken. The ex post facto effect raises serious due process questions. The standard of proof, which could result in sanctions against individual U.S. citizens based on suspicions, rather than proof, raises separate due process concerns. The congressional disapproval procedures raise separation of powers problems. In reversing the President's determinations regarding sanctions, Congress will, in effect, implicitly be second-guessing the exercise of the President's prosecutorial discretion. Proliferation is a matter of vital national interest. I applaud my friend from Tennessee for raising this issue, and I hope he will continue his work in this critical area next year, when I hope we can come to agreement on a measure that will gain the support of an overwhelming majority of this Chamber. But I must urge all my colleagues to join me in opposing the Thompson amendment. Mr. President, I move to table the Thompson amendment No. 4132, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. China's record on family planning and its use of forced abortion is indefensible. The country's policy violates the most fundamental human rights. That is why the United States does not contribute funds directly or indirectly to China's family planning programs. My good friend and distinguished colleague from North Carolina is to be commended for bringing the matter of Chinese forced abortions to our attention. I do not oppose his amendment on its merits. I only oppose it as an amendment to H.R. 4444. As I said, if PNTR is amended, a conference and another round of votes on H.R. 4444 will be necessary, likely destroying any chance for PNTR. Therefore, I must ask that my colleagues join me in voting against this amendment.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to my colleague's amendment. The amendment is designed to force the Secretary of Commerce to impose so-called ``voluntary codes of conduct'' on American businesses operating in China. The fact is, if the proposed codes were truly voluntary, there would be no need to compel the Secretary of Commerce to pressure U.S. businesses into adopting such codes. More importantly, American businesses already do operate under codes of conduct. The most important code of conduct is, of course, U.S. law. Another code of conduct American companies are bound to follow is local law, which American companies are bound to operate under when selling abroad. In addition, U.S. companies also follow their own internal codes of conduct. There has been a revolution in corporate thinking over the last decade about compliance issues and corporate business practices. American business has applied the philosophy of ``best practices'' that began in the manufacturing sector, but now has also been used as a risk management tool. In other words, adopting an internal--and truly voluntary--internal code of conduct has become a way of minimizing the risk, both legal and financial, that flows from some part of a company operating in a manner that is at odds with the law or corporate ethical standards. Bluntly, there is a reason that corporations do this and it is not altruism. The greatest force ensuring the adoption of these internal codes of conduct is the capital markets. Poor corporate behavior, even if it does not violate the law, has an immediate impact on share prices in today's capital markets. As a consequence, American businesses take their environmental and employment standards with them when they operate overseas. I have with me a copy of a report prepared by the Business Roundtable that details precisely what American companies are doing in China in the way of ``best practices'' in terms of the environment and employment and other social concerns. The way those companies operate is one of the primary reasons that so many Chinese workers are leaving state-owned enterprises to look for work with American companies in China whenever they can find the opportunity. Their wages, benefits and working conditions are almost invariably higher than any other workplace they can find. My point is that there is no need to force American companies to adopt so-called voluntary codes of conduct with respect to their operations in China. They are already providing opportunities in China that confirm that there is a race to the top, not a race to the bottom, when American firms operate overseas. Given the potential beneficial impact that our firms can have in direct contacts with employees, other businesses in China and directly with consumers under the WTO agreement, I would think we would want to do everything we could to ensure that American exporters were free to operate in China, rather than compelling the Secretary of Commerce to dictate to American companies on exactly how they should conduct their operations in China. The reason I say that and the reason I oppose this amendment and support PNTR is that each American company hiring a Chinese employee is sowing the seeds of political pluralism at the same time. That is precisely how we can best foster both economic and peaceful political reform in China. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the Executive Summary contained in the Business Roundtable report to which I referred.

Mr. ROTH. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator for the leadership role he has played on this important matter. I think all of us feel very strongly that Taiwan must and should become a member of WTO. Under no circumstances should this imply a change in its trading status. Taiwan is our eighth largest trading partner--isn't that correct? It would be ironic if her status did not change. She is qualified. I think all the work has been completed for her to become a member. I want to tell my colleague how much I appreciate the leadership he has provided. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Feingold amendment. This amendment would change the mandate of the Levin-Bereuter Commission created by H.R. 4444 by mandating that it make recommendations to the Congress on legislative actions. Such recommendations would have to be introduced in each body, be referred to the Foreign Relations Committee and the International Relations Committee, and be considered by those committees and the Congress under rules similar to ``fast track.'' I oppose this amendment for many reasons. As a jurisdictional matter, I oppose a change in the rules of the Senate that would refer a revenue measure to a committee other than the Finance Committee, as this amendment would do if the Commission recommended a change in the trade status of China, and I urge all Finance Committee members to support me. Second, I see no need to compel a recommendation out of the Commission. As outlined in the mandate of the Commission, if they choose, they may make a recommendation to the Congress on legislative action. Compelling the Commission to do so strikes me as misguided. Third, I see no need to fast track a recommendation by the Commission. The Congress can consider any recommendation by the Commission under the regular order, just as we are considering PNTR. Finally, as I have outlined with every amendment, I believe the adoption of this amendment would unnecessarily risk slowing the underlying bill down. Therefore, I view a vote for this amendment as a vote to kill PNTR.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time on our side.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to my colleague's amendment. I do not intend to address the merits of his proposal as a matter of U.S. labor law. Rather, my point is a far simpler one. The current business of this body is a bill to normalize our trade relationship with China. This amendment simply does not belong on H.R. 4444 and has nothing to do with China's trade status under our law. But, the price of adopting the amendment could be very high for every working man and woman in the United States. The reason is that the amendment could result in delay or defeat of PNTR and the grant of PNTR is the one step we absolutely must take to ensure that American workers, together with American farmers and American businesses, reap the benefits of China's market access commitments under the WTO. What we would be sacrificing is, according to independent economic analysis, $13 billion in additional U.S. export sales annually. Expanding our export sales, as has been reiterated a number of times already in this debate, creates new jobs. And I point out, jobs in U.S. export sectors pay 15 percent more and provide 32 percent more in benefits than average. What that means in practical terms is that the passage of PNTR and the exports we expect to expand under the WTO agreement with the Chinese provide real, tangible benefits to workers in American society. I ask, as a consequence, that my colleagues join me in opposing the proposed amendment. I ask the Senator from Minnesota, are you ready to yield back time?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Vote On Amendment No. 4128

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. ROTH. Has all time been yielded back on that?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back the 2 minutes on both sides.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.