Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, during the course of the debate on this amendment, I heard several statements made--I am sorry my colleague from Virginia is not on the floor at the moment--about precedent-breaking and about what the law says. We have heard all these representations about the law. I have the law in my hand, and I am going to read from it word for word. This is the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which has been cited a number of times, that somehow we are breaking precedent, violating law, or not maintaining the law with what we are doing in the Everglades. Section 906(e). There are three criteria mentioned here in terms of construction, and then I will go to O&M: (e) In those cases when the Secretary, as part of any report to Congress, recommends activities to enhance fish and wildlife resources, the first costs of such enhancement-- In this case construction-- shall be a Federal cost when-- (1) such enhancement provides benefits that are determined to be national. . . . Everybody in this Chamber today has called the Everglades a national treasure, including those proponents of this amendment. (2) such enhancement is designed to benefit species that have been listed as threatened or endangered by the Secretary of Interior. . . . We have 68 endangered or threatened species in the Everglades. (3) such activities are located on lands managed as a national wildlife refuge. We have 16 national wildlife refuges in the Everglades ecosystem. Here is the line which is absolutely the opposite of what has been said on the Senate floor all afternoon on this amendment. Listen carefully. This is the O&M portion: When benefits of enhancement do not qualify under the preceding sentence, 25 percent of such first costs of enhancement shall be provided by non-Federal interests under a schedule of reimbursement. . . . The non-Federal share of operation, maintenance . . . of activities to enhance fish and wildlife resources shall be 25 percent. If the non-Federal portion is 25 percent, the Federal portion should be 75 percent. All we are asking for in this legislation is a 50 percent Federal portion. We are not violating any law. We are absolutely following, to Florida's detriment, if one wants to take that position since they could do 75-25; we are doing 50-50. It is very important my colleagues understand. No precedent is being broken. No law is being ignored or violated. We are working within the law under this provision, up to 75 percent Federal share when those three criteria of construction I just mentioned are met. We have met all three of those. We do not even have to meet them all. It is ``or.'' We met all three. As a result of that, we can go up to 75 percent. We have gone to 50 percent in the Federal share. There is a compelling reason to do this. It is fair, and it is within the law. I will conclude with a few more points. If one looks at the so-called normal WRDA legislation, 65 percent Federal--35 percent State on construction--we are doing 50-50 with the Everglades--that is a 15- percent reduction in the Federal cost. If we take that 15-percent reduction--Senator Mack referred to this already--that is about $1.2 billion the Federal Government is saving on the construction portion. The question is, If we take that $1.2 billion and offset it, how much O&M can we get out of that? Senator Mack thought it was around 20 years. So there are 20 years of O&M just from the savings on that particular part of the construction. All my colleagues need to understand, this is a deal-breaking amendment. This amendment would basically take down the entire Everglades proposal, in my view, and WRDA, because to go from the 50-50 position, which has been delicately negotiated and has stayed within the law and stayed within the precedent, contrary to what has been said, would be a deal breaker. That would be a tragedy, in my view, with the greatest respect for the proponents because they feel strongly about this. I do not want to be breaking precedent or violating law and will not. I want, first, my colleagues to know after this project is constructed, it is the responsibility of the non-Federal interests to operate and maintain it. In the Everglades provision, 50-50 O&M--I do not think that is out of the ordinary; it is within the law, as I said. The Federal Government owns and manages about 50 percent of the lands that will benefit from this restoration project. Fifty percent is federally owned. For realizing 50 percent of the benefits, it is not unreasonable we should put up 50 percent of the costs. We could do 75 under the law; we are doing 50. There are four national parks, as I indicated before, 16 national wildlife refuges, 1 national marine sanctuary, and 21 federally managed properties, or 5 million acres of federally owned and managed lands all in the south Florida ecosystem. I do not mean to imply that other projects are not important, but this project has plenty of Federal interest. The level of the investment being put forth by the State is unprecedented, and they put it up early, to their credit. They put money aside right from the beginning. We asked Governor Bush and the legislature to do that. They did it and did it quickly and willingly. The Federal Government was responsible for damaging the Everglades, as has been pointed out. We did it. The Federal Government did it in 1948. That is another aspect of this that needs to be considered. We must look at what we did. We did the damage, not knowingly or not knowing how badly it was going to affect the Everglades, but we did it, and therefore we have an obligation to correct it. That should impact that figure of 50-50. Do we want to ensure our investment in the restoration effort is preserved for future generations? The answer is unequivocally yes. Do we believe the restoration project is an equal partnership between the Federal Government and the State of Florida? The answer is yes, absolutely. Florida does, too. Do we want to impose on Florida the burden for maintaining fresh flows of water in the quality and quantity needed by our Federal trust resources? I do not think so. Our properties are our responsibility, and we should maintain them. That is not unreasonable. The Everglades provision in the managers' amendment is supported by the administration, supported by the State of Florida, supported by two Native American tribes impacted by the restoration, and supported by industry groups and environmentalists, and they do not want to risk fracturing that delicate coalition of support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Governor Bush of Florida in opposition to this amendment and a letter from several environmental groups in opposition, and also a letter from Dawson Associates, which represents a number of industries, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack. And I thank him for his help and cooperation on this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in conclusion, we have an opportunity to rectify a terrible mistake we made. We did it with good intentions. But we made a mistake. This is what we need to do. It is our responsibility now to do that. The Everglades provision in the managers' amendment is supported by these groups. I urge my colleagues to preserve that Federal-State partnership in the Everglades restoration, to preserve this 50-50 O&M, and to reject this amendment because, again, I believe to pass this amendment would break the deal that we have already worked out so delicately among so many groups, No. 1, and, No. 2, it would be unfair. It would not be consistent with the law, WRDA 86, and it would not, in my view, be consistent with the precedent.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield whatever time he may consume to my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Voinovich.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I am prepared to yield that back, but Senator Levin has asked for time to make a comment. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, at this time I now call up division I of my amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I know Senator Hollings is waiting. I just have one more amendment, the so-called division IV. I call up division IV at this time and ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment, division IV. This amendment deals with the environment. Again, this is commission language that simply calls for the commission to report on the progress, or lack thereof, that companies and the Chinese Government are making in China regarding environmental laws. Our companies in America are under strict environmental regulations, yet there are no regulations in China. All this amendment asks is that we monitor these regulations so we can find out what kind of progress is being made on these issues. Over the past 30 years, we have heard a steady stream of arguments that strong environmental protections are necessary, and that punitive sanctions are indispensable, because corporations will sacrifice the long-term public interest in preserving the environment for the sake of short-term profits. For the past 8 years, the Clinton administration has added its voice to that stream. The administration has consistently told us that the American business community cannot be trusted to deal with the environment in a responsible manner unless two conditions are met: First, we must have strong environmental laws on the books. Second, we must ensure that those laws are vigorously enforced--that individual firms can and will be aggressively sanctioned whenever they stray from what those laws allow. To be sure, the Clinton administration has told us that economic progress can neatly coexist with environmental protection--that swords can be turned into plowshares without ruining the land to be tilled. But the administration has not suggested that we should exempt any business or State from compliance with Federal law. Today, we have chance to implement those principles. I offer today an amendment to H.R. 4444 that would require the Commission established by the bill to report on the progress of China in the implementation of laws designed to protect human health, and to protect, restore, and preserve the environment. Let me tell you why we need that amendment: China's environmental record to date is grim: It has been said that China is home to half of the world's 10 most polluted cities.--See www.SpeakOut.com, 5/17/00, Pages 1-2; Friends of the Earth--World Trade, www.Foe.org/international/wto/china.html, Page 1. One source, however, says that the situation has worsened since 1995 and that China now has 8 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world.-- See Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), July 30, 2000, ``China Expert Chen Qingtai Warns of Deteriorating Eco-System,'' Document ID CPP20000730000042, Page 2. Yet another source now puts the number at 9 out of 10.--See China Focus, May 2000: China's Environment, www.virtualchina.com/focus/environment/index.html. ``By the Chinese government's own standards, two-thirds of the 338 Chinese cities for which air quality data are available are polluted. Two-thirds of those are rated `moderately'--though still seriously--or heavily polluted.''--See Michael Dorgan, ``China gets serious about cleaning up its air,'' Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, August 1, 2000. The Chinese capital of Beijing is one of the those top 10 cities with the world's worst air quality. In Beijing, the annual sulfur dioxide levels are twice the maximum set by the World Health Organization, and the particulates are four times the maximum WHO level.--See House Republican Policy Committee 2 (July 6, 1998). In 1999, ``on one day out of four--Beijing's air quality--reached Level 4--out of 5--when even nonsmokers feel they have the lungs of the Marlboro Man, or Level 5, when it's so toxic that a few breaths can leave a person dizzy and nearby buildings seem lost in a filthy fog.''--See Michael Dorgan, ``China gets serious about cleaning up its air,'' Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, August 1, 2000. An estimated 2 million people die each year in China from air and water pollution.--See Friends of the Earth--World Trade, www.Foe.org.international/wto/china.html, Page 1. Water pollution in China is widespread and toxic. IN fact, 80 percent of China's rivers are so polluted that fish cannot live in them.--See www.SpeakOut.com, 5/17/00, Page 2. ``[T]he 25 billion tons of unfiltered industrial pollutants that the Chinese sent into their waterways in 1991 gave Communist China `more toxic water pollution in that one country than in the whole of the Western world.' ''--See House Republican Policy Committee 2 (July 6, 1998), quoting Gregg Easterbrook. A recent report from the Ministry of Water Resources of the Chinese Government states that the water supply to as many as 300 million people in China fails the Chinese Government's health standard. In addition, according to the China Economic Times, Chinese Ministry of Water Resources report said that 46 percent of China's more than 700 rivers were polluted, meaning that they fell within Grade 4 or 5 of the Chinese Government's 5-Grade water quality rating system. Under that rating system, Grade 1 is deemed clean and suitable for consumption, while Grade 5 is considered undrinkable. Ministry experts explained that industrial pollution was the main source of contamination. Those experts estimated that factories produced about 60 billion tons of waste and sewage each year and that 80 percent of that waste and sewage was discharged into rivers without treatment. Ninety percent of the water sources in China's urban areas are severely polluted. Acid rain degrades forest and farm land, and imposes an annual cost of an estimated $1.8 billion in economic losses.--See www.greenpeace-china.org.hk/press/19991101_pr_00.html. China is the world's largest producer of chlorofluorocarbons, the chemicals that are said to be responsible for destroying the ozone layer.--See www.SpeakOut.com, 5/17/00, Page 2. China already consumes more coal in energy production than any other nation. Energy planners expect that China's coal consumption will double, if not triple, by the year 2020. If China's coal use increases as expected over the next two decades, that growth alone will increase global greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent--all but dooming efforts by the rest of the world to reduce a 50-70-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. See Mark Hertsgaard (July 19, 2000). By 2020, China will become the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.--See www.SpeakOut.com, 5/17/00, Page 3. Why is the environmental such a disaster in China today? The answer is simple--the people of China do not enjoy political and economic freedom. Per capita emissions in China are 75 percent higher than in Brazil, which has an economy of similar size. The difference is that the autocratic, Communist government in China robs the people of that nation of the ability to seek both a prosperous economy and a healthy environment. A free people will not consent to the type of environmental degradation seen today in China. Since 1970, in this nation we have been unwilling to put up with a far less dangerous state of affairs than China has today. We have enacted and enforced strong environmental protection laws, and we have supported environmental preservation in our decisions as consumers and as contributors to charitable causes. Moreover, prosperity not only is compatible with a clean environment, prosperity also is a precondition for it. A rich people will have the ability to recognize the long-term benefits of preservation. Mature free market economies make increasingly efficient uses of resources, while leaving a smaller footprint on the air, the water, and the land. Under our current law, we can urge China gradually to improve its environmental performance as a condition to being granted normal trading privileges. We lose that option if we pass H.R. 4444. For that reason, this bill is our only, and last best, chance to exercise leverage in order to influence China's decision in the environmental field. We believe that laws such as the Clean Air Act are necessary for the health of this nation. Why should we expect less for anyone else-- particularly China? We believe that enforcement is necessary for law to be meaningful in this nation? Why should we expect anything different across the Pacific? We believe that a sound economy and a healthy environment can and should be attained from the Atlantic to the Pacific? Why should we expect less from Pacific to the South China Sea? There also is no good reason why, in the name of environmentalism, we should impose a greater burden on American citizens than we expect other countries to impose on themselves. China now has 20 percent of the world's population, so what China does environmentally greatly affects everyone else. All that this amendment does it to require the Commission created by this legislation to monitor and report on China's efforts to protect the environment. Former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick once criticized my colleagues across the aisle for their tendency to ``Blame America First''--that is, for their belief that there must be something wrong with this great Nation that causes the world's ills. Keep that in mind when you consider this amendment. If laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are necessary for the environmental health of this Nation, then those laws--or something analogous--are necessary for China, too. That is, they are necessary unless you believe in a policy of ``Restrict America First, Always, and Only.'' There is no good reason for us to give up our opportunity to ensure that annually we can encourage, cajole, or prod China into improving its environment, for its sake and for everyone's, until we are sure that China no longer will be the world's superpolluter. You might ask why China is such an environmental disaster. The same reason the Soviet Union was. The answer is, the people of China, as in the Soviet Union, don't enjoy political and economic freedom. Per capita emissions in China are 75 percent higher than in Brazil, which has an economy of similar size. They don't have a choice. They don't care. The Government doesn't care. They don't have a choice to clean it up. We could make a difference if we monitored this, talked about this to the world, brought this out each year in the commission report on PNTR. A free people would not consent to this kind of stuff, as we haven't--to this type of environmental degradation. Moreover, prosperity is not only compatible with a clean air environment, but a precondition for it. So I hope we can move forward on this amendment and allow for the commission to monitor these environmental disasters, where we apply one standard to our Government and no standard to a government making huge profits as a result of our trade. Again, this is a very noncontroversial amendment but one I think all of my colleagues who say they are pro-environment ought to support. I guess I am going to draw the conclusion that if you can't vote for this, you are pro-environment for America but not the rest of the world--especially China. That is kind of sad. I hope I will have support on this amendment, as well as the other amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes. A rollcall vote on division I and division IV. Mr. President, as you know, last Thursday, I offered an amendment that would require the Congressional-Executive Commission, which is created under the permanent normal trade relations bill on China, to monitor the level of Chinese cooperation on the POW/MIA issue and to pass this information to the American people as part of an annual report that the commission will issue. I have long been an advocate of the POW/MIA issue. I believe the U.S. Government should make every effort to account for any missing American servicemen from any of our Nation's conflicts. I am sure you all agree that we have a solemn obligation to these brave Americans and their families. There are over 10,000 unaccounted-for American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines from Korea, Vietnam, and the cold war, not to mention many from World War II. The fate of many of these unaccounted-for Americans, especially from the Korean war, could be easily clarified by the People's Republic of China. This is an undisputed fact, that the Chinese continue to deny that they have any information that could help us account for our missing. I have been to North Korea and have talked to the North Koreans on this issue. I have talked to the Russians. Both the Russians and the North Koreans indicated to me, in private discussions, that the Chinese had volumes of information on American servicemen, especially during the Korean war because, as we know, the Chinese were heavily involved. They maintained the camps in Korea during the war. So all I am asking for in this amendment is that we can include this language so the commission can monitor and put some pressure on the Chinese to provide information. It is humanitarian. It is basic humanitarian information about our missing service men and women. I do not think this is unreasonable. I do not think it is going to delay anything. It would simply go back to the House. The House would add the amendment, and off it goes: We have now made a statement to the Chinese Communists that we care about our American POWs and MIAs. I would be astounded if anyone would even consider voting against this amendment, drawing the conclusion that somehow it is going to mess up the permanent normal trade relations deal. It would take about 5 minutes to get it approved in the House, another 5 minutes for the President to take a look at it and sign the bill, and we are moving on and now have some attention on it. We have now said to the Chinese Government: Not only do we care about our missing, we want you to help us find some of our MIAs and POWs from those conflicts. I would like to share with my colleagues just a small fraction of the information that I have--and, believe me, it is a small fraction. I pored through many intelligence files, and I am only giving you a smattering of these files. But I can tell you, the Chinese deny any information, when, in fact, our own intelligence community has volumes of information to the contrary, that they could answer about what happened to our POWs and MIAs, especially from the camps in North Korea, at the end of the war. But it is precisely the type of information I am going to share with you that makes it all the more important that we say to the Chinese: You have to cooperate with us on this humanitarian issue. For example, there are numerous declassified CIA intelligence reports from the 1950s that indicate the Chinese have knowledge about American POWs from that war--numerous, numerous declassified intelligence reports, and many classified that we cannot talk about here. I did this the other day when I offered the amendment. I believe I put these in the Record yesterday. I will check that. If I did not, I will enter them. But I believe they are in the Record. Here is a good example of one. This is a Central Intelligence Agency Information report dated in May of 1951. So we were at the height of the Korean war in May of 1951. The subject matter is: ``American Prisoners of War in Canton,'' China. Some of the information is blacked out because of sources and methods. Even today, 40 years later, it is still blacked out. But, again, it is a reference to prisoners of war held by the Chinese in the Korean war. If the Chinese held prisoners, clearly they would know what happened to the prisoners or at least could share some information on the records they maintained in the camps. Here is another one: 27 June 1951, another intelligence report right here, entitled, ``Subject: American Prisoners of War in South China.'' I will just cite a couple of paragraphs from it: A staff member of the State Security Bureau in Seoul [Korea] on 12 February stated that all American prisoners of war were sent to camps . . . And then they list several cities in Manchuria where they were put to hard labor in mines and factories. So that is another CIA intelligence report. Why would we not want to say to the Chinese: Look, here is our own intelligence. We know you held our prisoners in the war. All we want you to do is help us provide answers for their loved ones. Yet I regret, sincerely regret, to say that people are going to come down to this Senate floor shortly, before the end of the afternoon, and they are going to vote no on this amendment. I believe so many will vote no that it will fail. The reason they are going to give for that vote--and that is what they are going to tell their constituents--is: Of course we would like to get information on our POWs and MIAs. Of course we would like to have the Chinese cooperate. But we are not willing to put it in the permanent normal trade relations because--you know what?--we might make them angry, and we will not be able to sell them corn and wheat. That is what we are saying. Maybe we can look our veterans in the eye and the families of these people in the eye and say: That's all right. But it is not all right with me. My conscience will be clear. I know how I am voting on this amendment. I would appreciate the consideration of my colleagues. It is not asking very much to send this back to the House with this one amendment that says we care. It is interesting; there are many groups who oppose permanent normal trade relations with China. But I will tell you, the veterans groups oppose it. What does that tell you? The American Legion opposes it. Many veterans groups oppose it. They are the ones who made the sacrifice. I guarantee you, the families of these individuals who are missing would sure love to see this language put in this bill. I could go on and on. I will not cite many, but here is another one: ``U.S. Prisoners of War in Communist China, 11 Aug. 1951.'' It is a CIA report. This is one of just thousands that we have had--classified and unclassified--just like this. On 2 August fifty-two US prisoners of war from Korea, who had been held in the Baptist church . . . And they name the location-- left Canton by train for [another location] under guard. . . . This is very detailed stuff. This is not just somebody who makes a general statement. These are specific eyewitness sightings of prisoners being moved around in China during the war and who never returned. I am not maintaining that these people are alive. It would be nice if they were, but I am not maintaining that. But clearly, the Chinese, if they would sit down with us with these documents, we could talk to them, and we could trace this information. We could talk to the people in these provinces, and maybe we could get some information. Perhaps where were these prisoners buried? How were they killed? What kinds of information do we have on them? Are there personal effects, anything like that? Another report, September 1951, title: American Prisoners of War, Communist China, CIA. On and on and on. All I am asking my colleagues is to say that that is not acceptable, that we will give permanent normal trade relations to China and not ask them to at least help us account for our missing. I say to those of you who might be skeptical, if you want me to provide you these documents in detail, I will provide the documents in detail. I can send you to the proper locations in the U.S. Government where the classified documents, which are far more specific than this, will give you even more specific information. I went to North Korea. I sat down in Pyongyang with the North Korean officials several years ago, the first American Senator to visit North Korea. I talked to the North Koreans about those camps that were run during the war. They showed me photographs of the Communist Chinese guards who guarded those troops, our troops, our prisoners, American prisoners, during the war. They know what happened to those people. They can provide us information. Why is that asking so much--to say we want to monitor this to say to the Chinese, every time PNTR comes up for discussion, we want you to help us find answers? I wrote a letter to the Chinese Government on this and got a blunt response: We don't have any information. We are not going to share any information with you. We know that is not true. Yet why should they give us information if we say to them, you don't have to give us information because we are going to give you what you want, which is trade and credibility and recognition on the international plain? This is just basic human rights--basic. Senator Helms and others, Senator Wellstone and others, have offered amendments, over and over again, about human rights violations--all defeated, including mine. We talked about abuse in orphanages. We talked about forced abortions, women forced to have abortions at 9 months--all ignored, all voted down--all in the name of profit, all in the name of saying we don't want to risk antagonizing the Chinese. We don't want to take a few minutes to have this on the other side, to go back over to the House where they might have to add an amendment to send it to the President. That is the reason for this. As you can imagine, it is difficult to investigate reports that are 50 years old. That is exactly why we need the Chinese to cooperate. You look at a report such as this; it goes back 50 years. We need the people on the ground. We need the Communist Chinese archives--not classified top secret Chinese secrets, that is not what we want. We want basic humanitarian information. They could give it to us, a lot of it. And probably we could clarify the fate of hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of American POWs and MIAs. I will give one example. On my last trip to Russia, we were able to access some archives. The Russians were very cooperative. They provided 10,000 documents that helped us to identify flyers, American pilots, who were lost in the Korean conflict because the Russians--Soviets then--flew aircraft; they actually saw the shootdowns. They made notations about the tail number of the aircraft, how many pilots, did the pilot parachute out, did the plane go down in flames--very personal, firsthand accounts, very helpful; 10,000 documents. These documents will help us to be able to go to the families of these men and be able to say to them, this is what happened to your husband or your father, your brother, whomever, as best we know based on the testimony of the Russians. The Russians, to their credit, are being cooperative. Why can't we ask the Chinese to do this? Why is that asking too much? This is the thing that disturbs me so much, that just basic humanitarian issues are thrown aside in the name of somehow taking a little more time. What is another day, if we are going to give the Chinese permanent trade status? What is another day to include this kind of language? Secretary Cohen, to his credit, at my request raised this issue with the Chinese during his recent visit to China this last summer. Once again, the Chinese simply brushed it aside. They said: we don't have any information--when in fact our intelligence files and our own information flat out knows and says the opposite. But let's not forget what the real issue is here. The Chinese stand to make billions from trade with the United States. Shame on us if we fail to demand that in return for those billions, we ask for basic humanitarian information on our servicemen. Shame on us. All we can do is call this to the attention of our colleagues. I can't make colleagues vote the way I want them to vote, nor should I. It is up to them to make that decision. But I urge them to make the decision to ask for this basic information. I have worked on this issue for 16 years, as a Senator and a Congressman. I know what I am talking about. I have been to China. I have been to Cambodia. I have been to Laos. I have flown a helicopter over the Plain of Jars. I landed in the Plain of Jars. I went into caves looking for American POWs. I scoured the hillsides and countrysides of Cambodia and Laos and Vietnam and Russia. They have all been relatively cooperative, some more than others, not cooperative enough. But the Chinese have done nothing--no access, zero, zippo. Yet here we are, giving them permanent status. It is wrong. My concern extends beyond Chinese knowledge of Americans missing from the Korean war. We know approximately 320,000 Chinese military personnel served in Vietnam from 1965 to 1970. So moving now from the Korean war to the Vietnam war, it seems to me highly likely that many of these Chinese troops would be knowledgeable about the fate of some 2,000 Americans still unaccounted for from the Vietnam war. It also impacts the Vietnam war. It also impacts the cold war. I am personally opposed to PNTR. I will vote against it. But it certainly would be nice if those who are going to vote for it, since I know it is going to pass, would be willing to at least have this basic noncontroversial amendment which would help to account for missing Americans. Let me tell you what else it would do. It would provide a lot of solace to American families who for 50 years have waited for some word about their loved ones. Yet Senators don't want to vote for this amendment because to vote for it means it might have to go to conference. They don't want to short-circuit the legislative process. Did anybody ask these folks before they went off to war whether they cared about short-circuiting the legislative process? They went. They served. They were lost. They deserve this amendment. They earned this amendment. My amendment would merely expand the scope of the commission in the permanent normal trade relations bill to include the monitoring of Chinese cooperation on the POW/MIA issue. It is about as noncontroversial as anything we could do. Not only should we vote for this amendment, we have an obligation to vote for this amendment. Anything less than that is wrong. You can rest assured that the 10,000 missing Americans from the Vietnam and Korean wars didn't fight so that the Senate could short-circuit the legislative process. That is not what they fought for. Ask the families what they fought for. I have a father who died in the Second World War. I know what my family suffered. I know what it is like to grow up without a father. I knew what happened to my father. He was killed serving his country. Many sons and daughters out there have no idea what happened to their loved ones. Wouldn't it be nice if the Senate said we would like to try to find out and that we are willing to attach this to PNTR? This is the least we should do. Amendment No. 4129, Division IV

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now consider, in the following order, division I of my amendment, to be followed by division IV, and following the use or yielding back of the time, the amendments be laid aside with votes to occur at a time to be determined by the leader.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That completes any discussion I have on the amendments. At this time I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in the remaining couple of moments, I will just conclude by saying, I have been out here a number of times following, frankly, in the huge footsteps of Senator Helms, in a very small way, to talk about protecting the lives of unborn children. But this goes far beyond that. This debate now has taken a new level. It is now forcing abortions on women against their wishes. I hope that someday Senator Helms and I, and others, will have the opportunity to stand here in the well and see this practice of abortion ended in this country. Because who knows what is next? If we do not respect the lives of our children, then what do we respect? Children are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. I have raised three. A lot of you out there listening to me now have raised more than that. They are smart. They know when you say: Johnny, go off to school, be a good boy today, mind your teacher--meanwhile we will abort your sister. Forty million children have died in this country alone from abortion. Those 40 million children will never get to be a Senator, a spectator in the gallery, a mother, a pastor, a CEO. They are never going to have the chance to be a page. They never had a chance, 40 million of them. We did. So maybe we should not be too surprised that the Senate is willing to look the other way while they do it in China. We should not be real surprised. But someday I pray that I will be able to stand here and say thank you to at least 67 of my colleagues who put a stop to it. Maybe that day will happen some time in my lifetime. I sure look forward to it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, let me take the opportunity to say again publicly on this floor to the Senator from North Carolina what an honor it is to serve with him and to know him as a friend. He is one of the finest people I have ever met in my life. I don't say that lightly. There are a lot of people, especially the unborn children of this world, who know who has been carrying the torch here for children who cannot speak for themselves in the womb. They owe you a lot. We owe you a lot. I am proud to be here in the Senate with you.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am proud to stand in support of the Helms amendment. On August 24 of this year, publications all around the world ran headlines very similar to this: Chinese kill baby to enforce birth rule. The article went on to describe how five Chinese Government officials intruded into the home of a woman who had given birth against the state's oppressive ``one child'' policy. They waited in her living room until she returned from the hospital. When she arrived, the officials ripped the baby boy from her arms where--to the horror of his mother and onlookers--they walked outside to a rice paddy and drowned the child in front of his parents' eyes. A wave of anger obviously enveloped this small township in the following hours of the child's murder. However, this is China. Villagers are kept from speaking out against this atrocity, and they find themselves in a terrible state of unified silence as a fear of retribution, harm, or even death for their own families settles upon them. This is the China to which we are giving permanent trade status with this bill. I find it unbelievable that we cannot get these kinds of human rights atrocities addressed in this permanent normal trade relations bill for China. We are saying this is fine, we will ignore it, not talk about it, as long as we can sell them wheat, corn, whatever, and make money. So we can ignore this. I am the first to admit we cannot intrude, unfortunately, into the policies of the Government of China, but we can make known these policies to the world and we can say as a nation, supposedly the moral leader of the world, that this is wrong. I am proud of Senator Helms for bringing this to the attention of the Senate during this debate, and I cannot understand, for the life of me, why we cannot allow simple sense-of-the-Senate language to this permanent normal trade relations bill in an effort to stop this horrible, barbaric behavior. The Helms amendment simply expresses the sense of Congress that, one, Congress should urge China to cease its forced abortion and forced sterilization policies, and two, the President should urge China to cease its detention of those who resist abortion and sterilization. It is a good amendment. There is nothing wrong with this amendment. It is fair and it is reasonable. In addition, I also believe that Chinese women should have the right to choose. It is interesting, those who have been the strongest proponents of abortion in this Chamber--when it comes to a Chinese woman's right to say, ``I want to have my child,'' the silence is deafening. When a woman says, ``I have the right to choose to have an abortion,'' they are out here in full force. A little inconsistency? The point is, a Chinese woman is told, in spite of the fact she wants to have her child, that she cannot, and not only can she not have it, it is aborted forcefully. I had constituents, a young couple, a few months ago come to me. They were both Chinese. They had been visiting America. She was about 5 or 6 months pregnant and was told if she went back to China the child was going to be aborted. I turned all hands on deck to get that case resolved so they did not have to go back, and she did not go back. She had that child, now an American citizen, born in freedom, but that child would have been aborted in China against the wishes of the mother. We cannot even get this issue addressed with sense-of-the- Senate language before we pass on the fast track permanent normal trade relations. There is so much talk about choice, but the choice only runs one way--when one is talking about the woman's ``right'' to an abortion. When it comes to the right to choose to have her baby, silence. It is a stated position of the Chinese Communist Party that forced abortion and forced sterilization have no role in the population control program. In fact, the Chinese Communist Government encourages both forced abortion and forced sterilization. I emphasize ``forced.'' They accomplish this through a combination of strictly enforced birth quotas and immunity for local population control officials who use coercion to force abortion. Nobody really knows for sure how many women undergo these abortions. We do not exactly have a population count on that score. Most women are afraid to report. The numbers are kept secret. According to Harry Wu, the director of the Laogai Research Foundation, who once lived in China and now monitors and writes about his native homeland, the city of Janjiang alone experienced 1,141 forced abortions in one 9-month period in 1997. Those were women who wanted to have their children and were forced to have an abortion. One can imagine the horror of the woman who has to go through that. I say with the greatest respect for those who disagree with the issue, where are you today? If you are for a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, why can you not be for a woman's right not to have one? Why the silence? Where are the votes on this amendment? I want to spend the next minute or two telling about one brave woman who dared to come out of Red China to talk about this so-called planned birth policy. Her name is Ms. Gao. She testified before the House Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights a couple of years ago. According to Ms. Gao, in order to successfully carry out the policy, precise records of the women in her province were compiled, noting their names, births, marriages, pregnancies, reproductive cycles--all sorts of information. Women who met the planned birth committee's criteria were then issued a ``birth allowance,'' while those women who did not meet the criteria were given ``birth not allowed'' notices. This is the country to which we are giving permanent normal trade relations. Senator Helms is not forcing us to do anything except to put this language in the bill as a sense of the Senate that alerts the world to this practice. That is all he is asking. We are told if we support Senator Helms, we are going to delay the passage of the bill. So? Permanent is permanent. What are a few more days, hours, minutes? I venture to say, if we sent this back to the House with the Helms language in it, it would take the House about 5 minutes to approve it, and that would be the end of it. What they are really afraid of is offending the Chinese--that is what this is about--because we do not want to lose the sales of our agricultural products. Sales of agricultural products are more important than the lives of children who are forcibly killed in front of their parents. If a woman is found to be pregnant and does not possess a birth-allowed certificate, she is immediately given an abortion, no matter how far along the pregnancy is. I repeat--no matter how far along the pregnancy is. Enforcement is a crucial component of China's planned parenthood policies. Mandatory medical inspections for women of childbearing age is required. One can imagine the secrecy, trying to hide the fact you are pregnant if you want to have the child, maybe even keeping it from your own family, certainly friends, relatives, for fear you are going to be turned in to Big Brother, Communist China Government. Those who fail to undertake these medical examinations at the preordained time face jail and monetary fines. Night raids to apprehend women in violation of state policy are frequent. Where are the proponents of women's rights on this debate? Why are they not standing with Senator Helms? If the Chinese Government cannot locate the woman, they will detain her husband or her parent or anyone in her family until she comes forward and surrenders to have that abortion. This is happening in China. Let's not kid ourselves. Let's not pretend it does not happen. It is happening in China. I want to read from Ms. Gao's testimony in 1998. It is pretty compelling, and it is not pleasant. She said: Once I found a woman who was 9 months pregnant but did not have her birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy, she was forced to undergo an abortion surgery. In the operation room, I saw how the aborted child's lips were sucking, how its limbs were stretching. A physician injected poison into its skull, and the child died and was thrown into a trash can. To help a tyrant do evils was not what I wanted . . . I could not live with this on my conscience. I, too, after all, am a mother. She goes on to say: All of those 14 years, I was a monster in the daytime, injuring others-- and killing babies-- by the Chinese communist authorities' barbaric planned-birth policy, but in the evening, I was like all other women and mothers, enjoying my life with my children. I could not live such a dual life anymore. Here, to all those injured women, to all those children who were killed, I want to repent and say sincerely that I'm sorry! I want to be a real human being. It is also my sincere hope that what I describe here today can lead you to give your attention to this issue, so that you can extend your arms to save China's women and children. Senator Helms has fulfilled that lady's expectations by bringing this to the attention of the Senate, the American people, and the world, on behalf of China's women and children. What is a real shame is, what the Senator is asking here will be rejected as we vote no. Finally, Ms. Mao stated: My conscience was always gnawing at my heart. You see, because the official religion of the Chinese Government is atheism, as it is with all Communist regimes, their policies and officials do not have to answer to any higher power except to the state. There is no sense of morality behind their Government's decisionmaking process. But let me ask a very poignant question. Is there a sense of our morality to ignore it? What does it say about our morality to say we will sell corn and wheat and make a profit and ignore this? Why not say: Stop this and we will sell you the corn and the wheat? Isn't that better? Aren't we supposed to be the moral leader? When God is absent, human life is invaluable, isn't it? It does not have much meaning because we are children under God. If you do not believe that, then life has no meaning other than how it exists here on this Earth. That is why you have forced abortions. That is why you have persecution. That is why you have guns pointed at students' heads. That is why you have tanks poised to run over protesters. That is why you have harvested organs. I talked about that this morning in my amendment, I say to Senator Helms, which got 29 votes, including the Senator's, for which I am very grateful. They also do that. That is another issue. China harvests organs--not from willing donors--from prisoners who sometimes do nothing more than protest against the state. They are executed by being shot in the head, and then organs are taken and sold for $30,000 apiece for a kidney, and the money is given to the Chinese military. We lost on that amendment, I say to Senator Helms, by a vote of 60- something to 29. What does that say? That we are unwilling to send this back to the House for 5 or 10 minutes in conference and pass it? That is why I am strongly supporting this amendment by Senator Helms. I am proud to support this amendment. I am proud to stand here on the floor of the Senate and say that this is wrong. Sometimes you have to say things whether you win the debate or not. Sometimes it does not matter whether you win the debate or not; it is just having the debate that matters. His amendment would encourage the Chinese Government to stop this atrocity, to stop this barbaric act, to stop forcing abortion on unborn children and forcing women to have those abortions. It is not unreasonable to ask my colleagues to support this amendment which is vital to human rights in China. It is vital to the rights of a woman and it is vital to the rights of a child. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the remarks from Harry Wu on forced abortions in China.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Smith amendment on organ harvesting. Do not listen to the talk on the floor that we need to stay together on PNTR and not have any amendments which might slow down the process. I urge my colleagues to vote yes not only on the Smith amendment but other amendments that are offered by colleagues that will expose some of the basic human rights violations that have occurred in China and are still occurring in China. It is wrong to look the other way and to sanction it while we provide aid, food, and trade to this nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to return to the Helms amendment No. 4128.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the amendment--on Senator Helms' time?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from North Carolina, if he desires to finish the debate on this, please interrupt me and I will be happy to yield to him.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, very shortly there will be a vote on one of the divisions in my amendment to the PNTR legislation. This is a particular odious practice that occurs now in China called organ harvesting. It is hard to imagine that any nation in the world today would conduct activities as odious as this, but it does happen. As we know from the debate that has been occurring on the permanent normal trade relations with China, most of the predictions are it is going to pass, perhaps overwhelmingly. I personally oppose the legislation. But if we are going to pass it, I believe we have an obligation to at least call to the attention of the rest of the world, and frankly to our own people here in America, the barbaric practices that are occurring in this country to which we are about to give permanent normal trade status. Permanent is a pretty strong word. Permanent means permanent. Under the permanent normal trade relations bill, there is a process for monitoring the activities. There is a commission that is set up. My amendment is very simple. It says: The Commission shall monitor the actions of the government of the People's Republic of China with respect to its practice of harvesting and transplanting organs for profit from prisoners that it executes. So all my colleagues know, this amendment simply says the commission shall monitor these activities in China as best they can and report to the American people what they find. I believe very strongly it is wrong for us as a nation to look the other way and say it is OK to make money, to trade with China, sell our agricultural products, and ignore these types of human rights violations. In the debate yesterday I discussed this briefly. We heard a lot about not delaying the bill. The House has sent us over a bill--which, by the way they amended, they added some things to the monitoring--and they sent it back to the Senate. Now many of my colleagues who are supporting PNTR are saying: Let's not delay this. If we agree to these amendments, the Smith amendment or the Thompson amendment or the Wellstone amendment or any other amendment that has been offered, we are going to delay the process. Maybe it is a good idea to call attention to the fact they are harvesting organs obtained unwillingly by executing prisoners, but we don't want to mess up the whole debate here. We do not want to mess up an agreement we have with the House. We go to conference on hundreds of bills year after year. We are going to go to conference on 13 appropriations bills. It is what you do. That is why we have a House and a Senate. It is what the Founding Fathers wanted us to do. So if it takes a few days or a few hours--most likely a few minutes--to conference an amendment such as the one we are about to vote on, which I am about to speak on in a moment--if it takes a few minutes to have the House agree to it, so what. What is the big deal? This is very disturbing. Yet my colleagues are saying to other colleagues: Don't vote for the Smith amendment, the Wellstone amendment, the Helms amendment, the Thompson amendment, or any other amendment because it is going to require us to have to conference with the House, and therefore it might slow the bill down. If we are giving permanent status to China, what is a few more minutes? If we pass it, the House passes it, we amend it here, send it over to the House this morning or this afternoon, by dinnertime the House agrees to it, puts it on the President's desk, he has breakfast tomorrow morning--has a glass of juice, coffee, whatever, a muffin--and then signs the bill. What is lost? When we do that, we could get some of these amendments. This monitoring language we should have in this bill. To do otherwise, with all due respect to my colleagues, is simply to say: I am going to look the other way while organ harvesting takes place in China. We don't want to rock the boat. We don't want to offend the Chinese. We don't want to make anybody unhappy. We don't want to offend the House because they didn't put it in, so therefore we are not going to conference this. We don't want to rock the boat. That is wrong. To put it bluntly, that is wrong. Let me speak briefly about the content of my amendment. Organ harvesting, there was an expose done on this in 1997 by ABC News. This is not Bob Smith talking. This is one of the three major networks that televised a documentary on the practice of organ harvesting in Communist China. In that documentary, in 1997, it depicted prisoners-- these are not necessarily murderers. These are just prisoners. Some of them just put in there, actually charged with nothing--so-called crimes against the state. But it showed prisoners who were videotaped, lined up against a wall and executed with a bullet directly to the head. This, unlike a lethal injection, preserves the organs for harvesting. The documentary also claimed the prisoners were executed on a routine basis. This was not an exception. Their organs were sold to people who were willing to pay up to $30,000 for a kidney, for example. Human rights organizations have estimated that at that time, the time the documentary aired, more than 10,000 kidneys alone--just kidneys, not to mention any other organs--10,000 kidneys alone from Chinese prisoners had been sold, potentially bringing in tens of millions of dollars to--guess where the money goes--the Chinese military. Does this sound like Huxley's ``Brave New World'' or what--executing prisoners to get their organs to get the money to the Chinese military. The Chinese Government, as it does with most human rights abuses, denies this practice takes place. But it is important to keep in mind that China does not have a rule of law. Prisoners are subject to arbitrary arrest and arbitrary punishment without due process. People of religious faith, environmental activists, human rights activists, opponents of coercive abortion, student demonstrators, and anyone who appears to be questioning or challenging the Government of China is subject to harassment, intimidation, arrest, incarceration, including in the infamous laogai, or slave labor camps, and, in certain cases, execution. When Tiananmen Square occurred in 1989, peaceful student protesters, including the sons and daughters of the Communist Party's elite, were mowed down, run over by PLA tanks. There are far fewer dissidents in China than there were 11 years ago after that experience. Even the Falun Gong, which practices breathing and meditation exercises, has been subject to brutal repression by Chinese authorities, and many of these worshipers have disappeared in the Chinese gulags, and some have died in police custody--great candidates for organ harvesting. ABC's report also found that Chinese nationals living on student visas were marketing these organs to Americans and other foreigners who had the funds to make a $5,000 deposit and who then traveled to China to the People's Liberation Army hospital where they received a kidney transplant. These kidneys are tissue typed and the prisoners are also tissue typed in order to achieve an ideal match. Think about that. Prisoners are executed, some of them for doing nothing more than protesting against the Government of China. They are sent to prison and executed so that people can pay up to $30,000 for one of their kidneys or some other organ, and the money goes to the Chinese military. I ask my colleagues, with all due respect--and I respect the rights of Members to exercise their own views and votes; of course, it goes without saying, but I ask you: Is it unreasonable to ask my colleagues to put this in the monitoring provisions of PNTR so that we can monitor these activities and report to the world what is happening? Is that so bad? If it delays this bill a few hours, if we have to conference it with the House--it is permanent--is that so bad? We might save a few lives. The more the world knows about this, and the more world public pressure comes to the Chinese, we might save some lives. For the sake of a little time before we pass this bill that has been debated now for several days--it has been talked about for a year or two--is it so bad for my colleagues to vote to allow a commission to study and report on this? I ask them, is it really that big a deal for us to try to save people whose basic human right, the right to life, is being denied for the sake of organ donors? To make it worse, in some cases Americans are buying those kidneys, hearts, livers, and other organs. U.S. law prohibits this activity. It is unlawful in the United States for ``any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce.'' Congresswoman Linda Smith, before she left office, introduced a resolution 3 years ago which deplored this practice and called upon the administration to bar from entry to the United States any Chinese official directly involved in the practice of organ harvesting. It urged the prosecution of individuals engaged in marketing and facilitating these transplants under U.S. law. There is no one in the House or Senate who would not recognize the name of Harry Wu, the renowned human rights activist and Chinese dissident who was arrested in China, detained, and finally released. Thanks to the work of Laogai Research Foundation, we are aware of ongoing Chinese engagement in organ harvesting of executed prisoners. It is unreasonable, it is unfair for us to add this provision that will expose this to the world and say, once and for all, that it is wrong and that we are not going to allow ourselves to be dragged into saying that, for the sake of profit, for the sake of selling wheat, corn, rice, and other agricultural products, for the sake of greed and profit, we are going to ignore this? How can we do that in good conscience? The sad part, frankly--the American people may not understand this-- about what is happening in the Senate is that people are saying: Don't vote for the Smith amendment because that is going to slow the process down; don't vote for it. It is not going to slow the process down enough to matter, and this is important. It is a commission. It is a study. That is all it is, and that is all we are asking. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print an article on incidents regarding organ harvesting in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to introduce the Junior Duck Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2000. The Junior Duck Stamp Program is a wonderful program that allows children from kindergarten through twelfth grade to participate in an integrated art and science curriculum that is designed to teach environmental science and habitat conservation. It also raises awareness for wetlands and waterfowl conservation. Students and teachers work together through a set curriculum that incorporates ecological and wildlife management principles, allowing students to learn about conserving wildlife habitat while they explore the esthetic qualities of wildlife and nature. As part of the curriculum, each student is encouraged to focus his or her efforts on a particular waterfowl species. The culmination of the curriculum is an artistic depiction of that species. Each state selects a Best-of-Show winner and that piece of artwork competes to become the national winner of the Junior Duck Stamp contest. The winning depiction is chosen as the Federal Junior Duck Stamp, and the student receives $2,500. Revenues from selling the stamp are used for conservation awards and scholarships to the participants. By all accounts the Junior Duck Stamp Program has been extremely successful. Last year alone more than 44,000 students entered the state competitions. The Fish and Wildlife Service and educators estimate that for every child who enters the state program, ten others are exposed to the curriculum. The program has also been very successful in introducing urban children to nature, allows all children to develop an important connection to the environment, and motivates students to take an active role in conservation of waterfowl species. This legislation is a simple reauthorization of the program through 2005. The U.S. Fish and wildlife Service would be authorized to receive $250,000 a year for the administration of the Junior Duck Stamp Program. In addition, the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994 would be amended to allow schools in the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to participate in the program. Mr. President, I strongly urge the passage of this legislation. The Junior Duck Stamp Program has played an important role in the education of children and the conservation of our natural resources, and it should continue to do so. I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.