11 September 2000 Senators Clash over Thompson Amendment to China PNTR Bill by Steve La Rocque Washington File Staff Writer Washington -- An amendment offered September 11 by Senator Fred Thompson (Republican of Tennessee) to H.R. 4444, the legislation that would grant China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status, sparked sharp debate in the Senate. His amendment, No. 4132, would have required annual reports to Congress on the weapons proliferation activities of China, Russia and North Korea. The activities would have included contributions to the design, production, development, or acquisition "of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or ballistic or cruise missiles." The amendment, co-authored by Senator Robert Torricelli (Democrat of New Jersey), led to a debate that found Republican arguing with Republican and Democrat lined up opposite fellow Democrat on the issue. Supporters of H.R. 4444 hoped to defeat the amendment in a vote September 12. "There is a gap in this legislation between intention and result," said Senator William Roth (Republican of Delaware). In particular, the Senate Finance Committee chairman said, "this legislation relies on sanctions that are too widely drawn and too loosely conceived to prove effective in countering proliferation." Roth, who brought H.R. 4444 to the Senate floor, went on to say that Thompson's amendment would "harm our workers and businesses, our key alliances, and the multilateral non-proliferation regime that is essential to stemming proliferation in a global economy." The amendment would also compromise the ability of the United States to address the challenges of China's rise in power and Russia's "potential slide into instability," he warned. To stem proliferation by China or by Russia, Roth said, "is a complicated matter that cuts across our broader bilateral relationship." Senator Max Baucus (Democrat of Montana) criticized the amendment for making it "even harder for the United States to contain proliferation. It will seriously damage important American economic interests." The Montana Democrat, one of the Senate's leading advocates for expanding trade, warned that if the amendment were to succeed, "it will kill PNTR." Thompson's amendment, "like all amendments, is a killer," he said. "An amendment to H.R. 4444 means a conference will be required. At this stage of the Congressional session in this Presidential election year, there can be no conference. There will be no conference. A positive vote on this amendment is a vote to kill PNTR." Baucus expressed concern that the amendment would use America's capital markets as a "unilateral foreign policy sanction. This idea is plain nutty." The amendment "would effectively nullify much of the progress we have made in our economic negotiations with China," Baucus said. According to Baucus, the United States needs "to integrate China into the international community." "Chinese participation in the World Trade Organization and our granting them PNTR is a critically important first step," he said. Senator Michael Enzi (Republican of Wyoming) faulted the amendment of his fellow Republican, saying, "I think the amendment takes a flawed approach toward solving the problems." Thompson's amendment, Enzi said, "remains a counterproductive unilateral sanctions amendment that would impose trade and economic sanctions." Enzi called it a "very harmful tool for conducting foreign policy." Even to merely threaten to use America's capital markets as a tool of foreign policy could have "a chilling effect on the competitiveness of our markets," he said. Senator Frank Murkowski (Republican of Alaska) urged support for H.R. 4444, saying America should be sending a message to China that trade "should be fostered and should be strengthened. According to the Alaskan lawmaker, America's "primary foreign policy interest in China" is "to see the democratization of China." The Chinese Communist Party, in contrast, he said, "is betting China can have a modern, efficient, capitalist economy, one that generates significant tax revenue, without giving up any political control." The United States has made progress on nuclear issues with China, Senator John Kerry (Democrat of Massachusetts) said. "The fact is, on nuclear issues--separate from missile technology transfers--we have made rather remarkable progress in the last 8 years, with a country that very recently accepted no norms of international proliferation behavior," Kerry said. The Massachusetts Democrat called Thompson's amendment a "unilateral, rather draconian, inflexible approach" to the issue. "I know the Senator from Tennessee did not intend to wind up in this predicament, offering his amendment to PNTR," Kerry said, as the amendment created "the particular parliamentary knot we are in." But Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has also "strongly questioned" introducing "the U.S. capital markets for the first time in history into proliferation policy," he noted. The amendment, Kerry warned, "would hinder rather than help U.S. efforts to address the problem of proliferation in China." The truth is "that the United States-China relationship is our most complex and difficult bilateral relationship," Kerry continued. "It is one of the most important that we have. It is yet to be fully defined. As I said earlier, China cannot be considered a friend; but China cannot yet--and should not, we hope--ultimately be considered an enemy." Senator Robert Graham (Democrat of Florida) said he would oppose the Thompson amendment, and back the China PNTR bill. "By granting China permanent normal trade relations status," Graham said, "we will fulfill our commitments under the World Trade Organization and will then be able to take advantage of the special concessions which were obtained from China in bilateral agreements negotiated by this administration." Senator Rod Grams (Republican of Minnesota) came out against the Thompson-Torricelli amendment, "both in principle and, as all amendments to PNTR, this one is a killer that will delay PNTR until another Congress." But the Thompson-Torricelli amendment also had its defenders. Senator Arlen Specter (Republican of Pennsylvania) said he supported the amendment, adding that he was persuaded that "the entire bill for permanent normal trade relations with China should be defeated." Thompson, Specter said, "made a very strong case that it is necessary for the United States to be wary of where the People's Republic of China is heading." To grant China PNTR "seems to me to be a mistake," Specter said. Specter said that when senators took "a hard look" at what China has been doing "with Taiwan, with their threats and blackmail, having missile tests off the coast of Taiwan, what they have done with human rights, what they have done with proliferation," and in other areas, "there is very strong reason to conclude that the United States should not grant permanent normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China." Senator Paul Sarbanes (Democrat of Maryland) said granting China PNTR status would be "counter to the trade interests of the United States." To grant PNTR to China, the Maryland Democrat warned, "would undermine other important bilateral U.S. interests with that country, including national security, foreign policy, human rights, religious freedom, labor rights, and environmental protection." Sarbanes added that he would not support PNTR with China "in the absence of achieving permanent normal relations." China's receptiveness to foreign investment does not necessarily mean an openness to U.S. imports, Sarbanes said. Trade barriers "in sectors such as automobiles have been part of China's strategy to encourage foreign investment," he suggested. Since the China market could not be accessed easily through exports because of the various restrictions, Sarbanes said, "Western auto makers who want a portion of the Chinese market were being forced to invest in China. Once inside the market, many Western companies took a different view of Chinese trade barriers because they now also are protected from competition from outside China." Sarbanes questioned what he termed the "unstated premise of those supporting PNTR" that "openness to foreign investment will eventually lead to openness to foreign trade." From China's point of view, he said, the goal of PNTR and WTO membership is "to separate its trade and investment relationship with the United States from its other relationships with the United States and to separate it from the enforcement of U.S. trade laws, thereby securing an unimpeded flow of investment from the United States." Senator Susan Collins (Republican of Maine) said she gives "enthusiastic support" to the Thompson amendment. By imposing sanctions on key suppliers of weapons of mass destruction, she said, the United States would show that it "no longer tolerates China's role in continuing to be the world's No. 1 proliferator of weapons of mass destruction." The Thompson amendment, Senator Jon Kyl (Republican of Arizona) said, "is meant to combat China's irresponsible trade" in weapons technologies. In response to concerns expressed by the Clinton Administration, Kyl added, the amendment "has been revised to also cover the proliferation behavior of other countries, such as Russia, North Korea, and any other country that engages in this irresponsible behavior." The Arizona Republican said it was very clear "that over the past decade China has been the world's worst proliferator of the technology used to develop and produce nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missiles, narrowly edging Russia and North Korea for this dubious distinction." The Beijing regime, he said, "has sold ballistic missile technology to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan." America should require from China "some measure of permanent normalized international behavior as a prerequisite to permanent normalized trade relations," said Senator James Inhofe (Republican of Oklahoma). If not, he warned, "it is predictable that the favors we grant to China will be exploited to enhance its military buildup, while the market-opening favors and prosperity we expect from China will be much less than many in our country anticipate." The Oklahoma Republican said he was "very skeptical" about the "extent to which China will actually open its markets to U.S. products." Despite tariff-lowering measures in trade agreements, Inhofe said, "China has--in the past--sought to erect other complicated trade barriers to block imports." National security "must take precedence over trade," Inhofe said. "Granting permanent normal trade status to China in the face of its openly threatened action in recent years is, I believe, unconscionable." (The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) Return to the Washington File