Extending the Generalized System of Preferences
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor and spoke about my intention to offer this amendment, which is now pending before the Senate, which would require the U.S. Government to sell 66 F-16C/D aircraft to the Government of Taiwan pursuant to our responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, passed with bipartisan support of the Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. Under this law, it is the responsibility of the U.S. Government to provide our ally Taiwan with sufficient defensive weapons in order to defend itself against any possible aggression by Communist China or from any other source. I spoke at some length about this yesterday, and I won't reprise all of those arguments.
At the outset, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 3 letters--1 signed by 45 Senators supporting this sale of F-16s to Taiwan and 2 separate letters from Senator Lugar, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, for a total of 47 Senators who are on record as supporting this sale.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as I said, yesterday I spoke about the legislation Senator Menendez and I had offered. That is a stand-alone bill; this is now an amendment to this pending trade bill. I do believe it is appropriate for us to consider this matter in the context of this trade bill because, of course, we all recognize and common sense would tell us that selling to foreign customers the things that we grow here in America or that we manufacture in America sustains jobs right here at home. Indeed, we have circulated among various offices what the impact on jobs would be all across the country when it comes to the sale and manufacture of these F-16s. A lot of jobs would be created in America at a time when unemployment is intractably and unacceptably high. But that is not the main reason I believe this amendment is so important.
Let me back up to say that yesterday the President did announce that he approved military exports to Taiwan, but I wish to address first the insufficiency of the response.
Yesterday, Congress was officially notified by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency that the administration had approved a retrofit for 145 F-16A/B aircraft--aircraft Taiwan already owns. So this is not unprecedented. We have already sold Taiwan A/B versions of the F-16. But, as the administration acknowledges by saying these need to be updated and retrofitted, these are older aircraft and need to be modernized in order to be effective.
There is no question that these upgrades on the existing 145 F-16 aircraft are necessary, but it is not sufficient to deal with the airpower needs of our Taiwanese allies. You can see by this chart the disparity between what the People's Republic of China has--about 2,300 operational combat aircraft versus 490 operational combat aircraft--owned by the Government of Taiwan.
But what I think the President's decision fails to acknowledge is the fact that many of the aircraft being flown now in Taiwan by the Taiwan Air Force are French Mirage aircraft which are some 20 years old or American F-5 aircraft which were first delivered in 1975 through 1985 but which are now virtually obsolete. It is for that reason the sale of these additional 66 F-16C/D version aircraft is so important--to replace those obsolete French Mirages and F-5s.
Taiwan's request had been, as I indicated earlier, not for the retrofit or for new aircraft, but they wanted both. The administration should have approved both, and that is exactly what 47 Members of this Senate stated--the bipartisan letters I have admitted into the Record--encourage the administration to do to make the right decision and to do both. But since the administration chose only to go the retrofit route for existing aircraft, I think it is important for us to send a message and to exercise our authority under the Constitution to compel that sale.
There is a bigger point I would like to make as well. America's credibility in East Asia and beyond is at risk by the administration's decision yesterday. The President spoke at the United Nations earlier this week and addressed many priorities of U.S. foreign policy. I am not going to respond to each one of them because it was a 40-minute speech, but my point is, the success of U.S. foreign policy in every region of the world depends on the credibility of the U.S. Government--whether we stand by our friends and whether we keep our commitments or whether we will abandon our support for other democracies like Taiwan. The answer to that question is of enormous interest not only to the people of Taiwan, to whom we have pledged in this 1979 law, the Taiwan Relations Act that I mentioned earlier, but also to the people of Israel, to the people of Eastern Europe, to the people of Japan and South Korea, and to the fledgling democracies now in Iraq and the people of Afghanistan, to people who are suffering from oppressive regimes all across the world who want the same basic freedoms we do and who share our values in self-government.
What kind of message does it send from America to these friends of freedom? What kind of message does the Senate send by denying our ally Taiwan the purchase of military exports that they need and that they requested? And what message can the U.S. Senate send to reassure our allies in Taiwan as well as people watching everywhere around the world with our credibility on the line?
I want to reiterate that this is a bipartisan matter. This is not a partisan issue at all. Republicans and Democrats alike have supported the Mutual Defense Treaty signed by President Eisenhower in 1954, and the Taiwan Relations Act was supported with bipartisan support and signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, and it remains the law of the land. That states specifically that the United States will provide to Taiwan the defense articles necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities in furtherance of maintaining peace and stability in the Western Pacific region.
We know the U.S. military has been stressed by repeated deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq and commitments around the world. So why in the world wouldn't we want to improve the capacity of the Taiwanese Government to defend itself and reduce any potential burden on the United States in the process?
I want to remind my colleagues what sufficient defense capabilities means. This is part of a memorandum from President Ronald Reagan in 1982, and I think it is worth reading.
It is essential that the quantity and quality of the arms provided Taiwan be conditioned entirely on the threat posed by the PRC [People's Republic of China]. Both in quantitative and qualitative terms, Taiwan's defense capability relative to that of the PRC will be maintained.
That was the understanding of Congress, that was President Reagan's understanding, and that was our explanation to the Chinese Government to reassure them about the purpose for these military sales--to provide a defensive capability, not an offensive capability but a defensive capability.
Why is Taiwan asking for these aircraft? Well, as I indicated earlier, Taiwan's air defense capabilities are nearly obsolete, while China's military capabilities are growing at an alarming rate. But air defense is not just a game of numbers; it is about the quality of the aircraft as well.
So what about the quality of Taiwan's existing forces? Well, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency in an unclassified report last year, many of Taiwan's fighter aircraft are close to or beyond service life and many require extensive maintenance support.
So China's capabilities are clearly newer, and they are growing and focus clearly on intimidating Taiwan and, yes, even the United States.
China's official press agency reported in March that the People's Republic of China will increase its military budget this year by more than 12 percent. That is on top of an increase last year of 7.5 percent. But the Pentagon estimates that China is not being transparent with regard to its military spending. In fact, China's official and public budget of $90 billion is far less than the $150 billion that they actually spent.
So whom does China intend to intimidate by this growing military power? Here is what the Pentagon had to say in its 2011 report to Congress called ``Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China.'' The Defense Department observed that China continued modernizing its military in 2010, with a focus on Taiwan contingencies. The Pentagon also noted that China's Air Force will remain primarily focused on "building the capabilities required to pose a credible military threat to Taiwan and U.S. forces in the East Asia.''
Some say we shouldn't look at our policy with Taiwan in a vacuum, and I agree with that. We should look at it in the larger context, both of the region and our strategic relationship with China. We know many of China's neighbors in that region are concerned about the military buildup and the increasingly bellicose rhetoric from the government.
Last year, China claimed the South China Sea as a core interest, which unsettled Vietnam and the Philippines and Indonesia and other nations in the region.
China has renewed its longrunning border dispute with India, and, frankly, it continues to be an enabler, as we know, of the nuclear threat in North Korea. We know Pakistan's Defense Minister publicly discussed the possibility of China building a naval base in Pakistan, which is already home to a new strategically important port at the mouth of the Gulf of Oman.
So it is important to look at the impact of China's growing military strength and its bellicose rhetoric on the whole region because, frankly, the disparity I pointed out earlier between the capability of the People's Republic of China when it comes to air power and that of Taiwan is a destabilizing influence in the region. Why in the world would we want to create a destabilizing condition in that region as opposed to a stable one that is in our best interests and that is in the best interests of our allies?
We can tell that the Communist Chinese Government is trying to intimidate the United States from living up to its responsibilities. Last week, China's top official newspaper used a lot of unnecessary language on the subject of the arms sales to Taiwan. They called those of us on Capitol Hill who are supporting this ``madmen,'' and said we were ``playing with fire'' and said there would be a ``disastrous price'' if we continued to support our allies in Taiwan. They would like nothing better than for us to turn our backs on our allies in Taiwan, just like other bullies around the world would love for America to retreat and to pull back in our support for self-governing peoples everywhere.
I do not think we want to send the message--I know I do not want to send the message--that the United States will give in to this kind of intimidation. We should pass this legislation to send a clear message to China and other nations around the world who are beating their chests and growing in military strength and posing destabilizing risks that the real madmen are those who think America will abandon our friends and allies and our principles and our long-range and longstanding strategic interests in the stability of East Asia.
As I indicated earlier, there are a lot of people watching what we do. It would greatly reassure our allies and partners around the world if we acted in a responsible way consistent with our legal obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act, which apparently the administration has declined to do.
Many of my colleagues remember what President Clinton did in 1996. He deployed two aircraft carrier battle groups during the Taiwan Strait crisis then. That crisis developed when China tried to intimidate Taiwan, once again, on the eve of its first free Presidential election by conducting this series of so-called military exercises that included the firing of missiles just a few miles north of Taiwan.
President Clinton responded by ordering the largest U.S. military force since the Vietnam war to deploy to the region, including carrier battle groups led by the USS Nimitz and the USS Independence. America's show of resolve and strength did not escalate that crisis, it diffused it--exactly what would happen here if we made this sale to Taiwan. It would send, as that did then, a welcome signal to the region.
According to an article in the current issue of Washington Quarterly, following that crisis the region's confidence in the United States soared. Japan, Singapore, the Philippines, and other nations in the region all bolstered their security ties with the United States.
Isn't that what we want? If America is going to be an undependable ally, there is no real benefit to people aligning their interests with ours and joining with us in these sorts of strategic security ties.
The Taiwan Strait crisis was one of the real foreign policy successes of the Clinton administration, but the authors of that same article conclude that ``forsaking Taiwan now will likely have the opposite effect.''
I want to return to a subject I brought up earlier. In addition to our other interests, which are many, and having us seen as being a dependable ally to our friends and keeping our commitments, this bill deserves the support of the Senate for other reasons as well. In addition to our longstanding bipartisan consensus on Taiwan, the growing gap in military capabilities between Taiwan and China, China's aggressive behavior toward its neighbors and the United States' credibility with our allies and free people everywhere, this is a jobs bill.
This is a policy that creates jobs. If we sell this American-made product to our friends and allies who are willing to pay for it--and it will not cost one dime in taxpayer dollars--it creates jobs at home. This chart shows, in yellow, all of the States where jobs would be created and sustained as a result of these sales. This map shows every State in which direct and indirect employment from this export sale of F-16s to Taiwan is projected to be at least 60 person-years of employment, which is the equivalent of 10 American workers employed full time for 6 years.
As you can see from this map, 32 States will have that level of job creation or more, making this F-16 sale to Taiwan a coast-to-coast job engine. In fact, according to a report by the Perryman Group, the requested sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan ``would generate some $8.7 billion in output.'' That is something the American economy could use now? Furthermore, it would directly support more than 23,000 jobs. That is surely something we need now.
As I said, these jobs don't cost the American taxpayer a dime. Apart from the paperwork and processing necessary to approve the deal, these are private sector jobs, and it is exactly the private sector that we need to take off again.
The one thing the Federal Government, the U.S. Government, needs to do perhaps more than anything else is simply get out of the way and let these Americans continue to stay on the job--and collect, in addition, an estimated $768 million in Federal tax revenue. That is something else we could use, more tax revenue coming in from more employed workers so we can close the gap in our $1.5 trillion annual deficit and begin to work our way toward reducing the debt, which is more than $14 trillion.
I thank, on a bipartisan basis, the Senators who have supported this legislation. I note that of the 47 signatories on the letters that have been made part of the record supporting this sale, 13 are from our Democratic friends across the aisle. This is truly a bipartisan effort.
For all the reasons I have mentioned, I hope we will vote yes and pass this important amendment to this bill.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly again on my amendment as to the sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan and respond to the comments of the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who said this was neither the right bill nor the right time. I understand every manager of a bill wants a clean bill; in other words, they do not want amendments. They would like to bring it here and have the Senate pass it without any changes whatsoever. But that is not the way our system works.
Indeed, it is actually urgent we get this matter settled in a positive way because, as I mentioned earlier, there are 23,000 jobs in America that depend on this sale--many of them in the production line in Texas--but there are jobs all over the United States that depend on this.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document titled ``Projected Nationwide Employment Impact of Production of 66 F-16C/Ds for Taiwan.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. This is a very interesting document because it breaks down on a nationwide basis where jobs would come from or be affected by a refusal to sell these F-16s. In California, for example, 11,399 job-years.
If you are wondering, like I was, what a job-year is, that is one person employed for 1 year. So that is pretty significant.
In Connecticut, 5,876 job-years; in Ohio--I know the current occupant of the chair, the distinguished Senator from Ohio, will be interested to know that Ohio would see 10,577 job-years as a result of this sale.
So as manufacturing is important in the State of Ohio, it is important in the State of Texas. Why would we not want to see these jobs created by this sale?
Mr. President, I have another document which is a letter signed by 181 Members of the House of Representatives to the President of the United States endorsing this sale. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. I see the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma in the Chamber, and I will defer to him momentarily. But I want to just say we need to understand what would happen if this production line of F-16s was shut down. The people who work on that production line would have to be let go or reassigned, actually exacerbating the high unemployment that we know is intolerably high. Once the production line of a sophisticated aircraft like the F-16 is shut down, we cannot decide, well, next year or the year after we are going to start up again--unless we are going to add tremendously to the cost. It makes it far less likely it will ever get made because of the costs and because of the sheer magnitude of the effort of trying to get this production line back together and all the people who were employed there back to work.
So that is why, to respond to the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, the manager of the bill, it is so important in terms of the timeliness. I agree there is a time for everything, but the time for this is now.
I will just say, finally, as I indicated earlier, this is a bipartisan measure, as demonstrated by the 47 Senators who signed letters to the President urging the sale; 13 Democrats, along with the remainder being Republicans.
In the House, this letter I mentioned earlier which has been made part of the Record, there are 181 Members of the House--a bipartisan list--I actually think that if the manager of the bill, the chairman of the Finance Committee, would accept this amendment, it would enhance the votes for the very bill he wants to see passed out of the Senate, perhaps later today.
In conclusion, I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated for Senator Thune be reserved within the time allocated to the minority and that quorum calls be charged equally between the majority and minority bill time first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. I thank my colleague from Indiana.
I would like to respond briefly to the Senator from Massachusetts.
This isn't an assessment I have made that Taiwan needs these aircraft; this is one made by the Department of Defense in their 2011 report on China's growing military power. They detailed the increasingly precarious situation in the Taiwan Strait, stating that China seeks the capability to deter Taiwan independence and influence Taiwan to settle the dispute on Beijing's terms.
So it is clear from the press reports from China's state-run newspaper, the very bellicose comments, that this is really an attempt by mainland China, the People's Republic of China, to intimidate not only Taiwan but also the United States, and we should not give in to that intimidation.
This chart which I pointed to earlier demonstrates the growing imbalance in the Taiwan Strait. This is why these additional aircraft are needed. The red one is 2,300 operational combat aircraft for the People's Republic of China versus 490 operational combat aircraft for the Taiwanese.
The Senator from Massachusetts is correct to the extent that the upgrades are welcome on the 145 F-16s we previously sold to Taiwan. But it is not adequate because 100 of these aircraft currently operational by Taiwan are obsolete and are going to be retired. Taiwan has intended that the new F-16C/D series replace the fleet of F-5s--those were previously sold U.S. aircraft from the 1975 to 1985 range which are now old and obsolete--and then the French-made Mirage 2000-5 fighters. So 100 of these planes demonstrated here, of the 490, are going to be retired, and the 66 aircraft that are the subject of this amendment will replace some of those retired vehicles.
So I don't think that thinking about the future of our relationship with Taiwan or problems we may see on the horizon is enough. We need to do something now.
I would also point out that you can't just take the production line at Lockheed Martin and basically eliminate it because there are no further demands or contracts for F-16 sales. Basically, all the personnel--the 23,000 people directly involved in those jobs--will be reassigned or be fired, let go, because there are no contracts in place as late as the fourth quarter of this year for new F-16s. So I think looking at this down the road doesn't take into account the current loss of jobs or the disruption of disbanding this production line, which cannot easily be reconstituted if there are no contracts, including the sale of these 66 F-16s.
I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. I would like to offer a bipartisan proposition to my colleagues here in the nature of this amendment. The reason I say this idea enjoys bipartisan support is 47 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, have joined in a letter to the administration asking that the administration grant a sale of F-16C/D models to our ally Taiwan.
This amendment would compel that sale because unfortunately the administration declined to make that sale yesterday, notwithstanding the fact that the Taiwan Relations Act signed by Jimmy Carter and passed by a bipartisan Congress requires the United States to provide Taiwan with defense articles necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities.
They have lost that capability, as demonstrated by this chart taken from Defense Department records. Currently, the People's Republic of China has about 2,300 operational combat aircraft to Taiwan's 490. Taiwan, by comparison, has 490 operational aircraft, of which about 100 need to be retired, French Mirage aircraft, F-5 aircraft. About 100 of them need to be retired because they are literally obsolete.
What this amendment would do would be to compel the sale of 66 F-16C/D models to our friends in Taiwan. Why is this important? Well, the Department of Defense reports that China's military power is in an increasingly precarious situation for the region and that China seeks the capability both to deter Taiwan independence and influence Taiwan to settle the dispute between them on China's terms.
This amendment would compel that sale. My colleague from Massachusetts argued earlier that the retrofit of 145 of the F-16A/B models, which Taiwan has, which the United States sold, is an adequate substitute. It is not. All that will do is help upgrade 145 of these aircraft that I identified earlier. It will not meet the need created by the retirement of the obsolete French Mirages and the F-5.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, under article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is given the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That is why this amendment is relevant to this trade bill we are getting ready to pass, because it is important that products manufactured in the United States, and produce grown here, that we sell it to markets abroad because it creates jobs here at home, in addition to fulfilling our legal obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act.
I must say I disagree with my colleague from Massachusetts. The upgrade on the 145 aircraft does nothing to substitute for the retiring of the French Mirage aircraft and the F-5s, given the disparity of air power between China and Taiwan.
Because we are all concerned about jobs, let me remind my colleagues that 32 different States will receive benefits by way of jobs as a result of these sales. This isn't the primary reason why this is important. This is about American prestige, keeping our promises, and not letting the bullies of the world, including China, intimidate the United States; and it is about keeping solemn commitments to our allies.
I ask my colleagues to vote yes, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source