[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 94 (Monday, July 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6876-S6877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            TRADE WITH CHINA

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me turn to a second trade issue just 
very briefly. That is the issue of trade with China. We are going to 
confront, in the coming weeks, the issue of most-favored-nation trading 
status with China.
  I was in Beijing a few months ago and met--along with Senator 
Daschle, the minority leader, and some others, Senator Kempthorne, 
Senator Glenn, and Senator Leahy--with the President of China. The 
President of China talked about the trade between the United States and 
China, and said that they were enjoying this trade relationship. They 
should. This trade relationship is too much now a one-way relationship 
between the United States and China. China now has a $40 billion trade 
surplus with the United States, or, to put it another way, we have a 
$40 billion merchandise trade deficit with China. It is unforgivable 
that kind of failure in trade should occur.
  Now, let me talk just a little about that. I have put on the easel a 
chart that shows merchandise trade deficits. We have had a lot of talk 
in this Chamber about budget deficits and a lot of work to deal with 
budget deficits. Nobody talks about trade deficits. We have the largest 
merchandise trade deficit in American history right now. What does that 
mean? That translates into jobs leaving this country. That is what the 
merchandise trade deficit means--a weaker manufacturing sector in 
America and jobs moving overseas.
  Now, the largest merchandise trade deficit in history occurs because 
we have a significant merchandise trade deficit with a number of 
countries, one of which is China. Here is what has happened in 
merchandise trade deficits with China in recent years. Go back 10 years 
and what you will see is a massive increase in the merchandise trade 
deficit with China, now nearly $40 billion. The growth in United States 
exports to China is not nearly as strong as the growth in imports from 
China.
  Now, people say if you read a newspaper about our trade with China, 
here is the way they do it. It is like dancing the jig. They say, did 
you know our exports from the United States to China are up triple? We 
have tripled our exports. Yes, that is right here. It went from $3.6 
billion in 1980 to $11.9 billion in 1996. So we read that in the paper, 
and they do this all the time, we have tripled our exports from the 
United States to China. You think, gee, what a

[[Page S6877]]

terrific thing for our country. They do not tell you the other half of 
the story. Imports from China are up 46 times--not triple, 46 times. 
They went from $1 billion to $51 billion. So the people that give you 
only half the story say, gee, we have tripled our exports to China, but 
they don't tell you that the amount of imports from China are up 46 
times.
  Now, just a short trade quiz. To which countries did the United 
States export more goods than it did to China in 1996? Did we import 
more goods to Australia than we do to China? China has 1.2 billion 
people. Did we export more to Australia than to China? What about 
Belgium? Did we export more to Belgium than China or Brazil or the 
Netherlands or Singapore? Did we export more to those countries than 
China? To which of these countries did we export more than to China? 
The answer is, all of them. We are a sponge for China, sending us all 
of their goods. Very close to half of all Chinese exports come to the 
United States of America.
  What does China buy from us? Well, here is what they buy from us. In 
the trade flow with China they buy cereal, textile fibers, fertilizers, 
and some aircraft. What do we buy from China? Electronics, heavy 
machinery, toys and games, and footwear. This trade relationship is not 
fair, it does not make sense, and it weakens our country.
  All of the debate here in Congress is about the most-favored-nation 
status and human rights. I was in China the day they sent Wang Dan to 
prison--I think for 9 years--sent him to prison because he criticized 
the government. If you criticize this Government, is somebody going to 
send you to prison? No, we have something called a Constitution. You 
are welcome to criticize this Government. It is part of what this 
country is about; the hallmark of freedom is free speech. In China, 
Wang Dan found free speech might be free but only up to a limit. You 
criticize your government, you spend years and years in prison.

  So, human rights are important. Yes, we ought to be concerned about 
human rights with respect to China and with respect to most-favored-
nation status. But even if the human rights issue were addressed and 
even if that issue were resolved, what about the abiding trade problem 
with China with respect to the imbalance of trade, a $40 billion trade 
deficit and growing? What about that? What about the other deficit, the 
trade deficit?
  This administration and this Congress needs to deal with the other 
deficit, and that is part of this issue. I hope the journalists, 
newspapers, and others would also start writing about this, carry some 
op-ed pieces about it. You cannot even get this information in an op-ed 
piece. They will not carry it.
  What about the $40 billion trade deficit? Why ought not we as 
Americans expect that if we buy all of these goods from China, they 
ought to buy a massive quantity of American-manufactured goods as well? 
China says it wants airplanes, needs airplanes. Guess what? Instead of 
saying we will buy your airplanes manufactured in the United States, 
they say we want American manufacturers to manufacture their airplanes 
in China. It makes no sense. That is not fair trade.
  We will have a discussion this month about most-favored-nation status 
with China, and yes, part of it should be about the issue of human 
rights. But part of it also needs to be about the abiding, growing and 
dangerous trade deficit that we now have with China and about 
reciprocal trade treatment that would require China to understand that 
when it sells into our marketplace, it must also then buy in the 
American marketplace goods that China needs and uses.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 989 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________