[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 58 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S3922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 2548. A bill to provide that extension of nondiscriminatory trade 
treatment to the People's Republic of China be contingent on the United 
States and People's Republic of China entering into a bilateral 
agreement relating to enforcement; to the Committee on Finance.


   securing heightened opportunities for workers, manufacturers, and 
                       agriculture exporters act

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I want to discuss an issue that, 
judging from my discussions with Missourians, establishing the right 
trade policy with China is of increasing concern to Americans, and 
Missourians in particular.
  Missourians want more opportunities to use their economic freedom to 
shape the future for their families. They want increasing opportunities 
to sell their products. They want reciprocity and fairness. This is why 
I want to ensure that Missouri businesses, farmers, and workers will 
get what they are promised. Access to a market that is almost one-
fourth of the world's population can create higher paying jobs. But if 
China doesn't live up to its agreements like in the past--no new jobs 
will be created in Missouri.
  The WTO agreement that the United States concluded with China last 
November could give Missourians substantial benefits. Tariffs on 
industrial goods could fall from 25 to 9 percent--this means that all 
of the parts manufacturer5s for aerospace, automobiles, appliances 
would all face substantial ``tax decrease.'' Also, tariffs on 
agricultural goods would be reduced from 31 to 17 percent. Missouri, as 
a leader in agricultural production, would benefit substantially from 
these reductions. Cattlemen and pork producers would experience 
significant gains when tariffs are dropped to 12 percent. I also want 
Missouri farmers to have direct access to Chinese consumers instead of 
having to go through a bunch of middle-men. In addition, China has made 
commitments to eliminate eventually many of its current restrictions on 
services, such as distribution, banking, insurance, telecommunications, 
accounting, consulting, and other financial services.
  But these are the promises that are on paper. Missourians in the 
``Show-Me'' state are leery of relying only on promises when they don't 
know whether there is adequate enforcement. I've visited many factories 
where the workers want to make sure that they get a fair shake. They 
want real opportunities. They don't want hollow promises. I've been all 
over the state visiting farm families, and this is what they want as 
well.
  Several of my constituents have a fairly accurate perspective on 
China's record of not voluntarily living up to its agreements. Let me 
read from a constituent letter, from the International Association of 
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 9, Bridgeton, Mo., dated 
March 17, 2000:

       China has a history of failing to live up to every other 
     trade agreement it has signed with the United States (the 
     1992 Memorandum on Prison Labor, the 1996 Bilateral Agreement 
     on Unilateral Property Rights, the 1994 Bilateral Agreement 
     on Textiles, and the 1992 memorandum of Understanding on 
     Market Access).

  I think this constituent has a pretty accurate assessment of China's 
dismal trade record. Quite honestly, China's trade record has been 
poor. In a 1992 agreement, the so-called ``Market Access'' Agreement, 
Missouri farmers, ranchers, and workers weren't actually given much 
market access. In 1995 China eliminated 176 licensing requirements, but 
then imposed 400 new de facto licensing requirements. By 1999, China 
had removed over 1,0000 quotas and licenses, but the U.S. Trade 
Representative reports that China is erecting new barriers to restrict 
imports. Also, despite the commitment not to require import 
substitution, China announced a new ``Industrial Policy for the 1990s'' 
which could undermine the U.S. automobile, telecommunications, 
transportation, machinery, electronics, and construction industries.

  Another one of my constituents has additional concerns that once we 
approve PNTR, the U.S. will lose substantial leverage. From the 
International Association of Fire Fighters of Kansas City, Mo, Local 
Union No. 42, dated March 28, 2000:

       Granting PNTR will . . . reduce our ability to use 
     unilateral tools to respond to continued Chinese failure to 
     live up to its commitments. Our ability to take unilateral 
     action is our only leverage against the Chinese government. 
     Proponents of PNTR admit that only by using unilateral 
     actions we were able to make even modest progress on 
     intellectual property rights. The Chinese government has not 
     lived up to the promises they made in every single trade 
     agreement signed with the U.S. in the past ten years.

  This Missourian is absolutely correct. In 1994 when we negotiated the 
WTO, the United States gave up the right to threaten a level of 
retaliation that was ``appropriate in the circumstances'' to get 
compliance. However, now we are bound to retaliate at a level that the 
WTO decides. We have seen where this has taken us with exporting our 
beef to Europe--absolutely nowhere.
  We need to avoid creating an endless lawsuit with China that gets us 
nowhere. Missourians want some guarantees that they will in fact get 
export opportunities and not just a lot of litigation with no real 
results as with the Europeans in the beef and banana cases, where the 
retaliation level was reduced by the WTO body.
  My goal is consistent with the ``show me'' state. It is straight-
forward. Open China's market to Missouri goods and services. In order 
to do that, however, we must have enforcement that works. That is why I 
am proposing the ``SHOW ME'' Act.
  My bill is simple. It would require the Administration to work out an 
arrangement with China whereby if the U.S. wins a WTO case but can't 
get compliance, China would agree not to challenge the U.S. level of 
retaliation. The Administration could negotiate this concession from 
China as a side letter to the November agreement or could negotiate as 
a part of the protocol of the accession phase.
  There is precedent for this requirement. The Administration 
negotiated a 12 to 15 year phase out of special rules for safeguards 
and anti-dumping and countervailing duties (which are tools to protect 
our market), yet they did not work out a 15 year phase out of use of 
Section 301 (which is a foreign market opening tool). Both are needed--
surge protection and market access tools. Market access is crucial to 
the farming community in Missouri, which gets about one-fourth of its 
farm income from overseas sales.
  In closing, Mr. President, quite frankly, there is declining 
satisfaction in America's heartland with our inability to pry open 
foreign markets. The only way we will rebuild is with real enforcement. 
A lot of my constituents from the ``Show Me'' state want to see more 
assurances from us and the Administration that what happened on the EU 
beef and banana cases won't reverberate through the Chinese market. 
They want our trade policy to create jobs in practice, not just in 
theory.

                          ____________________