[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 100 (Thursday, July 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7768-S7773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TO AUTHORIZE EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT TO THE PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA--MOTION TO PROCEED
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to calendar No. 575, H.R. 4444, a bill to authorize
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade
relations treatment) to the People's Republic of China.
Trent Lott, Pat Roberts, Larry E. Craig, Christopher
Bond, Chuck Grassley, Ted Stevens, Connie Mack, Orrin
Hatch, Frank H. Murkowski, Wayne Allard, Kay Bailey
Hutchison, Don Nickles, Bill Roth, Michael Crapo, Slade
Gorton, and Craig Thomas.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will vote against the cloture motion to
proceed to the China Permanent Normal Trade Relations bill.
The very nature of the discussions that have been taking place on the
China PNTR issue demonstrates the complexity of trade, national
security, democratic and economic issues that this nation faces in
considering U.S.-China relations. One of my greatest concerns about the
passage of PNTR for China is the very intensive scurrying to neatly
package this deal as a ``win'' for America.
I will concede that, on one hand, supporters of the PNTR legislation
can make legitimate claims that China has, indeed, stated that it is
willing to cut its tariffs, to allow greater foreign investment, and to
abide by a set of internationally approved trade rules. Certainly, the
people of the United States of America embrace the hope that China and
the Chinese people can enjoy a beneficial exchange of commerce. But, I
am a devout believer in the principle of fair trade--I repeat fair
trade--rather than the so-called free trade, and I must note that
China's track record in adhering to agreements is much less than
perfect.
I have little doubt that the vote today paves the way to rush to
approve the PNTR measure without the deliberate, thoughtful
consideration that this Congress should always provide. It has been
years since this body gave U.S. trade policy the kind of consideration
that we ought and that it certainly deserves. The Congress must not
continue to neglect its duty to provide meaningful debate on U.S. trade
policy that could plant the seeds of lasting, mutually beneficial trade
relations with China.
But, I will save my concerns about the China PNTR issue for the
actual debate. The debate today is simply on the motion to proceed.
Nevertheless, all Senators should be put on notice that this vote is
about allowing the Senate to begin a hasty consideration of one of the
most economically important relationships of our time, which also has
huge national security implications. U.S.-China relations deserve
better consideration from the body charged by the Constitution, as
outlined in Article I, Section 8, with regulating commerce with foreign
nations.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to Senate
consideration of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China based on
the bilateral trade agreement negotiated between our two nations this
past November. Much is at stake in this vote.
In the bilateral agreement signed this past November China made
significant market-opening concessions to the United States across
virtually every economic sector. For example:
On U.S. priority agricultural products, tariffs will drop from an
average of 31 percent to 14 percent by January 2004 and industrial
tariffs on U.S. products will fall from an average of 24.6 percent in
1997 to an average of 9.4 percent by 2005.
China will open up distribution services, such as repair and
maintenance, warehousing, trucking, and air courier services.
Import tariffs on autos, now averaging 80-100 percent, will be phased
down to an average of 25 percent by 2006, with tariff reductions
accelerated.
China will participate in the Information Technology Agreement and
will eliminate tariffs on products such as computers, semiconductors,
and related products by 2005.
China will open its telecommunications sector, including access to
China's growing Internet services, and expand investment and other
activities for financial services firms.
The agreement also preserves safeguards against dumping and other
unfair trade practices. Specifically, the ``special safeguard rule''
(to prevent import surges into the U.S.) will remain in force for 12
years and the ``special anti-dumping methodology'' will remain in
effect for 15 years.
America benefits by having China follow the rules and norms of the
global marketplace.
By some estimates, China is already the world's seventh largest
economy.
[[Page S7769]]
China's total worldwide trade grew from $21 billion in 1978 to over
$324 billion in 1998. Trade makes up 33 percent of China's Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), estimated at roughly one trillion dollars in
1998.
China is already America's fourth largest trading partner. U.S.-China
two-way trade, less than $1 billion in 1978, was roughly $85 billion in
1998.
I would also like to take a few minutes to discuss why China's
accession to the WTO is so important to California.
California is the nation's number one exporting State, and well over
one-fourth of California's trillion dollar economy now depends on
international trade and investment. For California workers and
companies, this means jobs and improved export opportunities across a
broad range of manufacturing, agricultural, and service industries.
For California, the growth of trade relations with China over the
past two decades has been dramatic.
In 1998, China and Hong Kong together were California's fourth
largest export destination, with exports topping $6.1 billion.
In 1998, while California's total exports declined 4.17 percent, due
to the Asian financial crisis, our exports to China (not including Hong
Kong) increased 9.28 percent.
One third of the total U.S. exports to China come from California;
all told over 100,000 California jobs have been generated thus far by
trade with China.
California's top exports to China look a lot like a list of new and
emerging technologies fueling California's current economic boom:
Electronic and electrical equipment; industrial equipment and
computers; transportation equipment; and instruments.
And China is also an important market for the traditional mainstays
of the California economy: China and Hong Kong in 1998 received 4.9
percent of California's food exports and 6.4 percent of our crop
exports.
No matter how you look at it, this benefits the United States.
Unfortunately, many people have confused this PNTR vote with a vote
to approve China joining the World Trade Organization (WTO). It needs
to be understood, however, that China will likely join the WTO within
the next year regardless. That issue will be decided by the WTO's
working group and a two-thirds vote of the WTO membership as a whole.
Under WTO rules, only the countries that have ``non-discriminatory''
trade practices (PNTR) are entitled to receive the benefits of WTO
agreements. Without granting China permanent normal trading status, the
United States would be effectively shut out of China's vast markets,
while Britain, Japan, France and all the other WTO-member nations would
be allowed to trade with few barriers.
If we do not grant China PNTR based on the November bilateral
agreement--an agreement in which the U.S. received many important trade
concessions and gave up nothing--we effectively shoot ourselves in the
foot.
Let us also be clear about the ultimate issue at stake here today:
The People's Republic of China is today undergoing its most significant
period of economic and social activity since its founding over 50 years
ago. The pace is fast; the changes large. In a relatively short time,
China has become a key Pacific Rim player and major world trader. It is
now a huge producer and consumer of goods and services, and a magnet
for investment and commerce.
Because of its size and potential, the choices China makes over the
next few years will greatly influence the future of peace and
prosperity in Asia. But, in a very real sense, the shaping of Asia's
future also begins with choices America will make in deciding how to
deal with China.
We can try to engage China and integrate it into the global
community. We can be a catalyst for positive change, as our management
styles, business techniques and the philosophies that underlie them
take root in Chinese society.
We can work for change in China, as the benefits of trade and rising
living standards bring about the goals we seek, or we can deal
antagonistically with China and lose our leverage in guiding China
along paths of positive economic and social development. And we can
sacrifice business advantage to competitor nations.
History clearly shows us a nation's respect for political pluralism,
human rights, labor rights, and environmental protection grows in
direct proportion to that nation's positive interaction with others and
as that nations achieves a level of sustainable economic development
and social well-being. This was true in Taiwan; it was true in South
Korea. Not too long ago, both were governed by dictatorships. Given a
chance, it will also be true in China.
As I see it, America will face no challenge more important than this
in the foreseeable future. I am convinced we will debate no issue more
important than the question of China's entry into the World Trade
Organization (WTO) and whether or not we will deal with the Chinese on
the basis of a permanent normal trading relationship--PNTR--and I
intend to speak to this issue at greater length when the Senate returns
to work this September.
I urge my colleagues to support this cloture motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4444, an act to
authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade
relations treatment) to the People's Republic of China, and to
establish a framework for relations between the United States and the
People's Republic of China, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist)
and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 86, nays 12, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]
YEAS--86
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--12
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Helms
Hollings
Inhofe
Mikulski
Sarbanes
Smith (NH)
Specter
Thurmond
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--2
Domenici
Frist
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). On this vote the yeas are 86, the
nays are 12. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
North Carolina is recognized for up to 40 minutes.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for me to yield 5 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from
Delaware and 1 or 2 minutes, whatever he needs, to the distinguished
Senator from New York, without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for starting the
process of consideration of this historic legislation and I look
forward to the debate in September. At that point, I intend to outline
precisely how normalizing our trade relations with China is the single
most significant step we can take in promoting the broad range of
interests,
[[Page S7770]]
from national security to human rights, that the United States has in
its relationship with China and Asia as a whole. For today, however, I
do not intend debate abstractions. Instead, I am going to start where I
always do when I am considering legislation. And, that is the simple
question of whether normalizing trade with China is good for my
constituents back home in Delaware. Delaware's exports to China in many
product categories nearly doubled between 1993 and 1998. Delaware's
trade with China now exceeds $70 million. The agreement reached with
China as part of its accession to the WTO would mean dramatically lower
tariffs on products critical to Delaware's economy.
The economy of southern Delaware, for example, depends on poultry.
China is already the second leading market for American poultry
products worldwide. Poultry producers in Delaware and elsewhere have
built that market in the face of both quotas and high tariffs. Under
the agreement with China, those quotas will now be eliminated and the
tariffs will be cut in half, from 20 to 10 percent. In Delaware,
chemicals and pharmaceuticals make up a significant share of my State's
manufacturing base. In the chemical sector, China has agreed to
eliminate quotas on chemical products by 2002 and will cut its tariffs
on American chemical exports by more than one-half. Furthermore, there
is not a day that I come to work that I do not remember that Delaware
is also home to two automobile manufacturing plants, one Chrysler and
one General Motors. In fact, I am told that Delaware has more auto
workers per capita than any other State, including Michigan. As many of
the auto workers in my State remember, I led the fight to ensure
Chrysler's survival. And I remain one of the strongest supporters of
the Chrysler and General Motors communities in Delaware.
Under the agreement with China, China has agreed to cut tariffs on
automobiles by up to 70 percent and on auto parts by more than one-
half. The agreement also ensures the ability of our automobile
companies to sell direct to consumers, rather than through some state-
owned marketing office, and the ability to finance those sales directly
as they do here in the United States. I want to give each of you a
website address where you can see the powerful positive effect this
agreement will have on your state and on your constituents as well. You
can find it at www.chinapntr.gov.
Beyond that, I want to emphasize two final points. The first thing I
want every member of the Senate to understand is that China is going to
become a member of the World Trade Organization whether we pass this
bill or not. What this vote is about is whether American farmers,
American businesses, and American workers--real working men and women
back home in each of our states--will receive the benefits of an
agreement that three Presidents from both parties have pursued with
incredible dedication for 13 years. Or, will we reject this bill and
see those benefits go instead to our European and Japanese competitors?
Under the bilateral agreement reached this past November, China has
agreed to open its markets farther than many of our other WTO trading
partners even in the developed world. Indeed, to a remarkable extent,
China seems willing to go farther faster on agricultural subsidies and
services than even Japan and some of our European trading partners.
And, the United States is likely to be the primary beneficiary of
China's historic agreement to open its markets. Voting no on this
motion means that American farmers, its manufacturers and its workers
will suffer the consequences and face a dimmer economic future as a
result.
The second point I want to make in closing has to do with the bill
that came to us from the House. We have reviewed the bill in the
Finance Committee and I want to emphasize my unequivocal support for
the House bill. It preserves precisely what the Finance Committee hoped
to do--which is ensure that American farmers, manufacturers, and
service providers would gain access to the Chinese market under the
terms negotiated this past November. Beyond that, the House bill
strikes a reasonable balance in terms of Congress' ongoing scrutiny of
China's record on human rights and labor standards. Indeed, in my view,
the commission created by the House bill for those purposes offers more
to our advocacy of human rights in China than any vote under the
Jackson-Vanik amendment ever did or ever would. What that means is
that, because benefits of normalizing our trade relations with China,
and because there is now so little time left before the 106th Congress
adjourns, I will intend to oppose all amendments to the bill. Thirteen
members of the Finance Committee have joined me in that pledge and I
know many others that have expressed the same view to the majority and
minority leaders. With that, let me close by simply urging my
colleagues to support the motion to proceed, and final passage when we
return in September. Let's engage in the serious debate the bill
deserves and let's take action as soon as possible to secure the
benefits of the agreement for our farmers, manufacturers, and workers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the chairman of
the Finance Committee. This measure has now had its first test. It has
passed overwhelmingly, 86-12.
We have trouble getting such votes on the Fourth of July
celebrations.
Here is some sense of how epic this vote will be. At the Finance
Committee's final hearing on China, on April 6, the former Chief
Negotiator for Japan and Canada at the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative closed his testimony thus: ``this vote is one of an
historic handful of Congressional votes since the end of World War II.
Nothing that Members of Congress do this year or any other year could
be more important.''
We are asking, pleading to leave this bill untouched. We want it to
go out of this Chamber directly to the President at the White House
where it will be signed. We do not want a conference. We do not want
another vote on the House floor.
The majority leader promised that the Senate would begin its
consideration of H.R. 4444, the legislation authorizing the extension
of permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, to China before the August
recess. He has kept his word. We owe great thanks as well to our
esteemed minority leader, Senator Daschle, who has been tireless on
this matter, and to our great Chairman, Senator Roth, whose efforts
have brought us to this day. Today's vote puts us on course to take up
and pass this important legislation early in September.
I have no doubt that the measure will prevail--and by a wide margin.
It comes to us following the decisive vote in the House of
Representatives on May 24--over two months ago now--237 ayes, 197 noes.
And it comes to the floor with the unequivocal endorsement of the
Finance Committee: on May 17, the Finance Committee reported out a
simple, 2-page bill--a straight-out authorization of PNTR. The vote was
nearly unanimous, 19-1.
The House saw fit to add a few more provisions, which the Finance
Committee studied in Executive Session on Wednesday, June 7. Our
conclusion was that there is nothing objectionable in it.
The House added the package offered by Representatives Levin and
Bereuter. It includes an import surge mechanism to implement one of the
provisions of the November 1999 U.S.-China agreement, fully consistent
with existing law. It creates a human rights commission loosely modeled
after the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the
Helsinki Commission. And it authorizes appropriations to address
China's compliance with its WTO commitments.
Nothing major. Nothing troubling. It was the nearly unanimous view of
the Finance Committee that we ought simply to take up the House bill
and pass it. And the sooner the better.
I will make two observations. First, with its accession to the WTO,
China merely resumes the role that it played more than half a century
ago. China was one of the 44 participants in the Bretton Woods
Conference, July 1-22, 1944, and its representatives were seated on the
executive boards of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
when those two organizations came into being in 1946.
That same year, China was appointed to the Preparatory Committee of
the
[[Page S7771]]
United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, which was charged
with drafting both the Charter for the International Trade Organization
(ITO) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. China was one of
the original 23 Contracting Parties of the GATT, which entered into
force for China on May 22, 1948.
Following the establishment of the People's Republic of China, the
Republic of China (Taiwan) notified the GATT on March 8, 1950 that it
was terminating ``China's'' membership. Thirty-six years later, in
1986, China officially sought to rejoin the GATT, now the WTO. After 14
years of negotiations, it is now time.
My second broad observation is that the economic case for PNTR is
unassailable. Ambassador Barshefsky negotiated an outstanding market
access agreement: that much is not in dispute. It is a one-sided
agreement: it was China, and not the United States, that had to make
significant and wide-ranging market access commitments.
Once China becomes a member of the World Trade Organization--and
China will become a WTO member with or without the support of the
United States Congress--the concessions that China has agreed to in
negotiations with the United States and other countries will be
extended to all countries that enter into full WTO relations with
China. This is simply a consequence of the operation of the ``normal
trade relations'' principle--the old ``most-favored-nation'' principle,
to use the 17th century term.
But until the United States grants China permanent normal trade
relations, we will not be guaranteed the benefits that our own
negotiators secured. This is because the process of annual renewal and
review of China's trade status, conditioned as it is on freedom-of-
emigration goals, violates the core principles of the WTO's General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the General Agreement on Trade in
Services and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights--all of which require unconditional normal trade
relations.
A vote in support of PNTR for China is not an endorsement of China's
record on human rights. To be sure, there is much to be done. But the
annual NTR review process has simply not provided us much leverage on
human rights because the sanction is too extreme--the reimposition of
the Smoot-Hawley tariff rates, that would choke off our trade with
China-- and has never been imposed.
The United States has extended our ``normal''--i.e. ``normal trade
relations'' or NTR--tariff rates to China each year for the past 20
years. Since 1980. Without a break. This legislation simply recognizes
that this long-standing policy will continue.
We will have a good debate when we return in September. And then I
predict that the Senate will pass H.R. 4444 by an overwhelming margin,
as we ought to do.
I again thank our dear friend from North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for me to make my comments from my desk seated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I know some of the
leaders in the business community around the country--particularly
those who went to Shanghai last October to clink champagne glasses with
China's dictators and help them celebrate the 50th anniversary of
Chinese communism--these business leaders are eager for the Senate to
deliver to them their year 2000 Holy Grail. It is called permanent
normal trade relations with China, and I imagine there is a little bit
of champagne flowing after this vote in the Senate. I say to them, just
wait a little bit; maybe the American people will speak up a little
more loudly than they have thus far.
These business leaders would have liked the Senate to take up this
legislation right now and have a perfunctory debate with no amendments
and just get it over with. They are convinced they are absolutely
right, and I am convinced they are not necessarily right. Some of us,
in any case, have some news for them: It is not going to happen.
I, for one, have just begun to discuss this issue, and there are
other Senators who believe just as I do, that the legislation warrants
a lengthy and thorough debate about Communist China.
We are not going to just debate and make a bunch of speeches before
rubber stamping PNTR. We are going to have some votes. I have been
working with several Senators on a series of amendments designed to
ensure that before the Senate holds its final vote on PNTR, we will
have voted on a gamut of issues that confront U.S.-China relations.
This is not just a China trade vote, as someone has attempted to cast
it. Voting on whether or not to extend permanent normal trade relations
to China will send a powerful message to Beijing and the world as to
how the United States views the behavior of the Chinese regime. That is
why we must have a full debate and votes on issues such as China's
pitiful human rights record, China's brutal suppression of religious
freedom, China's increasingly belligerent stance toward the democratic
Chinese government on Taiwan, and China's unbroken record of violating
agreements one after another, among other matters. You can't trust
them.
I know there are some in this Senate who argue we must not offer any
amendments to PNTR because that would send it back to the House and
force that other Chamber to vote again on the legislation. Well, la-di-
da.
I must confess, I find that argument interesting coming from the
Democrat side of the aisle. Until recently, Senator after Senator on
the opposite side of the aisle was coming down to the floor to
fulminate against the majority leader for his efforts to expedite
passage of appropriations bills by restricting the number of amendments
that Senators can offer.
Now all of a sudden, when their party's President has legislation
that he wants to be expedited by the Senate, the leadership on the
other side has suddenly and miraculously been transformed into
champions of speed and efficiency.
Let's hope they keep that spirit up when the Senate completes action
on the appropriations bills this fall.
The fact is, there is simply no argument now for opposing commonsense
amendments to PNTR. Before the House vote, supporters of PNTR were
concerned that amendments would somehow endanger final passage of the
legislation. Everyone thought the House vote would be razor thin and
that requiring the House to vote again now, or a little later, would
bring final passage into question.
But, in point of fact, PNTR passed in the House by quite a
comfortable margin. There is simply no reason why the House could not
pass it again with certain commonsense amendments inserted on this side
of the aisle by the Senate, and that, Mr. President, is our duty.
I can imagine only one reason why Senators would oppose such
commonsense amendments today. It is nothing but crass partisan
politics. There is a desire to prevent House Members from having to
vote again on PNTR because they fear such a vote is likely to
antagonize some of the labor union forces right before the fall
elections. There are those who do not want to remind big labor that
even the Democratic Party is doing the bidding of corporate America
now.
The partisan interests of either political party do not interest me
one bit. What interests me is having a full debate and making certain
that the Senate does not send a signal to Beijing that we are willing
to look the other way at Communist China's belligerence toward Taiwan,
Communist China's proliferation to rogue states, and Communist China's
brutal abuses against their own people time and time again in pursuit
of the almighty dollar.
I opposed the motion to proceed, but I must say I have been disturbed
by the single-minded rush to get this vote over with. Since February,
we have been barraged by Chicken Little pleas to move this legislation,
as though the world will come to an end if Congress does not pass this
bill this year. In all likelihood, China will not enter the World Trade
Organization until next year at the earliest, and China can get PNTR
only when China joins the World Trade Organization.
So what is the rush? I think I know the reason for that, and it is
the most disturbing one to me. It was articulated by the distinguished
minority
[[Page S7772]]
leader who recently admonished the Senate to expedite PNTR because the
longer the Senate waits, the greater the chance is that an
international incident of some sort could scuttle the legislation.
Let's ponder that just a little bit. To what kind of incident could
the distinguished minority leader have been referring? Could it be he
is concerned that China--you know that supposedly responsible reformist
power with which we are trying to do business--might somehow cause an
international incident by, say, doing business with somebody or
launching an invasion of Taiwan or launching another Tiananmen Square-
style crackdown in which they rode that tank over a protester, a
crackdown that would live in the minds of a lot of people because it
would be carried live by CNN on display for the entire world. They
would show what a despicable bunch of thugs with which we are dealing
in this matter.
It speaks volumes about the depths to which we have sunk when leading
supporters of PNTR openly admit that they are desperate to lock in this
transaction before our Communist Chinese business partners do something
so unspeakable that the American people would resent our trying to do
business with them.
That is why, if I have anything to do with it, we are not going to
rush PNTR through the Senate. We are not going to rubber stamp the
President's plan to reward the Chinese Communists. We are going to have
a debate. We are going to have votes. And some of us, maybe more than
12 of us, are going to make clear to China's rulers that all Senators
do not and will not endorse, let alone condone, their brutality.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the next speaker was
to be the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Bryan.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may go
out of order since the Senator is not here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, there is no question, as the Senator from Delaware and
the Senator from New York have said--the chairman and ranking member--
this is highly important, but for a different reason.
There is no question that we are going to have trade with China. The
objection I have at this particular moment is with respect to the
permanent nature of normal trade relations. I want to eliminate the
permanence so we will have annual reviews to see exactly how our
investments, our creation of jobs, our trade is coming along with
respect to national security.
Tom Donohue, down at the Chamber of Commerce, says that it is going
to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. I am willing to bet him--and
he can name the odds and the amounts--that we are going to lose
hundreds of thousands of jobs.
This is for an investment agreement in China, so that investments
will flow to China and remain undisturbed by possible U.S. retaliation,
protected by their joining in the WTO. And then, when we bring up
various things to protect the security interests of the United
States,--at the WTO level, Cuba votes us out because it has an equal
vote.
The important point to remember, and President Clinton acknowledged
at the very beginning of the summer and the PNTR consideration,
although he could not understand it, was what he characterized as
``global anxiety.''
Let me tell him a little bit about that anxiety. Oneida Mills, in
Andrews, SC, closed. They had 487 employees. Their average age was 47
years of age. The company moved to Mexico and their 478 employees were
out of a job. And what does Washington tell them? They say: Reeducate.
They almost sound like Mao Tse Tong. Reeducate, with high skills. Don't
you understand, in the global competition you have to have high skills.
Tomorrow morning we have done just that. We have 487 high-skilled
computer operators. Are you going to hire the 47-year-old computer
operator or the 21-year-old computer operator? Those 487 are ``dead-
lined.'' They are out of a job.
Earlier this week I checked the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since
NAFTA, we have lost 39,200 textile and apparel jobs alone in the little
State of South Carolina.
Anxiety--there is justified anxiety across the Nation--where we have
lost over 400,000 textile and apparel jobs since NAFTA, with the
outflow of the industrial strength down south and over into the Pacific
rim.
They do not understand globali- zation, says the President. They do
not understand global competition. Global competition started back at
the end of World War II under the Marshall Plan in 1945. We sent over
the expertise, we sent over the machinery, and we sent over the money
so they could have global competition.
Our southern Governors helped hasten along and expedite global
competition 40 years ago. I traveled to Germany. We now have 116 German
plants in the little State of South Carolina. So we know about global
competition.
But what has really occurred--with the fall of the wall--is that 4
billion workers have entered the workforce of the world, willing to
work for anything. With NAFTA and WTO, and the rise of the Internet,
you can transfer your technology on a computer, you can transfer your
finances on a satellite. With the Internet, you don't have to go to
Mexico, you don't have to go to the Pacific rim; you can operate your
plant from a New York office. That is a wonderful operation. As a
result, as the Wall Street Journal said, this agreement is for
investment in China and not in the United States.
There is global anxiety. There should be global anxiety. And we are
trying to go and develop a competitive trade policy. Every country in
Europe, every country in the Pacific rim has controlled trade, and we,
as children, run around still babbling ``free trade, free trade,''
giving away our industrial strength.
We have come from that beginning, that at the end of World War II, 41
percent of our workforce was in manufacturing. Now it is down to 12
percent. And as Akio Morita, a founder of Sony, cautioned in a speech
back in the 1980s: That a world power that loses its manufacturing
capacity will cease to be a world power. And that is where we are. In
Washington, we are not discussing paying the bill. They all say, ``pay
down the debt,'' but the debt has gone up. I have the figures right
here.
The debt has gone up exactly $12 billion. Here it is, the public debt
to the penny, since the beginning of the fiscal year. There is not any
surplus. And otherwise we need to understand the deficit and the
balance of trade, where we do not have anything to export.
We have a $350 billion deficit in the balance of trade. And little
Japan has out manufactured the great United States of America. As we
waste our economic strength on spending over $175 billion a year more
than we take in, as we have done, since President Lyndon Johnson last
balanced the budget. We have drained the tub of industrial strength
with this naive ``free trade, free trade, free trade.''
No. I am a competitor. I understand the global competition. We like
the investments that we have. We like the global competition. But the
United States has not begun to fight.
I would be glad to yield when I see someone come to the floor. I just
hate to see this valuable time wasted.
I ask unanimous consent that I be able to continue until we see the
next speaker.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer because I
think I am going to get him to join me.
I have had a dynamic debate with the Senators from Washington for
over 30-some years because they have Boeing, the outstanding export
industry of the United States.
Now, they believe in controlled trade, as I do, because they use all
the technology and research from our Department of Defense on the one
hand, and they use the financing of the Export-Import Bank on the other
hand. I believe in that Export-Import Bank, and the subsidization of
the Boeing sales, because we have to meet the competition of Airbus. So
I support that. But they should not come telling me about
[[Page S7773]]
free trade because we do not finance textile sales; we do not finance
much textile research.
So we can look back to last December--a year ago--at the
demonstration in Seattle. There was an anarchist group that came up
from Eugene, OR, but I am talking about the responsible AFL-CIO
demonstration there. That particular demonstration was led by the
Boeing machinists--the premium single export industry in the United
States. Why? Because much of that Boeing 777 is required to be made in
China in order to sell in China. That is not free trade. That is
requiring local content provisions.
So as they require it there, they require it otherwise in Europe.
That is why we have tried, for 50 years, to set the example to have no
subsidies, no tariffs, no content requirements, have absolutely free
trade. The dynamic of the global competition is one of control for the
security interests of the nations involved.
I believe if I was running Japan, I would do it the same way, or if I
was running China. It works. In 10 years, they have gone from a $6
billion-plus balance of trade with the United States to $68 billion.
They are cleaning our clock. With this particular PNTR, will we ever
wake up? Our friend John F. Kennedy wrote the book ``While England
Slept.'' I am tempted to write the book ``While America Slept.''
Kennedy's book was how the great British empire that brought Germany to
its knees, the conqueror, the victor was brought to its knees by the
vanquished. That is exactly what is happening to the United States of
America. We are going the way of England.
They told the Brits at the end of World War II, they said: Don't
worry, instead of a nation of brawn, you will be a nation of brains;
instead of producing products, you will provide services, a service
economy; instead of creating wealth, you will handle it and be a
financial center. England has gone to hell in an economic hand basket.
London is nothing more than an amusement park. Their army is not as big
as our Marines, and they have lost their clout in world affairs. Money
talks.
So not only are we losing our middle class--as Henry Ford said, ``I
want to pay that worker enough to buy what he is producing,'' which
helped begin not only the wonderful development of a middle class in
America, the strength of our democracy--but our clout in international
and foreign policy.
I thank the Chair for its indulgence. We will continue in September
to try to get everyone's attention, so we can compete.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think Senator Bryan is going to speak
so I will take only 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I may take more time later on tonight,
but since it is not clear exactly how the schedule is going to proceed,
let me thank Senator Lott for his commitment to a good, thorough,
substantive debate on whether or not we should or should not enter into
a review of normal trade relations with China.
I could speak for many hours about this, but I will have a number of
amendments. One of them will reflect the work of a very important
religious group, the U.S. Commission on Religious Rights and Religious
Freedom, which we will talk about, criteria that should be met, and
focus on the right of people in China to practice their religion
without persecution. Another will be a human rights amendment. Another
will deal with prison labor conditions in China. Another will deal with
the right of people to form unions in China. Finally, there will be a
very important amendment for people to organize in our own country.
Part of what is going on here is the concern within this sort of
broad international framework that quite often the message for people
in this country is, if you organize, we are gone. We will go to China
or another country and pay 12 cents an hour or 3 cents an hour. The
message to people in these countries is, if you should dare to form a
union, then you don't get the investment. I want to focus on the right
to organize and labor law reform in our own country.
I am an internationalist. We are in an international economy. I do
not want to see an embargo with China. We will trade with China. I do
not want to have a cold war with China. I want to see better relations.
I think the real question is what the terms of the trade will be, who
will decide, who will benefit, and who will be asked to sacrifice. I
hope this new global economy will be an economy that works, not only
for large multinationals but for human rights, for religious rights,
for the right of people to organize, for the environment, and for our
wage earners. My amendments will be within that framework.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as we consider preceding to legislation
to grant permanent normal trade relations to China, I would like to
alert my Colleagues to an important development. It is my understanding
that a frail, elderly Tibetan woman will soon see her only son, who is
in prison in Tibet. My colleagues on the Finance Committee may remember
my raising my deep concern over the case of Ngawang Choephel, a former
Fulbright student at Middlebury College in Vermont who is serving an 18
year sentence in Tibet on charges of espionage. As we debate entering a
new relationship with China, based on mutual commitments to adhere to
an international set of principles and regulations, I was increasingly
angered by the refusal of the Chinese government to grant Ngawang's
mother, Sonam Dekyi, permission to visit him in prison, a right
guaranteed her by Chinese law. I spoke out about this case during the
Finance Committee's mark-up of this legislation.
I am pleased to inform my colleagues that thanks to the skillful
intervention of the Chinese Ambassador, the Honorable Ambassador Li,
Sonam Dekyi will soon be in Tibet for a rendezvous with her son. Many
of my colleagues have expressed their support for Sonam Dekyi's
request, and I want to make sure they are aware of the Chinese
government's decision to allow this meeting. Sonam will be in Lhasa all
next week, and we are hoping that she will be allowed several lengthy
visits with her son. Because Sonam is in poor health and travel to
Tibet is very difficult for her, we are hoping that her visits will be
of appropriate length and quality. I will be happy to share with my
colleagues Sonam's report of her visit upon her return to India.
I continue to be worried about the health of Ngawang Choephel, and I
will continue my efforts to obtain his release. But at this moment I
wish to express my appreciation to the Chinese Ambassador for helping
to make this humanitarian mission happen. I know that many Vermonters
share my joy at this development and my hope that this is indicative of
further progress in matters of great concern to our two countries.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
(The remarks of Mr. Bryan pertaining to the introduction of S. 2963
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
____________________