[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.

                          ____________________