Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 104 (Friday, September 8, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 104 (Friday, September 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8256-S8265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TO AUTHORIZE EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA--Continued

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to discuss why
permanent normal trade relations with China are of such critical
importance to the United States.
One of the most remarkable strengths of the economy has been its
ability to deliver a rising standard of

[[Page S8257]]

living and the creation of high-paying jobs. Trade plays a very
critical role in achieving both goals. In that respect, normalizing our
trade relations with China represents a positive step forward for
American business, American farmers, American workers, and American
consumers.
Just let me speak very briefly about security because we will discuss
that in greater detail at a later time. Moving ahead with trading
relations with China will help promote the rule of law and the
acceptance of the way we do business in the international market. This
will help strengthen the hands of those who are most interested in
promoting the rule of law. Security-wise, if we reject PNTR, there is
no question but what we play into the hands of the militants, the
Communists, who want no change, the Communists who oppose promoting a
market economy.
So I just want to say, as we discuss the economics of this agreement,
that it is also critically important from the standpoint of
strengthening those who want to bring China into the international
community. What international trade does is let us focus on what we do
best.
Our exports are an indicator of where we have a strong comparative
advantage because we are more efficient in producing those goods than
we are at producing others. Those industries where we are most
efficient represent our economic future. Over the past 20 years, trade
as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product has increased by
more than 50 percent. Exports of goods and services this past year was
close to $1 trillion. It is no surprise that the export sectors of our
economy have grown faster than the economy as a whole. Nor is it any
surprise that export-based jobs pay on average of 15 percent more than
the prevailing wage. According to recent reports by Standard & Poor's
economic consulting arm, DRI, the benefits are 32.5 percent higher
overall than with jobs in nonexport industries.
Those figures reflect the fact that an increase in our exports
translate into new opportunities for workers and industries with a
greater number of higher paying jobs.
Since 1992, the strong U.S. economy has created more than 11 million
jobs, of which 1.5 million--or more than 10 percent--have been high-
wage export-related jobs.
The significance of PNTR to that overall picture is obvious.
According to estimates by Goldman, Sachs, normalizing our trade
relations with China and opening China's market through the WTO will
result in an increase in our exports of $13 billion annually; thus
China's accession to the WTO will enhance the economic prospects for
U.S. export-led industries, and employment opportunities for U.S.
workers in higher paying export-related jobs.
Exports, however, are only half of the trade picture and only half of
the story of normalizing our trade relations with China. We benefit
from imports as well. Being able to trade for goods that we are
relatively less efficient in producing means that investments in our
own economy are channeled to more productive use. That enhances our
ability to maintain higher than expected economic growth.

Imports also enhance the competitiveness of American firms regardless
of whether they participate in international markets. The ability to
buy at the lowest price and for the highest quality component allows
American firms to deliver their goods and services to both U.S. markets
and markets overseas at competitive prices.
International trade also has a broader microeconomic benefit of
keeping inflation low. International competition yields more efficient
producers who are under constant pressure to deliver goods and services
at the lowest price possible. The United States benefits from increases
in productivity that allow us to make more from less from the
competition, and that yields lower prices for goods and services across
the board.
To the extent that international competition helps keep inflation in
check, it also allows the Fed to keep interest rates low. There is no
doubt that keeping interest rates low not only helps consumers when
buying a home or a car but deepens the pool of low-cost capital
available to American firms to invest in productive enterprises.
Normalizing our trade relations with China is not a panacea, but it
will have a positive impact on the economy by reducing the uncertainty
and risk that our producers and farmers currently face in gaining
accession to the Chinese markets and ensuring continued competition
with its benefits for American companies and American consumers.
In other words, a vote in support of PNTR is a vote for a stronger
economic future here in the United States.
I ask my distinguished colleague from New York, because I think it is
important that the American people basically understand what this
legislation does and does not do--I don't think people understand this
legislation will not determine whether or not China will become a
member of WTO. Isn't that correct?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if I may, the chairman is absolutely
correct. I believe it to be the case. You can't obviously say this with
complete confidence, but China will become a member of the WTO with us
or without us. They have completed their negotiations with the great
majority of the 137 members of the WTO. They will be admitted. However,
having been admitted, the privileges of the relationship the WTO
establishes includes being subject to the rule of law. Panels say what
the trade law means. What have you done? What are the facts? Here is
the judgment handed down, which can be appealed. It is a rule of law
process. That is only available to countries that have met the WTO
standard enunciated in Article 1, which says you must have given
unconditional normal trade relations. If you have done that with
another country, then you can non-apply the WTO to that country (and
not gain any of the benefits the other country's concessions) or that
country can take you into court--if you would like to put it that way--
and you can answer the decisions and so forth.
This is everything you would hope for in a relationship where, up
until now, we have had no recourse to binding dispute settlement. When
faced with the unwillingness of the Chinese government from time to
time to comply with trade agreements, we could do nothing, excepting to
complain to them and say: We very much regret you did that. We don't
want you to do it again. Once China joins the WTO and we extend PNTR,
we will have a different answer: If you do it again, we will do this
instead of saying you have broken a rule, as we judge it, and we will
go to court.
Going to court is so much better than going to war or otherwise.
Mr. ROTH. Absolutely. One of the things that bothered me is that the
United States, under three Presidents, has negotiated for something
like 13 years on this agreement. The fact is, some very major
concessions are made that benefit agriculture, that benefit industry,
and benefit the workers.
The Senator was saying they are going to become a member of WTO. That
means those concessions they made in negotiations with our USTR will
become available to the other members of WTO but not ourselves if we
don't grant them permanent normal trade relations; isn't that correct?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Chairman is absolutely correct.
If I could make a point here--it is a personal one, but so be it--I
first visited the People's Republic of China in 1975. I had been
Ambassador to India, and, for reasons that were undiscernible at the
time, the Foreign Minister of China wished to talk to me as I was on my
way home. I received this message from George Bush, who represented our
interests there. He was not ambassador. And, oh gosh, he was kept to
the end of every line, and he had the smallest compound, and all the
help went home at 7 o'clock. But he and Barbara were in good spirits.
I made my way up to Tiananmen Square, to two enormous flagpoles. One
of them had vast portraits of 19th century German gentlemen: Marx and
Engels; the other, a rather Mongol-looking Stalin. They were the
vanguard of revolution.
At that point, one of the big issues was, When would the fourth
Communist Party take place--the fourth in their history? The French
Ambassador thought in the spring; the British Ambassador thought June;
some said maybe it had been canceled. We were on Tiananmen Square.
There was a

[[Page S8258]]

Great Hall of the People. It had the look of a post office on a Sunday
morning. The very week I was there and everyone was thinking about when
it would happen, it was happening. That is how secret that world was.
Four thousand delegates made their way in and out and voted
unanimously. The Foreign Minister succeeded Mao.
This was a Communist country. Everybody wore Mao jackets. The people
were color-coded. The army was green; the civil service was blue; the
workers were gray. We were taken to see the model apartments and so
forth. The children would sing about growing up with industrial hands:
We will settle the western regions; we will smash the imperialists.
It is over. First they rejected Stalin. In the 1960s, the Soviet
Union and the People's Republic were, at times, in a shooting war--
which never sank in across the river, but all right. Then Mao
disappeared. Go there now, and there is a little portrait of Mao above
an entrance to the Forbidden City--this nice portrait, nothing
domineering.
Had anyone noticed in the photographs of the leaders of the United
Nations, the head of the Chinese Government wears a blue suit, a white
shirt, and a tie such as the distinguished Chairman?
We just heard an hour ago from our Senator from South Dakota, last
year there were 29 Chinese agronomists in South Dakota discussing the
purchase of soybeans. They wouldn't come near us 30 years ago. They are
here now.
Can't we grasp this? Is there something missing?
Mr. ROTH. Let me say to the distinguished Senator, I had a very
similar experience. Back in the 1970s when Carter became President, he
was kind enough to invite me to go with a delegation he was sending to
China.
The Senator's description of China in those days is right on the
mark. It was truly a Communist country; everything we saw, ate, where
we stayed, was controlled by the Government. One could not read
anything unless it was published by the Communist Party. It was
unbelievable depression.
I saw those same portraits. I was dumbfounded to see this portrait of
Lenin and Stalin. It was 20 years before I went back. The difference is
unbelievable. The Chinese will talk to you; they are not afraid; they
don't just say the party line.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Did the Senator have the experience that they talked in
pairs the first time the Senator was there?
Mr. ROTH. Absolutely. Visitors heard nothing but the party line. We
talked to one person, met somebody else, and we heard exactly the same
thing.

Now make no mistake, we all understand it is no democracy.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. No.
Mr. ROTH. It is outrageous what they do in the area of human rights.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. It is.
Mr. ROTH. We have serious problems with respect to proliferation of
weapons.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. We do.
Mr. ROTH. But aren't we better off and don't we have a better chance
of bringing more responsible leaders to the front if we work with them
and do not alienate them?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. It is the best hope of mankind at this moment, sir,
because the age of nuclear warfare is not over. If we think we have
proliferation today, wait until we see. We won't, but if we were to
announce that we want the Chinese on hold, I cannot imagine what the
next 30 years would be like.
Mr. ROTH. My own personal experience is that significant progress is
being made.
Let me give one illustration. When I was there the first time, an
individual could not move from Beijing to another region.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Internal passports.
Mr. ROTH. Yes, internal passports. You had to get approval of the
Government. If you wanted to move from A to B, not only did you have to
get the approval of the Government but you had to get somebody who was
willing to move from B to A. Unbelievable. At least that is what we
were told. Now these things are changing. Progress is being made, and
it is critically important we encourage that.
I go back to what I was saying before. It is important to understand
that with permanent normal trade relations, we are not yielding access
to our markets. They already have these markets; isn't that correct?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. So states the balance of payments, sir.
They come in under our tariffs, which are already nonexistent. We
can't get in under theirs. Under this agreement, they have agreed to
bring them down to a reasonably low level and to wipe them out in some
cases where they have decided they need American technology and
business. They are not doing us any favors.
Mr. ROTH. In a very real way, isn't this agreement all about whether
America, the United States, our workers, our farmers, our businessmen,
are going to have access to the Chinese markets? Isn't that what we are
talking about?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about
those most elemental rule principles that Adam Smith laid down so many
years ago: Comparative advantage.
Remember, he used the image, he said: You could make port wine in
Scotland and you could grow wool in Portugal. But on the whole, it is
to our comparative advantage if Scotland made the wool cloth and sold
it to the Portuguese who made the port wine and sent it to Scotland.
I hope it is not indiscrete--I am sure it isn't because it came up in
the Finance Committee--there is a wonderful compatibility between the
poultry industry in Delaware and the Chinese trading system. The
Chinese cuisine, Chinese tastes, happen to be for parts of the chicken
which are least liked, in least demand among Americans. By contrast,
the portions of the chicken which are most demanded among American
consumers are least demanded among Chinese. What a happy arrangement to
just trade. We keep what we would most desire, they take what they most
desire, and we are better off.
The Chinese importing animal protein? When we were there first, a
Chinese family might see such a meal once a year. Hey, Americans,
loosen up. Something good is happening. And be careful lest we miss an
opportunity and something bad happens.
I will say one more thing. I am sure he won't mind. After Senator
Roberts of Kansas spoke yesterday, I happened to say to him on the
floor what a fine statement he made.
He said: You know, I am glad you mentioned that century and a half of
the Chinese exclusion law--century. He said: My father was on the
Panat. Like the father of our distinguished Presiding Officer, he
showed great heroism, and was awarded the Navy Cross. He came back to
Kansas and he said he never stopped talking about the way we treated
the Chinese.
You might start by saying what is that gunboat doing up the--was it
the Yangtze?
Mr. ROTH. I think it was.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. If we found a Chinese gunboat on the Missouri, we might
say: I think you got your charts wrong here. This is U.S. waters, not
yours.
It is easy for us to forget because there was no indignity done us.
It is not easy for them. I am not asking any sympathy for them, I am
just giving a fact. If we suddenly break into that appearing hostile
mode of wanting hegemony and all that, I shall be happy to have been
out of this by then because we will be asking for terrible events:
Korea, Japan, Taiwan, India--let's not do this. Let's do the sensible
thing we have been trying to do since the day we began the Reciprocal
Trade Agreements program in 1934.
My colleague is bringing it to a culmination. I hope he is proud.
Mr. ROTH. I appreciate that. But let me add, you have been there, not
from the beginning but you have played a major role in bringing about
this world trade situation. I congratulate you and thank you for your
leadership.
Time is running out.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I look about. I was told the Senator
from West Virginia might want to speak but he is not here. I think we
have done our duty, I say to the Chairman.
Mr. ROTH. I think I would agree. I say to our friends and colleagues
that Monday will be here soon. It is important that those who have
amendments they want to offer take advantage of that situation. Time is
running out.

[[Page S8259]]

For the reason the distinguished Senator from New York has spelled
out, we absolutely must proceed as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I simply say we have been here all
morning. We would be here all afternoon and into the evening if there
were occasion--demand for it. We expected a measure to be brought up
that was laid down last evening. It was not. We would be here all
Monday. But when, on Tuesday, we move to close debate and the final 30
hours during which amendments will be offered, that is only
appropriate. It is fair play by the rules and we will get to some
conclusion. It will be a very fine conclusion. We began it yesterday
morning when the motion to proceed was adopted, 92-5.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the distinguished Senator for his leadership. I
have confidence that this legislation will be enacted. It will be a
great step for America.
Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I have returned to keep the vigil on my
attempt, in concert with other Senators, to have a debate on permanent
normal trade relations, PNTR, with the People's Republic of China. I
shall once again implore my fellow colleagues to consider reason, to
listen to our case as we discuss these amendments, and to consider them
carefully; let your conscience be your guide, as the old saying goes. I
hope that all Senators will look carefully at the merits of these
amendments. Should we not crack this big fortune cookie? Just imagine
the PNTR as a large fortune cookie. Should we not crack it and fully
realize what lies inside PNTR before we rush to pass this legislation?
What is the rush? Fortune cookies look sweet and tempting on the
outside, but they can hold a less than appetizing message inside.
Should we not look, should we not peer, lift the covers and see what is
inside? Should we not look before we leap?
So far, this debate reminds me of a greasy pig contest at a county
fair. The distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi, who presides
over the Senate today--and, of course, I would not expect a response
from the Chair, but I daresay that the Senator from Mississippi has
made his presence known at many a county fair in the great State of
Mississippi. At those county fairs, I am sure he is acquainted with the
greasy pig contest. We talk about the greasy pole, and now we refer to
the greasy pig--the greasy pig contest at a county fair. Everyone tries
to slow down that pig, everybody tries to catch that pig, but the hands
just slip away. That pig is greased and nobody can catch hold of the
pig. Everyone is trying to slow down the greasy pig, but the pig is
greased and just keeps on running.
I feel like one of those poor rubes out here chasing the greasy pig.
By the way, one of the best pigs of all is the Poland-China hog. My dad
used to buy 10 or 12 of those Poland-China pigs every year, and I would
go around the community and gather up the leftovers from the tables of
coal miners' wives. They would save these scraps of food for me and I
would go around after school and pick up those scraps. I would take the
scraps and feed them to the Poland-China pigs. Well, it just happens
that today I am talking about the greased China PNTR pig.
I am trying my best to slow it down. Here the crowd is standing on
their feet, and they are shouting. They are saying: Robert C. Byrd
tried to get his hand on that greasy pig and tried to hold that pig.
But the pig gets away. He can't hold that pig. Here we are--a few
Senators--trying to slow down this greasy China PNTR pig so that we can
get some amendments added or, perhaps by display of our judgment on
this legislation, cause some of our fellow Members to say: Whoa, whoa,
here; let's wait a minute. What are we doing? Why are we in such a
hurry?
May I ask, do we have a copy of the bill that came out of the Senate
committee? All right. I will have it in a moment. But that is not the
legislation the Senate is talking about. That is not the bill that came
out of the Senate committee. While I am securing that bill, I shall
submit to the chairman of the Finance Committee a copy of the amendment
I am about to call up. If he will take a look at it, we may want to
discuss a time limit on it.
Back to this greasy pig, other Senators and I are trying simply to
get the Senate to stop, look, and listen before it rushes pellmell into
a vote on this legislation.
Here it is. This is S. 2277, a bill to terminate the application of
title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic
of China.
It is a very short bill. As all Senators may see, it is two full
pages. Of course, it really is not two full pages. The first page
simply states the number of the bill, the title of the bill, and the
Senators' names who are supporting it. There it is. Page 1, page 2,
page 3; and page 3 consists only of four lines. There are three and a
half lines, as a matter of fact, on page 3. There it is. This is what
the Senate Finance Committee reported to this body, reported to the
Calendar. This is it. This is the product of the work of the Senate
Finance Committee on the subject of trading with China. But this bill
is not what we are talking about. This is not what we are debating.
This is not what we are attempting to amend. The bill is not before the
Senate, it is at the desk. But this is not the bill we are attempting
to amend.
What we are doing here in the Senate is this. We have taken the House
bill.
May I ask the chairman, has the House bill ever had consideration by
the Senate Finance Committee?
(Mr. SESSIONS assumed the chair.)
Mr. ROTH. Yes. I say to my distinguished colleague that it was
considered in executive session by the Finance Committee.
Mr. BYRD. So the House bill was considered in executive session by
the Senate Finance Committee. That was at the time of markup, I
suppose.
Mr. ROTH. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. Very well. But that bill came over from the House to the
Senate. Unfortunately for those of us who would like to see the bill
slowed down and perhaps amended to make it a better bill, we find there
has been kind of a contract entered into, if I may put it that way. It
was not a written contract. Perhaps I should say it is an understanding
rather than a contract.
There seems to be an understanding among some Senators that perhaps
with the House--I don't know how far this understanding goes, but
Senators who have entered into this understanding will vote against any
amendment--any amendment, any amendment--to the House bill. We are not
going to debate the Senate bill. We are not going to act upon the
Senate bill. We have taken up the House bill, and no amendments shall
pass. That is it. No amendments shall pass.

I want to say to the Chair, to the distinguished Senator from Alabama
who presides over the Senate, that I have been in legislative bodies
now 54 years. I have been in this Congress 48 years. I have been in
this body 42 years. This is something that is absolutely new to me,
this method of legislating where Senators and the administration--I am
talking about Senators on both sides--enter into an understanding
somehow. I don't know whether they met and had a show of hands or had a
debate about it. But anyway, we have been told by Senators on this
floor that they will vote against any amendment, no matter what its
merits. It doesn't matter who offers the amendment. It doesn't matter
how good an amendment it may be. The decision has been made to reject
every amendment--reject all amendments. Why? Why the hurry?
The powers that be--whoever they are--don't want an amendment because
they say that would mean the bill would have to go back to the House.
And they say that would cause a conference between the two Houses and
that would mean a conference report. That would mean each House would
have to vote on that conference report. As I gather from my grapevine
information, these Senators are concerned that if the House were to
vote again on this measure, it might not pass. There are some who think
it would not pass the House if the House voted on it again. I think we
have come to a pretty

[[Page S8260]]

poor pass when we won't consider amendments seriously and judge them on
their merits and vote accordingly. But that is apparently what is
happening here.
I feel like one of those poor rubes out there chasing the greasy
China PNTR pig, trying my best to slow it down with some good
amendments. But that pig is well greased, as you can understand by now.
It is flying through the Senate, flying through the Senate. This pig is
tearing along and Members have made a blood vow to keep hands off and
just let ``old porky'' run; let ``old porky'' run.
I will, however, continue to pursue some debate on this bill and to
offer at least two amendments that I believe will improve the
legislation. I shall offer an amendment momentarily that is
straightforward. It would require the U.S. Trade Representative to
obtain a commitment by the People's Republic of China to disclose
information relating to China's plans to comply with the World Trade
Organization, WTO, subsidy obligations.
This is an important issue aimed at ensuring that the American people
and their representatives here and in the other branches of the
government truly realize what is inside the big Chinese trade fortune
cookie. State-owned enterprises continue to be the most significant
source of employment in most areas in China, and some reports suggest
these subsidized enterprises accounted for as much as 65 percent of the
jobs in many areas of China in 1995. That is two-thirds of the jobs.
The most recent data that the Library of Congress could provide on this
matter indicate those figures. Let me state them again: The subsidized
enterprises in China accounted for as much as 65 percent of the jobs in
many areas of China in 1995.

Members of Congress need to remember that we are here to defend the
people of the United States, to use our best judgment at all times, to
exercise our very best talents in behalf of the people who send us
here. I am here to represent the people of West Virginia, Democrats and
Republicans, old and young, black and white, rich and poor. I am here
to represent them. Other Members are likewise here to represent the
people of their respective States. We are here to represent them. This
includes, may I say, the average American worker.
There are grave implications to Sino-American relations as a result
of granting PNTR to China. I believe that the Chinese have developed a
keen understanding of the American political system. I have no doubt
that many Senators and U.S. businesses are naive about the increased
workings of the Chinese Government and its agenda. China is not a free
market economy. It is not on the verge of becoming a free market
economy. It is a Communist, centrally controlled economy. The Chinese
Government oversees the top-to-bottom operations of many industries
such as iron and steel, coal mining, petroleum extraction and refining,
as well as the electric power utilities, banking, and transportation
sectors. The whole thing, one might say.
Government control reigns from top to bottom, supreme in China.
Government control.
I was in China in 1975 along with our former colleague, Sam Nunn, and
our former colleague, Jim Pearson, from the Republican side. At that
time I was told that no individual in China owned an automobile. There
were no privately owned automobiles. Oceans of bicycles but no
privately owned automobile.
There is some limited private enterprise in China. But private
investment is heavily monitored and restricted by the Government. In
fact, it has been suggested that the Chinese Government only sell
minority shares, such as 25 percent of an enterprise, for the sole
purpose of making money while still containing effective control over
the operations of that enterprise.
These conditions are serious impediments to fair trade and to free
trade. Yet we really do not have much detailed information about
China's state-owned enterprises and the type or amount of the benefits
that those enterprises receive from the Chinese Government. It is
almost impossible to measure accurately the extent of subsidized
operations or the touted move to privatization in China, due to the
lack of reliable Chinese statistics.
My amendment today that I will shortly send to the desk would help to
secure this information. What is wrong with that? This is information
that is vital to many U.S. businesses and vital to American workers. My
amendment is an effort to help secure that. What is wrong with that?
I hope the American people are following this debate--I am pretty
sure they are not; they are not following it. No, the American people
are not watching. If they were watching it, there would be more
Senators here in the Chamber today. How many Senators are there here
today? One, two, three--that is the whole kit and kaboodle--three
Senators. So the American people are not watching it. They don't know
what is happening.
My amendment would help to secure statistics that are vital to U.S.
businesses and American workers.
One of the basic principles of liberalized trade is to obtain
obligations to restrict Government interference, which provides an
unfair advantage to national commerce. The WTO agreement on subsidies
and countervailing measures restricts the use of subsidies and
establishes a three-class framework on subsidies consisting of red
light, yellow light, dark amber, and green light. The SCM prohibits
subsidies contingent upon export performance and subsidies contingent
upon the use of domestic over imported goods.

We know that a significant portion of the economy of the People's
Republic of China consists of state-owned enterprises. We know that
Chinese enterprises receive significant subsidies from the Chinese
Government. We know that Chinese state-owned enterprises account for a
significant portion of exports from the Chinese Government. We also
know that U.S. manufacturers and farmers can not compete fairly with
these subsidized state-owned enterprises. So, once again, the question
remains: how can the United States ensure that Chinese subsidies do not
undermine U.S. commerce and threaten American jobs? That is what we are
trying to find out by way of my amendment.
The U.S.-China bilateral agreement contains report language on the
commercial operations of Chinese state-owned and state-invested
enterprises. That language says that China, with respect to those
enterprises, must follow private market export rules; China must base
decisions on commercial considerations as provided in the WTO; China
cannot influence, directly or indirectly, commercial decisions; China
must follow WTO government procurement procedures; and China cannot
condition investment approval upon technology transfer. That is a
fairly comprehensive set of guidelines. If followed, these guidelines
ought to level the playing field for competitive U.S. firms. That is,
of course, a very big ``if.'' The Chinese government is pretty good at
applying guidelines like these very selectively or not at all.
The United States Trade Representative states that the U.S.-China
bilateral agreements meet significant benchmarks, but acknowledges that
work on the subsidy protocols is not complete. I understand that the
USTR has stressed that the WTO basic rule is clear--namely, China must
eliminate all red light subsidies or prohibited subsidies upon entry
into the WTO. Nevertheless, the USTR is wary enough to continue
negotiations on subsidy agreements particular to the agricultural and
industrial sectors.
In addition to the vague language in the protocol, another problem
arises with regard to subsidies and the Chinese Government. The SCM
agreement provides principles whereby the specificity of a subsidy can
be determined, but it does so in the context of a market economy with
private ownership of enterprises. The SCM Agreement does not have a
specific reference to economies in which a significant share of
economic activity and foreign trade is carried out by state-owned
enterprises--which is the case with China. I understand that the USTR's
protocol language attempts to address this in their bilateral language,
but it seems to me that this is leaving U.S. businesses to the whims of
an uncertain turn of fortune's wheel. In fact, China has expressed a
view that it should be included in the grouping of the poorest
countries in the WTO--effectively exempting China from the disciplines
of the WTO subsidy codes altogether. This does not, it seems to me,
presage good

[[Page S8261]]

compliance on the part of China with regard to the subsidy restrictions
outlined in the U.S.-China bilateral agreement report language. The
Chinese already say they are exempt.
I just got a note from our mutual good friend, Dave Obey, a Member of
the House. I think I should make it known to my colleague on the floor,
Senator Dodd--he happens to be the only colleague I have on the floor,
not counting my colleague in the chair--but, I say to my colleague on
the floor, Dave Obey called: He simply wanted to tell you--meaning me--
tell you that he is watching this debate and he hopes that you--meaning
Robert Byrd--``will snare that pig,'' that greasy pig I was talking
about.
So what can U.S. businesses really expect from the protocol language
in the U.S. China bilateral agreement? I have a gold watch and chain,
and I'll bet my gold watch and chain that they can likely expect little
to nothing with regard to potential benefits. I believe that U.S.
businesses should expect to see continuing illegal subsidy programs by
the Chinese to state-owned enterprises.
I also hope I shall be proven wrong in the long run.
Without doubt, subsidies have been a very difficult issue to resolve.
In fact, with years of trade relations and negotiations, the U.S. has
yet to reach a subsidy understanding with the European Union on
agriculture or on some industrial sectors such as aeronautics.
But the United States should not leave this matter--or U.S. firms and
workers--hanging, and U.S. businesses should not be expected to pay
millions in litigation fees to resolve subsidy disputes.
My amendment will help address the vital issue of prohibited
subsidies. It would improve the transparency of the subsidies provided
by the Chinese to state-owned enterprises. It would facilitate U.S.
Government and private efforts to monitor Chinese compliance by
providing both an essential baseline of current subsidies and an
explicit schedule for their removal. Finally, it would help provide
information that strengthens the evidentiary basis for grievances by
U.S. industries regarding continued subsidies and it would help spur
China to reduce or eliminate subsidies to state-owned enterprises.

Should we not better understand the level of control that the Chinese
government exerts over their businesses? Again, my amendment simply
requires the USTR to obtain a commitment by the People's Republic of
China to identify state-owned enterprises engaged in export activities;
describe state support for those enterprises; and to set forth a time
table for compliance by China with the subsidy obligations of the WTO.
This is basic information all members of the Senate and the
Administration should be eager to have.
Unfair subsidies hurt the working men and women of the United States
every day. Unfair subsidies hurt scores, hundreds of Americans working
in U.S. industrial and agricultural sectors such as steel, the apple
industry and beef. It cuts across all of the vital products. I hope all
Members will stand up for vital American interests by voting in support
of my amendment.
My amendment addresses the extensive control over the economy still
exercised by the Chinese government, despite some window dressing of
privatization. It might be looked upon as a reality check. The same
kind of very heavy-handed government control is exerted over virtually
every aspect of Chinese life. Heavy-handedness is evident all over
China. Take a look at religious freedom for example, and I would like
to touch briefly on that subject because it is an important barometer
of the way the Chinese Government controls their society and their
people.
Freedom of religion is near and dear to hearts of Americans. That
freedom is at the core of our Nation's being, and we do well to cherish
it. Early settlers dared much to come to these shores so that they
could freely practice their religious beliefs. They left everything
they knew, every comfort of home, to escape the sometimes oppressive
hand the heavy hand of governments that discriminated against them. The
Pilgrims, the Puritans, the Quakers--all came to the New World seeking
religious freedom. Even 171 years after the Pilgrim's Plymouth colony
was established in 1620, that fire for religious freedom was codified
in the Bill of Rights which were ratified by the necessary number of
States on December 15, 1791. The first right--the first precious
right--outlined in the First Amendment to the Constitution could not be
clearer:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; * * *

The proliferation of churches in the United States of all stripes,
from the Roman Catholic cathedral to the independent Baptist church,
the Muslim Mosque to the Mormon Tabernacle, the Shinto Shrine to the
Jewish Temple--all of these are a living testament to our commitment to
religious freedom.
That same freedom is repressed in China. It is not that the Chinese
people are opposed to free practice of religion, so far as I can tell.
According to a recent article, in fact, the decay of communism, coupled
with rising unemployment and a desire for the trappings of affluent
society, has sparked a religious revival in China. Twenty years ago,
only 2 million Chinese identified themselves as Christian. Today, the
number is estimated at 60 million--60 million--according to overseas
Christian groups. But, as an atheistic Communist state, China has long
feared religion as a threat to the government's monopoly over its
subjects. The People's Republic of China has a long and sorry history
in this century of repressing religion and religious practice. The
antireligious fervor of the Cultural Revolution is but one example. Its
subjugation of Tibet and the destruction of many of the Buddhist
lamaseries there is another example. The meditative group called Falun
Gong, which mobilized more than 10,000 people for a mass protest in
Beijing last year, has been outlawed.
In the Washington Times on Wednesday of this week, September 6, the
front page headline reads: ``Chinese religious rights `deteriorated'
''. The article concerns a State Department report released yesterday,
on the eve of the United Nations Millennium Summit, a gathering of
religious leaders from around the world in support of peace. I would
observe, and not as an aside, that the exiled Dalai Lama, religious
leader of Tibetan Buddhists and other Buddhists, was not invited, out
of deference to China. In this, the second annual congressionally
ordered report on religious freedom around the world, respect for
religious freedom in China ``deteriorated markedly'' during the second
half of 1999 and was marked by the brutal suppression of minority
religious faiths. Members of such groups have been subjected to
``harassment, extortion, prolonged detention, physical abuse and
incarceration.'' Those words are lifted out of the text.
Though the Chinese government sanctions five carefully monitored
religious organizations, including a state-supported Christian church,
the government has shown no hesitation in outlawing any religious sect
or church that has shown any sign of gaining support among the Chinese
people. Missionaries are not welcome; nor are Bibles. In the past year,
raids on worship groups meeting in private homes have increased from
twice a month to once a week, according to human rights groups in Hong
Kong. Yet Beijing's state-appointed bishop recently stated: ``There is
no religious persecution in China.''
Just last month, on August 23, Chinese authorities raided a meeting
of the Fangcheng Church in Henan Province, arresting three American
citizens and over 100 Chinese church members. The Americans, Henry Chu
and his wife Sandy Lin, and Patricia Lan, were visiting the church when
it was raided. The Taiwanese-born American citizens were released after
a protest from the U.S. embassy. They are luckier than Zhang Rongliang,
the Fangcheng Church leader, who was arrested on August 23, 1999, and
sentenced to 3 years in a labor camp under an anticult ordinance. It
has been a long time, indeed, since a Christian church in the United
States was described as a cult. And, of course, no single church or
religion, or circumscribed list of churches, is officially sanctioned
by the American Government.

We do not have that in this country. That is why many of our
forbearers came to these shores. The Government of the United States
does not sanction any particular church.

[[Page S8262]]

Again, in the Congress' annual renewal of China's NTR status,
conditions favoring religious freedom or protesting Chinese actions
against worshippers could be debated and voted upon. The United States
could go on record, at least, in support of the principle of religious
freedom. This annual debate on must-pass legislation, on legislation
that does mean something to the Chinese Government, may well have
moderated Chinese behavior. Who knows? It certainly did not
fundamentally change that behavior, as proponents of PNTR have
observed. But it likely did moderate Chinese actions, if only to reduce
the embarrassment factor they may have faced during the annual debate.
So it served a useful function, one that we will now consign to the
dustheap of history. When next year's congressionally mandated report
on religious freedom is issued, I for one will not be surprised to read
about further deterioration in religious freedom in China, once PNTR is
assured.
Mr. President, I still read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Even though I have it--or once had it in my lifetime--just about
memorized, seeing the words themselves reinforces the beauty, the
power, and the simplicity of that magnificent document for me. The Bill
of Rights was added to the Constitution in order to ensure the
ratification of the Constitution itself, even though the framers did
not believe that those rights needed to be spelled out. For them, those
rights were so fundamental that they did not need to be spelled out.
Others, less intimately involved in creating the Constitution, needed
the reassurance of the written word. The words are powerful: ``Congress
shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .'' I still respect those
words, and I still cherish those principles. I hope that others around
the world may eventually share in this great freedom. Until they do, I
continue to think it is appropriate that we, our country, as a leader
in supporting religious freedom, should take opportunities to urge
other governments to allow unfettered worship of their Creator.
Mr. President, I am sorry that Senator Wellstone's amendment in
support of international religious freedom was not adopted. It was a
message worth sending to the Chinese people--a message that the United
States still places its principles and its values above mere avarice,
above mere greed for maximizing profits through increased trade. I hope
that my colleagues will support my amendment, which would provide
needed and difficult-to-obtain information about Chinese Government
subsidies to state-owned enterprises. This information is needed by the
U.S. firms and U.S. workers who will be competing against those
subsidized producers. If our trade provisions in support of fair trade
are to have any chance, we must have this information. I hope that we
will not put greed ahead of American jobs and interests. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment. Let us at least put up a fence
before the ambulance careens over the hill, which reminds me of a poem,
which I think would be nice to have in the Record right here.

Before I attempt to recall it, let me ask my friend from
Connecticut--he has been sitting here--does he wish the floor now? I
can postpone this for some other time.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for posing the
question, but I always love to hear my colleague quote poetry, under
any set of circumstances.
I have some remarks to share regarding the pending matter, but there
is no great hurry. I would not want to interrupt the flow of my good
friend and seatmate's remarks. So I am very patient to listen to his
comments.
I, too, voted for the Wellstone amendment yesterday on religious
freedom. I would like to associate myself with my colleague's remarks.
My remarks touch on the agreement but not as extensively as the
comments of my colleague from West Virginia on the subject of religious
freedom. I commend him for his comments. I would like to be associated
with those thoughts.
So I am very content to listen to the poetry. I think America is
enlightened. I think there are a lot more people listening to this
debate, I say to my colleague from West Virginia, than would be
reflected by the participation of our fellow colleagues on a Friday
afternoon.
But the comments of the distinguished senior Senator from West
Virginia are always profound, always thoughtful, always meaningful. His
colleagues appreciate them, and the American public do as well. So I am
very delighted to sit here and be enlightened further. Poetry is always
something that enriches the soul.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am flattered by the comments of my
colleague, my seatmate who sits right here. I appreciate his
friendship, and I appreciate his many, many words of advice, our many
conversations we have had together about the Senate, about our country,
and about the Constitution.
So if we can just think, as we do this poem--I always run the risk,
of course, of having a lapse of memory. But after 50 years of quoting
poetry, although I have had a few lapses of memory, I always take them
as they come. It is something that is natural, nothing to be
embarrassed about. Sometimes I start over and get the poem right.
But I am thinking of this legislation that is before us, and I am
thinking of what is going on here. I have referred to a cabal. It isn't
that, of course, but there certainly is an understanding abroad here,
among Senators on both sides--certain Senators I think are probably
working with the administration--that there will be no amendments, no
amendments will pass, they will vote down every amendment.
Well, a few of my colleagues and I are trying to improve this
legislation. We are not offering any killer amendments. But we are
offering them because we think the bill would be improved.
This action on my part, and on the part of my colleagues who are
attempting to improve the bill, might be likened to putting a fence
around the edge of a cliff while an ambulance runs in the valley. The
ambulance represents this legislation, which, if passed, in the long
run, I fear, will result in increased unfair trade and constitute an
injury to the American worker and to the American businesspeople.

`Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;
But over its terrible edge there had slipped A duke and full
many a peasant.
So the people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally;
Some said, ``Put a fence around the edge of the cliff,''
Some, ``An ambulance down in the valley.''

But the cry for the ambulance carried the day,
As it spread through the neighboring city;
A fence may be useful or not, it is true,
But each heart became brimful of pity
For those who slipped over that dangerous cliff;
And the dwellers in highway and alley
Gave pounds or gave pence, not to put up a fence,
But an ambulance down in the valley.

``For the cliff is all right, if you're careful,'' they said,
``And, if folks even slip and are dropping,
It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much,
As the shock down below when they're stopping.''
So day after day, as these mishaps occurred,
Quick forth would these rescuers sally
To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff,
With their ambulance down in the valley.

Then an old sage remarked: ``It's a marvel to me
That people give far more attention
To repairing results than to stopping the cause,
When they'd much better aim at prevention.
Let us stop at its source all this mischief,'' cried he.
``Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally;
If the cliff we will fence we might almost dispense
With the ambulance down in the valley.''

``Oh, he's a fanatic,'' the others rejoined,
``Dispense with the ambulance? Never!
He'd dispense with all charities, too, if he could;
No! No! We'll support them forever.
Aren't we picking up folks just as fast as they fall?
Shall this man dictate to us? Shall he?
Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence,
While the ambulance works down in the valley?''

But a sensible few, who are practical too,
Will not bear with such nonsense much longer;
They believe that prevention is better than cure,
And their party will soon be the stronger.
Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen,
And while other philanthropists dally,

[[Page S8263]]

They will scorn all pretense and put up a stout fence
Round the cliff that hangs over the valley.

Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old,
For the voice of true wisdom is calling,
``To rescue the fallen is good, but `tis better
To prevent other people from falling.''
Better close up the source of temptation and crime
Than to deliver from dungeon or galley;
Better put a strong fence round the top of the cliff
Than an ambulance down in the valley.''

Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 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. DODD. 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. DODD. Mr. President, the Chamber is not packed this afternoon,
but I hope our colleagues who are back in their offices on Capitol
Hill, and maybe our good friend David Obey from the House, were
enlightened by the poetry of warning by our senior colleague from West
Virginia, about putting a fence at the top of the cliff rather than the
ambulance down in the valley.
I am always impressed and I never cease to be amazed by my seatmate
from West Virginia. I have been here for 20 years and not a day goes by
that I don't learn something new from and benefit immensely by my
friendship with the Senator from West Virginia. Today is no exception.
That was a tour de force. He recited from memory at least 10, 12, maybe
14 stanzas. I thank him immensely for his comments regarding the
pending matter, the granting of permanent normal trade relations status
with the People's Republic of China.
I begin these brief remarks, if I may, by commending the two senior
members of the Finance Committee who have jurisdiction over the pending
matter, Senator Roth of Delaware and Senator Moynihan of New York. Both
of these gentlemen have made significant contributions to the wealth
and strength of our Nation. This will probably be the last piece of
business the Senator from New York will be directly involved in before
his retirement from the Senate. It is appropriate that his closing
efforts, legislatively, should involve a piece of legislation as
monumental and important as the pending matter.
Senator Moynihan has made unique and valued contributions to our
Nation's wealth during his years of public service. As a member of the
executive branch--as a staff member there, a servant of various
administrations and, most recently, of course, during his tenure in
this wonderful body. So I wish him well and commend him once again for
his latest endeavor. I commend Senator Roth as well who has worked on
this legislation.
I rise to share a few thoughts about this bill, a bill that will
confer, as we all know now, permanent normal trading relations with the
People's Republic of China. In so doing, this bill would also trigger
the implementation of the bilateral trade agreement entered into
between the United States and China last November related to China's
accession to the World Trade Organization. After many months of delay,
I am very pleased that the Senate finally has arrived at this
discussion that we have conducted over the past several days and will
continue next week. I regret it has taken this long. I think the matter
should have come up earlier. But I am pleased we are finally getting a
chance to debate the merits and consider amendments on this very
important piece of legislation.
PNTR, as it is called, and China's entry into the WTO are extremely
important milestones, in my view, toward the full assimilation of the
world's most populous nation into the global economic system. China's
membership in the World Trade Organization will also serve, in my view,
as an important cornerstone of U.S.-China relations in the 21st
century.
The requirement that China adhere to the World Trade Organization's
global trading rules and standards should have and will have profound
and long-lasting implications not only for China, but for the United
States and the world community. Not only will this agreement alter the
landscape of U.S.-Chinese trade relations and produce, I hope, a fairer
and more competitive global trading environment, over time, I think
this agreement and this entry by China into the WTO will also have a
most profound impact on China's social, economic, and political
systems.

Over the last three decades, successive American Presidents, from
Richard Nixon to the present occupant of the White House, Bill Clinton,
have worked hard to fashion a constructive relationship with the
People's Republic of China. As we all know, this has proved more
difficult at some times than others because the Chinese have made it
so--too often because of their unilateral decisions and actions. The
goal has always remained the same however--to move China toward a more
open and prosperous system, to enter the family of democracies and
freedom that are emerging throughout the world, and to become a society
built on a foundation consistent with the international community's
norms and values. The Clinton administration's proposal to grant PNTR
status to China and support its membership in the World Trade
Organization are very much in keeping with the longstanding tradition
that has gone back over several decades.
Historically, the trade relationship between China and the United
States has been disproportionately tilted in China's favor due to its
mercantilist trading policies. Granting PNTR and allowing China to
enter the World Trade Organization, I hope, will restore the
competitive balance in that relationship and generate what could be
enormous opportunities for American exports, job creation, and
investments in the world's third largest economy.
The commercial benefits to the United States from World Trade
Organization accession are clear, compelling and very wide-ranging.
American farmers, American workers, American businesses, both large
and small, will benefit from China's new status.
In order for the United States to agree to support China's membership
in the WTO, Chinese authorities were required to make across-the-board
unilateral trade concessions to the United States to bring our trading
relationship into better balance.
Among other things, the Chinese have agreed to slash tariffs on U.S.
agricultural and industrial imports, expand the rights of U.S.
companies to distribute American products throughout China, and grant
U.S. companies broad access to China's banking, telecommunications, and
insurance sectors.
The bilateral agreement which codifies these concessions includes as
well important safeguards against unfair competition by China that will
allow U.S. authorities to respond quickly to products and specific
import surges that may threaten the viability of certain vulnerable
import-sensitive domestic industries.
The U.S. technology industry also stands to gain, in my view, from
this agreement as China begins participation in the information
technology agreement. Under this ITA agreement, all tariffs on
computers, telecommunications equipment, semiconductors, and other
high-tech products will be totally eliminated.
U.S. high-technology companies have emerged as one of the driving
forces of our recent economic boom. With China's participation in the
information technology agreement, these companies may continue a trend
of expansion and success on the international scale that will result in
more domestic jobs in the industry.
China has made important concessions on trading and distribution
rights as well. Manufacturers in the United States have been severely
hampered over the past number of years by China's restrictions on the
right of foreign firms and U.S. firms to import and export and to own
wholesaling outlets or warehouses in China. For the very first time,
under this agreement, these rights will be granted to U.S. firms.
Further distribution rights are being provided for some of China's
most restricted sectors, including transportation, maintenance, and
repair. As a result, American firms operating in China will not only be
able to import a greater number of goods, but they will also be allowed
to establish their own distribution networks.

[[Page S8264]]

While it is not easy to put an exact dollar figure on these
concessions, experts estimate that the annual U.S. exports will
increase by as much as $14 billion a year--nearly double the current
value of our exports. And more than 400,000 high-paying export-related
American jobs will be sustained by expanded exports to the People's
Republic of China.
These are important benefits and serve to highlight the wide-ranging
impact that China's changed trading status will have on the American
economy as a whole.
At this juncture, I also want to briefly mention how granting the
PNTR to China would affect my own State of Connecticut.
In 1998, Connecticut's merchandise exports to China totaled $302
million, making it one of the most trade-dependent States in the United
States. Nearly two-thirds of all firms exporting to China from
Connecticut in 1997 were small- and medium-sized companies--not the
large corporations in my State. Clearly, an open China will provide a
venue for increased sales of Connecticut-made products and an increase
in jobs available to Connecticut workers in companies both large and
small.
Connecticut's burgeoning high-tech industry, for example, will be
able to take advantage of China's participation in the information
technology agreement and the elimination of tariffs on these goods
which is, in effect, a tax. Chemical products, which are one of
Connecticut's largest exports to China, will enjoy reduced tariffs, and
quotas will be totally eliminated by the year 2002. Insurance
companies, which have long ties in Connecticut, will benefit from
greater geographic mobility within China, and an expanded scope of
admitted business activities. And lifesaving medical equipment made in
my home State may begin entering the Chinese market at reduced tariff
levels. Those tariffs will be phased out entirely over the next several
years.

The enthusiasm for the benefits that will flow from our bilateral WTO
accession agreement with China must, however, be tempered by the fact
that there are a number of non-trade issues with respect to China that
are deeply worrisome and need the attention of this body, of the
legislative branch, of the executive branch, and the American people.
I support the pending legislation. But I also want to make it very
clear that I side with the critics of China who believe there is a
great deal more that the Chinese Government needs to undertake in order
to reach the standards of behavior expected of civilized nations and
countries.
If you wish to be a part of the World Trade Organization, implicit in
that request is that you are willing and anxious to also become a
member nation of civilized society recognizing the diversity of your
people and the basic fundamental freedoms that are guaranteed--not by a
document, a constitution, or a declaration of independence but those
guaranteed by the creator of all of us.
As China seeks to become a part of the family of civilized society,
then it must also begin to act accordingly with respect to the
treatment of its own people.
First and foremost, China must improve upon its human rights
performance, especially with regard to its citizens and religious
freedoms. This point was extremely well articulated by my colleague
from West Virginia. He went on at some length in describing how
valuable and important religious freedom has been as a free people,
citing the very first amendment to our Constitution which guaranteed
people this right. I will not go on at length about this point, except
to say, once again, that I wish to be associated with the comments of
the Senator from West Virginia in his earlier discussion on religious
freedom and the absence of it, or almost a complete absence of it, in
the People's Republic of China.
In my view, China must also address the pervasive corruption that
exists at all levels of Government--corruption that is damaging the
country economically and politically and could jeopardize its
membership in the WTO if they persist in these practices.
China must also begin to act responsibly in its relationships with
other nations if it is to become the world leader that it aspires to
be.
China must cease its threatening stance towards Taiwan and agree to
enter into a productive dialog to resolve this question in a manner
that is consistent with the wishes of the people on Taiwan and mainland
China. They must try to resolve their dispute in the manner of a
civilized society.
Particularly worrisome is China's aggressive buildup of nuclear arms
and its willingness to assist other nations to acquire a nuclear
capability that they don't currently possess.
In response to this concern, it is my understanding that Senators
Thompson and Torricelli may offer the China Non-proliferation Act as an
amendment to this bill. I think that it is important to let the Chinese
authorities know that in no uncertain terms that we object strongly to
their continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and
believe that such behavior poses a direct and immediate threat to U.S.
national security interests as well as international peace and
stability.
Having said that, I am also convinced that an amendment on the
pending legislation is not the right vehicle for attempting to
accomplish that objective. In my view, the political realities are that
an amendment such as this would not carry. That would be a much worse
message in many ways. My belief is that the overwhelming majority of my
colleagues, regardless of party or ideology, believe that the
proliferation practices of China must stop. But a vote by this body
that would come up short or be so narrowly decided could be a confusing
message to China that we may not care about this issue as much as I
think most Members do.

Such a misinterpreted message would probably do more harm than good.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues who are considering such an amendment
to seek another, more appropriate, vehicle to which the amendment could
be offered. That is the time when I think this body can speak with a
more singular voice on an issue with far greater unanimity than might
be reflected in an amendment on this particular trade proposal.
I know that not everyone supports this legislation or China's entry
into the World Trade Organization. They bring up good arguments and I
have mentioned some of them--religious freedom, workers rights, human
rights, corruption, and nonproliferation issues.
I ask myself a question--Are we more likely to achieve the desired
goals of moving the Government of the People's Republic of China closer
to the kind of social, economic, and political behavior that we seek by
adopting this legislation and including China in the WTO? Or by not
doing that and allowing the status quo to persist? Is that going to
create a greater deterioration in those very values that we seek? I
come to the conclusion that we are more likely to achieve those desired
goals by adopting this legislation than by not doing so. Some are
opposed to it because they believe that it will unfairly enhance
China's ability to attract foreign investment and manufacturing
facilities to the detriment of the U.S. economy and the American
workers. Others would link U.S. support for China's WTO membership to
improvements in China's respect for human rights, religious tolerance,
nuclear non-proliferation, as I mentioned.

There is no doubt that certain sectors of American industry have
fared less well than others under the increased competition brought on
by international trade. That will continue to be the case irrespective
of whether China gains admission to the World Trade Organization or
whether the United States makes permanent the trade status China has
already had for more than two decades.
On the other hand, WTO membership would require that China operate
under the jurisdiction of international trade standards and agreements
as dictated by that organization. China's non-compliance with those
standards would subject its government to an international arbitration
and dispute settlement mechanism--a profound change in the treatment of
Chinese trade violations. For the first time China would be held
accountable to all WTO members. This I think, provides the U.S. with
stronger safeguards to protect their workers.
Furthermore, membership in the WTO would compel the Chinese
government to comply with international

[[Page S8265]]

labor regulations, thus increasing opportunities for American workers
by eliminating many of the incentives that currently induce firms to
move production and jobs to China.
What about using PNTR status and WTO membership to pressure Chinese
authorities into making significant improvements in other nontrade
related policy areas? As I said earlier, while I have already
registered my concerns about China's record in these areas, I am
doubtful that directly linking PNTR status to changes in China's
policies in these areas will produce overnight positive changes. I
think all of us seek.
There is sufficient historical experience to suggest that linkage
will not cause Chinese authorities to improve their behavior in these
areas one iota. Quite the opposite seems to be the case. Over the last
quarter of a century, Chinese authorities have responded very
consistently and negatively to attempts by others to unilaterally
dictate to them how they should govern their citizens. At such times,
the very issues we have cared about most--human rights, religious
freedom, Taiwan's security--have suffered. Rather, it has been during
periods of U.S. engagement with Chinese authorities, when we have
carried out a respectful dialogue between our two governments, that we
have seen demonstrable improvements in China's policies in these areas.
More recently, U.S. engagement has resulted in China joining a number
of major multilateral arms control regimes, in assisting us to defuse a
nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, and in participating
constructively in international efforts to contain the escalating arms
race between India and Pakistan.
I am not one who believes that China's accession to the WTO is going
to convert the state-controlled Chinese society into a Jeffersonian
democracy overnight. However, I would argue that China's adherence to
the discipline of WTO's rules and standards have a greater likelihood
to accelerate the pace of market economic reforms that are already
underway in China. And, as a by-product of those reforms, the grip of
the Chinese state on the day to day lives of the Chinese people will
become weaker and weaker. Individual freedom may gradually fill the
vacuum created by the withdrawal of state control. Whether that process
will ultimately transform China's political system is impossible to
predict with any certainty. Certainly isolating China isn't going to
facilitate such a transformation.
I am not the only one who holds that view. A number of prominent
human rights activists in China have spoken out publicly in support of
the pending legislation and in favor of China's admission to the WTO. I
am thinking of such individuals as Martin Lee, the internationally
known leader of Hong Kong's Democratic party, His Excellency the Dalai
Lama, Dai Qing, a leading political dissident and environmentalist who
was imprisoned for ten months following the 1989 Tiananmen Square
Massacre, and Bao Tong, a senior advisor to ousted President Zhao
Zyiang--both of whom were imprisoned for their opposition to the
Tiananmen crackdown. None of these individuals have suggested that we
deny China admission to the WTO until it becomes a democracy.
In fact, if we refuse to grant PNTR status to China or oppose its
admission to the WTO, we will have delivered an enormous setback to the
Chinese reformers and entrepreneurs who have been the driving force for
the positive political and economic changes that have occurred in China
over the last twenty years. We will also have given an enormous gift to
our economic competitors in Europe and Asia by giving them a foothold
in perhaps the most important emerging market in the global economy of
the 21st century--a foothold that will be difficult for our own Nation
to regain. American jobs would be the ones that suffer and American
workers the ones who pay the price.

Denying China PNTR would also only exacerbate an alarmingly high
existing trade deficit with the United States, in my view. In 1997, the
U.S. trade deficit with China soared to nearly $50 billion, making it
second only to Japan as a trading deficit partner. Sadly, that number
has only increased over time. By 1999, it had climbed almost $20
billion more, to $69 billion, and it continues to grow.
In closing, I believe the legislation we are considering today is in
our national economic interest because it will enhance international
growth and competition. It will strengthen the global trading system
and foster adherence to rules and standards under which we want all
nations to operate.
I also believe it is in our foreign policy interests, as well.
China's obligation to open its markets and to abide by internationally
prescribed trade rules is an important step toward Chinese adherence to
other important international norms and standards which must, over
time, lead to democratic transformation of that society, as I have seen
occur in nearly every other corner of the globe in the past decade and
a half.
No one in this body is naive enough to believe this is going to
happen overnight, that these changes we talk about are necessarily
going to occur at the pace we would like to see. But, at the very
least, we must begin making strides in that direction.
For those reasons, while I will support various amendments that I
think are an important expression of how my constituents feel in
Connecticut and how the American public feels on a number of very
important non trade-related issues, when this debate is concluded, I
happen to believe it would be in the best interests of my Nation that
we grant this status to China in the hopes that the improvements we all
seek in this land of more than 1 billion people will occur sooner
rather than later.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon on
Monday, September 11, the Senate resume consideration of Senator Byrd's
amendment regarding subsidies. Further, I ask unanimous consent that
there be 60 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form with no
amendments in order to the amendment. Finally, I ask unanimous consent
that following the debate time, the amendment be set aside, with a vote
to occur on the amendment at a time determined by the majority leader
after consultation with the Democratic leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that when
Senator Byrd offers an amendment relating to safeguards, there be 3
hours for debate equally divided in the usual form, with no amendments
in order to the amendment. Further, I ask consent, following that
debate time, the vote occur on the amendment at a time to be determined
by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Delaware.

____________________