[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 111 (Tuesday, September 19, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8667-S8723]
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--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 90 
minutes of debate under the control of each leader.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Daschle, I yield 5 
minutes to Senator Lautenberg and 5 minutes to Senator Murray when 
Senator DeWine completes his remarks.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I yield 
myself 30 minutes. I candidly don't expect to take 30 minutes. For 
those Senators who wish to speak after me, it will probably be a 
shorter period of time than 30 minutes.
  Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the legislation before us--
H.R. 4444, the legislation extending Permanent Normal Trading Relations 
to the People's Republic of China or PNTR. As we approach's today's 
final vote, I want to make it clear that I believe strongly in free and 
fair trade. And, I support efforts aimed at increasing free and fair 
trade with China. However, as we approach the vote, I think we must 
take a few minutes and try to put the current debate into its proper 
perspective. That is what I intend to do.
  Passing PNTR will result in lower trade barriers and more U.S. sales 
to China. We know that. But, the extent of our increased sales will 
depend on factors beyond our control. Our ability to send more exports 
to China depends largely on China's continued economic growth, its 
compliance with the bilateral agreement, and its development of a 
middle-class.
  While increasing trade with China certainly is important, we must put 
this current debate into its proper context. We need to view this 
debate as it relates to both our worldwide trade policy and to our 
foreign policy and national security interests. With this broader 
perspective in mind, it becomes very clear that passing the PNTR 
legislation is just one part of our overall relationship with China and 
one part of our overall global trade policy. There remain other 
pressing foreign policy issues and other trade issues that await our 
next President, the next Congress, and the American people. Let me 
explain.
  The fact is, as we all know, the United States is a leader in the 
area of free trade. If we fail to pass the PNTR legislation, we would 
be sending a signal to the world that the United States wants to 
isolate China. That's a signal we don't want to send. Both by word and 
deed, the United States must be the world's leader in promoting free 
trade. At the same time, though, we also don't want to send China--and 
the

[[Page S8668]]

world--a signal that we will tolerate the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction--a practice China engages in openly.
  In terms of our overall trade policy, we also cannot send a signal to 
our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere that says we are only 
interested in concentrating on the Chinese market. Since so much time 
and energy and resources has been directed to liberalizing trade in 
China, it may be a surprise to some that China represents only two 
percent of our foreign sales.
  To keep it in proper perspective, there was no one who estimates that 
percentage will go beyond 2\1/2\ or 3 percent in the immediate future. 
Two percent of our total foreign markets is only $13 billion in U.S. 
sales to China.
  Now, compare that to markets closer to home. Last year, Canada was 
our number one export destination, with $167 billion in U.S. sales, 
while Mexico was our second largest export market with $87 billion in 
sales. Further, our exports to Brazil ($13.2 billion) last year 
exceeded our sales to China. And what's more, forty-four percent of our 
exports remained right here in our own hemisphere.
  Those $13 billion in sales to China pale in comparison to trade 
within our hemisphere. Yet, the Administration and the business 
community have made granting PNTR to China their single-minded trade 
focus. This narrow agenda has not come without cost.
  Because the Administration has not emphasized expanding free trade in 
our hemisphere, other nations are taking the lead in seizing the 
economic opportunities that are right in our backyard. Our inaction in 
this hemisphere has essentially made it easier for Europe, Asia, and 
Canada to significantly expand their exports throughout Latin America. 
The European Union (EU), for example, is now Brazil's largest trading 
partner. The EU's exports to Brazil have grown 255 percent from 1990 to 
1998.
  Additionally, during that same period, Asia experienced an incredible 
1664 percent increase in its growth of exports to Argentina.
  The next administration and the business community need to pay 
attention to our own hemisphere. That means that the next 
administration and the next Congress need to pass fast-track trading 
authority and move toward a hemispheric free trade area. It is 
imperative that we do this. That means that we will need to expand the 
North American Free Trade Agreement, which, over this last decade, has 
advanced economic cooperation and growth between the United States and 
Mexico, increasing U.S. exports to Mexico by 207 percent. And, that 
means that we must abandon this very narrow focus with which the 
current administration has viewed trade policy and start widening the 
lens to be more inclusive of the markets right here in our own 
backyard. This is significant unfinished business that our next 
President and our next Congress and the American people will have to 
address.
  But, even more significant in terms of our unfinished business are 
the considerable national security issues at stake regarding our 
overall relationship with China. I say that because this is China we 
are talking about. China is different. China, as my colleagues all 
know, is unlike any other country in the world. China is a major 
power--a nuclear power--and China is the world's major proliferator of 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Sadly, this administration has failed to stop the Chinese 
government's weapons proliferation. Sadly, this administration has not 
demonstrated the kind of leadership necessary to prevent China from 
manufacturing and selling weapons technology worldwide.
  Like the United States, China is a co-signator of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, yet over the last decade, its government has 
violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty willingly, openly, and 
egregiously. Their actions are well documented. For example, Washington 
Times National Security reporter, Bill Gertz, writes in his recent 
book:

       [f]or at least a decade, China has routinely carried out 
     covert weapons and technology sales to the Middle East and 
     South Asia, despite hollow promises to the contrary.

  The PRC has shown no remorse for its past actions--and certainly no 
inclination to change them. Rather, China has flaunted--openly--its 
violations.
  At the beginning of the last decade, Pakistan was believed to possess 
a very modest nuclear weapons program--one that was inferior to 
India's program. Our own laws effectively banned U.S. government 
assistance to Pakistan because of its decision to go nuclear, and our 
sanctions laws contained tough penalties for any nation attempting to 
feed Pakistan's nuclear hunger.

  That was then. Today, China has single-handedly worked to change the 
balance of power in South Asia and, in turn, has made the region far 
more different and far more dangerous.
  Today, according to news reports, Pakistan possesses more weapons 
than India and has a better capability to deliver them. President 
Clinton stated earlier this year that South Asia has now become the 
most dangerous place in the world. We have China to thank for that.
  The significant change in the balance of power between Pakistan and 
India was engineered by China, which provided Pakistan with critical 
technology to enrich and mold uranium, M-11 missile equipment and 
technology, and expertise and equipment to enable Pakistan to have its 
own missile production capability.
  What has this Administration done to change this behavior? 
Essentially nothing. Time after time, as reporters, like Bill Gertz, 
uncovered extraordinary information on proliferation activities, this 
Administration failed to impose even the mildest sanctions against 
China as required by law. For example, in 1995, at the same time this 
Administration was aware of China's transfer of sensitive nuclear 
technology to Pakistan, the Administration was seeking to weaken our 
non-proliferation laws against Pakistan. And, rather than aggressively 
use the sanctions laws on the books to try to bring about a change in 
China's behavior, this Administration sought to find ways to show it 
had reached a common understanding with China to prohibit these 
activities and thus avoid sanctions.
  However, according to the Central Intelligence Agency's unclassified 
bi-annual report to Congress on the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, China remained a ``key supplier'' last year of weapons and 
missile assistance to Pakistan.
  In the Middle East, it's the same story. News reports have documented 
China's contributions to Iran's nuclear development and ballistic and 
cruise missile programs, including anti-ship missiles that are a threat 
to our naval presence and commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf. 
Further, the CIA's bi-annual report also confirmed that Chinese 
government multi-nationals are assisting the Libyan government in 
building a more advanced missile program.

  As it stands, international rules of conduct and pledges to our 
government to forego its proliferation activity have not deterred 
China's arms-building practices. Further, this administration has not 
enforced U.S. non-proliferation laws adequately nor effectively. The 
Chinese government certainly does not take our government seriously on 
the question of weapons proliferation--and frankly, why should they? 
The current Administration hasn't been a leader in encouraging nations 
to honor international non-proliferation agreements. Consequently, 
weapons of mass destruction are in more questionable hands than ever 
before.
  Last year, a bipartisan commission headed by former CIA Director, 
John Deutch, concluded that our Federal Government is not equipped to 
fight nuclear proliferation. What does that say about our international 
credibility? What does that say about our ability to prevent the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? What it says is that our 
diminished credibility may oblige other countries who are adversaries 
of Pakistan, Iran, and Libya to build their own weapons capabilities to 
counter these emerging threats.
  In simple terms, the current administration has not led on these 
proliferation issues. That is why we should have passed Senator 
Thompson's amendment last week.
  The Thompson amendment was important because it would have given us 
the ability to hold the People's Republic of China, and any nation, 
accountable for proliferating weapons of mass destruction and the means 
to deliver them. The bottom line is that if we are

[[Page S8669]]

going to sacrifice our annual review of normal trade relations with 
China, then our next President and the next Congress will need new 
tools to pursue our national security objectives. Candidly, the next 
President will also have to use the tools that we have now given him.
  So, where are we? When we put this whole debate in perspective--when 
we put the debate into its proper economic and national security 
contexts--where does this leave us? Realistically, approval of PNTR 
does not change the disagreements we have with China on weapons 
proliferation. It certainly will not change China's behavior. China 
will continue to proliferate. China will continue to pursue policies 
that will destabilize two critical regions of the world, placing our 
soldiers and our allies in serious danger.
  Now that we are about to pass this legislation--now that we are about 
to advance our free trade policy--what do we intend to do to advance 
our non-proliferation policy and our own national security? Does this 
Administration have an answer? No, I do not think they do. Quite 
candidly, they never have.

  We need an answer. And, from the vantage point of our national 
security strategy, I believe that if we fail to show vigilance in the 
enforcement of non-proliferation policy, we will place this nation at a 
terrible disadvantage. If we fail to show vigilance, we will 
effectively continue a de facto policy that has worked to undermine our 
national non-proliferation policy and is working to make our world a 
more dangerous place.
  Had this administration pursued a non-proliferation policy with the 
same amount of intensity, creativity, and vigor it showed in advancing 
our commercial relationship with China, this would have been a far 
easier vote to cast.
  Had the Senate done the right thing and adopted the Thompson 
amendment, that too would have made today's vote easier to cast.
  I fear if we do not act soon to change the current course of our 
weapons proliferation policy--if we do not revisit the Thompson 
amendment, and we will revisit the Thompson amendment--we will be 
sending a signal to China and to the world that says our trade 
interests are more important than the security of our Nation, more 
important than the security of our children and grandchildren.
  I intend to vote for the PNTR legislation before us because I believe 
strongly in the power of fair and free trade.
  The United States has been the world's most outspoken advocate for 
free trade. We are the world's free trade leader. We believe free trade 
is a cornerstone of a free society and a free people. We believe it can 
be a step toward helping closed nations become open and democratic. No 
one here can say with certainty that it will work in China, but as the 
world's leader in free trade, I believe we have to try.
  With this vote today, we are keeping our word as that leader, and we 
are moving forward. To do otherwise, to go back on the agreement this 
country negotiated last November, would send the wrong message to the 
world. It would say that the United States cannot be counted on to 
practice what we preach, and the implications of that message will 
extend far beyond our ability to negotiate trade agreements with China. 
A message such as that will affect our credibility worldwide.
  Further, I have concluded that a ``no'' vote will do nothing to wean 
China from its weapons-building addiction. But that is why we must not 
stop here with today's vote. We should move forward and show clear 
leadership and clear direction in regard to our nonproliferation 
policy.
  With this vote, I pledge to work with our next President to change 
the current state of affairs and to work toward maintaining our place 
as the world's model for free and fair trade. I will continue to push 
for free trade opportunities, both within and beyond our hemisphere. 
Much more important, I also pledge to work toward making our world a 
safer and more secure place for our children, our grandchildren, and 
our great grandchildren. I will continue to insist that China and other 
weapons-proliferating nations abide by international agreements, and I 
will continue to insist again, again, and again that our Nation take 
the lead in this area.
  This is not the last time I will be on this floor talking about the 
problems with China. This Senate will regret if we do not return to 
this issue. The Thompson amendment will come back, and we will insist 
that it be voted on. This country has to stand strong and firm against 
China and their proliferation policies. Their proliferation policies 
threaten the security of our children and our grandchildren, and we 
will ignore their actions at our peril.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my Senate colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations 
status to China. This is about moving China in the right direction, and 
in the process allowing America's workers to benefit from the massive 
trade concessions we have won at the negotiating table.
  This is a critical vote. China is home to one out of every five 
people on the planet, and our relationship with China is important. 
This vote can also have a positive impact on regional relationships 
throughout Asia. That is because Taiwan and Asian nations like Japan 
support China's accession to the World Trade Organization. They know 
that China's engagement will be a positive development. If Congress 
fails to grant PNTR to China, we will hinder our broader relationship 
with that country, make it harder for us to promote change there, and 
damage America's workers and industries as they compete with other 
countries for a place in China's market. The Chinese have agreed to 
radically open their market to U.S. goods and services. Chinese trade 
concessions will benefit the United States across all economic sectors 
in virtually every region of our country. And, the changes China has 
committed itself to--in order to join the WTO--will further open China 
to Western ideas.
  I have come to the floor today to illustrate the ways that PNTR for 
China will help our families, our industries, and our economy. 
Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in our Union. The 
people of my state--from aerospace workers to wheat farmers to 
longshoremen--have urged me to make sure we take advantage of the 
concessions we have won from the Chinese. If we do not, good-paying 
family jobs will be lost, and our industries will be set back for 
years.
  Before I elaborate on the ways PNTR for China will help America's 
workers, I must address many of the concerns we have about China. Over 
the years, I, like my colleagues, have been frustrated by the actions 
of the Chinese government on issues like human rights, religious 
freedom and weapons proliferation. As I have listened to the debate it 
is clear that we all want the same things: We want the people of China 
to have more freedom and more opportunities, and we want to bring China 
into the community of nations as a responsible partner. We all want the 
same results. The question is: What is the best way to get there? It is 
not to politicize our trade agreements. It is not to turn a trade vote 
into a referendum on how we feel about China. That is why I oppose the 
amendments that my colleagues have offered. These amendments will not 
solve the problems they highlight.
  Instead, they will kill the bill for this Congress and perhaps longer 
and that will have a negative impact on our country. Killing this bill 
will do serious harm to our efforts to impact change in China on many 
issues. Killing this bill now will forever handicap U.S. exporters to 
China. It will punish U.S. workers, and it will give our competitors 
from Europe and Asia a massive head start as China opens its market to 
the world.
  As I have thought about our relationship with China, I think one of 
the things that really frustrates us is that we are accustomed to quick 
fixes. In our political culture, we expect to be able to fix problems 
overnight. China, on the other hand, has a far different culture. 
Throughout its 4000 year history, China has resisted outside 
influences. As much as we would like to, we can't change China 
overnight. But we can change China over time. PNTR gives us the vehicle 
to help China move into the community of nations and to benefit 
America's families, industries and economy in the process.

[[Page S8670]]

  Now that I have addressed the expectations and context surrounding 
our relationship with China, I want to return to the question I posed a 
moment ago: What is the best way to help China enter the community of 
nations? The answer is to engage with China. In fact, our own history 
has shown this to be true. Since 1980, when the United States 
normalized relations with China, our engagement has helped to change 
China for the better. I think it is useful to recall the history of how 
different China is today, than it was just 20 years ago. Before we 
normalized our relations, the Chinese people lived under the iron fist 
of their government. They enjoyed virtually no personal freedoms. Their 
jobs were predetermined. Their housing was assigned to them. Education, 
medical care, and travel were all dictated by a government-controlled 
system that rewarded blind loyalty to the state and harshly punished 
all dissent. Externally, China was closed to the outside world. 
Internally, China was hemorrhaging from the impact of the Cultural 
Revolution and other political conflicts. U.S. engagement with China 
has had a positive impact on that country. Certainly, we all want to 
see more progress and more changes in Chinese government behavior. I 
respect the concerns of my colleagues, but I recognize that we are 
making progress by engaging with China. We should not let our specific 
concerns override the many advantages that will flow to America's 
workers by supporting PNTR for China.
  After considering the cultural and historic issues that have factored 
into this debate, I would like to focus on what this vote is about. The 
question before the Senate is really quite simple. The United States 
negotiated a trade deal with China. The agreement radically opens 
China's market to American workers, forces China to end its unfair 
practices, and gives the United States tough mechanisms to hold China 
accountable. The question before the Senate is: do we want to take this 
deal?
  On behalf of my constituents and the American people, I will vote to 
put these Chinese concessions--literally thousands of market-opening 
concessions--to work for the benefit of our country. The Chinese 
concessions are far reaching and will impact every sector of our 
nation's economy and every region of our country. This agreement 
radically slashes tariffs. In fact, for some of our most important 
industries, it eliminates tariffs altogether. It preserves and in some 
cases strengthens our trade laws on issues like dumping, export 
controls, and the use of prison labor. China will no longer be able to 
require firms to transfer technologies and jobs to China in exchange 
for business. If China violates its commitments, it will have the 135 
member countries of the WTO to contend with--rather than just the 
United States. This is an opportunity to build a strong presence in the 
world's largest emerging market just as it opens its doors to the 
world.
  The people of Washington State have a unique perspective on what this 
trade agreement will mean for our families, our industries and our 
economy. One of my predecessors, Senator Warren Magnusson, was one of 
the first Senators to call for closer U.S.-China ties in the 1970s. For 
more than 20 years, the entire period of China's most recent opening to 
the outside world, no other state has been as engaged with China and 
the Chinese people as extensively as my state has. Washington State is 
the most trade dependent state in the country. Soon, one in three jobs 
will rely on international trade. Our ports, rail yards, and airports 
serve as gateways to and from the Pacific Rim for millions of products. 
My entire state stands to gain a great deal from China's accession to 
the WTO.
  I would like to share with my colleagues how increased trade with 
China will affect three important Washington industries: aerospace, 
agriculture, and technology. Let me begin by talking about our 
aerospace industry because Washington state produces the finest 
commercial airplanes in the world. We are home to the Boeing Company, 
and thousands of Washington families work for Boeing. As my colleagues 
know, Boeing competes with Airbus, its European rival. But the playing 
field isn't level. Airbus is subsidized by European states, and it gets 
additional financing assistance, allowing Airbus customers to finance 
aircraft on favorable terms. China is a huge new market for airplanes. 
Aviation experts predict China will purchase 1,600 new commercial 
airplanes worth $120 billion in the next 20 years. These sales will be 
hotly contested. We know that Airbus is a very aggressive competitor in 
the China market. Passing PNTR will give the workers in my state the 
chance to compete in that marketplace. Thousands of Washington state 
jobs--good family jobs, good union jobs--hang in the balance as Boeing 
and Airbus fight for the China market. That is why organized labor at 
Boeing, Local 751 of the International Association of Machinists and 
Aerospace Workers, has publicly endorsed PNTR. The Boeing Machinists 
know that if we do not compete for aircraft sales in China, we will 
have ceded the largest marketplace in the world for commercial aircraft 
outside of the United States. Such an outcome would be disastrous for 
the future of our aerospace industry, and we're not just talking about 
one company or one industry. Thousands of small businesses in 
Washington state subcontract with Boeing. In addition, Boeing 
subcontracts in every state in the union--creating the jobs that 
working families rely on. Passage of PNTR will give Boeing and so many 
other American companies the opportunity to compete freely and fairly 
in China. I have every confidence that Boeing and the thousands of 
Americans whose jobs are tied to aerospace will succeed in this new 
environment. Mr. President, let me turn to another important industry 
in my state.
  Washington State is home to some of our country's finest agricultural 
products from wheat to apples to a host of specialty crops. But we've 
had trouble opening China's market to our exports. For more than 25 
years, Washington wheat has been kept out of China by an unfair trade 
barrier. This year, as China neared membership in the World Trade 
Organization, it dropped its unfair trade barrier against wheat from 
the Pacific Northwest. As a result, this year, Washington's first wheat 
sale to China in 28 years recently sailed from the Port of Portland.
  Thanks to PNTR and WTO accession, my constituents will have new 
opportunities to feed China's population, which equals 20 percent of 
the world's population. The opportunities are also great for another 
major crop, Washington state apples. With this agreement, 
China's market could open to an estimated $75 million a year in 
business for Washington's apple growers. Overall, agriculture stands to 
see one-third of its export growth tied to new sales to China. 
Washington growers and producers will see new opportunities across the 
board from pork, potatoes and barley to specialty crops like 
raspberries, hops and asparagus. It is easy to see why the agriculture 
community has been such a strong voice for this U.S.-China agreement 
and PNTR. Agriculture has done a great job working to ensure members 
understand that this agreement, and PNTR is vitally important to 
American agriculture.

  Finally I want to turn to America's high-tech industries. I am proud 
that Washington State is home to Microsoft and other technology 
companies including Nintendo, Real Networks, and Amazon.com. These 
companies will benefit from new protections for U.S. intellectual 
property. They will benefit from the elimination of high tech tariffs, 
from anti-dumping protections, and from the right to import and 
distribute goods free from government regulation and interference. The 
Internet is taking hold in China. It holds immense potential for 
changing China's society. Thanks to this agreement, Washington State 
Internet companies will be aggressive competitors in this new market. 
In addition, America's telecommunications companies will benefit as 
well, including AT&T Wireless and VoiceStream Wireless, which are both 
based in Washington State.
  As I have shown, opening China's markets will help the thousands of 
people in my state who work in the aerospace, agriculture and 
technology industries. We should make sure America's workers have 
access to the many benefits of China's marketplace. After 20 years of 
normalized relations between the U.S. and China, now is the time to 
pass PNTR. After 13 years of tough negotiations between the United 
States and China, now is the time to

[[Page S8671]]

pass PNTR. And after more than 10 years of congressional consideration 
of China's trade status, now is the time to pass PNTR. The Senate has 
just spent two weeks debating PNTR, China's accession to the World 
Trade Organization, and many other China issues. The heart of the 
question before us is: Do we want American workers to benefit from the 
enormous trade concessions we have won from the Chinese? I want America 
to benefit, and I will vote for PNTR. At the same time, this is not our 
final China vote. Congress has a very legitimate role to play in 
helping shape our relationship with China and addressing our concerns. 
I look forward to those debates and those opportunities to advance our 
ideals in China. I encourage my colleagues to vote for PNTR, and I urge 
my colleagues to continue to closely follow the important U.S.-China 
relationship.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield from Senator Daschle's time 10 
minutes to Senator Hollings when Senator Lautenberg completes his 8 
minutes. Senator Daschle has given Senator Lautenberg 3 minutes to his 
5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have had an invigorating debate on a 
very important and complex issue--whether to grant permanent normal 
trade relations, PNTR, status to China. There are many aspects to this 
debate: expansion and regulation of the international trading system; 
realignment of the US position within that system; review of China's 
internal policies--in particular its human rights record; assessment of 
the prospect for constructive and systemic change in China; and the 
effect of PNTR upon U.S. businesses and consumers.
  As many of my colleagues may remember, 2 months ago in the Finance 
Committee I cast the sole vote in opposition to granting PNTR to China. 
Although I believe in engagement with China, not isolating China, I 
felt strongly that I could not in good conscience vote to make this 
status permanent at that time. I told my colleagues about Ngawang 
Choephel, a Fulbright student from Middlebury College in Vermont, who 
was arrested by Chinese authorities while filming traditional song and 
dance in Tibet in 1995. Intent only on preserving traditional Tibetan 
music, Ngawang was charged with espionage and sentenced to 18 years in 
prison. I strongly protested his arrest and incarceration, together 
with the other Members of the Vermont delegation, the administration, 
and human rights supporters all over the world.
  For 5 years, we received virtually no information on Ngawang's 
whereabouts and his condition. In spite of a Chinese law guaranteeing 
every prisoner the right to receive regular visits from next of kin, 
Chinese officials ignored the repeated pleas from Ngawang's mother, 
Sonam Dekyi, to visit him. During Finance Committee discussion of the 
PNTR legislation, I made clear my anger over the Chinese Government's 
unconscionable refusal to adhere to its own laws. I am pleased to 
report that a couple weeks later, the Chinese Ambassador to the United 
States called to inform me that Sonam Dekyi would be granted permission 
to visit her son. I thank my many colleagues who raised this case with 
the Chinese, and I particularly thank the Chinese Ambassador for his 
efforts on Sonam Dekyi's behalf.
  Last month, Sonam Dekyi and her brother traveled to China to see 
Ngawang Choephel. They were treated very well and were allowed two 
visits with Ngawang. In addition, they had a meeting with the doctors 
at a nearby hospital who recently have treated Ngawang for several very 
serious illnesses. While Sonam Dekyi was very appreciative of the 
chance to see her son, she was disappointed to be granted only two 
visits and quite saddened to be denied her request just to touch her 
son after all these years. Most alarmingly, she found her son to be in 
very poor health. Despite receiving medical attention, he is very gaunt 
and reported ongoing pains in his chest and stomach. His mother fears 
for his life.

  I fervently hope that in the wake of his mother's visit, greater 
attention will be paid to Ngawang's health, and that every effort will 
be made by Chinese medical personnel to treat his illnesses. However, I 
believe that the only solution to his health condition is medical 
parole. Ngawang needs extensive treatment and considerable 
rehabilitation. This cannot be accomplished under the harsh conditions 
of prison, especially a Chinese prison.
  On humanitarian grounds, I appeal to the Chinese authorities to 
release Ngawang Choephel. This is the right thing to do, the decent 
thing to do, the human thing to do. Until Ngawang Choephel is released, 
I cannot in good conscience vote for PNTR. I urge the Chinese 
authorities to recognize the length of time Ngawang has already spent 
in prison and to move now before his 18 year sentence becomes a death 
sentence. I urge the immediate release of Ngawang Choephel.
  I have not come to this position of opposition to PNTR easily. For 
the past 10 years, I have supported engagement with China and renewal 
of most favored nation status. The benefits of international trade for 
the Vermont economy are very clear, and Vermont businesses have proved 
very resourceful at developing high paying and desirable jobs for 
Vermonters. In 1989, in the wake of the Tiananmen Square uprising, this 
was a particularly tough position. It was difficult to know how to 
channel my profound outrage over Chinese behavior and how to bring 
about the greatest degree of change in the shortest period of time. 
After considerable research and much discussion with people holding 
many points of view, I concluded that change in China would be most 
rapid if the channels of communication were open to the rest of the 
world. Engagement with China on all fronts, including economic 
engagement, is going to be necessary to produce the long-term, systemic 
change required for expression of personal freedom and personal 
initiative.

  The past decade has proven that change is slow and difficult. But 
there is progress, nonetheless. The reformers in the Chinese hierarchy 
are now pushing for membership in the World Trade Organization, WTO. 
They wish to be part of the global trading system and to open their 
country and their economy to international investment and influences. 
While there are some significant problems with the WTO system that need 
to be addressed, I am convinced that we must be a part of that system 
and we must exert a strong influence on its development. Our national 
interests are best served if all major economies are a part of this 
system, agree to play by the same rules, and are subject to the same 
enforcement mechanisms if they do not.
  We have a very strong interest in encouraging diversification and 
decentralization in the Chinese economy and greater freedom of 
expression for Chinese citizens. The less citizens are dependent 
directly on the government for their jobs and housing, the more likely 
they are to get involved in local issues, to advocate for causes that 
concern them, to develop advocacy and democracy at the grass roots. In 
the long run, I believe this is also the best way to improve the human 
rights situation. It will take time. It will be incremental. Chinese 
society will never look just like American society, but hopefully it 
will be reconfigured more to the advantage of the average Chinese 
citizen.
  Today, my overwhelming concern is for a young man who committed his 
life to the preservation of his own musical heritage. He found shelter 
in the green mountains of Vermont, even though his heart always lay in 
the rugged mountains of his homeland. Ngawang touched many Vermonters 
with his quiet manner and intensity of purpose. Vermont will not forget 
Ngawang Choephel. I have not forgotten Ngawang Choephel. I will not 
vote for PNTR until he is free.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will my colleague yield for a moment?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in the 
proper order of speakers, after Senator Lautenberg and Senator Hollings 
and a Republican Senator are recognized to speak, I then be recognized 
to speak for 10 minutes of my leader's time.

[[Page S8672]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the United States is now considering a 
bill authorizing the President to grant Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations to the People's Republic of China when that country joins the 
World Trade Organization. This can radically improve our relationship 
with the world's most populous country.
  There is so much at stake, in my view. That is why I traveled last 
month to China to meet with China's leadership and some of its people, 
to see for myself what is happening in China, and to ensure that I make 
a well-informed decision on this day.
  Some of what I saw, quite frankly, disturbed me. But I also saw and 
heard encouraging things that gave me hope about China's future. And I 
have concluded that the best way to promote positive change in China is 
to grant China permanent normal trade relations status.
  Many Americans, including environmental activists and members of 
organized labor and human rights groups, believe this vote is about far 
more than trade. And I agree. We cannot consider trade policy without 
understanding the implications for the economy, our society, and the 
environment in America and the world.
  Moreover, the granting of PNTR would eliminate the annual debate over 
granting normal trade relations, which we used to call MFN, to China. 
That annual debate allowed us to review all aspects of our relationship 
with China and developments in that country. Successive administrations 
and Congresses achieved progress on issues of importance to Americans 
by raising them in the context of that annual review.
  This time, however, we are not merely considering whether China has 
made sufficient progress in economic, social, environmental and human 
rights reforms to merit extending the opening of our market--China's 
largest export market--for another year. Rather, we are considering 
whether China is on a firm enough course of progress that we can 
justify an act of faith and open our market permanently as China joins 
the WTO and substantially opens its markets to American goods and 
services.
  That is why I traveled to China a few weeks ago, joined by my good 
friend the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
  I went so I could better understand China and raise my concerns with 
China's leaders about human rights, labor conditions, national security 
and the environment. I went to see for myself the condition of China's 
cities and rural areas, to compare the wealthy coast and the 
underdeveloped interior, to talk to garment workers and farmers, to 
assess the extent of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, to 
measure progress on human rights protection and environmental 
protection, and to look into the proliferation of weapons and the 
intimidation of Taiwan, to consider the abuse of power and the rule of 
law.
  China presented a very mixed picture. The patriotic Catholic Bishop 
in Shanghai, Bishop Jin, expressed it well when he said, ``China is 
very complicated.''
  One thing was obvious: China is undergoing a tremendous 
transformation as a result of Deng Xiaoping's 1978 decision to open 
China to the world. The past two decades have seen the rise of free 
enterprise and international trade, and many of the Chinese people have 
experienced a dramatic improvement in their standard of living. China's 
GDP growth, while surely lower than official estimates, has averaged 
more than 6 percent over the past two decades and remains strong 
despite the impact of the Asian financial crisis. China's economic 
development is amazing, particularly in the modern city of Shanghai.

  I would like to speak briefly about some of the issues I raised with 
China's leaders and that will need to be addressed as we proceed in our 
strengthened relationship with China.
  We have to consider the national security aspects of the U.S.-China 
relationship. The United States and China are not natural or historic 
enemies. But serious problems and tensions exist.
  One key issue is China's proliferation of technologies and materials 
for missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Earlier this year, the 
CIA reported on China's continuing missile-related aid to Pakistan, 
Iran, North Korea and Libya, as well as nuclear cooperation with Iran 
and contributions to Iran's chemical weapons program. These 
relationships are not in China's interest and directly threaten U.S. 
interests.
  When I raised this issue, Vice Premier Qian Qichen acknowledged that 
China provided missile assistance to Pakistan in the past but insisted 
it had not done so in recent years. Premier Zhu Rongji dismissed my 
concerns and demanded evidence of China's proliferation activities. Of 
course, China has not accepted the key Annex to the Missile Technology 
Control Regime. I hope China will acknowledge its past mistakes and 
fully commit itself to international non-proliferation efforts.
  U.S. officials have made progress in addressing Chinese proliferation 
over the years. For example, they secured China's commitment not to 
help Iran develop new nuclear projects. But we must do more.
  The United States and China have a common interest in ending the 
destabilizing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the 
missiles to deliver them. We have to improve cooperation toward that 
critical goal.
  A second national security issue concerns Taiwan. Wang Daohan, the 
Chinese official who conducts the Cross-Straits Dialogue for the 
Mainland and influences China's policy toward Taiwan, stressed to us 
that Beijing is willing to give Taiwan considerable autonomy if Taipei 
accepts the ``One China'' policy and supports reunification. I am not 
convinced that making Taipei's acceptance of the ``One China'' policy a 
pre-condition for talks is a constructive approach.
  I hope that China will withdraw its missiles that are only directed 
at Taiwan, because these threaten an arms race over Taiwan. As I told 
Mr. Wang, if you're extending a hand of peace it cannot be clenched 
into an iron fist.
  We also need to consider protection for human rights and the rule of 
law in China. Fortunately, the House addressed these issues 
constructively in the bill before us by providing for an annual review 
of human rights in China. The bill before us also rightly authorizes 
U.S. assistance for rule of law programs in China. I know that the Ford 
Foundation and other private groups are supporting rule of law efforts 
in China. We should be prepared to put some of our resources toward 
achieving this worthy, if long-term, goal.
  On the whole, we have to acknowledge that China has made some 
progress on human rights, though it still has a long way to go.
  The limited ability of the Chinese people to have freedom of religion 
is a very real concern. The Chinese people, many of whom recognize the 
vacuousness of Marxist and Maoist rhetoric, are unsatisfied with their 
daily lives and seek a higher moral purpose, a spiritual side to life. 
We saw some Chinese practicing recognized religions in permitted 
places, but others are not so fortunate. Buddhists pray and burn 
incense at a temple near the Great Buddha in Leshan. Catholics attend 
Mass at patriotic Catholic Churches or in private homes used by the 
underground Catholic Church. Muslims pray at the mosque in Xian. But 
Muslims in Northwest China, who are not ethnically Chinese, cannot 
worship freely.
  Judaism is not a recognized religion, so it is illegal. Practitioners 
of Falun Gong are arrested virtually every day when they do their 
exercises on Tiananmen Square or in other public places. And no member 
of any religion is allowed to proselytize freely, even though spreading 
the word is a key element of many faiths.
  While Senator Harkin and I did not have the opportunity to visit 
Tibet, I remain concerned about efforts to suppress Tibetan culture and 
religion. I hope the Chinese government will enter into dialogue with 
the Dalai Lama--without preconditions--with the aim of allowing him to 
return to Tibet as a spiritual leader.
  So is there freedom of religion in China? I think a typical Chinese 
answer might be ``Yes, within limits.''
  Freedom of speech is similarly limited. Pre-publication censorship 
through approved publishing houses ensures that the Chinese government 
can review and approve the content of any published work. Some books 
have been

[[Page S8673]]

banned, recalled and destroyed after publication because a senior party 
member or official found them offensive.
  During my visit to Beijing, I was pleased to hear Premier Zhu Rongji 
commit to continued progress on human rights. However, much work still 
needs to be done.
  One of China's most egregious laws, under which people could be 
jailed as ``counter-revolutionary,'' was repealed in 1997. But hundreds 
or perhaps thousands of people sentenced under that statute remain 
locked up.
  Perhaps the worst element of China's totalitarian state and arbitrary 
rule is the system of ``re-education through labor.'' Under this 
system, people can be deprived of their freedom for up to three years 
by the decision of a local police board--without ever being charged 
with a crime, much less having a fair trial. While indications suggest 
a change in the ``re-education'' system may be in the works, I hope 
China will eliminate it entirely.

  Further, I was disturbed by the Chinese government's efforts to 
suppress dissenting voices. Our Chinese hosts refused to pursue our 
request to meet with Bao Tong, a former government official imprisoned 
for warning Tiananmen Square demonstrators of the impending crackdown, 
saying it was ``too sensitive.''
  We will not forget the crackdown on democracy protesters in Tiananmen 
Square, nor will we sweep current human rights problems under the rug. 
That is not the mission. I am hopeful that a renewed United States-
China relationship will yield better respect for human rights in China.
  China's environmental policies are another serious concern. During 
the discussions in Kyoto about the world's climate, China insisted that 
only the U.S. and other developed countries should have to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions. But China is the fourth largest and the most 
populous country in the world, so addressing global climate change will 
demand China's participation.
  I raised these concerns with China's senior leaders and later with 
China's Environment Minister, Xie Zhenhua, at the State Environmental 
Protection Administration. The reaction I got was decidedly mixed. 
Minister Xie described China's concerted efforts to address 
environmental problems. For example, China has reduced annual soft coal 
production, and thus consumption, from 1.3 to 1.2 billion tons, with a 
goal of a further reduction to 1 billion tons, to reduce sulfur dioxide 
and particulate emissions and improve air quality. China is also 
increasing use of natural gas and has taken steps to remove the worst-
polluting vehicles from the country's roads. However, Minister Xie then 
launched into a diatribe, saying that the U.S. bears principal 
responsibility for the degradation of the Earth's environment and that 
China has a right to pollute so it can develop economically.
  I certainly hope recognition of the importance of environmental 
protection in China and global climate change will overcome the stale 
rhetoric of the old North-South economic discussions, so the U.S., 
China and other countries can join together to address common concerns. 
And I am hopeful that increased trade will foster more cooperation on 
that issue, including sales of environmentally sound American 
technology.
  Many Americans are also rightly concerned about the working 
conditions and the rights of Chinese workers, particularly since 
American firms that follow American labor laws have to compete with 
Chinese producers.
  Certainly, migrant workers in southeastern China--including underage 
workers--are exploited. And workers in China cannot meaningfully 
organize to protect their interests. China has strong labor laws, but 
enforcement is clearly lacking.
  I visited a state-owned factory in Leshan, in Sichuan province, which 
produces equipment for power generation. Workers using large machine 
tools and working with large metal components had no protection for 
their eyes or ears, no hard hats and no steel-toed boots, as would be 
required in the U.S. Their work was clearly hard and dangerous, the 
hours long and the pay meager.
  I also visited a garment factory in Shenzhen, the Special Economic 
Zone established 20 years ago near the border with Hong Kong. The 
factory manager told me workers are usually on the job for 40 hours a 
week, occasionally putting in overtime when the factory is busy. 
Workers themselves meekly said they probably work about 12 hours a day. 
But my staff looked through the rack of time cards near the door and 
discovered that virtually all of these textile workers arrive before 8 
a.m., take a short lunch break and clock out after 10 p.m.--working 
nearly 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. And that earns them wages of 80 
or 90 U.S. dollars per month, a bunk in a dormitory and meals.
  The presence of American and other foreign investors and buyers can 
make a huge difference.
  Senator Harkin and I visited a factory near Shanghai that produces 
clothing for Liz Claiborne. The company appeared to be making a real 
effort to enforce fair labor association standards. We could see the 
results in working conditions. For example, the factory was well-lit 
and well-ventilated, even air-conditioned. Liz Claiborne's 
interventions led to the construction of a fire escape, and the 
workers' rights were clearly posted near the entrance. A Liz Claiborne 
representative on site not only ensures the quality of the product but 
also monitors compliance with China's labor laws limiting overtime 
hours.
  Unfortunately, not all American and other foreign firms are as 
responsible. When I was in Hong Kong, the South China Morning Post had 
a front-page story about child labor in a factory in Guandong Province 
producing toys for McDonald's Happy Meals. Indeed, the toy industry is 
probably the most notorious for looking the other way as its Chinese 
suppliers exploit their workers. The bottom line is that trade with the 
United States and U.S. investment does not automatically lead to better 
working conditions and fairer treatment for Chinese workers. American 
and other foreign companies need to make fair labor standards a real 
condition of their business relationships.
  So these are some of the problems I observed and concerns I raised in 
China.
  I come to the key question: Can we as a nation best make progress on 
these issues by granting PNTR or by denying it?
  Our annual reviews of Most Favored Nation treatment of China have 
provided important leverage with Beijing. Congress reviewed issues of 
importance to us, and members of the House and Senate and 
Administration officials raised these concerns with Chinese officials. 
Many times, China took significant steps to show progress, and arguably 
future-oriented leaders used the opportunity to promote reforms. Under 
H.R. 4444, a commission will still look at China's human rights record 
and other concerns each year, but without the implicit leverage of a 
vote on MFN.
  Some have suggested we vote down PNTR to maintain our annual vote and 
the associated leverage. After all, China will still be interested in 
selling goods in the U.S. market, though we would not have access to 
WTO rules and dispute settlement mechanisms.
  However, voting down PNTR would not simply maintain the status quo. 
Chinese leaders--and many Chinese citizens--see this debate on PNTR 
legislation as a referendum on the U.S.-China relationship. Rejecting 
PNTR means rejecting any hope of a cooperative relationship with China 
in the near-term. And cooperation, too, has yielded important progress. 
On the national security front, the U.S. and China have cooperated to 
promote peace and reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula. And the WTO 
contains a national security exception that will allow us to maintain 
technological controls and other national security restrictions on 
trade. On the human rights front, China has signed the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, though the National People's 
Congress has yet to ratify it. The presence of American firms willing 
to forego some of their profits to treat workers decently has helped 
raise standards of working conditions.
  China is going to have access to the U.S. market regardless of how we 
vote. If we grant PNTR to China, however, we will gain the benefit of 
WTO dispute settlement mechanisms to better ensure China's commitment 
to free trade. By granting PNTR, we do give up the right to review 
China's trade status annually, but we can advance our agenda

[[Page S8674]]

on non-economic issues through increased dialogue, by bringing China 
into multilateral agreements and institutions, and through stronger 
bilateral cooperation.
  Economically, I believe the world and the American and Chinese people 
have a lot to gain by granting PNTR.
  As I discussed earlier, China's economic growth over the past two 
decades has been staggering, as a result of its opening to the world 
some 20 years ago. China has risen to become the world's ninth largest 
exporter and the eleventh largest importer.
  In November 1999, we completed a landmark Bilateral Trade Agreement 
with China, which is contingent on our approving PNTR. In that 
agreement, China pledged to reduce tariffs on a number of imports. For 
example, all tariffs on information technology products such as 
semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, computers and computer 
equipment are to be eliminated by 2005. Tariffs on industrial products 
would decline from a simple average of 24.6 percent to 9.4 percent.
  The agreement also opens China's markets in a wide range of services, 
including banking, insurance, telecommunications, distribution, 
professional services and other business services. China is expected to 
join the WTO's Basic Telecommunications Agreement and end geographic 
restrictions on wireless services and its ban on foreign investment in 
telecommunication. Such changes are good not only for China but for 
America.
  But establishing Permanent Normal Trade Relations is something we can 
do only once. Some economists have raised serious questions about 
whether we have gained enough access to China's markets for goods and 
services. Did USTR's negotiators get a good deal? I think that's a 
difficult question to answer now. Our annual trade deficit with China 
stands at a shocking $56.9 billion.
  One key factor which will determine how good a deal we got is 
compliance. How well will China fulfill its obligations? Through 
China's WTO accession and the establishment of PNTR, we will be able to 
hold China accountable for its trade commitments through the WTO's 
transparent, rules-based dispute settlement mechanisms. If China 
arbitrarily increases a tariff on an American product or engages in 
retaliatory actions against the U.S., we could seek redress under WTO 
regulations.
  How effectively will we monitor compliance and use these mechanisms 
and our trade laws to bring China's laws and practices into line? This 
is a very serious question. China is a large country--nearly the size 
of the United States--and the application of national laws is grossly 
inconsistent across the country. Moreover, U.S. firms doing business 
there seem to understand their immense reliance on the goodwill of 
China's government and Communist Party. Will these firms be willing to 
risk a deal in Guangzhou by asking USTR to pursue action against 
arbitrary and discriminatory treatment in Inner Mongolia? Or will 
American firms continue to emphasize cooperation with Chinese 
authorities?
  This bill rightly stresses the need for the U.S. government to 
monitor China's compliance with its trade obligations and use the WTO's 
dispute settlement mechanisms. But if we fail to grant PNTR for China, 
WTO dispute mechanisms will not be available to us.
  Mr. President, China is already America's fourth largest trading 
partner. According to administration statistics, American exports to 
China and Hong Kong support an estimated 400,000 well-paying U.S. jobs.
  China's WTO accession and the 1999 bilateral agreement will further 
open China's markets to American goods and services and protects 
American intellectual property rights. I believe will prove to be a 
good deal for America's working families.
  New Jersey undoubtedly stands to benefit from China's accession to 
the WTO and improved market access. At the end of 1998, China ranked as 
New Jersey's ninth largest export destination, with merchandise exports 
worth $668 million. Important New Jersey firms, such as Lucent 
Technologies and Chubb Insurance, are already active in China and will 
have more opportunities as a result of China's market opening under the 
1999 bilateral trade deal.
  Mr. President, there are some potential risks in granting permanent 
normal trade relations to China now. While I have concerns about 
China's record in the areas I have outlined, I believe that China is 
undergoing momentous change. The best way to promote continued progress 
on issues of concern and help our economy is to grant China permanent 
normal trade relations status.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, one would think from the comments made 
by my distinguished friend from New Jersey and others that the issue 
was the welfare and benefit of the People's Republic of China. I have 
no particular gripe at this moment about China. I think, as the Senator 
from New Jersey pointed out, it is working. China has a very 
competitive trade policy. They are making improvements industrially, 
economically, even environmentally, and perhaps with labor standards. 
That is not the issue.
  The issue is the viable, competitive trade policy of the United 
States of America. You would think that we had the finest, most 
wonderfully competitive trade policy there could be. The fact is, we 
have a $350 billion trade deficit that we know of, and this year, 2000, 
it is going to approximate $400 billion.
  Last month, the Department of Commerce announced we had lost 69,000 
manufacturing jobs. The fact is, we have gone from the end of World War 
II, with some 42 percent of our workforce in manufacturing, down to 12 
percent.
  As the head of Sony--the Japanese just beat us in softball last 
night, and they are beating us in trade--as the head of Sony, Akio 
Morita, said, that world power that loses its manufacturing capacity 
will cease to be a world power.
  We hear high tech, high tech. They are running around here as if they 
have discovered something. Senator, you don't understand global 
competition, they say. We have high tech. We want to get away from the 
smokestack jobs to the high-tech jobs.
  Let me say a word about that. I know something about both. I have 
both. I would much rather have BMW than Oracle or Microsoft. Why do I 
say that? BMW is paying $21 an hour. A third of Microsoft's workers are 
paid $10 an hour, part time, temporary workers, Silicon Valley. Forty-
two percent of the workers in Silicon Valley are part-time, temporary 
workers. I am not looking for temporary jobs. I am looking for hardcore 
middle America jobs.
  That is the competition. The competition in global competition is 
market share and jobs. We treat foreign trade as foreign aid. Free 
trade, free trade. They say: You don't understand high tech. The truth 
is, we have a deficit in the balance of trade in advanced technology 
products with the People's Republic of China. Last year, it was $3.2 
billion. It will approximate $5 billion this year.
  But Senator, agriculture. Agriculture? There is a glut of agriculture 
in the People's Republic. Once they solve their transportation and 
distribution problems, they are not only going to feed the 1.3 billion, 
but the rest of the world. Come now, the 800 million farmers they have 
at the moment can certainly outproduce the 3.5 million farmers we have 
in America.
  We had a deficit in the balance of trade of $218 million last year 
with the People's Republic of China. People don't understand where we 
are. I have a deficit in the balance of trade of cotton. I am importing 
cotton from the People's Republic of China.
  They say: Wait a minute, what about the airplanes? Well, yes, they 
have orders for 1,600, we just heard a minute ago. We will cut that in 
half. That is really 800, because 50 percent, according to Bill Greider 
of the 777 Boeing plane, is going to be made in downtown Shanghai. The 
MD 3010, 70 percent of that aircraft is made in the People's Republic 
of China. So what are we doing? Are we transferring all of the 
wonderful middle-class American jobs to China? And we are running all 
over the country hollering, ``I am for the working families, I am for 
the working families,'' when, since NAFTA, they have eliminated 30,700 
working families in my little State of South Carolina. We lost over 
500,000 over the Nation. So we are eliminating working families, and we 
say, ``But China is going to

[[Page S8675]]

really start enforcing and adhering and be made accountable.'' Not at 
all.

  Japan is not. Incidentally, Japan has been in the WTO for 5 years and 
it hasn't opened up yet. I don't know where they get the idea that once 
we get this particular agreement and China in the WTO, it is going to 
open its market. That doesn't open markets. Otherwise accountable? The 
People's Republic see what happened with the United States and Japan 
and with the United States and the United Kingdom. The President was up 
in New York the week before last with Prime Minister Blair, and the 
Prime Minister is fighting for a thousand jobs, and the President of 
the United States is exporting them like gang busters and fighting for 
bananas that we don't even produce. Fighting for bananas. Come on. When 
are we going to sober up and get a competitive trade policy?
  For a second, I don't have the idea that we ought to cut off trade; 
that is ridiculous because it is impossible. We are going to trade with 
China. I just want to cut the word ``permanent'' out and have a look-
see and try to get organized a trade policy whereby we can correlate 20 
different departments and agencies, our Department of Commerce and 
Trade, and start really competing in a controlled global economy.
  The fight there, of course, as I see it, is for market share. The 
fight is for jobs. We are not doing it. I guess my time is pretty well 
limited.
  Alexander Hamilton enunciated the competitive trade policy of the 
People's Republic of China in 1789. The first was for the Seal of the 
United States. The second bill that passed this Congress in July 1789 
was a 50-percent tariff on 60 articles. Protectionism. We learn how to 
build up. The Brits suggested to us that we trade with them what we 
produce best and they trade back what they produce best. Free trade, 
free trade. Hamilton, in his writing ``Report on Manufacturers,'' told 
the Brits: Bug off, we are not going to remain your colony, exporting 
our raw materials, our agriculture, our timber, our iron ore, and 
importing your manufactured products. And therein is the policy of the 
People's Republic of China. I welcome it. I welcome the competition. 
But you can't find it here in the Congress. You can't find it in the 
Presidential race.
  You would think we had a good policy of some kind. Nothing on the 
floor. People are coming up here, like myself, reciting their little 
positions, with no debate. Somebody said ``invigorating debate.'' They 
couldn't care less. This vote has been fixed. This thing has been fixed 
since midsummer. You know it and I know it. They will give you time. 
There is nobody seated on the other side. Let the Record show that. 
Absolutely nobody is in a chair on the Republican side of the Senate as 
I speak.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague--I have 10 minutes reserved--if my 
colleague from Illinois needs to speak----
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I make the following unanimous consent 
request. I understand 6 minutes is left of the Democratic leader's 
time. Senator Wellstone asked for 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent 
to follow Senator Wellstone and to speak for 6 minutes on the 
Democratic leader's time, unless a Republican Member comes to the 
floor, at which point I will yield to them to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Hollings 
from South Carolina, for his remarks. Let me say to my colleague from 
South Carolina, I can't imagine the Senate without Senator Hollings--
the color, the power of the oratory and, frankly, being willing to 
stand by the courage of his convictions. He is a great Senator.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator is too kind. I thank the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to include this in the Record 
today.
  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 19, 2000]

                     Catholic `Criminals' in China

       The Communist regime in China has identified and rooted out 
     another enemy of the state: 81-year-old Catholic Bishop Zeng 
     Jingmu. The Cardinal Kung Foundation, a U.S.-based advocate 
     for the Roman Catholic Church and its estimated 10 million 
     followers in China, reports that Bishop Zeng was nabbed last 
     Thursday. An embassy spokesman here said he could't comment. 
     This wouldn't be a first for this apparently dangerous 
     cleric. He was imprisoned for a quarter-century beginning in 
     1958. In 1983, the Communists let him out--for one month. The 
     they jailed him for another eight years, until 1991. In 
     1996--at the age of 76--he was sentenced to three years of 
     forced labor and reeducation. When he was released with six 
     months still to run on that sentence, in 1998, the Clinton 
     administration trumpted the news as ``further evidence that 
     the president's policy of engagement works.'' The fatuousness 
     of that statement must be especially clear to the bishop from 
     his current jail cell.
       Bishop Zeng has been guilty of a single crime all along: He 
     is a Catholic believer. He refuses to submit to Communist 
     atheism or to the control of the Catholic Patriotic 
     Association, an alternative ``church'' created by the regime 
     that does not recognize the primacy of the pope. China's 
     government is willing to tolerate some religious expression 
     as long as it is dictated by the government. Anyone who will 
     not submit--whether spiritual movements such as Falun Gong, 
     evangelical Protestant churches, Tibetan monasteries or the 
     real Catholic Church--is subject to ``repression and abuse,'' 
     the State Department said in its recent report on 
     international religious freedom. The admirably straighforward 
     report noted that respect for religious freedom 
     ``deteriorated markedly'' in China during the past year. 
     ``Some places of worship were destroyed,'' it said. ``Leaders 
     of unauthorized groups are often the targets of harassment, 
     interrogations, detention and physical abuse.''
       Bishop Zeng is a man of uncommon courage, but his fate in 
     China is sadly common. Three days before his arrest, Father 
     Ye Gong Feng, 82 was arrested and ``tortured to 
     unconsciousness,'' the Cardinal Kung Foundation reports. It 
     took 70 policemen to perform that operation. Father Lin 
     Rengui of Fujian province ``was beaten so savagely that he 
     vomited blood.'' Thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have 
     been arrested during the past year; the State Department 
     cites ``credible reports'' that at least 24 have died while 
     in police custody.
       Last month the Chinese government launched a public 
     relations mission to the United States, dispatching exhibits, 
     performers and lecturers--on the subject of religious 
     freedom, among others--on a three-week charm offensive. 
     ``American voters should get to know us,'' said the Chinese 
     functionary in charge. The U.S. ambassador to China, Joseph 
     Prueher, appeared at a joint news conference announcing the 
     mission, and a number of U.S. business executives--from 
     Boeing. Time Warner and elsewhere--happily sponsored it. We 
     have nothing against goodwill cultural exchanges, but Chinese 
     and American officials should not delude themselves that U.S. 
     suspicions are caused chiefly by prejudice or lack of 
     understanding. On the contrary, Americans understand just 
     fine what kind of government throws 81-year-old clerics into 
     jail.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is all so timely. In this 
Washington Post article, the lead editorial is: ``Catholic `Criminals' 
in China.''
  The first sentence reads:

       The Communist regime in China has identified and rooted out 
     another enemy of the state: 81-year-old Catholic Bishop Zeng 
     Jingmu.
       . . . Bishop Zeng was nabbed last Thursday.

  He spent a good many years in prison.

       . . . Bishop Zeng has been guilty of a single crime all 
     along: He is a Catholic believer.

  Bishop Zeng was picked up last week and is now imprisoned again. I 
quote again from the editorial:

       . . . Bishop Zeng has been guilty of a single crime all 
     along: He is a Catholic believer.

  Mr. President, every Senator should read this editorial today before 
they vote. I came to the floor of the Senate with an amendment. It 
merits a report from a commission we had established, to report back to 
us, a Commission on Religious Freedom, chaired by David Sapperstein. 
The commission looked at the situation in China and it made a 
recommendation to us. The commission's recommendation was, right now in 
China, as evidenced by what happened to this Catholic bishop, an 81-
year-old bishop imprisoned for being a Catholic, that it is a brutal 
atmosphere and we in the Senate and the House of Representatives ought 
to at least reserve for ourselves the right to annually review trade 
relations with China so we can have some leverage to speak out on human 
rights. That amendment lost.

[[Page S8676]]

  I brought another amendment to the floor. I said based upon China's 
agreement with the United States in 1991, a memorandum of 
understanding, and then another agreement in 1993, which the President 
used as evidence that we would delink human rights with trade policy 
with China, we should call on China to live up to its agreement that it 
would not export to this country products made by prison labor. Many of 
these people are in prison because they have spoken out for democracy 
and human rights. That amendment lost.
  I brought another amendment to the floor of the Senate, which was an 
amendment that said men and women in China should have the right to 
organize and bargain collectively; they should be able to form an 
independent union. I cited as evidence Kathy Lee and Wal-Mart paying 8 
cents an hour from 8 in the morning until 10 at night--mainly to young 
women. They get 1 day off a month. I said shouldn't we at least say we 
want to extend the right to annually review trade relations until China 
lives up to this standard? That amendment lost.
  Then I offered an amendment with Senator Helms from North Carolina, a 
broad human rights amendment, citing one human rights report after 
another saying that China needed to live up to the basic standard of 
decency when it comes to respecting the human rights of its people. 
That is a sacred issue to me--anywhere in the world. That amendment 
lost.
  I want to conclude my remarks on the floor of the Senate in three 
ways. First, I hope I am wrong, but I believe we will deeply regret the 
stampede to pass this legislation and the way in which we have taken 
all the human rights, religious freedom, right to organize, all of 
those concerns, and we have put them in parentheses and in brackets as 
if they don't exist and are not important. I think we will regret that. 
I think we will regret that because if we truly understand the 
implications of living in an international economy, it means this.
  It means that if we care about human rights, we have to care about 
human rights in every country. If we care about the environment--not 
just in our country--if we care about the right to organize--not just 
in our country--if we care about deplorable child labor conditions, we 
have to be concerned about that in every country. When we as the Senate 
and as Senators do not speak out on human rights, we are all 
diminished. When we have not spoken out on human rights in China, I 
think our silence is a betrayal.
  I will make two other final points.
  I have heard my colleagues argue ``exports, exports.'' I have spoken 
plenty about this legislation, and I will not repeat everything I said 
but just to say I think the evidence is pretty clear. Not more exports 
but more investment--there is a difference.
  I think what will happen is China will become the largest export 
platform with low-wage labor under deplorable working conditions 
exporting products abroad, including to our country, and our workers 
will lose their jobs. Frankly, we will be talking about not raising the 
living standard of working people but lowering the living standard.
  On agriculture, I think there was a piece in the New York Times on 
Sunday. Every day there is an article in the newspaper about China. It 
is not a pretty picture. It is as if many of my colleagues want to turn 
their gaze away from the glut in production--about the protests, about 
people being arrested for the protests.
  Frankly, as to the argument that we are going to have many more 
exports to China and that is going to be the salvation of family 
farmers--the President of the United States came out to Minnesota and 
basically made that argument--we can have different views about human 
rights and whether or not there will be more respect for human rights 
as we have more economic trade relations in China, but so far that is 
not the evidence. I can understand how people honestly disagree. I 
don't believe that most-favored-nation status or normal trade relations 
with China is the salvation of family farmers for this country.
  I want my words in this debate to be heard. I want to stick by these 
words, and I want to be held accountable. I want every other colleague 
who has made such a claim, that this will be the salvation for our 
family farmers in this country, to also be held accountable.
  Finally, I say to Senators that I believe we will lose this. And 
people in good conscience have different viewpoints. I can't help 
speaking with some strong feeling at the end of this debate to say 
this: I will look at this debate and vote with a sense of history. One-
hundred years ago, our economy was changing. We were moving to a 
national economy--industrialized national economy. You had farmers, 
laborers, religious communities, populists, and women. And they made a 
set of standards. They wanted an 8-hour day. They wanted to abolish 
some of the worst child labor conditions--antitrust action; women 
wanted the right to vote; direct election of U.S. Senators. They wanted 
the right to organize and bargain collectively. The Pinkertons were 
killing labor organizers. The media were hostile. Money dominated 
politics. But many of those demands became the law of the land over the 
years and made our country better. So it is today. This is the new 
economy. It is an emerging global economy.
  What we were saying is we want to civilize the global economy and 
make it work--not just the large conglomerates. We want this new global 
economy to work for the environment; to work for family farmers and 
producers; to work for human rights; to work for religious freedom; to 
work for workers. That is what this debate has been about.
  I think this will become where you stand in relation to this new 
global economy. I think it can become some kind of axis of American 
politics over the next 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 years to come.
  I am proud to stand for human rights. I am proud to stand for 
religious freedom. I am proud to stand for the right of people to 
organize. I am proud to stand for an international economy but an 
international economy that is based upon some standard of decency and 
fairness.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, Senator Daschle, I 
yield 30 minutes to Senator Byrd, 5 minutes to Senator Baucus, and 15 
minutes to Senator Moynihan. I say to my Democratic colleagues, that is 
all the time we have. Senators shouldn't ask for an extension of time 
because there is no more time on the Democratic side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I asked for 6 minutes. Was that calculated?
  Mr. REID. Yes. I understood that had also been granted. If not, I 
grant 6 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I rise today in support of Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations with China. Today the United States Senate will vote to grant 
PNTR to China and its 1.2 billion people. We will decide whether or not 
to allow American farmers, manufacturers, businessmen and women to 
trade their products, their ideas, their goods with one-fifth of the 
world's population.
  Last November, after more than a decade of negotiations, the Clinton 
Administration signed a bilateral agreement that will drastically 
reduce barriers on American products and services going to China. The 
agreement is clearly in the best interests of our nation's farmers, 
manufacturers, and workers. Supporting China's entry into the WTO is 
clearly in the best interests of our economy, national security and 
foreign policy.
  Trade is the future. Make no mistake about it: trade can open up the 
exchange of ideas--ideas like democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to 
worship, and freedom of association. China stands on the brink of 
becoming the most important trading partner the U.S. has ever seen and 
the U.S. Senate will go on record in support of this important step in 
international trade and foreign policy.
  When China concludes similar agreements with other countries, it will 
join the WTO. For us to benefit though, we must grant China PNTR 
status--the same status we have given other countries in the WTO. And, 
Mr. President, that's what this debate is about. Do we give China the 
same status as the other countries already in the WTO? Do we put them 
in an environment where

[[Page S8677]]

they will have to follow the rules and be held accountable if they 
break them?
  Many of my colleagues have come to the floor of the United States 
Senate over the last several weeks to offer amendments to this 
legislation. They've all been defeated, with my help, despite the fact 
that I agree with the intention of almost everyone of them. I voted 
against every amendment offered because I know and the American people 
watching this debate know that amending H.R. 4444, at this point in the 
process is a death knell.
  We defeated goodfaith amendments like Senator Thompson's non-
proliferation amendment, Senator Wellstone's religious freedom and 
right to organize amendments, and Senator Helms' amendment regarding 
forced abortions. I agree with the intent of my colleagues. China 
should not engage in the proliferation of nuclear technology. China 
should not prevent workers from organizing. China should not force 
women to adhere to any type of ``one family, one child'' policy.
  But, the bill we're debating is a trade bill. And if it's changed in 
any way, shape, or form, it will go back to the House of 
Representatives and die.
  My friend in the House of Representatives, Rep. Sander Levin, 
successfully added language to the House-passed legislation that, I 
believe, holds China accountable. The Levin/Bereuter language 
establishes a formal Congressional-Executive Commission on China to 
institutionalize mechanisms for maintaining pressure on China to 
improve its human rights record, increase compliance with basic labor 
standards, and abide by current and future commitments. This commission 
would review and report on China's progress in these areas and make 
recommendations to the Administration and Congress. My friends who 
offered amendments regarding human rights on the floor of the Senate 
will be able in the future to review China's record in this important 
area.
  The Levin proposal would also push for more transparency at the WTO, 
including urging prompt public release of all litigation-related 
documents and the opening of secret meetings of the dispute settlement 
panels. The United States pays dues to the WTO and we have a right to 
know what goes on in those meetings. I've heard over and over again 
about the secrecy of the WTO. It's time for the WTO to shed some light 
on what really happens in these meetings that affect real American 
workers, so that workers will be able to see that we can rely on their 
rules-based trading system for relief when and if it's needed.
  The Levin-Bereuter proposal empowers the Congress by seeking 
special congressional review of U.S. participation in the WTO two years 
after China's accession, to assess China's implementation of WTO 
commitments. We'll have the power to see just how well China is abiding 
by its commitments.

  And finally, the legislation expresses congressional support for 
Taiwan's accession to the WTO immediately after China's accession. 
While the Chinese aren't happy about this provision, I believe that 
it's important to allow Taiwan the same trading rights as mainland 
China.
  America began as an agrarian nation, then transformed itself into an 
industrial power, and now over 200 years later, we're the leading 
economy in the world due, in part, to our ability to recognize that 
competition can force a country or a company to excel or fail. America 
has never feared competition.
  And it's a reality that global competition is here and it's here to 
stay. Opponents argue that we must stop globalization, that we must 
punish the Chinese for all their human rights abuses, for prison labor 
abuses, for Tiananmen Square. Every year, we vote on whether or not to 
grant NTR status to China. Throughout my time in the House and Senate, 
I've voted both for and against NTR. Every year, we take a look at how 
China treats its citizens, wondering whether or not our annual review 
of their trade status would change their behavior.
  Many say that the Congress shouldn't give up that right to annual 
review--that if we annually examine how the Chinese treat their people, 
and based upon that, deny or give them preferred trading status, 
somehow they will clean up their act and guarantee every Chinese 
citizen basic human rights. It's time we changed our approach. It's 
time to bring democracy to China via the Internet, via U.S./Chinese 
commerce relationships, via other U.S. products. It's time to bring 
social progress to China, not with messages from Congress but messages 
from across America, from businesses, labor traders, educators with new 
access to a society too often closed to diverse opinion.
  President Clinton noted recently that ``In the new century, liberty 
will spread by cell phone and cable modem.'' Take a look at America 
with access to the Internet and now think back to the days when access 
to world knowledge was only through the printed media. America is a 
different nation because of this progress and China has the potential 
to change too.
  Think for a moment about what would happen if we denied PNTR to 
China. I believe that if we sent that signal to the Chinese people, the 
walls of isolation would be strengthened. The hardline Communists would 
be emboldened more so than before. If we vote against PNTR, Beijing 
won't free a single prisoner. They will turn inward and the limited 
freedoms the Chinese people currently enjoy could well disappear.
  And this argument ignores our experience with the Soviet Union during 
the height of the Cold War. We spent trillions of dollars to oppose a 
regime that was rife with human rights abuses, yet we still sold them, 
in the words of the late Hubert Humphrey, ``just about anything they 
could not shoot at us.''
  China will enter the WTO, with or without our support. The questions 
is: will America benefit from it or will the Chinese buy products and 
services from the Europeans or the Canadians or the Mexicans? To me, 
it's a clear choice: Americans will benefit from free and fair trade 
with China. And China will change for the better as it opens its doors 
to the world.
  What about Illinoisans? How will farmers from Peoria and Cairo 
benefit from this action? How will major Illinois-based U.S. 
corporations like Motorola and Caterpillar and Bank of America and the 
thousands of Americans they employ benefit from this agreement?
  The average tariff for agriculture products will be 17.5 percent and, 
for U.S. priority products, 14 percent, down from 31 percent. Farmers 
in downstate Illinois, will benefit from this; there's no doubt about 
it. At present, China severely restricts trading rights and the ability 
to own and operate distribution networks. For the first time, Illinois 
exporters will have the right to distribute products without going 
through a State Owned Enterprise. Illinois is already a significant 
exporter of farm and industrial goods. In 1999, Illinois exported $9.3 
billion worth of industrial/agriculture machinery. We shipped just over 
$6 billion in electric equipment as well. Illinois farmers exported 
roughly $3 billion in commodities to other countries. Illinois exports 
in 1999 totaled over $33 billion. Of that, $850 million was sold to 
China.

  Companies like Motorola (with over 25,000 employees in Illinois) 
which pays tariffs of 20 percent on pagers and 12 percent for phones, 
will see those tariffs slashed. The Illinois soybean farmer will see 
the tariff-rate quotas completely eliminated.
  Banks will be able to conduct business in China within the first two 
years of accession. They will have the same rights as Chinese banks. 
Geographic and customer restrictions will be lifted in five years, 
thereby allowing them to open a branch anywhere in China, just like 
they can here. U.S. automakers, like the Chrysler plant in Belvedere, 
Illinois, will see tariffs on their products slashed from 100 percent 
to 25 percent.
  Pike County, Illinois pork producers will be able, for the first 
time, to export pork to China. Under the current scheme, China's import 
barriers have effectively denied access to American pork products. 
We're talking tariffs in the range of 20 percent that will drop to 12 
percent by 2004.
  What about Illinois steelworkers, still reeling from the 1998 steel 
crisis? China will reduce its tariffs on steel and steel products from 
the current average of 10.3 percent to 6 percent. They've agreed that 
any entity, like Acme Steel with facilities in Riverdale and Chicago or 
Northwestern Wire and

[[Page S8678]]

Rod in Sterling, will be able to export into any part of China, phased 
in over 3 years.
  Peoria-based Caterpillar, with almost 30,000 Illinois employees, has 
recently invested in several new facilities in China. They've also 
recently announced the sale of 18 new trucks to the Shanghai Coal 
Company, trucks that will be made in Decatur, Illinois, and shipped 
halfway around the world. This is the type of investment by Caterpillar 
that maintains local jobs throughout towns and cities across Illinois.
  Of course, many of these are big corporations. What about small 
businesses? How will they benefit from this agreement?
  In 1997, 82 percent of all U.S. exporters were small businesses, 
generating over 35 percent of total merchandise exported to the East. 
Paperwork burdens for America's small businesses will be reduced 
drastically as customs and licensing procedures will be simplified. 
America's small businesses don't export jobs to China. They export 
ideas and products to a people who need and want their products and 
services.
  No one expects this trade agreement and our future relationship with 
China to be easy. Already, Beijing officials have begun backtracking on 
several of their commitments made last November. I understand that at 
the most recent session of the WTO Working Party on China's accession, 
China objected to having its implementation of trade obligations 
reviewed every other year. A Chinese proposal dated July 14th strikes 
language in the protocol referring to bi-annual reviews and replaces it 
with language providing for reviews every four years. Their rationale 
is that they're a ``developing'' country.
  This is absolutely unacceptable. The fact is, China is not a 
typically developing country and it shouldn't be allowed to cloak 
itself in that status. It's a uniquely large country and economy, where 
the essential elements of a market economy are taking root. Four years 
is far too long a time between reviews of China's implementation. If 
this proposal were adopted, it would make WTO dispute settlement the 
only formal channel by which we could ensure China's fulfillment of its 
trade obligations. Just one example: if China automatically received 
developing country status, it would receive special treatment like 
allowable export subsidies that wouldn't be treated as subsidies. If 
the Chinese flooded the U.S. market with steel (as is the case now), 
the U.S. steel industry wouldn't be able to use U.S. countervailing 
duty trade laws because that law doesn't apply to subsidization for 
developing countries. There are other areas where the Chinese would 
like to backpedal. But, Mr. President, we must hold them to the 
November agreement and discourage future backtracking of that agreement 
by Chinese trade officials. Any unwillingness by the Chinese to abide 
by this agreement at this point should be roundly condemned by this 
Administration and other foreign nations, who just might find the 
Chinese backtracking with them as well.

  Trade with foreign countries means nothing if it's not carried out 
under a rules-based system. Trade commitments require full enforcement 
to have meaning. With China's WTO membership, we will gain a number of 
advantages in enforcement we do not currently enjoy.
  First, there is the WTO dispute mechanism itself. Remember that China 
has never agreed to subject its decisions to impartial review, 
judgment, and possible sanctions if necessary. That will now happen.
  Second, we will continue to have the right to use the full range of 
American trade laws, including Section 301 and our Anti-dumping/
Countervailing Duty laws. It's important, though, to have an 
administration that will use these trade laws effectively. It's my hope 
that the next President will not hesitate to bring cases against China 
and other countries if they break our trade laws.
  And finally, we strengthen our enforcement capabilities through the 
multilateral nature of the WTO. In effect, China will be subject to 
enforcement by all 135 WTO member nations, thus limiting their ability 
to play its trading partners against one another. The U.S. won't be 
alone if China breaks the rules.
  Opponents of PNTR argue that it's NAFTA all over again. You'll 
remember Ross Perot's soundbite: ``That great sucking sound.'' You'll 
remember that some said the American economy would go down the tubes, 
that hundreds of thousands of American workers would lose their jobs to 
cheap labor in Mexico if NAFTA were enacted.
  Here's Illinois' story. Gross jobs added in export industries from 
1993-1998 totaled over 60,000. Net jobs totaled almost 40,000. There 
was no great sucking sound. US unemployment is still low. There are 
more people employed in Illinois right now than at any time in its 
history. The Illinois Department of Commerce estimates that nearly half 
a million jobs are supported by exports and that there's been a 51.6 
percent increase in Illinois jobs sustained by exports since enactment 
of NAFTA.
  Yes, some folks have lost their jobs due to trade. The Department of 
Labor certified 50 Trade Adjustment Assistance cases in Illinois from 
1994-1999, totaling 5,718 jobs lost. Frankly, losing 5,718 jobs is 
still too many. When workers lose their jobs, we should do more than 
just provide TAA. We should find ways to train our workers in emerging 
fields and industries so they get new jobs that are at least as good as 
the ones they lost. That's the responsibility of the American business 
community, educators, and federal, state, and local governments. This 
is the best opportunity we've had in years to export American ideals 
and products. We should also ensure we don't export American jobs.
  Worker re-training is one of the most important debates that this 
Congress should focus on. Today, we voted on a cloture motion on H1B 
visas. I have almost 6,000 Illinoisans who've lost their jobs due to 
trade, yet we have to import workers from foreign countries because we 
have industries begging for skilled workers to show up for that 9-5 
job. Yet, our way of solving the skills shortage in the U.S. seems to 
be through the importation of highly-skilled foreign workers--a Band-
Aid approach that doesn't solve the underlying problem. America, as a 
nation that gains from trade, has an obligation to use a portion of 
those gains to support and re-train those who've been ill-affected. We 
must do more to help American workers train for and get jobs that will 
move them up the economic ladder.
  In 1998, we passed the Workforce Investment Act. One important 
component of the WIA is the funding stream for dislocated workers. 
Grants to states and local communities provide core, intensive training 
and support services to laid off workers. Under President Clinton, 
dislocated worker funding has tripled from $517 million in 1993 to 
$1.589 billion for FY2000. This is an important program, like Trade 
Adjustment Assistance, that helps American families deal with an 
economy that's transforming itself as ours is today.

  But is it enough? Is it enough to train workers after they lose their 
jobs or do we need to start before it's too late? With public/private 
partnerships, we can train America's workforce for the jobs of the 21st 
Century, the hi-tech jobs, the nursing jobs, the educator jobs. It's 
our responsibility to encourage companies like Caterpillar and Motorola 
and Cargill and others to let local, state, and federal officials know 
what types of workers they must have to meet their needs for the 
future. We should encourage more Americans to pursue higher education 
and skills training. I'm working for measures like college tuition tax 
incentives that would provide tax deductions or credits for America's 
working families to give their children the opportunity to prepare for 
the jobs of this new economy. We also need assistance to help workers 
with skills training and lifelong learning.
  Some would argue as Lenin did that a capitalist will sell you the 
rope you will use to hang him, but I think such trade serves a greater 
purpose than profit. Information technology, now a key element in the 
future of business, also is a key element in undermining government 
control of thought and appetite. If you can flood a nation with modems 
people use to learn and trade, no government can bridle the expansion 
of thought and diversity that will follow.
  Chinese leaders, recognizing the transformative nature of the free 
flow

[[Page S8679]]

of ideas, have tried recently to clamp down on Internet usage by its 
citizens. This will never work as the authorities in Beijing will 
learn. China must either give up its desire to build a modern, high-
tech economy or allow the free exchange of information that a modern 
economy requires. I accept the American premise that if you give people 
a little freedom and enough information, the desire for freedom, 
democracy and the chance to work hard and succeed will prevail.
  You can station Chinese tanks on Tiananmen Square on a full-time 
basis, but if you let the open exchange of ideas and business 
transactions flow through those glowing modems, China will change for 
the better.
  Let's grant PNTR to China and begin a new chapter in the book of 
U.S.-China relations. Bringing down trade barriers; Opening up new 
markets; Giving American workers a chance to compete; And giving 
America's customers a chance to enjoy the best our country can produce: 
It's a formula for success. It's a challenge America has never shirked.
  Our workers, our farmers and businesses are counting on us to trust 
their ability to rise to the challenge in this new century. We cannot 
fail them.
  Mr. President, I listened carefully to the debate and statement made 
by my colleague, Senator Wellstone, as well as Senator Hollings of 
South Carolina. These two Senators and many others have spoken from the 
heart during the course of this debate. The Senate of the United States 
and the Nation are well served by the element they bring to this 
debate, their deep-felt convictions, feelings, and values that have 
been exhibited not only in their floor statements but in the amendments 
they have offered over the last several weeks.
  Though I may disagree in my conclusion on this treaty, I can tell you 
I have the greatest respect and admiration for their leadership and for 
standing up on these issues of human rights.
  I would like to put this in perspective. If we believe the vote we 
take this afternoon will give China some new benefit, then one could 
argue that we should ask for something in return. One could argue that 
if we are going to give China something, we should ask them to make 
changes in China in their human rights policy, which is reprehensible--
the way they treat the press, the way they treat religions in that 
country, their forced family planning policies, the coercive attitude 
they have towards families and their future in China, the terrible 
things which we have heard about, proliferation--all of these should be 
on the table and part of the agenda as we negotiate, if the agreement 
we are voting on is, in fact, a benefit given to China. But let me 
suggest to you it is not. We are receiving the benefit from this 
agreement. Let me explain.
  The World Trade Organization is a group of over 130 nations which 
have come together and said we are going to do away with the old school 
of thinking where every country would put up tariffs and barriers to 
trade with other countries. We are going to try a new approach. We are 
going to try to drop those tariffs and barriers and see what free trade 
will do. Let each country make a product and a service the best and 
sell it around the world. That is what the World Trade Organization is 
about. Over 130 nations have agreed that those are the rules by which 
we will play.
  Today in the Senate this will be a historic vote to decide whether or 
not we bring China into the World Trade Organization and compete with 
U.S. trade policy--in other words, the relationship between the United 
States and China. China, in order to be part of this World Trade 
Organization, has said they will agree to drop our tariffs and barriers 
substantially so that American companies and farmers and others can 
export to China. In other words, this is a win-win situation for 
America's economy. It is China that is making all the decisions to drop 
the tariffs and drop the barriers and give us a chance to compete--give 
us a chance to sell to 1.2 billion people; give us a chance to sell to 
one-fifth of the world's population. We win; they drop the barriers; 
America gets a chance to sell overseas. That is what is at stake here.
  If this benefit comes to the U.S. economy to be able to finally get 
into this market and compete, then it is kind of hard to argue that we 
ought to be holding off and conditioning this benefit on all sorts of 
changes in China.
  I have seen the amendments that have been offered by many of my 
colleagues on the floor over the last several weeks. Many of these are 
good faith amendments. Many of these I agree with totally in principle. 
I voted against every single one of them. How can that be? Because, 
frankly, they don't belong on this bill. This is a trade bill. Let us 
address the issues of human rights, workers, environmental concerns, 
and proliferation by China through a variety of other approaches. But 
to use this trade bill is a mistake.

  This trade bill gives us a chance to say to workers across America 
that we are going to give them a new market; we are going to give them 
a new chance. If my colleagues believe as I do that globalization and 
global competition really are the future of this country, we in America 
need markets in which to sell. That is what this is about.
  I have a lot of confidence that American workers and businesses and 
farmers, given a chance to compete by fair rules, can succeed. If you 
believe that, you have to vote for this bill; you have to open this 
market. You have to give us a chance to sell in what is one of the 
largest markets in the world. That is what it comes down to.
  There is also a provision that was added to the House bill which I 
support completely. It is known as the Levin/Bereuter amendment. It is 
a bipartisan amendment by Sandy Levin, a Democrat of Michigan, and Doug 
Bereuter, Republican of Nebraska. They come together and say China has 
to play by the rules. And we will watch them carefully with an 
executive commission to make sure they are not only playing by the 
trade rules but treating their people fairly.
  I think that is the right way to proceed. I think it covers many of 
the issues raised during the course of this debate. But, frankly, we 
cannot hold up the expansion of trade opportunities waiting for China 
to become a democratic nation. In fact, I think expanding trade in 
exchange will lead China into democracy, into freedom, closer to what 
we value as principles in this country. Why do I believe that? I saw 
Tiananmen Square on television. I saw these tanks that were mowing down 
common citizens standing up for freedom. It was reprehensible. It was 
disgusting. But we saw it on television. There was a time not that long 
ago we would have never seen it. We would have heard about it months 
later. The world is opening up. We are seeing things in real time from 
around the world, in China and other nations, and as a result the court 
of world judgment says it is wrong and you have to change it, and the 
pressure starts building.
  Think about expanded economic exchange with China, expanded trade, 
more foreign visitors, American businesses, American farmers, and 
educators going into China, becoming part of their economy. Think about 
this information technology as the Internet opens up China to new 
thinking and ideas around the world.
  Do you know what we believe in this country? We believe if people are 
given the opportunity to hear diverse opinions, if they are given the 
opportunity to see what the rest of the world looks like, they will 
move closer to our model, closer to democracy, closer to freedom, 
closer to open markets. I believe that, too. I do not believe the 
Chinese leadership, even their hidebound old thinking, can turn that 
tide. This bill opens those markets, opens this exchange of ideas and 
goods, and gives us a chance to not only provide for workers and 
farmers and businesses in America the chance to succeed in a new market 
but a chance to change China for the better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
it not be charged against the Democratic side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S8680]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the debate before the United States Senate 
on our granting China permanent normal trade relations status has been 
a tremendous debate for the country. We have heard strong arguments for 
and against enhancing our engagement and expanding trade with China. 
This debate has implications for our economy, national security, and 
for the future of China.
  This vote has enormous implications for every American and people 
around the world. I am pleased that the Senate is proceeding toward a 
vote on final passage. It will be an honor to support legislation that 
has such important implications for the people of my state and for our 
country.
  Let me say, that is not only desirable from a U.S. standpoint to have 
China as a full member of the WTO, I think it is essential. China 
entering the WTO will create unprecedented opportunities for American 
businesses and farmers, it will encourage the new entrepreneurial 
forces pushing china toward more liberal political, economic and social 
policies and it will certainly contribute, if not ultimately lead, to 
the further stabilization of Asia and the world.
  From the standpoint of economic growth, increasing our economic 
relationship with China is imperative. Increased trade has played an 
indispensable role in the economic growth this country has experienced 
in recent decades. The leadership and the growth of American companies 
has been fueled by American companies winning access to new markets. As 
many U.S. markets continue to mature, market access will play a more 
important role for the expansion of our businesses.
  At this time, the U.S. has very limited access to a market 
representing the largest number of consumers in the world. China is a 
nation of 1.2 billion people, one-fifth of the world's consumers. Over 
the next 5 years, it is projected that 200 million of those Chinese 
will enter the middle class. On a massive scale, these are people who 
will be acquiring for the first time products that we in the United 
States take for granted. We owe it to our workers and investors to give 
our companies an equal opportunity to fight for those sales.
  Increasing our relationship with a country of this size is also 
important for maintaining our world leadership in the science, 
aerospace, advanced technology, and medicine, and most important in all 
those areas, the well-paying, advanced jobs of the future.
  Trade is part of the process by which capital, resources and manpower 
flow to the areas in which we perform best. Reducing restrictions on 
capital flows has allowed American entrepreneurs to pursue opportunity, 
create the best, most advanced products in the world, and in these 
areas, lead the world.
  Our world leadership in the industries of tomorrow did not happen by 
accident. In addition to the spirit and ingenuity of the American 
people, enough policy makers in this country have had the foresight to 
create an atmosphere where this genius and industry can thrive. 
Expanding our economic relationship and breaking down barriers to trade 
with the largest block of consumers in the world is another huge step 
in that process.

  To continue to promote that environment where Americans can thrive on 
a large scale, we need to pass this legislation.
  But for me, the best reason to support this relationship is that it 
is good for my state. Whether it is Missouri's farmers, our workers, or 
our businesses, Missourians will benefit if China is a member of the 
WTO.
  Reviewing the numbers for American farmers alone gives a picture as 
to the staggering opportunities in this market. China is currently our 
fourth largest agricultural market. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 
estimates that this market will account for 37 percent of the future 
growth of agricultural exports. And the Chinese have agreed to slash 
tariffs and eliminate the quotas on several products important to 
economy of my state--soybeans, corn, cotton, beef, and pork.
  As China eliminates their legal requirements for self-sufficiency in 
agricultural products, if they remain only 95 percent self-sufficient 
in corn and wheat, they will instantly become the second biggest 
importer of those products in the world, second only to Japan. Missouri 
farmers are ready to compete for those markets.
  This is a tremendous opportunity to help our pork producers and 
cattlemen, both areas in which China has agreed to cut tariffs. Unlike 
the Europeans, the Chinese are ready for their people to enjoy American 
beef. They are prepared to eat American beef openly and enjoy it in 
public. In Europe, only the diplomats who come to the U.S. get to enjoy 
a good piece of U.S. steak.
  The Chinese are going to learn quickly what we know and the European 
diplomats know, American beef is the best. As those 200 million Chinese 
enter the middle class, I am confident they will enjoy American beef 
and want more of it.
  The projected increase for demand of pork in China is simply 
staggering. Rather than go into the numbers, the pork producers 
estimate that $5 will be added to the price of a hog when we expand our 
trade relationship with China. That would be the difference between 
success and failure for small pork producers.
  On another issue of great importance to my state and to my farmers, 
the Chinese have agreed to settle sanitary and phyto-sanitary disputes 
based on science. What a novel idea. This is essential to avoiding non-
tariff trade barriers as our farmers continue to employ biotechnology 
and advanced agricultural practices.
  The benefits are not limited to agriculture, despite what has been 
argued, benefits do extend to manufacturing and other sectors.
  For example, one company in my state, Copeland, a division of Emerson 
Electric, manufactures air conditioner compressors in the wonderful 
town of Ava, MO. Those compressors are sent to China where they are 
incorporated in units sold all over Asia. As the market for air 
conditioners in Asia has expanded, the number of manufacturing jobs in 
Ava have grown. Those jobs will not go to China and if this agreement 
is passed the manufacturing jobs in the Ava facility are expected to 
double.

  This agreement opens competitive opportunities for businesses of all 
sizes. Under the market opening agreement, the Chinese will eliminate 
significant market barriers to entry blocking the competitiveness of 
American companies.
  For instance, currently, if a product can even be imported into the 
country, the Chinese control every aspect of movement, right down to 
who can handle and repair an item. Those requirements will be 
eliminated as will the state-controlled trading companies. Quotas and 
tariffs must be published.
  These are major steps in the direction of a market-based economy. The 
elimination of these wide-spread and draconian barriers will give 
American entrepreneurs and small businesses that want to take on the 
Chinese market a real chance to penetrate and compete. For the first 
time, American businesses, large and small, will have the chance to 
compete on a level playing field.
  It is also worth nothing, that without the benefit of the WTO, to 
ensure adherence to our trade agreements, we must rely on our federal 
agencies to oversee and enforce agreements. Frustration with the 
Chinese regarding their respect for and adherence to past agreements 
has been expressed. We will receive the benefit of a rules-based 
trading regime and the weight of enforcement on a multi-lateral basis 
once China is a member of the body.
  Some of the opponents argue that this measure is a ``blank check'' 
for China and that it ``rewards'' China despite the past abuses of its 
people. The complaints of the human rights activists against China are 
legitimate. The abuses and repression of religion are deplorable and 
their gestures toward a free Taiwan are totally unacceptable.
  I reemphasize that point. We should not tolerate their abuses and 
their threats toward a free Taiwan.
  The arguments that we are giving them a pass despite these abuses 
misses the point and the argument that profits are taking precedence 
over American values is wrong. This vote is of significant importance 
in promoting free enterprise in China and creating a increasingly 
prosperous and reform-minded middle class.
  For all the backwardness of China on the issue of religious freedom 
and human rights, positive changes are underway on the economic front--
we

[[Page S8681]]

should recognize that the changes are a direct threat to the communist 
establishment in China. As the Chinese people become more aware of the 
opportunities that exist for improving one's life that are inherent in 
a free society, they will demand more rights from their government and 
will demand that the government become more responsive to the will of 
the people.
  I have seen that on my visits to China. I am convinced the people of 
China, as they see these opportunities, will increase their demand for 
and their insistence on the basic principles that have made our country 
strong.
  Senators have come to the floor this week to tell troubling stories 
about life in China and made arguments as to why it would be a mistake 
at this time to grant China PNTR. By not supporting their amendments, 
they have argued, we are betraying our values as a people and we are 
abandoning support for the principles that make ours a great country.
  For all their good arguments, passing PNTR and enhancing our economic 
engagement with China is a concrete opportunity to promote change in 
many of the areas raised. It is important to discuss these issues and 
reiterate time and again in the strongest possible terms that we 
condemn the practices of the Chinese. However, it does not follow that 
defeating PNTR is the way to force the Chinese to change their 
behavior. The exact opposite is true. Exposing China to more freedom 
and opportunities is the way to bring about change.
  One of the early amendments was in the area of the environment. The 
argument has been made that we cannot grant the Chinese PNTR because 
they have been poor stewards of their environment.
  I remind my colleagues that with every extremely poor country in the 
world, the struggle to employ their people and raise the standard of 
living of its citizens is preeminent. People under such circumstances 
must struggle to feed their families. They are not watching NOVA 
environmental specials or reading National Geographic. They simply do 
not have the luxury to worry about the environment.
  The same applies to the government, creating economic growth to 
employ the poor citizens is its goal. What China needs is wealth 
creation, jobs, and enterprise apart from the state. When the 
desperation and the poverty begin to subside the government is likely 
to be far more open and responsive to managing the environment. But 
calling for the denial based on their environmental policies while 
withholding the best means for the country to raise their standard of 
living does not offer a solution.
  The same applies to labor practices. My support for PNTR does not 
mean that I condone labor conditions in China. In fact I think they are 
terrible. But is defeating PNTR in order to make a statement about 
labor practices in China going to improve worker's rights. Absolutely 
not.
  The way to improve workers rights in China is allow foreign 
enterprises into the country, create more private sector jobs and more 
opportunity. The world buying from the Chinese will create private 
sector employment and reduce dependence on the government. It creates 
more choice and opportunity.
  I share the concerns of my colleagues about Chinese crackdown on 
religious practices. It is an appalling and unacceptable government 
practice that we must continue to speak out against.
  But forcing loyalty to the state and the crushing of all beliefs and 
values that compete with loyalty to the state is a practice that is 
common among communist dictatorships. This is the way that leaders in 
communist countries avoid having the people's loyalty to the state and 
the question of their purpose in life cluttered by outside influences.
  Again, will supporting PNTR empower the reform movement? Can 
promoting free enterprise in China undermine the grip of the 
government? I think it can.
  By joining the WTO and pursuing economic engagement and integration 
with the world, the Chinese communist leadership are taking a risk.
  They are taking the risk that foreign entities can enter the country 
and form relationships with Chinese people but the people will still 
maintain their loyalty to the state.
  They are taking the risk that their citizens are going to be exposed 
to the outside world and the freedoms those in American and other 
countries enjoy but that the Chinese people will not want a piece of 
that freedom for themselves.
  They are taking the risk that Chinese people can go to work for 
private enterprises, with the freedom to pursue better opportunities 
and with the freedom to innovate, make their own decisions and enrich 
themselves, but at the end of the day, still maintain the belief that 
the communist lifestyle, with its per capita income of $790 a year and 
blind loyalty to the omnipotence of the state is the superior way of 
life.
  The Chinese are taking a risk that their people will bear witness to 
entrepreneurship, capitalism, an improved standard of living, middle 
class lifestyle and freedom of association, and not recognize that 
freedom is the better and more rewarding way of life.
  That is an enormous risk for the Chinese communist leadership to 
take--I think it is a bet they will lose.
  Some of my colleagues do not possess this belief. They chose to 
maintain the most dire outlook on the circumstances. I believe in the 
virtue and the power of freedom.
  Some of my colleagues have chosen to shout at the Chinese leaders 
about freedom, but to most of the Chinese leaders freedom means a loss 
of power. Much of this rhetoric, as part of a quest for meaningful 
change, will not do much to advance the ball. The Chinese leadership is 
not interested in hearing it.
  Change in China, for the reasons I stated, is not going to come from 
the top down, at least until there are a lot of high-class funerals in 
that state, from the actuarial numbers that are about to apply. It is 
going to come from the bottom up. We must seize any opportunities 
available to make meaningful change happen.
  The path to take is the one we are taking and that is to encourage 
the infiltration of free enterprise, freedom of thought and freedom of 
association into the current society. It may not happen over night, it 
may never happen and if it does, it is likely to be messy. But there 
are signs of movement in a positive direction--we have an opportunity 
to grease the skids. We would be missing a historic opportunity if we 
did not seize this chance. My colleagues that oppose this bill are 
wrong to think otherwise.
  Not supporting this bill will also hurt the effort to promote the 
rule of law. There is a reason why a number of dissidents have come out 
in support of this legislation. The WTO is a rules-based organization 
that cannot exist if members do not adhere to the rule of law. As a 
member, China will have both rights and obligations and will have to 
deal with other nations as equals. Indeed, as a member of a growing 
number of international organizations, China will continually be 
subject to the rule of law and continually confronted with the 
challenge of accepting international norms and, hopefully, standards of 
freedom.
  Finally, admission to the WTO is not a substitute for a strong, 
consistent foreign policy toward China. Certainly one reason why this 
debate has been difficult is because the administration has lack of a 
clear foreign policy toward China and the resolve to act on important 
issues as they arise. In my observation of this administration, it 
appears to me that they place much hope that admission to the WTO will 
erase their abysmal record in dealing firmly with China on important 
issues.
  We as a nation must reiterate our support for the security of a 
democratic Taiwan and stand by that country as they negotiate the terms 
of their relationship with Taiwan. We must support the entry of Taiwan 
into the WTO and not let China dictate the terms by which this valuable 
friend and trading partner is admitted to the world trade body. We must 
provide Taiwan the means by which they can provide for their own 
security.
  We must speak out for the freedom of the Chinese people to practice 
religion. We must speak in favor of increased freedom for the Chinese 
people.
  China must be told that we will not tolerate their continued export 
of weapons technology that can lead to the destabilization of several 
regions around the world. We must push the Chinese to improve the 
export controls

[[Page S8682]]

and we must be forceful when we discover violations in international 
antiproliferation agreements.
  These are not objectives that will be accomplished by defeating PNTR. 
These are challenges that the current administration has failed to 
meet. We have not had the adult supervision we need in foreign affairs, 
in military affairs, and in relations with a critical, large member of 
the world organizations, and that is China. We have to have an 
administration which understands foreign policy, which speaks with a 
clear voice, annunciates our principles, and stands up for them.
  Defeating PNTR will not give us a strong foreign policy. That will 
depend upon the next administration. I fervently hope and pray that we 
will get some decent leadership in foreign affairs beginning next year. 
We have lacked it. We have been sorrowfully observant of the failures 
and shortcomings throughout the last 7\1/2\ years. Defeating PNTR will 
not help the next administration in their foreign policy towards China. 
Approving PNTR will. We must be firm in charting our course in the 
defense of national security.
  This is an important step to take for the strength of our economy and 
for our workers and farmers. It is also an important step to take to 
move China toward a freer society. We must cast this vote with open 
eyes. It does not answer the questions surrounding China that have been 
raised during this debate. That is for the foreign policy of the next 
administration. By adopting PNTR and voting favorably, we can take the 
first step in giving the next administration the tools to develop a 
strong foreign policy with respect to China.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting permanent normal 
trade relations with China. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe that the Senate is about to make a 
grave mistake. It is hard for me to believe that after a year which has 
seen the Chinese Government rattling sabers at Taiwan, continuing to 
brutally repress religion, and, generally, behaving like the ``Bobby 
Knight'' of the international community--after a year like that--the 
Senate is still determined to hand the Chinese a huge early Christmas 
present called permanent normal trade relations. We are running a $70 
billion deficit with China. China's string of broken promises on trade 
and nonproliferation matters is longer than the Great Wall of China. 
Yet, a majority in this Senate has agreed to put all of its eggs into 
one basket and rush to pass PNTR. ``Don't worry. Be happy,'' says the 
administration. We have the bilateral trade and investment pact to 
protect us.
  The bilateral trade and investment pact negotiated between the U.S. 
Trade Representative and China is one of a series of agreements which 
China is negotiating with members of WTO in order to join the body. The 
agreement has been used to assuage the many concerns of some Members of 
this body about granting PNTR to China. But I believe that PNTR and the 
new U.S.-China trade pact, that panacea of all good things, will 
encourage mainly one phenomenon--one phenomenon; namely, more U.S. 
corporations will move operations to China to capitalize on low-wage 
production for export back here to the United States.
  Now if Senators don't believe it, just look at recent history. Look 
at NAFTA. Clear evidence is right there--NAFTA, the Holy Grail of 
NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement was supposed to right 
every wrong, cure every evil, and make us all healthy, wealthy and 
wise. NAFTA's proponents convinced Congress in 1993 that NAFTA meant 
large net benefits to the U.S. economy, and nothing more. There were no 
down sides. The line went that the U.S. could only gain from expanded 
trade with Mexico because Mexico was reducing its trade barriers more 
than the United States. Moreover--and this will sound very familiar--
proponents were positive that reducing trade barriers with Mexico would 
encourage ``reform'' politicians in Mexico to privatize the economy. 
Now, where have we heard that before?
  A new, vast middle-class would emerge, creating a new, vast middle 
class market in Mexico, just waiting with baited breath to gobble up 
American-made goods. The Clinton administration confidently predicted a 
giant boom in U.S.-made autos sold to Mexico.
  Well, my fellow Senators, what happened when we found the Holy Grail 
called NAFTA? Exactly the opposite happened, that's what. A 180-degree 
turn happened. NAFTA encouraged large U.S. investors to move production 
and capital and jobs south of the border to exploit cheap labor and lax 
environmental standards. These new factories then exported their 
products back to the United States. By 1999, the United States was 
running a trade deficit with Mexico of $23 billion.

  Automobiles were major contributors to the deficit. So were auto 
parts, computers, televisions, and telecommunications equipment. What 
happened to the large new Mexican middle class, salivating to buy 
American goods, which NAFTA was supposed to create? Instead of raising 
living standards in Mexico, NAFTA reinforced ``reform'' government 
policies in Mexico that reduced real wages for workers by 25 percent 
and increased to 38 percent the share of the Mexican population 
subsisting on $2.80 a day.
  Does all this sound familiar, I ask my colleagues? It should. It 
certainly should. Once again the administration is playing that same 
old tune to Congress and to the American people. The administration 
argues that U.S. exports to China will rise because tariffs will be 
lowered on goods like automobiles and auto parts. Sounds familiar, 
doesn't it?
  Additionally, unlike the Japanese yen or the Euro, or the Mexican 
peso, the exchange value of the Chinese currency does not float in the 
international market. It is largely determined by the Chinese 
Government, itself. In 1994, the Chinese devalued their currency in 
order to expand their exports and reduce their imports. Nothing in the 
bilateral agreement we have negotiated with China prevents the Chinese 
from such manipulation again.
  In 1992, the Chinese and U.S. Governments signed a memorandum of 
understanding in which China agreed to provide access to U.S. goods in 
its markets, and to enforce U.S. intellectual property rights. 
President George Bush hailed this agreement as a breakthrough. The USTR 
under President Bush claimed that the 1992 agreement would provide 
``American businesses, farmers, and workers with unprecedented access 
to a rapidly growing Chinese market with 1.2 billion people.'' Well, 
since that much-touted 1992 agreement, U.S. exports to China have risen 
by about $7 billion. But look at this. Imports from China to the United 
States have risen by $56 billion. Now, who won that round?
  Yet, the Clinton administration continues to claim that this new 
agreement will ensure the political triumph of democracy-loving, U.S.-
friendly, free-market leaders in China, who can be trusted to live up 
to their end of the bargain. Someone downtown must be popping 
``gullible'' pills. That claim gives new meaning to the word ``naive''.
  China's successful growth and modernization absolutely depend upon 
its ability to export to foreign markets in order to earn the hard 
currency needed to import new technology. China is currently running a 
$70 billion annual trade surplus with Uncle Sam, with the United 
States. But China is running a trade deficit with the other major hard 
currency blocs--the European Monetary Union and Japan--a trend that 
will continue into the foreseeable future. In order to pursue its own 
self-interests, China has to exploit the U.S. market to the maximum.

  Given this agenda, in a totalitarian state, one can be sure that the 
full force of the power of that state will be focused on protecting its 
manufacturing, technological, and agricultural markets. No faction of 
Chinese leaders can possibly deliver a more open economy to the United 
States or to the WTO. It is fool's gold to make that claim--fool's 
gold. It is the economic and political reality of the Chinese situation 
and agenda that makes it all but certain that China will violate any 
trade agreement, if it serves the national interests of China to do so.
  We have not yet in this Senate or in this Nation or in this 
administration come to grips with that fundamental reality. It will not 
be different this

[[Page S8683]]

time. It will not be any different this time. The Chinese behave the 
way they do in matters of trade because they have to, to survive. They 
cannot and will not change. The Chinese Government is not some eager 
puppy, like my little dog Billy Byrd, panting to please the United 
States or anybody else. The Chinese are committed to their own goals 
and their own interests and they will do whatever it takes to further 
their agenda.
  The Clinton administration claims that China has agreed in the 
bilateral trade agreement to eliminate health-related barriers to U.S. 
meat imports that were not based on scientific evidence. But, let's 
listen to the words of Chinese trade negotiator, Long Yongtu. Let's 
hear what he said:

       Diplomatic negotiations involve finding new expressions. If 
     you find a new expression, this means you have achieved a 
     diplomatic result. In terms of meat imports, we have not 
     actually made any material concessions.
  And there is even more interesting commentary from China's chief 
negotiator, Long Yongtu, in an article he authored on the impacts of 
WTO entry, as reported by the BBC. On the issue of a Chinese compromise 
with the United States on the import of U.S. meat products he said, ``. 
. . in the United States people there think that China has opened its 
door wide for the import of meat. In fact, this is only a theoretical 
market opportunity. During diplomatic negotiations, it is imperative to 
use beautiful words--for this will lead to success.''
  We need to take note of the words of these Chinese officials. We need 
to listen more carefully. Beautiful words do not mean promises kept. 
Sometimes when we in the United States hear ``yes'' the Chinese are 
only saying ``maybe.''
  The USTR asserts that ``China will establish large and increasing 
tariff-rate quotas for wheat--with a substantial share reserved for 
private trade.'' Yet again, Chinese negotiator Long Yongtu sees it 
differently. He has publicly stated that, although Beijing had agreed, 
on paper, to allow 7.3 million tons of wheat from the United States to 
be exported to the China mainland each year, it is a ``complete 
misunderstanding'' to expect this grain to actually enter the country. 
The Chinese negotiator said that in its agreement with the United 
States, Beijing only conceded ``a theoretical opportunity for the 
export of grain from the United States.'' We are suckers.

  And yet, in the face of all of this contradiction by the Chinese, the 
Clinton Administration actually expects us all to believe that the 
bilateral agreement, PNTR and the WTO will magically force the Chinese 
government to shred its own national agenda, disregard its own needs 
and interests, even risk its own viability, in order to live up to an 
agreement with the United States. How naive can we be?
  If anyone actually believes that, then let me introduce you to the 
tooth fairy; Tinkerbell; Mr. Ed, the talking horse; Snow White; the 
seven dwarfs; and Harvey, the invisible six foot rabbit.
  This Senate and the administration--by all means, this 
administration--should pay a little more attention to history.
  Let us look again for a moment at the history of NAFTA. From the time 
of the North America Free Trade Agreement took effect in 1994 through 
1998, the net export deficit with Mexico and Canada has grown. Over 
440,000 American jobs have been destroyed as a result of this growth.
  Although gross U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada have shown a 
dramatic increase--with real growth of 92.1 percent with Mexico and 
56.9 percent to Canada, that is only half the picture. Let us turn the 
corner. It is like knowing only one team's score or looking at only one 
side of the coin. We have to look at the other side of the coin to know 
who is winning; namely, what are we importing from Mexico?
  The increases in U.S. exports have been overwhelmed by what we import 
from Mexico. Those imports have shot up 139.3 percent from Mexico and 
58.8 percent from Canada. In 1993, before NAFTA was in effect, we had a 
net export deficit with our NAFTA partners of $18.2 billion. From 1993 
to 1998 that same net deficit increased by 160 percent to $47.3 
billion, resulting in job losses to American workers The first year 
NAFTA took effect, foreign direct investment in Mexico increased by 150 
percent. Foreign direct investment in Canada has more than doubled 
since 1993.
  Those are American workers' jobs that are flying like geese--we have 
heard the wild geese flit across the sky on their way south--across the 
borders. Factories move over the border to take advantage of cheap 
labor costs, and they take good-paying American jobs with them.

  But, Senator Byrd, you may say, unemployment in the United States is 
at 4.1 percent. Our people have jobs. Our unemployment is very low. The 
answer to that question lies in a closer scrutiny of the composition of 
U.S. employment. Good paying jobs with good benefits, largely in the 
manufacturing sector, are leaving our shores and being replaced by low 
skill, low wage jobs in the services sector. There is a hidden agenda 
that becomes apparent if one remembers the lessons of NAFTA and then 
ponders PNTR with China. You heard them say at the convention: You 
ain't seen nothing yet? Well, you ain't see nothing yet. Against that 
backdrop, it becomes more than clear where we are headed. We have been 
here before.
  The objective for U.S. business is not access to the Chinese domestic 
consumer market. Forget it. They cannot afford our goods. The objective 
is the business-friendly, pollution-friendly climate in China, which is 
advantageous for moving production off U.S. shores and then selling 
goods, now made in China, back to the United States--selling goods made 
by American manufacturers that move overseas back to the United States.
  Are we really going to expect anything different from a deal with the 
Chinese? Our trade deficit reached $340 billion in 1999. China accounts 
for 20 percent of the total U.S. trade deficit. A U.S. International 
Trade Commission report stresses that China's WTO entry would 
significantly increase investment by U.S. multinationals inside China. 
Additionally, the composition of Chinese imports has changed over the 
last 10 years. In 1989, only 30 percent of what we imported from China 
competed with our high-wage, high-skilled industries here in the U.S. 
By 1999, that percentage had risen to 50 percent.
  The unvarnished, unmitigated, ungussied up truth is that American 
companies are eagerly eyeing China as an important production base for 
high-tech products. And these made-in-China goods are displacing goods 
made in the good ole USA, Additionally, most U.S. manufacturing in 
China is produced in conjunction with Chinese government agencies and 
state-owned companies. So much for the claim that U.S. corporate 
activity in China benefits Chinese entrepreneurs, and will lead to 
privatization and, lo and behold, the emergence of a democratic China. 
Get it? The emergence of a democratic China.
  If all this were not enough, a Senate report, made public last week, 
charged the Chinese government with consistently failing ``to adhere to 
its nonproliferation commitments.'' In addition to outlining numerous 
instances of Chinese weapons sales to Iran, Libya, and North Korea, the 
report states, ``In many instances, Beijing merely mouths promises as a 
means of evading sanctions.''
  Yet Senator Thompson only got 32 votes in favor of his amendment, 
which would have given the Congress a role in monitoring China's 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  Senators, I could go on and on and on, but I believe there is more 
than ample evidence that to grant PNTR to China at this time is very 
unwise. The signal we send by granting PNTR now is a signal of abject 
weakness. It is a signal of greed. It is a signal of ambivalence on the 
issue of nonproliferation. It is a signal of total disregard for the 
overwhelming evidence that the Chinese Government will not keep its 
word.
  I fear that the benefits claimed to be derived from PNTR are really 
only PR from the White House. They are selling us soap and we are 
lathering up. We are risking a lot on the unfulfilled promises 
contained in the so-called bilateral trade agreement with China. Of 
course, the price for that deal was the administration's commitment to 
China that they could get PNTR through the Congress this year. It is a 
package deal--a

[[Page S8684]]

nice little wagonload of a Chinese signature on the bilateral trade 
agreement and an unencumbered PNTR present from the Congress. The only 
problem is that the wagon might be riding on Firestone tires. Shouldn't 
we Senators use a little caution and put off climbing in that wagon? I 
am not getting on that wagon. Wouldn't it be more prudent to stay off 
that wagon? Wouldn't that be the right choice for our Nation's people, 
the right thing for our national security?
  This legislation--PNTR--can wait and it ought to wait. As far as this 
Senator's vote is concerned, it will wait.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I sat here and listened to my good friend 
from West Virginia on trade. I believe I should speak from a position 
of representing a State that has benefited immensely from the trade 
agreements that we have passed recently--the North American Free Trade 
Agreement and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs.
  Exports from the State of Colorado, which I represent, have increased 
dramatically. In fact, we have experienced the greatest growth in 
exports of any State in the Nation on a percentage basis. The economy 
of the State of Colorado is based greatly on agriculture. My friend 
from West Virginia talked about agriculture to a certain degree. We 
grow a lot of wheat. We raise a lot of livestock, and we do make an 
attempt to expand our markets to the Pacific rim countries, which 
includes China.
  We have a very modern economic base in the State. We work a lot on 
exporting high tech. Many high-tech companies do business in the State 
of Colorado. On a concentration basis, we have the highest 
concentration of high-tech employees of any State in the country. So we 
benefit from exporting goods, and the North American Free Trade 
Agreement has helped the State of Colorado, and GATT has also.
  I happen to think that an agreement with China for normal trade 
relations will help agriculture, and it will help States such as 
Colorado because these are markets where we can compete and have been 
competing.
  My colleague from West Virginia talked a considerable amount about 
the trade deficits we are experiencing in this country. I come at the 
trade deficit issue from a different perspective than my colleague from 
West Virginia. I have looked at what happened historically with trade 
deficits. If we look at the time of the Great Depression in this 
country, the trade deficits were low. If we look at the time when we 
were suffering, when we had the misery index--and this is at the latter 
part of the 1970s, during the Carter administration--the trade deficit 
was low. We had high double-digit unemployment. We had high double-
digit inflation, and we had high double-digit unemployment. But our 
trade deficit was low. I happen to believe when we look at the trade 
deficit, it is more of a reflection of what is happening economically 
in this country. Our country has experienced high trade deficits when 
our economy has been doing well, just like during the period of time we 
are in today.
  So the figures he presents to you on trade deficits, in reality, they 
do happen. What is the significance to the economy? I happen to believe 
it has the opposite impact. Many times, when people are evaluating the 
impact of the trade deficit, they look at it only from the perspective 
of one industry. If you look at the total economy, the total growth of 
jobs within this country, we benefit, in many cases, by importing 
products.
  How does that work? Let's take an automobile, for example. Some State 
may have a company--maybe in Michigan, for example--that could be 
impacted by trade policies. But does that have a net impact on jobs in 
the United States? Many times, when you take it into total 
consideration, there is a net gain because there are jobs--union jobs--
created when you have to unload those cars at our ports. There are jobs 
created when you have to clean up the cars when they come into the 
country. There are jobs created when you have to transport those cars 
across the country to get them to a point of sale. Somebody has to sell 
the cars. Jobs are created there. Somebody has to buy the cars. There 
is insurance sold in relation to the purchase of the car. Goods and 
services relating to that go into the marketplace. Those cars have to 
be maintained and operated and fixed. Many times, they go into a resale 
market at some point in their lifetime.

  These are all jobs that are created as a result of having imported 
that product. So I am convinced that our best policy is to work in a 
free market environment, and the problem we have right now is not that 
we don't place a lot of the tariffs and restrictions on Chinese goods 
coming into this country, but China is the one that is placing 
restrictions on our goods going into their country--particularly 
agricultural products and goods related to the high-tech industry. That 
is why I think this particular effort to create normal trade relations 
is beneficial. Isolationism doesn't work. Isolating a country and 
saying that is going to help human rights--I don't think that works. 
That is one reason why Taiwan, for example, supports our efforts to try 
to establish permanent normal trade relations with China.
  So I think that in order to prevent human abuse, to protect human 
rights, we need to open up China. When our business people go into 
China, they expect a certain standard. They just won't do business with 
Chinese companies without those standards. They will have to abide by 
their contracts. If somebody doesn't honor the contract, there has to 
be a court system of some type that will help enforce those contracts. 
And these all carry with them democratic principles.
  When Chinese businessmen interact with American businessmen, they 
will understand how the free enterprise system works, how democracy 
works. I think we export democracy when we enter into a free market 
agreement where we take down trade barriers and increase the 
interaction between countries--particularly when we are talking about a 
democratic county as opposed to a Communist one. They see there is a 
different way of doing things and prospering that yields benefits far 
and above what they have been told in a country where the leaders 
restrict information and restrict freedoms.
  I think it is important we pass this piece of legislation that says 
we will have permanent normal trade relations with China.
  I see my colleague from North Carolina.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I would be glad to yield to the Senator from West 
Virginia. But I also know that I have a colleague from North Carolina 
who would like to be recognized for some comments. I yield to my 
colleague from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator mentioned my name. That is why I am asking him 
to yield.
  I appreciate the fact that he has given us his viewpoint. My remarks 
were largely based on research that has been done by the Economic 
Policy Institute. It is dated November 1999. I am reading from a paper 
issued by the institute. It is headed with these words:

       NAFTA's pain deepens. Job destruction accelerates from 1999 
     with losses in every State.

  It shows Colorado as having a net NAFTA job loss of 3,625 jobs. It 
doesn't show as much for West Virginia as Colorado. West Virginia has a 
net NAFTA loss of 1,183 jobs.
  Let me say this to the Senator. I have been in Congress now 48 years. 
I have seen Democratic administrations, and I have seen Republican 
administrations. The kind of talk we just heard from this Senator--I 
respect him as a colleague, but I have to say this--is the same kind of 
talk I have been hearing from these administrations for 48 years. That 
is State Department talk. It is the same old State Department talk.
  I will say to this Senator, we are going to get taken to the 
cleaners. We have been taken to the cleaners all these 48 years by 
other countries. In these ventured agreements, our negotiators for some 
reason or other always come out second. We have been taken to the 
cleaners. We will be taken again.
  The Senator stated his opinion. That is this Senator's opinion, and 
it is based on 48 years of hearing this same line that emanates from--
--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has the floor.

[[Page S8685]]

  Mr. ALLARD. I ask the Senator to let me reclaim my time. I appreciate 
his comments. We have a Senator from North Carolina who would like to 
have an opportunity to speak. I think we are working under some time 
guidelines.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled.
  Mr. ALLARD. I would like to briefly respond. I am speaking from the 
experience of a Senator who represents a State that has benefited from 
free trade policy. It is not State Department talk, it is what we have 
seen economically. I wanted to respond, and I would like to yield my 
time to the Senator from North Carolina to be recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time did I use on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator used 22 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator from North Carolina need? I 
will yield him half of my time. I ask that time that has been absorbed 
in this colloquy come out of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Do I have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 25 minutes of his 30 
minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I reserve my 5 minutes.
  We will be taken to the cleaners again. Mark my word.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a chart prepared by 
the Economic Policy Institute on ``NAFTA job loss by State, 1993-98.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               TABLE 3.--NAFTA JOB LOSS BY STATE, 1993-98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Net NAFTA
                                                             job loss.--
                           State                             No. of jobs
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................      -11,594
Alaska.....................................................         -395
Arizona....................................................       -3,296
Arkansas...................................................       -6,663
California.................................................      -44,132
Colorado...................................................       -3,625
Connecticut................................................       -4,616
Delaware...................................................         -866
District of Columbia.......................................         -798
Florida....................................................      -13,841
Georgia....................................................      -15,784
Hawaii.....................................................         -907
Idaho......................................................       -1,397
Illinois...................................................      -16,980
Indiana....................................................      -21,063
Iowa.......................................................       -4,850
Kansas.....................................................       -3,452
Kentucky...................................................       -8,917
Louisiana..................................................       -3,245
Maine......................................................       -1,877
Maryland...................................................       -3,981
Massachusetts..............................................       -8,362
Michigan...................................................      -31,851
Minnesota..................................................       -6,345
Mississippi................................................       -8,245
Missouri...................................................      -10,758
Montana....................................................       -1,139
Nebraska...................................................       -1,751
Nevada.....................................................       -2,342
New Hampshire..............................................       -1,265
New Jersey.................................................      -11,045
New Mexico.................................................       -1,268
New York...................................................      -27,844
North Carolina.............................................      -24,118
North Dakota...............................................         -732
Ohio.......................................................      -19,098
Oklahoma...................................................       -3,018
Oregon.....................................................       -5,359
Pennsylvania...............................................      -20,918
Rhode Island...............................................       -4,234
South Carolina.............................................       -7,305
South Dakota...............................................       -1,217
Tennessee..................................................      -18,332
Texas......................................................      -18,752
Utah.......................................................       -2,973
Vermont....................................................         -597
Virginia...................................................       -9,797
Washington.................................................       -8,331
West Virginia..............................................       -1,183
Wisconsin..................................................       -9,314
Wyoming....................................................         -402
    U.S. total.............................................     -440,172
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \1\Excluding effects on wholesale and retail trade and advertising.
 
 \2\Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau
  data.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair for recognizing me. In a moment, I hope 
the Chair will allow me the privilege of making my remarks seated at my 
desk. But I want to say that Senator Byrd says he has been here 38 
years.
  Mr. BYRD. Forty-eight years.
  Mr. HELMS. Forty-eight years. I have only been here 28 years, and I 
have the same opinion the Senator does about the State Department. I 
have said many times how proud I am that the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia is a native of North Carolina because he was born there. 
He moved at a very early age to West Virginia, a State which he has 
represented ably. But I admire the Senator for many reasons. We don't 
always agree. But I will tell you one thing. This Senator is dedicated. 
When I say ``this Senator,'' I mean Senator Robert C. Byrd of West 
Virginia. He is dedicated to the proposition that this Senate shall 
operate in an orderly way. He made some remarks today about the unusual 
character of the way the voting time on this measure was arranged, and 
I objected to it as he did. I think it ill becomes the Senate. I hope 
it never happens again.
  Mr. President, if I may take my seat.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair wishes to know who yields time.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today the Senate----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend for a moment, the 
Chair needs to know whose time this time is coming from.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield my 5 remaining minutes to the Senator from North 
Carolina. I don't have control of the time other than that.
  Mr. HELMS. I thought I had gained the floor in my own right. But I 
appreciate that very much. I will not take long in any case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time comes from Senator Lott's 
time.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will reach the 
end of the debate on H.R. 4444, a bill to legislate permanent normal 
trade relations to and with the People's Republic of China.
  The debate, yes, will end this afternoon. But I can assure you that 
just now beginning is a debate about the future of United States and 
China relations.
  The outcome of today's vote was well known long before the first 
syllable of debate resulted. I recall the objection stated by Senator 
Byrd, and I objected to the procedure as well because it was a pro 
forma action about how the consideration of H.R. 4444 was going to be 
conducted and the concluding result was to be final passage without 
even one amendment to be added.
  I don't think that is becoming of the Senate, but I shall not refer 
to the Senate's posture as a conspiracy, but it is a first cousin to 
one, and I remain exceedingly troubled by what has transpired. I 
fervently hope it never happens to the Senate again.
  The outcome of this debate was decided before any Senator even sought 
to be recognized by the Presiding Officer to make his or her case for 
or against PNTR. But all that aside, the Senate will shortly vote, and 
I trust that all Senators' votes will be cast with the courage of their 
real convictions and not convictions determined by others for them.
  I commend my friend, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth, and the 
Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, for their defense of ``their'' 
bill. Both Bill Roth and Pat Moynihan have been exceedingly 
accommodating to me and to other Senators.
  But there was a stacked deck that guaranteed approval of H.R. 4444. 
It was evident from the start. I shall always be grateful to Senators 
who endeavored to ensure a serious debate, and for their courage and 
resolve.
  I express my admiration to, among others, Senator Byrd and Senator 
Thompson, Senators Bob Smith, John Kyl, Paul Wellstone. These Senators 
were Churchillian in their efforts. Sir Winston Churchill demonstrated 
seven or eight decades ago that there would be no stacked deck when he 
courageously called for a principled confrontation against the 
despotism of Nazi Germany.
  In the course of the Senate's debate, we did succeed in making an 
indisputable record concerning the deplorable state of human rights in 
China. And we did succeed in exposing the heinous practice of forced 
abortion. And we did succeed in focusing the attention of our Nation, 
and I think of the world, on the peril of China's proliferation.
  If I may again mention Mr. Churchill, the press paid him scant 
attention when he cast his warnings about the trip of the Prime 
Minister of Great Britain to Munich where he met with Adolph Hitler, 
and then came back to London for a big press conference proclaiming 
``Peace in our time.'' Mr. Chamberlain proclaimed that that fellow 
Hitler was someone the British people could live with.

[[Page S8686]]

  Mr. President, I sincerely fear that this bill will have serious 
consequences because of its profound implications for the future of 
U.S.-China relations, relations totally unlike the happy ones described 
by the bill's advocates.
  The interests of various American businesses will, no doubt, be 
served, but to those of us who have worked in the Senate Chamber during 
this debate, it is highly questionable whether the national interests 
of either the United States or the interests of the people of China--
the people of China--will be served.
  As I mention ever so often, when I was a little boy I was interested 
in the Chinese people and their culture. That interst grew as the years 
went by. During my 28 years as a U.S. Senator, I have met with and 
worked with hundreds of Chinese students, delightful young people, 
bright and without exception having expressed profound hopes and 
prayers that their homeland can one day enjoy the freedom that the 
American people have by inheritance.
  So clearly and without a trace of equivocation, I have the deepest 
admiration for the Chinese people--I repeat that for emphasis--and it 
is my fervent hope and my prayer that one day they will be freed from 
the brutal dictatorship that now controls their lives.
  I sincerely believe that the majority of the American people share 
that feeling. I have had people stop me in the corridors. Just a few 
moments ago, I had the Commander of the American Legion from my State 
stopped me to say that he agreed with my position. I hear it over and 
over--in the mail we receive, in the e-mail, the faxes and letters.
  Mr. President, there is unquestionably an enormous potential for a 
deep and lasting relationship of respect between the people of our 
country and the people of China. I have long been convinced that what 
separates us is not animosity between our peoples.
  It is the Communist dictatorship in Beijing which neither speaks for, 
nor rules by, the consent of the Chinese people.
  Today in China, millions of courageous people struggle for democracy 
and for religious freedom and for basic human rights. Because when they 
dare to do so, they are beaten and they are jailed; they are tortured 
and often murdered. It is for these freedom-seeking Chinese that I 
stand here today.
  Their interests, not the interests of corporate America, are my 
priority. And that is why I have not been able to support H.R. 4444. 
Mr. President, there are many bureaucratic contacts and exchanges 
between the U.S. and the Chinese Government. Some of my good friends, 
and friends of many of us in this Senate, have traveled to China time 
and time again, exchanged toasts with Chinese Communist leaders, 
clinked glasses of wine; but the attitude of the Communist Government 
has never changed.
  It still throws decent Chinese citizens in jail. It still denies the 
Chinese people the most basic political liberties. So giving permanent 
normal trade relations to the Government of China will indeed destroy 
an important lever that we now have, and have had, to influence Chinese 
behavior. We are tossing it aside.
  The advocates of PNTR have repeatedly declared that this enactment 
will help the cause of democracy and human rights in China. Those 
declarations will now be put to the test and the ball will be in the 
court of Beijing. With today's vote, the Chinese Government is being 
given an historic opportunity to change the course of U.S.-Chinese 
relations for the good.
  The Chinese Government has not confronted such a challenge since 
Beijing's tragic decision--remember--in Tiananmen Square, when a tank 
crushed a peaceful student protest, crushed that young man into paste. 
That was 11 years ago and nothing has changed since.
  To seize upon this moment and make me be proven wrong, China must act 
quickly, not merely to open its markets as required under the agreement 
with the United States but open its society as well, to demonstrate a 
commitment to humane treatment of its people at home, and a more benign 
and peaceful approach to its relationship with its neighboring 
countries. The Chinese Government must cease the suppression of 
religious liberties.

  Even the Washington Post commented on that this morning in a well-
written, well-thought-out editorial. The Chinese Government must put an 
end to the abhorrent practice of forced abortion. And with regard to 
the democratic Government of Taiwan, China must demonstrate that it is 
committed to peaceful dialog as being the only option for resolving 
differences between Taiwan and the Communist mainland.
  Mr. President, I would be less than honest if I did not confess my 
great apprehension that there will be little if any real change by the 
Chinese Government as a result of our passing this measure. But if real 
change is to take place, the United States must more aggressively 
support the aspirations of the hundreds of millions of Chinese people 
who want their homeland to become a nation that is both great and good.
  We must reach out to those people who are struggling for a freer, 
more open and more democratic China, and make clear to them that the 
American people stand with them. We must make clear to the Chinese 
Government that it will not be in their interests to continue their 
oppression of their own people, that in the long run totalitarian 
dictatorship cannot be tolerated.
  So if the advocates of PNTR prove to be wrong, and if nothing changes 
in China in the wake of the Senate's final approval of PNTR this 
afternoon, I will devote whatever strength and influence I may possess 
to limit any and all conceivable benefits that this legislation may 
hold for the Chinese Communist Government.
  I am nearly through, but I want to emphasize that, like many others 
in the Senate, I am a father and a grandfather. I am a grandfather who 
yearns for a peaceful world for my family and for all Americans.
  Better relations with China are an important hope of a peaceful 
world, but not better relations at any price. Too often in history, 
some of the world's great democracies have sought to coexist with, even 
to appease, dangerous and tyrannical regimes.
  I mentioned at the outset Winston Churchill, who took his stand 
against his country's Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who had 
visited with Adolf Hitler in Munich, then returning to London 
proclaiming there would be ``peace in our time'' and that Britain need 
not fear Nazi Germany.
  There was that one man who stood up and said no, Winston Churchill, 
who was to lead the free world into combat in one of the worst 
tyrannies history has ever known.
  We must not repeat the mistake of Britain's Prime Minister seven 
decades ago. I have absolutely nothing against American business men 
and women making a profit. I want them to make a profit. I believe in 
the free enterprise system. I believe I have demonstrated that in all 
of my career.
  But the safety and security of the American people must come first 
through the principles of this country which were laid down by our 
Founding Fathers. That safety and security will be assured ultimately 
not by appeasement, not by the hope of trade at any cost, but by 
dealing with Communist China without selling out the very moral and 
spiritual principles that made America great in the first place.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very pleased we are about to complete 
the debate on PNTR and are about to take the final vote. It has been a 
good debate. It has been a time when the American people have had an 
opportunity to learn more about what PNTR for China actually will be.
  There are good arguments on all sides, but I am quite happy, frankly, 
that now we are at the end of this long process, finally the United 
States will grant permanent normal trade relations to China. We are 
finally putting that issue to bed, and some side issues, too, have been 
put off to the side, as important as they are.
  Many of the issues raised on the Senate floor not directly relevant 
to PNTR have been very good ones. Proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, human rights, religion freedom, environment, prison labor, 
Taiwan-PRC relationship are very important matters that, in some cases, 
go to the heart of American policy. They are clearly issues that need 
to be debated and resolved. The United States has a very important 
stake in all of them.

[[Page S8687]]

  Some of the amendments that have been proposed to PNTR in these last 
few weeks have been good ones; others, not so good. Fortunately, a 
majority of my colleagues opposed all amendments to the PNTR bill, even 
when we agreed with the underlying concerns. Why? Basically because any 
amendment that would be part of PNTR would be killer amendments due to 
the very short number of remaining days in this session. Because of 
Presidential politics, which is engulfing us to some degree, it is much 
more prudent not to adopt amendments at this time. In the next 
Congress, we will have an opportunity to deal with these issues. I hope 
we can deal with them, particularly based on the merits.

  I want to take a moment to discuss what will happen after the PNTR 
vote. It is more to remind ourselves that despite the successful 
conclusion of the debate, when the votes are counted later today, they 
will not create a single job. Our votes will not sell a single bushel 
of wheat. Rather, PNTR is an enabler. It is a vital enabler. It enables 
American businesses and American people to do much more than they can 
now do.
  The immediate next step of completion of PNTR is completion of 
negotiations in Geneva on the Protocol of Accession and the Working 
Party Report to the WTO General Council. Once China formally accedes--
that is, becomes a member of WTO--we Americans will remove China from 
the restrictions of the Jackson-Vanik legislation. That is when it 
happens. At that point, the American private sector has to take 
advantage of the immense new opportunities afforded by China's 
membership in the WTO.
  Passage of PNTR will be one for the history books with profound 
implications for the United States. Once it passes, we Americans have 
to put our shoulders to the wheel. We have to follow up. American 
industry has to follow up. The American Government has to follow up in 
a way that we enable ourselves to maximize potential benefits to our 
service providers and to our manufacturers. We have to take matters in 
our own hands. We have to take advantage of this. The same is true for 
the U.S. Government at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, the executive 
branch as well as the legislative branch. We need to watch China and 
monitor China's compliance to make sure this agreement is implemented.
  I am reminded of another agreement we had earlier with China --that 
is the intellectual property rights agreement--because some Chinese 
firms were pirating America's films, CDs, cassettes, and other 
intellectual property created in the United States. We finally urged 
China to pass a law making the pirating of intellectual property 
illegal in China. China passed the law. The problem is they did not 
implement it. We had to go back and encourage implementation. We may 
face the same problems here. I hope not. It is possible.
  As we move ahead, we must never forget how multifaceted our 
relationship with China is. That means we must aggressively address the 
many important issues raised in the PNTR debate. As important as those 
issues are, they should not be on the bill, but they still indicate the 
multifaceted nature of our relationship with China.
  One major area is focusing on our strategic architecture in Asia. 
Assuring stability in the region, helping maintain peace and 
prosperity, and a presence of American troops are vital factors, as are 
other major strategic questions. They are extremely important. All 
parts of our relationship with China and passage of PNTR raise the 
probability we will be more successful in that area.
  We must also take measures to help incorporate China positively into 
the region, and we must encourage China into the role of a responsible 
actor, both in the Asian region and globally.
  The growth in commercial and economic activity now developing between 
us and China should form a pillar on which we can build a stable 
relationship. There are no guarantees. There never are guarantees in 
life. One has to do the best with what one has, with the resources one 
has available. Passage of PNTR gives us more resources. It is an 
enabler to help us increase the probability of a stronger commercial 
and economic relationship to help form that pillar. Again, there is no 
guarantee.
  We must also try to avoid the constant ups and downs that have 
characterized the bilateral relationship over the past 30 years.
  I am not going to stand here and chronicle the volatility of the ups 
and downs, but I do think it is important for us to lop off the peaks 
and the valleys in this somewhat volatile relationship with China as 
best we can, recognizing that we are only one side of the equation and 
China, of course, is the other.
  But the more we try and the more we engage them at lots of different 
levels--whether it is trade, artistic exchanges, cultural exchanges, or 
military exchanges--the more likely it is we will not have to be so 
involved in this volatile activity. That means a stronger economic 
relationship between our two countries, which I think will be a major 
consequence of the passage of this bill.
  I thank all my colleagues. This is going to be a good, solid vote. It 
is going to indicate that the United States is a player in the world 
community, that the United States is not retrenching itself, but moving 
forward, and that the United States is living up to its 
responsibilities as the leader, frankly, of the world in a way that is 
positive, constructive, and exercising its constructive roles. I am 
very proud of the action the Senate is about to take.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am prepared to support PNTR for China, 
but I still have reservations about China's willingness to fulfill its 
previous trade commitments particularly as it pertains to insurance.
  First, I want to express my appreciation to President Clinton and 
Ambassador Barshevsky who have been forceful advocates in ensuring that 
China keeps its end of the bargain and fully implements the 1999 
bilateral agreement between our two nations. Last week, President 
Clinton and President Jiang Zemin held a frank and detailed discussion 
about China keeping its commitment to allow U.S. insurers to expand in 
China under the grandfathered right to operate through their current 
branch structure.
  In response, President Jiang pledged that China will ``honor its 
commitments to further opening its domestic market'' to grandfathered 
insurance companies. This is a positive, but still ambiguous statement 
which I hope the Chinese president will clarify. And in clarifying his 
position, I hope President Jiang understands that should U.S. insurers 
be denied the grandfathered rights to branch in China, it would result 
in a serious degradation of the ``terms and conditions'' for insurance 
that were negotiated by USTR last November.
  The problem extends beyond insurance to the heart of the PNTR 
agreement. Should PNTR become law, the President must certify:

       . . . that the terms and conditions for the accession of 
     the People's Republic of China to the World Trade 
     Organization are at least equivalent to those agreed between 
     the United States and People's Republic of China on November 
     15, 1999.

  Anything less than full compliance in honoring China's commitment to 
grandfather U.S. insurers' branching rights will inhibit the 
President's ability to certify that the equivalent requirement has been 
met.
  Every business that trades with China is looking to see how this 
matter is resolved because they need to know that trade agreements will 
truly be followed. If China wants to engage in the free market, its 
leaders must know that trade agreements are not arbitrary documents but 
ironclad commitments.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in expressing 
support for passage of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. 
This is the right thing to do for the country, and it is the right 
thing to do for my state of North Dakota.
  I think it is important at the outset to make it clear what this vote 
is about--and what it is not about. This vote is about making sure that 
U.S. farmers, businesses, and workers receive the benefits of China's 
accession to the World Trade Organization. The agreement on China's 
accession is a clear win for the United States. China has made 
concession after concession, lowering tariffs and removing other 
barriers to U.S. exports. The U.S. has made no such concessions. But if 
we

[[Page S8688]]

fail to pass Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, we will not be 
able to take full advantage of these opportunities but will instead 
cede them to our competitors.
  There has been a lot of misleading talk and innuendo about what PNTR 
really means. PNTR is not a special privilege, and it does not signify 
our approval of China's domestic or foreign policies. In fact, we 
continue to have many differences with China that we can and should 
work vigorously to resolve. PNTR would simply grant China the same 
trading status that the United States has with more than 130 other 
countries around the world: nothing more, nothing less. And it would 
grant China the same status going forward that it has had continuously 
for the last twenty years. The only change is that the Congress no 
longer would hold an annual vote on China's trade status, a vote that 
has never denied China Normal Trade Relations but that has set back our 
efforts to engage China on human rights and other issues.
  The PNTR debate is primarily about trade, so let me start by talking 
about the trade benefits for our country. As my colleagues know, this 
vote is not about whether China should be part of the WTO. There is no 
question that China will join the WTO. The only question is whether the 
United States will reap the benefits of the many concessions China has 
made, or whether our farmers, businesses and workers will be left out. 
That would be a profound mistake.
  China has the world's largest population: 1.3 billion potential 
customers for American products. For years, our market has been open to 
Chinese imports, but China's market has largely been closed to our 
products. This agreement will open China's market to our exports. And 
this is a market that has terrific growth potential. China's economy is 
the fastest growing in the world, and China's expanding middle class 
will demand more and more imports of American consumer goods.
  The agreement reached last November allows us unprecedented access to 
this huge and growing market. On manufactured goods, tariffs will fall 
from a current average of nearly 25 percent to less than ten percent. 
On services, China has agreed to phase out a broad array of laws 
regulations and policies that have blocked U.S. firms from competing in 
this growing market.
  But I am especially pleased at the prospects for increased 
agricultural exports. Around the world, average tariffs on U.S. 
agricultural exports are more than 40 percent. China is slashing its 
tariffs to far below this average: 17.5 percent. And on U.S. priority 
products--the products that we produce for export--the average Chinese 
tariff will fall to just 14 percent. For bulk commodities the agreement 
establishes generous tariff rate quotas. For example, on wheat, a major 
export product for North Dakota, China will allow imports of 7.3 
million metric tons initially (growing to 9.6 million tons by 2004) 
subject to a tariff of just 1 percent. In addition, China has agreed to 
changes in its administration of tariff rate quotas that will prevent 
state trading monopolies from blocking imports if there is private 
sector demand for wheat.

  For my State of North Dakota, the agreement provides new export 
opportunities for wheat, for oilseeds, including canola, and for beef 
and pork products. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated 
that this agreement could add $1.6 billion annually to U.S. exports of 
grains, oilseeds and cotton in just five years. Additional growth 
opportunities for North Dakota agricultural exports will come as China 
reduces its tariffs on beef (from 45 percent today to 12 percent by 
2004) and pork (from 20 percent to 12 percent). Finally, the China 
agreement provides additional leverage for U.S. goals in the ongoing 
WTO negotiations on agriculture. China has agreed to eliminate export 
subsidies, to cap and reduce domestic subsidies, and to provide the 
right to import and distribute products without going through state 
trading enterprises.
  There can be no question that this agreement will create expanded 
export opportunities for American workers, farmers and businesses. But 
the key word here is ``opportunities.'' This agreement creates 
wonderful opportunities for North Dakota agriculture, but it is not a 
silver bullet. This agreement will not solve all of our trade problems 
with China. Nor will the results come overnight. We will need to work 
aggressively year after year to take advantage of these opportunities 
and turn them into results. And we will need to closely monitor China's 
implementation of its commitments.
  In that vein, I am very pleased that the legislation we are 
considering includes provisions I strongly supported to ensure that the 
Federal government monitors and enforces China's WTO accession 
agreement. And I am hopeful that the WTO's multilateral dispute 
resolution system will be more successful than our past unilateral 
efforts to hold China to its commitments. The simple fact is that the 
current system has not worked well. There has been no neutral 
arbitrator to resolve disputes. As a result, U.S. firms have been very 
reluctant for the U.S. to take action against China because of Chinese 
threats to retaliate against American business. With China in the WTO, 
we will have the advantage of a neutral dispute resolution system and 
rules to guard against Chinese retaliation.
  In my view, the trade benefits alone are enough to conclude that we 
should support PNTR for China. But this debate is about more than just 
trade. It is about human rights and national security as well. I 
believe bringing China into the WTO and passing PNTR is the best way to 
improve human rights in China. Clearly, our current annual debate over 
Normal Trade Relations has had little effect on human rights in China. 
Bringing China into the WTO, though, will increase the openness of 
Chinese society. It will increase the presence of American and other 
Western firms in China. It will open China to the InterNet and other 
advanced telecommunications technologies that, over time, will expose 
average Chinese to our thoughts, values, and ideals on human rights, 
workers' rights and democracy.
  This is not just my view. It is a view shared by numerous prominent 
Chinese dissidents and religious and democratic leaders. They believe 
that rejecting PNTR will only strengthen the iron hand of the hard-
liners in the Chinese leadership. For example, Bao Tong, a prominent 
dissident, was quoted in the Washington Post saying that attempts to 
use trade sanctions on human rights simply do not work: ``I appreciate 
the efforts of friends and colleagues to help our human rights 
situation, but it doesn't make sense to use trade as a lever. It just 
doesn't work,'' Mr. Bao said. Similarly, Dai Qing, a leading Chinese 
environmentalist, argues that passing PNTR ``would put enormous 
pressure on both the government and the general public to meet the 
international standard not only on trade, but on other issues including 
human rights and environmental protection.'' Finally, the Dalai Lama 
has said that ``joining the World Trade Organization, I think, is one 
way to change in the right direction. . . . In the long run, certainly 
it will be positive for Tibet. Forces of democracy in China get more 
encouragement through that way.''
  Finally, I believe that passing PNTR will promote our national 
security interests. History teaches us that conflicts among trading 
partners are less likely than conflicts between countries that do not 
have strong economic ties. In contrast, rejecting PNTR could send a 
strong signal to China that the U.S. wants to isolate China. A hostile 
China is not in our national interest. A China integrated into the 
international system, obeying international rules and norms, is.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, the arguments in favor of PNTR for 
China are very strong. Passing PNTR advances America's interests in 
Asia and the world. It is good for our national economy, and it is 
particularly good for my state's agricultural economy. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in sending a strong bipartisan message of 
support for China's accession to the WTO.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this has been a very difficult debate for 
all of us in the Senate who care about labor rights, about human 
rights, and about the environment in China.
  These issues are important, and we can't ignore them. I especially 
commend the many leaders throughout the country on labor issues, human 
rights issues, and environmental issues for

[[Page S8689]]

stating their case and their concerns on these challenges so eloquently 
and effectively. It's clear that we must do more than this agreement 
does to make sure that free trade is also fair--that it improves the 
quality of life of people everywhere, and creates good jobs here at 
home.
  The demonstrations at last year's WTO negotiations in Seattle and in 
other cities since then show that we must pay much greater attention to 
these concerns. Too often the current system of trade enriches multi-
national corporations at the expense of working families, leaving 
workers without jobs and without voices in the new global economy. Too 
many companies export high-wage, full-benefit jobs from our country and 
replace them with lower-paying jobs in the third world countries with 
few, if any, benefits.
  For too many families across America, globalization has become a 
``race to the bottom'' in wages, benefits, and living standards. In 
recent years, corporate stock prices have often increased in almost 
direct proportion to employee layoffs, benefit reductions, and job 
exports. This growing inequality threatens our own economic growth and 
prosperity, and we must do all we can to end it.
  I am also very concerned about a trade deficit that continues to grow 
at an alarming pace. In this historic time of economic prosperity, the 
trade deficit remains one of the most stubborn challenges we face. 
While the current trade deficit is clearly a sign that the U.S. economy 
is the strongest economy in the world, we cannot sustain this enormous 
negative balance of trade for the long term. We risk losing even more 
of our industrial and manufacturing base to foreign countries with 
lower labor standards.
  Similarly, all of us who care about human rights and environmental 
rights must find more effective ways to address these concerns. The 
flagrant violations of human rights that continue to take place in 
China are unacceptable. And so is the callous disregard of the 
environment by that nation as its economy advances.
  The answer to these festering problems is to give these fundamental 
issues a fair place at international bargaining tables. Clearly, we do 
not do enough for labor rights, human rights, and the environment when 
we negotiate trade agreements.
  I intend to vote for this agreement, however--as flawed as it is--
because I am concerned that the alternative would be even less 
satisfactory. But I welcome the Administration's commitment to give 
these other issues higher priority in future trade negotiations, and I 
look forward to working to achieve these essential goals.
  The global marketplace is a reality, and the United States stands to 
gain much more by participating in it than by rejecting it. I'm hopeful 
that we will be able to work together in the future on these basic 
issues in ways that bring us together, not divide us.
  It is especially significant that all of the economic concessions 
made in this agreement are made by China. It will not change our own 
market access policies at all. The concessions that China has made are 
substantial, and President Clinton and his Administration deserve 
credit for this success. In particular, US Trade Representative 
Charlene Barshefsky did a excellent job negotiating this agreement for 
the United States.
  By approving PNTR, Congress is not deciding to accept China into the 
World Trade Organization. China will join the WTO regardless of our 
vote in Congress. What Congress is deciding is whether to accept or 
reject the extraordinary economic concessions that China has offered to 
the United States. If we reject PNTR, we reject the bulk of the 
concessions that China reluctantly made. We would be allowing China to 
keep its barriers up--and we might well be inviting the WTO to impose 
sanctions against us for not playing by the rules we agreed to.
  Within five years, under this agreement, China will completely end 
its tariffs on information technology. It will eliminate its 
geographical limitations on the sale of financial services and 
insurance. It will do away with quotas on products such as fiber-optic 
cable. And it will end the requirement to hire a Chinese government 
``middle-man'' to sell and distribute products and services in China. 
These are major concessions that no one could have predicted even two 
years ago.
  China has also agreed to eliminate export subsidies. The inefficient, 
state-owned industries in China will no longer be able to rely on 
government support to stay afloat. They will be required to compete on 
a level playing field. China has agreed that its state-owned industries 
will make decisions on purely commercial terms, and will allow US 
companies to operate on the same terms.
  The agreement also contains strong provisions against unfair trade 
and import surges. We will have at our disposal effective measures to 
prevent the dumping of subsidized products into American markets for 
years to come. The agreement contains strong and immediate protections 
for intellectual property rights, which will benefit important US 
industries such as software, medical technology, and publishing. Strong 
protections are also included against forced technology transfer from 
private companies to the Chinese government--a provision that has 
benefits for both commercial enterprises and national security.
  All of these protections and concessions will be lost if Congress 
fails to pass PNTR. Rejection of this agreement would put American 
businesses and workers at a major disadvantage with our competitors in 
Europe and in many other nations in securing access to the largest 
market in the world.
  One out of every ten jobs in Massachusetts is dependent upon exports, 
and that number is increasing. If we accept the concessions that China 
has given us, companies in cities and towns across the state will be 
more competitive. More exports will be stimulated, and more jobs will 
be created here at home.
  It is clear that many of our businesses will reap significant 
benefits from this trade agreement. But it is also clear that some 
businesses and workers will be hurt by it as well. It is our 
responsibility to do everything we can to reduce the harm that free 
trade creates. We must strengthen trade adjustment assistance and 
worker training programs. As we open our doors wider to the global 
economy, we must do much more to ensure that American workers are ready 
to compete. We must make the education and training of our workforce a 
higher priority as we ask our citizens to compete with workers across 
the globe. Importing skilled foreign labor is no substitute for fully 
developing the potential of our domestic workforce. The growth in the 
global marketplace makes education and training more important than 
ever.
  We need to create high-tech training opportunities on a much larger 
scale for American workers who currently hold relatively low-paying 
jobs and wish to obtain new skills to enhance their employability and 
improve their earning potential. As the economy becomes more global and 
more competitive, it would be irresponsible to open the doors to new 
foreign competition, without giving our own workers the skills they 
need to compete and excel. I'm very hopeful that passage of this 
agreement will provide a strong new incentive for more effective action 
by Congress on all these important issues.
  The issue of PNTR also involves major foreign policy and national 
security considerations. When China joins the World Trade Organization, 
it will be required to abide by the rules and regulations of the 
international community. The Chinese government will be obligated to 
publish laws and regulations and to submit important decisions to 
international review. By integrating China into this global, rules-
based system, the international community will have procedures never 
available in the past to hold the government of China accountable for 
its actions, and to promote the development of the rule of law in 
China.
  The WTO agreement will encourage China to continue its market reforms 
and support new economic freedoms. Already, 30 percent of the Chinese 
economy is privatized. Hard-line Chinese leaders fear that as China 
becomes more exposed to Western ideas, their grip on power will be 
weakened, along with their control over individual citizens.
  As the economic situation improves, China will be able to carry out 
broader

[[Page S8690]]

and deeper reforms. While economic reforms are unlikely to result 
immediately and directly in political reforms, they are likely to 
produce conditions that will be more conducive to democracy in China in 
the years ahead.
  All of us deplore China's abysmal record on human rights and labor 
rights and the environment, and we have watched with dismay as these 
abuses have continued. It is unlikely that approving PNTR will lead to 
an immediate and dramatic improvement in China's record on these 
fundamental issues. But after many years of debate, the pressure 
created by the annual vote on China's trade status has not solved those 
problems either.
  Approving PNTR leaves much to be desired on all of these essential 
issues. But on balance, I believe that it can be a realistic step 
toward achieving the long-sought freedoms that will benefit all the 
people of China. The last thing we need is a new Cold War with China.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the legislation 
pending before the Senate on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with 
China. I support this bill not only because it is in the best interest 
of American farmers, businesses, and consumers; but also because 
passage of PNTR is the best way for America to have a positive 
influence on China's domestic policies, including policies affecting 
basic human rights.
  I believe that this bill has been characterized by many of my 
esteemed colleagues as something that it is not--a reward to China 
despite its poor human rights record. Surely, we do not agree with the 
treatment of China's citizens, just as surely as we do not agree with 
so many other practices of the Chinese government. However, it is 
important to remember that China will become a member of the WTO no 
matter how we vote. If the Congress were to vote against Permanent 
Normal Trade Relations, many of our trading partners will receive the 
myriad benefits of trading with China, while our farmers, our 
businesses, . . . our citizens would be excluded.
  Furthermore, the interest we have in promoting human rights 
protection in China is not defeated with the passing of this bill. The 
Congress has used its annual review of Normal Trade Relations to push 
China to become more democratic, to treat its citizens with basic 
decency, and to discourage Chinese participation in the proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction. We now have the opportunity to assist 
our allies in bringing China into the world trading community. And by 
bringing China further into the global community, the real 
beneficiaries of PNTR, and eventual membership in the WTO, will be the 
Chinese people. The Chinese people will benefit from the new economic 
opportunities created by increased trade. The Chinese people will 
benefit from the spread of the rule of law, from increased governmental 
transparency, and from the economic freedom which will come as a 
consequence of China's membership in the WTO. Finally, passage of PNTR 
will make it much more likely that the Chinese people will have the 
opportunity to do what so many Chinese-Americans have done in the 
United States. By harnessing the power of individual innovation and by 
starting businesses, the Chinese people will be able to generate new 
wealth and new opportunities for themselves and their children.
  While the rewards of membership are evident, let us not overlook the 
responsibilities that come with membership in that community--
particularly the responsibilities that come with membership in the WTO. 
What better way to promote democracy in China, a nation that has long 
lacked a strong rule of law, than to encourage its participation in 
institutions, like the WTO, with strong dispute resolution mechanisms. 
Membership in the WTO will cause China to reexamine its legal 
infrastructure. Violating WTO agreements brings real consequences--the 
imposition of trade sanctions.
  This is a historic opportunity. We will soon be voting on one of the 
most important bills ever debated in this body. I will support 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China and I hope that my 
colleagues will recognize this bill's importance, and give it their 
support.
  Let me remind my colleagues that granting PNTR is not a reward for 
China, it is a reward for US farmers, businesses, and consumers. 
Passage of PNTR would allow the US to take advantage of the concessions 
agreed to by China in the bilateral agreement during its accession 
process. Tariffs for US goods will be drastically reduced.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4444, the 
U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000. This long-overdue legislation is an 
essential prerequisite to the advancement of U.S. interests in the Asia 
Pacific region, and I urge its prompt passage.
  The preceding two weeks have witnessed considerable debate on the 
floor of the Senate with respect to U.S.-China relations and the wisdom 
of granting permanent Normal Trade Relations status to the government 
in Beijing. Clearly, there are extraordinarily serious issues dividing 
the United States and China. Issues central to our national security 
and moral values continue to preclude the development of the kind of 
relationship many of us would have liked to have enjoyed with the 
world's most populous country. As long as China continues to engage in 
such abhorrent practices as forced abortions, the harvesting of human 
organs, repressive measures against people of faith and pro-democracy 
movements, and the proliferation of ballistic missiles and technology, 
there will continue to be considerable tension in our relationship.
  No one should attempt to minimize the significance of these 
activities. Their termination must be among our highest foreign policy 
priorities. Opponents of extending permanent normal trade relations 
status to China, however, are wrong to suggest that such a policy 
weakens our ability to address important issues that insult our values 
as a nation and impose tremendous suffering on many Chinese citizens. 
On the contrary, the economic relationship between the United States 
and China is a powerful tool for moving China in the direction we 
desire.
  There is considerable room for improvement in the human rights 
situation in China, and efforts at ending Chinese transfers of 
ballistic missile technology to other countries have been frustratingly 
ineffective. Denying permanent normal trade status for China, however, 
is not the answer. China does in fact represent a case for economic 
engagement as a mechanism for affecting political change. China's 
history, which cannot be divorced from discussions of contemporary 
Chinese developments, is quite illuminating in this respect. One of the 
world's oldest and proudest civilizations, China has nevertheless never 
known true democracy. Go back 3,000 years and trace its history to the 
present. It is only in the last quarter-century that the window has 
truly opened for those aspiring to a freer China.
  The economic reforms initiated by the late Premier Deng Xiao-ping 
began a process that has benefited millions of ordinary Chinese and has 
held out the greatest hope for prosperity and, ultimately, political 
freedom that country has ever known. The Chinese government, in fact, 
is struggling with the dichotomy between economic liberalization and 
political repression and is discovering to its dismay that it has 
irreconcilable interests. The United States, by maximizing its presence 
in China through commercial investment and trade, can be of 
immeasurable assistance to the Chinese population in ensuring that that 
conflict between economic growth and political repression is resolved 
in the direction of liberalization.
  Objective analysis strongly supports this assertion. Since the 
beginning of economic reform in 1979, China's economy has emerged as 
one of the fastest growing in the world. The World Bank calculates that 
as many as 200 million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty as a 
result of the government's economic reforms. A recent Congressional 
Research Service study noted that China will have more than 230 million 
middle-income consumers by 2005. Clearly, economic reform, fueled in 
large part by trade, is benefitting the average Chinese citizen. It is 
important that we enable American businesses to develop a presence in 
these markets now, so that they can both take advantage of future 
developments and so that American values and practices can better take 
hold and flourish.
  We should not be ashamed of the fact that our economy benefits by 
trade

[[Page S8691]]

with China. China's accession to the World Trade Organization, an 
inevitability given its importance as a market, will allow American 
companies to sell to Chinese consumers without the current arbitrary 
regulations. China will be forced to take steps to open its markets to 
U.S. goods and services that it has been reluctant to take in the past. 
These steps include major reductions in industrial tariffs from an 
average of 24 percent to an average of 9.4 percent; reductions in the 
tariffs on agricultural goods from an average of 31 percent to 14 
percent, as well as elimination of non-tariff barriers in agricultural 
imports; major openings in industries where China has been extremely 
reluctant to permit foreign investment, including telecommunications 
and financial services; and unprecedented levels of protection for 
intellectual property rights. In addition, the United States will be 
able to use the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO to force China 
to meet its obligations and open its markets to American goods.
  Opponents of engaging China in trade should be aware that membership 
in the World Trade Organization carries with it responsibilities that 
are at variance with Communist Party practice. That is why Martin Lee, 
chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, noted that China's 
participation in the WTO would ``bolster those in China who understand 
that the country must embrace the rule of law.'' Similarly, Wang Shan, 
a liberal political scientist, stated that ``undoubtedly [the China WTO 
agreement] will push political reform.'' And the former editor of the 
democratic journal Fangfa has written that ``if economic monopolies can 
be broken, controls in other areas can have breakthroughs as well . . . 
In the minds of ordinary people, it will show that breakthroughs that 
were impossible in the past are indeed possible.''
  Yes, we have serious concerns with Chinese behavior in a number of 
areas. As General Brent Scowcroft stated in a hearing before the 
Commerce Committee last April, however, the essential point is what is 
gained by denying China permanent normal trade relations status. We 
would not accomplish our foreign policy objectives in the Asia Pacific 
region, or within the realm of missile proliferation, by impeding trade 
with China. I supported the measure offered by Senator Thompson 
intended to address the issue of Chinese missile proliferation because 
of that issue's importance to our national security, but also because 
it was not intended as an anti-trade measure, as is the case with the 
other amendments offered to this bill.
  It is past time that the Senate passes permanent normal trade 
relations status for China. It is in America's interest, and in the 
interest of hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens. It is the right 
thing to do.
  I thank the President for this opportunity to address the Senate, and 
urge passage of the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senate is debating an important 
question with tremendous ramifications for our relationship with China 
and the American economy: whether to extend Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations status to China (PNTR).
  The opponents of PNTR argue that China is not worthy of receiving 
PNTR. They offer a laundry list of reasons. Its track record on human 
rights has not only not improved but has gotten worse. It continues to 
ignore commitments made in the nonproliferation area, particularly with 
respect to the spread of missile technology. Its intimidation of Taiwan 
continues, with little indication that Chinese leaders are prepared to 
avail themselves of Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian's offers to 
begin negotiations. Its compliance with existing agreements leave a lot 
to be desired. They speak passionately about those concerns. And these 
issues should never be overlooked in any thoughtful analysis of our 
relationship with China. They must productively be incorporated into a 
policy of engagement; but make no mistake: we must have a policy of 
engagement.
  I support PNTR and I intend to vote for it. I will admit to you that 
when I read recent press accounts of yet another crackdown on religious 
practitioners in China--this time members of a Christian sect called 
the China Fang-Cheng Church--and of the deaths of three Falung Gong 
members who have been imprisoned--I understood once more the temptation 
to reverse my position and vote against PNTR. But I am not going to do 
that Mr. President, because PNTR is not an effective tool for changing 
China's behavior at home or abroad--and as much as we detest the 
behavior in China with regard to religious freedom, it is not symbolic 
protest that will bring about change, but thoughtful approaches and a 
new and different kind of engagement--economic as well as diplomatic--
that will leverage real change in China in the years ahead .
  So let me say once more, there is no question that the issues raised 
by the opponents of PNTR are serious and real. We are all outraged by 
the repression of Chinese citizens who simply want to practice their 
spiritual beliefs or exercise political rights. But denying China PNTR 
will not force the Chinese leadership to cease its crackdown on 
religious believers or political dissidents. It will not force China to 
abide by the principles of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) 
or slow down its nuclear or military modernization, or reverse its 
position on Taiwan. Denying PNTR will NOT keep China out of the WTO. 
But I am certain that denying China PNTR will set back the broad range 
of U.S. interests at stake in our relationship with China and undermine 
our ability to promote those interests through engagement.
  China has the capacity to hinder or help us to advance our interests 
on a broad range of issues, including: nonproliferation, open markets 
and free trade, environmental protection, the promotion of human rights 
and democratic freedoms, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, Asian 
economic recovery, peace on the Korean peninsula and ultimately peace 
and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. It is only by engaging with 
China on all of these issues that we will make positive progress on any 
and thereby advance those interests and our security. Engagement does 
not guarantee that China will be a friend. But by integrating China 
into the international community through engagement, we minimize the 
possibility of China becoming an enemy.
  Over the last three decades, U.S. engagement with China, and China's 
growing desire to reap the benefits of membership in the global 
community have already produced real--if limited--progress on issues of 
deep concern to Americans, including the question of change in China.
  There are two faces of life in China today:
  The first face is the disturbing crackdown on the Falon Gong and the 
China Fang-Cheng Church, the increase of repressive, destructive 
activities in Tibet, the restraints placed on key democracy advocates 
and the harassment of the underground churches. The second face is that 
of the average citizen who has more economic mobility and freedom of 
employment than ever before and a better standard of living.
  More information is coming in to China than ever before via the 
Internet, cable TV, satellite dishes, and western publications. 
Academics and government officials openly debate politically sensitive 
issues such as political reform and democratization. Efforts have begun 
to reform the judicial system, to expand citizen participation and 
increase choices at the grass roots level.
  While China's leaders remain intent on controlling political 
activity, undeniably there are indications that the limits of the 
system are slowly fading, encouraging political activists to take 
previously unimaginable steps including the formation of an alternative 
Democracy Party. On the whole, Chinese society is more open and most 
Chinese citizens have more personal freedom than ever before. Of 
course, we must press for further change, but we should not ignore the 
remarkable changes that have taken place.
  China's track record on weapons proliferation is another issue of 
serious concern. Senator Thompson has introduced sanctions legislation 
targeted at China's proliferation policies, and I understand he will be 
offering that as an amendment to PNTR. With this legislation, Senator 
Thompson has done the Senate and this Nation a great service, by 
forcing us to take a hard look at the reality of China's commitment to 
international proliferation norms. And that reality, particularly over 
the last

[[Page S8692]]

eighteen months, is disturbing. But I do not believe that a China-
specific sanctions bill is an effective response to the challenge of 
weapons proliferation. And we should not scuttle PNTR just to make a 
point--however valid--about China's continuing export of missile-
related technology.
  Our concern about recent Chinese activities related to the transfer 
of missile technology should not lead us to overlook the totality of 
China's performance in the arms control area. The fact is China has 
taken steps, particularly in the last decade, to bring its 
nonproliferation and arms export control policies more in line with 
international norms. China acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention 
in 1984. In 1992, China acceded to the Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT. 
China signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, CTBT, and the 
next year promulgated new nuclear export controls identical to the 
dual-use list used by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. In 1997 China joined 
the Zangger Committee, which coordinates nuclear export policies among 
NPT members. The same year it ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention 
and began to enforce export controls on dual-use chemical technology. 
In 1998 China published detail export control regulations for dual-use 
nuclear items. These developments have also been accompanied by various 
pledges, for example not to export complete missile systems falling 
within MTCR payload and range and not to provide assistance to Iran's 
nuclear energy program. China's commitment to these pledges has been 
spotty but the fact is, China's record today is dramatically different 
from what it was in the 1980s or the three decades before. Then we were 
faced with a China exporting a broad range of military technology to an 
array of would-be nuclear states including Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, 
Pakistan and North Korea. Today, our principal concern is Chinese 
exports in the area of missile-related technology--not complete missile 
systems--and to two countries: Pakistan and Iran. That, it seems to me, 
is progress, and progress made during a period of growing engagement 
between China and the international community.

  Some in this body, frustrated that our current engagement with China 
has born little fruit, are offering amendments in an attempt to use the 
presumed leverage in PNTR as a means of changing China's policies. I 
believe that engagement offers the best prospects for promoting our 
interests with China but I understand and share their frustration over 
the way in which the current administration has engaged China. The next 
administration must engage with greater clarity of message, consistency 
of policy, pragmatism about what can be achieved and over what time 
frame, and determination to hold China accountable when it misbehaves 
or ignores commitments made.
  However, we should not let our frustration with the benefits of 
engagement lead us to undermine that policy by delaying or denying PNTR 
in a vain quest to change China overnight. PNTR is not a ``reward'', as 
the opponents of PNTR suggest. It is a key element in our economic 
engagement with China and an affirmation of our intention to have a 
normal trading relationship with China, as we do with the overwhelming 
majority of our other trading partners. Many of China's most outspoken 
critics including Martin Lee, the head of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, 
Bao Tong, one of China's most prominent dissidents; and Dai Qing, an 
engaging writer and environmental activist who was jailed in the wake 
of Tiananmen Square for her pro-democracy activities and writings, want 
us to give PNTR to China. They want it because they know that drawing 
China deeper into the international community's institutions and norms 
will promote more change in China over time. As Dai Qing told U.S. when 
she testified before the Foreign Relations Committee in July: 
``Firstly, PNTR will help to reduce governmental control over economy 
and society; secondly, PNTR will help to promote the rule of law; and 
thirdly, PNTR will help to nourish independent political and social 
forces in China.''
  The opponents of PNTR have argued that we are giving up leverage over 
China because we are abandoning our annual review of U.S.-China 
relations. This argument ignores two critical points: first, there has 
been little leverage in the MFN review because China can simply do 
business with others; and second, Congress has never revoked the status 
in the last 12 years. So how meaningful is this review in reality? 
There is nothing in the action we are contemplating here that prevents 
Congress from acting in the future, if it so desires. In fact, the 
pending legislation sets up a commission to review China's performance 
on key issues including human rights and labor rights and trade 
compliance so that if Congress wants to act, we will be better informed 
at the outset.
  This vote on extending PNTR is not a referendum on the China of 
today. It is a vote on how best to pursue all of our interests with 
China including our economic interests. Extending PNTR will allow the 
United States to enjoy economic benefits stemming from the bilateral 
agreement negotiated between the United States and China. I am 
concerned that critical labor, human rights and environmental 
protections were left out of the agreement. However, I believe the 
agreement undeniably forces China to open its doors to more trade, and 
if we fail to vote in favor of PNTR, we risk forfeiting increased trade 
with the largest emerging market in the world to other countries in 
Europe and Asia.
  This would be no small loss for the United States. Just consider the 
facts which underscore the importance of trade with China. By granting 
PNTR status to China, the U.S. will be able to avail itself to China--
to make American goods and services available to one-fifth of the 
world's population. China is the world's second largest economy in 
terms of domestic purchasing power. It is the world's seventh largest 
economy in terms of Gross Domestic Product and is one of the fastest 
growing economies in the world. Simply put, China's economy is simply 
too large to ignore.
  It is of course true that there has been sharp growth in the U.S. 
trade deficit with China, which surged from $6.2 billion in 1989 to 
more than $68 billion in 1999. But it is also true that the deficit is 
in large part due to the fact that China has closed its doors to U.S. 
products.
  I believe that only by granting PNTR to China will U.S. businesses be 
able to open those doors and export goods and services to China, so 
that our economy can continue to grow and our workers be fully 
employed. U.S. exports to China and Hong Kong now support 400,000 
American jobs. Trade with China is of increasing importance in my home 
state. China is Massachusetts' eighth largest export market. The 
Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research at the 
University of Massachusetts calculated that in 1999, Massachusetts 
exported goods worth a total of nearly $366 million to China. That 
represents an increase in total exports to China of more than 15 
percent from the previous year and translates into more jobs and a 
stronger economy in my state.
  The bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and China will give 
businesses in every state the chance to increase their exports to 
China, ultimately leading to more growth here at home. Under the 
agreement, China is committed to reducing tariffs and removing non-
tariff barriers in many sectors important to the U.S. economy. China 
has agreed, for instance, to cut overall agricultural tariffs for U.S. 
priority products--beef, grapes, wine, cheese, poultry, and pork--from 
31.5 percent to 14.5 percent by 2004. Overall industrial tariffs will 
fall from an average of 24.6 percent to 9.4 percent by 2005. Tariffs on 
information technology products--which have been driving the tremendous 
economic prosperity our country is currently enjoying--would be reduced 
from an average level of 13.3 percent to zero by the year 2005. China 
must also phase out quotas within five years. The U.S. market, on the 
other hand, is already open to Chinese products. We have conceded 
nothing to China in terms of market access, while China must now open 
its doors to increased exports. This is a one-way trade agreement 
favoring the United States of America.

  China has made other concessions that are likely to be extremely 
beneficial to the U.S. economy. It has agreed to open service sectors, 
such as distribution, telecommunications, insurance, banking, 
securities, and professional services to foreign firms.

[[Page S8693]]

China has agreed to reduce restrictions on auto trade. Tariffs on autos 
will fall from 80-100 percent to 25 percent by 2006, and auto quotas 
will be eliminated by 2005. Perhaps most importantly, the agreement and 
this legislation provide that China must accept the use by the United 
States of safeguard, countervailing, and antidumping provisions to 
respond to surges in U.S. imports from China that might harm a U.S. 
industry.
  A favorable vote on PNTR will also benefit the agriculture industry. 
China is already the United States' sixth largest agricultural export 
market, and that market is expected to grow tremendously in the 21st 
century. China is a major purchaser of U.S. grain, meat, chicken, pork, 
cotton and soybeans. In the next century, USDA projects China will 
account for almost 40 percent of the growth in U.S. farm exports.
  We must recognize that the U.S. will not be able to sell its wheat, 
provide its financial services, or market its computer software in 
China unless we grant China PNTR status. Let there be no mistake, China 
will become a member of the WTO whether or not we pass PNTR. Under the 
Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, the United States can 
and does extend Normal Trade Relations treatment to China annually. If 
Congress fails to amend its laws to provide permanent, rather than 
annual, normal trade relations, we will not be able to satisfy the 
requirement that normal trade relations be unconditional. The U.S.-
China agreements could therefore not be enforced and the U.S. would not 
be able to avail itself to the dispute resolution procedures of the 
WTO.
  The benefits of the WTO agreement extend beyond more open Chinese 
markets to the application of a rules-based system to China, a country 
that has historically acted outside the world's regulations and norms. 
Under the terms of this agreement, the Chinese government is obliged to 
publish laws and regulations subjecting some of China's most important 
decisions to the review of an international body for the first time. 
WTO membership will force China to accelerate market-oriented economic 
reforms. This will be a difficult and challenging task for China, but 
an important one that will result in freer and fairer trade with China.
  Despite the likely benefits that the United States will reap if it 
grants PNTR to China, we must pay attention to the concerns expressed 
by those in the labor, environmental and human rights communities about 
the impact of this vote. We must hear their voices and heed their 
warnings so that we are on alert in our dealings with China. In China, 
workers cannot form or join unions and strikes are prohibited. There 
are no meaningful environmental standards and the prevalent use of 
forced labor make production in China extremely inexpensive. Because 
they cannot bargain collectively, Chinese workers are paid extremely 
low wages and are subject to unsafe working conditions.
  No one on either side of the aisle, not even the most ardent 
supporter of PNTR, supports these most undemocratic, morally 
reprehensible conditions in China, and we have a duty and a 
responsibility to pay attention to the conditions there. It is my hope 
and belief that as U.S. firms move into China, they will bring with 
internationally-accepted business practices that may actually raise 
labor and environmental standards in China. I also hope that they will 
provide opportunities for Chinese workers to move from state-owned to 
privately-owned companies, or from one private company to another, 
where the conditions are better. These steps are small, but important. 
Nevertheless, the international community in general and the United 
States in particular must remain vigilant in order to ensure that 
standards are rising in China and it is simply not the case where the 
only benefit to come from freer trade with China is that the corporate 
coffers of large companies are being lined with money saved on the 
backs of Chinese laborers.
  We must also be vigilant in ensuring that once China becomes a member 
of the WTO, it complies with the rules of the WTO and lives up to its 
commitments under trade agreements. There are many critics of PNTR with 
China who rightly point out that China has an extremely poor record of 
compliance with current trade agreements with the U.S., and that it 
``can't be trusted'' to live up to commitments once it is in the WTO. 
China's trading partners worldwide must cooperate to police China so as 
to ensure its adherence to the trade concessions it has made.
  The environment is another area in which we must be vigilant in our 
efforts to encourage the Chinese government to begin to promulgate and 
enforce environmental standards. Right now, levels of air pollution 
from energy and industrial production in Shanghai and Shenyang are the 
highest in the world. Water pollution in regions such as Huai River 
Valley is also among the worst in the world. In 1995, more than one 
half of the 88 Chinese cities monitored for sulfur dioxide were above 
the World Health Organization guidelines. It is estimated that nearly 
178,000 deaths in urban areas could be prevented each year by cleaner 
air. We simply cannot allow this complete degradation of the 
environment in China to continue unabated.
  Denying PNTR to China won't stop its unfair labor practices or its 
environmental devastation. So while I would have liked to see these 
issues addressed in this legislation or in the bilateral agreement, I 
believe that, on balance, the risk of not engaging China at this time 
far outweighs any value we would gain by signaling to China that we 
still do not approve of its practices and policies. That symbolic 
signal would only strip U.S. of the leverage that WTO membership brings 
with it to hold China accountable and effect real progress. If the U.S. 
fails to support PNTR, and thus fails to take advantage of the benefits 
of China's inevitable membership in the WTO, U.S. companies stand to 
lose market share and U.S. workers may lose jobs to European and Asian 
companies that gain a strong foothold in China. We would also lose the 
opportunity to engage China and advance our positions on all of our 
interests including human rights and security. And that would be far 
too high a price to pay in this new global economy for the short term 
rewards of merely sending a message with far more negative consequences 
for U.S. than for China.
  Engagement, is the course we must pursue--intelligently, with 
strength and a commitment to accountability. Engagement is a course 
best pursued by granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations and 
bringing it into the WTO. It is in the best interests of our economy 
and it is in the best interests of our foreign policy, and I hope we 
can all join together in moving the United States Senate and our Nation 
in that direction.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the amendments 
that have been voted on in relation to H.R. 4444, a bill that 
authorizes permanent normal trade relations with China. Over the last 
two weeks or so, several of my colleagues have introduced very 
thoughtful legislation specifically designed to address problems that 
exist at this time in China. Taken alone and at face value, many of 
these amendments--from human and labor rights to technology transfer to 
religious freedom to weapons proliferation to clean energy--have been 
worthy and deserving of my support. At any other time, I would have in 
fact voted for many of these amendments. I personally am of the view 
that Chinese officials must continue to make significant and tangible 
efforts in the future to transform their country's policies to coincide 
with international rules and norms. Although China is indeed making a 
very difficult and gradual transition to a more democratic society and 
a market-based economy, much remains to be done. Chinese officials must 
reinvigorate their commitment to change, and they will inevitably be 
open to criticism from both the United States and the international 
community until they do so.
  But this said, it is clear that any amendment attached to H.R. 4444 
at this time will force the bill into conference, and at this late 
stage in the session, that means that the bill would effectively be 
dead. In my mind, this bill is far too important to have this outcome. 
I believe that H.R. 4444 is one of the most important pieces of 
legislation we will consider this year, for two reasons.
  First, it creates new opportunities for American workers, farmers, 
and businesses in the Chinese market. This

[[Page S8694]]

bill is not about Chinese access to the U.S. market as this already 
exists. The bill is about U.S. access to the Chinese market, because if 
this bill is passed we will see a significant change in the way China 
has to conduct business. As a result of this bill, we will over time 
see a reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers, liberalization in 
domestic regulatory regimes, and protections against import surges, 
unfair pricing, and illegal investment practices. If we do not take 
action on this bill this year, we will be at a tremendous competitive 
disadvantage in the Chinese market relative to companies from other 
countries.
  We cannot let this happen to American workers. In my state of New 
Mexico alone we have seen dramatic results from increased trade with 
China. Our exports to China totaled $147 million in 1998, up from 
$366,000 in 1993. China was New Mexico's 35th largest export 
destination in 1993, but now it ranks fourth in this regard. In 1993 
only six product groups from New Mexico were heading to China as 
exports, but in 1998 there were sixteen product groups flowing in that 
direction, from electrical equipment and components to chemicals to 
agriculture to furniture. In short, increased trade opportunities with 
China translates directly to increased economic welfare for New Mexico, 
and all of the United States.
  A second reason this legislation is so important relates to U.S. 
national security. From where I stand, China is playing an increasingly 
active role in Asia and the world, and it is in our national interest 
to engage them in discussions concerning these activities on an ongoing 
and intensive basis. There is simply no benefit to be gained from 
attempting to isolate or ignore China at this time. It has not worked 
in the past, and it will not work in the future. I am convinced that 
our failure to pass this bill will limit our country's ability to 
influence the direction and quality of change in China. I have visited 
China, and I can tell you that the China of today looks dramatically 
different than the China of five years ago. This change is at least in 
part a direct result of our interaction with the Chinese people. As the 
PNTR debate moves forward, Congress must decide how it would like China 
to look five, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now. Do we want China to 
be a competitor, or an enemy? In my view, PNTR will place us in a 
particularly strong position to promote positive change in China and 
increase our capacity to pursue our long-term national interest.
  Although I am certainly sympathetic to the objectives of many of the 
amendments offered by my colleagues, I feel the issue of trade with 
China deserves to be debated on its own merits. For this reason, I have 
chosen to vote against the amendments offered by my colleagues. But I 
would like to emphasize at this time that I look forward to the 
opportunity to address them in the future.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, several months ago, the House of 
Representatives voted 237 to 197 to grant Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations to China. Before passing that legislation, however, the House 
added provisions that will require this and future Administrations to 
step up efforts to enforce China's compliance with its trade agreements 
and with internationally-recognized human rights norms.
  Today the Senate will vote on whether we too will approve granting 
PNTR to China. That vote is on the limited question of whether to make 
permanent the favorable trade treatment that the United States has 
afforded to China one year at a time for the past 20 years--just that, 
and only that. The only difference in this upcoming vote and past votes 
on normal trade relations for China is: Shall normal trade relations be 
permanent, as they are with virtually every one of our other trading 
partners?
  I have voted for normal trade relations in the past because China is 
a country of 1.3 billion people that is certain to play an important 
role in our future. The question is, will that role be a positive or 
negative one?
  I happen to think that involvement with China is preferable to non-
involvement. And I think on balance that the movement of China towards 
more freedom for its citizens and a market-based economy is much more 
likely to occur through normal trade relations than through 
estrangement.
  While it is a close call, I have concluded that it is in our best 
interests to accord China Permanent Normal Trade Relations, because the 
legislation also establishes a commission to monitor human rights and 
labor issues in China and includes provisions that will ensure better 
enforcement of our trade agreements.
  I would like to explain my reasoning.
  I am mindful that there are some actions by China that give us pause. 
Threats directed at Taiwan, the transfer of missile technology to rogue 
states, and the abuse of human rights inside China are all reasons for 
concern. But I have seen almost no evidence that there has been any 
connection between Chinese behavior and Congress' annual review of 
China's trade status. On the other hand, there is evidence that the 
engagement with China by Western democracies has led to some 
improvement in a number of areas. It is my hope that those improvements 
will continue and be enhanced with Permanent Normal Trade Relations and 
China's accession to the WTO.
  I am under no illusion that granting PNTR to China and allowing it to 
join the WTO will lead China inexorably toward democratization, better 
human rights and economic liberalization. However, I find it notable 
that China's security services, and conservative members of the 
military and Communist Party feel threatened by those developments. 
They are leading the opposition to President Zhang Zhemin and Premier 
Zhu Rongji's efforts to restructure China's economy and join the WTO 
precisely because they fear it will weaken the Communist Party's 
absolute hold on power.
  The Dalai Lama and many of China's leading democracy and human rights 
advocates support Permanent Normal Trade Relations. They believe that 
the closer the economic relationship between the U.S. and China, the 
better the U.S. will be able to monitor human rights conditions in 
China and the more effectively the U.S. will be able to push for 
political reforms. However, other human rights advocates, including 
Harry Wu, believe granting China PNTR will weaken America's ability to 
influence China's human rights. That is why it is so important that the 
PNTR legislation establish a commission to monitor the human rights and 
labor situation in China and suggest ways we can intensify human-rights 
pressure on Beijing.
  Most of the farm groups and business groups from my state believe 
PNTR and the implementation of the U.S.-China Bilateral Trade Agreement 
will result in a significant rise in U.S. exports to China. I hope that 
is true. But I fear they will be disappointed. Most impartial studies 
have concluded that the gains are likely to be modest. Furthermore, I 
am concerned by comments which were made by China's lead trade 
negotiator that China has conceded only a ``theoretical'' opportunity 
for the U.S. to export grain or meat to China. This makes me wonder 
whether China has any real intention of opening its markets as 
contemplated in the bilateral agreement. That is why it is so important 
that the PNTR bill includes provisions that will require the 
administration to step up its efforts to ensure that China complies 
with its trade agreements.
  The systemic trade problems we are experiencing with China and many 
other countries, including Japan, Europe, and Canada, have little to do 
with this debate about Normal Trade Relations and a lot to do with our 
willingness to give concessional trade advantages to shrewd, tough, 
international competitors at the expense of American producers. 
Frankly, I am tired of it.
  The recent U.S.-China Bilateral Trade Agreement was hailed as a giant 
step forward. In fact, it comes up far short of what our producers 
ought to be expecting in such agreements. If we were given a vote on 
that agreement, I would likely vote no, and tell our negotiators to go 
back and try again.
  Our negotiators should have done better. It is outrageous that they 
signed an agreement that allows China, which already has a $70 billion 
merchandise trade surplus with the United States, to protect its 
producers with tariffs on American goods that are two to ten times 
higher than the tariffs we charge on Chinese goods. There is no excuse 
for that. But that circumstance

[[Page S8695]]

is not unique to China. It exists in our trade relations with Japan, 
with the European Union, with Canada, and others. We now have a 
mushrooming merchandise trade deficit that is running at an annual $400 
billion-plus level. It is unsustainable and dangerous for our country.
  We must begin to negotiate trade agreements with our trading partners 
that are tough, no nonsense agreements. We should develop rules of fair 
trade that give American workers and American businesses a fair 
opportunity to compete.
  Regrettably most of our trade policies reward those corporations that 
want to produce where it's cheap and sell back into our marketplace. 
That is a recipe for weakening our economy and it must stop.
  So, I voted for Normal Trade Relations with China previously, and I 
intend to vote to make it permanent, provided that we also require this 
and future Administrations to dramatically step up efforts to enforce 
China's compliance with its trade agreements and with internationally-
recognized human rights norms.
  However, I want it to be clear that, if we accord Permanent Normal 
Trade Relations to China and we discover that they are not in fact 
complying with the terms of the bilateral agreement we negotiated with 
them or that they are retreating rather than progressing on the issue 
of human rights for Chinese citizens, then I believe we must reserve 
the right to revoke China's Normal Trade Relations status.
  Mr. LUGAR. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the 
Finance Committee, Senator Roth, a brief question. Mr. Chairman, there 
are a number of important initiatives and oversight capabilities 
created in this legislation on PNTR. Not only do we make permanent our 
trading relationship with China, but we have included monitoring 
capabilities to ensure that the commitments agreed to in the WTO 
accession agreements are, in fact, lived up to by the Chinese 
government.
  Mr. ROTH. The Senator from Indiana is correct.
  Mr. LUGAR. I would like to then clarify that the bill before us 
should not only provide means to review WTO trade compliance, but also 
past agreements affecting trade between our countries, whether they are 
treaties or memorandum of agreements between the United States and 
China. Is this correct, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. ROTH. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like then to state here 
that it is the intent of the bill that there be a review of the 
implementation of the 1992 Memorandum of Agreement between the United 
States and China on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. As 
you know, this agreement was reached so that American pharmaceutical 
compound patents issued between 1986 and 1993 would enjoy protection in 
China. As a number of disputes have arisen from this agreement, I think 
it is important that we have an independent and objective look at this 
agreement and then we can determine if additional efforts in this area 
are warranted.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator. It is my intent, as his, that the 1992 
MOU shall also be reviewed.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the distinguished Chairman.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the bill to 
extend permanent normal trade relations to China. I have taken a great 
deal of time to study both the positive and negative aspects of 
granting PNTR to China. I was undecided on which way to vote for quite 
some time. I met with and talked to those on both sides of the issue.
  Although I had several concerns, my biggest were about the reports of 
religious persecution and other human rights violations that continue 
to occur in China. It certainly is not fair that anyone--let alone 20 
percent of the world's population--live under this kind of injustice. 
We in America, a great land of freedom and liberty, find these abuses 
intolerable and inexcusable. Although human rights have improved over 
the past 20 years since China has opened up its market to the world, it 
has a great deal of progress to make.
  I care deeply about many of the issues that have been raised 
throughout this debate. And I pledge to continue working to ensure that 
these issues are not forgotten. The evils that the communist government 
of China perpetuates, such as forced abortion, organ harvesting, 
religious persecution, weapons proliferation, and the like, should 
still be addressed. We must do everything we can to not only bring 
China into the world trading system, but also into the system of 
international norms, which recognizes the value of human life and 
rights.
  After carefully weighing the issues I decided to support passage of 
this bill. I also decided it was such an important bill for American 
and Chinese citizens that it should be passed this year.
  This caused me to be in the position of voting against several 
amendments that in any other situation I would have supported. I know 
several of my other good friends and colleagues did the same.
  Now I want to explain some of the conclusions I have reached.
  First, the recently signed U.S.-China trade agreement does not 
require the U.S. to make any concessions. It does not lower tariffs or 
other trade barriers for Chinese products coming into America. Instead, 
it forces China to open its market to U.S. goods and services provided 
the Congress extends PNTR to China. Passage or failure of this bill 
does not determine whether or not China becomes a member of the WTO. 
However, since the WTO requires that members treat each other in a non-
discriminatory manner, each member country must grant other members 
permanent normal trade relations. Therefore, if China is not granted 
PNTR, it is not obligated to live by its WTO trade and market-opening 
commitments made to the United States.
  As I mentioned earlier, China's regime has a poor track record when 
it comes to the human rights of its more than 1 billion citizens. It 
still has a long way to go to become acceptable. But the United States 
should not isolate the people of China from the exchange of information 
and products. We should not impede the efforts of Chinese citizens to 
trade and exchange property, which is an essential aspect of a free 
society.
  The gradual opening of the Chinese market in recent years has been 
accompanied by very slow, yet positive advancements for religious 
freedoms in China. For example, consider the comments of Nelson Graham, 
son of the Reverend Billy Graham and President of East Gates 
International, a Christian non-profit organization. In his testimony at 
the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year he said, ``I believe 
that granting China PNTR will not only benefit U.S. businesses and 
U.S.-based religious organizations but will be one step further toward 
bettering the relationship between our countries.''
  He went on to add that the impact of China's increased trade 
relations with the West has already caused a ``proliferation of 
information exchange [that] has allowed us to be much more effective in 
developing and organizing our work in the [People's Republic of 
China].''
  These and similar comments by other religious leaders have led me to 
believe that increased trade will help the work of these religious 
organizations and help promote greater freedoms in China. Prior to the 
gradual market opening of China, religious organizations like Nelson 
Graham's East Gates International, had little or no way of reaching the 
spiritually-starved Chinese people.
  I also want to emphasize that this bill in no way ignores the 
importance of religious and human rights. It sets up a permanent 
Commission to monitor human and religious rights and the development of 
rule of law and democracy-building in China. This Commission will have 
similar responsibilities as the existing Commission on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe established in 1976, which has proven effective 
in monitoring and encouraging respect for human rights in Eastern 
Europe.
  Mr. President, at the conclusion of my remarks I will ask unanimous 
consent that four letters and one op-ed piece I have be inserted into 
the Record. Three of the letters are written by the Reverend Billy 
Graham, Joe Volk of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and 
Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network.

[[Page S8696]]

The other letter is from thirty-two religious leaders representing a 
broad range of religious organizations. the op-ed was written by Randy 
Tate, former Executive Direction of the Christian Coalition, and was 
published in the Washington Times last year. Each communication makes 
the point that PNTR will benefit U.S. religious organizations with 
operations in China.
  I do not pretend that improvements in religious and human rights in 
China will happen overnight. Progress in liberty will not be immediate 
in a country where the government owns most of the property and has 
strict limits on political and religious association. Not one of us in 
this body would create a political regime such as that currently 
operating in China if we were cutting from whole cloth. Unfortunately, 
history rarely presents such ideal circumstances. Instead, we must 
address the world as we find it with all its imperfections.
  I believe the question each of us must ask ourselves is whether human 
and religious rights will be improved by refusing China permanent 
normal trade relations. I see no evidence this would be the case. 
Rather, I believe that the increase in economic freedom that comes 
through increased trade relations will, in turn, bring about greater 
religious freedom and a better environment for human rights as well.
  Randy Tate probably summed up this issue best. He said:

       Our case for greater trade . . . is less about money and 
     more about morality. It is about ensuring that one-fifth of 
     the world's population is not shut off from businesses 
     spreading the message of freedom--and ministries spreading 
     the love of God . . . [I]s it any surprise that some of our 
     nation's most respected religious leaders, from Billy Graham 
     to Pat Robertson, have called for keeping the door to China 
     open?

  I also want to briefly discuss another serious issue which was raised 
during the PNTR debate--the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction by China. While I recognize the sometimes delinquent 
behavior of China in this area, I believe the amendment which failed 
used a flawed unilateral and inflexible approach. I want to see the 
elimination of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But 
the President currently has ample authority to sanction foreign 
entities for proliferation under numerous statutes. Therefore, the 
problem we now have is a failure by this Administration to effectively 
deal with the Chinese government to eliminate this proliferation. Some 
very targeted sanctions were probably in order for some of the Chinese 
proliferation activity.
  But the amendment that was offered would have prescribed a very rigid 
one-size-fits-all solution. And we must remember that the most 
effective sanctions are those that are multilateral and those that have 
general agreement among our allies. The amendment would have required 
unilateral sanctions which history has shown to be ineffective tools in 
achieving desired behavior.
  I do not believe that trade will cure all of the problems we have 
with China. Moreover, PNTR should not be considered a gift to China, 
but rather a challenge for China. The U.S. market is already open to 
countless Chinese goods. This will not change even if we were to refuse 
PNTR to China. Instead, if Congress extends PNTR to China it must open 
its market to the United States. At the same time China must play by 
the rules of the international trading system, subjecting itself to the 
WTO's dispute settlement process.
  Without PNTR, China can remain closed to U.S. products yet increase 
its exports to the U.S., further exacerbating our trade deficit with 
China. This bill is about getting our products into China. By 
cooperating with them, they will lower tariffs to get into the WTO and 
then we have a court to adjudicate their violations. PNTR simply allows 
fair treatment of U.S. products and services going to China once China 
enters the WTO.
  Change will not happen instantly. But I do believe increased trade 
will help advance the cause of freedom in China. The policy of 
engagement through trade must be backed up by strong U.S. leadership 
that vigorously challenges China, on a bilateral basis and through 
international organizations, about its human rights, weapons 
proliferation and other obvious shortcomings. But a vote against PNTR 
doesn't hurt the hard-line communists in China nor does it help the 
cause of human rights in China. The best way to end these evils is to 
transform China into a politically and socially free country. And that 
transformation will begin with economic freedom. Approving PNTR for 
China is the next and most important step toward a freer China and a 
safer world.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have additional material 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Opening China's Economy


                    wto membership will benefit all

                            (By Randy Tate)

       When trade ministers of World Trade Organization member 
     nations gather in Seattle this week, they will comprise the 
     largest gathering of trade officials on U.S. soil since the 
     Bretton Woods conference at the conclusion of World War II.
       The world has dramatically changed in the intervening half-
     century Astounding technological advances since then have 
     made us not only comfortable but nonchalant toward 
     international communication. But not so when it comes to 
     trade. Here some still see an insoluble dilemma; choosing 
     between American interests and American ideals. By this 
     argument, we must either engage in commerce with emerging 
     economic giants like China, or forsake trade in standing up 
     for democratic values and human rights.
       Fortunately, many conservative and religious leaders are 
     rejecting this false choice and are now charting a third 
     course. They recognize that trade and cultural exchange does 
     not hinder but rather advances the value of free minds and 
     hearts.
       All Americans of good faith can start from this point of 
     agreement. We must stand firm in our support of democracy and 
     the inalienable rights to liberty. We all condemn abhorrent 
     acts such as the bloody suppression of freedom in the 
     Tiananmen Square massacre. And there are many ways of 
     expressing that condemnation: tough diplomacy military 
     containment, and hard-headed realism are among them. But 
     isolation and protectionism would be misguided, and 
     ultimately counterproductive.
       A fifth of the planet's population lives in China. It makes 
     no sense to isolate 1.3 billion people from the rest of us. 
     That will only encourage irresponsible commercial and 
     political behavior, at home and abroad. Our goals should 
     be to open Chinese markets to our products and services 
     while opening up Chinese society to freedom. That is the 
     way to give its citizens the real opportunity to breathe 
     the liberating air of faith and democracy.
       It would be nice of course, if the Chinese leadership did 
     that on its own initiative. But that is a fantasy. An 
     isolated China will resist change at home and be likely to 
     behave more aggressively towards its regional neighbors. None 
     of that serves American interests. Admitting China into the 
     WTO may not cause it to shed dictatorship for democracy. But 
     it's the right step towards realizing that goal.
       Nothing unites a nation and diverts the attention of the 
     people from abuses by its leader like a common enemy. Do we 
     slam the door on 1.3 billion people and let Chinese leaders 
     turn America into the villain? Economic adversaries too often 
     evolve into military enemies, as the origins of World War II 
     amply demonstrated. The hatred of 1.3 billion people is 
     surely something to incur with great caution.
       The bottom line is that America needs to have a seat at the 
     negotiating table to push for further democratic and 
     religious reforms in countries such as China. Shutting our 
     doors and abandoning all that we've helped the Chinese people 
     accomplish would make us part of the problem. Moreover, we 
     have to recognize that even a U.S. embargo is not going put 
     the Chinese out of business. Bringing China into the WTO 
     makes them play by the same trade rules as the rest of the 
     world, and this policy decision makes up part of the 
     solution.
       While moving forcefully to strengthen a trading partnership 
     with China, America needs to send a strong signal that it 
     will stand by historic allies and functioning democracies 
     like Taiwan. We have strong moral obligations to preserve 
     democracies. Admitting Taiwan to the WTO as well accomplishes 
     that. This leaves open political issues for the future, such 
     as finding ways to ensure that freedom and democracy survive 
     and prosper in Taiwan while forging a stable environment 
     as it works out its future relations with China.
       Our case for greater trade, therefore, is less about money 
     and much more about morality. It is about ensuring that one-
     fifth of the world's population is not shut off from 
     businesses spreading the message of freedom--and ministries 
     spreading the love of God.
       Obviously our key commitment is to helping American working 
     families. That provides the most powerful argument for 
     strengthening commercial ties with China by admitting China 
     into the WTO. The agreement negotiated has its imperfections, 
     but there is no question that it makes dramatic improvements 
     in opening up domestic Chinese markets.
       For example, China will now reduce subsidies on 
     agricultural products, which allows opportunities for 
     American-grown products

[[Page S8697]]

     such as wheat and apples to reach a gargantuan market to a 
     degree never considered possible before. Especially in the 
     framing communities of my home state of Washington, the 
     prospect of increased access to a market of this magnitude 
     has sparked new hope in households struggling to make ends 
     meet.
       Working families dependent upon manufacturing jobs also 
     benefit. Thanks to last week's agreement China will be forced 
     to cut tariffs on American goods an average of 23 percent and 
     to protect, and to protect the excellence and innovation of 
     U.S. software manufacturers against technological piracy.
       Is it any surprise that hundreds of working families will 
     gather next week in Seattle to show their support for 
     strengthening international trade? Not at all. Nor is it any 
     surprise that some of our nation's most respected religious 
     leaders, from Billy Graham to Pat Robertson, have called for 
     keeping the door to China open. For when the Chinese trade 
     with Americans, they are also exposed to the values of 
     freedom and the healing message of the Gospel. And nothing is 
     more important than that.
                                  ____


  Statement by Religious Leaders in Support of Permanent Normal Trade 
                          Relations with China

                                                September 5, 2000.
       Dear Senator, Soon you will be asked to vote on an issue 
     that will set the course for U.S.-China relations for years 
     to come: enacting Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) 
     with China. Your vote will also have an impact on how human 
     rights and religious freedom will advance for the people of 
     China in the years ahead. We are writing to urge you to vote 
     for PNTR for China because we believe that this is the best 
     way to advance these concerns over the long term.
       We share your concern for advancing human rights and 
     religious freedom for the people of China. The findings of 
     the recent report from the U.S. International Religious 
     Freedom Committee are disturbing to us. Clearly, the Chinese 
     government still has a long way to go.
       The question for us all is: What can the U.S. government do 
     that will best advance human rights and religious freedom for 
     the people of China? Are conditions more likely to improve 
     through isolation and containment or through opening trade, 
     investment, and exchange between peoples?
       Let us look first at what has already occurred within China 
     over the past twenty years. The gradual opening of trade, 
     investment, travel, and exchange between China and the rest 
     of the world has led to significant, positive changes for 
     human rights and religious freedom in China. We observe the 
     following:
       The number of international religious missions operating 
     openly in China has grown rapidly in recent years. Today 
     these groups provide educational, humanitarian, medical, and 
     development assistance in communities across China.
       Despite continued, documented acts of government 
     oppression, people in China nonetheless can worship, 
     participate in communities of faith, and move about the 
     country much more freely today than was even imaginable 
     twenty years ago.
       Today, people can communicate with each other and the 
     outside world much more easily and with much less 
     governmental interference through the tools of business and 
     trade: telephones, cell phones, faxes, and e-mail.
       On balance, foreign investment has introduced positive new 
     labor practices into the Chinese workplace, stimulating 
     growing aspirations for labor and human rights among Chinese 
     workers.
       These positive developments have come about gradually in 
     large part as a result of economic reforms by the Chinese 
     government and the accompanying normalization of trade, 
     investment, and exchange with the outside world. The 
     developing relationships between Chinese government 
     officials, business managers, workers, professors, students, 
     and people of faith and their foreign counterparts are 
     reflected in the development of new laws, government 
     policies, business and labor practices, personal freedom, and 
     spiritual seeking. Further, the Chinese government is much 
     more likely to develop the rule of law and observe 
     international norms of behavior if it is recognized by the 
     U.S. government as an equal, responsible partner within the 
     community of nations.
       The U.S. government and governments around the world have a 
     continuing, important role to play in challenging one another 
     through international forums to fully observe standards for 
     human rights and religious freedom. However, we do not 
     believe that the annual debate in the U.S. Congress, linking 
     justifiable concern for human rights and religious freedom in 
     China to the threat of unilateral U.S. trade sanctions, has 
     been productive toward that end.
       Change will not occur overnight in China. Nor can it be 
     imposed from outside. Rather, change will occur gradually, 
     and it will be inspired and shaped by the aspirations, 
     culture, and history of the Chinese people. We on the outside 
     can help advance religious freedom and human rights best 
     through policies of normal trade, exchange and engagement for 
     the mutual benefit of peoples of faith, scholars, workers, 
     and businesses. Enacting permanent normal trade relations 
     with China is the next, most important legislative step that 
     Congress can take to help in this process.
           Sincerely,

         Organizations listed for identification purposes only.

       Dr. Donald Argue, (Former President, National Association 
     of Evangelicals, representing 27 million Christians in the 
     United States of America).
       John A. Buehrens, (Unitarian Universalist Association).
       Bruce Birchard, (Friends General Conference).
       Myrrl Byler, (China Education Exchange, Mennonite Church).
       Reverend Richard W. Cain, ((Emeritus) President, Claremont 
     School of Theology).
       Ralph Covell, (Senior Professor of World Christianity, 
     Denver Seminary).
       Charles A. Davis, PhD, (The Evangelical Alliance Missions).
       Father Robert F. Drinan, (Professor, Georgetown University 
     Law Center; Member of Congress, 1971-1981).
       Samuel E. Ericsson, (President, Advocates International, a 
     faith-based global network of lawyers, judges, clergy, and 
     national leaders reaching over 100 nations for justice, 
     reconciliation, and ethics with offices on five continents).
       Nancy Finneran, (Sisters of Loretto Community).
       Brent Fulton, (President, ChinaSource, a non-profit, 
     Christian Evangelical organization connecting knowledge and 
     leaders in service to China).
       Dr. Richard L. Hamm, (Christian Church (Disciples of 
     Christ)).
       Kevin M. Hardin, (University Language Services).
       J. Daniel Harrison, (President, Leadership Development 
     International).
       Bob Heimburger, (Professor (Ret.), Indiana University).
       Rev. Earnest W. Hummer, (President, China Outreach 
     Ministries).
       John Jamison, (Intercultural Exchange Network).
       Rudolf Mak, Ph.D., (Director of Chinese Church 
     Mobilization, OMF International).
       Jim Nickel, (ChinaSource, a non-profit, Christian 
     Evangelical organization connecting knowledge and leaders in 
     service to China).
       Don Reeves, (General Secretary (Interim), American Friends 
     Service Committee).
       Rabbi Arthur Schneier, D.D., (President, Appeal of 
     Conscience Foundation).
       Phil Schwab, (ChinaTeam International Services, Ltd.).
       Dr. Stephen Steele, (Dawn Ministries).
       Rev. Daniel B. Su, (Special Assistant to the President, 
     China Outreach Ministries).
       Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, (The United Methodist Church).
       Dr. James H. Taylor III, (President, MSI Professional 
     Services International).
       Finn Torjesen, (Executive Director, Evergreen Family 
     Friendship Service, a Christian, non-profit, public benefit 
     organization working in China).
       Joe Volk, (Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on 
     National Legislation).
       Rev. Dr. Daniel E. Weiss, (American Baptist Churches, USA).
       Dr. Hans M. Wilhelm, (China Partner, an organization 
     serving Church of China by training emerging young leaders).
       Rev. Dr. Andrew Young, (President, National Council of 
     Churches, former ambassador to the United Nations and member 
     of Congress).
       Danny Yu, (Christian Leadership Exchange).
                                  ____



                                                 Montreat, NC,

                                                     May 12, 2000.
     Hon. David Dreier,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Dreier: Thank you for contacting me 
     concerning the People's Republic of China. I have great 
     respect for China's long and rich heritage, and I am grateful 
     for the opportunities I have had to visit that great country. 
     It has been a tremendous privilege to get to know many of its 
     leaders and also to become familiar with the actual situation 
     of religious believers in the P.R.C.
       The current debate about establishing Permanent Normal 
     Trade Relations with China raises many complex and difficult 
     questions. I do not want to become involved in the political 
     aspects of this issue. However, I continue to be in favor of 
     strengthening our relationship with China. I believe it is 
     far better for us to thoughtfully strengthen positive aspects 
     of our relationship with China than to treat it as an 
     adversary. In my experience, nations can respond to 
     friendship just as much as people do.
       While I will not be releasing a formal public statement on 
     the PNTR debate, please feel free to share my views with your 
     colleagues. May God give you and all of your colleagues His 
     wisdom as you debate this important issue.
           Cordially yours,
     Billy Graham.
                                  ____

                                                     The Christian


                                    Broadcasting Network Inc.,

                                 Virginia Beach, VA, May 10, 2000.
     Hon. Joseph R. Pitts,
     Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Pitts: My experience in dealing with 
     Mainland China goes back to my first visit to that nation in 
     1979. Since that time, I have learned on subsequent visits 
     that the progress of Mainland China in regard to economic 
     development and the amelioration of the civil rights of its 
     citizens has been dramatic.

[[Page S8698]]

       I do not minimize the human rights abuses which take place 
     in the People's Republic of China, but I must say on first-
     hand observation that significant progress in regard to 
     religious freedom and other civil freedoms has been made over 
     thepast twenty-one years.
       The population of China is the largest in the world. My 
     sources indicate that there are at least 80 million Chinese 
     who are Christian believes, and tens of millions of Chinese 
     are either practicing Buddhists or practicing Muslims.
       Although the Chinese government may not comport itself in 
     the same fashion as we in America would desire, nevertheless, 
     I believe that the economic and structural reforms begun by 
     Chairman Deng Xiaoping are irreversible and that little by 
     little this vast land is moving toward a more prosperous 
     society and more individual freedom.
       If the US refuses to grant normal trading relations with 
     the People's Republic of China, and if we significantly 
     curtail the broad-based economic, education, social, and 
     religious contacts that are being made between the US and 
     China, we will damage ourselves and set back the cause of 
     those in China who are struggling toward increased freedom 
     for their fellow citizens.
       Therefore, I would urge the Congress to pass legislation 
     which would normalize the trading relations with the People's 
     Republic of China without, in any way, diminishing the desire 
     of the US to encourage the sanctity of human rights and the 
     rule of law in that nation.
       With best wishes, I remain . . .
           Sincerely,

                                                Pat Robertson,

                                         Chairman of the Board and
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____

                                                 Friends Committee


                                      on National Legislation,

                                Washington, DC, September 7, 2000.

     Re Support permanent normal trade relations with China 
         without amendment

       Dear Senator: Soon you will be asked to decide whether the 
     enact Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China. We 
     at the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) 
     recommend that you vote for enacting PNTR with China (HR 
     4444) without amendment.
       While we do not claim to represent all Friends (Quakers) on 
     this challenging and complex issue, the governing body of 
     FCNL is clear in its support for PNTR with china. This policy 
     is fully consistent with FCNL's historic advocacy in 
     opposition to Cold War policies of containment and in support 
     of policies that further interdependence, cooperation, and 
     the pacific resolution of disputes between countries through 
     diplomacy between governments, and free trade, travel and 
     exchange between peoples.
       We share your concern for advancing human rights, religious 
     freedom, labor rights, and environmental protection for the 
     people of china. We are concerned about the impact of 
     economic globalization on the standard of living and quality 
     of life for workers both at home and abroad. We are also 
     concerned about future cooperation and progress with the 
     government of China in arms control, regional security, 
     negotiations concerning the future of Taiwan, and the pacific 
     settlement of disputes.
       We believe that normalization of trade relations with china 
     is an important step toward advancing all of these basic 
     human security concerns over the long term. China experts 
     note that dramatic changes have already occurred within China 
     over the past two decades as a result of more open exchange 
     between China and the rest of the world. Interactions between 
     government officials businesses, universities, and 
     individuals have led to a growing harmonization between 
     Chinese institutions and their Western counterparts. This is 
     reflected in the development of new laws, government 
     policies, democratic institutions, business and labor 
     practices, standards of behavior, and popular expectations.
       This engagement has also helped indirectly to nurture 
     movements for social change. The student movement behind the 
     Tiananmen Square demonstrations, the growing house church and 
     democracy movements, and the recent widespread nonviolent 
     demonstrations by the Falun Gong reflect growing movements 
     within Chinese society that are challenging the political 
     status quo and expressing popular aspirations for human 
     rights. These movements likely would not have developed or 
     spread as quickly were it not for the opening of Chinese 
     society to the outside world that has occurred over the past 
     twenty years. Despite the oppressive government responses, it 
     is unlikely that the Chinese government will be able to 
     repress popular movements such as these for long--especially 
     if china continues along the path of economic reform, 
     development, and integration into the global economy.
       Such engagement has led to progress with the Chinese 
     government on several important international security 
     issues, as well. Over the same twenty years, the Chinese 
     government has signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-
     Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention. It 
     signed and awaits U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test 
     Ban Treaty, and, since then, it has observed a nuclear 
     testing moratorium. It has participated in the Asian-Pacific 
     Economic Cooperation Forum in ways that have built confidence 
     and diminished regional tensions.
       It is far more likely that the Chinese government will 
     cooperate in these areas in the future and observe 
     international norms of behavior if it is recognized by the 
     U.S. as an equal partner within the community of nations than 
     if it is isolated or excluded. Granting PNTR would encourage 
     continued progress and cooperation in all of these areas of 
     concern. Conversely, denying PNTR and further isolating China 
     would likely close many of these opportunities, lead to 
     increased oppression within China, and undermine regional and 
     international security.
       Please vote to enact PNTR with China without amendment. 
     This is the next, most important legislative step that you 
     can take to further positive relations between the peoples 
     and governments of the U.S. and China.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Joe Volk,
                                              Executive Secretary.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the past eight years, the 
responsibility to extend annual trade status to the People's Republic 
of China, PRC, has been shouldered entirely by the U.S. House of 
Representatives. Even though the United States Senate has eluded the 
duty of debating and deciding upon this significant issue, not one year 
has gone by when the subject matter hasn't weighed heavily on my mind.
  If one year ago you had questioned any number of business or trade 
entities in Washington state my position on the prospect of extending 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, to China, I can almost 
guarantee you would have received a non-committal response. For years I 
have questioned China's commitment to free trade with the United 
States, and have been critical of the notion that the U.S. continue a 
relationship of ``engagement'' with the PRC. Couple these concerns with 
allegations of espionage, nuclear non-proliferation, questionable 
campaign contributions and influence, human rights abuses, persecution 
of religious freedom, and the treatment of the one true Chinese 
democracy, Taiwan, and one might challenge the notion that China 
receive such significant trading status from the United States. Mr. 
President, these issues have played a significant role in my criticism 
of our relationship with China, and therefore maintained an elevated 
status as I reviewed the prospect of voting on PNTR.
  When I made my final decision regarding China's trade status, the 
mere simplicity of the issue suggested a rationale and consideration 
based solely on trade ramifications and WTO accession procedures alone. 
China's accession to the World Trade Organization is forthcoming, it's 
a fact, it's a reality, and it will happen. If the United States does 
not grant PNTR to China, the PRC will gain its ambitiously sought seat 
in the WTO, and the United States will lose all the benefits of trade 
with the more than 1.2 billion inhabitants of China. If Congress does 
not pass PNTR, the U.S-China trade deal that was 14 years in the making 
will be considered null and void, and every other member of the World 
Trade Organization will have access to the world's third largest 
economy. The potential loss of trade to the United States, and to the 
State of Washington, is too significant to ignore.
  If the simplicity of the PRC's accession to the WTO was not enough to 
force me to reconsider my stance on trade with China, the details of 
the bilateral U.S.-China trade agreement helped secure my final 
decision to support PNTR. While I have long been critical of the 
Clinton-Gore Administration's policy with respect to China, the 
agreement brokered and finalized by U.S. Trade Representative Charlene 
Barshefsky is uncomparable.
  By granting PNTR to China, the U.S. stands to benefit from a wide 
array of trade issues. While the United States retains our valuable 
trading leverage in the bilateral agreement and will gain access to a 
once heavily guarded market, China is forced to amend its market 
strategy and alter its trading exercises in favor of practices that 
embrace free market principles. When and if China alters its trading 
practices, it's clear the U.S. has everything to gain.
  When formulating my decision to support PNTR, it was necessary that I 
review and concur with those terms stated in the bilateral agreement. 
If the terms were ever called into question by U.S. industry, 
manufacturers, agriculture, the service sector, or the high tech 
industry, I would seriously reconsider my position.

[[Page S8699]]

  However, not one of the aforementioned industries in the State of 
Washington outlined an objection to trade with China. According to the 
World Bank, China will have to expand infrastructure by $750 billion in 
the next 10 years. Washington companies like Boeing, Paacar, and 
Mircosoft are prepared to fill their needs. Service sector companies 
like Eddie Bauer, Starbucks, and Nordstrom will step up to fill 
consumer demands. Not to mention, agriculture can finally attempt to 
penetrate the Chinese market that has for so long eluded our 
commodities. From the lush orchards of Central Washington to the 
rolling wheat fields of the Palouse, agriculture in Washington state is 
prepared and stands ready to benefit from the access to the 1.2 billion 
consumers in China.
  While it was fascinating to me that so many varying industries and 
retail companies support PNTR and trade with China, the mere numbers 
and degree of tariff reduction contained in the bilateral agreement 
persuaded me most.

  For example, the U.S. agriculture products that once faced enormous 
trade barriers and sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions, will 
receive a reduction of tariffs on average from 31.5 percent to 14.5 
percent. Access for bulk commodities will be expanded, and for the 
first time ever China will permit agriculture trade between private 
parties.
  What does this mean for Washington state agriculture? For the first 
time in over 20 years, China has finally agreed to lift the ominous and 
ridiculous phytosanitary trade barrier Washington wheat growers have 
learned to hate--TCK smut. As a result of this trade agreement, Chinese 
officials traveled to Washington state this spring and secured a tender 
for 50,000 metric tons of Pacific Northwest wheat. While this purchase 
is nominal, and represents a figure that I will press to increase, the 
elimination of export subsidies on wheat has already enhanced the 
expansion of markets wheat growers desire.
  For some of our most precious and high value commodities such as 
apples and pears, tariffs will be reduced from 30 percent to 10 
percent. Frozen hash browns, the pride of the Columbia Basin, will 
receive tariff reductions from 25 percent to 13 percent. Tariffs on 
cheese will plummet by 38 percent; grapes by 27 percent; cherries and 
peaches by 20 percent; potato chips by 10 percent; and beef by 33 
percent. All of these commodities represent a significant portion of 
the Washington state agriculture industry, and at a time when new 
markets are difficult to come by, news of China's tariff reduction 
promises resulted in waves of support for PNTR by farmers.
  Washington state agriculture is not the only sector to gain access to 
China's market. As a matter of fact in 1998, direct exports from 
Washington to China totaled $3.6 billion, more than double the exports 
in 1996. Of that figure, 91 percent represented transportation 
equipment, namely aircraft and aircraft parts.
  The Boeing Company maintains 67 percent of China's market for 
commercial aircraft. Boeing anticipates that over the next 20 years, 
nearly one million jobs will be related to Boeing sales to China. Over 
the next 10 years, China is expected to purchase 700 airplanes worth 
$45 billion. Recognizing Boeing's significant contribution to the Puget 
Sound region and the State of Washington, it's no wonder one of the 
major labor unions that builds these airplanes supports PNTR.
  So many people automatically equate transportation jobs directly with 
Boeing, but the aerospace and commercial airline industry is also 
supported by thousands of additional employees that contract and 
subcontract with the nation's only airline supplier. These contractors 
in Washington and all across the nation also stand to benefit from 
trade with China.
  While the agriculture and manufacturing industries in Washington 
stand to gain, the high-tech, service sector and forest product 
industries also will benefit from liberalized market access. China has 
agreed to zero tariffs on computers and equipment, telecommunications 
equipment, and information technology. Tariffs on wood will decrease 7 
percent, and paper by 17 percent. In addition, fish products tariffs 
will drop by 10 percent.
  Washington's geographic proximity to China automatically benefits the 
service sector, the ports, and transportation infrastructure. Banking, 
securities, insurance, travel, tourism, and professional services such 
as accounting, engineering, and medical needs will all gain access to 
China's market. Knowing the ambitious and adventurous nature of many 
Washingtonians in these fields, I can imagine many State of Washington 
subsidiaries could find a home in China.
  While all these tariff reductions and trade liberalization efforts 
look good on paper, there are also several mechanisms built into the 
bilateral agreement to address trade and import concerns. Two of the 
most significant items negotiated by the United States were the import 
surge mechanism and the anti-dumping provisions. Both these provisions 
were considered ``deal breakers'' by American negotiators. Had they not 
been included, the U.S. would have walked away from the negotiating 
table.
  The import surge mechanism will remain in place for 12 years 
following China's accession to the WTO, and can be used in response to 
potential import disruptions by China. The anti-dumping provision will 
remain for 15 years and will be used by the U.S. should an influx of 
Chinese products flood our market.
  The efficacy of the anti-dumping mechanism is evidenced by the case 
the U.S. apple industry filed and won against China. Citing an 
excessive increase of apple juice concentrate, the U.S. industry filed 
an anti-dumping case with the International Trade Commission, ITC, just 
last year. After the U.S. Department of Commerce and the ITC agreed 
that the U.S. industry had been harmed, the price for juice apples in 
the U.S. increased from $10 per ton back to the normal $130 per ton. 
This case was significant as it exemplified the United States' ability 
to appropriately deal with Chinese dumping practices, and it concluded 
that the U.S. has an appropriate and workable mechanism to address the 
issue of import surges.
  While the aforementioned specifics about the bilateral trade 
agreement speak volumes to our trade dependent friends at home in 
Washington, when all is said and done, when all the tariffs are reduced 
and markets are liberalized, major questions will still remain. Will 
China become the trading partner that the U.S. hopes and desires? Will 
the PRC adhere to those details so cautiously and ambitiously sought? 
Will the U.S. market benefit from the buying power of China's 1.2 
billion consumers? While I might not remain as optimistic about trade 
with China as some of my counterparts or those in the U.S. trade 
industry, one fact will remain constant. With the passage of PNTR and 
China's eventual accession to the World Trade Organization, leaders in 
Beijing will have to begin complying by international trade rules and 
restrictions or face the wrath of its new trading partners. These 
partners will include the United States and all of our allies.
  Of the other questions that still remain regarding human rights, 
religious freedom, non-proliferation, allegations of espionage, and the 
treatment of Taiwan, one can only hope that the eventual promises and 
attractiveness of democracy and free market principles will be embraced 
by those who encounter it for the first time. One hopes that 
eventually, Falun Gong practitioners will be able to practice their 
faith in public. One hopes that eventually the weight of 
internationalism, globalization and trade will move Beijing away from 
theories and military practices that could bring harm to their trading 
partners. One hopes that eventually workers will perform in a less 
oppressive regime. One hopes that China will one day accept Taiwan as 
an independent nation. One hopes.
  Because I have remained vigilant about my criticism of China, I 
endure to continue my close watch over United States interests and 
national security. Because I unconditionally support Taiwan and that 
country's efforts to embrace freedom and democracy, I will forevermore 
remain their champion. While I believe that democracy will eventually 
reign true, I will continue to raise concerns regarding human rights, 
religious freedom, and the United States relationship with China on all 
fronts.

[[Page S8700]]

  I will vote for PNTR not because I am comfortable with the thought 
that China will adhere to all the details in the bilateral agreement, 
or the prospect that they will become exceptional trading partners 
overnight, but I support the men and women from the most trade 
dependent state in the nation who have urged its successful passage.
  Whatever the course of our relationship with China takes over the 
coming years, I assure Washingtonians that I will be scrutinizing the 
reactions of Beijing very closely. I will continue to engage in a 
dialogue with all interested parties to ensure that Washington benefits 
from these new trade practices. I will work to ensure that American 
interests and national security weigh heavy on the minds of our 
negotiators and the next Administration. Because this vote is 
unmistakably one of the most significant trade votes the Senate has 
cast in recent years, I assure my constituents that I will keep their 
interests at heart.
  Whatever it takes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have decided to vote in favor of China 
PNTR because I believe this action will continue our policy of 
engagement with the Chinese government and increase the likelihood that 
our nation will have better relations with China in the years to come. 
The other option was to act on the assumption that China will become 
more hostile to the United States and that we must try to seal it off, 
which will not work.
  This decision is a further step down the road that was begun by 
President Nixon in 1972 when he concluded it was better to have 
relations with China than to shut it off. Since then there have been 
many difficulties, but on the whole, I believe the relationship has 
been better than it would have been otherwise.
  We now maintain military superiority over China and it is critical 
that it continue. I do not believe that it is inevitable that our 
future will be shaped by hostile relations with China. If we are strong 
and maintain our military, the chance of avoiding potential future 
hostilities will be improved. Such a vision is what wise leadership is 
all about.
  I am not certain how best to improve the conditions of Christians and 
other religious people in China. I do recall, however, that when Rome 
changed from persecuting the early Christians to making Christianity 
the official religion of the empire, the change came about because of a 
change of heart and not as a result of a threat from an outside 
military power.
  I was very impressed with the testimony of Ned Graham, son of the 
Rev. Billy Graham, who aids Christians in China and who has visited the 
country over forty times and distributed over two million Bibles to 
unlicensed Christians. He testified before the Senate Finance 
Committee. In his summation he stated that a vote for PNTR would 
encourage China's engagement with the world, increase the availability 
of computer technology to its citizens, accelerate its development of a 
rule of law, allow for increased contact between U.S. and Chinese 
citizens, and ultimately lead to positive changes in its religious 
policy. He concluded that most importantly ``this action will help 
diminish the negative perceptions that exist between our two great 
countries.'' While we, as humans, can never know the future, I am 
persuaded by his remarks. Generosity of spirit and forbearance founded 
on strength are the qualities of a great nation.
  On the level of trade, I believe that my state of Alabama will be 
able to sell more products in China because of the significant 
reductions in the tariffs China has imposed on imported American goods. 
This increased trade will benefit Alabama's farmers, timber industry 
and much of our manufacturing. It can benefit our transportation 
system, including the Port of Mobile.
  While I think it will increase our exports, I cannot conclude that 
this agreement is going to help our overall balance of trade deficit, 
at least not in the short run. While China has a significant wage 
advantage in its manufacturing, it has a shortage of many natural 
resources, lacks technology, has a very poor infrastructure and is 
burdened by corruption and a lack of a rule of law which protects 
liberties and property interests. In addition, it continues to hold on 
to the form of communism, an ideology of incalculable destructive 
power. These problems will burden them for years to come and will take 
many generations to eliminate.
  The key to the success of this agreement will be vigorous, determined 
and sustained leadership by the United States to ensure that China 
complies with this agreement and the WTO rules. China's tendency has 
been to cut corners and not live up to its obligations under 
agreements. In my view, China must come to see that its interests and 
those of its trading partners will be advanced by following these 
trading rules. Unfortunately, China seems to be obsessed with exporting 
and not importing. The truth is China and her people will benefit from 
having the opportunity to buy quality food and products from around the 
world. They must come to recognize that fact.
  This issue is very complex and no one can see into the future with a 
crystal ball, but my analysis and judgement tells me it is time to step 
out in a positive way, and to take the lead in reducing some of the 
suspicions and misperceptions that have grown in recent years between 
our two nations.
  Since I believe that increased economic activity between our two 
countries is not likely to assist China in strengthening its military 
in any substantial way, regardless of legislation, I see the positive 
aspects of this legislation outweighing the negative. We must, however, 
make clear to China that we intend to defend our just interests and 
those of our allies around the world, and that we will not abandon our 
ally and friend, the Democratically elected government of Taiwan. We 
also need to remain especially vigilant to protect our military secrets 
and technological advantage. I was therefore disappointed that the 
amendment offered by Senator Fred Thompson did not pass. We must make 
crystal clear to our business community that we will not tolerate 
transfer of our military technology to China. While I favored a number 
of the amendments that have been offered to this legislation, and was 
disappointed they did not pass, I am appreciative of the quality of the 
debate that has surrounded this issue.
  China has 1.2 billion people, the most populous country on this 
globe. Their people are talented and hardworking. Our vote today should 
enhance our economic and political relationships.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, 
which would grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China. I do so 
only after long and careful consideration of this proposal.
  I believe that granting permanent normal trade relations with China 
is the right thing to do. It will significantly alter our nation's 
relations with China. Trade between U.S. companies and the Chinese will 
likely explode in the coming years--generating jobs and revenues in 
this country. It could easily be the keystone in the continuing 
prosperity of this nation. And it could be the vital catalyst for 
democracy and a free-market system in China.
  During the last few months as I have traveled through North Carolina 
and met with my constituents, I have heard from hundreds of men and 
women who believe that their future prosperity and their jobs turn upon 
this vote. Many of them eagerly support this legislation.
  I believe that North Carolina workers can compete with anyone and 
win. This bill opens a world of opportunity to North Carolina 
businesses and workers. The farmer, the high- tech worker, the 
furniture manufacturer, the factory worker, and the banker all will get 
a real chance to capture a part of the Chinese market.
  The farmer who is working so hard and struggling believes that 
China's agricultural market will be opened. For example, China already 
imports 12 percent of its poultry meat. If China joins the WTO, it will 
cut its poultry tariffs in half and accept all poultry meat that is 
certified wholesome by the USDA. A similar situation holds for pork and 
tobacco products. China's agreement to lower its tariffs, to eliminate 
quotas, and to defer to U.S. health standards provides North Carolina 
farmers with real opportunity.
  The high- tech worker who is producing software or fiber optics cable 
will also benefit. China has agreed to eliminate its duties on these 
products in the next few years and has agreed to eliminate many of its 
purchase and distribution rules that inhibit sales of U.S. products.

[[Page S8701]]

  Meanwhile, tariffs on furniture will be eliminated. Tariffs on heavy 
machinery will be reduced by nearly one half. Banks and insurance 
companies will be able to do business with the Chinese people without 
arbitrary restrictions. The list goes on.
  As U.S. goods and services flow into China and as our engagement 
grows, the opportunity for real change in China grows. We are all aware 
that China has a long way to go in improving its record on human 
rights, religious liberty, environmental protection and labor rights. 
The abuses in that nation are serious. And I am committed to continued 
efforts to end those abuses. As American ideas, goods, and businesses 
surge into China, I believe China's record will improve.
  But I am mindful that globalization and this bill in particular may 
have a real downside. As a Senator from North Carolina, I am well-
positioned to see both the enormous benefits and the large costs of 
this measure.
  Textile and apparel workers, many of whom live in North Carolina, 
face real challenges as a result of this measure. While in almost every 
respect the agreement with China benefits our country, textiles is the 
major exception. As a result of joining WTO, quotas on Chinese textiles 
and apparel will be eliminated in 2005. As a result, Chinese apparel 
will flow into the United States. By and large, the Chinese imports 
will likely displace imports from other countries. However, there is no 
doubt that an additional burden will be placed on the textile industry. 
To be sure, the industry can try to protect itself through the anti-
surge mechanism put in place by this legislation. Yet it does us no 
good to pretend that these remedies are perfect and that people will 
not be hurt. I know that textile workers will work their hearts out 
competing with the Chinese. I know these people; I grew up with them. 
When I was in college, I worked a summer job in a textile mill. My 
father spent his life working in mills. The impact of PNTR on them is 
personal to me. Dealing with the impact of this bill on them will 
always be a top priority for me. And I will fight throughout my career 
to protect them.

  Mr. President, China's entry into the World Trade Organization and 
its attainment of permanent normal trade relations with America is not 
without its risks. No one can predict with certainty that China will 
live up to its commitments. I vote for this bill because I believe that 
we must turn our face toward the future. But we must be mindful of the 
risks. So I warn that I will monitor China's compliance with its 
agreements like a hawk. If they renege, I will lead the charge to force 
them to live up to their obligations.
  But to vote against this measure--to deny PNTR--not only fails to 
accomplish anything productive but also denies us enormous 
opportunities. We cannot hide our heads in the sand. China will join 
the WTO. The Senate has no impact on that decision. The only question 
we face is whether the U.S. will grant China permanent normal trade 
relations or whether it will fall out of compliance with its WTO 
obligations. If we fall out of compliance, the U.S. will be denied the 
Chinese tariff reductions and rule changes, while every other country 
in the world takes advantage of the Chinese concessions. We must decide 
whether the U.S. will be able to compete with other countries--Germany, 
France, Japan--as they enter the Chinese market. American companies and 
workers deserve the right to enter those markets. On balance, I believe 
that China's admission into the World Trade Organization and its 
attainment of permanent normal trading relations is for the good.
  And so I vote for this legislation, mindful of the risks, prepared to 
watch the results carefully and optimistic about the future.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senate is completing a historic vote 
on the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000, H.R. 4444, which grants 
permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, status to the People's Republic 
of China. Realizing that many Pennsylvanians have expressed very strong 
feelings on both sides of this issue, I would like to take a moment to 
discuss my reasons for supporting this measure.
  First, it is important to understand what normal trade relations, 
NTR, is. Since 1980, the United States has granted China NTR status 
every year, subject to an annual review. ``Normal trade relations'', 
NTR, is the tariff treatment the U.S. grants to its trading partners. 
All but a select few countries receive this trade status. NTR simply 
means that products from a foreign country receive the same relatively 
lower tariff rates as our other trading partners enjoy. The lower 
tariff rates result from years of negotiations and various trade 
agreements in which the U.S. reduces its duties on imports, in exchange 
for reduced rates on its own products. NTR lowers tariff rates, but 
does not eliminate them altogether. In this way, NTR substantially 
differs from a free trade agreement. Free trade agreements, such as 
NAFTA, set dates by which all tariffs among the member countries will 
be eliminated. I would also note that certain countries receive even 
lower tariffs than NTR affords through ``preferential'' tariff status.
  The U.S.-China Relations Act ends the annual renewal process for 
China's trade status by extending permanent normal trade relations, 
PNTR, to China. The Act becomes effective when China is officially 
accepted as a member of the World Trade Organization, WTO. Upon China's 
accession to the WTO, a trade agreement negotiated between the Clinton 
Administration and China will also become effective. In exchange for 
PNTR, China has agreed to unprecedented tariff reductions and market-
oriented reforms. The U.S. is not required to reduce our tariffs or to 
make any commitments, other than extension of PNTR. We also preserve 
the right to withdraw market access for China in a national security 
emergency. China, however, has committed to specific trade concessions 
by certain dates. Thus, the terms of this agreement are clear and 
enforceable. If China violates its agreements, the U.S. will be able to 
respond quickly and definitively.
  I supported H.R. 4444 because without Congressional approval of PNTR 
status for China, the U.S. would not benefit from the concessions China 
agreed to in the bilateral trade deal. These concessions, which open 
the Chinese market to American goods and services, will benefit 
Pennsylvania's farmers, industries and workers. Likewise, I believe 
that engagement in a rules-based system of trade will help foster 
political and personal freedom, as well as economic opportunity, for 
China's citizens.
  Mr. President, China is now the third largest economy in the world. 
The bilateral trade agreement pries open this historically closed 
market for Pennsylvania's products and services, especially in the 
agriculture, technology, banking, insurance, and manufacturing sectors. 
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania exports a 
wide range of products to China. Pennsylvania, as a major exporter of 
beef, pork, poultry, feed grains, and dairy products, will see average 
agriculture tariffs cut by more than half by January 2004. China 
must also eliminate its agriculture export subsidies and reduce 
domestic subsidies. Industrial tariffs on U.S. exports to China will be 
cut by more than half by 2005. Furthermore, China must eliminate 
quotas. Within three years, Pennsylvania companies and farmers will 
have full trading rights to import, export, and distribute their 
products directly to Chinese customers. Tariffs on chemical products, 
automobiles, and steel exported to China will also be cut from their 
present rates. And of course, it is important to note the strength of 
Pennsylvania's workers in these industries. The bilateral agreement 
takes the first steps in leveling the playing field for Pennsylvanians 
to compete in an emerging international market.

  I am also pleased to say that small and medium sized businesses will 
benefit under the bilateral agreement. Most companies that are 
currently exporting to China are small and medium sized enterprises, 
SMEs. Nationally, 82 percent of all firms exporting to China were SMEs. 
Of all Pennsylvania's companies exporting products to China, 63 percent 
are SMEs.
  Despite the benefits of our trade agreement, I am mindful of sincere 
opposition to granting PNTR to China on the basis of its human rights 
record. Under H.R. 4444, the United States will no longer condition 
China's trade status upon an annual review of ``freedom of emigration'' 
practices. This does not mean that the U.S. will stop pressuring

[[Page S8702]]

China to allow its citizens to leave the country, if they choose to do 
so, nor does it mean that the U.S. will stop monitoring the widespread 
human rights violations in China. Rather, H.R. 4444 establishes a 
special Congressional-Executive Commission to monitor human rights 
abuses in China and to recommend appropriate remedies to the President 
and Congress. I realize that the Commission, PNTR, and even eventual 
WTO accession will not immediately bring about change in China; 
however, I believe that further engagement and economic reforms will 
lead to greater political and personal freedom for Chinese citizens. 
Isolating China serves only to strengthen the hand of hard-line 
communists who would continue to oppress the Chinese people. Many 
religious leaders share this view, including some pastors of Chinese 
house churches who have been jailed for their beliefs.
  Another concern that I have taken very seriously is the potential 
impact on American workers. I have studied both the bilateral trade 
agreement and this legislation very carefully. Basically, the Chinese 
receive the same NTR tariff rates they have received for the past 20 
years. In return, we get lower tariffs for our exports to China, new 
market access in distributing our products within China, and 
elimination of trade barriers for U.S. goods and services in the 
Chinese market. In other words, China essentially gets the status quo, 
while we get new benefits and substantial concessions from the Chinese. 
The U.S. fully preserves its anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws, 
which protect our industries and workers against unfairly traded 
Chinese imports. I would also note that H.R. 4444 provides even 
stronger protection from harmful Chinese import surges than current 
U.S. trade law allows. Furthermore, H.R. 4444 creates a government task 
force to prevent products made from Chinese prison labor from being 
imported into the U.S. With these protections in place and with 
effective enforcement, I believe that American workers can compete 
against anyone else in the world. American workers are, after all, the 
world's most productive.
  I would also like to address the difference between granting PNTR to 
China and WTO accession. Congress has voted to extend PNTR to China; 
however, Congress has no vote on China's accession to the WTO. WTO 
accession is a four-step process. First, the applicant must present its 
trade and economic policies to a Working Party of all interested WTO 
countries. While these general multilateral negotiations take place, 
separate negotiations take place between the applicant and individual 
WTO countries, including the United States. These bilateral 
negotiations establish specific market access commitments and tariff 
rates. When both of these steps are completed, the Working Party drafts 
the terms of membership. Finally, the complete package is presented to 
the WTO Ministerial Conference for approval. The result of not 
extending PNTR would have been to deny U.S. farmers, manufacturers, 
banks, insurance firms, and their employees access to the Chinese 
market as promised in the bilateral trade agreement. Also, the U.S. 
would have been unable to avail itself of multilateral dispute 
settlement procedures in the WTO if further trade disputes with China 
arise.

  Finally, I would like to assure Pennsylvanians that my vote on PNTR 
does not lessen my resolve to fight for fair trade in any way. Even 
after China joins the WTO, I will continue to monitor their adherence 
to the bilateral trade agreement. H.R. 4444 requires the United States 
Trade Representative, USTR, to issue a yearly report on China's 
compliance with its WTO obligations. I will follow these reports 
closely. In the meantime, I will continue to vigorously fight for 
stronger trade laws to protect U.S. workers and producers from unfairly 
traded foreign imports. For example, just last Friday, I testified at 
the International Trade Commission to oppose revocation of the 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders on various foreign steel 
imports.
  I hope this clarifies the reasons I am supporting the U.S.-China 
Relations Act of 2000.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, many of us have struggled for months 
to decide what is the right vote on China PNTR--the right vote for our 
individual states, the right vote for the Nation. I certainly have, as 
I have tried to grasp what effect PNTR with China might have on my 
state of West Virginia.
  Over the last few months I've taken some time to listen and to talk 
with people in my state, to review where we are in West Virginia under 
the current trading system. I've tried to assess if West Virginia will 
be helped or disadvantaged if the Congress rejects PNTR. That is what I 
care about more than anything.
  It is well known that West Virginia is a long way from enjoying the 
full benefits of the economic boom that we hear so much about. 
Unemployment remains over 5 percent, stuck stubbornly far above the 
national average. Our per capita income is $19,362, 49th among the 
states. Far too many of our working poor require food stamps, and far 
too many remain uninsured. And while I will fight every day to bring 
more and better jobs to West Virginia, the fact remains that we are a 
long way from providing the economic opportunities for the thousands of 
West Virginians who want to improve their lives, or are just struggling 
to survive from day to day.
  There are many complex reasons that my state lags behind the nation 
economically. But one significant reason-- which I believe with all of 
my heart and which I cannot ignore--is the simple fact that our current 
international trading system is simply not working for the people of 
West Virginia. The status quo is not working for West Virginia, neither 
for its workers nor for its industries.
  We are just not being fairly treated under the current rules. Witness 
the struggle we have faced to protect our critical steel industry. 
Cheap and illegal imports began flooding the U.S. market in late 1997. 
A full two years passed before the first trade cases were resolved and 
the domestic industry got any relief and remedy. In those two years, 
six steel producers went bankrupt. Thousands were laid off. The impact 
on those companies, their employees, and the steel communities was 
devastating. And that is why I introduced fair trade legislation that 
would give our steel industry a fairer chance to prevent illegal steel 
dumping in the future. The status quo, our current unfair trade laws, 
were not working for West Virginia.
  We in West Virginia are not being protected by the current trading 
rules. They are causing us to lose ground, lose jobs, and lose 
industries. I love my state too much to allow this to continue without 
fighting in every way I know to make it better. I will not vote to 
continue the current rules. I will not vote to maintain the status quo.
  A vote in favor of PNTR for China will allow us to deal specifically 
with China on steel. For example, under today's unfair trade laws, the 
President must take uniform action against all countries that are 
dumping their imports on our market. Under current law and the status 
quo, the United States cannot single out one country for a tough 
remedy. Under the bilateral's antisurge provisions, we could address an 
influx of imports from China specifically. That is just one example, 
there are a few other provisions of the bilateral that could also work 
to, in essence, strengthen our ability to guard against Chinese steel 
disrupting our market.
  West Virginia's chemical industry will benefit greatly from the 
tariff reduction that will come from passing PNTR legislation. The 
chemical industry is the largest industrial employer in West Virginia 
with an average salary of $51,000. During this debate, I heard from all 
of our chemical companies about the potential they have to increase 
their exports to China once this agreement goes into effect. Companies 
like DuPont who wrote me recently with the following: ``DuPont 
currently exports to China almost $16 million of products from our 
plants in West Virginia, and we see those exports increasing as the 
Chinese economy grows. West Virginia is, in fact, the second leading 
exporter to China, surpassed only by Texas, among DuPont operations 
nationwide. West Virginia exports will drop to zero, however, if 
Congress does not enact PNTR legislation--because China will keep its 
tariffs high for U.S. exporters while lowering its tariffs for all 
other members'

[[Page S8703]]

nations of WTO. Enactment of this legislation is, therefore, extremely 
important to DuPont and to our 3500 employees in West Virginia.''
  It also means that as a part of the international trading regime, 
China will have to deal with 131 other trading partners who all will be 
incredibly vigilant to ensure that China is playing by the rules. It 
will not be a perfect system, but it will be a much better system.
  So I say, Mr. President, when you have the opportunity to do trade 
and business with 1.2 billion people, to engage them with the world as 
we do today, to change the status quo that is not working for West 
Virginia, then you must do what is right. It's even more important when 
your state ranks 4th among all 50 states in percentage of products made 
that are exported abroad. That is why I will vote today to approve 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
  To be clear, the vote we take today is not about China entering the 
WTO. Others have said this, but it bears repeating over and over. The 
American people must understand this: China will enter the WTO no 
matter what the Congress does.
  So, the sole question we must answer is, what will the impact be if 
the Congress rejects PNTR? Has this annual review of our trading 
relationship with China had the impact we had hoped it would, and what 
will be the effect of rejecting PNTR on West Virginia and all the 
United States?
  First, as to the impact on China.
  I do not accept, indeed, I abhor, the unfair and sometimes inhumane 
conditions faced by the people of that largest of the world's 
countries. I have spent a considerable amount of time in that part of 
the world and I know conditions there are unacceptable. All people who 
love freedom decry the violations of people's rights in China. As the 
leader of the free world, America must acknowledge its responsibility 
to do all in our power to better China's treatment of its people.

  I also believe we should encourage nations like China, where fast-
growing economies will increase both energy demand and greenhouse gas 
emissions, to use the cleanest technologies available. In fact, I view 
PNTR as the best means of introducing these mostly-American 
technologies, some of the most cutting-edge of which were developed in 
West Virginia, to the Chinese energy sector.
  At the same time, I cannot say that the Congress' annual review of 
China has had any impact on China whatsoever--and we are just kidding 
ourselves if we think denying China PNTR now will improve labor or 
human rights. The annual PNTR review was supposed to provide us with 
some leverage to improve the conditions in China. But in reality, it 
has become mostly a feel-good, rubber stamp process here in the 
Congress that has no impact. Neither wages nor working conditions nor 
environmental safeguards have been advanced because we go through the 
annual charade of PNTR. I wish this were not true; the world experience 
says it is.
  What will improve labor and human rights in China, in my view, is our 
working to bring China into a world living under law, acting to bring 
China into a fairer trading system without its restrictive tariffs and 
other barriers, and fighting to force China to deal in the world of 
nations under fairer rules, not just its own rules. Fighting to make 
China play by the rules--that's a fight I'm willing to make!
  So I turn then to my second question: Will our country and my state 
be disadvantaged if we reject PNTR?
  To that there is only one answer--I am convinced we, my state, my 
country, will be harmed if PNTR is rejected. No one else.
  Remember, China will enter the WTO no matter how the Congress votes 
on PNTR. When that happens, and if we reject PNTR, all other WTO 
nations will have the upper hand, and all of our trading partners will 
benefit from lower tariffs and greater access to the world's largest 
market. Other nations will have all of the advantages in doing business 
there. Our workers, our industries, our farmers--all will have lost 
this new opportunity to gain fairer access to the largest of the 
world's untapped economies. Why would we want to squander that 
opportunity?
  Rejecting PNTR means we lose--America loses--the many important 
concessions that were won last year in our government's negotiations 
with China. All will be lost, including unprecedented concessions that 
will give U.S. industries the upper hand in cases where the fairness of 
China's trading practices is in question. The bilateral agreement 
provides a twelve year product specific safeguard that ensures that the 
U.S. can take action on China if imports from that country cause market 
disruptions here in America. China has also agreed to grant U.S. 
industries the right to apply non-market methodology in anti-dumping 
cases for the next 15 years. This is a major boon for U.S. industries 
suffering from injury caused by unfair and illegal imports. China makes 
other concessions as well, which make it easier for businesses in this 
country to prove countervailing duty cases against China.
  These new provisions could be used to help companies, like Portec 
Rail, in Huntington, West Virginia, who may have been harmed from 
dumping of Chinese steel rail joints. It seems to me that companies 
like Portec Rail might be early beneficiaries of these stronger import 
surge provisions.
  Let me be clear, these provisions improve the status quo. They are 
stronger than our current unfair trade laws. Under the new agreement, 
China will finally be required to greatly lower its barriers to our 
trade there. China makes all the concessions. We have nothing to gain--
and everything to lose--by rejecting PNTR.
  And lose we will. What would be the likelihood of Chinese retaliation 
if we reject PNTR? There is little doubt in my mind that China would 
retaliate against U.S. economic interests. On a purely political level, 
it would bolster China's hardline forces of party control and state 
enterprise. And this could destabilize an area of the world that I care 
deeply about, the Taiwan Straits. I have spent a large part of my time 
working on the cross Straits issue between China and Taiwan. I want to 
see peace in that region. I want to see Taiwan join the WTO. But, 
rejection of this deal could have real dangerous consequences for 
Taiwan. China is simply too unpredictable, and could paralyze our 
efforts to promote peace and economic stability in Asia and around the 
globe.
  Mr. President, of course we need to be vigilant and tough with China 
as we take advantage of this new economic opportunity. I fully realize 
that China has generally gone about its trading business however it saw 
fit, doing whatever it wanted and barring most competition. That cannot 
continue, and that is exactly why I believe we must bring China into 
and under the scrutiny of the WTO. We must make China play by a fairer 
set of rules, which means bringing them into a trading system governed 
by rules that we have helped create. And rules that we can enforce.
  Mr. President, this is an opportunity for America that I am willing 
to fight for.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has been able 
to pass, after extended debate, H.R. 4444 which will make Normal Trade 
Relations with China permanent. After over twenty years of yearly 
extensions of Most Favored Nation trading status, we are now going to 
stabilize our trading relations with the Chinese. This is a step 
forward for the United States, China, and our citizens.
  I believe in trade as a liberalizing force. A country cannot accept 
our goods and services and not be exposed to our ideas and values. One 
has only to look around the Pacific to see countries that have made the 
move from dictatorship to democracy and see their focus on trade to 
understand the connection. South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia have all 
made steps toward greater democracy and all three have been engines for 
economic growth in the region. As capitalism penetrates Chinese 
society, the push for greater democracy will inexorably follow.
  Increased trade and investment between our countries will separate 
Chinese workers from dependence on state owned enterprises. Currently 
Chinese workers depend on the state for almost everything including 
their jobs and paychecks. Once workers have a choice between working 
for the government and for private business, and can break their 
dependency on the state, the push for greater democracy will only 
increase.

[[Page S8704]]

  Trade will also serve as a valuable tool for exchanges between our 
countries as a more personal form of diplomacy. As business people 
travel back and forth, as workers meet Americans, as the Chinese people 
have more exposure to our country through the media and the internet, 
the people of China will develop there own attitudes about Westerners, 
capitalism, and democracy.
  The World Trade Organization will bring China the prestige and 
respect it craves, but at a price. As a member, China will be treated 
like any other member of the international community, and not like an 
outcast or rogue. The members of the WTO, however, will not let 
themselves be taken advantage of in trade matters. During this debate I 
have heard many members talk about the advantage of multilateral 
sanctions over unilateral ones. The WTO offers members an excellent 
mechanism to propound and enforce multilateral sanctions, forcing 
China's compliance on trade issues.
  While the agreement that the Administration negotiated in the fall of 
1999 is not perfect, it significantly equalizes the terms of trade 
between our countries. Not only did we convince the Chinese to 
drastically reduce their tariffs on everything from auto parts to ice 
cream, we also negotiated to keep our anti-dumping and import surge 
laws. On our side, we gave up nothing in exchange. We did not allow any 
additional access to our markets or lower our tariffs. It was a one way 
deal--a deal that U.S. farmers and workers benefit from. People may be 
concerned about Chinese imports into the United States, but this 
agreement does not alter China's access to our markets one bit. On our 
side of the Pacific, nothing will change.
  Some of my colleagues were disappointed that workers' rights 
provisions were not provided for in this agreement. I share their 
concern that China does not share our belief in the importance of 
respecting working people. I believe that Senator Helms had an 
excellent proposal for raising the working conditions in China, while 
protecting the reputations of U.S. businesses that operate in China. 
His amendment to create a voluntary Code of Conduct for U.S. businesses 
in China would go a long way in protecting Chinese workers. By agreeing 
to respect certain rights to organize, to earn a decent wage, and to 
work in a safe environment, Chinese workers would learn the benefits of 
American style capitalism. This would also protect U.S. companies from 
being accused of abusing foreign workers for economic gain. We all know 
the public relations albatross around the neck of companies that moved 
to third world countries and thought they did not have a responsibility 
to meet Western standards of worker protection. We all know the names 
of companies who have operations in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Central 
America that have been brought under harsh scrutiny when the public 
finds out what the conditions are in these factories. Senator Helms's 
amendment provided an opportunity for companies to avoid this negative 
publicity by agreeing openly that certain principals will always be 
respected, regardless of whether the factory is in China or the United 
States.
  As we focus on expanding economic ties with China, we must consider 
our decision to grant PNTR in the context of our broader foreign policy 
relationship with China. I count myself among those who support PNTR in 
the hope that expanded trade with China will result in a more open 
Chinese society. To that end, we must be persistent in pressing the 
Chinese to demonstrate respect for human rights. Since the May 1999 
suspension of the bilateral dialogue on Chinese human rights we have 
continued to convey our concerns to the Chinese about their repressive 
policies. Their unwillingness to engage with us on these issues puts 
more pressure on us to use the trade and economic contacts we have to 
press them on human rights and other matters.
  Although I chose not to support the Wellstone amendment which would 
have conditioned PNTR on specific steps to improve religious freedom in 
China because I do not believe we should be adding last minute 
conditions to PNTR, I am deeply concerned about the most recent State 
Department reports on human rights and religious freedom in China. The 
Chinese government's respect for religious freedom and human rights has 
deteriorated considerably in recent years. Reports of severe violations 
continue unabated, including harsh crackdowns against religious and 
minority groups, the imprisonment of religious and minority leaders, 
including Catholic bishops, the complete repression of political 
freedom, and violence against women, including forced abortions, 
sterilizations, and prostitution.
  There are those who say that we are losing our leverage with the 
Chinese on human rights by giving up our annual review of their human 
rights practices before we grant them normal trade relations status. In 
practice, however, this review had become a formality. We have never 
denied the Chinese normal trade relations status, even in recent years, 
since the Tianneman Square uprising, when their human rights record has 
been so egregious. I have believed that trade can be used as an 
effective bargaining tool in pressuring governments to improve their 
records on human rights. In the case of China, PNTR will not only 
provide us with the opportunity to press the Chinese at the highest 
levels, expanded trade will expose the Chinese people to the many 
freedoms we hold so dear, creating pressure from within.

  We will also not be losing our opportunity to monitor Chinese human 
rights practices in a public way. The legislation before us creates a 
Helsinki-style commission which is designed to keep human rights on the 
front burner of US-Chinese relations. We must monitor Chinese behavior, 
speak plainly to the Chinese, and take action when necessary to 
communicate our objections to China's human rights record. And, we must 
continue our support for U.S. government and non-government efforts to 
effect change in China, including the development of the rule of law.
  We must also use our growing access to China to do all we can to stem 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery 
systems. The proliferation of these weapons and the ballistic missiles 
designed to deliver them pose the greatest threat to our security in 
the post-Cold War era. One of the consequences of the end of the Cold 
War has been looser controls on the technology, materials, and 
expertise to develop weapons of mass destruction. We must do all we can 
to prevent terrorists or radical states from acquiring these weapons 
and the means to deliver them. To that end, we have been a leader in 
setting up international regimes to prevent the spread of nuclear, 
chemical and biological weapons, and ballistic missiles. Unfortunately, 
there is much evidence that the Chinese have been heavily involved in 
proliferation activities.
  Although some would argue that the Chinese have made progress in this 
area, pointing to their 1992 promise to abide by the Missile Technology 
Control Regime, MTCR, their accession to the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Treaty, NPT, their signing and subsequent ratification of the Chemical 
Weapons Convention, CWC, and the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Treaty, there are still grave concerns about Chinese proliferation 
activities. At the same time that China was making commitments to 
adhere to international regimes to prevent the spread of nuclear and 
chemical weapons and ballistic missiles, Chinese companies continued to 
transfer sensitive technology to a number of countries. These 
technologies were instrumental in the development of weapons programs. 
Missile technology sales to Pakistan, nuclear technology sales to Iran, 
chemical sales to Iran, and missile technology sales to North Korea 
have all been attributed to the Chinese. China has played a major role 
in Pakistan's nuclear program, selling Pakistan 5,000 ring magnets, 
which can be used in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, and other 
equipment for their nuclear facilities. As recently as August 9, the 
CIA reported that China is still a ``key supplier'' of weapons 
technology, confirming for the first time missile technology sales to 
Libya.
  The few advances China has made, at least in its formal commitments, 
can be attributed to U.S. pressure. The key to preventing the further 
spread of sensitive weapons technology and know how is to continue to 
press the Chinese to honor the spirit of these commitments. We must not 
be afraid to be

[[Page S8705]]

tough with them in this area and we must be willing to use all tools--
including sanctions--to bring this message home. Global security is at 
risk if we allow rogue states to develop the capability to build 
weapons of mass destruction. And, our own national security is directly 
at stake if they develop delivery systems, that is long-range ballistic 
missiles, to bring these weapons to our shores.
  That is why I chose to support the Thompson-Torricelli amendment to 
require annual reviews of Chinese proliferation activities. If the 
review identifies persons or other entities engaging in these 
activities then sanctions would be imposed. I have been a long-time 
supporter of economic sanctions against companies and governments which 
engage in proliferation activities. I recognize that sanctions may not 
always be appropriate, and that is why Thompson-Torricelli had waiver 
provisions. However, sanctions have not been imposed in many cases that 
begged for a stronger response from our government. The reluctance to 
use sanctions sends a signal to the Chinese and others involved in 
proliferation activities that there are rarely consequences for bad 
actions. We must have teeth in our non-proliferation policy or in the 
end we will suffer the consequences.
  I had no desire to delay PNTR in my support of the Thompson 
amendment, and I can say the same for all the amendments which I chose 
to support during our consideration of PNTR. Our trade ties can benefit 
us in all our dealings with the Chinese, but we must not permit trade 
to overshadow the broad range of interests which we have with them.
  I have no illusions about the potential impact of what we have done. 
PNTR will not change the balance of trade overnight. This agreement 
will take time to have a liberalizing effect on the Chinese government. 
China is thousands of years old, we will not change their minds in a 
couple of years, regardless of whether we use carrots or sticks to 
persuade them. We need to continue working to reduce subsidies below 
their current levels, and continue to eliminate tariffs. The U.S. will 
also need to continue to work on human rights as well. The bill 
provides some of the tools for the work on human rights to carry on, 
but we must be diligent and stay focused on the task ahead.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a significant 
vote I will cast--a vote in favor of permanent normal trade relations 
for China. It is significant, but difficult. Difficult because the 
Chinese have shown--in everything from predatory trade practices, to 
threatening our national security, to total disregard for religious 
freedom and human rights--a disturbing lack of trustworthiness. And 
furthermore, the current administration seems trapped in a cycle of 
failed policy. I deeply regret that our President, on behalf of the 
United States, has squandered multiple opportunities to protect U.S. 
interests and to promote American values in trade matters.
  The vote is significant because about one-fourth of the people in the 
world live in China. When we talk of China, we need to remember that we 
are talking about people, many of whom seek to embrace the same values 
that made America great, such as religious freedom, freedom of 
expression, and capitalism. They want to live free, while many of their 
leaders want only to amass power and rule with a heavy hand.
  I do not argue, as some do, that dropping the annual review of 
China's trading status will usher in all of these freedoms. Nor will it 
further protect U.S. security interests. That argument is tenuous, at 
best.
  The only thing that will usher in the freedom to express religious or 
political beliefs, to organize, to obtain a fair trial, and to be free 
from governmental intrusion, will be a transformation among China's 
highest government officials. This will not happen in the absence of a 
well-formulated policy underpinned by moral leadership on the part of 
the U.S. Presidency. The leader of the free world must lead the world 
toward freedom. For the sake of the Chinese people, it is my hope that 
the next President of the United States will take the initiative in a 
calculated and consistent manner to be a leader in this area, without 
the need to be prodded by Congress at every turn.
  Furthermore, the key to U.S. security interests lies in the hands of 
the Commander in Chief. If China joins the World Trade Organization, 
the United States does not alter its ability, or its responsibility, to 
protect our interests at home and to promote security abroad. While the 
WTO agreement has an explicit exception that states that WTO trade 
obligations do not supercede national security decisions, the fact is 
that the United States does not need the exception. The most 
fundamental role of the U.S. government is to protect the security 
interests of its people, period. We can count on other countries to 
attempt to steal our national secrets and to violate our security 
interests. It is the way of history, the conflict of powers. The 
breakdown in U.S. security with the Chinese has occurred because this 
Administration has not been vigilant to protect our interests. It did 
not and does not have to be that way in the future.
  Granting permanent normal trade relations to China does not alter the 
President's responsibility to promote American values or to protect 
U.S. security interests. However, granting PNTR to China does have a 
substantial impact on our ability to enforce our trade agreements. I 
would like to discuss this issue fully today because I believe it is 
central to the ability of American farmers and companies to crack open 
the Chinese market--on which Chinese officials, at times, appear to 
have a death grip.
  As we all know, China has been trying to accede to the WTO for over a 
decade. In order for this process to be complete, China has to 
negotiate the terms of the trade agreement that are satisfactory to the 
United States and other WTO members and must receive a favorable vote 
from the WTO members. Also, for the United States to benefit from those 
new terms, Congress has to grant to China what is known as ``permanent 
normal trade relations'' status. The Administration has concluded a 
trade agreement with China, and the President, Vice President, and 
entire Administration are now asking Congress to support PNTR.
  A fair trade relationship with China has the potential to give 
Missouri workers and farmers the ability to sell goods in a new market 
of more than one billion people. However, a relationship is not built 
on commitments alone. It must include accountability. In China's case, 
we have a new and improved trade agreement, but we must also be able to 
enforce those commitments.
  On the first issue--a solid agreement--there has been substantial 
progress made. China should open its market on equal terms to the 
United States. The U.S. market has been fully open to China for years. 
Although I would like to see complete reciprocity, I have reviewed the 
proposed agreement for China's WTO accession, and I believe it is a 
forward step toward opening China's market for U.S. products and 
services. This is a good deal for American jobs and Missouri's long-
term economic growth.
  On everything from automobiles to agriculture, Missourians are 
prepared to embrace the opportunities the agreement could provide: 
overall average tariffs will go from 24 percent to 9 percent by 2005; 
agricultural tariffs will be cut nearly in half (31 percent to 17 
percent); businesses will be able to bypass state-trading ``middle-
men''; import standards for U.S. food goods will be based on sound 
science; competition will increase in all of the service sectors, like 
telecom, insurance, banking; the Internet will be open to U.S. 
investment; and the list goes on.
  The Missouri economy at large is poised to benefit substantially from 
further opening of the Chinese market. From the early to late 1990s, 
Missouri's exports increased by about 120 percent, going from about $65 
million in 1993, to about $145 million in 1998. Most recently, China 
ranked in the top 10 countries for Missouri exports, up from the 16th 
position in 1993.
  Agriculture is the largest employer in my home state, and in fact, 
Missouri ranks 2nd in the nation in its number of farms. As I've 
traveled around the state, stopping in every county over the last few 
months, Missouri farmers and ranchers have expressed to me the 
importance of approving the agreement that has been reached on 
agriculture.

[[Page S8706]]

 Those I met at the Missouri State Fair and at Delta Days told me that 
trade is becoming the number one issue for farmers.
  Soybean farmers, for instance, must export about half of what they 
produce because there are simply not enough buyers in the United 
States. As the nation's sixth largest soybean producer, Missouri's 
soybean and soybean product exports were estimated at $586 million 
worldwide in 1998. China is the world's largest growth market for 
soybeans and soy products, and it has taken additional steps under the 
WTO agreement to further open its market. Tariffs will be 3 percent on 
soybeans and 5 percent on soybean meal, with no quota limits. For 
soybean oil, tariffs will drop to 9 percent, and the quota will be 
eliminated by 2006.
  Examples of how Missouri agriculture stands to benefit are limitless. 
Beef, for instance, could see huge gains. Currently, Missourians are 
not in any real sense able to export beef to China because of trade 
barriers. Under the WTO accession agreement, by 2004 China will lower 
its tariff from 45 percent to 12 percent on frozen beef, from 20 to 12 
percent on variety meats, and from 45 to 25 percent on chilled beef. 
Also, China has agreed to accept all beef that is accompanied by a USDA 
certificate of wholesomeness. These are opportunities Missouri 
cattlemen want to embrace. Under the agreement, U.S. cattlemen gain 
parity with those in other countries to compete for a beef market that 
covers about a quarter of the world's consumers and is virtually wide-
open for growth. I know that if Missouri farmers and ranchers are given 
the opportunity to compete on these fair terms, they will succeed.
  The WTO agreement could also help Missouri's manufacturing industry. 
Missouri's manufactured exports to China are broadly diversified, with 
almost every major product category registering exports to the Chinese 
market including processed foods, textiles, apparel, wood and paper 
products, chemicals, rubber and plastics, metal products, industrial 
machinery, computers, electronics, and transportation equipment.
  Missouri's exports to China are from all across the state and include 
a variety of small and mid-sized companies. Sales to China from St. 
Louis totaled $93 million in 1998, a 92 percent increase since 1993. 
Kansas City posted exports to China of $66 million in 1998, an increase 
of 169 percent since 1993. The exports from the Springfield area grew 
by 42 percent between these years. Clearly, however, these numbers 
could increase much more if China's market becomes truly open--if China 
keeps its promises outlined in the WTO agreement.
  I certainly do not claim to know exactly how changes in trade policy, 
such as China's WTO membership, will translate into real changes for 
people on a day-to-day basis, so I have set up a Missouri Trade Council 
to advise me on issues such as this. I would like to share a few of 
their thoughts.
  Gastineau Log Homes, in New Bloomfield, wants to see if it can tap 
into China's demand for American-style homes, by providing U.S. 
engineering expertise and the materials with which to make them.
  In Ava, MO, the Copeland plant (a subsidiary of Emerson Electric) 
explained how opening markets to one-fourth of the world's population 
can create jobs and substantially impact local communities. The Ava 
facility supplies the key components (scroll sets) for air-conditioning 
compressors. This plant would receive the benefits of the November 
agreement for these scroll sets by a reduction in industrial tariffs 
from 25 percent to 10 percent. Also, trading and distribution rights 
would be phased in over three years, so that Emerson Electric could 
distribute its scroll sets and compressors broadly, not just to its 
Suzhou plant, but to all distributors in China. And, Emerson Electric 
will be given the opportunity to service their products and establish 
service networks. The Copeland management has high expectations about 
sending their products to China. Right now, 40 percent of the plant's 
manufactured equipment goes to Asia, and the manager is expecting that 
percentage to nearly double. By 2003, exports to Asia well could be 
about 85 percent, and half of those exports are expected to go to 
Suzhou. Currently, the Ava plant employs about 350 Missourians, and the 
workforce is expected to double by 2003.
  After reviewing China's WTO accession agreement and examining its 
probable impact on Missouri businesses and farmers, I believe that 
while the agreement does not give the United States complete 
reciprocity, it does make substantial progress on China's commitment to 
open its markets. However, the U.S.-China trade relationship must also 
have accountability. On the second issue--the enforceability of the 
agreement--I have more serious misgivings about the impact of granting 
PNTR to China.
  The United States government has a responsibility to see that trade 
agreements we enter into are enforceable and enforced. My goal is to 
ensure that workers, farmers, and ranchers in Missouri receive the 
benefits promised to them through our international trade agreements.
  Unfortunately, there is a combination of factors that I find 
discouraging, and that I believe underscores the need to make changes 
to broader U.S. trade policy. These included China's record of 
noncompliance with its trade commitments, the United States' loss of 
leverage in the WTO to get cases enforced, and China's propensity to be 
a protectionist market like the EU which has repeatedly blocked imports 
of American agriculture.
  China's record of living up to its trade agreements has been dismal. 
China has frequently opened a door to U.S. companies only to frustrate 
their attempts to walk through it. For example, in the early 1990s, 
China reduced the import tariff on U.S. apples from 40 to 15 percent. 
However, by 1996, China had erected new backdoor barriers on apples and 
other agricultural products that U.S. exporters say were even more 
punitive than the original import tariffs.
  Another example is the 1992 Market Access Agreement in which China 
agreed to eliminate trade barriers to U.S. agriculture, manufactured 
products, and automobiles. Not only did China fail to comply with this 
agreement, the Chinese actually made negative changes that put U.S. 
businesses in a worse position than they were in prior to the 
agreement. For instance, the U.S. Trade Representative reported that on 
176 items, import restrictions were abolished. However, the Chinese 
replaced those 176 old restrictions with 400 new restrictions that 
essentially make it harder for U.S. companies to export to China. The 
1999 U.S. Trade Representative report said: ``By 1999, China had 
removed over 1,000 quotas and licenses. . . . But there are indications 
that China is erecting new barriers to restrict imports.'' Also, China 
adopted a new auto policy only two years after signing the Market 
Access Agreement that put auto manufacturers at a severe disadvantage 
compared to Chinese auto workers.
  I agree that China's record of noncompliance, considered alone, 
should not be dispositive of determining how to vote on PNTR. In fact, 
the Administration says that we have nothing to lose by allowing China 
into the WTO because by doing so, China agrees to ``deeper and 
broader'' commitments, and the United States gets the benefits of the 
WTO dispute settlement system to enforce those commitments. However, I 
believe the proponents of PNTR have left out an important aspect of 
this ``deal''--when the United States approves PNTR, we give up our 
ability to unilaterally retaliate against China if China doesn't live 
up to its commitments, and must instead rely on the WTO dispute 
resolution system. Unfortunately, the WTO dispute resolution procedures 
have been inadequate to enforce our rights in past cases where the 
United States has successfully challenged unfair trade practices of 
other countries.

  One of my constituents wrote the following:

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

  This Missourian is absolutely correct. While the process for getting 
a WTO Panel Decision issued has become

[[Page S8707]]

more favorable to the United States, the ability to enforce Panel 
Decisions has been diminished.
  In 1994, when the United States negotiated the WTO, the United States 
gave up the right to threaten higher levels of retaliation. The new 
standard is much more limited. The pre-1994 standard allowed a 
successful party (country) to impose a level of retaliation that was 
``appropriate in the circumstances'' in relation to the violation 
proved. However, now we are bound retaliation levels that the WTO 
decides is ``equivalent to the nullification or impairment.'' This new 
standard has impaired our ability to enforce successful decisions, such 
as the one involving the export of U.S. beef to Europe.
  The detrimental effect of this loss of leverage on our ability to 
demand implementation of favorable WTO decisions is illustrated by the 
U.S.-EU beef case. The WTO authorized retaliation of only $120 million 
by the United States to address the EU's closed beef market. Compare 
this figure with the $4.6 billion the United States threatened against 
China when we were not bound by the WTO retaliation levels. I am not 
suggesting that the United States should use retaliation levels that 
are disproportionately harsh. I favor multilateral mechanisms to 
determine noncompliance with trade agreements. But I believe that once 
the United States has been successful in challenging another country's 
trade barriers, retaliation should be authorized to ensure enforcement. 
Denying the U.S. adequate tools to enforce a decision is similar to 
denying a plaintiff a judgment in a case he won. ``Winning'' just for 
the sake of being called the winner is not the objective when pursuing 
a WTO enforcement decision. U.S. ranchers want to sell beef to the EU 
not just be told by the WTO that the EU is violating its agreements. 
And, if China fails to comply with its commitments in the future, we 
will need to have the tools to enforce our rights.
  We need a policy that ensures results, not just paper promises. 
Missourians want some guarantee that inviting China into the WTO will 
result in enhanced export opportunities, not just never-ending 
litigation. To address the enforcement issue, I have taken a number of 
steps including the following.
  I worked directly with former Commerce Secretary Daley to set up a 
``China Compliance and Enforcement Initiative'' within the Department 
of Commerce. At a Commerce Committee hearing, I told Secretary Daley 
that this would be my top priority. In response the Enforcement 
Initiative was set up, which does the following:
  Establishes a Deputy Assistant Secretary for China devoted to 
monitoring and enforcement of China's trade agreements;
  Sets up a rapid response team of 12 compliance trade specialists 
based in Washington, D.C. and in China;
  Provides U.S. businesses and others with detailed information about 
China's accession commitments, contact names, and up-to-date 
information on China's laws and regulations;
  Implements an accelerated investigation procedure to encourage 
China's compliance without having to initiate a WTO case (within 14 
days of receiving a complaint about China's noncompliance, the rapid 
response team will engage Chinese officials and try to come to a 
resolution of the issue within 90 days);
  Gives U.S. companies a head start in the Chinese market by launching 
a trade promotion campaign, including missions, seminars, and trade 
shows;
  Closely monitors imports from China to ensure that our trade laws are 
enforced.
  Second, I am involved in an effort to get the Continued Dumping Act 
(S. 61) passed so that China will be unable to continually flood U.S. 
markets with unfair imports. This legislation provides for the 
penalties to be given to the injured industry in the United States if 
China continues to unfairly dump its products into the U.S. market 
after a decision has been made and penalties have been imposed. This 
bill would provide a powerful disincentive to foreign producers who 
dump their products in our market because it would give a financial 
benefit to U.S. manufacturers.
  Third, I introduced the ``SHOW-ME'' Act (S. 2548), which says that 
the United States should retain a more liberal standard of retaliation 
in the WTO for China. This is a principle I support for the WTO in 
general. If the United States has completed all of the required steps 
by initiating, arguing, and winning a case in the WTO, we should first 
give the other country some time to implement this WTO decision. 
However, if the country continues to disregard a decision that has been 
made by a neutral panel in the WTO, the United States should have 
greater flexibility when setting levels of retaliation. I support a 
policy that will give the United States more tools for enforcement, as 
opposed to reducing the amount available, which is unfortunately where 
recent trade negotiations have taken us.
  Along these same lines, I introduced the WTO Enforcement Act (S. 
1073), which would ensure that U.S. businesses and farm interests are 
widely represented and heard during every stage of the WTO dispute 
settlement process, especially when it is necessary to threaten 
retaliation in order to enforce a WTO panel decision in their favor.
  Fifth, I have worked with newly-appointed Commerce Secretary Mineta 
to make trade enforcement a top priority during the remainder of this 
Administration. Specifically, I have communicated with Secretary Mineta 
my goal of attaining added flexibility for the United States in order 
to enforce our rights. Secretary Mineta ensured me in meetings and at a 
Commerce Committee hearing that this would be a priority. I am pleased 
to quote from his most recent statement about the issue:

       As we have recently discussed, I share your concerns about 
     enforcement of dispute resolution cases under the WTO and the 
     available means of retaliation. . . . I will make one of my 
     top priorities enforcement of our trade laws and compliance 
     with our trade agreements, particularly the WTO. Our goal 
     must be to ensure that panel decisions are faithfully 
     implemented. Let me assure you that I will work closely with 
     you and members of the Administration to find effective means 
     of retaliation when decisions are not property implemented.

  These are some of the initiatives I have recently undertaken to 
address Missourians'--and my own--concerns with China's past 
noncompliance record and our ability to enforce agreements in the 
future. I believe the job of opening markets begins, not ends, with the 
signing of agreements and the approval of PNTR for China. I know we 
have a continuing and great responsibility to ensure that America's 
farmers, ranchers, workers, and businesses receive the full benefit of 
the agreements that have been negotiated on their behalf. I embrace 
this responsibility on behalf of the millions of Missourians who are 
impacted by this vote and this issue. I am committed to monitor China's 
compliance with our trade agreements and demand action if they fail to 
keep their promises. In addition, I will continue to encourage this 
Administration, and the next, to be vigilant about enforcing our 
rights. Missourians deserve the opportunity to export their products 
according to the terms promised in agreements.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would like to reiterate the fact that 
there is, quite frankly, a declining satisfaction in America's 
heartland with our ability--or inability--to open foreign markets. The 
only way we will rebuild confidence in trade agreements is by real 
enforcement of existing agreements, not by entering into newer, more 
unreliable ones.
  It is time for U.S. trade policy to be fortified with a strong 
foundation--that of real enforcement. It is time that our policies lead 
to job creation in practice, not just in theory. It is simply 
unacceptable for the Chinese to repeatedly repackage the same deal with 
a new label and not live up to the commitments it makes.
  I will continue to work with all parties to fashion fair trade 
policies with China and all our trading partners to increase 
Missourians' access to world markets, which will create more jobs and a 
stronger economy. As a Senator from the Show Me State, I believe China, 
and other WTO members, need to show us that they are serious about 
living up to trade agreements. I will continue to work toward this 
goal.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issue we have 
been debating here in the Senate for the past week--the matter of 
permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) for China.

[[Page S8708]]

  Mr. President, my concerns about China are longstanding. They are 
based in no way on antipathy for the people of China, but rather 
China's authoritarian government--a government with a human rights 
track record that no one in good conscience could even defend. That is 
why I opposed the annual renewal of normal trade relations for China 
just last year.
  At the same time, we are faced with another irrefutable fact--China 
is becoming a member of the global trading community with or without 
the concurrence of the United States. The fundamental question we are 
faced with is whether the U.S. will be fully engaged with China during 
this process.
  A vote in favor of PNTR for China represents a recognition of 
reality, a recognition that China currently has complete access to our 
market while we have very limited access to theirs, a recognition that 
China is about to burst on to the international trading scene as a full 
fledged member of the World Trade Organization, a recognition that we 
would be actively choosing to put ourselves at a distinct disadvantage 
relative to our fellow WTO members should we fail to grant China PNTR.
  A ``yes'' vote is a recognition that our success in the new century's 
new global economy--which has arrived whether we care to admit it or 
not--will only be as great as our willingness to be a part of it, a 
recognition that we have, rightly or wrongly--and I would argue 
wrongly--already de-linked our trade policy with China from our human 
rights policy, and a recognition that the status quo has done little or 
nothing to help improve the lot of the typical Chinese man or woman.
  Mr. President, this is an imperfect bill we have before us. 
Personally, I would have preferred to support a bill improved by a 
number of amendments we have considered during our debate. Because I 
believe we must do our utmost to impact human rights in china, to 
protect against the potential impact of their massive cheap labor 
market, to preserve our national security and to ensure compliance with 
our trade agreements.
  For instance, as my colleague, Senator Wellstone, stated on the floor 
during the debate on his amendment conditioning PNTR on China's 
compliance with previous U.S.-China prison labor agreements, the 1992 
agreement allowed on-site inspections by U.S. Customs officials in 
China to determine whether allegations that forced or prison labor were 
manufacturing products were true.
  Yet as soon as Taiwan's then-President Lee visited his alma mater, 
Cornell University, In 1992, China demonstrated its displeasure with 
the U.S. by among other things, suspending its agreement to allow U.S. 
inspections. China still refuses to abide by the terms of this 
agreement.
  That's why I supported Senator Wellstone's amendment because I 
believe it is time for China to start living up to the international 
economic role it seeks. Even absent that amendment, under the WTO, 
China is expected to abide by all trade agreements all the time--not 
just when it is in its best interest. And I will be looking to the WTO 
to hold them to that standard.
  Indeed, as a WTO member, China would be subject to reams of trade 
rules, and any of the organization's 138 members would demand that a 
rule be enforced. I believe that this perhaps, more than anything else, 
would spur the development of a market economy in china which is based 
on full compliance with its trade agreements.
  Moreover, it is encouraging that the Administration has put forth a 
plan to monitor China's compliance with the establishment of a new 
Commerce Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for China, who would be 
devoted to monitoring and enforcing China's WTO trade agreements. I am 
also encouraged by announcements that a ``rapid-response compliance'' 
team of 12 staff people working in the U.S. and China, and a China-
specific subsidy enforcement team, will be established to monitor 
China's trade compliance.
  Further, Mr. President, the legislation itself requires an annual 
report from the USTR on Chinese compliance with WTO obligations and 
instructs the USTR to work to create a multilateral mechanism at the 
WTO to measure compliance. It also authorizes funding deemed necessary 
for the U.S. to monitor China's compliance. This is a step in the right 
direction and a necessary component of this bill.
  Another issue of utmost importance as we have reviewed PNTR from the 
perspective of what is in the best interests of the United States is 
our ability to maintain our national security.
  As my colleagues are well aware, one of a president's primary 
responsibilities under the Constitution is to conduct foreign affairs, 
and in doing so, Americans assume that a president is promoting our 
national security and interests abroad. As trade among nations is 
inexorably intertwined with political relations among nations, national 
security cannot--and should not--be considered in isolation. Therefore, 
it has been entirely appropriate that China's proliferation of weapons 
of mass destruction have been part of this debate.
  I have long been concerned about transfers of technology by China 
that contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or 
missiles that could deliver them. Recent issues have involved China's 
sales to Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and Libya. On August 9, the CIA 
reported that China remained a ``key supplier'' of weapons technology 
and increased missile-related assistance to Pakistan in the second half 
of 1999.
  This is why I was a cosponsor of the Thompson-Torricelli bill and a 
supporter of their amendment. It is vital that the U.S. demonstrates 
that we will not turn a blind eye to China's proliferation and that we 
will actively take steps to induce change.
  The Thompson-Torricelli amendment did not address trade but, in fact, 
was a crucial part of this debate as China continues to facilitate the 
proliferation of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction, to 
rogue countries. It would have provided an annual review mechanism, 
mandatory penalties, and an escalating scale of responses to Chinese 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, missile technologies, and 
advanced conventional weapons.
  Accordingly, I consider the passage and enactment of the Thompson-
Torricelli proposal in the future not simply to be good policy, but a 
critical companion to PNTR, and I hope we will revisit this critical 
issue in the 107th Congress.
  Mr. President, in addition to an in concert with our national 
security responsibilities, one of the most prominent national interests 
of the U.S. is the promotion of human rights around the world. Indeed, 
one of the ongoing and essential reasons I have voted against NTR 
status for China in the past was due to its infamous human rights 
abuses.
  During the consideration by the House, provisions were added to the 
PNTR legislation to monitor China's human rights by creating a 
Congressional-Executive Commission. The Commission will submit to 
Congress and the President an annual report of its findings, including 
as appropriate WTO-consistent recommendations for legislative or 
executive action.
  I also recognize that any U.S. trade sanction taken against China 
could be brought before the WTO for resolution by China. The WTO's 
focus is international trade law, not human rights.
  Accordingly, I supported Senator Helms' amendment that would require, 
as a condition of China receiving PNTR, that the President certify that 
China has taken actions regarding its human rights abuses and religious 
persecution. Just as importantly, I also supported another Helms 
amendment that called on U.S. businesses to conduct themselves in a 
manner that reflects the basic American values of democracy, individual 
liberty and justice--a voluntary code of conduct.
  While both amendments were clearly defeated on grounds other than the 
merits of the issue itself, I make a personal appeal to America's 
businesses to conduct themselves in a manner that does credit to the 
ideas we hold dear as a nation.
  And I'm certain my colleagues agree that it is clearly in America's 
best interest--not to mention in keeping with the principles on which 
we were founded--to keep up the pressure on China to improve human 
rights for its own people and it is my fervent hope that we will do so.
  Mr. President, economically, U.S. companies have expressed to 
Congress

[[Page S8709]]

throughout this debate that our future competitiveness and, ultimately, 
our economic success as a country will be hamstrung without this 
agreement--but with it, all of America will be better off. Again, while 
I would have preferred to vote on a bill strengthened by the amendments 
I have just discussed, I find that I must concur.
  For the past two decades, the U.S. has granted China low-tariff 
access to our market. And what have we gotten in return? Any number of 
different trade barriers which have severely limited U.S. access to 
China's market. To me, Mr. President, this has been far from fair.
  Under this lopsided arrangement where China maintains nearly complete 
access to our market while we face stiff barriers, this has contributed 
to the increased trade deficit with China. In 1992, our trade relations 
with China produced $7.5 billion in U.S. exports and $25.7 billion in 
U.S. imports from China. By last year, our exports rose to $13.1 
billion while our imports from China reached an astonishing $81.8 
billion--a $68.7 billion deficit.
  Now, some have argued that by improving the business climate in 
China, we're opening the floodgates for a massive outflow of U.S. 
businesses that will wish to relocate to that country. And certainly, 
China will be a more attractive place to do business should PNTR be 
approved.
  But we must keep in mind that, under our current trade arrangement 
with China, many U.S. businesses have chosen to relocate a degree of 
their operations to China because Chinese tariff and non-tariff 
barriers make it very difficult to export products directly to that 
country. In order to gain access to the market, many firms build plants 
in China--however, this strategy has been by no means without is own 
problems.
  In fact, businesses currently face a variety of discriminatory 
practices, including technology transfer, domestic content, and export 
performance requirements--in other words, that firms must export a 
certain share of their production. Once China becomes a member of the 
WTO--which of course we know is inevitable regardless of how we vote on 
PNTR--it will lower tariffs and eliminate a wide range of non-tariff 
barriers.
  What does this all mean for U.S. businesses? It means that many 
firms--especially small and medium-sized firms, so we're not just 
talking about large corporations here--might choose instead to export 
products directly to China.
  In other words, a greater investment in China under the provisions of 
the agreement that has been negotiated could promote an increase in 
U.S. exports to China. And that's not just me talking. According to the 
well-respected firm of Goldman Sachs, passage of PNTR for China can be 
expected to increase our exports to China by anywhere from $12.7 to 
$13.9 billion per year by 2005.

  In my home state of Maine, there are a variety of facets of our 
economy that can expect to benefit. Already, Maine is significantly 
engaged in trade with China--to the tune of $19 million in 1998. From 
agriculture to civil aircraft parts to insurance to wood products to 
high-tech industries and fish products, PNTR would allow these vital 
sectors of our economy to continue to complete on an even footing with 
our global competitors, and to do so under WTO enforced rules.
  For example, there would be zero tariffs on all semiconductors, 
telecommunications equipment, and other information technology products 
by 2005. Tariffs on wood and paper would be reduced from between 12 to 
25 percent to between 5 and 7.5 percent. And tariffs on fish products 
would be reduced from 20.5 to 11.4 percent. These are significant 
numbers for significant industries in Maine.
  Now, some will argue that PNTR will adversely affect our textile 
industries. Mr. President, as someone who has long been concerned about 
our trade agreements because of the effect they will have on the 
textile and apparel industry in the U.S. and in Maine, nobody is more 
sensitive to this issue that I am. Since 1994, Maine has lost 26,500 
textile and apparel jobs, so I have scrutinized every trade agreement 
with this situation in mind.
  This legislation, however, represents an improvement over past trade 
agreements I have opposed. Again, the fact is, China will become part 
of the WTO. And all WTO members must abide by the Agreement on Textiles 
and Clothing, or ATC, that phases out existing quotas and improves 
access to the markets of developing countries. In fact, all import 
quotas on textiles and apparels are to cease to exist by January 1, 
2005, and China will reduce its tariffs on U.S. textiles and apparels 
from 25.4% to 11.7%.
  In other words, under the ATC, the U.S. will be required to end 
quotas as will China. I understand that the textile industry wanted a 
10-year phase out period and that opponents have contended that this 
will allow massive Chinese imports to the U.S., but the U.S. has 
negotiated specific protections regarding textiles and the PNTR 
legislation itself contains anti-surge safeguards.
  Under the bilateral trade deal, the U.S. was able to retain the right 
to impose safeguard measures through 2008 and the PNTR legislation 
authorizes the president to take action if products from China are 
being imported in such increased quantities or under such conditions as 
to cause or threaten to cause market disruptions to the domestic 
producers.
  Mr. President, I understand that textiles and apparels are an 
inviting industry for China to utilize its vast labor pool, but I 
believe that what we have negotiated and are about to enact into law 
addresses this issue while still allowing us to be full participants in 
the future.
  And that is what this is about, Mr. President--the future--for both 
the United States and China.
  The fact of the matter is, recent economic development has led to a 
rising standard of living for the average Chinese. Does China have a 
long way to go? Absolutely. Is this a hopeful beginning? I believe it 
is.
  We are not going to change China overnight, with or without PNTR. But 
we must start somewhere. If we are not going to use the annual review 
of NTR for China as leverage for greater human rights in that nation--
and clearly, as I noted at the beginning, we seem to have long since 
conceded the point, despite my protestations--then it is time to bring 
the American promise to China through the promise of increased economic 
opportunity for the Chinese people.
  Change will be incremental at best. The Chinese government has proven 
itself a master of self-perpetuation. They still control the lion's 
share of finance and the means of production, and they are still a 
government not of the people or for the people.
  But under this new trade agreement, and as a member of the WTO, the 
Chinese government will have a little less control then they had 
before. They will be subject to more rules--and rules made by those 
outside of China. And they will know that if they want to be a part of 
the tremendous promise of the 21st century, this is their only course.
  Here at home, we have choices to make as well. Will we remain 
globally competitive? Will we embrace the opportunity to engage 
ourselves in a market of 1.3 billion people? Or will we tie oversees to 
the status quo, where China has access to our market, we don't have 
access to theirs, and the human rights issue gets no better than it has 
over the past ten years?
  The bottom line is that the U.S.-China trade agreement--which is 
contingent on PNTR--represents an unprecedented, albeit imperfect, 
opportunity for the U.S. to gain access to the China market, for the 
U.S. to increase trade and thereby increase innovation and prosperity 
for ourselves and the generations to come. For these reasons, I will 
support PNTR for China.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are weighty arguments that can be 
made on both sides of the question regarding whether or not to grant 
permanent normal trade relations status, PNTR, to China. But in the end 
there are two compelling arguments for granting PNTR that, I believe 
outweigh the arguments against it.
  The first is that our current trade relationship with China is 
unacceptable and the second is that the existing annual review of our 
trade relationship has failed to improve either that relationship or 
the human rights situation in China. Granting China PNTR will result in 
concrete improvements in our trade relationship and offers the promise 
of a significantly more effective

[[Page S8710]]

tool for both monitoring and changing the human rights conditions in 
that country.
  When I say that our trade relationship with China is unacceptable, I 
am referring to the $69 billion trade deficit with China we ran up last 
year ($82 billion in imports versus $13 billion in exports). And as bad 
as that deficit is, economists are predicting it will grow. These 
levels are totally unacceptable. Today, access to China's highly 
regulated and protected market is extremely difficult. China protects 
its domestic market with high tariffs and non-tariff barriers that 
limit access of foreign companies. There is also inadequate protection 
of intellectual property and trade-distorting government subsidies.
  There are clearly some advantages to this agreement in terms of 
gaining greater access to Chinese markets. China's current trade 
barriers, for instance, are especially high in the automotive sector. 
Concessions made by China in the agreement with the United States to 
open up their automotive sector to our exports are significant, 
including tariff reductions. Before the agreement, China's auto tariffs 
average 80-100 percent. China agreed to lower that to 25 percent by 
2006. Before the agreement China's tariff on auto parts averages 20-35 
percent. That is reduced to 10 percent by 2006 under the agreement.
  There are significant tariff reductions in other areas than the auto 
sector. Before the agreement, China's agricultural equipment tariffs 
average about 11\1/2\ percent. China will reduce them to 5.7 percent by 
2002. Before the agreement the Chinese tariff on apples, cherries and 
pears is 70 percent. After the agreement, China will reduce that to 10 
percent, by 2004. China's tariff on chemicals averages 14.75 percent 
now, and in the agreement China has agreed to reduce it to 6.9 percent 
by 2006. It also agreed to reduce its tariff on filing cabinets from 18 
to 10.5 percent by 2003. Chinese tariffs on refrigerators would come 
down from 25 percent to 20 percent by 2002. American farmers and 
exporters have told me they believe they can export to and compete in 
China with these lower tariffs.
  China has also agreed to phase out its restrictive import licensing 
requirements and import quotas for vehicles. China agreed to phase out 
all restrictions on distribution services, such as auto maintenance and 
repair industries, giving U.S. companies the right to control 
distribution of their products, which is currently prohibited. In its 
agreement with the European Union, which will apply to all WTO members 
once China joins the WTO, China agreed to let foreign auto 
manufacturers, not the Chinese government, as is currently the case, 
decide what vehicles they wish to produce for the Chinese market. Also, 
as a member of the WTO, China would be required to drop its local 
content restrictions. Such changes are significant and long overdue.
  If the status quo in our trade with China is unacceptable, so too is 
our mechanism for impacting the human rights climate in that country. I 
know that some have argued that Congress should not grant China PNTR 
status because they are reluctant to abandon our annual human rights 
review process and thus reduce our leverage with China on human rights 
practices. But what real leverage has this annual review and 
certification process given us when the United States has granted China 
normal trade relations status every year for 21 years without 
interruption? Even in 1989, after Tiananmen Square, China's normal 
trade relations, NTR, status was renewed. If we can certify China even 
after Tiananmen Square, what is this annual review pressure really 
worth?
  The human rights situation in China is miserable. That's the current 
situation, the status quo before the agreement we are considering. 
Describing the violations of human rights in China now doesn't answer 
the question of whether we should grant China PNTR any more than 
whether we should have granted PNTR to Saudi Arabia or other countries 
where human rights are violated.
  In other words, the current situation before this agreement is bad 
regarding human rights as is true with many other countries with whom 
we have PNTR. I don't see how we are worse off with this agreement in 
terms of getting China to improve their human rights. In fact, the PNTR 
bill we are voting on includes a specific mechanism to monitor and 
report on China's human rights practices that was proposed by my 
brother, Congressman Sander Levin. Through the establishment of a 
congressional-executive commission on human rights, labor market issues 
and the establishment of the rule of law in China we will be keeping 
some public, visible and ongoing pressure on China to reform in these 
areas. Even the president of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, who was 
critical of the House vote approving PNTR acknowledged that my 
brother's provisions,

       . . . marked an historic turning point: a trade bill cannot 
     be passed in Congress anymore unless it addresses human 
     rights and workers' rights.

  In addition to the improved human rights enforcement we gain under 
PNTR, I believe it is at least possible the opening of Chinese markets 
to our products and involving them more and more in the world economy 
will produce human rights results which the current approach hasn't 
produced.
  There may be some truth in the argument that the year-to-year 
certification creates some uncertainty for American businesses thinking 
of investing in China if they export some of their Chinese production 
back here despite their stated intention not to. This uncertainty, it 
is argued, results in lower levels of US investment in China, and lower 
levels of job transfers which sometimes accompanies that investment, 
than would be the case without the tariff uncertainty created by the 
annual review. However, it's unrealistic to expect that investments 
will not be made in China by companies from other countries even if not 
made by our companies. European and Asian companies will presumably 
fill any gap. And they could just as easily export their Chinese-made 
products to the United States, in which case more US jobs would 
probably be displaced as a result of those imports than would be 
displaced if American companies were the investors.
  Let's assume you have an American and a German refrigerator 
manufacturer vying to make refrigerators in China. If both companies 
were going to ship refrigerators back to the United States, the jobs of 
people making refrigerators in the United States would seemingly be at 
least as much jeopardized by the German made-in-China refrigerator as 
the American made-in-China refrigerator. Actually, the job displacement 
would probably be less with the American made-in-China refrigerators 
being sold back here because the American company is more likely to use 
some US made components, stimulating at least some US exports. And not 
only will European and Asian businesses probably be less likely to use 
American made components in items they assemble in China, they will 
probably have fewer US stockholders gaining from their investments in 
China than would be the case with an American company's investment.
  For instance, even though General Motors started production of the 
Buick Regal two years ago in Shanghai, no GM vehicles have come back to 
the US and $250 million a year worth of American made auto parts were 
used in that production. As a result of General Motors and other US 
vehicle manufacturers' investment in China, in 1999 Chinese imports of 
US automotive parts grew by 90 percent over the prior year. 
Percentagewise, China's imports of US automotive parts are increasing 
faster than China's exports of automotive parts to the United States. 
We are seemingly better off with some US content in Chinese-made 
products than with none.
  It's clear to me that the status quo is failing to improve human 
rights conditions in China and failing to improve our trade 
relationship with that country. Given that I believe our trade 
relationship with China is intolerable and China's human rights climate 
is miserable, I do not vote for PNTR to reward China. Far from it. I 
have no desire to reward China for creating unfair barriers to American 
products and maintaining tariffs on our exports while Chinese imports 
flood our marketplace. Nor do I want to reward China for its failure to 
comply with earlier trade agreements. And I have no desire to reward 
China for persecuting those who only seek to practice their religious 
beliefs or to secure their rights as workers. But in the end PNTR is 
not a reward to China, it is a tool our country

[[Page S8711]]

should use and use aggressively to open China's markets to our goods 
the way our market has been open to China's goods and to exert 
meaningful pressure on China to join that community of nations that 
respects basic human rights. My vote for PNTR is a vote against a 
status quo that has failed to advance either of those goals. It is a 
vote for a measure, however imperfect, that can move us closer to a 
fair trading relationship with China and to a day when the people of 
that country can enjoy their fundamental human rights.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the future of U.S. 
trade relations with China and the impending vote on China's PNTR 
status. The prosperity that this nation has enjoyed for the past 50 
years has been a result of our commitment to free trade and opening 
markets. Free trade benefits all--it enhances prosperity and develops 
markets, essential elements to the spread of freedom, democracy, and 
the rule of law. China's entry into the World Trade Organization will 
also enhance American competitiveness, further our national interests, 
and benefit our trading partners. But we must enter into this agreement 
with our eyes open. China must comply with this agreement for it to 
have meaning. The United States must vigilantly seek enforcement of all 
agreements with China, including those addressing national security and 
human rights.
  I share the concern of my colleague, Senator Thompson, regarding 
China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. On August 9th of 
this year, the Director of Central Intelligence reported that China 
remained a ``key supplier'' of weapons technology and increased-missile 
related assistance to Pakistan as recently as the second half of 1999. 
In the last year it has been reported that China transferred missile 
technology to Libya and North Korea and may still be providing secret 
technical assistance to Pakistan's nuclear program. U.S. Intelligence 
has also provided evidence that the PRC has provided Iran with nuclear 
technology, chemical weapons materials, and missile technology that 
would violate China's commitment to observe the MTCR and U.S. laws. I 
do not suggest that because of these violations we should cut off trade 
with China, but we must address the fact that they are supplying rogue 
nations with weapons of mass destruction. This threat to our national 
security has made my decision on this vote a difficult one, and that 
has been compounded by my concerns with China's repeated human rights 
abuses.
  I suspect that each of my colleagues has had some opportunity over 
the years to hear about the human rights abuses taking place in China. 
I think one of the more eloquent spokesmen for the struggle for freedom 
has been Wei Jingsheng. He reminds us that those of us who live in the 
luxury of freedom should not forget those who are still struggling for 
liberty and freedom.
  Mr. President, because of these very strong conflicting views, the 
importance of open and free trade on the one hand, and the importance 
of human dignity and the pursuit of freedom on the other, this has been 
a difficult decision for me. But, after due consideration, I conclude 
that moving toward open and free markets advances freedom in China, so 
long as China is willing to abide by the rules of the WTO.
  By exposing China to global competition and the benefits it has to 
offer, Chinese leaders will be both obligated and empowered to more 
quickly move their country toward full economic reform. And by virtue 
of their business relationships, over time the Chinese people will be 
exposed to information, ideas and debate from around the world. This in 
turn will encourage them and their leadership to embrace the virtue and 
promise of individual freedom. The reason I am willing to embrace it 
has much has to do with the kinds of changes we have seen taking place 
in China over the years. If they were still committed to the ideology 
of the 1950's and 1960's, I do not think we would be here today. But, 
they have clearly moved toward opening their economy, and we should 
continue to push to open the country to freedom.
  So I think it is time for us to respond to these changes by saying to 
the Chinese people--we want to be engaged in free trade and competition 
with you. I think, in the end, humanity will benefit. So I will cast a 
vote in favor of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate votes on whether to 
establish Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
  This issue has been the subject of longstanding and emotional debate. 
It is an issue which has divided the Congress, human rights groups and 
policy experts from across the spectrum. There are strong arguments on 
both sides--arguments I carefully weighed in deciding how to vote.
  In the past, I have opposed extending annual Most Favored Nation 
status to China because of concerns about China's egregious record on 
human rights and labor rights. By many accounts, including the State 
Department's, the situation there has deteriorated over the past year. 
Repression of political dissent, restrictions on freedom of religion 
and the persecution of ethnic minorities are realities of everyday 
life. I witnessed with my own eyes the tragedy that has befallen the 
people of Tibet, when I traveled there in 1988.
  For Vermonters, the young Tibetan and former Middlebury College 
student, Ngawang Choephel, and his mother, Sonam Dekyi, are the human 
faces of the hardships and injustices endured under Chinese rule.
  Ngawang was arrested more than four years ago by Chinese police when 
he was in Tibet making a film about traditional Tibetan culture. He was 
sentenced to 18 years in prison, despite the fact that the Chinese have 
never produced a shred of evidence that he committed any crime. 
President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright have personally 
sought his release, to no avail. In May 1999, the U.N. Commission on 
Human Rights declared his detention to be arbitrary. I have taken 
countless steps in seeking his release, year after year, and so have 
Senator Jeffords and Congressman Sanders.
  Since 1996, Ngawang's mother sought permission to visit him. Chinese 
law permits family members to visit imprisoned relatives, but for four 
years the Chinese Government ignored her pleas. Finally, last month, 
the Chinese Government made it possible for her to see him. She found 
that he is suffering from recurrent, serious health problems, far more 
serious than those of us who have followed his case closely had been 
led to believe.
  Thirty-two years ago, Ms. Dekyi made the dangerous journey from Tibet 
to India to escape Chinese repression. She lost a child along the way. 
Her remaining son is now paying a terrible price for his brave attempts 
to document Tibetan culture.
  No one here would disagree that in so many ways the policies and 
practices of the Chinese Government stand in direct opposition to the 
democratic principles upon which our country is founded. Mr. Choephel's 
case is just one of many examples.
  The question, however, is not whether we approve or disapprove of 
this reality. It exists. The question is what can we do about it? How 
can we most effectively encourage China to become a more open, humane 
and democratic society?
  The unavoidable fact is that our current approach has not worked. Due 
process is non-existent. Ngawang Choephel and many other political 
prisoners remain in custody. Many of China's workers are exploited. 
Anyone who publicly expresses support for democracy is silenced. If I 
thought that we could solve these problems by preventing normal trade 
relations with China, I would support it without hesitation, but I do 
not believe that course would achieve our long-sought solutions to 
these many problems.
  Preventing normal trade with China would not advance the political 
and humanitarian goals that the United States has long worked for in 
China, nor will it advance the economic goals we have set for ourselves 
here at home.
  The fact is, with or without Congress' approval, China will join the 
World Trade Organization.
  It will join 135 other countries in an organization which regulates 
global trade. It will be part of an international economic system 
created by democratic nations and governed by the rule of law. It will 
be required to further liberalize an economy which is already being 
transformed by trade and technology, and which has contributed to slow 
but steady reform.

[[Page S8712]]

  So on the one hand, preventing normal trade relations with China 
would not stop China from enjoying the benefits of WTO. It will join 
WTO regardless. Nor, I believe, would blocking China PNTR result in 
Ngawang Choephel's release. But on the other hand, by blocking PNTR we 
would deny ourselves the significant economic benefits that will result 
from China's agreement to reduce tariffs and open its markets to U.S. 
exports in ways that it never has before. And, I believe, we would deny 
ourselves the opportunity to build a better relationship with China.

  Some have suggested that this debate is about what is right and what 
is wrong with the WTO. From its history of negotiating trade agreements 
in secret, to inadequate consideration of labor rights, human rights 
and the environment, there are plenty of problems with the WTO. These 
issues are important and they absolutely should be addressed. But they 
are not what this debate is about.
  I have long spoken out against the lack of basic freedoms in China. I 
strongly supported the Administration's decision to sponsor a 
resolution condemning China at the U.N. Human Rights Commission. I have 
done everything I can think of to seek Ngawang Choephel's release, and 
I will continue to do so until he is released. I fervently hope that 
the Chinese Government will respond to the Congress' vote in favor of 
PNTR by releasing Mr. Choephel, along with others who do not belong in 
prison and who in no way threaten China's security.
  Until the rule of law is respected and there is an independent 
judiciary that protects people's rights, until Ngawang Choephel and the 
other prisoners of conscience who languish in China's prisons are free, 
China will never be able to fully join the global community.
  I am encouraged that the legislation that has come from the House 
would create a bipartisan Helsinki-type commission to monitor, promote 
and issue annual reports on human rights and worker rights in China. 
This bill requires hearings on the contents of these reports, including 
the recommendations of the commission, and it establishes a task force 
to strengthen our ability to prevent the import of goods made with 
prison or forced labor.
  In the past, questions have been raised about the effectiveness of 
the yearly review of China's human rights record. However, I believe 
that it is important to have an annual debate on this issue, and I feel 
that the Helsinki-type commission and task force will provide useful, 
albeit limited, mechanisms for the examination of China's record on 
these issues
  I have voted for every amendment to this legislation that was 
consistent with PNTR, and which would have also strengthened human 
rights. I deeply regret that they were not adopted. We can expand our 
trade with China, we can build a better relationship with China, and we 
can also stand up for human rights. The amendments offered by Senator 
Feingold, Senator Wellstone, and others were reasonable and fully 
consistent with our most cherished values.
  Profound differences over human rights will continue to cast a shadow 
on our relationship with China, and that is unfortunate. But it is also 
important to recognize that life in China is significantly different 
from what it was two decades ago or even two years ago.
  For the first time, Chinese citizens are starting their own 
businesses. More and more Chinese are employed by foreign-owned 
companies, where they generally receive higher pay and enjoy better 
working conditions. State-run industries are gradually being dismantled 
and state-owned houses, health clinics, schools and stores are no 
longer the rule--reducing the influence that the Chinese Communist 
party has over its citizens everyday lives.
  Technology has also weakened the government's ability to control 
people's lives. In the past year, the number of Internet addresses in 
China has risen dramatically. This year, the number is expected to 
exceed 20 million. With the Internet comes the exchange of information 
and ideas. And the government's best efforts to stifle this exchange 
are little match for a phenomenon that has transformed the lives of 
people around the world, from the most open to the most closed 
societies. In addition, access to print and broadcast media has 
expanded rapidly, along with nonprofit and civic organizations.
  It is impossible to know what path Chinese authorities will 
ultimately choose--whether WTO membership and the changes it requires 
will indeed contribute to real democratic reform. But it would be a 
mistake for us to err on the side of isolation when there is so much 
that could be gained by engagement.
  The President's arguments on this issue have been persuasive. So have 
the arguments of three former Presidents, six former Secretaries of 
State, and nine former Secretaries of the Treasury.
  I also found persuasive the fact that many Chinese democracy and 
human rights activists, who have suffered the most under Chinese rule 
and have the most to gain from change, support PNTR.
  And so I will vote for PNTR today.
  Our archaic, counterproductive and ill-conceived approach toward Cuba 
is a perfect model for what we should not do in China. Our isolationist 
policy, which I have long argued against, has fallen hardest on 
everyday Cubans. Nothing has done more to perpetuate Castro's grip on 
power, and the denial of basic freedoms there, than our embargo.

  Rejecting PNTR would strengthen the same element in China--the hard-
liners who are afraid that engagement with the outside world will 
dilute their power and influence. These are the same hard-liners who 
are refusing to negotiate with the Dalai Lama on Tibet and who would 
settle differences with Taiwan by force.
  Which brings me to the issue of national security. China is an 
emerging military power, with a small but growing capability to deliver 
nuclear arms. It has an increasing influence in Asia, which military 
experts have identified as the most likely arena for future conflict. 
Passage of PNTR and China's accession to the WTO offer important 
opportunities to increase China's stake in global security and 
stability and to help ensure that over the long term China becomes our 
competitor and not our adversary.
  Moreover, this legislation will not undermine U.S. efforts to use a 
full range of policy tools--diplomatic, economic and military--to 
address any potential Chinese noncompliance with American interests or 
international norms.
  In purely commercial terms, Congress concedes nothing to China by 
approving PNTR. We do not open our country to more Chinese products. 
Rather, we simply maintain the present access to our economy that China 
already enjoys. In return, Chinese tariffs--from telecommunications to 
automobiles to agriculture--will fall by half or more over just five 
years, paving the way for the export of more American goods and 
services to the largest market in the world.
  It is important to remember that if Congress rejects PNTR, other 
countries will continue to trade with China. They will reap the trade 
benefits that we have rejected.
  PNTR will benefit Vermont. In the past year, Vermont exports to China 
have increased significantly--from $1 million in 1998 to $6.5 million 
in 1999. While this represents only a small fraction of Vermont's total 
exports, lower tariff barriers are likely to help Vermonters export 
their products beyond the Green Mountains to a quarter of the world's 
people. More Vermont exports mean more Vermont jobs.
  I recognize the concerns of some in the labor community who believe 
that approving PNTR may cause the loss of some jobs in the United 
States. I know that many leaders of American labor organizations are 
motivated by their concern about their workers, and I respect them for 
that. Behind the statistics are real people with real families who 
suffer real consequences.
  Some American workers will be hurt by this agreement. It is likely 
that some jobs will be lost as some businesses shift operations to 
China. However, trade experts generally agree that granting China PNTR 
will ultimately create a more favorable trade balance by increasing 
exports to China. And more American exports means more American jobs at 
a time when unemployment is at a historic low.

[[Page S8713]]

  I support the strong anti-surge controls that have been included in 
the legislation, which will help protect American industries from a 
surge in Chinese imports that disrupt U.S. markets. The bill also 
authorizes funding to monitor China's compliance with its WTO 
commitments.
  Mr. President, as with most trade bills that have come before 
Congress in the last ten years, the debate over granting PNTR for China 
has become clouded with simple slogans and half-truths.
  Despite what we may hope for, history has proven time and again that 
there is no quick fix for the problems facing the Chinese people. And 
as it becomes harder for Chinese authorities to maintain control in the 
face of outside influences, the temptation to crack down on dissent may 
get worse before it gets better.
  But we need to look beyond next month or next year. Freer trade will 
not in and of itself improve civil and political rights in China. It 
will not guarantee U.S. national security. It will not create thousands 
of American jobs overnight. But China's civilization is thousands of 
years old. It is changing faster today than ever before. With continued 
engagement on all fronts, we can, I believe, advance each of those 
important goals. For my part, I personally look forward to a much more 
intensive and regular dialogue with Chinese officials on these and 
other issues of importance to both our countries.
  At the end of this debate, all of these many issues and arguments 
must be distilled to answer this one question: Is a vote for permanent 
normal trade relations with China in the best interests of the United 
States? The answer to that question is clearly ``yes.''
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this proposal has engendered one of the 
most serious and genuine debates we have had recently in the Senate. I 
have listened carefully to the pros and cons of H.R. 4444 which have 
been expressed over the last several months as well as here on the 
Senate floor in the last several weeks.
  I have not come to a decision lightly and have given a great deal of 
consideration to all the arguments. There is no question that China is 
today a communist police state. There is no question that it has an 
abysmal human rights record.
  But, the question is not the state of China today. It is what impact 
PNTR will have in the future, both for the United States and for China.
  On balance, Mr. President, I have concluded that permanent normal 
trade relations with China and passage of H.R. 4444 will contribute to 
America's commercial prospects, enhance the spread of free market 
principles, and further strengthen the social and economic forces in 
China that will eventually sweep the police state into the dustbin of 
history.
  Mr. President, Asia is the state of Utah's fourth largest market. 
While the predominant consumer of Utah exports is Japan, which buys 
nearly $500 million of Utah's products, as China's economy grows, so 
will the demand for Utah's industrial machinery, processed foods, 
nutritional and health food products, electronic software, and other 
products demanded by maturing societies.
  This trade development cannot occur without PNTR, which will allow 
the U.S. to take China to court over unfair trading practices.
  Up to now, Utah's 1,200 informational technology companies have been 
at a disadvantage in the Chinese market. The Chinese steal and 
counterfeit virtually all software, videos, and other intellectual 
property media entering the country. As the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, which has jurisdiction over copyrights and patents, I am 
most concerned with enforcing intellectual property laws both at home 
and abroad. China's WTO membership will place major restraints on 
pirating, the most important of which is our right to take China to the 
WTO dispute settlement panels.
  It is worthwhile to note, Mr. President, that the U.S., whose economy 
is the most dynamic in the world, and whose producers are the most law-
abiding, will be the beneficiary of the equal enforcement of the trade 
rules of the WTO, which we played a large role in shaping. This is not 
merely a prediction: To date, the U.S. has won over 90 percent of the 
cases we have initiated before the WTO.
  If the U.S denied China PNTR, we would lose the right to go to court 
and would risk surrendering our market access potential in China to our 
competitors.
  Mr. President, job-creating Utah businesses want PNTR. Utah's 
business community understands the prospective value of China's trade 
as well as the benefits of WTO. In meetings with state agricultural 
groups, community leaders, as well as virtually every other major job-
creating business sector with export markets or export-market potential 
in the state, the demands have been consistent: ``Give us access to 
China.''
  While this position is strongly held in Utah, it would be unfair to 
say it is unanimous. Utah's steel worker community, for example, 
opposes PNTR for China. But, with WTO, I believe many of their fears 
can be addressed, since China's current ability to dump steel products 
in the U.S., and anywhere else, can now be met head-on with a WTO 
dispute settlement judgment that would bring sanctions against the 
Chinese, not just from the U.S., but from the entire world.
  I have worked hard to assure the steel interests in Utah regarding 
the passage of PNTR. We passed the Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999, 
which requires the President to consult with steel companies suffering 
from dumping and to get their consent as a condition for lifting 
dumping-related sanctions.
  Finally, a third advantage is afforded the steel industry in the 
U.S.-China Bilateral Trade Agreement, which has a 12-year restriction 
on exports from China that surge into the U.S. causing sudden, often 
irreparable harm to this important sector of our economy.
  The fact is, the American economy dominates, and has benefitted 
enormously from, the global marketplace. That includes Utah. Today, 5.2 
percent of Utah's gross state product comes from merchandise exports. 
Utah sent $2.6 billion of exports into the global marketplace in 1999, 
and we expect an increase of about five percent in export volume for 
the year 2000.

  Trade-related jobs in the state, especially in the manufacturing 
sector, are more stable, pay better, and tend to demand higher skills. 
International trade competition is good for Utah.
  There have been, and will be, job losses, but Utah's economy has 
absorbed them. But, Utah also provides an excellent system for 
assisting workers make transitions to new positions, including 
education and training trade-displaced persons for new skills in new 
industries. I will continue to support these programs.
  Utah has the right type of industrial base. We have an unmatched 
business climate for export-oriented companies. My state's population 
is sophisticated in terms of linguistic skills, cultural experience and 
tolerance, foreign travel, overseas living experience. Our 
infrastructure is in place: we have an international airport; our ports 
of entry are modern and automated; our freight forwarding and customs 
brokerage communities are highly efficient; our merchandise and 
commercial banking, insurance and other financial institutional base is 
competitive with any region in the world. We are poised for another 
economic take-off, and passage of PNTR so that China and the U.S. can 
actively participate in the WTO is essential.
  Mr. President, the WTO enhances the free market principles that I 
have been committed to since I came to the Senate in 1977. I remain a 
conservative who believes that the lessons of the 20th century 
regarding the relationship between the free market and individual 
freedoms are incontrovertible.
  I remain convinced of the theses presented by such great thinkers as 
the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek and the American Nobel Laureate 
Milton Friedman. Capitalism cannot exist without expanding individual 
freedoms. And the growth of individual freedom is antithetical to 
authoritarian control.
  I believe that the opportunities of a free market which have so 
essentially contributed to our own growth and development will also 
benefit societies all over the world.
  From this perspective, I have been a little disappointed by the way 
some members have characterized aspects of this debate, particularly 
when they used the term greed in opposition to

[[Page S8714]]

national security interests. I do not believe the promotion of 
capitalism is synonymous with the promotion of greed. It is an excess 
of self-interest that can lead to greed; but greed, of course, is not 
limited to capitalist societies, and I wish to make clear that I 
believe that those who are promoting PNTR for China are doing so for 
honorable reasons, and not for greed.
  Moreover, for individual corporations, PNTR is no guarantee of 
success. Companies must still manufacture and market a good product. 
They must still be competitive.
  I have spoken at length about the commercial benefits of granting 
PNTR for China for Utah, as numerous other speakers have discussed the 
benefits to their states. But our duties here as Senators require that 
we always consider the national interest as well as the local interest. 
And, in this debate, we have revisited again, throughout the exchanges 
we've had on numerous amendments, the broader question of the U.S.-Sino 
bilateral relationship and American national security interests.
  Let me be clear: I deplore the appalling human rights situation in 
China today, including the repression of political expression and other 
fundamental expressions of human conscience. I deplore the repugnant 
practices in forced abortion and organ harvesting. All of this is 
evidence of the continuing level of social backwardness and political 
barbarism that remains in effect in many parts of China.
  But there is a relationship between barbarism and economic autarky 
that cannot be denied. The peak of modern China's human rights 
atrocities--measured on a grotesque scale in human casualties--occured 
during a period when China was in self-imposed economic and political 
isolation from the rest of the world. During Mao's reign, through the 
Cultural Revolution, and prior to the opening to the rest of the world 
orchestrated by President Richard Nixon, over 40 million Chinese were 
murdered or starved by their government. What a tragic reality that is, 
Mr. President, but reality it is.
  Capitalism corrodes communism, Mr. President. Opportunity crowds out 
totalitarianism. We have certainly seen that occur since Deng Xiaoping 
realized that the only way China could develop--could, in fact, recover 
from nearly a quarter century of Mao's economic nihilism--was to open 
to the world and to engage the free market.
  One thing I'm not, Mr. President, is a pollyanna. As I've said, I am 
aware of the political and human rights conditions in China today.
  The fact is that many of the Chinese are also aware of the situation. 
The abortion policies, for example, are not supported by the Chinese 
people. Some Chinese are even becoming aware of a growing social 
problem called by scholars here the ``surplus males phenomena.'' Dr. 
Valerie Hudson of Brigham Young University has done excellent work in 
this area.

  Orwellian population practices in China have had the effect of 
creating a growing demographic imbalance in Chinese society between men 
and women. As the demographic bulge in men moves into young adulthood, 
Chinese society will grapple with a surfeit of unmarried men. The 
potential consequences for internal and external instability should be 
of great concern to the Chinese authorities, as well as for us. These 
are the consequences of the communist control over families for the 
past two generations.
  China has a huge population with a small percentage of arable land. 
The Maoist answer was to kill large segments of the population through 
starvation and promote the most inhumane abortion policies in the 
modern era. As China has opened up to the rest of the world, however, 
the Chinese are starting to recognize that the answer to population 
pressures is not a totalitarian abortion policy, but economic 
development that can support families.
  The best example for them is Hong Kong, which has a large population 
on a piece of land that has virtually no natural resources, except a 
harbor. Capitalism provided the economic development that launched Hong 
Kong into the developed world, probably beating the PRC to that level 
of economic development by at least a century, if current predictions 
hold.
  Mr. President, I support PNTR because I want to see an end to the 
barbarisms, such as the abortion policies, of the Chinese police state. 
Capitalism corrodes communism.
  We have had a long debate on a number of amendments. Frankly, many of 
these amendments, all of which have been defeated on this bill, would 
pass the Senate as amendments to other legislative vehicles, or as 
stand-alone bills. Certainly the debate over China's deplorable record 
on proliferation, and the legislative proposal presented by the 
Thompson-Torricelli amendment, are worthy of further discussion and 
review.
  While we will end the annual most-favored nation review of the PRC, 
nothing of this PNTR debate proscribes the Senate from future 
initiatives regarding the bilateral U.S.-Sino relationship.
  Mr. President, sometime, I believe within my lifetime, there is going 
to be a change in China. There will be a transition from the current 
police state. I am quite certain of that.
  I am somewhat less certain--as is any other analyst--about what the 
change will be. The analysts have parsed out the possibilities for us, 
including chaos and disintegration, a new Chinese fascism, or another 
Chinese democratic state. I say ``another,'' because Taiwan has 
demonstrated conclusively that there are no particular Asian values 
that prevent the Chinese people from developing, nurturing and robustly 
practicing democracy.
  United States policy cannot guarantee the outcome of the transition 
in mainland China--it would be naive to think otherwise. But we can 
influence the evolution toward the most desirable outcome. That means 
promoting economic development and the values of the free market in 
China. We should plant these seeds, Mr. President.
  A vote for PNTR is a vote for promoting economic markets for Utah and 
other American companies, for promoting economic development in China, 
and for promoting the rule of law in China. PNTR is a promising means 
of accomplishing these goals, not just for the benefit of U.S. 
commerce, but also for long-term U.S. strategic interests.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the issue before the Senate today is not a 
mundane redefinition of China's status under our trade laws. Nor does 
it mark a profound shift in our policy toward the most populous nation 
on earth.
  The question before us--neither mundane, nor profound--is nonetheless 
of vital importance to the future or our relationship with China. 
Granting China PNTR and bringing China into the global trading regime 
continues a process of careful engagement designed to encourage China's 
development as a productive, responsible member of the world community. 
It is a process which has no guarantees, but which is far superior to 
the alternatives available to us.
  Our decision on normalizing trade with China is best understood in 
its historical context. The search for a truly modern China is now more 
than a 100 years old. It arguably began at the turn of the last century 
with the collapse of the Qing Dynasty and the birth of the Republic of 
China under Sun Yat-sen. The search has continued through Japanese 
invasion, a bloody civil war, the unmitigated disaster of the Great 
Leap Backwards), the social and political upheaval of the Cultural 
Revolution, and now through two decades of economic opening to the 
outside world.
  Viewed in this context, a vote for permanent normal trade relations 
says that we welcome the emergence of a prosperous, independent, China 
on the world stage. It also says we want China to be subject to 
stronger, multilateral rules of economic behavior--rules about 
international trade that will influence the structure of their internal 
social, economic, and political systems.
  Granting permanent normal trade status to China is not a new 
direction in our relationship with China, Mr. President, but it is an 
important change in the means we choose to pursue it. We have the 
opportunity to move some, but not all, of our dealings with China into 
a new forum; the forum of established, enforceable international trade 
rules. This will take our economic relationship to a new level; a level 
commensurate with the importance of our two economies to the world.
  As important as this legislation is to our overall relationship with 
China and

[[Page S8715]]

to our aspirations for China, we must keep our expectations in check. 
The reality is that extending permanent normal trade relations to China 
will not magically cause China's leaders to protect religious freedom, 
respect labor rights, or adhere to the terms of every international 
nonproliferation regime.
  No single piece of legislation could accomplish those objectives: 
indeed, these changes ultimately must come from within China, with such 
encouragement as we can provide from outside.
  Some of our colleagues disagree on this point. They would have 
preferred that the China trade bill be turned into an omnibus China 
Policy Act. I understand their objectives and their frustration with 
the slow pace of reform in China. But amendments offered by Senator 
Smith of New Hampshire--covering such diverse issues as POW/MIA 
cooperation, forced labor, organ harvesting, etc.--and Senator 
Wellstone of Minnesota--conditioning PNTR on substantial progress 
toward the release of all political prisoners in China--pile too much 
onto this legislation. Moreover, those amendments would effectively 
hold the trade legislation hostage to changes in China which passing 
the trade bill would promote. This seems backwards to me.
  Other colleagues have such a deep reservations about trading with 
China that they proposed amendments which would essentially have taken 
the ``Permanent'' and the ``normal'' out of permanent normal trade 
relations. Amendments offered by the junior Senator from South 
Carolina, Senator Hollings, and the senior Senator from West Virginia, 
Senator Byrd, reflect a deep ambivalence about the benefits to the 
United States of trading with China. As I will discuss later, I share 
the Senators' skepticism about the grandiose claims some have made 
about the economic benefits which will flow to the United States from 
this trade agreement. But we are not voting on whether to trade with 
China. We are voting on whether to lock in concessions by China to open 
its market to the United States. That is why I opposed their 
amendments.

  My opposition to efforts to turn this trade bill into an omnibus 
China Policy Act, and my opposition to efforts to take the ``P'' and 
the ``N'' out of PNTR, does not mean that I found all the amendments 
offered during the previous two weeks of debate without merit.
  Indeed, on their own merits, I would have supported a number of the 
amendments offered by my colleagues. If we had considered this 
legislation in May, June, or July, there might have been a realistic 
possibility of resolving differences between the House and the Senate 
versions of this bill. Under those circumstances, some amendments 
offered here in the Senate might well have been appropriate.
  For instance, Senator Feingold offered an amendment to improve the 
Congressional Executive Commission on China to be established under the 
terms of H.R. 4444. The modest changes in the commission suggested by 
the Senator from Wisconsin are reasonable, and include making sure that 
the commission produces concrete recommendations for action and that it 
reports equally to both the House and the Senate. I hope that we might 
revisit this issue to ensure that the special commission on China is as 
effective as it can be.
  Another Foreign Relations Committee colleague, Senator Wellstone, 
offered several meritorious amendments, including one endorsing the 
recommendations of the U.S. Commission on International Religious 
Freedom with respect to China policy, and another requiring the 
President to certify that China is in compliance with certain memoranda 
of understanding regarding prohibition on import and export of prison 
labor products.
  We should seriously consider the input of the religious freedom 
commission and we should hold China accountable for its failure to 
implement agreements with the United States, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on these issues in the future.
  Finally, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee offered 
several amendments, including one expressing the sense of Congress 
condemning forced abortions in China. No member of Congress condones 
the practice of coerced abortion in China or anyplace else. Senator 
Helms, who opposes normalizing our trade with China, knows that, which 
is why he offered his amendment.
  Now I share the revulsion of the senior Senator from North Carolina 
toward forced abortion. It is beyond the pale. But I'm concerned--as I 
believe the Senator well knows--that his amendment would imperil the 
entire bill and risk a major setback in our efforts to achieve the very 
goals we both seek.
  Sadly, that is the predicament we find ourselves in now. By delaying 
consideration of this historic legislation until the last days of this 
Congress, the Republican leadership has effectively denied the Senate 
the opportunity to debate the merits of various amendments without also 
considering the impact that any amendment, no matter how reasonable, 
would have on the prospects of passing the trade bill during this 
session of Congress.
  So, I approach the pending vote on final passage with some 
frustration at the process, but which considerable confidence that 
extending permanent normal trade relations to China is in the best 
interests of both the United States and the people of China.

  I have listened carefully and respectfully to my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle and on both sides of this question. I share with 
many of my colleagues a feeling of deep dissatisfaction with the many 
deplorable aspects of China's domestic and foreign policies.
  But, for reasons I want to make clear today, I do not share the 
belief that by preserving the status quo in our relations with China we 
will see progress.
  This, in a nutshell, is the question before the Senate: shall we 
stick with the status quo? Or shall we join with virtually every other 
advanced economy in the world, and endorse the membership of China in a 
rule-based organization that will help to encourage many of the changes 
in Chinese behavior that the opponents of permanent normal trade 
relations say they want to see?
  While there are few simple answers to the many questions raised by 
China, one thing seems clear: If we don't like Chinese behavior now, 
why vote to preserve the status quo?
  The answer, say some of my colleagues, is that we must preserve the 
annual review of China's trade status to keep the spotlight turned on 
China.
  There are two problems with this answer, in my view. First, we have 
never, not once in the two decades of annual reviews of China's trade 
status, voted against renewal of normal trade relations. Not after the 
tragedy of Tiananmen Square, not after missile launches against Taiwan, 
not after so many other provocations, broken promises, and 
disappointments. Annual review of China's trade status is an empty 
threat--an excuse for a ritual that at one time may have served a 
purpose, but that no one can seriously argue today has an affect on 
China's behavior.
  The second problem with this argument lies in the premise that 
extending permanent normal trade relations to China means taking China 
out of the limelight. I submit to you that anyone who thinks China is 
going to escape scrutiny by the U.S. Congress and the American people 
just because it enjoys normal trading privileges with us doesn't know 
beans about politics.
  As I understand their arguments, those who will vote against 
normalizing our trade relationship with China believe China's foreign 
and domestic policies remain so objectionable under the system of 
annual review that we should not, as they put it ``reward'' China with 
permanent normal trade relations.
  But if there has been no improvement in China's human rights record 
over the past two decades, why should we persist in the fiction of 
annual review, repeating the empty threat that we might withdraw normal 
trade relations? What has the annual review gained us?
  I see the situation differently, Mr. President, I believe China is 
changing. China is far from the kind of country that we want it to be, 
or that its own long-suffering citizens are now working to build. But 
no single snapshot of unsafe working conditions, of religious and 
political repression, of bellicose pronouncements about Taiwan, will do 
justice to the fundamental shifts that are underway in China.

[[Page S8716]]

  An objective assessment of China over the past two decades reveals 
sweeping changes in almost every aspect of life--changes facilitated 
and accelerated by China's opening to the world. These changes are not 
the result of our annual review of China's trade status. The roots of 
change reach much deeper than that.
  China's leaders have consciously undertaken--for their own reasons, 
not ours--a fundamental transformation of the communist system that so 
long condemned their great people to isolation, poverty, and misery. 
They have been forced to acknowledge the failure of communism, and have 
conceded the irrefutable superiority of an open market economy. The 
result has been a marked improvement in living standards for hundreds 
of million of Chinese citizens.

  This growing prosperity for the Chinese people, in turn, has put 
China on a path toward ever greater political and economic freedom. The 
Chinese people, taking responsibility for their own economic 
livelihood, are demanding a greater voice in the governance of China.
  This is not just my analysis.
  This is also the view of people inside and outside of China who are 
struggling to deepen China's reforms and to extend them into the 
political arena.
  Dai Qing, a former Chinese rocket scientist turned political 
dissident and environmentalist, testified passionately in support of 
permanent normal trade relations before the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee in July. She said, ``PNTR will help reduce governmental 
control over the economy and society; it will help to promote the rule 
of law; and it will help to nourish independent political and social 
forces in China.''
  Wang Dan, the Beijing University student who helped lead the 
Tiananmen Square protests and now lives in exile, says, ``Economic 
change does influence political change. China's economic development 
will be good for the East, as well as for the Chinese people.''
  And Xie Wanjun, the Director of the Overseas Office of the China 
Democratic Party--a party banned within China--says,

       We support unconditional PNTR with China by the U.S. 
     government. . . . We believe the closer the economic 
     relationship between the United States and China, the more 
     chance for the U.S. to politically influence China, the more 
     chances to monitor human rights conditions in China, and the 
     more effective the U.S. will be to push China to launch 
     political reforms.

  Martin Lee, Chairman of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, supports 
China's entry into the World Trade Organization and the granting of 
permanent normal trade relations. ``The participation of China in WTO 
would not only have economic and political benefits, but would also 
serve to bolster those in China who understand that the country must 
embrace the rule of 
law. . . .''
  And Chen Shui-Bian, Taiwan's democratically elected President, said 
last spring,

       We feel that a democratic China will contribute to 
     permanent peace in this region. Therefore, we support U.S. 
     efforts to improve relations with China. While we seek to 
     normalize the cross-strait relationship, especially in the 
     area of business and trade, we are happy to see the United 
     States and China improve their economic relations. Therefore, 
     I am willing to support the U.S. normalization of trade 
     relations with the PRC.

  It's not must dissidents and leading Chinese democracy advocates who 
support PNTR.
  At this time, I ask unanimous consent to introduce into the Record 
recent statements by former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, 
former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and James Baker, Chairman 
of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Christian 
Broadcasting Network Pat Robertson, former National Security Advisory 
Brent Scowcroft, and yes, even former President of the United Auto 
Workers and former U.S. Ambassador to China Leonard Woodcock, all of 
whom support extension of permanent normal trade relations to China.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows;

    Quotes in Support of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China

       Former President Gerald Ford: ``the facts are a negative 
     vote in the House and/or the Senate would be catastrophic, 
     disastrous to American agriculture; electronics, 
     telecommunications, autos and countless other products and 
     services. A negative vote in the Congress would greatly 
     assist our foreign competitors from Europe or Asia by giving 
     them privileged access to China markets and at the same time, 
     exclude America's farm and factory production from the vast 
     Chinese market.'' [remarks at distinguished Americans in 
     Support of PNTR event, 5/9/2000]
       Former President Jimmy Carter: ``China still has not 
     measured up to the human rights and democracy standards and 
     labor standards of America. But there's no doubt in my mind 
     that a negative vote on this issue in the Congress will be a 
     serious setback and impediment for the further 
     democratization, freedom and human rights in China. That 
     should be the major consideration for the Congress and the 
     nation. And I hope the members of Congress will vote 
     accordingly, particularly those who are interested in human 
     rights, as I am; and those who are interested in the well-
     being of American workers as I am.'' [remarks at 
     Distinguished Americans in Support of PNTR event, 5/9/2000]
       Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve: ``The 
     outcome of the debate on permanent normal trade relations 
     with China will have profound implications for the free 
     world's trading system and the long-term growth potential of 
     the American economy . . . The addition of the Chinese 
     economy to the global marketplace will result in a more 
     efficient worldwide allocation of resources and will raise 
     standards of living in China and its trading partners . . . 
     As China's citizens experience economic gains, so will the 
     American firms that trade in their expanding markets . . . 
     Further development of China's trading relationships with the 
     United States and other industrial countries will work to 
     strengthen the rule of law within China and to firm its 
     commitment to economic reform . . . I believe extending PNTR 
     to China, and full participation by China in the WTO, is in 
     the interests of the United States.'' [press statement at the 
     White House, 5/18/2000, including quote from Greenspan letter 
     to House of Representatives Banking Committee Chairman James 
     Leach released 5/8/2000]
       Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: ``The agreement 
     is, of course, in our economic interest, since its grants 
     China what has been approved by the Congress every year for 
     20 years. But we are here together not for economic reasons. 
     We are here because cooperative relations with China are in 
     the American national interest. Every President, for 30 
     years, has come to that conclusion.'' [remarks at 
     Distinguished Americans in Support of PNTR event, 5/9/2000]
       Former Secretary of State and Treasury James Baker: ``As a 
     former Secretary of Treasury and of State, I believe that 
     normalized trade with China is good for America on both 
     economic grounds and security grounds. It will help move 
     China in the direction of a more open society, and in time, 
     more responsive government. As such, normalized trade 
     relations with China will advance both our national 
     interests, as well as our national ideals, in our relations 
     with the world's most populous country.'' [remarks at 
     Distinguished Americans in Support of PNTR event, 5/9/2000]
       Pat Robertson, Chairman of the Board and CEO, The Christian 
     Broadcasting Network, Inc.: ``If the US refuses to grant 
     normal trading relations with the People's Republic of China, 
     and if we significantly curtail the broad-based economic, 
     education, social and religious contacts that are being made 
     between the U.S. and China, we will damage ourselves and set 
     back the cause of those in China who are struggling toward 
     increased freedom for their fellow citizens.'' [letter to 
     Congressman Joseph Pitts, 5/10/2000]
       Brent Scowcroft, USAF Lt. Gen (ret) and former National 
     Security Advisor: ``I'm strongly in favor of granting 
     permanent normal trade relations to China, not as a favor to 
     China, but because doing so would be very much in the U.S. 
     national interest. This, in my judgment, goes far beyond 
     American business and economic interests, as important as 
     these are, to key U.S. political and security interests . . . 
     This may be one of those rare occasions on an important issue 
     where there's virtually no downside to taking affirmative 
     action. We cannot ourselves determine the ultimate course 
     China will take. And denying permanent normal trade relations 
     will remove none of the blemishes that China's opponents have 
     identified. But we can take steps which will encourage China 
     to evolve in directions compatible with U.S. interests. To 
     me, granting permanent normal trade relations is one of the 
     most important such steps that Congress can take.'' 
     [testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, 4/11/2000]
       Leonard Woodcock, former president of the United Auto 
     Workers and former U.S. Ambassador to China: ``I have spent 
     much of my life in the labor movement and remain deeply loyal 
     to its goals. But in this instance, I think our labor leaders 
     have got it wrong . . . American labor has a tremendous 
     interest in China's trading on fair terms with the Untied 
     States . . . The agreement we signed with China this past 
     November marks the largest single step ever taken toward 
     achieving that goal.'' [Washington Post, 3/8/2000]

  Mr. BIDEN. Finally, I would like to point out that my support for 
permanent normal trade relations with China is based not just on an 
assessment of

[[Page S8717]]

the economic benefits to the U.S., not just on the prospects for 
political reform in China, but also on the impact on our national 
security. As I discussed during the debate on the Thompson amendment at 
some length, improving our trade relations with China will help put the 
overall relationship on a sounder footing. We need to cooperate with 
China to rein in North Korea's nuclear missile ambitions, to prevent a 
destabilizing nuclear arms race in South Asia, and to combat the 
threats of international terrorism and narcotics trafficking. We cannot 
work effectively with China in these areas if we are treating them as 
an enemy in our trade relations.
  Let me quote General Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff: ``I think from every standpoint--from the strategic 
standpoint, from the standpoint of our national interests, from the 
standpoint of our trading interests and our economic interests--it 
serves all of our purposes to grant permanent normal trading 
relations.''
  So, with all due respect to my colleagues who have brought before us 
the images of the worst in China today, we must keep the full picture 
before us and keep our eye on the ball. China is changing. We must do 
what we can to encourage those changes.
  Can we control that change? Of course not. We know that not even 
those who currently hold the reins of power in China are confident that 
they can control the process that is now underway. What little we know 
of internal debate in China tells us that support for China's entry 
into the world Trade Organization is far from unanimous there.
  It is those who are most closely tied to the repressive, reactionary 
aspects of the current China who are most opposed to this profound step 
away from China's Communist past. I urge my colleagues who so rightly 
and so passionately seek change in China to pause and reflect on that.
  While we cannot dictate the future of China, we can--we must--
encourage China to follow a course that will make it a more 
responsible, constructive member of the community of nations.
  That is why I am proud of my sponsorship of legislation which created 
Radio Free Asia, and am pleased that the bill before the Senate 
includes increased support for the broadcast of independent news and 
analysis to the people of China. The opening of China--to investment, 
to trade, to travel, and yes, to foreign news sources--is a necessary 
ingredient to the process of economic reform and political 
liberalization.
  Some of my colleagues have argued that we must not cast our vote on 
PNTR simply on the promise of increased commercial opportunities for 
American corporations. I agree, Indeed, unlike some of my colleagues--
on both sides of this question, pro and con--I do not see the question 
of China's trade status simply in terms of the economic implications 
for the United States.
  I do not anticipate a dramatic explosion in American jobs, suddenly 
created to fuel a flood of exports to China. Nor do I see the collapse 
of the American manufacturing economy, as China, a nation with the 
impact on the world economy about the size of the Netherlands', 
suddenly becomes our major economic competitor.
  Both the opponents and proponents of PNTR, I believe, have vastly 
oversold the economic impact of this legislation.
  For the record, let me say a few things about that aspect of this 
issue. First and foremost, this vote will not determine China's entry 
into the WTO. With or without our vote of support here, China will 
become a member of the only international institution--created by and, 
yes, strongly influenced by, the advanced industrial economies of the 
world--in a position to formulate and enforce rules of fairness and 
openness in international trade.

  The issue for us is what role will we play in that process--will we 
put the United States on record in support of change in China's 
economic relations with the rest of the world? Will we put the United 
States on record in support of China's participation in a rules-based 
system whose basic bylaws will require fundamental changes in the 
state-owned enterprises, in the People's Liberation Army conglomerates 
that are the last bastions of the failed Chinese system?
  Or will we put ourselves on the sidelines, and on record in favor of 
the status quo?
  Will we accept the deal negotiated between the United States and 
China last year, in which China made every concession and we made none?
  Will we accept the deal which opens China's market to products such 
as Delaware's chemical and poultry exports, to Chrysler and General 
Motors exports?
  Or will we consign ourselves to the sidelines while other nations 
cherry-pick Chinese markets and are first out of the gate in building 
distribution and sales relationships there?
  Our course is clear. China's growing participation in the 
international community over the past quarter century has been marked 
by growing adherence to international norms in the areas of trade, 
security, and human rights. If you want to know what China looks like 
when it is isolated, take a look at the so-called Great Leap Forward 
and the Cultural Revolution. During those periods of modern Chinese 
history perhaps 20 million Chinese died of starvation, religious 
practice was almost stamped out entirely, and China supported Communist 
insurgents in half a dozen African and East Asian countries.
  I will cast my vote today in favor of change, in favor of closing 
that sad chapter in China's long history.
  Mr. President, I will cast my vote with Wang Dan, Dia Qing, Martin 
Lee, Chen Shui-bian, and the other courageous advocates for political 
and economic reform in China.
  Let us continue to seek change in China, to play our role in the 
search for a truly modern China.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my concerns and 
views as the Senate moves toward final passage of the bill extending 
permanent normal trading relations to the People's Republic of China.
  I have diligently listened to the debate in the Senate and have given 
careful consideration to all points of view. This has been a valuable 
debate. It has educated the American people and has provided the 
international community with a statement of American values and ideals.
  The intentions and actions of the Government of the Communist Party 
of China do give me concern. The record of China has been thoroughly 
discussed during this debate. There is no question that reforms are 
overdue to improve China's record related to human rights, religious 
liberty, environmental protection, and the conditions of workers. 
Furthermore, China's record on proliferation of weapons technology is 
dangerous both to the region and to the entire world. China's abuses of 
trade agreements has been well documented. Finally, the belligerence 
shown toward Taiwan has been disconcerting, if not alarming.
  Many amendments were offered to this legislation to address these and 
other issues. I supported many of those amendments, and am disappointed 
that the Senate felt it could not amend this bill, strictly for 
procedural reasons. Nevertheless, I must emphasize to the world 
community in general, and specifically to China, that the rejection of 
these amendments does not mean the United States is unconcerned about 
these matters.
  Given China's record, why should the United States grant permanent 
normal trade relations? I believe, that in the long term, Americans as 
well as Chinese will be better off as China joins the international 
economic system.
  There is no doubt there will be obstacles and slow progress in the 
short term. It will take years for the Chinese to fully open up their 
economy and develop the legal infrastructure that will facilitate trade 
and commerce. I recognize that China has made fundamental internal 
economic reforms, moving away from a Marxist state run economy and 
centralized planning. The liberalization of external trade should 
provide the next step in the process of giving the individual Chinese 
more choices. The overall effect will be that as the Chinese economy 
improves, Chinese workers will be lifted from poverty. This, coupled 
with the development of a legal framework for commerce, will lay the 
foundation for democracy and religious freedom.
  It is essential that China follow through on its obligations to the 
Chinese people to advance democratic reforms, to promote human rights, 
and

[[Page S8718]]

to create greater economic equality for all its citizens. The road to 
democracy is paved with free markets. Free trade is the bridge to reach 
out to the Chinese.
  This opening of Chinese markets will be good for South Carolinians, 
specifically, and Americans, generally. In the long run, America's 
workers and farmers will benefit from improved trade with China and 
access to what is potentially the world's largest market. Passage of 
this bill will ensure a reduction in tariffs on American products. 
Chinese consumers will be able to obtain high-quality U.S. agricultural 
and manufactured goods and business services.
  With China's permanent normal trade status and eventual membership in 
the World Trade Organization (WTO), there will be stronger incentives 
for China to honor its commitments to lowering trade barriers. Finally, 
the United States will have access to the WTO's dispute resolution 
process to arbitrate trade disputes and seek enforcement of agreements. 
In short, China will be required to ``play by the rules.''
  Again, I do not expect all of this to go smoothly. But I do 
anticipate that opening economic doors will open other opportunities 
for prosperity and freedom for the Chinese people. As China develops a 
vibrant free market and a more open and democratic society, the Chinese 
people will be better off, American security will be strengthened, and 
the prospects for international peace will be greatly improved.
  Therefore, Mr. President, despite my many concerns, and realizing 
this is a long-term process, I support the extension of Permanent 
Normal Trade Relations with the People's Republic of China. I 
appreciate that the bill also establishes a framework for monitoring 
trade agreements and for reviewing our relations with China. I strongly 
encourage the next administration to be more vigilant in addressing 
national security issues related to China. Finally, I am hopeful that 
expanding trade with China will provide opportunities for resolving our 
differences in other areas.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, since the House vote, virtually every 
news account of this trade agreement has called its passage by the 
Senate all but certain. After months of such predictions, some people 
might conclude that the votes we are about to cast are a mere 
formality. They are not. We are making history here. The votes we cast 
today will have consequences. Those consequences will affect our 
economic interests, and our national security interests, for decades to 
come.
  In one sense, the question before us is simple: Should we grant China 
the same trading status as we grant nearly every other nation in the 
world? Behind that question, though, is a larger question. China is 
home to 1.2 billion people--one-fifth of the world's entire population. 
What kind of relationship do we want with China? Do we want a China in 
which American products can be distributed--and our beliefs can be 
disseminated? Or do we want a China that continues to erect barriers to 
American goods and American ideals? Which China is better for our 
future? That is the question at the heart of this debate.
  Someone who knew something about China answered that question this 
way. ``Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China 
forever outside the family of nations, there to nurture its fantasies, 
cherish its hates and threaten its neighbors.'' My friends, it was not 
President Clinton who said that. It was not Ambassador Barshefsky, or 
anyone from this Administration. Richard Nixon wrote that--in 1967. 
Five years later, of course, President Nixon made his historic journey 
to China, ending 20 years of stony silence between our two nations.
  History has shown the wisdom of that journey. Six years after 
President Nixon visited, China opened its economy--at least in part--to 
the outside world. Since then, China's economy has been transformed--
from a 100-percent state-owned economy to an economy in which the state 
accounts for less than one-third of China's output. Along with this 
economic change has come social and political change. China is now 
taking the first tentative steps toward democratic local elections. 
Private citizens are buying property. People are being given more 
freedom to choose their schools and careers. You can now find articles 
critical of the government in the Chinese press, and a wider selection 
of books in Chinese bookstores. Now, China is ready to open its door to 
the outside world even further. The question is: Are we going to walk 
through that door?
  Several people deserve special thanks for helping us reach this 
point. First among them is the President. One reason our Nation's 
economy is so strong today is because this President understands the 
New Economy. He understand that, to win in the New Economy, we need to 
maintain our fiscal discipline, invest in our future competitiveness 
and open up new markets for the products Americans produce. Under his 
leadership, we have negotiated more than 300 trade agreements with 
other nations. Among those agreements, none is more significant than 
this agreement with China. And none holds more potential promise for 
our future.
  I also want to acknowledge the President's team--particularly 
Charlene Barshefsky--for her extraordinary skill in negotiating this 
agreement. I also want to thank our colleagues in the House, Sandy 
Levin and Doug Bereuter, for their bipartisan efforts to further 
improve on the Administration's efforts. The Levin-Bereuter 
improvements--particularly the creation of the human rights 
commission--are thoughtful solutions to concerns some of my colleagues 
and I had about the original agreement. Representative Levin and I 
spoke frequently about those improvements during that process. I know I 
speak for many in this chamber when I say we appreciate the great care 
he took to make sure his improvements addressed our concerns, as well 
as the concerns of our House colleagues.
  Here in this chamber, I want to thank Senator Moynihan, our ranking 
member on the Finance Committee, for his tireless efforts to pass this 
agreement. His accomplishment is a fitting conclusion to an historic 
career. I also want to thank Senator Baucus, who is a real leader on 
trade issues; Chairman Roth, for his bipartisan leadership and 
determination to pass this agreement; and of course the Majority 
Leader, for his cooperation and leadership as well. Finally, I want to 
thank my colleagues who voted against sending this agreement back to 
the House. Their decision to focus on our trade relationship with China 
and leave other important questions about that relationship for later 
was not an easy decision to make. But it was necessary. I thank them 
for making it.
  We have heard many eloquent arguments for--and against--this bill. 
That's as it should be. Critical decisions require careful 
deliberation. No one who values the freedoms we enjoy as Americans can 
possibly condone what we have heard about human rights, workers' 
rights, and religious freedom in China. None of us approves of China's 
frequent hostility, in the past, to the rule of law. I certainly do 
not. I intend to vote for this agreement, however, not to reward China 
for its past, but to engage China and help it create a different 
future.
  In the 22 years since it re-opened its doors to outside investors, 
China's economy has grown at a rate of 10 percent a year. Still, China 
remains--by Western standards--a largely poor and underdeveloped 
nation. Reformers there understand that the only way China can build a 
modern economy is by becoming a full and accountable member of the 
international trade community. In exchange for the right to join the 
World Trade Organization, they have therefore committed--in this 
agreement--to make a number of extraordinary and fundamental changes.
  Under this bilateral agreement, China has agreed to cut tariffs on US 
exports drastically. Tariffs on agriculture products will be cut by 
more than half--from 31 percent to 14 percent Tariffs on industrial 
products will be cut by nearly two-thirds--from about 25 percent to 9 
percent. And tariffs on American computers and other telecommunications 
products will be eliminated entirely. On our end, this agreement does 
not lower a single tariff or quota on Chinese goods exported to the 
U.S. Not one.
  China has also agreed to lower or eliminate a number of non-tariff 
barriers that now make doing business in

[[Page S8719]]

China extremely difficult. Under this agreement, American businesses 
will be able--for the first time--to sell and distribute their own 
products in China. The Chinese government will no longer be the 
monolithic middle man in every business deal. In addition, American 
businesses will no longer be forced to include Chinese-made parts in 
products they sell in China.
  To appreciate the magnitude of these concessions, you need to 
understand the hold the Chinese government now has on China's economy 
and--by extension--its citizens. Today in China, the state decides what 
products may be imported, and by whom. The state decides who may 
distribute and sell products in China. State-owned banks decide who 
gets capital to invest. For the more than half of China's workers who 
are still employed by state-owned enterprises, the state decides how 
much they earn, whether they are promoted, even where they live.
  But the state's grip on its citizens' lives is starting to weaken and 
will weaken further with this agreement. Nicholas Lardy, a China 
scholar with the Brookings Institution, notes that ``the authoritarian 
basis of the Chinese regime is (already) . . . eroding. . . .'' By 
agreeing to let its citizens own their own businesses, and buy products 
and services directly from the outside world, the Chinese government is 
agreeing to further relax its authoritarian grip on its people. That is 
not just in the interests of Chinese reformers. It is in our interests 
as well.
  None of us can know, with absolute certainty, the effect these new 
economic freedoms will have on China. But I had an experience a few 
years ago that makes me think there is reason to be hopeful. I was with 
two other Senators on a bipartisan trip to the republics of the Former 
Yugoslavia. We were there to assess what progress was being made under 
the Dayton peace agreement, and what help the republics might need to 
rebuild politically and economically.
  One day, in Albania, I was talking to a man in his early 30's. As you 
know, until 1992, Albania was arguably the most closed society in the 
world. No one entered or left. And no new information was allowed in 
except what the government permitted. The man I talked with said that 
when he was a boy, if someone had a satellite dish, and they turned it 
to face the sea, to receive uncensored information from Italy, police 
would come and turn the dish around. That was for the first offense. If 
the police had to come a second time, they took you off to jail.
  Then the communications revolution occurred--the explosion of e-mail 
and Internet. Suddenly, the government couldn't just pull the plug, or 
turn the satellite dish around. Suddenly, Albania was connected to the 
rest of the world.
  Today, Albania is struggling to create a free society and a free 
economy. The man I spoke with told me he hopes the Albania of the 
future looks like America.
  Today, fewer than 2.5 percent of China's people own personal 
computers. And fewer than 1 million Chinese have access to the 
Internet. By the end of this year, there will be 10 million Internet 
users in China. By the end of next year, it's expected there will be 20 
million.
  Recent attempts by China to police the Internet, and punish advocates 
of democratic reform, are troubling to all of us. They are also 
destined to fail. By eliminating all tariffs on information technology 
in China, liberalizing distribution, and allowing foreign investment in 
telecommunications services--the infrastructure of the Internet, this 
agreement will accelerate the telecommunications revolution in China. 
That is not just in the interest of Chinese reformers. It is in our 
interest as well.
  Some have expressed concerns about whether China will honor the 
commitments it makes in this agreement, and whether this agreement is 
enforceable.
  Their concerns are understandable. China has no history with the rule 
of law, as we know it. The important point is: by entering the WTO, 
China is agreeing--for the first time--to comply with the rules of the 
international trade community. It is agreeing to settle its trade 
disputes through the WTO, and to honor the WTO's decisions in those 
disputes. If it does not, it will face sanctions.
  This is a fundamental change. In previous disputes with China--
including our disagreements over intellectual property rights--we have 
had to fight alone. But there are 135 members in the WTO. Under this 
agreement, we will be able to work with those other nations, many of 
whom share our concerns. China's ability to pit its trading partners 
against each other will be greatly diminished. By agreeing to these 
terms, China is, in fact, agreeing to live by the rule of law. And 
while that agreement may be limited--for now--to trade issues, 
eventually it is likely to be extended to other areas as well--
including human rights.
  Rejecting this agreement, on the other hand, is likely to harm the 
cause of civil rights in China. Former President Jimmy Carter--one of 
the world's most respected human rights advocates--has said: ``There's 
no doubt in my mind that a negative vote on this issue in the Congress 
will be a serious setback and impediment for the democratization, 
freedom and human rights in China.''
  Respected Chinese democracy advocate Martin Lee agrees. In a letter 
to President Clinton, Lee wrote that this agreement ``represents the 
best long-term hope for China to become a member in good-standing in 
the international community.'' Should the agreement fail, he added, `` 
we fear that . . . any hope for political and legal reform process 
would also recede.'' Clearly, it is in the interest of Chinese 
reformers to prevent such a failure. But it is in our interest as well.
  There is another reason this agreement is in our national interest, 
Mr. President. It will strengthen peace and stability throughout Asia--
particularly in Taiwan. Why? Because the more China trades, the more it 
has to lose from war. Taiwan's newly elected President, President Chen, 
supports China's entry into the WTO.
  By passing this agreement, we would put the United States Congress on 
record as saying: ``If China is admitted to the WTO, Taiwan must be 
permitted, too--without delay.'' China has already agreed, as part of 
this agreement, to accept that condition.
  As I said, Mr. President, under this agreement, China is lowering its 
tariffs; we are not lowering ours. China is reducing or eliminating its 
non-tariff barriers; we are not. There is another way to evaluate the 
benefits of this agreement. That is by comparing China's WTO 
commitments to those of another huge, largely poor and under-developed 
nation: India.
  India places a 40 percent tariff on US consumer goods. Under this 
agreement, China will lower its tariffs to 9 percent. India places a 30 
percent tariff on agriculture products. Under this agreement, China 
will reduce its agriculture tariffs to an average of 14 percent. In 
addition, China will eliminate all agriculture subsidies to its 
farmers. That's something not even our closest ally, the European 
Union, has agreed to do.
  Four years ago, Congress re-wrote the rules that had governed farming 
in this country for 60 years. Supporters of the new rules said at the 
time that America's farmers didn't need a safety net any more because 
they would make so much money selling their products to new markets 
around the world. But that isn't what happened.
  Instead of prospering in this New Economy, over the last four years, 
family farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and across the country have 
suffered through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 
Obviously, the lack of new market opportunities isn't the only reason 
Farm Country is hurting, Mr. President. But opening new markets for 
American farm products is a necessary part of the solution to the farm 
crisis.
  It's time for this Congress to keep its commitment to family farmers 
and ranchers. It's time--at the very least--to provide access to the 
new markets we said would be available when the rules were re-written 
four years ago. The South Dakota Wheat Growers Association is right. 
``We have everything to gain by approving PNTR with China, and nothing 
to lose.''
  One lesson we have learned from past experience is that trade 
agreements must be specific. That is why this agreement is 
painstakingly detailed. Every commitment China is making is clearly 
spelled out, in black and white. We also know from past experience that 
no trade agreement--not even one

[[Page S8720]]

with a nation as large as China--will solve all of our economic 
challenges.
  Even if we pass this agreement, we will still have a responsibility 
to fix our federal farm policy--so family farmers and ranchers can get 
a fair price for their products. We will still have a responsibility to 
make sure all American workers can learn the new skills required by 
this New Economy. And we will also still have a responsibility to 
monitor how this agreement is enforced.
  We have heard a great deal of concern during this debate--and rightly 
so--about how China limits the rights of its citizens to organize their 
fellow workers, or pray to their own God. Basic legal safeguards and 
due process in China are routinely ignored in the name of maintaining 
public order. News reports just before we started this debate told of 
Chinese being jailed because they practice their faith in ``non-
official'' churches. Several key leaders of the China Democracy Party 
have been jailed because they advocated for democratic change. Workers 
rights are tightly restricted, and forced labor in prison facilities 
continues.
  Let me be very clear: No one should confuse endorsement of this trade 
agreement with endorsement of these and other assaults against basic 
human rights. Such practices are abhorrent and deeply troubling to 
Americans, and to freedom-loving people everywhere.
  As part of the Levin-Bereuter improvements, this agreement will 
create a high-level commission--modeled after the Helsinki Commission--
that will monitor human rights in China and report annually to 
Congress. We have a responsibility to support that commission.
  Finally, this agreement calls on Congress to help the Chinese people 
develop the institutions of a civil society that are needed to support 
fair and open trade. We have a responsibility to provide that 
assistance.
  This is a good agreement. But it is not a panacea. And it is not 
self-enforcing. If we want it to work, we have to keep working at it.
  In closing, there is another quote I would like to read from 
President Nixon. In a toast he made to China's leaders during his 1972 
visit, he said, ``It is not our common beliefs that have brought us 
together here,'' he said, ``but our common interests and our common 
hopes, the interests that each of us has to maintain our independence 
and the security of our peoples, and the hope that each of us has to 
build a new world order in which nations and peoples with different 
systems and different values can live together in peace--respecting one 
another while disagreeing with one another, letting history, rather 
than the battlefield, be the judge of their individual ideas.''
  We have made progress toward that goal over these last 28 years. This 
agreement will enable us to build on that progress. It is in China's 
interest. It is in our interest. It is in the world's best interest 
that we pass it. I urge you to support it.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we have had an excellent debate over PNTR, 
touching on many aspects of our complex relationship with China.
  It was, indeed, important we had such an exhaustive discussion 
because the vote we are about to cast on PNTR will be a defining moment 
in the history of this Chamber and in the history of our country.
  That is partly because passage of PNTR will create vast new 
opportunities for our workers, our farmers, and businesses. But it is 
also because PNTR will serve America's broader national interest in 
meeting what is likely to be our single greatest foreign policy 
challenge in the coming decades--managing our relations with a rising 
China.
  China's accession to the WTO has been the subject of intense 
negotiations for the past 14 years. The market access package the U.S. 
Trade Representative reached with Beijing represents, in my judgment, a 
remarkable achievement. From the point of view of every sector of the 
American economy, and from the perspective of every U.S. enterprise, no 
matter how big or small, the agreement holds the promise of new markets 
and future sales.
  For the citizens of my own State of Delaware--from poultry farmers to 
auto workers to those in our chemical and services businesses--gaining 
access to the world's largest country and fastest-growing market, which 
is what PNTR permits, offers extraordinary new opportunities.
  Passage of PNTR is in our economic interest. I hope our debate has 
made that clear. But I hope my colleagues and the American people have 
come to understand why PNTR is also in our national interest.
  To gain entry to the WTO, China has been compelled to move its 
economy to a rules-based system and to end most forms of state control 
within roughly 5 years. Indeed, in a number of sectors of its economy, 
China will soon be more open to U.S. products and services than some of 
our developed-country trading partners in Asia and Europe.
  The results of China implementing its WTO obligations will be 
revolutionary. But contrary to what occurred in 1949, China will be 
transforming itself by adopting a fully-realized market economy, 
thereby returning individual property rights and economic freedom to 
the people of China.
  Why has China accepted such a capitalist revolution? As Long Yongtu, 
China's top WTO negotiator and Vice Minister of China's trade ministry, 
said earlier this year, what is ``most significant at present [is that] 
WTO entry will speed China's reform and opening up. Reform is the only 
outlet for China.''
  In other words, China has no choice. Its state-directed policies do 
not work; free markets and capitalism do.
  Mr. Long went on to say:

       China's WTO entry would let enterprises make their own 
     business decisions and pursue benefits according to contracts 
     and market principles. Liaison between enterprises and 
     government will only hurt enterprises. Contracts kowtowing to 
     government, though they look rosy on the surface, usually 
     lead to failure. After joining the WTO, the government will 
     be pressed to respect market principles and give up the 
     approval economy.

  I agree with those who say that the rise of China presents the United 
States with potentially our biggest foreign policy challenge. But I 
also believe it presents us with enormous opportunities. The single 
most important step the Senate can take to allow the United States to 
respond to that challenge adequately and seize those opportunities is 
to pass PNTR.
  We must, and we will, continue to press Beijing on the range of 
issues where our interests and values diverge, from human rights to 
proliferation to China's aggressive stance on territorial disputes.
  Yet a China fully immersed in the global trade regime, subject to all 
the rules and sanctions applicable to WTO members, is far likelier to 
live under the rule of law and to act in ways that comply with global 
norms. Indeed, the WTO is exactly the sort of multilateral institution 
that can act as a reinforcing mechanism to make China's interests more 
compatible with ours.
  As that happens, and as China's economic success increasingly comes 
to depend on stable and peaceful relations with its trading partners, 
Beijing will be more apt to play a constructive regional and global 
role.
  Finally, if Asia and much of the rest of the world are any guide, 
China's economic liberalization will accelerate its path toward greater 
political freedom. In East Asia alone, South Korea, Taiwan, and 
Thailand have amply demonstrated how economic freedom can stimulate 
democratic evolution.
  Ultimately, China's participation in the WTO means the Chinese people 
will be given the chance to shape their own destiny. As Ren Wanding, 
the brave leader of China's Democracy Wall Movement said recently, 
``Before the sky was black. Now there is light . . . [China's WTO 
accession] can be a new beginning.''
  Mr. President, when we pass PNTR, that new beginning will be for the 
American people just as surely as it will be for the people of China.
  Colleagues, let us begin anew by joining together to pass PNTR 
overwhelmingly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, throughout the 22 years I have been 
privileged to be a Member of the Senate, I have worked very closely 
with our distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Roth, and 
indeed our

[[Page S8721]]

colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan. This has to mark one of 
their finest hours in the Senate. Senator Moynihan has spoken with me 
unreservedly on this important issue and it took the strong leadership 
of our chairman and distinguished ranking member to shepherd this key 
legislation through the Senate in light of the number of challenges 
they faced.
  I hope that not only the constituencies in their respective States 
but the Nation as a whole recognize the skill with which these two very 
seasoned and senior Senators have managed this most critical piece of 
legislation. Passage of this legislation is in the interest of our 
country economically and in terms of our security--I will dwell on the 
security interests in a moment--for today, tomorrow, and the future.
  As we enter this millennium, China, in my judgment, is our natural 
competitor in economics, and perhaps the nation that could pose the 
greatest challenges in terms of our national security. I was very much 
involved, as were other Members of the Senate, indeed our two leaders, 
in the amendment offered by Senator Thompson. I subscribe to so many of 
his goals. Were it not for a framework of laws which adequately address 
the concerns of Senator Thompson, I would most certainly have supported 
his amendment. But as our two managers have pointed out, as drafted, 
that amendment could have imperiled the passage of this legislation.
  I am pleased to join colleagues today in supporting PNTR for China. I 
join all Senators who have spoken so eloquently on the question of 
human rights deprivation in China. Indeed, I have traveled there, as 
almost every Member of this body has at one time, and have witnessed 
with my own eyes the human rights deprivation of the citizens of that 
nation. However, continued isolation, in my judgment, would strengthen 
the hands of those who inflict the abrogation of human rights on those 
citizens by restricting the Chinese people's contact with some of our 
very finest Ambassadors. I am not just speaking of the diplomatic 
corps. I am talking about the American people, be they traveling for 
business or to gain knowledge about China. The American people are 
among the best Ambassadors as it relates to human rights.
  Our citizens, wherever they travel in the world, most particularly to 
China, whether it is to conduct business or for pleasure or for other 
reasons, bring with them the closely held and dearly valued principles 
of a democratic society, principles of human rights. They are 
unrelenting in trying to share those principles and impress upon the 
people of China the value of reshaping their society along the 
principles of human rights adopted by the major nations of this world, 
particularly the United States. Therefore, exposing Chinese citizens to 
many of the ideals that our democratic society is built upon can only 
help in the strengthening of human rights in China.
  It is through such contacts, which will be greatly expanded with the 
passage of PNTR with China, that significant improvements can be made 
in the human rights situation in China. Not providing the PNTR status 
for China would also have a significant impact on both U.S. businesses 
and consumers.
  China imports 20 percent of the U.S. wheat and timber exports, and 
they also are major importers of U.S. cotton, fertilizer, aircraft 
equipment and machinery. China supplies the United States with one-
third of those wonderful gifts, particularly at Christmastime, that we 
share with our children. They have always had a very innovative insight 
into what the children want and a great deal of what we purchase comes 
from that nation. Ten percent of our footwear, 15 percent of our 
apparel, and a large percentage of our electronic products are supplied 
by China. Without a PNTR agreement, duties on these products might 
drastically increase and the costs be borne by the American consumer.

  However, China's accession to the WTO will be a boon to U.S. 
manufacturers, farmers, and service providers. As a requirement to join 
the WTO, China has agreed to greatly reduce tariffs across the board. 
This will in turn open markets in that huge nation, thereby providing 
American business with great opportunities.
  Let me take a minute to explain how such a reduction in Chinese 
tariffs will beneficially impact my State, the Commonwealth of 
Virginia. In 1998, Virginia's worldwide poultry and product exports 
were estimated at $101 million. China is currently the second leading 
market for U.S. poultry exports. Under its WTO accession agreement, by 
2004, China will cut its frozen poultry products tariff in half, from 
20 percent to 10 percent. The beautiful Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, 
indeed, along with other regions of the State, are the heartland of our 
poultry export market. They stand to benefit greatly.
  In 1998, Virginia's worldwide live animal and red meat exports were 
estimated at $87 million. Under its WTO accession agreement, by 2004, 
China will reduce its tariffs 45 percent to 12 percent on frozen beef 
cuts, from 45 to 25 percent on chilled beef, and from 20 percent to 12 
percent on frozen pork cuts, definitely benefiting Virginia's exports 
in these areas.
  Virginia's lumber industry is the 13th largest in the Nation. China 
is the world's third largest lumber importer. Under its WTO accession 
agreement, China will substantially reduce tariffs on this import, 
thereby dramatically opening up the market to the American lumber 
industry.
  Those are but a few examples of how China's accession into the WTO 
will provide numerous opportunities for Virginia business, particularly 
small- and medium-size companies which account for 54 percent of all 
exports from Virginia to China.
  I believe it is in the long-term interest of the United States to 
maintain a positive trade relationship with China. I believe we can use 
our relationship to foster positive social, civil, and economic changes 
in China. Isolation tactics will only prevent the United States from 
having any influence over guiding China towards democratic reform.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from 
Virginia may require.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. I will take but a few 
more minutes.
  Therefore, I intend to vote loudly and strongly for this measure.
  In conclusion, I am privileged to work in the Senate in the area of 
security, military and foreign relations as chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  In light of that, I have looked very closely at China. China is 
pushing many frontiers, whether it is the export of armaments or being 
involved in some of the most complex and fragile relationships the 
world over. We need only point out Pakistan and India and how Russia is 
on one side and China is on the other side. Let's only hope that their 
work with regard to that tension-filled part of the globe will be 
constructive and in a way to prevent any significant confrontation 
between those two nations.
  Therefore, I think it is important that our military maintain its 
relationship with the Chinese. Given the tenuous situation with regard 
to Taiwan, and the strong principles of our Nation in trying to defend 
and support that democracy, I believe such a dialogue will give us a 
better opportunity to work on security relationships, whether regarding 
India and Pakistan, Taiwan or other regions of the world.
  Mr. President, I think we are on the verge of a very historic moment. 
I commend the chairman and ranking member for their initiatives and 
long weeks of hard work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I know Senator Roth will join me in 
expressing great gratitude and appreciation for Senator Warner's 
characteristic generosity. It comes from the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, which is doubly important.
  Mr. President, we are nearly there. In a short while, the Senate will 
cast an epic vote. At the Finance Committee's final hearing on China 
this spring, on April 6, 2000, our last witness--Ira Shapiro, former 
Chief Negotiator for Japan and Canada at the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative--put it this way:

       . . . [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.


[[Page S8722]]


  This achievement--for it is a crowning achievement--caps an eventful 
year. All the more impressive in light of last December's ``global 
disaster''--as the Economist magazine on December 11, 1999, put it--
that was the Seattle World Trade Organization Ministerial.
  In January, it was thought that our long-standing trade policy was in 
serious jeopardy--the trade policy that, for 66 years--ever since 
Cordell Hull created the Reciprocal Trade Agreements program in 1934--
has contributed so much to our nation's prosperity.
  But we have prevailed. And more. In May, the Senate took up and 
passed--the vote was 77 to 19--the conference report on the Trade and 
Development Act of 2000--establishing a long overdue trade policy for 
sub-Saharan Africa and putting in place new trade benefits for the 
Caribbean Basin countries. That measure was the most significant trade 
legislation passed by the Congress in six years--ever since the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act of 1994.
  Now, just four months later, we are about to give our resounding 
approval to H.R. 4444, authorizing the extension of permanent normal 
trade relations to China. And with this action, we will have passed 
more trade legislation--important trade legislation--in this session of 
Congress than any session of Congress in more than a decade.
  It has taken us a long while to reach the point of final passage of 
the PNTR legislation. We have most certainly not rushed this 
legislation through the Senate. The House approved the measure nearly 
four months ago, on May 24, by a vote of 237-197. The Senate, in 
effect, began its consideration before the August recess--on July 27th, 
when we invoked cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. The vote 
was a decisive 86 to 12.
  By the time this vote is cast, we will have completed eleven full 
days of debate. We have taken up and debated 19 amendments. We have 
considered every facet of U.S.-China relations, and we are now ready to 
give this measure our overwhelming approval.
  And so we ought to do. We are giving up very little--the annual 
review of China's trade status that has had at best an inconsequential 
effect on China's domestic policies. In return, we are bringing China 
back into the trading system that it helped to establish out of the 
ashes of the Second World War.
  For 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. It 
served on the Preparatory Committee that wrote the charter for the 
International Trade Organization that was to complement the 
International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development. And China was of course one of the 23 
original Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade--initially designed to be an interim arrangement until the ITO 
Charter would come into force. It did not: the ITO failed in the Senate 
Finance Committee and we were left with the GATT.
  And in China, revolution intervened. The Republic of China (now on 
Taiwan) notified the GATT on March 8, 1950, that it was terminating 
``China's'' membership. It was not until 1986 that the People's 
Republic of China officially sought to rejoin the GATT, now the World 
Trade Organization. And now, after 14 years of negotiations, China is 
poised to become the 139th member of the WTO.
  It is elemental that China belongs in the WTO. It is in the interests 
of all trading nations that a country that harbors one-fifth of 
mankind, a country that is already the world's ninth largest exporter 
and eleventh largest importer, abide by the rules of world trade--rules 
that were, I would point out, largely written by the United States.
  We, too, must abide by the WTO's rules. And thus we will approve 
today the legislation extending permanent, unconditional normal trade 
relations to China--fulfilling the most basic of our obligations under 
the WTO's rules--nondiscriminatory treatment.
  Let me leave the Senate with the following observations from Joseph 
Fewsmith, an associate professor of international relations at Boston 
University and a specialist on the political economy of China. He 
writes in the National Bureau of Asian Research publication of July 2, 
2000:

       Some historical perspective is necessary when thinking 
     about PNTR. When President Nixon traveled to China in 1972, 
     China was still in the throes of the Cultural Revolution. Mao 
     Zedong was still in command, there were no private markets, 
     intellectuals were still raising pigs on so-called ``May 7 
     cadre schools,'' and labor camps were filled with political 
     prisoners. Nixon was treated to a performance of ``The Red 
     Detachment of Women,'' one of only eight model operas that 
     were permitted to be performed. Nearly three decades later--
     not a long period in historical terms--China has changed 
     dramatically. Communes are gone, the planned economy has 
     shrunk to a shadow of its former self, and incomes have 
     increased dramatically. Personal freedoms, while by no means 
     perfect, are greater than at any other time in Chinese 
     history. China's opening to the United States is a major 
     reason for these changes, a dramatic demonstration of the 
     impact of international influence.

  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cast their votes in support of 
H.R. 4444.
  I would like to attenuate my remarks simply to take up the question 
of Taiwan and its accession to the WTO. This ought to be explicit and 
perhaps the last thing said in this debate.
  Just as China ought to be in the WTO--will be in the WTO--so will 
Taiwan. Despite the bluster of senior Chinese officials, 
intermittently, and recently as well, Taiwan is on track to be invited 
to join the WTO at the same General Council session that will consider 
China's application.
  Article XII of the Agreement Establishing the WTO provides that:

       . . . any State or separate customs territory possessing 
     full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial 
     relations . . . may accede to the WTO.

  In September 1992, the GATT Council--for the WTO was not yet in 
existence--established a separate working party to examine Taiwan's 
request for accession. The nomenclature was carefully chosen. Taiwan 
was called the ``Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu.'' That is the formulation under which Taiwan will enter the 
WTO.
  The President has confirmed this and confirmed in the strongest 
possible terms that the United States will not accept any other 
outcome. The President was adamant on this point in his letter of 
September 12. A copy was sent to me, and I believe a copy was also sent 
to our distinguished chairman. It says this:

       There should be no question that my administration is 
     firmly committed to Taiwan's accession to the WTO, a point I 
     reiterated in my September 8 meeting with President Jiang 
     Zemin. Based on our New York discussions with the Chinese, I 
     am confident we have a common understanding that both China 
     and Taiwan will be invited to accede to the WTO at the same 
     WTO General Council session, and that Taiwan will join the 
     WTO under the language agreed to in 1992, namely, as the 
     Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 
     Matsu (referred to as ``Chinese Taipei''). The United States 
     will not accept any other outcome.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President's letter of 
September 12 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if China should attempt to block 
Taiwan's accession, I suggest to the Senate that there is a remedy. 
H.R. 4444 gives the President the authority to extend permanent normal 
trade relations status to China upon its accession to the WTO, but he 
need not do so. Indeed, if Taiwan's membership in the WTO is blocked, I 
would urge--and I am sure my beloved colleague, Senator Roth, would 
urge, as I see him nodding--the President to simply refrain from 
extending PNTR to China. So we ought to put this matter to rest.
  I have no doubt that there will continue to be bumps--some serious 
crises indeed--in our relationship with China. Neither membership in 
the WTO nor normalized trade relations with the United States will 
magically impose the rule of law in China or institute deep-seated 
respect for human rights. But certainly it has the potential to advance 
those purposes. That is why we are here and why we will shortly make 
this epic decision.
  Finally, if I may have the indulgence of the Senate--and I know this 
is shared by the chairman--I want to read a short paragraph.
  My only regret today is that with the final vote on PNTR for China, 
we must

[[Page S8723]]

bid farewell to our chief trade counsel, Debbie Lamb, who joined the 
Finance Committee staff over 10 years ago, in June 1990. Ms. Lamb has 
played an integral part in every major piece of trade legislation over 
the past decade--from the NAFTA and the Uruguay Round to our attempts 
to renew so-called fast-track negotiating authority to the two pieces 
of trade legislation that we passed this year: The Trade and 
Development Act of 2000, and now, at last, PNTR for China. Her 
knowledge and dedication to our committee's work has been exemplary. 
She is something that is very rare in Washington--a person with great 
breadth and great depth. The committee and I will miss her deeply as 
she leaves today to pursue the next phase of a distinctly distinguished 
career.

                               Exhibit 1


                                              The White House,

                                   Washington, September 12, 2000.
     Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moynihan: I want to commend you for commencing 
     debate on H.R. 4444, which would extend Permanent Normal 
     Trade Relations to the People's Republic of China. This 
     crucial legislation will help ensure our economic prosperity, 
     reinforce our work on human rights, and enhance our national 
     security.
       Normalizing our trade relationship with China will allow 
     American workers, farmers, and businesspeople to benefit from 
     increased access to the Chinese market. It will also give us 
     added tools to promote increased openness and change in 
     Chinese society, and increase our ability to work with China 
     across the broad range of our mutual interests.
       I want to address two specific areas that I understand may 
     be the subject of debate in the Senate. One is Taiwan's 
     accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). There should 
     be no question that my Administration is firmly committed to 
     Taiwan's accession to the WTO, a point I reiterated in 
     September 8 meeting with President Jiang Zemin. Based on our 
     New York discussions with the Chinese, I am confident we have 
     a common understanding that both China and Taiwan will be 
     invited to accede to the WTO at the same WTO General Council 
     session, and that Taiwan will join the WTO under the language 
     agreed to in 1992, namely as the Separate Customs Territory 
     of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (referred to as ``Chinese 
     Taipei''). The United States will not accept any other 
     outcome.
       The other area is nonproliferation, specifically the 
     proposals embodied in an amendment offered by Senator Fred 
     Thompson. Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass 
     destruction and the means to deliver them is a key goal of my 
     Administration. However, I believe this amendment is unfair 
     and unnecessary, and would hurt our nonproliferation efforts.
       Nonproliferation has been a priority in our dealings with 
     China. We have pressed China successfully to join the 
     Nonproliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the 
     Biological Weapons Convention, and the Comprehensive Test Ban 
     Treaty, and to cease cooperation with Iran's nuclear program. 
     Today, we are seeking further restraints, but these efforts 
     would be subverted--and existing progress could be reversed 
     by this mandatory sanctions bill which would single out 
     companies based on an unreasonably low standard of suspicion, 
     instead of proof. It would apply a different standard for 
     some countries than others, undermining our global leadership 
     on nonproliferation. Automatic sanctions, such as cutting off 
     dual-use exports to China, would hurt American workers and 
     companies. Other sanctions, such as restricting access to 
     U.S. capital markets, could harm our economy by undermining 
     confidence in our markets. I believe this legislation would 
     do more harm than good.
       The American people are counting on the Congress to pass 
     H.R. 4444. I urge you and your colleagues to complete action 
     on the bill as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, of course.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I only want to echo what my friend and 
distinguished ranking member has said about Debbie. We have 
accomplished a lot in the area of trade in recent years, and so much of 
the credit should go to the staff who have worked so hard and so long. 
Top among those is Debbie Lamb, who has been available not only to her 
side, but has been most helpful to the majority as well. Sometimes I 
think people don't recognize the cooperation that often exists between 
Members of the two parties. But I think what Debbie has done shows that 
bipartisanship is still alive. We would not be here celebrating today's 
vote if not for her splendid contribution.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I say to our chairman, as evidenced by the fact that 
this measure was reported 19-1 in the Finance Committee.
  I thank the Chair. We are at a moment of history and the omens are 
excellent.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in keeping with the words of my 
distinguished colleague about Debbie, I want to say a few words of 
thanks to all those who worked so hard on this bill.
  Of course, first, I have to thank my dear friend, our venerable 
colleague, and always gracious ranking member of the Finance Committee, 
Pat Moynihan. It would never have been possible to be here today with 
the kind of vote I think we are going to enjoy if it had not been for 
Pat's leadership, for his knowledge and background, and his ability to 
bring people together. I thank him for his outstanding contributions.
  I also thank Senators Grassley, Thomas, Hagel, Roberts, and Rod Grams 
for helping manage the floor. We were on this legislation something 
like 11 days. There were times when Pat and I were called from the 
floor for other duties. It was most helpful to have these other 
individual colleagues helping manage the floor.
  Again, I thank all of Senator Moynihan's committee staff who are just 
as gracious as the Senator for whom they work. We have already talked 
about Debbie Lamb. But David Podoff--I want to express my warm thanks 
to you for bringing your expertise to bear on this legislative process. 
I agree with Senator Moynihan. This is probably the most important 
piece of legislation that will be adopted this year, if not this 
decade. But again, it could not have happened without people such as 
Dave.
  I would also like to thank Linda Menghetti, and Timothy Hogan, as 
well as Therese Lee, who I think was such a help as a member of the 
Senator's personal staff.
  Finally, let me thank my own staff. I would like to claim that I have 
the best staff on the Hill. I certainly have one of the best, if not 
the very best.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Sir, we have the best staffs.
  (Laughter.)
  Mr. ROTH. I yield to my distinguished Senator on that point. I stand 
corrected.
  But, again, I really want to thank my personal staff, and my trade 
staff, whether it is Frank Polk, who is always there when you need him, 
and Grant Aldonas, Faryar Shirzad, Tim Keeler, J.T. Young, and Carrie 
Clark from the Finance Committee. I also particularly want to thank 
John Duncan and Dan Bob from my personal office. Dan is really one of 
our great experts on Asia, and on international politics in general. I 
owe him so much for his help during these last 2 weeks. Thank you all 
for a job well done.
  Let me say it is an honor and pleasure to work with the ranking 
member.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. My honor, sir.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________