[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 58 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2056-S2058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 China

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, as we all know, our country is facing 
a lot of challenges, particularly overseas, and a lot of them are in 
the news--Iran, Syria, North Korea. When you

[[Page S2057]]

look out across the landscape of what the big, long-term, geostrategic 
challenges are that face our Nation, in my view, there is no doubt that 
the No. 1 challenge economically and from a national security 
standpoint is the rise of China as a great power. We need to be 
thinking about that a lot more because that is going to be the issue 
our country faces, not just this year or next year but for decades.
  I come from the great State of Alaska. We are an Asia-Pacific State. 
We are always looking to that region--as a matter of fact, we are in 
that region. My hometown of Anchorage is closer to Tokyo than it is to 
Washington, DC. What I see as a positive on this issue--having been 
someone in this body for a little over 3 years, I have come down to the 
floor and talked a lot about this challenge, the rise of China. It is a 
little concerning that a couple of years ago nobody was talking about 
it. Very few people were talking about it, but that is changing, and I 
think that is positive.
  It is changing. This administration is focusing, and it is changing 
with my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans. Certainly, this is an 
area where, I think, there is a lot of agreement. I was just presiding 
for the last hour. The majority whip and the Senator from Oklahoma both 
were talking about issues dealing with China and trade and strategy, 
and that is positive.
  The administration is talking about it. If you look at the national 
security strategy of the Trump administration, they are starting to 
focus on this issue. Front and center is the return of great power 
rivalries, with China as the leading, pacing threat and challenge, but 
it is also an opportunity for this great Nation of ours.
  When you look at the history of our country, particularly post-World 
War II, the United States set up the international system--the 
international trading system and security system. We have been leading 
them, and so many countries--hundreds of millions of people in the 
world--benefited from that. The irony, of course, is that the one 
country that benefited probably more than almost anyone is China.
  The rise of China was not only helped, but it was spurred by the 
American international trading system, the sealanes of commerce that we 
have kept open for decades. So there was a moment in the last couple of 
decades where we reached out very much--there was a great speech by our 
former Deputy Secretary of State in the Bush administration, a 
gentleman by the name of Bob Zoellick, who went on to become head of 
the World Bank. He asked in a speech to the Chinese: You need to now 
become a responsible stakeholder in this system that we created because 
you have benefited so dramatically. You are big, you are powerful, and 
now help become a stakeholder in the international order that we set 
up. Here is the offer to you.
  Well, unfortunately, whether it is a Democrat or Republican, in the 
national security and foreign policy realm, most people are sensing 
that China has rejected that notion. No, we are not going to be a 
responsible stakeholder in your system. We are going to set up our own 
system. As a matter of fact, we might even try to undermine your 
system--the global system set up by the United States of America by 
Democrats and Republicans over decades.
  You see it everywhere, whether it is decades-long theft of 
intellectual property, whether it is high tariffs, whether it is any 
American company coming into China and being forced to transfer their 
technology. No other countries do this to China, but they are doing it 
to our companies and have been doing that for decades.
  So there is a rethinking right now. Clearly, the Trump administration 
is thinking about what the new strategy should be. The national 
security strategy of this administration, which I commend people to 
read--it is quite a good document, written by the outgoing National 
Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster--focuses a lot on this issue of 
reciprocity and great power rivalry again.
  So as we are thinking about it, I would like to briefly touch on 
three principles I think will be key as we debate this. As we help 
formulate this--hopefully, in a bipartisan manner--this issue is going 
to be with us for decades. There are three key principles.
  The first key principle is reciprocity--true reciprocity. The 
majority whip was just talking about this. The national security 
strategy of the Trump administration talks a lot about it. The 
President talks a lot about this. This is just a fairness issue. As I 
mentioned, there is IPR theft; high tariffs; the forced tech transfer 
from American companies to China; giant, subsidized, state-owned 
enterprises and state-backed investment funds buying up companies all 
over the world. No other country does that to China.
  So when you look at the issue of reciprocity, I would like to break 
it down into a positive and negative. You have negative reciprocity. If 
we can't do that in your country, you shouldn't be able to do it in our 
country. It is pretty simple, pretty fair, and everybody understands 
that.
  Then there is positive reciprocity. One thing I have been encouraging 
the Chinese to do for many years--and I have been over there a lot and 
spent a lot of time with senior leaders in that country. The United 
States has been going over and investing in China for decades. 
Factories have been rebuilt from the ground up and we have employed 
tens of thousands of Chinese with American capital. Well, you know 
what, China is getting big enough. They can do that in America. The 
Japanese did that in the 1980s. We had major trade disputes with them. 
What did they do? They started coming to our country and investing in 
our States with their capital, greenfield investments--auto factories, 
for example--and employing tens of thousands, if not hundreds of 
thousands, of Americans. We would welcome that. As a matter of fact, in 
Alaska, the Chinese are talking about helping us develop a large-scale 
Alaska natural gas project. Greenfield investment, employing Alaskans 
would be positive if that is going to happen. So that is the way we 
need to think about reciprocity.
  The second key principle is allies--allies, allies, allies. The 
United States is an ally-rich nation. Our adversaries and potential 
adversaries--think about whom that might be: Russia, North Korea, Iran, 
potentially China. They are ally-poor. No one wants to join the North 
Korea team or the Iran team--well, maybe Syria--but the United States 
for decades has had allies because they trust us. We are not a perfect 
nation, but they trust us. Look all over the world.
  So what we need to do with regard to our strategy on China is make 
sure we remember not only our allies and deepen current relationships 
with Japan, with Korea, with Australia, but expand them--Vietnam. The 
Presiding Officer and I went to Vietnam with the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, a war hero who spent time in prison in Vietnam, 
Senator McCain. The Vietnamese are very interested in doing more with 
us. India, there are incredible opportunities to have a deeper alliance 
between the oldest democracy in the world, us, and the biggest 
democracy in the world, them. So allies have to be a key part of our 
strategy as we look at how we deal with the rise of China for the next 
two or three or four or five decades because all of these countries--
all of our allies--are having the same challenges.
  Finally, the third principle we cannot lose sight of--and for too 
long this body lost sight of it--is robust American economic growth. 
Since the founding of our Nation, we have been growing at about 3 or 4 
percent GDP growth. I have a chart, and I talk about it all the time 
down here. Yet, over the last decade, because of policies we inflicted 
on the American people, we were barely growing at 1-percent GDP growth. 
What does that mean? Everybody talks about numbers, wonky. That is a 
proxy for the American dream, and we were not growing. We weren't 
growing. In Asia, the coin of the realm of power more than anything--
more than military power--is the power of your economy, and we have not 
had that. We have not shown up, and that matters.
  What we are trying to do in this body now--tax reform, regulatory 
reform, unleashing American energy--is we are going to start growing 
this economy again, and that is going to help the American people, that 
is going to reignite the American dream, but that is going to be key 
with any policy we deal with China.

[[Page S2058]]

  So as we are thinking through this challenge--and I am going to talk 
about this a lot, and I know all my colleagues are interested in this. 
I know my colleague from Michigan is interested in it--we need to 
continue to focus on these core principles--reciprocity, our allies, 
and robust economic growth as we all struggle with and put together a 
long-term strategy to deal with the rise of China, the challenges and 
the opportunities.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, our Nation's middle class was built by 
the hard work of American workers. At a time when our country has 
become increasingly polarized, we should all be able to agree that 
everybody should have a fair chance to succeed if they are willing to 
work hard and play by the rules.
  These truly American values have inspired generations of workers who 
stand together and collectively bargain for basic workplace protections 
such as fair wages, safe workplaces, and reasonable hours. These 
protections allow American workers and their families to be productive 
members of the economy and achieve their version of the American dream, 
but the American dream only exists if hard work is rewarded with the 
opportunity to earn a good living, provide for your loved ones, and, 
when it is all said and done, be able to retire with dignity.
  This is deeply personal to me. As a nurse's aide, my mother found 
opportunity and led the effort to organize her workplace. She went on 
to serve as an SEIU union steward.
  Unfortunately, in the years since I grew up in Rochester Hills, it 
feels as though the American dream has moved out of the reach for too 
many American families. Joining or staying in the middle class can be a 
daily struggle.
  We must fight every day to support and build the middle class, not 
chip away at fundamental worker rights. The laws, regulations, and 
administrative decisions that come out of Washington have a direct 
impact on American workers, unions, and the middle class.
  The National Labor Relations Board plays a central role in protecting 
the rights of American workers. The NLRB was created to safeguard their 
ability to unionize and engage in collective bargaining for fair 
workplace conditions.
  To work as intended, the NLRB must be made up of members deeply 
committed to representing the interests of American workers. 
Unfortunately, the nominee we will be considering shortly, Mr. John 
Ring, does not share this commitment. In fact, he is the third labor 
attorney President Trump has nominated to the committee with zero--let 
me say that again--zero track record of representing workers. He has 
only represented clients on the corporate and management side of labor 
issues.
  During Mr. Ring's tenure at one of the country's largest firms, he 
advised corporations on how to undermine worker protections. He also 
posted blogs opposing commonsense reforms to modernize union election 
procedures, classifying the NLRB actions as ``some of the biggest 
assaults on employer rights in recent history.''
  Mr. Ring would join recently confirmed Board member William Emanuel, 
who quickly ran into ethics trouble based on his history of 
representing corporations. Just 5 months after Mr. Emanuel's 
appointment, the NLRB was forced to vacate a major decision related to 
employer liability due to his conflicts of interest. Yet the 
administration continues full steam ahead with new nominees with 
extensive corporate ties and conflicts of interest.
  This administration is also breaking precedent and all conception of 
fairness by refusing to nominate new NLRB members in bipartisan pairs. 
Despite a pending Democratic vacancy on the panel, the President and 
Senate majority leader have instead chosen a partisan approach--
doubling down on the one-sided nature of a supposedly independent 
Federal agency. This is simply an unacceptable development, and it is 
an ongoing effort to silence our Nation's workers. Protecting American 
workers, the American middle class, and the American dream should not 
be a partisan issue.
  I am deeply concerned with Mr. Ring's appointment to the NLRB. If 
confirmed to the five-member Board, the voting majority of an agency 
charged with protecting workers' voices will be stacked with members 
who are focused on undermining fundamental worker rights. I think 
employers should be treated fairly but not at the expense of our 
Nation's workers and the American middle class. We need a balanced and 
fair NLRB, and we need NLRB members who will stick up for American 
workers and the middle class. Mr. Ring will not be that kind of NLRB 
member. The administration and the majority are actively preventing 
seating someone who will stand up for workers.
  I will be voting against Mr. Ring's confirmation, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time is expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Ring 
nomination?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 67 Ex.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--48

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Duckworth
     McCain
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________