[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17467-17476]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to discuss why 
permanent normal trade relations with China are of such critical 
importance to the United States.
  One of the most remarkable strengths of the economy has been its 
ability to deliver a rising standard of living and the creation of 
high-paying jobs. Trade plays a very critical role in achieving both 
goals. In that respect, normalizing our trade relations with China 
represents a positive step forward for American business, American 
farmers, American workers, and American consumers.
  Just let me speak very briefly about security because we will discuss 
that in greater detail at a later time. Moving ahead with trading 
relations with China will help promote the rule of law and the 
acceptance of the way we do business in the international market. This 
will help strengthen the hands of those who are most interested in 
promoting the rule of law. Security-wise, if we reject PNTR, there is 
no question but what we play into the hands of the militants, the 
Communists, who want no change, the Communists who oppose promoting a 
market economy.
  So I just want to say, as we discuss the economics of this agreement, 
that it is also critically important from the standpoint of 
strengthening those who want to bring China into the international 
community. What international trade does is let us focus on what we do 
best.
  Our exports are an indicator of where we have a strong comparative 
advantage because we are more efficient in producing those goods than 
we are at producing others. Those industries where we are most 
efficient represent our economic future. Over the past 20 years, trade 
as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product has increased by 
more than 50 percent. Exports of goods and services this past year was 
close to $1 trillion. It is no surprise that the export sectors of our 
economy have grown faster than the economy as a whole. Nor is it any 
surprise that export-based jobs pay on average of 15 percent more than 
the prevailing wage. According to recent reports by Standard & Poor's 
economic consulting arm, DRI, the benefits are 32.5 percent higher 
overall than with jobs in nonexport industries.
  Those figures reflect the fact that an increase in our exports 
translate into new opportunities for workers and industries with a 
greater number of higher paying jobs.
  Since 1992, the strong U.S. economy has created more than 11 million 
jobs, of which 1.5 million--or more than 10 percent--have been high-
wage export-related jobs.
  The significance of PNTR to that overall picture is obvious. 
According to estimates by Goldman, Sachs, normalizing our trade 
relations with China and opening China's market through the WTO will 
result in an increase in our exports of $13 billion annually; thus 
China's accession to the WTO will enhance the economic prospects for 
U.S. export-led industries, and employment opportunities for U.S. 
workers in higher paying export-related jobs.
  Exports, however, are only half of the trade picture and only half of 
the story of normalizing our trade relations with China. We benefit 
from imports as well. Being able to trade for goods that we are 
relatively less efficient in producing means that investments in our 
own economy are channeled to more productive use. That enhances our 
ability to maintain higher than expected economic growth.
  Imports also enhance the competitiveness of American firms regardless 
of whether they participate in international markets. The ability to 
buy at the lowest price and for the highest quality component allows 
American firms to deliver their goods and services to both U.S. markets 
and markets overseas at competitive prices.
  International trade also has a broader microeconomic benefit of 
keeping inflation low. International competition yields more efficient 
producers who are under constant pressure to deliver goods and services 
at the lowest price possible. The United States benefits from increases 
in productivity that allow us to make more from less from the 
competition, and that yields lower prices for goods and services across 
the board.
  To the extent that international competition helps keep inflation in 
check, it also allows the Fed to keep interest rates low. There is no 
doubt that keeping interest rates low not only helps consumers when 
buying a home or a car but deepens the pool of low-cost capital 
available to American firms to invest in productive enterprises.
  Normalizing our trade relations with China is not a panacea, but it 
will have a positive impact on the economy by reducing the uncertainty 
and risk that our producers and farmers currently face in gaining 
accession to the Chinese markets and ensuring continued competition 
with its benefits for American companies and American consumers.
  In other words, a vote in support of PNTR is a vote for a stronger 
economic future here in the United States.
  I ask my distinguished colleague from New York, because I think it is 
important that the American people basically understand what this 
legislation does and does not do--I don't think people understand this 
legislation will not determine whether or not China will become a 
member of WTO. Isn't that correct?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if I may, the chairman is absolutely 
correct. I believe it to be the case. You can't obviously say this with 
complete confidence, but China will become a member of the WTO with us 
or without us. They have completed their negotiations with the great 
majority of the 137 members of the WTO. They will be admitted. However, 
having been admitted, the privileges of the relationship the WTO 
establishes includes being subject to the rule of law. Panels say what 
the trade law means. What have you done? What are the facts? Here is 
the judgment handed down, which can be appealed. It is a rule of law 
process. That is only available to countries that have met the WTO 
standard enunciated in Article 1, which says you must have given 
unconditional normal trade relations. If you have done that with 
another country, then you can non-apply the WTO to that country (and 
not gain any of the benefits the other country's concessions) or that 
country can take you into court--if you would like to put it that way--
and you can answer the decisions and so forth.
  This is everything you would hope for in a relationship where, up 
until now, we have had no recourse to binding dispute settlement. When 
faced with the unwillingness of the Chinese government from time to 
time to comply with trade agreements, we could do nothing, excepting to 
complain to them and say: We very much regret you did that. We don't 
want you to do it again. Once China joins the WTO and we extend PNTR, 
we will have a different answer: If you do it again, we will do this 
instead of saying you have broken a rule, as we judge it, and we will 
go to court.
  Going to court is so much better than going to war or otherwise.
  Mr. ROTH. Absolutely. One of the things that bothered me is that the 
United States, under three Presidents, has negotiated for something 
like 13 years on this agreement. The fact is, some very major 
concessions are made that benefit agriculture, that benefit industry, 
and benefit the workers.
  The Senator was saying they are going to become a member of WTO. That 
means those concessions they made in negotiations with our USTR will 
become available to the other members of WTO but not ourselves if we 
don't grant them permanent normal trade relations; isn't that correct?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Chairman is absolutely correct.

[[Page 17468]]

  If I could make a point here--it is a personal one, but so be it--I 
first visited the People's Republic of China in 1975. I had been 
Ambassador to India, and, for reasons that were undiscernible at the 
time, the Foreign Minister of China wished to talk to me as I was on my 
way home. I received this message from George Bush, who represented our 
interests there. He was not ambassador. And, oh gosh, he was kept to 
the end of every line, and he had the smallest compound, and all the 
help went home at 7 o'clock. But he and Barbara were in good spirits.
  I made my way up to Tiananmen Square, to two enormous flagpoles. One 
of them had vast portraits of 19th century German gentlemen: Marx and 
Engels; the other, a rather Mongol-looking Stalin. They were the 
vanguard of revolution.
  At that point, one of the big issues was, When would the fourth 
Communist Party take place--the fourth in their history? The French 
Ambassador thought in the spring; the British Ambassador thought June; 
some said maybe it had been canceled. We were on Tiananmen Square. 
There was a Great Hall of the People. It had the look of a post office 
on a Sunday morning. The very week I was there and everyone was 
thinking about when it would happen, it was happening. That is how 
secret that world was. Four thousand delegates made their way in and 
out and voted unanimously. The Foreign Minister succeeded Mao.
  This was a Communist country. Everybody wore Mao jackets. The people 
were color-coded. The army was green; the civil service was blue; the 
workers were gray. We were taken to see the model apartments and so 
forth. The children would sing about growing up with industrial hands: 
We will settle the western regions; we will smash the imperialists.
  It is over. First they rejected Stalin. In the 1960s, the Soviet 
Union and the People's Republic were, at times, in a shooting war--
which never sank in across the river, but all right. Then Mao 
disappeared. Go there now, and there is a little portrait of Mao above 
an entrance to the Forbidden City--this nice portrait, nothing 
domineering.
  Had anyone noticed in the photographs of the leaders of the United 
Nations, the head of the Chinese Government wears a blue suit, a white 
shirt, and a tie such as the distinguished Chairman?
  We just heard an hour ago from our Senator from South Dakota, last 
year there were 29 Chinese agronomists in South Dakota discussing the 
purchase of soybeans. They wouldn't come near us 30 years ago. They are 
here now.
  Can't we grasp this? Is there something missing?
  Mr. ROTH. Let me say to the distinguished Senator, I had a very 
similar experience. Back in the 1970s when Carter became President, he 
was kind enough to invite me to go with a delegation he was sending to 
China.
  The Senator's description of China in those days is right on the 
mark. It was truly a Communist country; everything we saw, ate, where 
we stayed, was controlled by the Government. One could not read 
anything unless it was published by the Communist Party. It was 
unbelievable depression.
  I saw those same portraits. I was dumbfounded to see this portrait of 
Lenin and Stalin. It was 20 years before I went back. The difference is 
unbelievable. The Chinese will talk to you; they are not afraid; they 
don't just say the party line.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Did the Senator have the experience that they talked in 
pairs the first time the Senator was there?
  Mr. ROTH. Absolutely. Visitors heard nothing but the party line. We 
talked to one person, met somebody else, and we heard exactly the same 
thing.
  Now make no mistake, we all understand it is no democracy.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. No.
  Mr. ROTH. It is outrageous what they do in the area of human rights.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. It is.
  Mr. ROTH. We have serious problems with respect to proliferation of 
weapons.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. We do.
  Mr. ROTH. But aren't we better off and don't we have a better chance 
of bringing more responsible leaders to the front if we work with them 
and do not alienate them?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. It is the best hope of mankind at this moment, sir, 
because the age of nuclear warfare is not over. If we think we have 
proliferation today, wait until we see. We won't, but if we were to 
announce that we want the Chinese on hold, I cannot imagine what the 
next 30 years would be like.
  Mr. ROTH. My own personal experience is that significant progress is 
being made.
  Let me give one illustration. When I was there the first time, an 
individual could not move from Beijing to another region.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Internal passports.
  Mr. ROTH. Yes, internal passports. You had to get approval of the 
Government. If you wanted to move from A to B, not only did you have to 
get the approval of the Government but you had to get somebody who was 
willing to move from B to A. Unbelievable. At least that is what we 
were told. Now these things are changing. Progress is being made, and 
it is critically important we encourage that.
  I go back to what I was saying before. It is important to understand 
that with permanent normal trade relations, we are not yielding access 
to our markets. They already have these markets; isn't that correct?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. So states the balance of payments, sir.
  They come in under our tariffs, which are already nonexistent. We 
can't get in under theirs. Under this agreement, they have agreed to 
bring them down to a reasonably low level and to wipe them out in some 
cases where they have decided they need American technology and 
business. They are not doing us any favors.
  Mr. ROTH. In a very real way, isn't this agreement all about whether 
America, the United States, our workers, our farmers, our businessmen, 
are going to have access to the Chinese markets? Isn't that what we are 
talking about?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about 
those most elemental rule principles that Adam Smith laid down so many 
years ago: Comparative advantage.
  Remember, he used the image, he said: You could make port wine in 
Scotland and you could grow wool in Portugal. But on the whole, it is 
to our comparative advantage if Scotland made the wool cloth and sold 
it to the Portuguese who made the port wine and sent it to Scotland.
  I hope it is not indiscrete--I am sure it isn't because it came up in 
the Finance Committee--there is a wonderful compatibility between the 
poultry industry in Delaware and the Chinese trading system. The 
Chinese cuisine, Chinese tastes, happen to be for parts of the chicken 
which are least liked, in least demand among Americans. By contrast, 
the portions of the chicken which are most demanded among American 
consumers are least demanded among Chinese. What a happy arrangement to 
just trade. We keep what we would most desire, they take what they most 
desire, and we are better off.
  The Chinese importing animal protein? When we were there first, a 
Chinese family might see such a meal once a year. Hey, Americans, 
loosen up. Something good is happening. And be careful lest we miss an 
opportunity and something bad happens.
  I will say one more thing. I am sure he won't mind. After Senator 
Roberts of Kansas spoke yesterday, I happened to say to him on the 
floor what a fine statement he made.
  He said: You know, I am glad you mentioned that century and a half of 
the Chinese exclusion law--century. He said: My father was on the 
Panat. Like the father of our distinguished Presiding Officer, he 
showed great heroism, and was awarded the Navy Cross. He came back to 
Kansas and he said he never stopped talking about the way we treated 
the Chinese.
  You might start by saying what is that gunboat doing up the--was it 
the Yangtze?
  Mr. ROTH. I think it was.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. If we found a Chinese gunboat on the Missouri, we

[[Page 17469]]

might say: I think you got your charts wrong here. This is U.S. waters, 
not yours.
  It is easy for us to forget because there was no indignity done us. 
It is not easy for them. I am not asking any sympathy for them, I am 
just giving a fact. If we suddenly break into that appearing hostile 
mode of wanting hegemony and all that, I shall be happy to have been 
out of this by then because we will be asking for terrible events: 
Korea, Japan, Taiwan, India--let's not do this. Let's do the sensible 
thing we have been trying to do since the day we began the Reciprocal 
Trade Agreements program in 1934.
  My colleague is bringing it to a culmination. I hope he is proud.
  Mr. ROTH. I appreciate that. But let me add, you have been there, not 
from the beginning but you have played a major role in bringing about 
this world trade situation. I congratulate you and thank you for your 
leadership.
  Time is running out.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I look about. I was told the Senator 
from West Virginia might want to speak but he is not here. I think we 
have done our duty, I say to the Chairman.
  Mr. ROTH. I think I would agree. I say to our friends and colleagues 
that Monday will be here soon. It is important that those who have 
amendments they want to offer take advantage of that situation. Time is 
running out. For the reason the distinguished Senator from New York has 
spelled out, we absolutely must proceed as expeditiously as possible.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I simply say we have been here all 
morning. We would be here all afternoon and into the evening if there 
were occasion--demand for it. We expected a measure to be brought up 
that was laid down last evening. It was not. We would be here all 
Monday. But when, on Tuesday, we move to close debate and the final 30 
hours during which amendments will be offered, that is only 
appropriate. It is fair play by the rules and we will get to some 
conclusion. It will be a very fine conclusion. We began it yesterday 
morning when the motion to proceed was adopted, 92-5.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the distinguished Senator for his leadership. I 
have confidence that this legislation will be enacted. It will be a 
great step for America.
  Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have returned to keep the vigil on my 
attempt, in concert with other Senators, to have a debate on permanent 
normal trade relations, PNTR, with the People's Republic of China. I 
shall once again implore my fellow colleagues to consider reason, to 
listen to our case as we discuss these amendments, and to consider them 
carefully; let your conscience be your guide, as the old saying goes. I 
hope that all Senators will look carefully at the merits of these 
amendments. Should we not crack this big fortune cookie? Just imagine 
the PNTR as a large fortune cookie. Should we not crack it and fully 
realize what lies inside PNTR before we rush to pass this legislation? 
What is the rush? Fortune cookies look sweet and tempting on the 
outside, but they can hold a less than appetizing message inside. 
Should we not look, should we not peer, lift the covers and see what is 
inside? Should we not look before we leap?
  So far, this debate reminds me of a greasy pig contest at a county 
fair. The distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi, who presides 
over the Senate today--and, of course, I would not expect a response 
from the Chair, but I daresay that the Senator from Mississippi has 
made his presence known at many a county fair in the great State of 
Mississippi. At those county fairs, I am sure he is acquainted with the 
greasy pig contest. We talk about the greasy pole, and now we refer to 
the greasy pig--the greasy pig contest at a county fair. Everyone tries 
to slow down that pig, everybody tries to catch that pig, but the hands 
just slip away. That pig is greased and nobody can catch hold of the 
pig. Everyone is trying to slow down the greasy pig, but the pig is 
greased and just keeps on running.
  I feel like one of those poor rubes out here chasing the greasy pig. 
By the way, one of the best pigs of all is the Poland-China hog. My dad 
used to buy 10 or 12 of those Poland-China pigs every year, and I would 
go around the community and gather up the leftovers from the tables of 
coal miners' wives. They would save these scraps of food for me and I 
would go around after school and pick up those scraps. I would take the 
scraps and feed them to the Poland-China pigs. Well, it just happens 
that today I am talking about the greased China PNTR pig.
  I am trying my best to slow it down. Here the crowd is standing on 
their feet, and they are shouting. They are saying: Robert C. Byrd 
tried to get his hand on that greasy pig and tried to hold that pig. 
But the pig gets away. He can't hold that pig. Here we are--a few 
Senators--trying to slow down this greasy China PNTR pig so that we can 
get some amendments added or, perhaps by display of our judgment on 
this legislation, cause some of our fellow Members to say: Whoa, whoa, 
here; let's wait a minute. What are we doing? Why are we in such a 
hurry?
  May I ask, do we have a copy of the bill that came out of the Senate 
committee? All right. I will have it in a moment. But that is not the 
legislation the Senate is talking about. That is not the bill that came 
out of the Senate committee. While I am securing that bill, I shall 
submit to the chairman of the Finance Committee a copy of the amendment 
I am about to call up. If he will take a look at it, we may want to 
discuss a time limit on it.
  Back to this greasy pig, other Senators and I are trying simply to 
get the Senate to stop, look, and listen before it rushes pellmell into 
a vote on this legislation.
  Here it is. This is S. 2277, a bill to terminate the application of 
title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic 
of China.
  It is a very short bill. As all Senators may see, it is two full 
pages. Of course, it really is not two full pages. The first page 
simply states the number of the bill, the title of the bill, and the 
Senators' names who are supporting it. There it is. Page 1, page 2, 
page 3; and page 3 consists only of four lines. There are three and a 
half lines, as a matter of fact, on page 3. There it is. This is what 
the Senate Finance Committee reported to this body, reported to the 
Calendar. This is it. This is the product of the work of the Senate 
Finance Committee on the subject of trading with China. But this bill 
is not what we are talking about. This is not what we are debating. 
This is not what we are attempting to amend. The bill is not before the 
Senate, it is at the desk. But this is not the bill we are attempting 
to amend.
  What we are doing here in the Senate is this. We have taken the House 
bill.
  May I ask the chairman, has the House bill ever had consideration by 
the Senate Finance Committee?
  (Mr. SESSIONS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. ROTH. Yes. I say to my distinguished colleague that it was 
considered in executive session by the Finance Committee.
  Mr. BYRD. So the House bill was considered in executive session by 
the Senate Finance Committee. That was at the time of markup, I 
suppose.
  Mr. ROTH. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. But that bill came over from the House to the 
Senate. Unfortunately for those of us who would like to see the bill 
slowed down and perhaps amended to make it a better bill, we find there 
has been kind of a contract entered into, if I may put it that way. It 
was not a written contract. Perhaps I should say it is an understanding 
rather than a contract.
  There seems to be an understanding among some Senators that perhaps 
with the House--I don't know how far this understanding goes, but 
Senators who have entered into this understanding will vote against any 
amendment--any amendment, any amendment--to the House bill. We are not

[[Page 17470]]

going to debate the Senate bill. We are not going to act upon the 
Senate bill. We have taken up the House bill, and no amendments shall 
pass. That is it. No amendments shall pass.
  I want to say to the Chair, to the distinguished Senator from Alabama 
who presides over the Senate, that I have been in legislative bodies 
now 54 years. I have been in this Congress 48 years. I have been in 
this body 42 years. This is something that is absolutely new to me, 
this method of legislating where Senators and the administration--I am 
talking about Senators on both sides--enter into an understanding 
somehow. I don't know whether they met and had a show of hands or had a 
debate about it. But anyway, we have been told by Senators on this 
floor that they will vote against any amendment, no matter what its 
merits. It doesn't matter who offers the amendment. It doesn't matter 
how good an amendment it may be. The decision has been made to reject 
every amendment--reject all amendments. Why? Why the hurry?
  The powers that be--whoever they are--don't want an amendment because 
they say that would mean the bill would have to go back to the House. 
And they say that would cause a conference between the two Houses and 
that would mean a conference report. That would mean each House would 
have to vote on that conference report. As I gather from my grapevine 
information, these Senators are concerned that if the House were to 
vote again on this measure, it might not pass. There are some who think 
it would not pass the House if the House voted on it again. I think we 
have come to a pretty poor pass when we won't consider amendments 
seriously and judge them on their merits and vote accordingly. But that 
is apparently what is happening here.
  I feel like one of those poor rubes out there chasing the greasy 
China PNTR pig, trying my best to slow it down with some good 
amendments. But that pig is well greased, as you can understand by now. 
It is flying through the Senate, flying through the Senate. This pig is 
tearing along and Members have made a blood vow to keep hands off and 
just let ``old porky'' run; let ``old porky'' run.
  I will, however, continue to pursue some debate on this bill and to 
offer at least two amendments that I believe will improve the 
legislation. I shall offer an amendment momentarily that is 
straightforward. It would require the U.S. Trade Representative to 
obtain a commitment by the People's Republic of China to disclose 
information relating to China's plans to comply with the World Trade 
Organization, WTO, subsidy obligations.
  This is an important issue aimed at ensuring that the American people 
and their representatives here and in the other branches of the 
government truly realize what is inside the big Chinese trade fortune 
cookie. State-owned enterprises continue to be the most significant 
source of employment in most areas in China, and some reports suggest 
these subsidized enterprises accounted for as much as 65 percent of the 
jobs in many areas of China in 1995. That is two-thirds of the jobs. 
The most recent data that the Library of Congress could provide on this 
matter indicate those figures. Let me state them again: The subsidized 
enterprises in China accounted for as much as 65 percent of the jobs in 
many areas of China in 1995.
  Members of Congress need to remember that we are here to defend the 
people of the United States, to use our best judgment at all times, to 
exercise our very best talents in behalf of the people who send us 
here. I am here to represent the people of West Virginia, Democrats and 
Republicans, old and young, black and white, rich and poor. I am here 
to represent them. Other Members are likewise here to represent the 
people of their respective States. We are here to represent them. This 
includes, may I say, the average American worker.
  There are grave implications to Sino-American relations as a result 
of granting PNTR to China. I believe that the Chinese have developed a 
keen understanding of the American political system. I have no doubt 
that many Senators and U.S. businesses are naive about the increased 
workings of the Chinese Government and its agenda. China is not a free 
market economy. It is not on the verge of becoming a free market 
economy. It is a Communist, centrally controlled economy. The Chinese 
Government oversees the top-to-bottom operations of many industries 
such as iron and steel, coal mining, petroleum extraction and refining, 
as well as the electric power utilities, banking, and transportation 
sectors. The whole thing, one might say.
  Government control reigns from top to bottom, supreme in China. 
Government control.
  I was in China in 1975 along with our former colleague, Sam Nunn, and 
our former colleague, Jim Pearson, from the Republican side. At that 
time I was told that no individual in China owned an automobile. There 
were no privately owned automobiles. Oceans of bicycles but no 
privately owned automobile.
  There is some limited private enterprise in China. But private 
investment is heavily monitored and restricted by the Government. In 
fact, it has been suggested that the Chinese Government only sell 
minority shares, such as 25 percent of an enterprise, for the sole 
purpose of making money while still containing effective control over 
the operations of that enterprise.
  These conditions are serious impediments to fair trade and to free 
trade. Yet we really do not have much detailed information about 
China's state-owned enterprises and the type or amount of the benefits 
that those enterprises receive from the Chinese Government. It is 
almost impossible to measure accurately the extent of subsidized 
operations or the touted move to privatization in China, due to the 
lack of reliable Chinese statistics.
  My amendment today that I will shortly send to the desk would help to 
secure this information. What is wrong with that? This is information 
that is vital to many U.S. businesses and vital to American workers. My 
amendment is an effort to help secure that. What is wrong with that?
  I hope the American people are following this debate--I am pretty 
sure they are not; they are not following it. No, the American people 
are not watching. If they were watching it, there would be more 
Senators here in the Chamber today. How many Senators are there here 
today? One, two, three--that is the whole kit and kaboodle--three 
Senators. So the American people are not watching it. They don't know 
what is happening.
  My amendment would help to secure statistics that are vital to U.S. 
businesses and American workers.
  One of the basic principles of liberalized trade is to obtain 
obligations to restrict Government interference, which provides an 
unfair advantage to national commerce. The WTO agreement on subsidies 
and countervailing measures restricts the use of subsidies and 
establishes a three-class framework on subsidies consisting of red 
light, yellow light, dark amber, and green light. The SCM prohibits 
subsidies contingent upon export performance and subsidies contingent 
upon the use of domestic over imported goods.
  We know that a significant portion of the economy of the People's 
Republic of China consists of state-owned enterprises. We know that 
Chinese enterprises receive significant subsidies from the Chinese 
Government. We know that Chinese state-owned enterprises account for a 
significant portion of exports from the Chinese Government. We also 
know that U.S. manufacturers and farmers can not compete fairly with 
these subsidized state-owned enterprises. So, once again, the question 
remains: how can the United States ensure that Chinese subsidies do not 
undermine U.S. commerce and threaten American jobs? That is what we are 
trying to find out by way of my amendment.
  The U.S.-China bilateral agreement contains report language on the 
commercial operations of Chinese state-owned and state-invested 
enterprises. That language says that China, with respect to those 
enterprises, must follow private market export rules; China must base 
decisions on commercial considerations as provided in the WTO; China 
cannot influence, directly or indirectly, commercial decisions; China

[[Page 17471]]

must follow WTO government procurement procedures; and China cannot 
condition investment approval upon technology transfer. That is a 
fairly comprehensive set of guidelines. If followed, these guidelines 
ought to level the playing field for competitive U.S. firms. That is, 
of course, a very big ``if.'' The Chinese government is pretty good at 
applying guidelines like these very selectively or not at all.
  The United States Trade Representative states that the U.S.-China 
bilateral agreements meet significant benchmarks, but acknowledges that 
work on the subsidy protocols is not complete. I understand that the 
USTR has stressed that the WTO basic rule is clear--namely, China must 
eliminate all red light subsidies or prohibited subsidies upon entry 
into the WTO. Nevertheless, the USTR is wary enough to continue 
negotiations on subsidy agreements particular to the agricultural and 
industrial sectors.
  In addition to the vague language in the protocol, another problem 
arises with regard to subsidies and the Chinese Government. The SCM 
agreement provides principles whereby the specificity of a subsidy can 
be determined, but it does so in the context of a market economy with 
private ownership of enterprises. The SCM Agreement does not have a 
specific reference to economies in which a significant share of 
economic activity and foreign trade is carried out by state-owned 
enterprises--which is the case with China. I understand that the USTR's 
protocol language attempts to address this in their bilateral language, 
but it seems to me that this is leaving U.S. businesses to the whims of 
an uncertain turn of fortune's wheel. In fact, China has expressed a 
view that it should be included in the grouping of the poorest 
countries in the WTO--effectively exempting China from the disciplines 
of the WTO subsidy codes altogether. This does not, it seems to me, 
presage good compliance on the part of China with regard to the subsidy 
restrictions outlined in the U.S.-China bilateral agreement report 
language. The Chinese already say they are exempt.
  I just got a note from our mutual good friend, Dave Obey, a Member of 
the House. I think I should make it known to my colleague on the floor, 
Senator Dodd--he happens to be the only colleague I have on the floor, 
not counting my colleague in the chair--but, I say to my colleague on 
the floor, Dave Obey called: He simply wanted to tell you--meaning me--
tell you that he is watching this debate and he hopes that you--meaning 
Robert Byrd--``will snare that pig,'' that greasy pig I was talking 
about.
  So what can U.S. businesses really expect from the protocol language 
in the U.S. China bilateral agreement? I have a gold watch and chain, 
and I'll bet my gold watch and chain that they can likely expect little 
to nothing with regard to potential benefits. I believe that U.S. 
businesses should expect to see continuing illegal subsidy programs by 
the Chinese to state-owned enterprises.
  I also hope I shall be proven wrong in the long run.
  Without doubt, subsidies have been a very difficult issue to resolve. 
In fact, with years of trade relations and negotiations, the U.S. has 
yet to reach a subsidy understanding with the European Union on 
agriculture or on some industrial sectors such as aeronautics.
  But the United States should not leave this matter--or U.S. firms and 
workers--hanging, and U.S. businesses should not be expected to pay 
millions in litigation fees to resolve subsidy disputes.
  My amendment will help address the vital issue of prohibited 
subsidies. It would improve the transparency of the subsidies provided 
by the Chinese to state-owned enterprises. It would facilitate U.S. 
Government and private efforts to monitor Chinese compliance by 
providing both an essential baseline of current subsidies and an 
explicit schedule for their removal. Finally, it would help provide 
information that strengthens the evidentiary basis for grievances by 
U.S. industries regarding continued subsidies and it would help spur 
China to reduce or eliminate subsidies to state-owned enterprises.
  Should we not better understand the level of control that the Chinese 
government exerts over their businesses? Again, my amendment simply 
requires the USTR to obtain a commitment by the People's Republic of 
China to identify state-owned enterprises engaged in export activities; 
describe state support for those enterprises; and to set forth a time 
table for compliance by China with the subsidy obligations of the WTO. 
This is basic information all members of the Senate and the 
Administration should be eager to have.
  Unfair subsidies hurt the working men and women of the United States 
every day. Unfair subsidies hurt scores, hundreds of Americans working 
in U.S. industrial and agricultural sectors such as steel, the apple 
industry and beef. It cuts across all of the vital products. I hope all 
Members will stand up for vital American interests by voting in support 
of my amendment.
  My amendment addresses the extensive control over the economy still 
exercised by the Chinese government, despite some window dressing of 
privatization. It might be looked upon as a reality check. The same 
kind of very heavy-handed government control is exerted over virtually 
every aspect of Chinese life. Heavy-handedness is evident all over 
China. Take a look at religious freedom for example, and I would like 
to touch briefly on that subject because it is an important barometer 
of the way the Chinese Government controls their society and their 
people.
  Freedom of religion is near and dear to hearts of Americans. That 
freedom is at the core of our Nation's being, and we do well to cherish 
it. Early settlers dared much to come to these shores so that they 
could freely practice their religious beliefs. They left everything 
they knew, every comfort of home, to escape the sometimes oppressive 
hand the heavy hand of governments that discriminated against them. The 
Pilgrims, the Puritans, the Quakers--all came to the New World seeking 
religious freedom. Even 171 years after the Pilgrim's Plymouth colony 
was established in 1620, that fire for religious freedom was codified 
in the Bill of Rights which were ratified by the necessary number of 
States on December 15, 1791. The first right--the first precious 
right--outlined in the First Amendment to the Constitution could not be 
clearer:

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

  The proliferation of churches in the United States of all stripes, 
from the Roman Catholic cathedral to the independent Baptist church, 
the Muslim Mosque to the Mormon Tabernacle, the Shinto Shrine to the 
Jewish Temple--all of these are a living testament to our commitment to 
religious freedom.
  That same freedom is repressed in China. It is not that the Chinese 
people are opposed to free practice of religion, so far as I can tell. 
According to a recent article, in fact, the decay of communism, coupled 
with rising unemployment and a desire for the trappings of affluent 
society, has sparked a religious revival in China. Twenty years ago, 
only 2 million Chinese identified themselves as Christian. Today, the 
number is estimated at 60 million--60 million--according to overseas 
Christian groups. But, as an atheistic Communist state, China has long 
feared religion as a threat to the government's monopoly over its 
subjects. The People's Republic of China has a long and sorry history 
in this century of repressing religion and religious practice. The 
antireligious fervor of the Cultural Revolution is but one example. Its 
subjugation of Tibet and the destruction of many of the Buddhist 
lamaseries there is another example. The meditative group called Falun 
Gong, which mobilized more than 10,000 people for a mass protest in 
Beijing last year, has been outlawed.
  In the Washington Times on Wednesday of this week, September 6, the 
front page headline reads: ``Chinese religious rights `deteriorated' 
''. The article concerns a State Department report released yesterday, 
on the eve of the United Nations Millennium Summit, a gathering of 
religious leaders from around the world in support of peace. I would 
observe, and not as an aside,

[[Page 17472]]

that the exiled Dalai Lama, religious leader of Tibetan Buddhists and 
other Buddhists, was not invited, out of deference to China. In this, 
the second annual congressionally ordered report on religious freedom 
around the world, respect for religious freedom in China ``deteriorated 
markedly'' during the second half of 1999 and was marked by the brutal 
suppression of minority religious faiths. Members of such groups have 
been subjected to ``harassment, extortion, prolonged detention, 
physical abuse and incarceration.'' Those words are lifted out of the 
text.
  Though the Chinese government sanctions five carefully monitored 
religious organizations, including a state-supported Christian church, 
the government has shown no hesitation in outlawing any religious sect 
or church that has shown any sign of gaining support among the Chinese 
people. Missionaries are not welcome; nor are Bibles. In the past year, 
raids on worship groups meeting in private homes have increased from 
twice a month to once a week, according to human rights groups in Hong 
Kong. Yet Beijing's state-appointed bishop recently stated: ``There is 
no religious persecution in China.''
  Just last month, on August 23, Chinese authorities raided a meeting 
of the Fangcheng Church in Henan Province, arresting three American 
citizens and over 100 Chinese church members. The Americans, Henry Chu 
and his wife Sandy Lin, and Patricia Lan, were visiting the church when 
it was raided. The Taiwanese-born American citizens were released after 
a protest from the U.S. embassy. They are luckier than Zhang Rongliang, 
the Fangcheng Church leader, who was arrested on August 23, 1999, and 
sentenced to 3 years in a labor camp under an anticult ordinance. It 
has been a long time, indeed, since a Christian church in the United 
States was described as a cult. And, of course, no single church or 
religion, or circumscribed list of churches, is officially sanctioned 
by the American Government.
  We do not have that in this country. That is why many of our 
forbearers came to these shores. The Government of the United States 
does not sanction any particular church.
  Again, in the Congress' annual renewal of China's NTR status, 
conditions favoring religious freedom or protesting Chinese actions 
against worshippers could be debated and voted upon. The United States 
could go on record, at least, in support of the principle of religious 
freedom. This annual debate on must-pass legislation, on legislation 
that does mean something to the Chinese Government, may well have 
moderated Chinese behavior. Who knows? It certainly did not 
fundamentally change that behavior, as proponents of PNTR have 
observed. But it likely did moderate Chinese actions, if only to reduce 
the embarrassment factor they may have faced during the annual debate. 
So it served a useful function, one that we will now consign to the 
dustheap of history. When next year's congressionally mandated report 
on religious freedom is issued, I for one will not be surprised to read 
about further deterioration in religious freedom in China, once PNTR is 
assured.
  Mr. President, I still read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 
Even though I have it--or once had it in my lifetime--just about 
memorized, seeing the words themselves reinforces the beauty, the 
power, and the simplicity of that magnificent document for me. The Bill 
of Rights was added to the Constitution in order to ensure the 
ratification of the Constitution itself, even though the framers did 
not believe that those rights needed to be spelled out. For them, those 
rights were so fundamental that they did not need to be spelled out. 
Others, less intimately involved in creating the Constitution, needed 
the reassurance of the written word. The words are powerful: ``Congress 
shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .'' I still respect those 
words, and I still cherish those principles. I hope that others around 
the world may eventually share in this great freedom. Until they do, I 
continue to think it is appropriate that we, our country, as a leader 
in supporting religious freedom, should take opportunities to urge 
other governments to allow unfettered worship of their Creator.
  Mr. President, I am sorry that Senator Wellstone's amendment in 
support of international religious freedom was not adopted. It was a 
message worth sending to the Chinese people--a message that the United 
States still places its principles and its values above mere avarice, 
above mere greed for maximizing profits through increased trade. I hope 
that my colleagues will support my amendment, which would provide 
needed and difficult-to-obtain information about Chinese Government 
subsidies to state-owned enterprises. This information is needed by the 
U.S. firms and U.S. workers who will be competing against those 
subsidized producers. If our trade provisions in support of fair trade 
are to have any chance, we must have this information. I hope that we 
will not put greed ahead of American jobs and interests. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment. Let us at least put up a fence 
before the ambulance careens over the hill, which reminds me of a poem, 
which I think would be nice to have in the Record right here.
  Before I attempt to recall it, let me ask my friend from 
Connecticut--he has been sitting here--does he wish the floor now? I 
can postpone this for some other time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for posing the 
question, but I always love to hear my colleague quote poetry, under 
any set of circumstances.
  I have some remarks to share regarding the pending matter, but there 
is no great hurry. I would not want to interrupt the flow of my good 
friend and seatmate's remarks. So I am very patient to listen to his 
comments.
  I, too, voted for the Wellstone amendment yesterday on religious 
freedom. I would like to associate myself with my colleague's remarks. 
My remarks touch on the agreement but not as extensively as the 
comments of my colleague from West Virginia on the subject of religious 
freedom. I commend him for his comments. I would like to be associated 
with those thoughts.
  So I am very content to listen to the poetry. I think America is 
enlightened. I think there are a lot more people listening to this 
debate, I say to my colleague from West Virginia, than would be 
reflected by the participation of our fellow colleagues on a Friday 
afternoon.
  But the comments of the distinguished senior Senator from West 
Virginia are always profound, always thoughtful, always meaningful. His 
colleagues appreciate them, and the American public do as well. So I am 
very delighted to sit here and be enlightened further. Poetry is always 
something that enriches the soul.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am flattered by the comments of my 
colleague, my seatmate who sits right here. I appreciate his 
friendship, and I appreciate his many, many words of advice, our many 
conversations we have had together about the Senate, about our country, 
and about the Constitution.
  So if we can just think, as we do this poem--I always run the risk, 
of course, of having a lapse of memory. But after 50 years of quoting 
poetry, although I have had a few lapses of memory, I always take them 
as they come. It is something that is natural, nothing to be 
embarrassed about. Sometimes I start over and get the poem right.
  But I am thinking of this legislation that is before us, and I am 
thinking of what is going on here. I have referred to a cabal. It isn't 
that, of course, but there certainly is an understanding abroad here, 
among Senators on both sides--certain Senators I think are probably 
working with the administration--that there will be no amendments, no 
amendments will pass, they will vote down every amendment.
  Well, a few of my colleagues and I are trying to improve this 
legislation. We are not offering any killer amendments. But we are 
offering them because we think the bill would be improved.
  This action on my part, and on the part of my colleagues who are 
attempting to improve the bill, might be likened to putting a fence 
around the edge

[[Page 17473]]

of a cliff while an ambulance runs in the valley. The ambulance 
represents this legislation, which, if passed, in the long run, I fear, 
will result in increased unfair trade and constitute an injury to the 
American worker and to the American businesspeople.

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

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

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

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

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

     But a sensible few, who are practical too,
     Will not bear with such nonsense much longer;
     They believe that prevention is better than cure,
     And their party will soon be the stronger.
     Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen,
     And while other philanthropists dally,
     They will scorn all pretense and put up a stout fence
     Round the cliff that hangs over the valley.

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

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Chamber is not packed this afternoon, 
but I hope our colleagues who are back in their offices on Capitol 
Hill, and maybe our good friend David Obey from the House, were 
enlightened by the poetry of warning by our senior colleague from West 
Virginia, about putting a fence at the top of the cliff rather than the 
ambulance down in the valley.
  I am always impressed and I never cease to be amazed by my seatmate 
from West Virginia. I have been here for 20 years and not a day goes by 
that I don't learn something new from and benefit immensely by my 
friendship with the Senator from West Virginia. Today is no exception. 
That was a tour de force. He recited from memory at least 10, 12, maybe 
14 stanzas. I thank him immensely for his comments regarding the 
pending matter, the granting of permanent normal trade relations status 
with the People's Republic of China.
  I begin these brief remarks, if I may, by commending the two senior 
members of the Finance Committee who have jurisdiction over the pending 
matter, Senator Roth of Delaware and Senator Moynihan of New York. Both 
of these gentlemen have made significant contributions to the wealth 
and strength of our Nation. This will probably be the last piece of 
business the Senator from New York will be directly involved in before 
his retirement from the Senate. It is appropriate that his closing 
efforts, legislatively, should involve a piece of legislation as 
monumental and important as the pending matter.
  Senator Moynihan has made unique and valued contributions to our 
Nation's wealth during his years of public service. As a member of the 
executive branch--as a staff member there, a servant of various 
administrations and, most recently, of course, during his tenure in 
this wonderful body. So I wish him well and commend him once again for 
his latest endeavor. I commend Senator Roth as well who has worked on 
this legislation.
  I rise to share a few thoughts about this bill, a bill that will 
confer, as we all know now, permanent normal trading relations with the 
People's Republic of China. In so doing, this bill would also trigger 
the implementation of the bilateral trade agreement entered into 
between the United States and China last November related to China's 
accession to the World Trade Organization. After many months of delay, 
I am very pleased that the Senate finally has arrived at this 
discussion that we have conducted over the past several days and will 
continue next week. I regret it has taken this long. I think the matter 
should have come up earlier. But I am pleased we are finally getting a 
chance to debate the merits and consider amendments on this very 
important piece of legislation.
  PNTR, as it is called, and China's entry into the WTO are extremely 
important milestones, in my view, toward the full assimilation of the 
world's most populous nation into the global economic system. China's 
membership in the World Trade Organization will also serve, in my view, 
as an important cornerstone of U.S.-China relations in the 21st 
century.
  The requirement that China adhere to the World Trade Organization's 
global trading rules and standards should have and will have profound 
and long-lasting implications not only for China, but for the United 
States and the world community. Not only will this agreement alter the 
landscape of U.S.-Chinese trade relations and produce, I hope, a fairer 
and more competitive global trading environment, over time, I think 
this agreement and this entry by China into the WTO will also have a 
most profound impact on China's social, economic, and political 
systems.
  Over the last three decades, successive American Presidents, from 
Richard Nixon to the present occupant of the White House, Bill Clinton, 
have worked hard to fashion a constructive relationship with the 
People's Republic of China. As we all know, this has proved more 
difficult at some times than others because the Chinese have made it 
so--too often because of their unilateral decisions and actions. The 
goal has always remained the same however--to move China toward a more 
open and prosperous system, to enter the family of democracies and 
freedom that are emerging throughout the world, and to become a society 
built on a foundation consistent with the international community's 
norms and values. The Clinton administration's proposal to grant PNTR 
status to China and support its membership in the World Trade 
Organization are very much in keeping with the longstanding tradition 
that has gone back over several decades.
  Historically, the trade relationship between China and the United 
States has been disproportionately tilted in China's favor due to its 
mercantilist trading policies. Granting PNTR and allowing China to 
enter the World

[[Page 17474]]

Trade Organization, I hope, will restore the competitive balance in 
that relationship and generate what could be enormous opportunities for 
American exports, job creation, and investments in the world's third 
largest economy.
  The commercial benefits to the United States from World Trade 
Organization accession are clear, compelling and very wide-ranging.
  American farmers, American workers, American businesses, both large 
and small, will benefit from China's new status.
  In order for the United States to agree to support China's membership 
in the WTO, Chinese authorities were required to make across-the-board 
unilateral trade concessions to the United States to bring our trading 
relationship into better balance.
  Among other things, the Chinese have agreed to slash tariffs on U.S. 
agricultural and industrial imports, expand the rights of U.S. 
companies to distribute American products throughout China, and grant 
U.S. companies broad access to China's banking, telecommunications, and 
insurance sectors.
  The bilateral agreement which codifies these concessions includes as 
well important safeguards against unfair competition by China that will 
allow U.S. authorities to respond quickly to products and specific 
import surges that may threaten the viability of certain vulnerable 
import-sensitive domestic industries.
  The U.S. technology industry also stands to gain, in my view, from 
this agreement as China begins participation in the information 
technology agreement. Under this ITA agreement, all tariffs on 
computers, telecommunications equipment, semiconductors, and other 
high-tech products will be totally eliminated.
  U.S. high-technology companies have emerged as one of the driving 
forces of our recent economic boom. With China's participation in the 
information technology agreement, these companies may continue a trend 
of expansion and success on the international scale that will result in 
more domestic jobs in the industry.
  China has made important concessions on trading and distribution 
rights as well. Manufacturers in the United States have been severely 
hampered over the past number of years by China's restrictions on the 
right of foreign firms and U.S. firms to import and export and to own 
wholesaling outlets or warehouses in China. For the very first time, 
under this agreement, these rights will be granted to U.S. firms.
  Further distribution rights are being provided for some of China's 
most restricted sectors, including transportation, maintenance, and 
repair. As a result, American firms operating in China will not only be 
able to import a greater number of goods, but they will also be allowed 
to establish their own distribution networks.
  While it is not easy to put an exact dollar figure on these 
concessions, experts estimate that the annual U.S. exports will 
increase by as much as $14 billion a year--nearly double the current 
value of our exports. And more than 400,000 high-paying export-related 
American jobs will be sustained by expanded exports to the People's 
Republic of China.
  These are important benefits and serve to highlight the wide-ranging 
impact that China's changed trading status will have on the American 
economy as a whole.
  At this juncture, I also want to briefly mention how granting the 
PNTR to China would affect my own State of Connecticut.
  In 1998, Connecticut's merchandise exports to China totaled $302 
million, making it one of the most trade-dependent States in the United 
States. Nearly two-thirds of all firms exporting to China from 
Connecticut in 1997 were small- and medium-sized companies--not the 
large corporations in my State. Clearly, an open China will provide a 
venue for increased sales of Connecticut-made products and an increase 
in jobs available to Connecticut workers in companies both large and 
small.
  Connecticut's burgeoning high-tech industry, for example, will be 
able to take advantage of China's participation in the information 
technology agreement and the elimination of tariffs on these goods 
which is, in effect, a tax. Chemical products, which are one of 
Connecticut's largest exports to China, will enjoy reduced tariffs, and 
quotas will be totally eliminated by the year 2002. Insurance 
companies, which have long ties in Connecticut, will benefit from 
greater geographic mobility within China, and an expanded scope of 
admitted business activities. And lifesaving medical equipment made in 
my home State may begin entering the Chinese market at reduced tariff 
levels. Those tariffs will be phased out entirely over the next several 
years.
  The enthusiasm for the benefits that will flow from our bilateral WTO 
accession agreement with China must, however, be tempered by the fact 
that there are a number of non-trade issues with respect to China that 
are deeply worrisome and need the attention of this body, of the 
legislative branch, of the executive branch, and the American people.
  I support the pending legislation. But I also want to make it very 
clear that I side with the critics of China who believe there is a 
great deal more that the Chinese Government needs to undertake in order 
to reach the standards of behavior expected of civilized nations and 
countries.
  If you wish to be a part of the World Trade Organization, implicit in 
that request is that you are willing and anxious to also become a 
member nation of civilized society recognizing the diversity of your 
people and the basic fundamental freedoms that are guaranteed--not by a 
document, a constitution, or a declaration of independence but those 
guaranteed by the creator of all of us.
  As China seeks to become a part of the family of civilized society, 
then it must also begin to act accordingly with respect to the 
treatment of its own people.
  First and foremost, China must improve upon its human rights 
performance, especially with regard to its citizens and religious 
freedoms. This point was extremely well articulated by my colleague 
from West Virginia. He went on at some length in describing how 
valuable and important religious freedom has been as a free people, 
citing the very first amendment to our Constitution which guaranteed 
people this right. I will not go on at length about this point, except 
to say, once again, that I wish to be associated with the comments of 
the Senator from West Virginia in his earlier discussion on religious 
freedom and the absence of it, or almost a complete absence of it, in 
the People's Republic of China.
  In my view, China must also address the pervasive corruption that 
exists at all levels of Government--corruption that is damaging the 
country economically and politically and could jeopardize its 
membership in the WTO if they persist in these practices.
  China must also begin to act responsibly in its relationships with 
other nations if it is to become the world leader that it aspires to 
be.
  China must cease its threatening stance towards Taiwan and agree to 
enter into a productive dialog to resolve this question in a manner 
that is consistent with the wishes of the people on Taiwan and mainland 
China. They must try to resolve their dispute in the manner of a 
civilized society.
  Particularly worrisome is China's aggressive buildup of nuclear arms 
and its willingness to assist other nations to acquire a nuclear 
capability that they don't currently possess.
  In response to this concern, it is my understanding that Senators 
Thompson and Torricelli may offer the China Non-proliferation Act as an 
amendment to this bill. I think that it is important to let the Chinese 
authorities know that in no uncertain terms that we object strongly to 
their continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and 
believe that such behavior poses a direct and immediate threat to U.S. 
national security interests as well as international peace and 
stability.
  Having said that, I am also convinced that an amendment on the 
pending legislation is not the right vehicle for attempting to 
accomplish that objective. In my view, the political realities are

[[Page 17475]]

that an amendment such as this would not carry. That would be a much 
worse message in many ways. My belief is that the overwhelming majority 
of my colleagues, regardless of party or ideology, believe that the 
proliferation practices of China must stop. But a vote by this body 
that would come up short or be so narrowly decided could be a confusing 
message to China that we may not care about this issue as much as I 
think most Members do.
  Such a misinterpreted message would probably do more harm than good. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues who are considering such an amendment 
to seek another, more appropriate, vehicle to which the amendment could 
be offered. That is the time when I think this body can speak with a 
more singular voice on an issue with far greater unanimity than might 
be reflected in an amendment on this particular trade proposal.
  I know that not everyone supports this legislation or China's entry 
into the World Trade Organization. They bring up good arguments and I 
have mentioned some of them--religious freedom, workers rights, human 
rights, corruption, and nonproliferation issues.
  I ask myself a question--Are we more likely to achieve the desired 
goals of moving the Government of the People's Republic of China closer 
to the kind of social, economic, and political behavior that we seek by 
adopting this legislation and including China in the WTO? Or by not 
doing that and allowing the status quo to persist? Is that going to 
create a greater deterioration in those very values that we seek? I 
come to the conclusion that we are more likely to achieve those desired 
goals by adopting this legislation than by not doing so. Some are 
opposed to it because they believe that it will unfairly enhance 
China's ability to attract foreign investment and manufacturing 
facilities to the detriment of the U.S. economy and the American 
workers. Others would link U.S. support for China's WTO membership to 
improvements in China's respect for human rights, religious tolerance, 
nuclear non-proliferation, as I mentioned.
  There is no doubt that certain sectors of American industry have 
fared less well than others under the increased competition brought on 
by international trade. That will continue to be the case irrespective 
of whether China gains admission to the World Trade Organization or 
whether the United States makes permanent the trade status China has 
already had for more than two decades.
  On the other hand, WTO membership would require that China operate 
under the jurisdiction of international trade standards and agreements 
as dictated by that organization. China's non-compliance with those 
standards would subject its government to an international arbitration 
and dispute settlement mechanism--a profound change in the treatment of 
Chinese trade violations. For the first time China would be held 
accountable to all WTO members. This I think, provides the U.S. with 
stronger safeguards to protect their workers.
  Furthermore, membership in the WTO would compel the Chinese 
government to comply with international labor regulations, thus 
increasing opportunities for American workers by eliminating many of 
the incentives that currently induce firms to move production and jobs 
to China.
  What about using PNTR status and WTO membership to pressure Chinese 
authorities into making significant improvements in other nontrade 
related policy areas? As I said earlier, while I have already 
registered my concerns about China's record in these areas, I am 
doubtful that directly linking PNTR status to changes in China's 
policies in these areas will produce overnight positive changes. I 
think all of us seek.
  There is sufficient historical experience to suggest that linkage 
will not cause Chinese authorities to improve their behavior in these 
areas one iota. Quite the opposite seems to be the case. Over the last 
quarter of a century, Chinese authorities have responded very 
consistently and negatively to attempts by others to unilaterally 
dictate to them how they should govern their citizens. At such times, 
the very issues we have cared about most--human rights, religious 
freedom, Taiwan's security--have suffered. Rather, it has been during 
periods of U.S. engagement with Chinese authorities, when we have 
carried out a respectful dialogue between our two governments, that we 
have seen demonstrable improvements in China's policies in these areas.
  More recently, U.S. engagement has resulted in China joining a number 
of major multilateral arms control regimes, in assisting us to defuse a 
nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, and in participating 
constructively in international efforts to contain the escalating arms 
race between India and Pakistan.
  I am not one who believes that China's accession to the WTO is going 
to convert the state-controlled Chinese society into a Jeffersonian 
democracy overnight. However, I would argue that China's adherence to 
the discipline of WTO's rules and standards have a greater likelihood 
to accelerate the pace of market economic reforms that are already 
underway in China. And, as a by-product of those reforms, the grip of 
the Chinese state on the day to day lives of the Chinese people will 
become weaker and weaker. Individual freedom may gradually fill the 
vacuum created by the withdrawal of state control. Whether that process 
will ultimately transform China's political system is impossible to 
predict with any certainty. Certainly isolating China isn't going to 
facilitate such a transformation.
  I am not the only one who holds that view. A number of prominent 
human rights activists in China have spoken out publicly in support of 
the pending legislation and in favor of China's admission to the WTO. I 
am thinking of such individuals as Martin Lee, the internationally 
known leader of Hong Kong's Democratic party, His Excellency the Dalai 
Lama, Dai Qing, a leading political dissident and environmentalist who 
was imprisoned for ten months following the 1989 Tiananmen Square 
Massacre, and Bao Tong, a senior advisor to ousted President Zhao 
Zyiang--both of whom were imprisoned for their opposition to the 
Tiananmen crackdown. None of these individuals have suggested that we 
deny China admission to the WTO until it becomes a democracy.
  In fact, if we refuse to grant PNTR status to China or oppose its 
admission to the WTO, we will have delivered an enormous setback to the 
Chinese reformers and entrepreneurs who have been the driving force for 
the positive political and economic changes that have occurred in China 
over the last twenty years. We will also have given an enormous gift to 
our economic competitors in Europe and Asia by giving them a foothold 
in perhaps the most important emerging market in the global economy of 
the 21st century--a foothold that will be difficult for our own Nation 
to regain. American jobs would be the ones that suffer and American 
workers the ones who pay the price.
  Denying China PNTR would also only exacerbate an alarmingly high 
existing trade deficit with the United States, in my view. In 1997, the 
U.S. trade deficit with China soared to nearly $50 billion, making it 
second only to Japan as a trading deficit partner. Sadly, that number 
has only increased over time. By 1999, it had climbed almost $20 
billion more, to $69 billion, and it continues to grow.
  In closing, I believe the legislation we are considering today is in 
our national economic interest because it will enhance international 
growth and competition. It will strengthen the global trading system 
and foster adherence to rules and standards under which we want all 
nations to operate.
  I also believe it is in our foreign policy interests, as well. 
China's obligation to open its markets and to abide by internationally 
prescribed trade rules is an important step toward Chinese adherence to 
other important international norms and standards which must, over 
time, lead to democratic transformation of that society, as I have seen 
occur in nearly every other corner of the globe in the past decade and 
a half.

[[Page 17476]]

  No one in this body is naive enough to believe this is going to 
happen overnight, that these changes we talk about are necessarily 
going to occur at the pace we would like to see. But, at the very 
least, we must begin making strides in that direction.
  For those reasons, while I will support various amendments that I 
think are an important expression of how my constituents feel in 
Connecticut and how the American public feels on a number of very 
important non trade-related issues, when this debate is concluded, I 
happen to believe it would be in the best interests of my Nation that 
we grant this status to China in the hopes that the improvements we all 
seek in this land of more than 1 billion people will occur sooner 
rather than later.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon on 
Monday, September 11, the Senate resume consideration of Senator Byrd's 
amendment regarding subsidies. Further, I ask unanimous consent that 
there be 60 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form with no 
amendments in order to the amendment. Finally, I ask unanimous consent 
that following the debate time, the amendment be set aside, with a vote 
to occur on the amendment at a time determined by the majority leader 
after consultation with the Democratic leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that when 
Senator Byrd offers an amendment relating to safeguards, there be 3 
hours for debate equally divided in the usual form, with no amendments 
in order to the amendment. Further, I ask consent, following that 
debate time, the vote occur on the amendment at a time to be determined 
by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Delaware.

                          ____________________