[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18086-18113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on H.R. 4444. The time is under 
control.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Controlled time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six hours evenly divided.


                           Amendment No. 4134

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4134.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 hour on this amendment equally 
divided.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have tried, in my feeble ability here 
over the years, to get the Senate to pay attention to the lack of a 
competitive trade policy. I had hoped on this PNTR, permanent normal 
trade relations, with China that we might have a good debate with 
respect to our trade policy--whether or not the American people approve 
of it and whether there are some adjustments that should be made. 
Meanwhile our trade deficit goes up, up, and away.
  I was a Senator here in the early 1980s when we had a positive 
balance of trade. I remember when it reached a $100 billion deficit in 
the balance of trade; and there were all kinds of headline articles 
back in the 1980s, that--Chicken Little--the sky was going to fall, and 
everything else like that.
  Now we have been numbed. It has gone to $100, $200, $300 billion, and 
it approximates to a $400 billion deficit in the balance of trade. They 
don't even discuss it in the Presidential campaign. And they absolutely 
refuse to discuss it in the world's most deliberative body. They refuse 
to deliberate.
  They bring a fixed bill to the floor. And it is terribly tough to 
talk to a fixed jury. But that is the way it is. The jury is fixed. The 
legislation is fixed. There are no amendments. We send this to the 
President.
  The National Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the 
Conference Board and the National Association of Manufacturers are 
continuing their export of the industrial backbone of this Nation. 
Obviously, they make a bigger profit. They could care less about the 
country.
  In fact, years back, the chairman of the board of Caterpillar said: 
We are not an American company, we are international.
  Not long ago, earlier this year, the head of Boeing said: Oh no, we 
are not a United States company, we are an international company.
  And the best of the best, Jack Welch of GE says: We are not going to 
buy from our suppliers unless they send those jobs down to Mexico.
  There is a good, wonderful Business Week article about that--we are 
limited in time or I would read it--but that is exactly what he said. 
Unless his subcontractors went to Mexico, he was going to do business 
with those who had gone. So we are in one heck of a fix.
  They do not understand trade. Free trade is, of course, an oxymoron. 
Trade is an exchange for something. It is not to give something for 
nothing. It is not aid. But we have been treating foreign trade--free 
trade--as foreign aid.
  They just ipso facto in those polls: Are you for free trade?
  Oh, I am for free trade, obviously.

[[Page 18087]]

  Obviously, they are trying to say: I am for trade without 
restrictions and barriers.
  But mind you me, we are all for world peace, but we do not disband 
the Pentagon. As the father of the country said: The best way to 
preserve the peace is to prepare for war.
  The best way to obtain free trade is not to roll over, as we have for 
the past 50 years, and plead and cry and moan and groan: fair, fair, 
fair, fair.
  Whoever heard of anybody in business being fair? In America, 
business, unfortunately, is solely for profit. Do not give us any of 
these ``fairness doctrines'' of the board of directors of corporate 
America. You have to be able to raise a barrier in order to remove a 
barrier. You have to compete. All we need is a competitive trade 
policy.
  In that light, let me say at the outset, I am not against China. All 
of these amendments have been very good ones with respect to the human 
rights in China, with respect to weapons of mass destruction, with 
China not keeping its commitments, and so forth. Why should they keep 
their commitments? Japan never has. Come on. Korea knows that. China 
learns. Monkey see, monkey do. They said: All you have to do is puff 
and blow. We'll get together. And America--the United States--will roll 
over.
  So don't come around here berating China. Buy yourself a mirror and 
look in it. It is the Senate. Article 1, section 8, of the Constitution 
says: The Congress shall regulate foreign commerce--not the President, 
not the Supreme Court, not the Special Trade Representative, but the 
Congress of the United States. And although the Trade Representative is 
running around trying to forge new agreements that contradict our laws, 
even those, if they are to take the force and effect of law, have to be 
in the form of a treaty ratified by this Senate.
  So we are way out of kilter and acting with total disregard. We have 
gone, from the end of World War II, from 41 percent of our workforce in 
manufacturing down to 12 percent. The Department of Commerce just 
reported this last month of August, we lost 69,000 manufacturing jobs.
  I will never forget the exchange with the former head of Sony up in 
Chicago. He was lecturing the Third World, the emerging nations, and 
said for them to become a nation-state, they had to develop a 
manufacturing capacity. Somewhat afterward, pointing at me, he said: By 
the way, Senator, that world power that loses its manufacturing 
capacity will cease to be a world power.
  The security of the United States is like a three-legged stool. The 
one leg, of course, is our values. We are respected the world around 
for our commitment to freedom and human rights. The second leg, 
obviously, is the military, the superpower. But the third economic leg 
has been fractured over the past 50 years, as we have made a very 
successful attempt to conquer communism with capitalism. We sent over 
the Marshall Plan. We sent over the technology. We sent over the 
expertise. But we rolled over with respect to actually enforcing any 
kind of trade policy.
  I testified, some 40 years ago, before the old International Tariff 
Commission. Tom Dewey ran me around the room. The argument was: 
Governor, what do you expect these emerging countries, coming out of 
the ruins of the war, what do you expect them to make? Let them and the 
Third World countries, let them make the shoes and the clothing, and we 
will make the airplanes and the computers.
  Now I stand on the floor, and our global competition, they make the 
shoes. They make the clothing. They make the airplanes. They make the 
computers. They make it all. And we are going out of business.
  And as we go out of business, they say this particular initiative, 
PNTR, is good for business. It is good for their profit, but not, in 
the long run, good for business, no. They have to have employees. And 
don't worry about the productivity of the U.S. industrial worker. We 
have been for 30-some years now rated not only by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics but by the international economic section of the United 
Nations as having the most productive industrial worker in the entire 
world.
  They are working harder and harder and longer hours and are getting 
paid less than they are in Germany, paid less than they are in Japan 
and several other countries. The U.S. industrial worker is not 
overpaid, and he is not underworked. He works more hours than any other 
industrial worker.
  Here we are, in the Senate, blabbing, be fair, whining, be fair, be 
fair. We continue to heap on the cost of doing business--Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage, safe working place, safe 
machinery, plant closing notice, parental leave. You can go right on 
down the list of all of these things we think up, and we, on a 
bipartisan basis, support them all. That goes into the cost of doing 
business. So since NAFTA, 38,700 jobs have left the little State of 
South Carolina and gone down to Mexico where none of those conditions I 
just mentioned are required, and they have the audacity to stand in the 
well and say NAFTA worked.
  They told us at the time of the NAFTA vote it was going to create 
jobs; 200,000 is the figure they used. The Chamber of Commerce, the 
NAM, Business Roundtable, the Secretary of Commerce, the President of 
the United States: We are going to create 200,000 jobs.
  We have lost 440,000 textile jobs alone since NAFTA. I don't know how 
many jobs they have lost up in New Hampshire, but I am confident I can 
go over to the Department of Labor and find out. Jobs are our greatest 
export. Export, export, from those who have never really been in 
trade--I practiced customs law--they keep hollering, export, export. 
The biggest export we have is our jobs.
  I am not against China. I am against us. That is who I am trying to 
awaken with these amendments, trying to engage in a debate so we can 
learn from a country with a $350- to $400 billion trade deficit, 
costing 1 percent of our GNP. They keep saying: Watch out, that dollar 
is going to have to be devalued. You watch it, when that happens, 
interest rates go up. Then they will all be whining around here.
  I remember the little $5 billion we put in some 25 years ago--we were 
trying to create jobs--$5 billion for the highways, just to advance 
highway construction, just to create jobs. Five billion? We have lost 
billions of dollars just this last month, way more than $5 billion in 
jobs; I can tell you that.
  The idea is, as President Lincoln said, and there is no quote more 
appropriate:

       The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy 
     present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we 
     must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must 
     think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and 
     then we shall save our country.

  That was in his annual message to the Congress back in December of 
1862. We must disenthrall ourselves. We must act anew, think anew, 
disenthrall ourselves, and try to save us, the great Yankee trader from 
New Hampshire, and all of those other Northeastern States. We had all 
this agriculture down South, and we believed in all that international 
trade. That was the Civil War. That famous Yankee trader has rolled 
over now, and he has gone overseas.
  We are definitely not against China. I could talk at length about 
their human rights policy. Their first human right is to feed 1.3 
billion. The second is to house 1.3 billion. The third is to educate 
1.3 billion. The fourth is one man, one vote. But, of course, the 
politicians are running around on the floor of the Congress: We want 
one man, one vote. You travel there. I was there in 1976 and 1986 and 
1996. You go there and you see the progress towards capitalism.
  I am for continued trade. I have offered to cut out the ``permanent'' 
so I could continue this dialog with my colleagues on the floor to try 
to get something going of a competitive nature.
  We certainly don't go along with Tiananmen Square and everything else 
such as that, but it works for the Chinese. Suppose you were the head 
of China. If you let one demonstration get out of hand, another one 
gets out of hand. You have total chaos, with a population of 1.3 
billion. Then nothing gets

[[Page 18088]]

done. So there has to be some kind of traumatic control; let's be 
realistic. Don't berate them about their environment right now. It took 
us 200 years, and we still don't have these waste dumps cleaned up. We 
still don't have clean air in certain States. Workers' rights, we 
haven't gotten all of our workers' rights. They don't have a right to a 
job because they are fast disappearing. That is what it is all about. 
And it is not against business.
  Jerry Jasinowski, the distinguished head of the National Association 
of Manufacturers, put an article in yesterday's New York Times, 
entitled ``Gore's War on Business.'' I ask unanimous consent to print 
the article in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the New York Times, September 13, 2000]

                         Gore's War on Business

                        (By Jerry J. Jasinowski)

       I've known Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman for years. They are 
     smart, capable men who have a pretty good handle on what 
     makes our economy tick. But judging from their comments in 
     recent days, I'm a bit bewildered. In his speeches, Mr. Gore 
     attacked ``big oil,'' ``the pharmaceutical companies,'' ``big 
     polluters''--in short, corporate America in general.
       He seems quite willing to play the populist card even if it 
     distorts the record of corporations, fosters antagonism 
     between company leadership and workers and encourages the 
     very stereotyping that, on other fronts, the Democratic Party 
     claims to be against.
       Suddenly business is the enemy. Why, I'm not sure, since 
     the Clinton-Gore team takes such great pains to boast about 
     the economic achievements of the past eight years, including 
     the 22 million new jobs generated by the free enterprise 
     system. Consider the words of Mr. Lieberman in his recent 
     book, ``In Praise of Public Life'': ``We New Democrats 
     believe that the booming economy of the 1990's resulted more 
     from private sector innovation, investment and hard work than 
     from government action.''
       Mr. Lieberman got it right. The men and women who make 
     things in America, from skilled workers on the factory floor 
     to innovators in the company lab, have fueled these 
     achievements.
       And these workers have been duly rewarded. Today's 
     manufacturing jobs provide an average yearly compensation of 
     $49,000 per worker, nearly 17 percent higher than in the 
     private sector overall.
       But great success of business in creating good jobs seems 
     to be lost in this campaign. Mr. Gore and Mr. Lieberman are 
     creating an atmosphere of division between employers and 
     employees at a time when workers and their employers are 
     partners as never before. The newfound angry populism of the 
     Gore-Lieberman ticket distorts the true picture of the 
     American economy and fosters resentment rather than 
     cooperation.
       As another centrist Democrat, the late Senator Paul 
     Tsongas, said in his speech at the 1992 Democratic 
     Convention, ``You cannot redistribute wealth you never 
     created. You can't be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same 
     time. You cannot love employment and hate employers.''
       This year's Democratic ticket would do well to heed these 
     wise words.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. These workers, he says, have been duly rewarded. Not at 
all. He talks about the manufacturing pay is less than their 
competition, that they are working long hours. They haven't been duly 
rewarded. What is the unease, the anxiety that they are talking about? 
The anxiety they are talking about is having the job. The great success 
of business in creating good jobs seems to be lost. He should have read 
the release put out the day before.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this NAM report on manufacturing 
trade printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

New NAM Report on Manufacturing Trade Finds NAFTA Responsible for Half 
                     of U.S. Export Growth in 2000

       Washington, D.C., August 29, 2000--The National Association 
     of Manufacturers today released the first in a new series of 
     quarterly reports on manufactured goods exports and imports 
     based on Commerce Department data. Manufactured goods 
     dominate U.S. trade, comprising 90 percent of U.S. 
     merchandise exports and 85 percent of merchandise imports.
       The new data, which analyze detailed U.S. manufacturing 
     trade by both industry and geographic region, show that NAFTA 
     member countries accounted for an astonishing 54 percent of 
     total manufactured goods export growth for the first half of 
     the year.
       ``The fact that exports to Canada and Mexico are 
     contributing more to export growth than exports to Asia, 
     Europe and the rest of the world combined clearly shows NAFTA 
     is a big plus to U.S. manufacturers, and underscores the 
     importance of further trade liberalization to the future 
     vitality of American industry'' said NAM President Jerry 
     Jasinowski.
       Manufacturers' exports to and imports from NAFTA both were 
     up 18 percent over the first half of 1999, Jasinowski said, 
     noting that Mexico accounted for most of the U.S. export 
     growth, and Canada for the bulk of the import growth from 
     NAFTA.
       For the first half of 2000, US manufactured exports overall 
     are up 12 percent compared to the first six months of 1999, 
     Jasinowski said. ``This is a significant turnaround. This 
     time last year, U.S. exports were down by 2 percent. At the 
     same time, strong domestic demand is pulling in imports at a 
     rate of around 20 percent. This is more than double the pace 
     of last year.''
       Of the total $228 billion U.S. merchandise trade deficit so 
     far this year, 77 percent has been in manufacturing. While 
     the expanding trade deficits in recent years have been due, 
     in part, to a slowdown in economic growth abroad, the trade 
     imbalance in 2000 is fueled primarily by a very robust 
     domestic economy and a strong dollar.
       Manufactured goods trade highlights for the first half of 
     2000 include:


                            geographic trade

       Manufactured goods exports to NAFTA rose 18 percent in 
     first half of 2000, accounting for more than half of 
     manufactured goods export growth to the world. Exports to 
     Mexico alone increased by 30 percent during the first six 
     months of 2000, and have accounted for nearly one-third of 
     total U.S. manufactured goods export growth so far this year.
       Imports from NAFTA have contributed 28 percent of 
     manufactures import growth thus far this year. The majority 
     was from Canada; Mexico accounted for only 13 percent.
       Asia contributed 26 percent of U.S. manufactured goods 
     export growth in the first half of the year. Two-thirds came 
     from exports to the Asian Newly Industrialized Economies 
     (NIEs--Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan). Asia, 
     however, supplied 43 percent of U.S. manufactured goods 
     import growth for the first half of the year.
       Although the European Union (EU) normally accounts for 
     about 22 percent of U.S. manufactured goods exports, exports 
     of manufactures to the EU are up only 4 percent so far this 
     year, and the EU accounted for an anemic 8 percent of U.S. 
     manufactures export growth during the first half of 2000. 
     Manufactures imports from the EU, on the other hand, were up 
     16 percent in the first half of the year, with Germany and 
     the United Kingdom accounting for about half.


                         industrial composition

       Durable goods contributed 69 percent of manufactures export 
     growth so far this year. The bulk was composed of computers 
     and electronic products, which have grown by 17 percent 
     through June and alone have been responsible for a third of 
     U.S. manufactures export growth. Forty percent of these 
     exports went to four markets (Canada, Mexico, Japan, and 
     South Korea.)
       Durable goods imports constituted 68 percent of 
     manufactures import growth in the first half of 2000. 
     Reflecting strong domestic demand for information processing 
     equipment (which now makes up 47 percent of nonresidential 
     fixed investment), computer and electronic product imports 
     rose by 25 percent through June and have contributed to 28 
     percent to the growth in overall manufactured goods imports 
     this year.
       Non-durable manufactures contributed 31 percent of export 
     growth through June. Half of non-durable export growth has 
     been in chemicals. About 44 percent of these products were 
     shipped to the top four export markets (Canada, Mexico, Japan 
     and Belgium).
       Non-durables accounted for a third of import growth through 
     June. The largest product groups were chemicals, apparel, and 
     petroleum and coal products.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. You have to read this one line, quoting Jasinowski:

       Of the total $228 billion U.S. merchandise trade deficit, 
     so far this year 77 percent has been in manufacturing.

  That is a deficit in manufacturing. Can you imagine that, Mr. 
President? So the leaders of business and the head of manufacturing say 
get rid of the manufacturing. He seems to be proud of it. If I had 
found that statistic in my research, I would have secured it and stuck 
it, or deep-sixed it, or whatever you call it because you didn't really 
want to publicize the fact that you are losing the manufacturing jobs.
  With respect to understanding the need to have a competitive trade 
policy, the President of the United States was up in New York just last 
week, and he had his counterpart from London there, Tony Blair. They 
were talking. The news reports said Tony Blair was worried about 1,000 
cashmere jobs. Why? Because we were going to put some heavy duty tariff 
on cashmere. For what? For bananas. We don't even

[[Page 18089]]

produce bananas. Good Lord, have mercy. That is how far out the 
leadership of this country has gone. We don't even produce bananas. But 
Europe is not taking some other country's bananas, so we go and say we 
are going to start a trade war.
  The Prime Minister is worried about 1,000 jobs, and here I am worried 
about at least 800,000 jobs. Tell Tom Donohue of the Chamber of 
Commerce--he says he is going to create 800,000 jobs. I bet you we will 
lose that number of jobs with this PNTR. He knows it and I know it. 
They are all begging for jobs, and the President is worried and 
everything else of that kind, and even the media don't know what 
protectionism is. That is what you will soon listen to--protectionism. 
I hold up my hand to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of 
the United States.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled, ``Beware Plausible 
Protectionists'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Rercord, as follows:

               [From The Washington Post, Sept. 12, 2000]

                    Beware Plausible Protectionists

       Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina is known for his 
     crude defense of textile protectionism, which impoverishes 
     bone-poor workers in developing countries. But his current 
     efforts at telecom protectionism are more subtle. He has 
     backed a measure that would block government-owned telephone 
     companies from buying American ones, and inserted it into the 
     Commerce, Justice and State Department spending bill. The 
     provision would torpedo the proposed takeover of VoiceStream, 
     a fast-growing wireless company, by Deutsche Telekom, which 
     is 58 percent owned by the German government.
       Mr. Hollings points out that U.S. local phone companies 
     have been restricted from entering the long distance market 
     until they opened their own networks to competitors. He then 
     suggests that government-owned foreign phone companies, which 
     he says enjoy monopolistic profits in their domestic markets, 
     should likewise be forced to open up their home territory 
     before being allowed into the United States. On top of that, 
     the senator suggests that foreign government ownership of 
     American telephone firms raises concerns of privacy and 
     national security. Phone companies can eavesdrop on 
     subscribers, and (in the case of mobile callers) monitor 
     their whereabouts. Should a foreign government be allowed to 
     do that?
       Mr. Hollings has assembled a powerful coalition in Congress 
     that shudders at this prospect. But the outrage is 
     unwarranted. The automatic link that Mr. Hollings imples 
     between government ownership and monopolistic profits is too 
     simple: In Germany, Deutsche Telekom's rivals have captured 
     two-fifths of the market for long distance voice calls and 
     nearly half of the market for international calls. Under 
     pressure from World Trade Organizations rules and U.S. 
     negotiators, Germany's government has been encouraging 
     telephone competition as well as gradually reducing its stake 
     in Deutsche Telekom.
       Moreover, if Deutsche Telekom or any other firm can be 
     shown to have ``dominant-carrier benefits'' in its home 
     market, the Federal Communications Commission is already 
     empowered to impose conditions on the way it does business 
     here. Equally, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are 
     empowered to examine mergers and ensure that their phone-
     tapping powers are not compromised. The privacy issue is 
     addressed by existing law, which protects phone users no 
     matte who owns the phone network. The Hollings legislation is 
     therefore unnecessary.
       In an ideal world, all phone companies would be privatized: 
     This would eliminate the danger of anti-competitive subsidies 
     completely. But existing policy grapples sensibly with the 
     real world in which state-owned firms remain part of the 
     landscape: It builds in safeguards against abuses while not 
     depriving U.S. consumers of the benefits of foreign 
     investment. VoiceStream, the wireless firm that Deutsche 
     Telekom hopes to purchase, is itself an illustration of those 
     benefits. With the help of $2.2 billion from partners in Hong 
     Kong and Finland, it has expanded rapidly, creating more than 
     8,000 jobs for American workers and bringing wireless phone 
     and messaging services to 2.5 million consumers. To preserve 
     that kind of gain, the administration promises to veto any 
     spending bill containing the Hollings language. It would be 
     right to do so.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. They said, ``Hollings' crude defense of 
protectionism.'' They don't know what protectionism is. When you get 
the Government out of the competition, you do get free capitalistic 
activity, as Adam Smith said. Followed on by David Ricardo and his so-
called comparative advantage, which said when you put the Government 
in, the Government has the right to print money. The Government 
certainly is not going to let the industry fail.
  Deutsche Telekom had a bond issued earlier this year and got $14 
billion. Their stock has gone from 100 down to 40. The fellow brags in 
the newspaper: I have $100 billion in my back pocket. I am going to buy 
AT&T, MCI, Sprint, or any of them--they are all subject--and I want 
total control.
  So what he has told you in plain, bold language is that the German 
Government, which owns Deutsche Telekom, says: Heads up, I'm coming in 
to buy your companies and get total control.
  That is a distortion of the free market. That would be protectionism. 
I am trying to avoid that and keep the Government out of the market. I 
was one of the leaders in the 1996 act deregulating telecommunications. 
So we got the U.S. Government out, but certainly not to put the German 
Government in. But here they go writing these editorials about I'm a 
protectionist. They have no idea what's going on. That is how far off 
we have gotten with respect to trade.
  So let's get to the point. What we do is that we trade more. We 
export more to Belgium. We export more to the city-state of Singapore 
than we do to the People's Republic of China. We've got a good, viable 
trade partner there. We don't have any exports. I will get to the 
technology on another amendment. They said that high-tech is going to 
do it. The truth is, high tech doesn't create the jobs. I will put it 
in one line: We have a deficit and a balance of trade in high 
technology with the People's Republic of China. So mark you me, this is 
not going to do it whatsoever. So my amendment, which ought to be read 
simply so we can find out who is telling the truth and find out what 
the imports and exports are and what the jobs are and where they are 
going. Here it is:

       The Securities and Exchange Commission shall amend its 
     regulations to require the inclusion of the following 
     information in 10-K reports required to be filed with the 
     commission.

  This is just information.

       The number of employees employed by the reporting entity 
     outside the United States directly, indirectly, or through a 
     joint venture or other business arrangement listed by 
     country; the annual dollar volume of exports of goods 
     manufactured or produced in the United States by the 
     reporting entity to each country to which it exports; the 
     annual dollar volume of imports of goods manufactured or 
     produced outside the United States by the reporting entity 
     with each country.

  So we will find out with these reports just exactly where we are and 
what the competition is, whether they are increasing jobs in the U.S. 
rather than decreasing. The opposition to this amendment is telling 
everybody to forget about it, it is another one of those Hollings 
amendments and we have to send it to the President and we have other 
more important business--there is no more important business than what 
is going on on the floor of the Senate--10-K reports.
  I don't want to belabor or compound the record itself, but I have in 
my hand the Boeing 10-K report. For example, Boeing, on its 10-K 
report, says ``the location and floor areas of the company's principal 
operating properties as of January 1, 2000.'' I wish you or somebody 
who is really interested could look at that 10-K report. They have 
every little item about the square footage.
  They know how many employees. They know generally how many employees 
they have, but they do not say where and what country.
  That is all we are asking for--the number of employees; then, the 
dollar volume of imports and exports, and from whence. That is all.
  That is all we are asking for in this particular amendment so we can 
get that to the Department of Commerce and finally find out.
  Back in the 1970s when we were debating trade, the Department of 
Commerce gave me this figure: 41 percent of American consumption of 
manufactured goods was from imports. That was 20-some years ago. I know 
that over half of what you and I consume is imported. We are going out 
of business. We don't have a strong nation. High-tech is not 
strengthening whatsoever--

[[Page 18090]]

temporary employees and software people and Internet billionaires, as 
Newsweek wrote about the other day. But they are not really the 
automobile workers and parts workers or industry workers. We have the 
so-called ``rust belt'' in the United States. Talk how exports--that is 
the parts they are still making up there and sending down to Mexico to 
come back into finished automobiles. The most productive automobile 
plant in the world is not Detroit. It is down in Mexico at the Ford 
plant, according to J.D. Powers.
  I have the Bell South 10-K report. As of December 31, 1999, they 
employed approximately 96,200 individuals; 64,000 were employees of the 
telephone operation, and 55,000 represented the communications workers. 
They have a lot of detailed information. But all we want is the number 
and which country. That is all we are asking for with respect to those 
employees--their imports and exports.
  Why did the Boeing machinists lead the parade last December up in 
Seattle at the World Trade Organization? The premium showcase export 
industry of the United States was leading the parade against WTO 
because their jobs have gone to China.
  All you have to do is continue to read the different articles.
  We have one with respect to our friend Bill Greider, who put out a 
very interesting article. He wrote when President Clinton promoted 
Boeing aircraft sales abroad--boy, that was wonderful. He had gotten 
Boeing. For instance, he did not mention that in effect he was 
championing Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, and Fuji, the Japanese heavies that 
manufacture a substantial portion of Boeing' planes; or that Boeing was 
offloading jobs from Seattle and Wichita to China as part of the deal.
  There it is. We are exporting our jobs.
  This book is nearly 6 years of age.
  But let me retain the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Tennessee.
  (The remarks of Mr. Frist are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my 
distinguished colleague. The 10-K reports filed annually with the SEC 
are designed to inform investors about the operating conditions of 
publicly-held corporations offering their securities for sale on 
American exchanges. The 10-K reports are expressly designed to inform 
investors about the prospects of companies turning to U.S. securities 
markets and form a bulwark against misrepresentations that might 
mislead or defraud U.S. investors. They are, in fact, one of the 
bulwarks that make American capital markets function precisely because 
of their focus on information that is relevant to a publicly-held 
company's predictions of its economic conditions.
  The information that the amendment of my friend would require U.S. 
publicly-held companies to provide at some additional cost is largely 
irrelevant. For example, what difference does it make to the potential 
purchaser of IBM's stock precisely how many foreign employees it has 
and where they are employed? Would a single error in IBM's 10-K report 
regarding the number of employees in Botswana affect the investor's 
decision to hold IBM stock? How would it benefit the U.S. investor to 
know the precise dollar volume of U.S. Steel's exports and imports of 
manufactured products listed by product and importing country? Would 
the misstatement of U.S. Steel's imports of semi-finished steel 
products on its 10-K report actually mislead investors as to the 
economic condition of U.S. steel or allow the investor to better 
evaluate U.S. steel's economic prospects relative to other issuers of 
securities on American exchanges?
  Furthermore, SEC rules already require IBM or U.S. Steel to provide 
that information when relevant to the investor--in other words, where 
such information would affect the bottom line. My point is that my 
friend's amendment would not materially advance the interests of U.S. 
investors, but would add a potentially costly new reporting requirement 
on U.S. issuers. More fundamentally, to the extent that my friend's 
amendment succeeds and we are unable to pass PNTR as a result, the 
damage done to the economic prospects of American publicly-held 
companies and to the interests of U.S. investors vastly outweighs any 
hypothetical benefit to investors that would accrue from collecting 
this information on an annual basis. In my view, the number that U.S. 
investors are most likely to be interested in is the $13 billion in new 
U.S. exports that are likely to flow from the ground-breaking agreement 
negotiated by Ambassador Barshefsky. That is the number that is likely 
to affect the bottom line in which American investors are interested. 
Furthermore, to the extent my friend wants to collect the date to 
illustrate that American companies are investing abroad simply to 
export back to the United States, that information is likely already to 
be reflected in the investment and import data that the U.S. Commerce 
Department already collects.
  But, it is also worth questioning what those numbers are likely to 
reveal if we do pass PNTR and China does join the WTO. I have no doubt 
that what they will show is an increase in U.S. exports to China and, 
to the extent that we see an increase in imports from China, that those 
imports come at the expense of other foreign companies exporting to the 
United States. The International Trade Commission's report on China's 
accession reflects that fact. Now, it is important to remember that the 
ITC's report on the quantitative impact of China's accession was 
restricted to the effects of tariff changes under the bilateral market 
access agreement with China. It did not even purport to address the 
quantitative effects of China's removal of non-tariff barriers on trade 
in manufactured goods or agricultural products, much less the dramatic 
opening of China's services markets.
  Nonetheless, what the ITC found was that the accession package would 
lead to an overall improvement in the U.S. balance of trade and, where 
China did export more to the United States, those gains would come at 
the expense of other foreign exporters. Given that we already know the 
affect of China's accession, is there any real reason to collect the 
date required by my friend's amendment? And, if we are debating the 
economic impact of China's accession to the WTO, would there be any 
reason to collect this date with respect to every country in which an 
American company either buys components or sells its wares? The answer 
is no. The amendment serves no practical purpose, particularly in the 
context of this debate. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge my 
colleagues to do so as well.
  I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have a simple proposition to make, 
after discussions with the Treasury Department, which is simply to say 
the amendment is burdensome in the extreme and would discourage U.S. 
listings. The amendment would place an enormous, costly, and pointless 
regulatory burden on publicly traded companies in the United States. 
Firms would be required to list every single one of their overseas 
employees as well as every single employee of any foreign company with 
which they do business. They would also be required to calculate the 
total value of all their exports and imports.
  Such a regulatory burden would be a nightmare for both such firms 
planning

[[Page 18091]]

to go public--for most firms planning to go public. On the other hand, 
it would not discourage foreign firms from listing in the United 
States. This is not a regulation we want to impose on American 
business--startup businesses, small cap businesses. I hope we will not 
approve this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I had the privilege and experience of 
running a corporation myself. In fact, it was before Manny Cohen was 
the Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission. At that 
time, I set a record getting approval in 13 days. I know how it works. 
I know how detailed it is. That is why I brought up Boeing. They even 
have the square footage in different countries. They do have the total 
amount and the number of employees. They just break it down by country.
  Exporters and importers have to keep books. They have to have the 
value. They want to know themselves. I want it reported in their 10-K. 
It is not at the Department of Commerce.
  By the way, they say the information does not affect the bottom line. 
It most positively does. You can get your labor production costs and 
manufacture for 10 percent of the United States cost.
  I am not here for stockholders or against them. I am for 
stockholders, nonstockholders, for the people of the United States, for 
the Senate, and for the Constitution in conducting trade.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4134. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Nebraska 
(Mr. Kerrey), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
California (Mrs. Feinstein) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 6, nays 90, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 247 Leg.]

                                YEAS--6

     Byrd
     Feingold
     Helms
     Hollings
     Mikulski
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--90

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Akaka
     Feinstein
     Kerrey
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 4134) was rejected.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I was wondering if I could make about 5 
to 10 minutes' worth of statements on other issues relating to my home 
State.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we would be honored if the distinguished 
Senator from Utah would proceed, as he will do, and at what length he 
chooses.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator for his courtesy and friendship and 
the scholarship with which he addresses all of these issues.
  I understand the President pro tempore wishes to make a statement on 
the Boy Scouts first. I ask unanimous consent that following his 
statement I be recognized as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thurmond are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bennett are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, seeing no other Senator seeking 
recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate now consider, in the following order, division I of my 
amendment, to be followed by division IV, and following the use or 
yielding back of the time, the amendments be laid aside with votes to 
occur at a time to be determined by the leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 4129, Division I

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, at this time I now call up 
division I of my amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur by a rollcall vote.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes. A rollcall vote on division I and 
division IV.
  Mr. President, as you know, last Thursday, I offered an amendment 
that would require the Congressional-Executive Commission, which is 
created under the permanent normal trade relations bill on China, to 
monitor the level of Chinese cooperation on the POW/MIA issue and to 
pass this information to the American people as part of an annual 
report that the commission will issue.
  I have long been an advocate of the POW/MIA issue. I believe the U.S. 
Government should make every effort to account for any missing American 
servicemen from any of our Nation's conflicts. I am sure you all agree 
that we have a solemn obligation to these brave Americans and their 
families. There are over 10,000 unaccounted-for American soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines from Korea, Vietnam, and the cold war, not 
to mention many from World War II.
  The fate of many of these unaccounted-for Americans, especially from 
the Korean war, could be easily clarified by the People's Republic of 
China. This is an undisputed fact, that the Chinese continue to deny 
that they have any information that could help us account for our 
missing.
  I have been to North Korea and have talked to the North Koreans on 
this

[[Page 18092]]

issue. I have talked to the Russians. Both the Russians and the North 
Koreans indicated to me, in private discussions, that the Chinese had 
volumes of information on American servicemen, especially during the 
Korean war because, as we know, the Chinese were heavily involved. They 
maintained the camps in Korea during the war.
  So all I am asking for in this amendment is that we can include this 
language so the commission can monitor and put some pressure on the 
Chinese to provide information. It is humanitarian. It is basic 
humanitarian information about our missing service men and women.
  I do not think this is unreasonable. I do not think it is going to 
delay anything. It would simply go back to the House. The House would 
add the amendment, and off it goes: We have now made a statement to the 
Chinese Communists that we care about our American POWs and MIAs.
  I would be astounded if anyone would even consider voting against 
this amendment, drawing the conclusion that somehow it is going to mess 
up the permanent normal trade relations deal.
  It would take about 5 minutes to get it approved in the House, 
another 5 minutes for the President to take a look at it and sign the 
bill, and we are moving on and now have some attention on it. We have 
now said to the Chinese Government: Not only do we care about our 
missing, we want you to help us find some of our MIAs and POWs from 
those conflicts.
  I would like to share with my colleagues just a small fraction of the 
information that I have--and, believe me, it is a small fraction. I 
pored through many intelligence files, and I am only giving you a 
smattering of these files. But I can tell you, the Chinese deny any 
information, when, in fact, our own intelligence community has volumes 
of information to the contrary, that they could answer about what 
happened to our POWs and MIAs, especially from the camps in North 
Korea, at the end of the war. But it is precisely the type of 
information I am going to share with you that makes it all the more 
important that we say to the Chinese: You have to cooperate with us on 
this humanitarian issue.
  For example, there are numerous declassified CIA intelligence reports 
from the 1950s that indicate the Chinese have knowledge about American 
POWs from that war--numerous, numerous declassified intelligence 
reports, and many classified that we cannot talk about here.
  I did this the other day when I offered the amendment. I believe I 
put these in the Record yesterday. I will check that. If I did not, I 
will enter them. But I believe they are in the Record.
  Here is a good example of one. This is a Central Intelligence Agency 
Information report dated in May of 1951. So we were at the height of 
the Korean war in May of 1951. The subject matter is: ``American 
Prisoners of War in Canton,'' China. Some of the information is blacked 
out because of sources and methods. Even today, 40 years later, it is 
still blacked out. But, again, it is a reference to prisoners of war 
held by the Chinese in the Korean war.
  If the Chinese held prisoners, clearly they would know what happened 
to the prisoners or at least could share some information on the 
records they maintained in the camps.
  Here is another one: 27 June 1951, another intelligence report right 
here, entitled, ``Subject: American Prisoners of War in South China.'' 
I will just cite a couple of paragraphs from it:

       A staff member of the State Security Bureau in Seoul 
     [Korea] on 12 February stated that all American prisoners of 
     war were sent to camps . . .

  And then they list several cities in Manchuria where they were put to 
hard labor in mines and factories.
  So that is another CIA intelligence report.
  Why would we not want to say to the Chinese: Look, here is our own 
intelligence. We know you held our prisoners in the war. All we want 
you to do is help us provide answers for their loved ones.
  Yet I regret, sincerely regret, to say that people are going to come 
down to this Senate floor shortly, before the end of the afternoon, and 
they are going to vote no on this amendment. I believe so many will 
vote no that it will fail. The reason they are going to give for that 
vote--and that is what they are going to tell their constituents--is: 
Of course we would like to get information on our POWs and MIAs. Of 
course we would like to have the Chinese cooperate. But we are not 
willing to put it in the permanent normal trade relations because--you 
know what?--we might make them angry, and we will not be able to sell 
them corn and wheat.
  That is what we are saying. Maybe we can look our veterans in the eye 
and the families of these people in the eye and say: That's all right. 
But it is not all right with me. My conscience will be clear. I know 
how I am voting on this amendment. I would appreciate the consideration 
of my colleagues. It is not asking very much to send this back to the 
House with this one amendment that says we care.
  It is interesting; there are many groups who oppose permanent normal 
trade relations with China. But I will tell you, the veterans groups 
oppose it. What does that tell you? The American Legion opposes it. 
Many veterans groups oppose it. They are the ones who made the 
sacrifice. I guarantee you, the families of these individuals who are 
missing would sure love to see this language put in this bill.
  I could go on and on. I will not cite many, but here is another one: 
``U.S. Prisoners of War in Communist China, 11 Aug. 1951.'' It is a CIA 
report. This is one of just thousands that we have had--classified and 
unclassified--just like this.

       On 2 August fifty-two US prisoners of war from Korea, who 
     had been held in the Baptist church . . .

  And they name the location--

     left Canton by train for [another location] under guard. . . 
     .

  This is very detailed stuff. This is not just somebody who makes a 
general statement. These are specific eyewitness sightings of prisoners 
being moved around in China during the war and who never returned.
  I am not maintaining that these people are alive. It would be nice if 
they were, but I am not maintaining that. But clearly, the Chinese, if 
they would sit down with us with these documents, we could talk to 
them, and we could trace this information. We could talk to the people 
in these provinces, and maybe we could get some information. Perhaps 
where were these prisoners buried? How were they killed? What kinds of 
information do we have on them? Are there personal effects, anything 
like that?
  Another report, September 1951, title: American Prisoners of War, 
Communist China, CIA. On and on and on.
  All I am asking my colleagues is to say that that is not acceptable, 
that we will give permanent normal trade relations to China and not ask 
them to at least help us account for our missing. I say to those of you 
who might be skeptical, if you want me to provide you these documents 
in detail, I will provide the documents in detail. I can send you to 
the proper locations in the U.S. Government where the classified 
documents, which are far more specific than this, will give you even 
more specific information.
  I went to North Korea. I sat down in Pyongyang with the North Korean 
officials several years ago, the first American Senator to visit North 
Korea. I talked to the North Koreans about those camps that were run 
during the war. They showed me photographs of the Communist Chinese 
guards who guarded those troops, our troops, our prisoners, American 
prisoners, during the war. They know what happened to those people. 
They can provide us information. Why is that asking so much--to say we 
want to monitor this to say to the Chinese, every time PNTR comes up 
for discussion, we want you to help us find answers?
  I wrote a letter to the Chinese Government on this and got a blunt 
response: We don't have any information. We are not going to share any 
information with you.
  We know that is not true. Yet why should they give us information if 
we say to them, you don't have to give us

[[Page 18093]]

information because we are going to give you what you want, which is 
trade and credibility and recognition on the international plain?
  This is just basic human rights--basic. Senator Helms and others, 
Senator Wellstone and others, have offered amendments, over and over 
again, about human rights violations--all defeated, including mine. We 
talked about abuse in orphanages. We talked about forced abortions, 
women forced to have abortions at 9 months--all ignored, all voted 
down--all in the name of profit, all in the name of saying we don't 
want to risk antagonizing the Chinese. We don't want to take a few 
minutes to have this on the other side, to go back over to the House 
where they might have to add an amendment to send it to the President. 
That is the reason for this.
  As you can imagine, it is difficult to investigate reports that are 
50 years old. That is exactly why we need the Chinese to cooperate. You 
look at a report such as this; it goes back 50 years. We need the 
people on the ground. We need the Communist Chinese archives--not 
classified top secret Chinese secrets, that is not what we want. We 
want basic humanitarian information. They could give it to us, a lot of 
it. And probably we could clarify the fate of hundreds, perhaps even 
thousands, of American POWs and MIAs.
  I will give one example. On my last trip to Russia, we were able to 
access some archives. The Russians were very cooperative. They provided 
10,000 documents that helped us to identify flyers, American pilots, 
who were lost in the Korean conflict because the Russians--Soviets 
then--flew aircraft; they actually saw the shootdowns. They made 
notations about the tail number of the aircraft, how many pilots, did 
the pilot parachute out, did the plane go down in flames--very 
personal, firsthand accounts, very helpful; 10,000 documents.
  These documents will help us to be able to go to the families of 
these men and be able to say to them, this is what happened to your 
husband or your father, your brother, whomever, as best we know based 
on the testimony of the Russians.
  The Russians, to their credit, are being cooperative. Why can't we 
ask the Chinese to do this? Why is that asking too much? This is the 
thing that disturbs me so much, that just basic humanitarian issues are 
thrown aside in the name of somehow taking a little more time. What is 
another day, if we are going to give the Chinese permanent trade 
status? What is another day to include this kind of language?
  Secretary Cohen, to his credit, at my request raised this issue with 
the Chinese during his recent visit to China this last summer. Once 
again, the Chinese simply brushed it aside. They said: we don't have 
any information--when in fact our intelligence files and our own 
information flat out knows and says the opposite.
  But let's not forget what the real issue is here. The Chinese stand 
to make billions from trade with the United States. Shame on us if we 
fail to demand that in return for those billions, we ask for basic 
humanitarian information on our servicemen. Shame on us.
  All we can do is call this to the attention of our colleagues. I 
can't make colleagues vote the way I want them to vote, nor should I. 
It is up to them to make that decision. But I urge them to make the 
decision to ask for this basic information.
  I have worked on this issue for 16 years, as a Senator and a 
Congressman. I know what I am talking about. I have been to China. I 
have been to Cambodia. I have been to Laos. I have flown a helicopter 
over the Plain of Jars. I landed in the Plain of Jars. I went into 
caves looking for American POWs. I scoured the hillsides and 
countrysides of Cambodia and Laos and Vietnam and Russia. They have all 
been relatively cooperative, some more than others, not cooperative 
enough. But the Chinese have done nothing--no access, zero, zippo. Yet 
here we are, giving them permanent status. It is wrong.
  My concern extends beyond Chinese knowledge of Americans missing from 
the Korean war. We know approximately 320,000 Chinese military 
personnel served in Vietnam from 1965 to 1970. So moving now from the 
Korean war to the Vietnam war, it seems to me highly likely that many 
of these Chinese troops would be knowledgeable about the fate of some 
2,000 Americans still unaccounted for from the Vietnam war. It also 
impacts the Vietnam war. It also impacts the cold war.
  I am personally opposed to PNTR. I will vote against it. But it 
certainly would be nice if those who are going to vote for it, since I 
know it is going to pass, would be willing to at least have this basic 
noncontroversial amendment which would help to account for missing 
Americans.
  Let me tell you what else it would do. It would provide a lot of 
solace to American families who for 50 years have waited for some word 
about their loved ones. Yet Senators don't want to vote for this 
amendment because to vote for it means it might have to go to 
conference. They don't want to short-circuit the legislative process. 
Did anybody ask these folks before they went off to war whether they 
cared about short-circuiting the legislative process? They went. They 
served. They were lost. They deserve this amendment. They earned this 
amendment.
  My amendment would merely expand the scope of the commission in the 
permanent normal trade relations bill to include the monitoring of 
Chinese cooperation on the POW/MIA issue. It is about as 
noncontroversial as anything we could do. Not only should we vote for 
this amendment, we have an obligation to vote for this amendment. 
Anything less than that is wrong. You can rest assured that the 10,000 
missing Americans from the Vietnam and Korean wars didn't fight so that 
the Senate could short-circuit the legislative process. That is not 
what they fought for. Ask the families what they fought for. I have a 
father who died in the Second World War. I know what my family 
suffered.
  I know what it is like to grow up without a father. I knew what 
happened to my father. He was killed serving his country. Many sons and 
daughters out there have no idea what happened to their loved ones. 
Wouldn't it be nice if the Senate said we would like to try to find out 
and that we are willing to attach this to PNTR? This is the least we 
should do.


                    Amendment No. 4129, Division IV

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I know Senator Hollings is 
waiting. I just have one more amendment, the so-called division IV. I 
call up division IV at this time and ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment, division IV.
  This amendment deals with the environment. Again, this is commission 
language that simply calls for the commission to report on the 
progress, or lack thereof, that companies and the Chinese Government 
are making in China regarding environmental laws.
  Our companies in America are under strict environmental regulations, 
yet there are no regulations in China. All this amendment asks is that 
we monitor these regulations so we can find out what kind of progress 
is being made on these issues.
  Over the past 30 years, we have heard a steady stream of arguments 
that strong environmental protections are necessary, and that punitive 
sanctions are indispensable, because corporations will sacrifice the 
long-term public interest in preserving the environment for the sake of 
short-term profits.
  For the past 8 years, the Clinton administration has added its voice 
to that stream. The administration has consistently told us that the 
American business community cannot be trusted to deal with the 
environment in a responsible manner unless two conditions are met: 
First, we must have strong environmental laws on the books. Second, we 
must ensure that those laws are vigorously enforced--that individual 
firms can and will be aggressively sanctioned whenever they stray from 
what those laws allow.
  To be sure, the Clinton administration has told us that economic 
progress can neatly coexist with environmental protection--that swords 
can be turned into plowshares without ruining the land to be tilled. 
But the administration has not suggested that we should

[[Page 18094]]

exempt any business or State from compliance with Federal law.
  Today, we have chance to implement those principles. I offer today an 
amendment to H.R. 4444 that would require the Commission established by 
the bill to report on the progress of China in the implementation of 
laws designed to protect human health, and to protect, restore, and 
preserve the environment.
  Let me tell you why we need that amendment:
  China's environmental record to date is grim:
  It has been said that China is home to half of the world's 10 most 
polluted cities.--See www.SpeakOut.com, 5/17/00, Pages 1-2; Friends of 
the Earth--World Trade, www.Foe.org/international/wto/china.html, Page 
1.
  One source, however, says that the situation has worsened since 1995 
and that China now has 8 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world.--
See Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), July 30, 2000, 
``China Expert Chen Qingtai Warns of Deteriorating Eco-System,'' 
Document ID CPP20000730000042, Page 2.
  Yet another source now puts the number at 9 out of 10.--See China 
Focus, May 2000: China's Environment,

www.virtualchina.com/focus/environment/index.html.

  ``By the Chinese government's own standards, two-thirds of the 338 
Chinese cities for which air quality data are available are polluted. 
Two-thirds of those are rated `moderately'--though still seriously--or 
heavily polluted.''--See Michael Dorgan, ``China gets serious about 
cleaning up its air,'' Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, August 1, 
2000.
  The Chinese capital of Beijing is one of the those top 10 cities with 
the world's worst air quality. In Beijing, the annual sulfur dioxide 
levels are twice the maximum set by the World Health Organization, and 
the particulates are four times the maximum WHO level.--See House 
Republican Policy Committee 2 (July 6, 1998).
  In 1999, ``on one day out of four--Beijing's air quality--reached 
Level 4--out of 5--when even nonsmokers feel they have the lungs of the 
Marlboro Man, or Level 5, when it's so toxic that a few breaths can 
leave a person dizzy and nearby buildings seem lost in a filthy 
fog.''--See Michael Dorgan, ``China gets serious about cleaning up its 
air,'' Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, August 1, 2000.
  An estimated 2 million people die each year in China from air and 
water pollution.--See Friends of the Earth--World Trade,

www.Foe.org.international/wto/china.html, Page 1.

  Water pollution in China is widespread and toxic. IN fact, 80 percent 
of China's rivers are so polluted that fish cannot live in them.--See 
www.SpeakOut.com, 5/17/00, Page 2.
  ``[T]he 25 billion tons of unfiltered industrial pollutants that the 
Chinese sent into their waterways in 1991 gave Communist China `more 
toxic water pollution in that one country than in the whole of the 
Western world.' ''--See House Republican Policy Committee 2 (July 6, 
1998), quoting Gregg Easterbrook.
  A recent report from the Ministry of Water Resources of the Chinese 
Government states that the water supply to as many as 300 million 
people in China fails the Chinese Government's health standard.
  In addition, according to the China Economic Times, Chinese Ministry 
of Water Resources report said that 46 percent of China's more than 700 
rivers were polluted, meaning that they fell within Grade 4 or 5 of the 
Chinese Government's 5-Grade water quality rating system. Under that 
rating system, Grade 1 is deemed clean and suitable for consumption, 
while Grade 5 is considered undrinkable. Ministry experts explained 
that industrial pollution was the main source of contamination. Those 
experts estimated that factories produced about 60 billion tons of 
waste and sewage each year and that 80 percent of that waste and sewage 
was discharged into rivers without treatment.
  Ninety percent of the water sources in China's urban areas are 
severely polluted.
  Acid rain degrades forest and farm land, and imposes an annual cost 
of an estimated $1.8 billion in economic losses.--See

www.greenpeace-china.org.hk/ press/19991101_pr_00.html.

  China is the world's largest producer of chlorofluorocarbons, the 
chemicals that are said to be responsible for destroying the ozone 
layer.--See www.SpeakOut.com, 5/17/00, Page 2.
  China already consumes more coal in energy production than any other 
nation. Energy planners expect that China's coal consumption will 
double, if not triple, by the year 2020. If China's coal use increases 
as expected over the next two decades, that growth alone will increase 
global greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent--all but dooming efforts 
by the rest of the world to reduce a 50-70-percent reduction in 
greenhouse gas emissions. See Mark Hertsgaard (July 19, 2000).
  By 2020, China will become the world's largest emitter of greenhouse 
gases.--See www.SpeakOut.com, 5/17/00, Page 3.
  Why is the environment such a disaster in China today? The answer is 
simple--the people of China do not enjoy political and economic 
freedom. Per capita emissions in China are 75 percent higher than in 
Brazil, which has an economy of similar size. The difference is that 
the autocratic, Communist government in China robs the people of that 
nation of the ability to seek both a prosperous economy and a healthy 
environment.
  A free people will not consent to the type of environmental 
degradation seen today in China. Since 1970, in this nation we have 
been unwilling to put up with a far less dangerous state of affairs 
than China has today. We have enacted and enforced strong environmental 
protection laws, and we have supported environmental preservation in 
our decisions as consumers and as contributors to charitable causes.
  Moreover, prosperity not only is compatible with a clean environment, 
prosperity also is a precondition for it. A rich people will have the 
ability to recognize the long-term benefits of preservation. Mature 
free market economies make increasingly efficient uses of resources, 
while leaving a smaller footprint on the air, the water, and the land.
  Under our current law, we can urge China gradually to improve its 
environmental performance as a condition to being granted normal 
trading privileges. We lose that option if we pass H.R. 4444. For that 
reason, this bill is our only, and last best, chance to exercise 
leverage in order to influence China's decision in the environmental 
field.
  We believe that laws such as the Clean Air Act are necessary for the 
health of this nation. Why should we expect less for anyone else--
particularly China? We believe that enforcement is necessary for law to 
be meaningful in this nation? Why should we expect anything different 
across the Pacific? We believe that a sound economy and a healthy 
environment can and should be attained from the Atlantic to the 
Pacific? Why should we expect less from Pacific to the South China Sea?
  There also is no good reason why, in the name of environmentalism, we 
should impose a greater burden on American citizens than we expect 
other countries to impose on themselves.
  China now has 20 percent of the world's population, so what China 
does environmentally greatly affects everyone else. All that this 
amendment does it to require the Commission created by this legislation 
to monitor and report on China's efforts to protect the environment.
  Former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick once criticized my 
colleagues across the aisle for their tendency to ``Blame America 
First''--that is, for their belief that there must be something wrong 
with this great Nation that causes the world's ills. Keep that in mind 
when you consider this amendment. If laws such as the Clean Air Act and 
the Clean Water Act are necessary for the environmental health of this 
Nation, then those laws--or something analogous--are necessary for 
China, too. That is, they are necessary unless you believe in a policy 
of

[[Page 18095]]

``Restrict America First, Always, and Only.'' There is no good reason 
for us to give up our opportunity to ensure that annually we can 
encourage, cajole, or prod China into improving its environment, for 
its sake and for everyone's, until we are sure that China no longer 
will be the world's superpolluter.
  You might ask why China is such an environmental disaster. The same 
reason the Soviet Union was. The answer is, the people of China, as in 
the Soviet Union, don't enjoy political and economic freedom. Per 
capita emissions in China are 75 percent higher than in Brazil, which 
has an economy of similar size. They don't have a choice. They don't 
care. The Government doesn't care. They don't have a choice to clean it 
up. We could make a difference if we monitored this, talked about this 
to the world, brought this out each year in the commission report on 
PNTR. A free people would not consent to this kind of stuff, as we 
haven't--to this type of environmental degradation. Moreover, 
prosperity is not only compatible with a clean air environment, but a 
precondition for it.
  So I hope we can move forward on this amendment and allow for the 
commission to monitor these environmental disasters, where we apply one 
standard to our Government and no standard to a government making huge 
profits as a result of our trade.
  Again, this is a very noncontroversial amendment but one I think all 
of my colleagues who say they are pro-environment ought to support. I 
guess I am going to draw the conclusion that if you can't vote for 
this, you are pro-environment for America but not the rest of the 
world--especially China. That is kind of sad. I hope I will have 
support on this amendment, as well as the other amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That completes any discussion I have on 
the amendments.
  At this time I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4136

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4136, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, right to the point here, there are two 
surprising features with respect to the globalization, global 
competition, international trade. I continue to try to get the Senate 
and the Congress itself, charged under the Constitution, article I, 
section 8, to fulfill its responsibility.
  The eye-opener has to do with agriculture, and the eye-opener has to 
do with technology. This particular amendment deals with the 
technological argument that we hear about the wonderful opportunity we 
have that ``you just don't understand, Senator.'' That is what we 
hear--that we have gone from the smokestack to post-industrial to high-
tech. Everybody is running around talking about high-tech and the 
wonderful economy. Well, I wish high-tech did contribute that much to 
the economy. But the fact of the matter is there are not that many 
jobs, and the few jobs that are there just don't pay.
  Let me summarize this amendment. I ask, as a result, that the balance 
of trade with China in advanced technology projects be reported by the 
President to the Congress each year. That is in advanced technology 
products in an amount in excess of $5 billion. We now have a deficit in 
the balance of trade with the People's Republic of China of $3.2 
billion, as of the end of 1999.
  Now I have heard from the best of sources that that deficit could 
become an approximate $5 billion. So I am asking the President that if 
it exceeds $5 billion, we not only report it, but request a negotiation 
with the People's Republic of China to see if we can eliminate that 
imbalance. That is all the amendment calls for. It is all permissive 
requests, asking the President to do it. There is no burden whatsoever, 
but it is certainly in the context of global competition that we talk 
about it.
  Let's start acting as if we know something about the competition. I 
say that the jobs don't pay and there are not that many of them. Right 
to the point, by comparison, for example, in Redmond, WA, Microsoft has 
21,000 jobs when Boeing down the road has 100,000. There are many more 
jobs at General Motors, Ford, the auto parts industry, and otherwise, 
than there are in high-tech.
  There is a lot of money in software, and therein you find these 
Internet billionaires trying to get market share--not profit. They 
haven't come out with a profit yet. But there has been a footrace on 
the New York Stock Exchange to get market share and invest in those who 
are winners. That is understandable. That is fine. That is the American 
way. We applaud it. However, when you look at the number of jobs, you 
can go to Oracle, you can go to America Online. They now have their 
employees in the Philippines. Microsoft has several thousand of its 
employees offshore.
  In 1992, a suit was brought by the so-called ``part-time temporary'' 
employees claiming they ought to share in these stock options, other 
health benefits, and otherwise. They are really working full time. They 
won the suit. Now they have changed them to temporary employees so they 
are not allowed to work over 364 days a year to comply with the law.
  This is an article from around the beginning of the year. In Santa 
Clara, the heart of Silicon Valley, the number of temporary workers has 
jumped to 42 percent of the workforce this year, from 19 percent in the 
1980s. With respect to Microsoft, temporary workers have accounted for 
as much as one-third of its roughly 20,000-person workforce in the 
Puget Sound area. In May, it stood at 5,300.
  I know the industrial workers at BMW, for example, have benefits and 
earn $21 to $22 an hour in Spartanburg, SC. We enjoy that. We 
appreciate it. It doesn't call for necessarily a computer expert or 
college graduate. There are many college graduates, of course, in the 
workforce. But these are jobs for high school graduates--the majority 
of our working population.
  These are the jobs for the seniors in the middle class of our 
democracy. Everybody is running around as if there is joy in the world 
on money. But they are not thinking of the strength of the democracy 
economically and the strength the middle class brings to our democracy, 
with jobs for high school graduates and not just high-tech college 
degrees. Of course, it is said that the technology industry now has a 
shortage. There is no shortage. If they only gave them full-time work, 
they would be there. What they are really applying for are the college 
graduates out of India and other countries to come in under the 
immigration laws. They don't want to have to pay the temporary workers 
even around $35,000 a year when they can get Indian workers for $25,000 
a year--any way they can cut costs. Even Chinese-trained workers and 
others come in. They would like to change the immigration laws to cut 
back the permanent high-paid workforce and put in this low-paid 
temporary work practice. That is an eye opener to me because I just 
couldn't understand why they couldn't find skilled workers.
  The truth is, I have proof. The proof of the pudding is in the 
eating. It is not just bragging. It is true, as they say. We have the 
best in technical training in South Carolina, and we are for high tech. 
There isn't any question about that. We are attracting Hoffman-LaRoche, 
Hitachi, Honda--go right on down the list--Michelin, and all the rest 
of the fine industries from afar. We are proud of it. We are proud of 
these foreign investors. At the same time, we have to compete and 
maintain the strength of our economy.
  Look at the People's Republic of China and the comparison of exports 
to imports in advanced technology. The parts of advanced machinery 
deficit is $18.23 billion; parts and accessories of

[[Page 18096]]

machinery not incorporating, $7.74 billion; parts of turbojet or turbo-
propeller engines $4.01 billion; turbojet aircraft engines, $3.74 
billion.
  These are all deficits with the People's Republic of China.
  Parts for printers, $3.52 billion; cellular radio telephones, $3.2 
billion; videocassette cartridge recorders, $2.32 billion; display 
units, $1.64 billion; optical disk players, $1.64 billion; medical and 
surgical instruments and appliances, $1.22 billion; transistors, $740 
million; facsimile machines, $670 million; television receivers, $57 
million; laser printers, $480 million.
  I could keep going down the list. The point is that we have had a 
great relationship with the People's Republic of China. But in the 
required transfers of technology, that plus balance of trade has now 
resulted in a deficit in the balance of trade.
  Advanced technology products represent a rare consistent source of 
earnings for the United States. During the last decade alone, the 
surplus in global sales was $278 billion. But during the same period, 
U.S. trade deficits with China totaled $342 billion. It is worsening 
every year.
  That has occurred in spite of the numerous agreements with China to 
end the obligatory transfer of technology from U.S. companies to their 
Chinese counterparts to protect intellectual property and to ensure 
regulatory transparency and the rule of law. Failure to implement these 
agreements goes a long way in explaining why the total U.S. deficit 
with China has doubled from $338 billion in 1995, to $68.7 billion by 
the end of 1999.
  The United States also lost its technological trade surplus with 
China in 1995 and has suffered deficits in this area every year since 
then.
  Last year, U.S. technology exports to China failed by 17 percent 
while the imports soared by 34 percent. The record $3.2 billion 
technology trade deficit in 1999 may reach $5 billion. This year, 
technology imports now cost twice as much as the falling U.S. exports.
  Quite simply, China is developing its own export-driven, high-tech 
industry, and with U.S. assistance.
  A recent Department of Commerce study found that transferring 
important technology and next generation scientific research to Chinese 
companies is required for any access to the Chinese cheap labor force 
or its market.
  Three of the most critical technology areas are computers, 
telecommunications, and aerospace. The United States lost its surplus 
in computers and components to China in 1990, and now pays seven times 
as much for imports as it earns from exports.
  Compaq: Another foreign computer company that once dominated the 
Chinese market a decade ago has now been displaced by a local company.
  After 20 years of normal trade relations with China, no mobile 
telephones are exported from the United States to China. Indeed, the 
United States trade with China in mobile phones involves only the 
payment for rapidly rising imports that now cost $100 million a year. 
China has total control of its telephone networks. It recently 
abrogated a big contract with Qualcom, Motorola, Ericsson, and Nokia 
and sold 85 percent of China's mobile phone handsets until recently. 
Last November, China's Ministry of Information imposed import and 
production quotas on mobile phones, producers, and substantial support 
for nine Chinese companies.
  Now, this agreement doesn't disturb those quotas. It does not open up 
that market. The People's Republic of China expects the nine companies 
to raise their market share from the current 5 percent to 50 percent 
within 5 years.
  The United States now has a large and rapidly growing deficit with 
China in advanced radar and navigational devices. Nearly half of all 
U.S. technology exports to China during the 1980s were Boeing aircraft 
and 59 percent were in aerospace. But according to the SEC filings, 
Boeing's gross sales to and in China have generally fallen since 1993.
  Incidentally, that is easy to report. It is being reported by Boeing 
and we just asked all of the companies to do what Boeing is doing.
  Boeing MD 90-30 was certified by the U.S. Federal Aviation 
Administration last November with Chinese companies providing 70 
percent of local contents.
  That is a Chinese airline, and they wonder why the Boeing workers led 
the strike in Seattle last December.
  More troubling, with the help of Boeing, Airbus, and others, China 
has developed its own increasingly competitive civilian and military 
aerospace production within 10 massive state-owned conglomerates.
  China is a valuable U.S. partner in many matters, but it is also a 
significant competitor. Experiences in the United States with deficits 
worsening after tariff cuts and other agreements show this is not the 
time to abandon strong U.S. trade laws, but rather to begin to apply 
them fairly and firmly, since 42 percent of China's worldwide exports 
go to the United States.
  The Chinese know how to compete. In 1990, we passed in the United 
Nations General Assembly a resolution to have hearings with respect to 
human rights in the People's Republic of China. I will never forget, 
they fanned out over the Pacific down into Australia, Africa, India and 
everywhere else, and of course they are very competitive. What do they 
do? The Chinese focus their diplomatic efforts on separating West 
European governments from the United States by offering them token 
political concessions and hinting they would retaliate economically 
against any country that supported the resolution in Geneva.
  A vote after 7 years, each year, and the 7th year it was turned down 
again by a vote of 27-17. They know how to use their valuable, mammoth 
1.3 billion population market. But we, with the richest market in the 
world, don't want to use it. Be fair, we whine; we continue to be fair 
and whine.
  Now, with that $68 to $70 billion deficit in the balance of trade, 
that is their 8-percent growth. We could say we are just not going to 
continue this one-sided deal and we are not going to continue to import 
their articles. We will just stop them as they have stopped us, and 
with the growth they have to have, they will come to the table and talk 
turkey. There is no chance in the world with these children here who 
are in charge of our trade policy. They keep going up there to talk and 
talk.
  Again, Ambassador Barshefsky testified at the hearings: ``The rules 
put an absolute end to forced technology transfers.'' That was after 
the WTO agreement with the People's Republic of China. ``The rules put 
an absolute end to forced technology transfers''--but fast forward a 
few months. This is what they had in the Wall Street Journal, from 
Wednesday, June 7 of this year: ``Qualcom Learns from its Mistakes in 
China, U.S. Mobile Phone Maker Listens to Beijing's Call for Local 
Production.''
  They report that after losing a lucrative deal to supply off-the-
shelf cellular phones to China, Qualcom is mapping a new strategy to 
sell next-generation products in the world's fastest growing mobile 
phone market.
  In other words, to send over their technology.
  They talk about these agreements, but as John Mitchell, the former 
Attorney General said: Watch what we do, not what we say.
  Look at what they actually do and it is a disaster.
  Mr. President, I have a few pages of the deficits and balance of 
advanced technology trade with the People's Republic of China. I ask 
unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 18097]]



                                 US ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY TRADE LOSSES WITH CHINA
               [Even In Advance Technology Products: The US Now Imports 65% More Than It Exports]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   HS Code              (1999: Dollars)                 US Export            US Import           1999 Balance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS*            $5,007,198,994       $8,216,991,682     ($3,209,792,688)
              TOTALS
  8473305000 PTS & ACCESSORIES OF MACH OF                          0        1,540,659,071      (1,540,659,071)
              HEADING OF 8471, NESOI
  8473301000 PRTS OF ADP MCH, NOT INCRPRTNG                        0        1,235,882,818      (1,235,882,818)
              CRT, PRT CRCT ASSEM.
  8519990045 OPTICAL DISC (INCLUDING COMPACT                       0          567,322,116        (567,322,116)
              DISC) PLAYERS
  8471704065 HARD DISK DRIVE UNT, NESOI, W/OUT            29,987,116          391,325,747        (361,338,631)
              EXTNL POWR SUPLY
  8525408020 CAMCORDERS, 8MM                                  58,716          176,379,994        (176,321,278)
  8471704035 FLOPPY DISK DRIVE UNT, NESOI, W/    ...................  ...................  ...................
              OUT EXTRNL POW SPY
  8525209070 CELLULAR RADIOTELEPHONES FOR PCRS,  ...................  ...................  ...................
              1 KG AND UNDER
  8521900000 VIDEO RECORDING OR REPRODUCING      ...................  ...................  ...................
              APPARATUS EXC TAPE
  2844200020 URANIUM FLUORIDE ENRICHED IN U235   ...................  ...................  ...................
  8541100080 SEMICONDUCTOR DIODES NOT            ...................  ...................  ...................
              PHOTOSENSITIVE >0.5 A
  8517210000 FACSIMILE MACHINES                  ...................  ...................  ...................
  8525404000 DIGITAL STILL IMAGE VIDEO CAMERAS   ...................  ...................  ...................
  8525408085 STILL IMAGE VIDEO CAMERA, VDEO      ...................  ...................  ...................
              CAMERA RECORDR, NESOI
  8542400095 HYBRID INTEGRATED CIRCUITS, NESOI   ...................  ...................  ...................
  8525309060 TELEVISION CAMERAS, EXCEPT COLOR    ...................  ...................  ...................
  8411124000 TURBOJET AIRCRAFT ENGINES, THRUST   ...................  ...................  ...................
              EXCEEDING 25 KN
             REC TV, COLOR, FLAT PANEL SCREEN,   ...................  ...................  ...................
              NESOI, DIS N/O 34.29
             REC TV, COLOR, FLAT PANEL SCREEN,   ...................  ...................  ...................
              NESOI, DIS N/O 33.02
             PHOTOSENSITIVE DIODES               ...................  ...................  ...................
             SEMICONDUCTOR DIODES NOT            ...................  ...................  ...................
              PHOTOSENSIVE=<0.5 A
  8411224000 TURBOPROPELLER AIRCRAFT ENGINES,    ...................  ...................  ...................
              POWER EXC 1100 KW
  8525408050 CAMCORDERS (OTHER THAN 8 MM),       ...................  ...................  ...................
              NESOI
  8542198001 CHIPS & WAFERS ON SILICON, DGTL     ...................  ...................  ...................
              MNLTHC IC, BIMOS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whose time is used under the quorum?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the fact of the matter is, I know the 
managers of the bill have very important business to engage them, but 
what we are seeing here is really not just an insult to the issue at 
hand and this particular Senator, but what we are seeing is an insult 
to the Senate as the most deliberative body in the world. What they do, 
with respect, rather than engaging in debate, is go into the morning 
hour and talk about prescription medicine and Wen Ho Lee or anybody 
else they want to talk about--anything except trade. They know they 
have the vote fixed.
  We have had the requirement, under the Pastore rule, that you address 
your comments to the subject at hand. I never have wanted to call that 
rule on the colleagues, but I will be forced to if we are going to come 
back and just have morning hours.
  I was in a caucus earlier here at lunch. People are trying to get out 
of town tomorrow. I am trying to cooperate with respect to having early 
votes. I am willing to yield back the remainder of my time on this one. 
If I can hear any disputed evidence or testimony from the other side, I 
will be glad, then, to debate it. But if that is what they want to do, 
I will move on to the next amendment. I hope they get the message so we 
get somebody to the floor and move the amendments just as expeditiously 
as we can.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and charge the other side because 
they don't care. I mean they are not even using the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Hollings' 
amendment. This amendment would authorize the President to initiate 
negotiations with the Chinese to eliminate the trade deficit in 
advanced technological products if the balance of trade does not shift 
to surplus in these products. To be frank, I am not sure why this 
amendment is being offered to the China PNTR legislation.
  After all, by passing PNTR, we will increase our access dramatically 
to the Chinese market once that country enters the WTO. The commitments 
that China has made as a part of its WTO accession negotiations with 
regard to high technology products are truly significant. For example, 
China has committed to eliminate quotas on information technology 
products at the date of its accession to the WTO and to eliminate 
tariffs for these products by January 1, 2005. Moreover, China has 
agreed to open its telecommunications and internet to United States 
investments and services.
  In addition, U.S. high technology firms will gain the right to import 
into China, and to engage in distribution services, including 
wholesaling, retailing, transporting, and repairing. This will allow 
our businesses to export to China from here at home, and to have their 
own distribution networks in China. Without these commitments, U.S. 
companies would be forced to set up factories there to sell products 
through Chinese partners.
  There is nothing about the grant of PNTR that will alter China's 
access to our market. To the contrary, China has specifically agreed to 
allow us to put in special safeguard mechanisms aimed at addressing 
disruptive market surges from China. We will also be maintaining 
special methodologies under our unfair trade laws that will help 
domestic industries in antidumping cases.
  Ironically, this amendment is not aimed at eliminating any trade 
barriers or unfair trade practices. It simply dictates that if the 
balance of trade in certain products is not in surplus, then the 
President has to use his authority to work with the Chinese to 
intervene in the market to achieve a certain outcome. I'm not sure how 
my colleague from South Carolina would envision this happening. Would 
the Chinese government begin to void contracts that were freely entered 
into by U.S. importers, until the balance of trade moves into surplus? 
Would our government have to do this? I don't know what the answer is 
to that question and, frankly, I would hope that we never have to find 
out.
  As my colleagues well know, I have opposed all amendments that have 
been offered to PNTR. I have done so because of my concern about how 
amendments would affect the chances of passage of this legislation. I 
want to repeat my concerns now. A vote for this amendment will do 
nothing to increase opportunities for our workers and farmers. Indeed, 
it will have the opposite effect. As such, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand from the other side, now I 
can yield back our time; they would yield their time, and move to the 
next amendment.
  That being the case, I yield back my time and I understand the other 
side yields back its time.

[[Page 18098]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.


                           Amendment No. 4135

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4135. Mr. 
President, the other eye opener in international trade is the matter of 
agriculture. I have always had a strong agricultural interest, support, 
in my years in public office. I willingly support price supports and 
quotas on agricultural products. America's agriculture is allegedly the 
finest in the world. We produce enough to feed ourselves and 15 other 
countries. But we only have 3.5 million farmers and there are 800 
million farmers in the People's Republic of China. They are not only 
now producing to the extent where they have a glut--mind you me, I said 
that advisedly--a glut in agriculture, they will continue to expand 
upon their agricultural production once they solve the transportation 
and distribution problem, and start feeding the entire world.
  It is very difficult to understand how any of my farm friends here--
who are always calling us protectionists when we have never asked for 
any kind of subsidies or protection whatsoever--but if people lose 
their jobs, 38,700 who have lost their textile jobs, they are supposed 
to be retrained, you know, and get ready for high tech and the global 
economy. They are supposed to understand it.
  Agriculturally, if a few thousand farms lose out here with the bad 
weather, be it a storm or be it a drought, we immediately appropriate 
the money to take care of it. I will never forget this so-called 
Freedom to Farm measure that was put in here 3 years ago. Each year, 
now, we have gone up and increased--rather than the freedom, the 
subsidies: Some $7 to $8 billion.
  In contrast now, with the People's Republic of China, we have a 
deficit in a lot of items. The total agricultural trade balance is $218 
million for the year 1999.

       Fish and crustaceans, $266 million; dairy products, $14 
     million--$266 million.
       Dairy produce; Birds' Eggs, Honey; Edible--$14.8 million.

  This is how they list it and that is why I read it this way.

       Products Of Animal Origin, Nesoi--$93.7 million.
       Live Trees And Other Plants; Bulbs, Roots--$3.7 million;
       Edible Vegetables And Certain Roots, Tubers--$55.8 million;
       Edible Fruit And Nuts; Peel Of Citrus Fruit--$30.6 million;
       Coffee, Tea, Mate And Spices--a deficit of $43.1 million;
       Lac; Gums; Resins And Other Vegetable Saps--$44.9 million;
       Edible Preparations Of Meat, Fish, Crustaceans--$69.9 
     million;
       Sugars And Sugar Confectionary--$7.8 million;
       Cocoa And Cocoa Preparations--$15.2 million;
       Preparations of Cereals, Flour, Starch Or Milk--$23.1 
     million;
       Miscellaneous Edible Preparations--$17.1 million.

  Listen to this one: Cotton.
  Here I am struggling in South Carolina, the South, cotton--I am 
importing cotton from the People's Republic of China. I have a $12.3 
million surplus in cotton, not carded but combed.
  It would be unfair to talk, with this particular amendment, about the 
deficit and all of these things because we already have a deficit. We 
do have a plus balance of trade in wheat, corn, and rice. It is listed 
under cereals, is the way they list it at the Department of 
Agriculture. We have a plus balance of trade in wheat, corn, and rice, 
and a plus balance of trade in soybeans.
  That is why I made this amendment to read ``wheat, corn, rice, and 
soybeans.'' I wanted to start off, as in soybeans, I have a plus 
balance of trade of $288.1 million. So we are happy.
  We have a plus balance of trade of wheat, corn, and rice of $39.6 
million.
  I am looking at that particular category and whereby 4 years ago we 
had a plus balance of $440.7 million, it is down to $39.6 million. It 
promises maybe next year to go to a deficit.
  I have all the farm boys saying: Wait a minute, wait a minute, we 
have to export. We have to export agriculture, export agriculture. We 
are not exporting agriculture, on balance, to the Peoples' Republic of 
China. We have a deficit. We are importing it now. If this continues, 
we will definitely have a deficit, in the sense--let me tell you what 
this agreement calls for. We are trying to really improve the 
competitor. These are the kind of agreements we make when we send 
Barshefsky and that crowd abroad.
  I read:

       China and the United States agree to actively promote 
     comprehensive cooperation in agriculture, in the field of 
     high technology, and encourage research institutes and 
     agricultural enterprises to collaborate in high-tech research 
     and development.

  Do not for a minute think the Chinese are not coming. They are going 
to come for those high-tech items, go to our agricultural colleges, go 
to our experimental development stations, and they are going to 
collaborate on all the high-tech research and development. Mostly, they 
will be taking; they are not giving any.
  Reading further:

       China and the United States agree enterprises should be 
     urged to make investment in each country to produce and do 
     business in high-tech agricultural products.

  They will have to make investments in that country to produce and do 
business in high-tech agricultural products. They agree with the 
content provision in agriculture, and yet my colleagues say: Whoopee, 
this is a wonderful agreement.
  I think I will be around here long enough for these farmers to go out 
of business. Watch them. That wheat, as I said, is going from 440 
million in a 4-year period down to just 40 million bushels.
  Reading further:

       Review and technical assistance--the United States will 
     review its technical assistance programs in China to consider 
     ways to increase the efficacy of these programs. The United 
     States will create special educational symposiums specific to 
     China's needs in cooperation with the U.S. land grant 
     universities for Chinese officials and producers.

  Ambassador Barshefsky is a wonderful negotiator for the Chinese. She 
is agreeing to have special symposiums when we already have a deficit 
in agricultural trade. We have to set up a symposium to increase the 
deficit.
  Continuing:

       The United States will provide opportunities for young 
     Chinese leaders to visit the U.S. farms, ranches, and 
     universities to study management systems and production 
     technologies.
       The United States will arrange opportunities for the 
     Chinese officials and business leaders to study U.S. 
     marketing and distribution of agricultural products in China 
     and the United States.
       As a means to implement the principle of technological 
     cooperation and exchange, China and the United States will 
     implement specific projects listed below.
       The U.S. livestock industry will provide free registration 
     and enrollment for select Chinese officials, and Cattlemen 
     College classes during the NCBA convention and summer 
     conferences.
       The U.S. livestock industry will provide free registration 
     and enrollment for select Chinese officials and producers at 
     the world pork symposium; strengthening cooperation and 
     conservation of genetic resources for livestock, poultry, and 
     forage grass; strengthening cooperation in selection and 
     utilization of new breeds and varieties; technical assistance 
     on quick testing, monitoring, and management of major animal 
     diseases; technical assistance on environmentally sound 
     production practices; waste disposal techniques.
       The United States will provide technical assistance in 
     water conservation and management for China to further its 
     work in identifying and conserving key water resources.

  It goes on and on. This is an agreement to put ourselves out of 
business. They come to the floor and say: Oh, we have so much more 
fertile, arable land than they have, so many millions of acres. They 
have more land under irrigation than the United States. It is an offset 
now, but they will be getting more irrigation, in addition to the 
advanced productivity we already have. But we politicians in Congress 
say: You don't understand; global competition, globalization; you are 
just resisting globalization; that is yesteryear's politician; you have 
to modernize; we are for change; we are global.
  We are globally going out of business. That is why I have this 
amendment. That is, if this exceeds $5 billion in those four 
categories, it is only $3.5 billion now, but if we start losing on 
wheat, corn, and soybeans, we are goners in agriculture.

[[Page 18099]]

  This amendment provides that if this occurs and this was 
misrepresented to us--the Senate is charged under the Constitution, 
article I, section 8, to regulate foreign commerce--if we were misled, 
we can say: Please renegotiate and see how we can right this situation.
  We do not have this in advanced technology. We do not have this in 
electronics and manufactured products. We do not have a plus balance of 
trade in agricultural products. But the little bit we have left, my 
farmers realize if you are voting against this amendment, you vote 
against America's most productive farmer.
  We are agreeing to make the Chinese more productive. If you think an 
American farmer can outwork a Chinese farmer, you are whistling 
``Dixie.'' They are the hardest working people in the world. They are 
like us in the South. We are still hungry. That is why the BMW plants 
not only produce more but they produce better quality. That is why we 
are doubling the size of the BMW plant from Munich, Germany, and we 
will continue to compete.
  Generally speaking, the rest of the country, up in your neck of the 
woods, I say to the Presiding Officer, they have gotten spoiled.
  We started the globalization in Rhode Island. We started 50 years ago 
trying to move every industry that was in Rhode Island because you had 
them and we did not have them. We moved them down to South Carolina. 
Now they have been moved from South Carolina to Malaysia, Mexico, and 
now to China under this particular agreement. That is what is really 
happening. We know how to get the industry, and we know how to lose the 
industry. We have experienced it. We are talking from a brute measure 
of experience. This ought to be understood in the Senate.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Hollings' 
amendment.
  As my colleagues well know, I have opposed all amendments because of 
the impact that they could have on passage of PNTR. I want to restate 
that concern now. Any amendment that is adopted could doom PNTR and end 
our ability to gain access to the Chinese market once that country 
joins the WTO.
  Let's not forget, we are not voting on whether China will enter the 
WTO. China will get in, regardless of what occurs in the Senate with 
regard to this legislation. What we are voting on is whether we will 
give our workers and farmers the same access to the Chinese market as 
every other WTO member will get once China accedes. The decision before 
us is that stark and that simple.
  That is why I support PNTR so strongly, and that is why I have 
opposed all amendments, including some that I thought had great merit.
  That is also why virtually every major agricultural organization has 
supported PNTR and supported my opposition to all amendments.
  Mr. President, I have with me today a letter that I would like to 
enter into the Record from over 65 agricultural organizations. I ask 
unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                               September 12, 2000.
     The Honorable
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: It is critical to American agriculture that 
     H.R. 4444, the China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) 
     legislation, moves forward without amendment. Any amendments 
     would require another vote in the House of Representatives 
     and send China and our competitors the message that the 
     United States is not serious about opening the Chinese market 
     to U.S. products.
       The Thompson amendment would require the President to 
     implement sanctions under various circumstances. Unilateral 
     sanctions have the effect of giving U.S. markets to our 
     competitors. While there are efforts to exempt food, medicine 
     and agriculture from the existing language, American 
     agricultural producers, regardless of exemptions, would be 
     put at risk. If the United States sanctions or even threatens 
     sanctions for any products, agriculture is often first on the 
     other country's retaliation list.
       Additionally, further consideration of the China 
     Nonproliferation bill should not delay action on a vote for 
     PNTR. The U.S. agriculture industry continues to face 
     depressed prices. Agricultural producers and food 
     manufacturers should not face burdens erected by their own 
     government such as unilateral sanctions or failure to pass 
     PNTR.
       We urgently request your help in achieving a positive vote 
     on PNTR without amendment.
       Thank you for your help and we look forward to working with 
     you on these important issues.
           Sincerely,
       AgriBank, Agricultural Retailers Association, Alabama 
     Farmers Association, American Crop Protection Association, 
     American Farm Bureau Federation, American Feed Industry 
     Association, American Meat Institute, American Seed Trade 
     Association, American Soybean Association, American Health 
     Institute, Archer Daniels Midland Company, Biotechnology 
     Industry Organization, Bunge Corporation, Cargill, Inc. Cenex 
     Harvest States, Central Soya Company, Inc., Cerestar USA, CF 
     Industries, Inc., Chocolate Manufacturers Association, and 
     CoBank.
       Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, DuPont, 
     Farmland Industries, Inc., Grocery Manufacturers of America, 
     IMC Global Inc., Independent Community Bankers of America, 
     International Dairy Foods Association, Land O'Lakes, Louis 
     Dreyfus Corporation, National Association of State 
     Departments of Agriculture, National Association of Wheat 
     Growers, National Barley Growers Association, National 
     Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Chicken Council, 
     National Confectioners Association, National Corn Growers 
     Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, 
     National Food Processors Association, National Grain and Feed 
     Association, and National Grange.
       National Milk Producers Federation, National Oilseed 
     Processors Association, National Pork Producers Council, 
     National Potato Council, National Renderers Association, 
     National Sunflower Association, North American Export Grain 
     Association, North American Millers' Association, Pet Food 
     Institute, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Rice Millers' 
     Association, Snack Food Association, Sunkist Growers, The 
     Fertilizer Institute, United Egg Association, United Egg 
     Producers, USA Poultry and Egg Export Council, U.S. Canola 
     Association, U.S. Dairy Export Federation, U.S. Rice 
     Producers Association, U.S. Rice Producers' Group, U.S. Wheat 
     Associates, Wheat Export Trade Education Committee, and 
     Zeeland Farm Soya.

  Mr. ROTH. Just let me point out, these organizations know, as I do, 
that passage of PNTR is vital. It is vital to our farmers and our 
agriculture sector. These include the National Chicken Council and the 
USA Poultry and Egg Export Council, both of which represent farmers 
from my home State of Delaware.
  But it also includes national organizations and companies such as the 
American Farm Bureau Federation, National Grange, Cargill, Farmland 
Industries, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and many others.
  Importantly, this list also includes groups that this amendment is 
ostensibly intended to help, including the National Corn Growers 
Association, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the American 
Soybean Association, the U.S. Rice Producers Group, the U.S. Wheat 
Associate, and the Wheat Export Trade Education Commission.
  This is a long list, but it is worth emphasizing for all my 
colleagues to realize how much is at stake and how much will be lost if 
this or any other amendment were to be adopted.
  After all, China is already our eighth largest market for 
agricultural exports. In fiscal year 1999, U.S. farm exports to China 
were about $1 billion, with an addition $1.3 billion of exports going 
to Hong Kong.
  While China is already a huge agricultural export market, the 
potential for the future is even greater with WTO accession. China has 
agreed to slash tariffs for virtually every agricultural product, and 
to establish very high tariff rate quotas for key products, including 
those covered by my colleague's amendment.
  As importantly, China has agreed to abide by the terms of the WTO SPS 
Agreement, which requires that animal, plant, and human health import

[[Page 18100]]

requirements be based on science and risk assessment.
  It would be particularly ironic if PNTR were to fail because of the 
amendment before us now. This amendment, at best, is unnecessary. After 
all, the President is authorized to negotiate with any country about 
any issue at any time.
  Such negotiations would be entirely appropriate and necessary if 
there were concerns about market access or unfair trade practices that 
needed to be addressed. But this amendment would urge the President to 
work with the Chinese to intervene in the agriculture market to achieve 
a certain balance of trade.
  It is because we have rejected these types of statist economic 
policies that our economy is as strong as it is today. Going back down 
the road of having the Government meddle unnecessarily in the market is 
simply not the answer.
  In the end this amendment would do nothing to enhance our access to 
the Chinese market for our farmers. It would, in fact, threaten the 
potential gains that will become available to us with the passage of 
PNTR.
  That is why I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote 
against it. There is too much at stake to do otherwise.
  Mr. President, I am ready to yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am ready, if I may, to just respond, 
if you don't mind, for a couple minutes.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen and a half minutes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will not take that long.
  My distinguished colleague, the chairman of our Finance Committee is 
really is one of our outstanding Members. I have every respect for his 
leadership--but on this particular score, he talks about the great 
market we have and that this amendment would require the President to 
intervene to obtain a certain balance of trade. Not at all. What I am 
trying to do is avoid a deficit in the balance.
  As they say, they are a great market. As long as the soybean 
association is right, as long as the wheat association is right, and 
the other 63-some-odd associations are right, you will never hear any 
more about this amendment. It will be dead on the books because nothing 
will have to be triggered. I am taking their word for it.
  I know otherwise. I have been in the agricultural business. When you 
mention the American Farm Bureau, I almost have to laugh. They have to 
do with everything but with farming. It is an insurance company. They 
have many times come out against the interests of the farmer.
  I have taken an agriculture case, on the dairy score, all the way to 
the Supreme Court. I learned that my dairy farmers put their milk out 
on the stoop, that on the first of the month it is picked up, and they 
don't learn for 30 days--or sometimes 2 months--whether that is going 
to be classed grade A, class I grade A, or whether it is going to be 
class III grade C. There is a tremendous difference in price. It is up 
to the processor to determine whether it is going to go into processing 
ice cream, cottage cheese, or whether it is going to be pasteurized and 
put on the stoop as class I grade A.
  So the poor farmer keeps his mouth shut because he has to get along. 
In short, the farmer is in the hands of the processor and the 
distributor in most instances. That is why you have these organizations 
and Archer-Daniels-Midland, Cargill, everybody else. They can run 
around and easily get these resolutions.
  But the hard, cold fact is, I am here for the wheat farmer, for the 
soybean farmer, for the corn farmer. All I am saying is, you are 
telling me I am going to be able to expand this wonderful market. Well, 
I am looking, and seeing it has contracted, and overall we have a 
deficit right now.
  I know 3\1/2\ million cannot outproduce 800 million. I know I am 
obligated under the agreement to bring the 800 million up to snuff with 
the 3\1/2\ million. So I am saying: Wait a minute here. Let's not go 
pell-mell down the road and ruin the one great thing we have, and that 
is America's agriculture. You ruined the manufacturing. Now you want to 
ruin its agriculture. So that is why my amendment is here.
  Oh, yes, there is one other point. China will gain access to the WTO. 
The distinguished Senator and I agree on that. But he thinks that, ipso 
facto, it opens the market. Japan, for 5 years has been a member of the 
WTO. Try to get some of these things into Japan.
  For those who are solely unknowing, for those who have not studied 
the case, if you think being a member of the WTO opens markets, you are 
wrong. Japan is the best example, and China is going the same way. 
Since they have signed this agreement, and since Ambassador Barshefsky 
said we did not have to have any more technology transfers in order to 
do business, Qualcom and many others have learned otherwise since that 
testimony before the Finance Committee.


                           Amendment No. 4137

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time on 
amendment No. 4135, and I call up amendment No. 4137 on the Export-
Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this is the dilemma we are in. We not 
only don't know what we are doing, we are causing great damage to the 
workers in America. We are all running around America saying: I am 
fighting for working families. Well, we are eliminating working 
families here on the floor of the Congress.
  Over the past 6 years, Congress appropriated $5 billion to run the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States. It subsidizes companies that 
sell goods abroad. James A. Harmon, President and Chairman put it this 
way:

       American workers have higher quality, better paying jobs, 
     thanks to the Eximbank's financing.

  But the numbers at the bank's five biggest beneficiaries--AT&T, 
Bechtel, Boeing, General Electric, and McDonnell Douglas, which is now 
a part of Boeing--tell another story. At these companies, which have 
accounted for about 40 percent of all loans, grants, and long-term 
guarantees in this decade, overall employment has fallen 38 percent. 
Almost 800,000 jobs have disappeared. We are taxing the American public 
to pay for the elimination of these fine jobs.
  What does my amendment say: It says, notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, in addition to the requirements--and there are all 
kinds of requirements at Exim and OPIC--neither the Export-Import Bank 
or the Overseas Private Investment Corporation can provide risk 
insurance after December 31 of this year unless the applicant certifies 
that it has one, not transferred advanced technology to the People's 
Republic of China or, two, has not moved any production facilities 
until after January 1, 2001, from the United States to the People's 
Republic.
  I want to cut out the ``P'' from PNTR. I can see the lack of 
knowledge and certainly maybe sometimes the disregard, but to actually 
come in here and raise taxes to finance the Eximbank and OPIC to, in 
turn, finance the export of these jobs or the elimination of over 
800,000 jobs, we have lost over a million manufacturing jobs in the 
last decade. There is no question about it. We are just going out of 
manufacturing entirely. We are going into making hamburgers and 
handling the laundry, and there are a few software folks buying the 
stock, making themselves some money, but even the software employee is 
part time. The construction worker today now has been put off as an 
independent contractor. He is not under health care. The department 
store workers are also either independent contractors or part time 
workers. We have taken and decimated the workforce. And they are 
wondering why there is malaise or anxiety.
  Here is the President back in May:

       Clinton asked rhetorically: ``So why are we having this 
     debate, because people are anxiety ridden about the forces of 
     globalization.''

  They tell us we just don't understand the forces of globalization.

[[Page 18101]]

  After that one, I have a cover article, I ask unanimous consent to 
print this article. It is very interesting, ``The Backlash Behind the 
Anxiety of Over Globalization,'' in Business Week, dated April 24.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From Business Week, Apr. 24, 2000]

           Backlash: Behind the Anxiety of Over Globalization

                          (By Aaron Bernstein)

       Ask David K. Hayes about the impact of globalization on his 
     life and you'll hear the story of a painful roller-coaster 
     ride. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. factory in Gadsden, 
     Ala., where he has worked for 24 years, decided to shift most 
     of its tiremaking to low-wage Mexico and Brazil early last 
     year. The plant slashed its workforce from 1,850 to 628. The 
     44-year-old father of two was lucky and landed a job paying 
     the same $36,000 salary at another Goodyear plant 300 miles 
     away. Hayes's wife didn't want to quit her $30,000-a-year 
     nursing job, so Hayes rented a small apartment in Union City, 
     Tenn., seeing his family on weekends. Then in October, 
     Goodyear reversed course and rehired nearly 700 people in 
     Gadsden, including Hayes. It's good to be home, he says, but 
     he is constantly fearful that the company will switch again. 
     ``It has been nerve-wracking,'' he says. ``We try to be 
     cautious on spending, because I don't know if I'll have a job 
     in six months.''
       Such stories of anxiety are part of what's fueling a second 
     wave of protests against globalization that kicked off in 
     Washington, D.C., on Apr. 9. Echoing the demonstrations that 
     erupted late last year at the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
     meeting in Seattle, the AFL-CIO brought some 15,000 members 
     to Capitol Hill on Apr. 12 to lobby against granting Normal 
     Trade Relations Status to China. Environmental and human-
     rights protesters planned to disrupt meetings of the World 
     Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) four days 
     later.
       The outpouring once again raises the question: Why are so 
     many people so angry about globalization--a term that has 
     come to encompass everything from expanded trade and 
     factories shifting work around the world to the international 
     bodies that set the rules for the global economy? Political 
     and business leaders across the spectrum were caught off 
     guard by the strong feelings expressed in Seattle last fall. 
     Although they're better prepared this time, they remain 
     perplexed.
       After all, the U.S. economy is in the midst of a heady boom 
     that's being fueled in no small part by globalization. Open 
     borders have allowed new ideas and technology to flow freely 
     around the globe, fueling productivity growth and helping 
     U.S. companies to become more competitive than they have been 
     in decades. Expanded trade has helped to keep a tight lid on 
     U.S. consumer prices, too. As a result, many U.S. families 
     are doing better than ever. What's more, polls have shown for 
     years that a solid majority of Americans believe that open 
     borders and free trade are good for the economy.
       So it the hostility aired in Seattle and now in Washington 
     just the raving of fringe groups? Or does it express a more 
     widespread anxiety that decision-makers have ignored until 
     now? Fringe groups do play a role, but there is mounting 
     evidence for the second conclusion, as well. The protesters 
     have tapped into growing fears that U.S. policies benefit big 
     companies instead of average citizens--of America or any 
     other country. Environmentalists argue that elitist trade and 
     economic bodies make undemocratic decisions that undermine 
     national sovereignty on environmental regulation. Unions 
     charge that unfettered trade allows unfair competition from 
     countries that lack labor standards. Human rights and student 
     groups say the IMF and the World Bank prop up regimes that 
     condone sweatshops and pursue policies that bail out foreign 
     leaders at the expense of local economies. ``Are you allowed 
     to make your own rules, or is someone else going to do it? 
     Those are fighting words to a lot of people,'' says Robert C. 
     Feenstra, a trade economist at the University of California 
     at Davis. DIVIDED. A BUSINESS WEEK/Harris poll released on 
     Apr. 12 finds that while Americans agree in principle that 
     globalization is good, they disagree with policies for 
     carrying it out. Just 10% describe themselves as free 
     traders, while 51% say they are fair traders. Some 75% to 80% 
     say their priorities are to prevent unfair competition, 
     environmental damage, and job loss. The goals of the Clinton 
     and prior Administrations, including boosting exports and 
     keeping consumer prices low, rank lower (page 44).
       At the same time, 68% of Americans believe globalization 
     drags down U.S. wages. Respondents split fairly evenly on 
     whether global integration is good for creating jobs and the 
     environment. The result: a gnawing sense of unfairness and 
     frustration that could boil over in the future. ``A strong 
     majority [of the U.S. public] feels that trade policies 
     haven't adequately addressed the concerns of American 
     workers, international labor standards, or the environment,'' 
     says Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland's 
     Center on Policy Attitudes, which on Mar. 28 released an 
     extensive poll entitled ``Americans on Globalization.''
       Americans' divided views have broad implications for U.S. 
     policies and companies. Ever since the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement (NAFTA) squeaked through Congress in 1993, 
     its opponents have blocked most major trade initiatives, 
     including President Clinton's request for fast-track 
     authority to negotiate new trade pacts. Now protesters hope 
     to thwart the Administration's pledge to extend Normal Trade 
     Relations to China as part of its entry into the WTO. Some 
     79% of Americans don't want to give China normal trading 
     privileges, according to the BUSINESS WEEK/Harris poll. After 
     the Apr. 12 rally, the AFL-CIO plans to mount a grass-roots 
     effort to defeat the measure when Congress takes it up in 
     late May.
       And there's more to come. College students around the 
     country are holding weekly sit-ins to pressure companies to 
     agree to sweatshop monitoring, and they're scoring surprising 
     victories with Reebok, Nike, and other apparel makers. Unions 
     plan to keep pressing for labor standards that can be 
     incorporated into the world trading system--a battle that 
     could drag on for years. Meanwhile, the Washington 
     demonstrations are likely to spur reform at the World Bank 
     and the IMF (page 46). Of course, global integration is a 
     juggernaut that's not easily stopped, but all the political 
     turbulence could make the free-trade agenda more difficult to 
     achieve.
       Finding common ground among competing constituents will be 
     a nightmare for policymakers and politicians. While it may be 
     possible to redesign procedures at the lending agencies, for 
     example, it's far more complex and controversial to set labor 
     and other standards worldwide. Already, China's WTO entry has 
     become a flash point for Vice-President Al Gore, who's 
     depending heavily on union support in his Presidential quest. 
     Somehow, the Administration must balance all this while 
     maintaining friendly relations with trading partners around 
     the globe. The task is all the more difficult because to some 
     degree, helping U.S. workers could hurt those in low-wage 
     countries, since shifting U.S. factories and technology 
     abroad helps to lift living standards there.
       It's a paradox that while globalization brings big gains at 
     the macroeconomic level, those pluses are often eclipsed in 
     the public eye by all the personal stories of pain felt by 
     the losers. But that pain remains mostly hidden, as 
     economists and politicians emphasize the upside while 
     downplaying or omitting altogether the drawbacks (table). The 
     Economic Report of the President, for example, released in 
     February, barely mentions trade-related job losses, yet 
     Commerce Dept. statistics imply that something like 1 million 
     workers lose their jobs every year as a result of imports or 
     job shifts abroad. THREATS. Indeed, there are millions like 
     David Hayes who live in fear of a layoff and whose families 
     share the emotional and financial disruption. Even in today's 
     red-hot job market, workers who lose a job earn 6% less on 
     average in the new one they land. Others face pressure to 
     take skimpy raises or pay cuts from employers that threaten 
     to move offshore.
       Even service and white-collar workers are no longer exempt. 
     True, many professionals are hitting it big on the Internet 
     and thriving in export-oriented companies. But as global 
     integration advances, engineers, software writers, and other 
     white-collar employees are seeing jobs migrate overseas. 
     ``Workers used to feel safe when the economy was doing well, 
     but today they always feel they can be laid off, and 
     globalization is part and parcel of that,'' says Allan I. 
     Mendelowitz, executive director of the U.S. Trade Deficit 
     Review Commission, set up by Congress in 1998.
       The point isn't that globalization creates more losers than 
     winners. After all, free trade is a net gain for the country. 
     What worries many is that the U.S. does little to help those 
     who lose out. ``You want to make sure that the benefits of 
     trade are fairly shared,'' says William R. Cline, a trade 
     expert at the Institute of International Finance Inc.
       Of course, with jobs plentiful today, losing one is less 
     disastrous than it was back in 1992. But it's still a 
     traumatic experience. About 25% of all job-losers still 
     aren't working three years afterward, according to Princeton 
     University economist Henry S. Farber, who analyzed government 
     survey data through 1997, the latest year available. Some 
     simply retire early. The 75% who do get another job still 
     face that 6% gap, plus the income lost if they're unemployed 
     until they find new work.
       What was once seen as a blue-collar phenomenon is now 
     spreading to the service sector. U.S. data-processing 
     companies are using high-speed data lines to ship document 
     images to low-wage countries such as India and Mexico. Some 
     45,000 people work in these and other service jobs in 
     maquiladoras, twice the number in 1994, when NAFTA took 
     effect. They do everything from processing used tickets for 
     America West Airlines Inc. to screening U.S. credit-card 
     applications for fraud. And the work is getting more 
     advanced. As U.S. companies tap bilingual Mexicans, ``we have 
     people getting on the

[[Page 18102]]

     phone and calling customers'' in the U.S., says Ray 
     Chiarello, CFO of 2,800-employee Electronic Data Management 
     International in Cuidad Juarez. SWEATSHOPS? Global 
     competition is also battering the theory of comparative 
     advantage, which holds that free trade will prompt the U.S. 
     to import goods made by low-wage, low-skilled labor and 
     export those made by the highly skilled. But companies are 
     undermining that construct by shifting even the most skilled 
     jobs and technologies to low-wage countries.
       At General Electric Co., for example, CEO John F. Welch has 
     for years been pushing his operating units to drive down 
     costs by globalizing production. At first that meant moving 
     appliance factories to low-wage countries such as Mexico, 
     where GE now employees 30,000. Then last year, GE's Aircraft 
     Engines (AE) unit set up a global engineering project that 
     already has increased the number of engineers abroad tenfold, 
     to 300, with sites in Brazil, India, Mexico, and Turkey. ``We 
     just can't compete globally with a primarily domestic cost 
     base,'' says AE commercial engines General Manager Chuck 
     Chadwell in a recent AE internal newsletter. An AE spokesman 
     agrees that GE is shifting low-end engineering jobs offshore 
     but says high-end design work is staying in the U.S.
       Brian and Mary Best are on the losing end of GE's 
     globalization drive. Both have worked for 25 years as 
     planners at GE's jet-engine plant in Lynn, Mass. But the unit 
     has been shedding planners, who design and help build tools 
     used to make engines, leaving 140 in Lynn, down from 350 a 
     decade ago and 200 in 1999. In February, Brian was laid off 
     from his $50,000-a-year job, and Mary hopes she's not next. 
     ``Our jobs are going to places like Mexico and Poland, where 
     labor is cheaper,'' says Mary, who has a BA in business 
     administration. Says Brian: ``GE's only allegiance is to its 
     shareholders.''
       Globalization also helps push down U.S. wages. Trade 
     accounts for roughly one-quarter of the rise in U.S. income 
     inequality since the 1970s, studies show. Imports shift 
     demand from low-skilled workers to educated ones. Yet 
     economists have never found a way to measure direct wage 
     pressures from globalization.
       Mike Spaulding knows about that pressure. Spaulding, 55, 
     works at Buffalo's Trico Products Corp., a maker of 
     windshield wipers, purchased by Tomkins PLC in 1998. Trico 
     began shifting 2,200 jobs to Mexico in the mid-1980s. Then in 
     1995, management said the 300 remaining jobs could stay if 
     employees slashed costs. So Spaulding and his colleagues 
     swallowed a $2-an-hour cut, to $12.50, where his pay remains 
     today. ``We've had to cut back on our lifestyle--forgo some 
     vacations and going out to dinner,'' he says.
       Demands like Trico's have lowered pay across the auto-parts 
     industry. One-third of U.S. auto-part employment migrated 
     south to Mexico between 1978 and 1999, according to Stephen 
     A. Herzenberg, an economist at the Keystone Research Center 
     in Harriburg, Pa. The result: Wages in the U.S. auto-parts 
     industry plunged by 9% after inflation, he found.
       Some companies use the mere threat of overseas job shifts 
     against workers who try to unionize to raise their pay. In 
     February, Yvonne Edinger and some colleagues tried to form a 
     union at a Parma (Mich.) factory owned by Michigan Automotive 
     Compressor Inc., a joint venture of Japan's Denso Corp. and 
     Toyoda Automatic Loom Works Ltd. The 425 workers at the 
     plant, which makes car air conditioners, earn $12 to $14 an 
     hour--vs. $16 to $18 for parts makers in the United Auto 
     Workers. But when the organizing drive began, ``Japanese 
     coordinators sent over to troubleshoot the line told people 
     that the plant would be moved if they voted in the UAW,'' 
     says Edinger. That scared so many workers that the organizing 
     drive has been put on hold. A company spokeswoman says it has 
     heard no allegations of threats by its coordinators. Yet such 
     threats are routine. According to a 1996 study by Cornell 
     University labor researcher Kate Bronfenbrenner: 62% of 
     manufacturers threaten to close plants during union 
     recruitment drives.
       For nearly a decade, political and business leaders have 
     struggled to persuade the American public of the virtues of 
     globalization. But if trade truly brings a net gain to the 
     U.S. economy, why not use some of the extra GDP to compensate 
     the losers and diminish the opposition? True, this wouldn't 
     address wage cuts and threats of moving offshore, much less 
     qualms about the environment and the supranational role of 
     global trade, and finance bodies. Still, if the decision 
     makers don't start taking Americans' objections seriously, 
     the cause of free trade could be jeopardized.

                   The Pros and Cons of Globalization


                                 pluses

       --Productivity grows more quickly when countries produce 
     goods and services in which they have a comparative 
     advantage. Living standards can go up faster.
       --Global competition and cheap imports keep a lid on 
     prices, so inflation is less likely to derail economic 
     growth.
       --An open economy spurs innovation with fresh ideas from 
     abroad.
       --Export jobs often pay more than other jobs.
       --Unfettered capital flows give the U.S. access to foreign 
     investment and keep interest rates low.


                                minuses

       --Millions of Americans have lost jobs due to imports or 
     production shifts abroad. Most find new jobs--that pay less.
       --Millions of others fear losing their jobs, especially at 
     those companies operating under competitive pressure.
       --Workers face pay-cut demands from employers, which often 
     threaten to export jobs.
       --Service and white-collar jobs are increasingly vulnerable 
     to operations moving offshore.
       --U.S. employees can lose their comparative advantage when 
     companies build advanced factories in low-wage countries, 
     making them as productive as those at home.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. That anxiety over globalization is real. The average 
American working in manufacturing is not part of this wonderful 
economy. On the contrary, they are on the edge of losing completely. 
Just look at the fact that 28,700 manufacturing jobs in the State of 
South Carolina have been lost since NAFTA.
  Let me tell you what happens. They say: Reeducate. I go right to 
Onieta, simple plant, making T-shirts. We brought it to Andrews, South 
Carolina some 30-some years ago. At the time it closed, last year and 
re-located to Mexico, they had 487 employees, and the average age was 
47 years of age--all loyal, wonderful, productive, everything. So let's 
do it Washington's way, reeducate. They sound like Mao Zedong--
reeducate, get ready for global competition. So tomorrow morning we 
have the 487 workers out of a job. They are now reeducated and they are 
expert computer operators.
  Are you going to hire a 47-year-old computer operator or a 21-year-
old computer operator? You are not taking on the pension, the 
retirement cost. You are not taking on the health care cost of the 47-
year-old. You are going to hire the 21-year-old. So even Washington's 
way, they are high and dry. Deadline, go to the town of Andrews and 
some other places such as that where they have closed down these 
plants. We have high employment in Greenville, Spartanburg, but go to 
Williamsburg, go to Marlboro, go to Barnwell and you will see what has 
been occurring.
  So we traveled the State. We have worked for jobs. And don't let the 
Tom Donahue and the Chamber of Commerce, come up here and start telling 
me about jobs. I have to sort of make a record. He has gone from 
representing Main Street and jobs in America to the multinationals, 
money makers, who can make far more by transferring their production 
outside of the United States.
  I have gotten every Chamber of Commerce award. Bobby Kennedy and I 
were the tin men back in 1954. I have gotten it from every county 
Chamber of Commerce, the National Chamber of Commerce, any Chamber of 
Commerce. But on account of this trade debate, Donahue had them endorse 
and finance my opponent the year before last. Then do you know what he 
did, January of last year, after I came back from reelection? He gave 
me the award. He sent me some good government award or American 
leadership in commerce. I told him to stick it. Come on. What is going 
on around here? The unmitigated gall. That crowd has left.
  I know the Business Roundtable. I refereed the fight between 
Secretary of Commerce Luther Hodges and Roger Blough, President of U.S. 
Steel and head of the Business Roundtable. Because when Secretary 
Hodges was appointed by President Jack Kennedy, there were 12 on both 
sides. It was all about the Business Roundtable. They did their 
manufacturers census and everything else and gave it to the Business 
Roundtable. The poor Secretary didn't even have control of his own 
office so he ran them out. And we had to referee that fight and get 
some of them back in, but at least put the secretary in charge of his 
own office. But CEO's are arrogant. I know them. They are arrogantly 
greedy, and they could care less about the country. Jack Welch, the 
best of the best, says I am not going to add a supplier unless that 
supplier moves to Mexico. Read the Business Week. The head of Boeing 
said, ``I'm not an American company, I'm an international company.'' 
Caterpillar is

[[Page 18103]]

saying it too. They take pride that they don't have a country.
  Well, I happen to represent a country, and I am not going to take it 
sitting down. They ought to be embarrassed. I appreciate the 
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee being here now, but the 
way they have treated this debate in violation of the Pastore rule, and 
they bring on morning business and talk about every other subject, they 
could care less about this debate. The vote is fixed. So we don't learn 
anything. I can learn from my fellow Senators if I am mistaken or in 
error. Fine, let's learn and understand what the situation really is. 
My figures are the Government's figures--the Department of Commerce, 
the Department of Labor figures, Department of Agriculture statistics.
  We are not doing well at all in our deficit balance of trade. I can 
tell you here and now, Strom and I are going to get by. We are not 
paying our bills. The distinguished Chair is going to have to pick up 
my bills because I am spending money the government does not have. Mr. 
President, it is wonderful and since we have a little time you might 
indulge me. They ought to understand that the Department of Treasury, 
under the law--I know they would like to avoid this discussion. The Fed 
hasn't paid the large August payment on the interest cost. It is going 
to run around $70 billion. As of 9/12/2000, the national debt is 
$5,684,118,446,519.63. At the beginning of the fiscal year, it was 
$5,656,270,901,615.43. So in round figures, the debt has increased 
around $28 billion. The debt has gone up already. We spent $28 billion 
more than we took in. We had wonderful receipts on personal income on 
April 15, and again in June for corporate. But even with those, we now 
have spent $28 billion more than we took in. We have a deficit and we 
have had a deficit since Lyndon Johnson balanced the budget in 1968-
1969. Yet they all talk surplus.
  We don't have a federal surplus. We don't have a surplus in trade. We 
don't have a surplus in agricultural trade. We don't have a surplus in 
technology trade. Where are the surpluses? We have a surplus in 
campaign contributions. Maybe that is the name of the game. Forget 
about the country. Use the Government to reelect ourselves and promise 
those things that we don't have. That is the biggest campaign finance 
abuse--using the Government and the budget. We call something a surplus 
when we have a deficit, and we promise so much in tax cuts and spending 
and everything else. Then when it comes to this important subject, 
either we say nothing or we don't even debate it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my 
friend. The amendment is not only irrelevant to the underlying bill 
normalizing trade with China, it would unnecessarily limit the support 
Congress has directed Ex-Im and OPIC to provide to U.S. exporters 
worldwide.
  First, and most importantly, I want to remind my colleagues that the 
point of this bill is to ensure that American workers, American 
farmers, and American businesses reap the benefits of an agreement that 
it took 3 Presidents of both parties 13 years to squeeze out of the 
Chinese. Those benefits would be forfeit if this amendment were to pass 
and thereby hinder our ability to see H.R. 4444 enacted into law.
  Thus, the amendment would not only limit the actual assistance that 
Congress directed Ex-Im and OPIC to provide our exporters, the 
amendment could have the effect of denying them real export 
opportunities that are likely to equal $13 billion annually.
  Second, the bill ignores the realities of how our exporters do 
business--pursue markets abroad. Generally, exporting does require you 
to invest abroad in some form even if only in the form of a 
representative office, and the available economic analysis suggests 
that American investment abroad enhances our exports.
  The so-called ``benchmark studies'' of the Emergency Committee for 
American Trade or ECAT have amply detailed that effect. This past year, 
as part of the Finance Committee's review of U.S. trade policy, we 
heard from the Cornell professor who completed the study for ECAT. His 
testimony was compelling, he found that U.S. investment abroad 
increased U.S. exports and, pointedly, did not find any substance to 
the argument that trade represented a highway for run-away American 
plants, as some claim.
  The obvious reason for that phenomena is that our market is already 
open with very few exceptions. If American firms were interested in 
moving production to China simply to export back to the United States, 
they could already have done so for many years. One thing this lengthy 
debate has made clear is that our market has remained open to the 
Chinese, while the Chinese market, until the agreement of this past 
November goes into effect, remains largely closed to U.S. exporters. 
Firms that simply wanted an export platform to the United States could 
have been exporting to the U.S. for the past 20 years.
  In fact, what passage of PNTR promises is that U.S. companies will no 
longer have to move to China simply to produce for the Chinese market. 
Under the November agreement, our exporters can produce in the United 
States, export to China, and for the first time sell directly to the 
Chinese consumer without the interference of some state-owned trading 
company. In other words, passage of PNTR is the best way to halt any 
alleged erosion of our manufacturing base because you can make the 
goods here and sell them in China.
  Third, this amendment would have a chilling effect on normal business 
practices that yield export sales. The amendment does not, for example, 
define what it means by a production facility or what constitutes 
``moving'' such a facility to the People's Republic of China.
  Thus, for example, would the Ex-Im Bank be required to deny any 
support to a U.S. exporter if it closed any facility in the United 
States or even reduced production in such a facility while it opened a 
sales office in China? Would OPIC be required to oppose any form of 
risk insurance for a U.S. company establishing a facility in China 
manufacturing goods for the Chinese market if the company had closed or 
merely reduced production in a U.S. facility manufacturing a completely 
different product?
  Those are just a few of the complications that would arise for the 
Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, and most importantly for American exporters for whom 
Congress created those programs if this amendment were to pass.
  Congress certainly did not intend that the Ex-Im Bank and OPIC be 
hamstrung in providing support to our exporters. To the contrary, the 
explicit intent of Congress in creating those programs was to enhance 
our exporters competitiveness, not to hobble it.
  I oppose this amendment for all of the foregoing reasons and ask my 
colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Gramm and Mr. Moynihan are located in today's 
Record under Morning Business.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask 
unanimous consent that at 4:45 today the Senate proceed to a series of 
rollcall votes in relation to the following amendments in the order 
mentioned:
  Division I of Senator Smith's amendment No. 4129;
  Division IV of Senator Smith's amendment No. 4129;
  Hollings amendment No. 4136;
  Hollings amendment No. 4135;
  Hollings amendment No. 4137.
  I further ask unanimous consent that any remaining divisions of 
amendment No. 4129 be withdrawn and the Feingold amendment regarding 
the Commission be withdrawn from the list of eligible amendments.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes of debate, 
equally divided in the usual form, prior to each of the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 18104]]


  Mr. ROTH. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina 
is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, of course, our chairman, in opposition 
to the amendment, has said three Presidents have worked 13 years and 
found the best way to stop the erosion of our manufacturing base was 
this particular PNTR agreement. If that is the case, I am a happy man. 
I have my grave doubts because I have been around here and, as John 
Mitchell said years ago: Watch what we do, not what we say.
  So I put in amendments with respect to the matter of jobs. They say 
it is going to create jobs. I say there is going to be a loss of jobs. 
On this particular score, since we lost 69,000 manufacturing jobs just 
last month, and the NAM, the group in charge of manufacturing, the 
private entity, says we have a $228 billion deficit in the balance of 
manufacturing trade, then I think what we ought to do is look at this 
thing very closely; certainly not finance it.
  Companies say it is too much of a burden to report. Not at all. They 
have to just make a statement that they have not used the monies of 
exports to adulterate the cause; namely, instead of creating jobs in 
America, to lose the jobs. The same with the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation.
  Obviously, people looking at the record wonder why we have gotten 
ourselves in such a situation. I have watched it over the years and 
participated, obviously, in it, again and again. What really has 
happened is much like in the early days before World War II, the 
Spanish war, where they had the fifth column. We have, in international 
trade, the fifth column in the United States. Let me tell you how it is 
comprised.
  Yes, after World War II the United States had the only industry. We 
had the Marshall Plan. We sent over our technology, our expertise and, 
bless everybody, it has worked. Capitalism has defeated communism. And 
the tax is still to favor the investment overseas. The Senator from 
North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, was voted down earlier this year on an 
amendment to stop financing it. That is exactly what this amendment 
says: Just don't--Export-Import Bank, OPIC--finance your demise.
  But at that particular time the manufacturers in America had all 
kinds of trouble traveling to the Far East and elsewhere. They didn't 
like it. Air travel was a burden. Now it is a pleasure.
  What happened is that the banks who were financing, like Chase 
Manhattan and Citicorp, started making most of their money, as of 1973, 
outside the United States. They saw their opportunity for expansion in 
financial trade and obviously sponsored all these foreign policy 
associations--the Trilateral Commission and everything else. So the 
best and the brightest crowded in from the Ivy League into these 
particular entities. They started talking about free trade, free trade, 
the doctrine of comparative advantage--and it is 50 years later, all 
power to them--free trade when there is no such thing. The competition 
is not for profit. It is not free. It is controlled trade and the 
competition is for market share and, in essence, jobs.
  The next thing you know, they started actually investing. I will 
never forget it. These countries, starting with Japan, began to invest 
in the United States. Back in the 1980s, we had the independent study 
about the Japanese contributions to Harvard University. The Japanese-
financed academics had tremendous influence over the business model 
being taught in leading business schools. So they began to take over, 
and with their investments and contributions to the outstanding 
campuses of America--the next thing you know, we had everyone in 
America making profits from their investments, buying into the 
principle of lean manufacturing and lower costs. We had influence in 
the banks, we had the Trilateral Commission, we had the campuses, and 
before long we had the retailers who made a profit, a bigger profit out 
of the imported articles than what they did on the American-produced 
article.
  Then you had the retailers, the Trilateral Commission, the banks, the 
campuses, the consultants, and finally the lawyers. Ten years ago Pat 
Choate wrote in ``Agents of Influence,'' that Japan had 110 lawyers, 
paid way more than we were paying them here--the consummate salary of 
the House and Senate by way of pay. Japan was better represented in the 
United States than the people of America by their Congress.
  You get all these lawyers who come in and move into the Business 
Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce--the Main Street merchant is 
forgotten. As the distinguished farmers have to realize, the U.S. Farm 
Bureau is now an insurance company. They have lost the American farmer. 
We have a deficit in the balance of agriculture with the People's 
Republic of China.
  With respect to wheat, corn, and soybeans, if we lose the positive 
balance of trade that we have now, and start to get a deficit, let the 
President simply report it to the Congress and renegotiate and see if 
we can get better terms. That is what is called for. Otherwise we are 
going to sell out agriculture.
  Overall, the Department of Agriculture shows a deficit in the balance 
of trade, particularly in cotton. We actually import more cotton from 
the People's Republic of China than we export. We have a deficit in the 
balance of trade with the People's Republic of China in cotton.
  I can see it happening, going from 440 million dollars down to 39 
million dollars in the last 4 years. It is diminishing rapidly. 
Obviously, 800 million farmers can do better than 3.5 million in 
America. We are committed under this agreement to make the 800 million 
just as productive as the 3.5 million. We have to bring them over here, 
put on the seminars, carry them through our experimental stations, show 
them our technology under this agreement.
  Once they have a glut in agriculture, once they solve their 
transportation and distribution problems, we are going to be in the 
soup in this country. We do have the greatest agriculture in the entire 
world, but trying to maintain it with the Export-Import Bank, the 
financing of our sales overseas, the research--we have the fifth column 
working against us. We are financing our own demise.
  The fix is in on all of these votes. They will not even debate them. 
The legacy of President William Jefferson Clinton is one of fear. I 
just finished reading a book by David Kennedy, ``Freedom from Fear,'' 
about Roosevelt, about his leadership. It was true leadership. It was 
not taking the popular side of a public poll. On the contrary, he was 
always climbing uphill, all during the thirties and early part of the 
forties at the beginning of the war. He was fighting to get his 
policies and programs through. They were not popular ones at all. He 
led. He said: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. That was 
his legacy, freedom from fear.
  Now we have global anxiety that President Clinton talked about--the 
fear of the worker and the farmer in America. They do not know how long 
they will be able to continue to produce, how long they will have a 
job, how long they will have a family, how long they will have 
financial security.
  My amendments are not against China. They are against the United 
States and its failure to compete in international trade. Congress has 
the fundamental responsibility--article I, section 8 of the 
Constitution--the Congress, not the President, not the Special Trade 
Representative, but the Congress shall regulate foreign commerce. But 
we have been abandoning this responsibility. We do not debate it in the 
elections. We are now up to a $350 billion, almost a $400 billion 
deficit, costing us 1 percent of our GNP.
  We are in bad shape, but nobody wants to talk about it. They just 
want to vote and get out of here. If my colleagues debate my 
amendments, I will be glad to show them the statistics I have 
corralled.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will be glad to relinquish that time if the other 
side is ready to vote. We are going to vote at

[[Page 18105]]

4:45 p.m., within the half hour. I want to be able to answer my 
colleagues, so I retain the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
remaining Hollings amendments. I think they may have been ordered on 
one. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas 
and nays on the other two.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to it being in order to 
seek the yeas and nays on both amendments?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 4129, Division I

  Mr. HOLLINGS. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4129 of 
the Senator from New Hampshire. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 30, nays 68, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 248 Leg.]

                                YEAS--30

     Ashcroft
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Collins
     Conrad
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--68

     Abraham
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Akaka
     Lieberman
       
  The amendment (No. 4129, division I) was rejected.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, can I have order, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator will suspend. Will 
Senators please cease audible conversation.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next votes 
in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 4129, Division IV

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield my minute. My understanding is that 
the author of the amendment yields back his time as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In accordance with the unanimous consent 
agreement, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4129, division 
IV. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 74, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 249 Leg.]

                                YEAS--24

     Ashcroft
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Collins
     DeWine
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--74

     Abraham
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Akaka
     Lieberman
       
  The amendment (No. 4129, division IV) was rejected.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized
  Mr. REID. I have a suggestion. Maybe we should lower the amount of 
time on a vote to 5 minutes because then we could do it in 15 or 20. If 
we are going to have 10-minute votes, I respectfully suggest we do 
that. People are coming up to everybody saying: We have places to go, 
things to do, and these votes are taking too long.
  I will not take any more time because we have an order in effect that 
the votes are supposed to be 10 minutes, but I hope we could get people 
here to do that.


                           Amendment No. 4136

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In accordance with the unanimous consent 
agreement, the question now occurs on the Hollings amendment No. 4136.
  Who yields time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, at the present moment we have a $350 
billion deficit in the balance of trade with the People's Republic of 
China, and it promises to increase. But proponents of the bill say: No, 
this is going to open the market in China for advanced technology.
  At the moment, we do have a deficit in the balance of trade in 
advanced technology, according to the Department of Commerce, of $3.5 
billion. So this amendment says, after January 1, from thereafter, if 
it exceeds $5 billion, that the President try to renegotiate and get 
better terms. This is only a request on behalf of the President.
  This amendment ought to be adopted, really, by a voice vote. We can 
do away with the rollcall, if you want to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hollings 
amendment. What this amendment would do is to urge the President to 
negotiate with the Chinese whenever there is a deficit in advanced 
technology products, even when there are no allegations of unfair trade 
practices. It is unclear what the result of these negotiations would 
be. Will the President urge the Chinese to prevent U.S. companies from 
transacting business in China until the balance of trade in these 
products moves into surplus? Or will the President raise barriers to 
imports into our

[[Page 18106]]

own market, until the desired balance is achieved?
  Whatever the intended result, the price to our farmers and workers 
would be too high if this amendment were adopted. Let's not forget what 
is at stake here. With China joining the WTO, the passage of PNTR will 
enhance dramatically the access of American products--including high 
technology products--to the Chinese market. That is why I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the yeas and nays 
be vitiated and this be a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4136.
  The amendment (No. 4136) was rejected.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4135

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on Hollings amendment 
No. 4135. There are 2 minutes equally divided.
  Who seeks time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want a rollcall on this one because it 
deals with agriculture. At the present time, surprisingly, we have a 
deficit in the balance of trade overall in agriculture with the 
People's Republic of China. We do have a plus balance of trade in 
wheat, corn, rice, and soybeans. We want to maintain that trade. We 
want to help that wheat farmer in Montana.
  So this amendment simply says, if we get to a deficit in the balance 
of trade for America's farmers in wheat, corn, rice, or soybeans, that 
the President is requested to see if he can negotiate a better term. 
That is all the amendment calls for.
  I am sure the farmers want a recorded vote on this one. They want us 
to show we are supporting America's agriculture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This 
amendment is both unnecessary and, with all due respect to my good 
friend, misguided.
  The amendment is unnecessary because the President already has----
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is absolutely 
correct. The Senate will be in order. We will suspend until the Senate 
is in order.
  Will the Senators to the Chair's right please take their 
conversations off the floor.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for 
his courtesy.
  The amendment is unnecessary because the President already has the 
authority to negotiate with any country about any issue at any time. 
The proposal is misguided because it seems to urge the President to 
take actions to eliminate a deficit in certain products, even if the 
balance of trade is not the result of any market barriers or unfair 
trade practices. What does this mean as a practical matter? Will the 
President urge the Chinese to void existing contracts until the balance 
of trade is in surplus? We just don't know. In the end, this type of 
intervention in the market is unwise and, ultimately, counter to our 
own interests.
  I would also note that many of the agriculture groups that this 
amendment is intended to help support my decision to oppose all 
amendments. This includes groups representing rice, corn, wheat, and 
soybean farmers. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allotted to the Senator has expired.
  All time has expired.
  The question now occurs on agreeing to Hollings amendment No. 4135. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
(Mr. Hatch) would vote ``no.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 16, nays 81, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 250 Leg.]

                                YEAS--16

     Byrd
     Campbell
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Mikulski
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--81

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka
     Hatch
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 4135) was rejected.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4137

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. This amendment deals with the Export-Import Bank. James 
Harmon, president, stated that the principal beneficiaries under the 
Export-Import Bank had a 700,000 job loss or more during the past 10 
years. What we are doing, in essence, is financing our own demise. So 
the amendment simply states that when you apply for this particular 
subsidy, you must certify that you haven't moved your manufacture 
overseas or that you haven't sent your advanced technology abroad.
  Many of my colleagues have been trying to catch a plane. I wish they 
would take me with them. As a result, I ask unanimous consent to 
vitiate the order for a rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the Hollings amendment No. 4137.
  The amendment (No. 4137) was rejected.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today's vote will set the course for 
America's relationship with China into the future.
  The debate is about whether the United States should grant China 
Permanent Normal Trading Relations, PNTR status or continue the annual 
review of China's trade status.
  It is not a debate on whether we should trade with China.
  Granting PNTR to China will establish China as a full partner--not 
just in trade, but in every aspect of international relations.

[[Page 18107]]

  It will end our ability to review and challenge China's trade status 
on an annual basis.
  Denying PNTR to China will maintain our national sovereignty in our 
dealings with China.
  It will retain our right to annually review America's trade 
relationship with China.
  It will retain our right to exert pressure on China to improve on 
various fronts--from human rights to nuclear proliferation.
  This is an exceptionally difficult decision for me.
  I have studied the issue for many months.
  I have weighed the pros and cons of granting China PNTR, and I 
acknowledge that there are strong arguments on both sides.
  I will oppose PNTR for China.
  I believe we should engage China--but not embrace China.
  We all want to increase trade with China.
  I want to see the United States not only win Nobel Prizes but also 
win new markets.
  I want the United States to reap the rewards of great new American 
ideas by developing new American products and exporting those products 
around the world.
  I want U.S. industries which can benefit from lower trade barriers in 
China--such as high tech companies and agricultural producers--to reap 
the rewards from this agreement.
  Ambassador Barshefsky and the administration did a great job in 
negotiating a trade agreement to bring down China's trade barriers to 
the United States.
  Although China's trade barriers to the United States still remain 
much higher than U.S. trade barriers to China, this agreement is a big 
step forward.
  Yet I cannot ignore so many other factors in making this crucial and 
far-reaching decision.
  I believe that the downside of this agreement has been significantly 
dismissed and the benefits have been greatly exaggerated.
  So even though I believe and support trade, I do not believe we 
should grant permanent trade privileges to countries--such as China--at 
any price.
  Instead, we should trade with China but not grant it PNTR status.
  We should continue to review our trade relationship with China on an 
annual basis.
  Since 1980, Congress has had the legal right to review the 
President's annual decision to grant China Most Favored Nation, MFN 
Status.
  Unfortunately, we have rarely taken advantage of this right.
  For the most part, Congress has rubber stamped the President's 
decision to give China full trading rights and access to the U.S. 
market without asking for concessions.
  I voted against granting China MFN after the Chinese Government 
massacred thousands of Chinese citizens at Tiananmen Square in 1989.
  The majority of my colleagues also voted to deny China MFN and 
together we took a firm stand against China's brutal massacre.
  I wish President Bush had not vetoed our decision.
  If he had upheld our vote, China would have learned that its behavior 
could jeopardize its access to the U.S. market.
  Instead, President Bush taught the Chinese Government that it could 
literally get away with murder.
  We should use the annual review as it was intended--to actively 
debate and question whether China deserves continued access to the U.S. 
market.
  If we had ever used the annual review to deny China access to our 
market, it could have exerted pressure on China to improve its 
behavior.
  It could even have worked to exert pressure if China had ever 
believed that its access to our market was in jeopardy.
  I believe we should retain and strengthen our annual review because 
it is a practical and prudent tool.
  Otherwise, it will be much more difficult to raise the numerous 
concerns we have about China.
  There are at least 6 key factors that lead me to oppose PNTR for 
China.


               U.S. national security will be jeopardized

  I am worried that by transferring our wealth and technology to China 
it will enable Beijing to build its war machine with more smart weapons 
and technological developments.
  Media reports indicate that China uses U.S. computers to develop its 
nuclear arms--such as illegally using U.S. supercomputers to simulate 
warhead detonations without actual underground tests.
  This and other practices lead me to believe that China's use of U.S. 
technology to build its war machine will only increase if we grant it 
PNTR status.
  Taiwan already lives in fear that efforts to declare independence 
from China will result in military action from Beijing.
  This fear will only increase if China's military might is 
strengthened and it continues to break every nuclear nonproliferation 
agreement it claims it will respect.
  I cannot ignore China's continued blatant disregard for international 
nuclear non-proliferation agreements.
  Despite its repeated commitments to such agreements, China remains 
one of the key suppliers of nuclear technology and expertise to several 
rogue countries.
  Who are they?
  Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and Libya.
  As recently as July of this year, the United States learned that 
China continues to assist Pakistan in building long-range missiles that 
could carry nuclear weapons.
  This dangerous irresponsible behavior cannot be ignored especially 
because Kashmir remains such a volatile area.
  China continuously avoids its international obligations.
  It flagrantly jeopardizes international security at a time when its 
trade relationship with the United States is still undecided.
  So the American people can be sure it will take even more egregious 
steps if its trade relationship with the United States becomes 
permanent.


     China's poor record of compliance with existing international 
                               agreements

  How do we have fair trade with a country that has not fairly lived up 
to its previous international agreements?
  China has made efforts at the national level to improve its 
compliance record.
  Yet these efforts mean little in practice, because they are so often 
ignored at the local and provincial levels.
  For example, Beijing repeatedly promises to comply with intellectual 
property agreements.
  But factories throughout China continue to turn out pirate videos and 
CDs--with a wink and a nod from the local government.
  The effect is a failure to protect against infringement of U.S. 
copyrights, trademarks and patents.
  Will China improve its record of compliance once it joins the WTO?
  Unfortunately, there's no reason to think it will.
  The WTO simply doesn't have strong enforcement mechanisms.
  The WTO is a multilateral, bureaucratic institution.
  We cannot expect it to adequately resolve our battles with China.
  If we grant China PNTR status and it joins the WTO, we will still 
have to fight our own trade battles with China.


   The potential benefits of this agreement have been significantly 
                               overstated

  We're told that when China opens its markets, we will increase our 
exports and decrease our staggering trade deficit with China.
  But open markets does not mean that China will actually buy our 
goods.
  Evidence indicates that China will resist abiding by its agreement 
with the United States by maintaining barriers to U.S. products and 
investment.
  Chinese leaders have stated that the concessions they made are just 
expressions and theoretical opportunities rather than binding 
commitments.
  They have also indicated that they will look to trade remedies to 
limit U.S. goods from entering into China.


     China now dumps its cheap products into our markets and will 
                         increasingly dump more

  China's persistent practice of predatory dumping jeopardizes U.S. 
jobs and

[[Page 18108]]

threatens to reduce wages of hard-working Americans.
  I have spent my entire life trying to save jobs, save communities and 
help people who are trying to help themselves.
  I am a blue collar Senator.
  My heart and soul lies with blue-collar America.
  My career in public service is one of deep commitment to working-
class people.
  I have fought and continue to fight for economic growth, jobs and 
opportunities in America, in particular in my own State of Maryland.
  I have heard from the working people of Maryland. Most fear for their 
jobs and security if we grant China PNTR status.
  Their fear stems, in part, from the fact that U.S. industries trying 
to compete with dumped products from other countries often reduce 
workers wages or cut the workforce to reduce costs.
  Some estimates indicate that China's continued dumping of cheap 
imports into the United States will eliminate over one million jobs by 
2010.
  I share their concern and the facts back it up.
  There is also the legitimate fear that American jobs will be lost 
because U.S. companies will move their production to China.
  Why would not the U.S. companies move to China when they can pay 
their workers $10 a day--rather than $10 an hour?
  Why wouldn't they move to China when they can take advantage of 
China's exploited workers who are used to poor working conditions, long 
hours and poor pay?
  Why wouldn't U.S. companies move to China where they don't need to 
comply with America's stringent labor and environmental regulations.
  Corporate profits would soar, but American production would plummet.
  How can we claim that American workers won't suffer if these fears 
are realized?
  It is likely that many will either lose their jobs or see lower pay 
checks.
  The minimum wage here is already too spartan.
  I can only envision what it will become if we grant China PNTR. It 
could be reduced to an even lower global minimum wage that is tied to 
the Chinese yen rather than the U.S. dollar.
  How can we turn our backs on American workers simply for short-term 
corporate gain?
  In addition, continued dumping by China will lead to irreparable 
damage to important U.S. industries.
  For example, China will dump even more cheap steel into the U.S. 
market and further harm the U.S. steel industry.
  China is the largest producer of crude steel. Its already huge 
industry continues to grow at nine to ten percent a year.
  To be profitable, it will have to sell this steel to markets outside 
of its borders.
  So if we grant China PNTR status, we can expect that much more 
Chinese steel will be dumped into the U.S. market.
  Despite the fact that the U.S. steel industry has won many anti-
dumping disputes, steel imports are up 23 percent this year from last 
year.
  Why?
  Because the Administration fails to apply antidumping duties to the 
extent it should to protect this vital U.S. industry.
  This will lead to continued suffering for the U.S. steel industry, 
which has already been forced to reduce salaries and cut its workforce 
in order to remain competitive.
  We cannot lose the American steel industry.
  It's not just a jobs issue--it's a national security issue.
  During times of war, we cannot rely on foreign steel.
  Steel won't be the only industry that suffers if China continues to 
enjoy its current access to our markets.
  If we grant China PNTR, other vital U.S. industries will be harmed by 
China's dumping of cheap products.
  China's continued dumping of cheap goods has contributed to our 
inflated trade deficit with China.
  The United States is already too dependent on Chinese imports--which 
is the main reason for our extraordinarily high trade deficit with 
China.
  Continued dumping of cheap products by China will further increase 
this deficit which today is over $68 billion and by 2010 is estimated 
to increase to $131 billion if we grant China PNTR status.


              China's abysmal treatment of its own people

  Even ardent supporters of granting China PNTR agree that China has a 
horrendous human rights record.
  In fact, the State Department has recognized China as one of the 
worst offenders of human rights in the world.
  Over the last 50 years, China has persecuted 80 million people.
  The government continues to arrest political activists, suppress 
ethnic minorities and prohibit freedom of speech and religion.
  The same leaders who negotiated this trade agreement, will not allow 
Chinese Catholics, Christians or Tibetan Monks the freedom of worship.
  Even as we debate this agreement, China has plans to ``settle'' over 
58,000 people in Tibet in an effort to further weaken the religion and 
culture of Tibet.
  I agree with a statement that was recently brought to my attention by 
Cardinal William H. Keeler, the Archbishop of Baltimore.
  He informed me that the United States Commission on International 
Religious Freedom in their assessment of China PNTR stated the 
following:

       While many Commissioners support free trade, the Commission 
     believes that the U.S. Congress should grant China permanent 
     normal trade relations only after China makes substantial 
     improvement in respect to religious freedom.

  I believe that China must also make substantial improvements to 
respect other fundamental human rights, whether it is gender equality 
or labor rights.
  The evidence indicates that it has a long way to go on these fronts 
as well.
  It is well known that China treats women as property rather than as 
individuals with fundamental human rights.
  Family planning officials impose forced abortions or sterilizations 
on women to limit China's population growth.
  China also fails to apply its domestic laws to protect women and 
children from being sold within China or to prevent them from being 
trafficked to other countries, such as Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, Canada 
and even the United States.
  It is also common knowledge that China exploits its workers.
  Chinese workers are prohibited from forming or joining labor unions.
  They cannot bargain collectively to improve their wages or their 
working conditions.
  They are prohibited from advocating for workers' rights for 
themselves or on behalf of others.
  Those Chinese workers who attempt to exercise any of these rights are 
often beaten and/or thrown in political prisons.
  My colleagues in the House worked hard to create a Human Rights 
Commission in this legislation to maintain pressure on China to improve 
its human rights record.
  Although this Commission could be useful in monitoring China's human 
rights record, it lacks enforcement power to ensure that China's record 
actually improves.
  So long as China has permanent trade privileges with the United 
States it will lack any incentive to improve its human rights record.
  We would have much more leverage over China if it sincerely believed 
that its trading privileges with the United States could be jeopardized 
each year because of its appalling human rights violations against its 
own citizens.


  Granting China PNTR status will result in United States adopting an 
   indefensible double standard both in our relationship with other 
         countries as well as in our other dealings with China

  I've heard many of my colleagues say that trade will lead to 
democracy.
  If this is true in China, why isn't it true in Cuba?
  Many of the same people who support granting China PNTR status oppose 
every effort to increase trade with Cuba, even the sale of food and 
medicine.

[[Page 18109]]

  Another serious inconsistency is in our treatment of family planning 
in China.
  On the one hand, supporters of PNTR argue that granting China PNTR 
status will help improve China's human rights record.
  But on the other hand, we deny funding for vital programs to improve 
the human rights situation in China for women.
  For example, since 1979 we have either denied or limited our 
contribution to the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA because it 
works with China.
  We rightly criticize China's one child policy which results in forced 
abortion or sterilization to limit women to having only one child.
  But we refuse to contribute to valuable efforts aimed to combat these 
barbaric practices.
  We actively choose not to fund UNFPA programs that provide 
reproductive health and family planning education as well as improve 
the economic status and gender equality of women in China.
  How can we consider granting China PNTR status and argue that it will 
help improve the human rights situation in China when we refuse to 
support efforts to protect and promote the fundamental human rights of 
women in China?
  Mr. President, I believe in free trade as long as it's fair trade.
  I've supported trade agreements that represents our national interest 
and our national values.
  But this agreement does not meet these criteria.
  Trade in itself does not yield democracy, human rights or stability.
  These goals would best be achieved by a robust annual review.
  In fact, access to the freedom of ideas on the Internet will do more 
to achieve these goals than a trade agreement ever could.
  I will oppose granting China PNTR status.
  I cannot support trade at any price--especially when the price is 
American security, American jobs and American values.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is an honor to rise today in support 
of H.R. 4444, a bill granting permanent normal trade relations to 
China. While there is considerable and legitimate debate on this 
measure, for this Senator it is a simple choice.
  At its base, this is a common sense issue--does the United States 
want its businesses, its farmers, its manufacturers to have the same 
advantages that every other member of the Word Trade Organization will 
enjoy? Or, because of our desire to score political points, do we wish 
to shut out American interests and bar them from beneficial interaction 
with this enormous market?
  As has been pointed out several times during the course of this 
debate, China already has full access to American markets. However, 
U.S. businesses do not have reciprocal access to Chinese markets. It's 
a one way street. A vote against H.R. 4444 would serve not to punish 
China for behavior we find distasteful but, rather, would forbid 
American industry and farmers from taking advantage of the agreements 
our Government worked for 13 years to secure. Let me repeat that.
  Defeating PNTR would in no way force China to alter its behavior, it 
would however single out U.S. interests as ineligible from benefitting 
from hard-won concessions. That is an unacceptable alternative.
  We all agree that our relationship with China is complex and 
evolving. The United States must remain strong and active in its 
pursuit of increased security and improved human rights in China. But, 
we will not be able to accomplish any of our goals if we decide to 
erect our own Great Wall, and refuse to interact with the Chinese 
people. Rather, by taking advantage of hard-won access we will be able 
to export not only American products, but, perhaps more importantly, 
American ideas and ideals.
  The approach of merely wielding the stick has not proven effective 
and, therefore, it is time to engage with China on a different level. A 
level that will allow us new opportunities to improve not merely the 
bottom-line of American farmers and entrepreneurs, but the rights and 
freedoms of the Chinese citizens as well. In the end, I believe 
strongly that this will be the enduring legacy of this new 
relationship.
  In all honesty, I do not enter this debate armed solely with high-
minded objectives for improved relations and greater freedoms for the 
Chinese. No, I am blessed to be a U.S. Senator solely because the 
citizens of Kentucky have allowed me to hold this office, and, thus, I 
confess that it is also for parochial reasons that I am enthusiastic 
about our improving trade relationship with China.
  Kentucky is home to more than 125,000 jobs that are supported by 
exports. That number has increased by 15,000 since the implementation 
of the North American Free Trade Agreement. I might add as an aside, 
Mr. President, that during debate of that historic agreement we heard 
many of the same sky-is-falling arguments which are being used during 
this debate. Well, they were wrong then, and they are wrong today.
  Those 125,000 Kentucky workers were responsible for more than $9.6 
billion in exported goods in 1999, a figure that has grown by $6 
billion since 1993.
  Yet, despite those impressive statistics, there is incredible room 
for growth in Kentucky's export economy. The latest available 
statistics show that Kentucky exported a mere $69 million worth of 
goods and services to China in 1999. By way of contrast, Kentucky 
export totals were more than $336 million to the Netherlands, $295 
million to Belgium and $137 million to Honduras. It is astonishing that 
three countries whose total population is just over 30 million purchase 
more than 11 times the amount of goods from Kentucky than do China's 
1.3 billion citizens. In short, a country with 124 times the population 
of Belgium should not be purchasing $200 million less in Kentucky 
products. Clearly, the United States must aggressively alter our 
relationship with China in order to reverse this perverse trend, and 
that is exactly what we propose to accomplish.
  Kentuckians are calling for these changes and they have been 
outspoken in their support and clear in their understanding of what is 
at stake. I want to share with the Senate some of the persuasive 
arguments they have offered in support of action I hope we will shortly 
take.
  I have heard from countless Kentuckians describing how normalizing 
our trade relations with China will improve their businesses. I heard 
from folks like Alan Dumbris. Alan is the plant manager of PPG 
Industries which manufactures coatings, glass chemicals and fiber glass 
products. Here is how he framed the debate:

       Here at the Berea, Kentucky facility, 140 associates work 
     together to satisfy our customers while contributing over $6 
     million to the local economy. We believe that PNTR is good 
     for PPG and good for our facility. . . . Without PNTR, PPG 
     Industry's competitors will have preferential access to 
     Chinese markets.

  It is clear to me that Alan Dumbris understands this issue, and he's 
right on the mark. He sums it up clearly and concisely; if we refuse to 
grant PNTR to China, Americans will be forced to operate at a severe 
disadvantage from their international competitors. That is common 
sense, and that is why Alan agrees that we should send this bill to the 
President.
  I also heard from Ronald D. Smith, President of Gamco Products 
Company in Henderson, KY. Gamco employs nearly 400 people in Henderson 
which is a small town on the banks of the Ohio River in western 
Kentucky. The employees at Gamco produce zinc die casting, which is 
used on faucets and other products. Here is how Ronald Smith of 
Henderson stated his support:

       U.S. manufacturers, like us, deserve a fair chance at 
     securing a portion of this business. The current business 
     structures impede our success. China's accession to the WTO 
     would have very positive benefits to our organization in the 
     years ahead.

  Again, I say that Kentuckians understand the issue clearly. What is 
at stake here is fundamental fairness and opportunity for Kentucky and 
American businesses.
  But it is not merely manufacturers that contacted me with their 
unequivocal support for PNTR. The agriculture

[[Page 18110]]

sector has been consistently enthusiastic in calling for improved 
access to Chinese markets for their products. And, as anyone who has 
followed the difficulties our farmers have faced over the last several 
years knows, the clearest opportunity for improving agriculture's 
bottom-line lies in expanding our exports.
  Here, I would like to quote another Kentuckian. Steve Bolinger is the 
President of the Christian County Farm Bureau Federation, and he hits 
the nail on the head when he states:

       This could be an excellent opportunity for Christian County 
     considering we raise over 17,000 head of beef cattle. These 
     farmers will surely benefit from the trade agreement as China 
     has agreed to cut tariff rates from 45 to 25 percent on 
     chilled beef. . . . Granting PNTR for China will not just 
     benefit farmers in Christian County, it will benefit all of 
     America and China.

  I cannot improve on Steve's assessment.
  There is a final, but vitally important issue relating to U.S.-China 
trade that I would like to take a few minutes to discuss. Kentucky's 
tobacco farmers are in desperate need of new markets for their product. 
I think its clear that China provides such a market--in fact, one might 
say there are 1.3 billion reasons for this Kentucky Senator to support 
PNTR. This potential market is music to the ears of my farming families 
who have been caught in the crosshairs of an unprecedented legal and 
political assault for the past seven years.
  The importance of tobacco to Kentucky's economy cannot be overstated. 
I have been on this floor defending my tobacco farmers every year since 
I first came to the Senate 16 years ago. And, let me tell you, I long 
for those times when tobacco was not the pariah it has been shaped into 
over the past few years by an Administration bound and determined to 
put these farmers out of business.
  And, as we all know, there is a lot of debate about the legacy of 
President Clinton and Vice President Gore. But, I think it is clear 
that their national war on tobacco has achieved devastating results. 
Just ask my tobacco farmers in Kentucky. In fact, for the very first 
time tobacco will not be Kentucky's largest agricultural money maker.
  The past 7 years have been devastating to Kentucky's tobacco economy 
and farm families. The cold political calculations which went into 
demonizing tobacco during the previous Presidential campaign made clear 
that this Administration was not interested in what might happen to the 
impacted farmers. As a result of their efforts, quota has been cut so 
much that Kentucky's farm families are only growing one-third of what 
they produced just three years ago. This translates into real loss of 
income--not just low prices that will bounce back--quota cuts mean many 
Kentucky farmers won't be able to pay their bills.
  That's why you saw me down here in 1999 and again this year, fighting 
to make sure tobacco farmers were, for the first time in history, 
included in our most recent agriculture economic assistance packages. 
Tobacco farmers are just farmers--it's not their fault that this 
Administration decided that they were politically dispensable and that 
their crop was now politically incorrect. Thanks to the Clinton-Gore 
Administration and their trial lawyer friends, 15,000 Kentucky tobacco 
farmers are now out of business. Again, that has had a real impact on 
Kentucky's rural communities. No money to buy tractors. No money to buy 
fertilizer. No money to buy seed. And even more devastating, in many 
cases, no money to pay the rent or buy the food or put shoes on a 
child's feet for school. Yet, despite this harsh reality, during the 
past seven years there has not been one request in any of the Clinton/
Gore budgets for one dime to aid tobacco farmers. Regardless of one's 
opinion on tobacco, that fact is disgraceful.
  But Kentuckians are optimistic by nature, and we haven't lost hope. 
We are looking for ways to move forward. We're looking east--we're 
looking Far East. China is one market that has the potential to buy our 
crop--and lots of it. And I'm doing all I can to get that market open 
and keep it open.
  On June 6th of this year I met with Chinese Ambassador Li, and we 
discussed PNTR and the possibility of selling American tobacco, 
particularly Kentucky burley tobacco, to China. We are working through 
tough issues and the Chinese have now agreed to buy American tobacco. 
Through my relationship with Ambassador Li, I was able to arrange a 
meeting on June 16 between the Chinese Trade Minister/Counselor here in 
Washington, D.C. and representatives of the Burley Tobacco Grower's 
Cooperative Association, the Council for Burley Tobacco, the Kentucky 
Farm Bureau Federation and my staff.
  I have encouraged the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative and the 
other Kentucky representative tobacco organizations to strongly pursue 
the Chinese market by meeting with representatives of China's tobacco 
interests. In fact, earlier this month, I joined the Burley Tobacco 
Grower's Cooperative and Kentucky's Farm Bureau in a meeting with 
members of China's Inspection and Quarantine Office who were in 
Kentucky to look over our tobacco crop.
  Finally, I intend to help our Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative 
arrange a trip to China for later this year. I plan to arrange meetings 
with government officials and tobacco buyers in China to establish the 
business relationships necessary for us to sell our product to China 
down the road.
  Mr. President, if I might, I would like to quote one more Kentuckian. 
Donald Mitchell is a 38-year old, lifelong tobacco farmer from Midway, 
Kentucky whose family has been in the tobacco business for generations. 
He accurately sums up the potential of the Chinese market when he says:

       I think voting for PNTR for China is an excellent chance to 
     market our burley tobacco to the world's largest tobacco 
     consumer. And, today we need every opportunity--and this is a 
     major one.

  Is Donald Mitchell suggesting that exporting tobacco to China is a 
guaranteed solution for Kentucky's farmers? No. But, he is correct in 
recognizing that this is an incredibly important first step. And I 
predict that once the Chinese get a shot at American tobacco, they are 
going to want more. This is the best new market in the world, and we're 
going to be in this for the long haul. We must work each year, first to 
begin, and then to increase, our sales there.
  So, Mr. President, I close where I began. I recognize that there is 
room for legitimate debate on the subject of granting China Permanent 
Normal Trading Relations--but to this Senator--the issue is clear. I am 
going to support passage of this measure, because I am convinced it 
will provide Americans a level playing field that they have not yet 
enjoyed. Further, I am going to do everything in my power to take 
advantage of this improved relationship to assist Kentucky's tobacco 
farmers as they work to gain access to China's market.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I came to the floor earlier this week to 
express my strong support for passage of the permanent normal trade 
relations legislation currently before the Senate. During the course of 
debate on this issue we have heard several points of view and have 
considered several amendments to the underlying legislation.
  I would like to be abundantly clear for the Record that I am joining 
several of my colleagues that support passage of PNTR by voting against 
all amendments to this vital legislation. This does not mean that I do 
not support some of the amendments and initiatives that have been 
presented before this body. It is unfortunate that our time in the 
Senate has not been managed in a way that provides us with the adequate 
time to appropriately debate and amend a vital piece of legislation 
without running the risk of its complete demise.
  I, along with many others, have been calling for Congress to take up 
and pass PNTR legislation since February of this year. We are nearing 
the end of this legislative session and, unfortunately, time is a 
precious commodity. We have a backlog of appropriations bills that must 
be completed prior to October 1st and any successful amendments to this 
bill could force a conference committee that would further

[[Page 18111]]

stall and likely doom passage of this essential legislation.
  Several of my colleagues have submitted a letter from over 60 
agricultural related associations and corporations. I, too, received 
this letter and the same sentiment has been expressed to me by 
countless companies and associations, including Federal Express, Wal-
Mart, United Parcel Service, Microsoft, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
and many, many more industries concerned with expanding our market 
opportunities. In addition, I have heard from many of my constituents 
in Arkansas including rice farmers, wheat farmers, pork producers, 
soybean growers, and various other industries from across my State. All 
of them have urged the Senate to pass PNTR as soon as possible.
  Many of us have worked to keep this bill clean in order to guarantee 
its passage and expedite its signature by the President. I am proud 
that we have achieved this goal, and I am proud that we are now 
positioned to take advantage of China's continually growing markets. I 
have no illusions about the rigid, Communist regime of China and I, 
along with others, want nothing less than to improve the quality of 
life for citizens of China. I know, however, that the surest way to 
encourage internal reforms is to open this country to western 
influence, private enterprise, and the opportunities that come with 
good old American capitalism.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, international treaties and trade 
agreements are among the most complex issues to come before this body. 
Their complexity is increased by an order of magnitude when the country 
in question has a value system and history that are so unlike our own.
  Despite the fact that China is a country old enough that its history 
is counted by centuries rather than by decades, I believe that there is 
still much that we do not understand about that nation--and that lack 
of understanding appears to run both ways. For instance, I simply 
cannot understand the attitude of the Chinese leaders on issues that we 
consider to be basic human rights--like religious freedom. Nor can I 
understand their previous reluctance to comply with the terms of 
international trade agreements.
  As a result, I have found the decision on whether to vote to 
establish permanent normal trade relations with China to be one of the 
more difficult decisions I have made as a Senator. Ultimately, after 
much deliberation, I have decided that the opportunities afforded our 
nation by expanding the global marketplace and by supporting China's 
membership in the World Trade Organization make PNTR in the best 
interests of our nation. For the first time, this agreement will help 
ensure that China reduces trade barriers, opens its markets to American 
goods and services, and follows the rules of international trade.
  Nevertheless, this is a close call. I remain deeply concerned about 
China's record on human rights and its involvement in creating 
instability in the world through the proliferation of weapons 
technology. Consequently, I supported numerous amendments such as 
Senator Wellstone's amendment on religious freedom and Senator Helms' 
amendment relating to human rights. I was also proud to be a cosponsor 
and debate on behalf of Senator Thompson's nonproliferation amendment. 
Regrettably, the Senate did not adopt these amendments, but I hope that 
the lengthy and impassioned debate sent a message to China that we have 
not forgotten its record on human rights and nuclear proliferation.
  I have also been concerned about the impact that granting PNTR would 
have on American jobs, particularly those in my home state of Maine. I 
have considered very carefully the concerns of those who have suggested 
that granting PNTR for China would have an adverse effect on some of 
our domestic manufacturers. In fact, I wrote to U.S. Trade 
Representative Charlene Barshefsky to express these concerns and to 
inquire about the import surge protections included in the U.S.-China 
bilateral agreement. Ambassador Barshefsky's reply, which I will enter 
into the Record, discusses the measures in the bilateral agreement that 
will provide vulnerable U.S. industries with protection from surges in 
Chinese imports. Were it not for these protections, which are stronger 
than those in place with other WTO members, I would likely have opposed 
passage of this legislation.
  The agreement contains a textile-specific safeguard that provides 
protection from disruptive imports for our domestic producers three 
years beyond the expiration of all textile quotas in 2005 under the WTO 
Agreement on Textile and Clothing. I would also point out that, were we 
not to pass PNTR for China, our existing import quotas on Chinese 
textiles will expire at the end of the year with no hope of renewal 
through future negotiations with China.
  Those on both sides of this issue have published reports that attempt 
to project the impact on jobs of granting China PNTR. Given the vast 
and completely conflicting findings, it was particularly difficult to 
judge the validity of these reports. An Economic Policy Institute 
analysis suggests that Maine would lose 20,687 jobs by 2010 were 
Congress to approve PNTR for China. Closer inspection of the EPI 
projections for Maine, however, reveal fatal flaws in the analysis, as 
the University of Southern Maine's respected economist Charles Colgan 
has pointed out. For example, the EPI numbers for Maine, when broken 
down by industry, project that Maine will lose 18,091 jobs in the shoe 
industry over the next ten years. Yet, according to Maine Department of 
Labor figures, Maine has only 5,800 jobs in the entire industry. This 
one discrepancy alone reduces by more than 12,000 the projected number 
of Maine jobs affected, an inaccuracy that calls into question the 
validity of the entire EPI analysis.
  Conversely, the administration and industry groups have suggested 
that substantial export and job growth opportunities will accompany 
passage of PNTR. While these projections may be overly generous, I 
believe that PNTR represents, on balance, a net gain for my State. 
According to the International Trade Administration, Maine's exports to 
China increased by 58 percent from 1993 to 1998. Moreover, small and 
medium-sized businesses account for 63 percent of all firms exporting 
from Maine to China.
  Maine Governor Angus King put it well when he said, ``The potential 
for increasing Maine's already dynamic export growth--and creating more 
and better jobs here at home--will only increase if we can gain greater 
access to the Chinese market.''
  Maine's best known export may be our world-renowned lobster, but the 
lobster industry is but one of many natural resource-based industries 
that will benefit from China's agreement to lower tariffs and reduce 
non-tariff barriers to its market. The paper industry, which employs 
thousands of people in my State, supports PNTR because the agreement 
would result in a reduction in the current average Chinese tariffs on 
paper and paper products from 14.2 percent to 5.5 percent. The 
concessions made by China regarding trading rights and distribution 
also will provide new market access to products manufactured in the 
paper mills of Maine.
  The potato industry, a mainstay of the northern Maine economy, is 
another example of a natural resource- based industry that stands to 
gain from improved access to China's market. More and more, the potato 
farmers of Maine are delivering their products not only to grocery 
stores, but also to processing plants that produce items such as french 
fries and potato chips. Tariffs on these products are now a prohibitive 
25 percent, but will be reduced under the agreement by about 10 
percent. The Maine Potato Board has endorsed PNTR and expects to see a 
significant expansion in the global french fry market as a result of 
these tariff reductions.
  The opening of China's markets also will benefit many of Maine's 
manufacturers. Companies such as National Semiconductor and Fairchild 
Semiconductor will benefit from the elimination of tariffs on 
information technology products and agreements to remove non-tariff 
barriers to the Chinese market. Pratt and Whitney, which

[[Page 18112]]

manufactures jet engines in North Berwick, ME, is already a major 
exporter to China and considers PNTR a critical component for the 
future growth of its business. Moreover, enactment of PNTR will ensure 
that Pratt and Whitney can compete on equal footing with its European 
competitors to supply engines and parts for the 1000 commercial 
aircraft China will purchase by 2017.
  My support for PNTR reflects my belief that Maine workers will excel 
in an increasingly global economy. In Bangor, for instance, the 
community is developing the Maine Business Enterprise Park. The park is 
projected to create 2,500 new jobs in technology-intensive industries 
by providing new and expanding companies with the space and trained 
workforce needed for success and growth. Undoubtedly, the Chinese 
market will be a destination for some of the technology products and 
will help support Maine's transition into the new economy.
  Extending PNTR to China advances the cause of free trade, opens China 
and its market to international scrutiny, and binds it economically to 
the rules governing international trade. Ultimately, I believe we need 
to take advantage of the economic opportunities that PNTR represents 
for our Nation. Therefore, I will vote to grant PNTR to China.
  At this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
from Ambassador Barshefsky expounding upon the protections contained in 
the bilateral agreement be printed in the Record. I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, the United States 
           Trade Representative,
                                Washington, DC, September 7, 2000.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: Thank you for your letter requesting 
     information about our agreement with China on World Trade 
     organization (WTO) accession relevant to the concerns of the 
     U.S. shoe and textile industry and Maine's workers.
       We believe that a number of provisions of our bilateral 
     agreement and WTO accession generally will increase market 
     access for Maine's exports to China and likely benefit 
     Maine's farmers, workers, and industries. In the agricultural 
     sector, U.S. farmers no longer will have to compete with 
     China's subsidized exports to other markets. China has also 
     agreed to eliminate sanitary and phytosanitary barriers that 
     are not based on sound scientific evidence. In addition, 
     exporters will benefit from obtaining the right to import and 
     distribute imported products such as fish, fishery products, 
     and lobsters in China and from tariff cuts on potatoes, 
     potato products, and dairy products. Maine's key export 
     sectors will benefit from reduced tariffs in China, strong 
     intellectual property protection and improved trade rules 
     protecting U.S. industries against unfair trade practices 
     including:
       Tariff elimination for information technology products;
       Major tariff reductions for paper, wood products, 
     construction equipment, heating equipment, leather products, 
     footwear machinery, footwear and parts;
       Low tariffs for most chemicals at WTO harmonization rates;
       Elimination of import restrictions for construction 
     equipment and footwear machinery.
       The agreement will also open the Chinese market to a wide 
     range of services, including telecommunications, banking, 
     insurance, financial, professional, hotel, restaurant, 
     tourism, motion pictures, video distribution, software 
     entertainment distribution, periodicals distribution, 
     business, computer, environmental, and distribution and 
     related services. More detailed information on improved 
     market access for specific sectors can be found at the USTR 
     website www.ustr.gov.
       The bilateral WTO accession agreement also provides for 
     substantial improvements in access for our shoe and textile 
     products to the Chinese market. In addition to phasing in 
     import rights for our companies, China will permit them to 
     distribute imports directly to customers in China. The 
     Agreement also will reduce China's tariffs on textiles and 
     apparel products from its current average tariff of 25.4% to 
     11.7%--which will be lower than the U.S. average tariff at 
     the time reductions are completed by January 1, 2005. For 
     shoes and shoe components, China's current average tariff of 
     25% will be reduced to 21% by January 1, 2004. U.S. producers 
     believe that there are significant opportunities for US 
     exports of textile products such as high volume, high quality 
     cotton and man-made fiber yarns and fabrics, knit fabrics, 
     printed fabrics; branded apparel, sportswear and advanced 
     speciality textiles used in construction of buildings, 
     highways and filtration products to China.
       In addition to increased market opportunities for Maine's 
     workers and industries, China's accession to the WTO will 
     include measures to address imports that injure U.S. 
     industries, including the textile and footwear industries. 
     Among these measures are two ``special safeguards,'' one of 
     which is specifically for textiles. The textile and apparel 
     industries have recourse to both the special textile 
     safeguard and the product specific safeguard. The special 
     textile safeguard is available until the end of 2008--four 
     years after quotas otherwise expire under the WTO Agreement 
     on Textiles and Clothing. This can be used by the textile 
     industry to protect the market from disruptive imports in the 
     same manner as under our longstanding bilateral agreements; 
     there has been no change in the criteria for using this 
     safeguard and it is a known quantity for the industry.
       The more general product-specific safeguard is also 
     available and will allow us to impose restraints focused 
     directly on China in case of an import surge based on a 
     standard that is easier to meet than that applied to other 
     WTO Members. This protection remains available for a full 12 
     years after China's WTO accession. A more detailed 
     description of these two safeguard measures is attached to 
     this letter.
       In addition to these two safeguard mechanisms, we believe 
     that existing U.S. trade laws, as augmented by the provisions 
     of the November 1999 bilateral agreement (including the 
     provisions of H.R. 4444), provide adequate means to address 
     the shoe and textile industries' concerns about imports from 
     China. In particular, we would note that the agreement allows 
     the United States to continue to use existing NME provisions 
     with respect to China for 15 years after China's entry into 
     the WTO. Lastly, when China becomes a member of the WTO, the 
     United States will be able to ensure that China abides by its 
     commitments under the Agreement on Subsidies and 
     Countervailing Measures which are clarified in our bilateral 
     agreement. When we determine that an industry is market 
     oriented or that China is no longer a non-market economy, 
     U.S. countervailing duty law will apply.
       When China accedes to the WTO, the bilateral quotas 
     currently in force with China will be incorporated into the 
     WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC). As of January 
     1, 2005, in accordance with the agreements reached as part of 
     the Uruguay Round, all textile quotas will be eliminated, 
     however, additional protections have been incorporated into 
     the agreement for the benefit of the U.S. industry. For 
     example, in addition to the two safeguard mechanisms, the 
     U.S. established low annual quota growth rates, which will be 
     the base for quota growth during the ATC phase-out period. 
     China's weighted average annual growth rate is presently 
     0.9722 percent, compared to a figure for WTO Members of 
     9.1231 percent. Additionally, it is anticipated that any 
     increase in imports from China would come primarily at the 
     expense of other restricted suppliers. Finally, China's 
     undertakings to prevent illegal textile transshipment, and 
     our strong remedies should transshipment occur, including the 
     ``triple charge'' penalty, will continue to apply under the 
     ATC regime.
       With regard to the Economic Policy Institute's (EPI) study, 
     a policy brief written by the Institute for International 
     Economics, ``American Access to China's Market: The 
     Congressional Vote on PNTR,'' clearly refutes the methodology 
     and conclusions of the study, especially its questionable 
     correlation of a bilateral deficit with unemployment. In 
     addition, the EPI study purports to be based on the U.S. 
     International Trade Commission's (ITC) China report that 
     actually suggests substantial benefits for American workers, 
     farmers and companies, despite underestimating the benefits 
     of granting PNTR. For example, the ITC's calculations did not 
     factor in the effects of vital reductions in restrictions on 
     the right to import and distribute, reductions in 
     restrictions on trade in services, or reductions in Chinese 
     non-tariff barriers. Nor did the ITC's calculations factor in 
     China's anticipated economic growth and ongoing economic 
     reforms. Despite underestimating the benefits of China's 
     accession to the WTO, the ITC's limited model nonetheless 
     finds that China's entry into the WTO will lead to higher 
     incomes in the United States and a decrease in our overall 
     global trade deficit. In simulations of the effects of 
     China's April 1999 tariff offer, the ITC reports that U.S. 
     GDP rises by $1.7 trillion and our overall trade deficit 
     decreases by $800 million. Finally, in a letter to EPI, the 
     Director of Operations of the ITC stated that the EPI study 
     in several ways misrepresents the work and the findings of 
     the ITC's analysis.
       I hope that this reply addresses your concerns. If you have 
     any further questions, we would be happy to address them.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charlene Barshefsky.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, there are no further amendments in order to 
H.R. 4444. Therefore, the 6 hours of debate time remain. It is my 
understanding that the debate time will be

[[Page 18113]]

consumed tomorrow and Monday. Therefore, there are no further votes 
this evening. The next vote will be on Tuesday at 2:15 p.m. on passage 
of H.R. 4444.
  I ask unanimous consent that all debate time allotted in the previous 
consent agreement be consumed or considered used when the Senate 
convenes on Tuesday, with the exception of 90 minutes for each leader 
to be used prior to 12:30 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________