[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18153-18154]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
H.R. 4444, legislation that will extend permanent normal trade 
relations status to China.
  In the past few days, the Senate has held a number of votes on 
amendments that address issues about which I care deeply. We have 
debated amendments that deal with such issues as ensuring religious 
freedom in China; organ harvesting; Tibet; and Senator Thompson's 
amendment dealing with Chinese nuclear proliferation--an issue that 
needs definite action.
  However, I have reluctantly voted against including these, and other 
amendments, to H.R. 4444. I am committed to passing PNTR, and I believe 
we must pass a clean bill and present it to the President for his 
signature as soon as possible. It is long overdue.
  Fortunately, as we approach a final vote on PNTR, the Senate is 
poised to pass a clean bill, which, in my view, will help continue the 
growth of our economy, and help bring us closer to realizing many of 
the reforms in China that my colleagues wish to see implemented.
  For the past several years, the United States has enjoyed one of its 
longest periods of economic expansion in our history. International 
trade has been a vital component of this remarkable economic boom. In 
fact, the growth in U.S. exports over the last ten years has been 
responsible for about one-third of our total economic growth. That 
means jobs for Americans and of particular concern to this Senator, 
jobs for Ohioans.
  As my colleagues know, America's trade barriers are among the lowest 
in the world, and as a result, American workers face stiff competition 
from overseas. Nevertheless, it is this competition that has made 
American workers the best and the most productive anywhere, and the 
U.S. economy the strongest and most vibrant in the world.
  In my state of Ohio, tearing down trade barriers has helped us become 
the 8th largest exporter in the United States, and part of Ohio's 
export-related success can be linked to passage of NAFTA.
  Thanks to NAFTA, historic trade barriers that once kept American 
goods and services out of Canadian and Mexican markets either have been 
eliminated or are being phased out. The positive economic effects have 
been astounding, including a growth in U.S. exports to Canada of 54 
percent and a growth of U.S. exports to Mexico of 90 percent since 
1993--the year before NAFTA took effect.
  My State of Ohio has outperformed the nation during that time period 
in the growth of exports to America's two NAFTA trading partners. Ohio 
exports to Canada have grown 64 percent and Ohio exports to Mexico have 
grown 101 percent. In the last several years, Mexico has moved from our 
seventh largest trading partner to fourth.
  Since 1994--the same year NAFTA went into effect--nearly 600,000 net 
new jobs were created in Ohio. Although NAFTA did not create all of 
these jobs, the boom in export growth triggered by NAFTA, as well as 
the overwhelming success of the ``New Economy'' have contributed 
significantly to this job growth.
  As in many States in America, unemployment in Ohio today is at a 25 
year low; and some areas of the State are even facing worker 
shortages--in fact, too many. The claims that ``countless numbers of 
workers'' would lose their jobs due to NAFTA and become 
``unemployable'' have rung hollow.
  According to the most recent data from the United States Department 
of Labor, the number of workers who have been certified by the DOL as 
eligible for NAFTA trade adjustment assistance benefits between January 
1, 1994, and September 28, 1999, is 6,074.
  However, not all workers who have been certified for NAFTA trade 
adjustment assistance have actually collected benefits. Additional data 
from the Department of Labor suggests that only 20 to 30 percent of all 
certified workers have collected benefits. This means that most workers 
have moved

[[Page 18154]]

on to other employment. It also means that NAFTA works.
  Building on the success of NAFTA, we have an opportunity to watch 
lightning strike twice.
  In November of last year, the U.S. signed an historic bilateral trade 
agreement with China, a crucial first step in China's effort to gain 
entry into the World Trade Organization. This agreement--a product of 
13 years of negotiation--contains unprecedented, unilateral trade 
concessions on the part of China, including significant reductions in 
tariffs and other barriers to trade.
  In return, China would receive no increased access to U.S. markets, 
no cuts in U.S. tariffs and no special removal of U.S. import 
protections. This is because our market is already open to Chinese 
exports, and by signing the bilateral agreement, China has agreed to 
open its market unilaterally to the United States in exchange for U.S. 
support for Chinese membership in the World Trade Organization.
  If implemented, this agreement would present unprecedented 
opportunities for American farmers, workers and businesses. In fact, 
according to the Institute for International Economics, China's entry 
into the WTO would result in an immediate increase in U.S. exports of 
$3.1 billion.
  An analysis produced by Goldman Sachs, which took into account 
investment flows, estimates that China's entry into the WTO could 
translate into $13 billion in additional U.S. exports by the year 2005.
  As good as this may sound, the United States risks losing the 
substantial economic benefits of this agreement unless permanent normal 
trade relations status is extended to China. Currently, China's PNTR 
status is annually reviewed by the President and is conditioned on the 
fulfillment of specific freedom-of-emigration requirements established 
in 1974 by the Jackson-Vanik law.
  However, WTO rules require all members to grant PNTR status to all 
fellow members without condition. If the U.S. fails to extend PNTR 
status to China, then both this trade agreement and WTO rules may not 
apply to our trade with China.
  I understand that many Americans oppose PNTR for China because of 
China's record on a number of important issues, including trade 
fairness, human rights, labor standards, the environment, and China's 
emergence as a regional and global military power. I share those 
concerns, but I believe that rather than unilaterally locking the 
United States out of the Chinese market, the best way to address these 
issues is by opening China up.
  For years, American businesses have been repeatedly frustrated in 
their attempts to penetrate the Chinese market and get through numerous 
trade barriers used by China to protect its uncompetitive state-owned 
enterprises. In signing the November agreement, China has agreed to 
remove and significantly reduce these trade barriers. This would open 
up one of the world's fastest growing and potentially largest markets 
to American goods and services in a wide range of sectors, from 
agriculture to automobiles and banking to telecommunications. It would 
eventually allow U.S. exporters to freely distribute their products to 
any part of China without interference from government middlemen.
  This agreement also maintains and strengthens safeguards against 
unfair Chinese imports. It preserves a tougher standard in identifying 
illegal dumping. What's more, with this agreement, we will have better 
protections from import surges than under current U.S. law. Most 
importantly, this agreement sets the stage for China to join the WTO 
and, hence, become subject to both its trade rules and its binding 
punishments for breaking these rules.
  The United States has worked for more than a decade to secure freer 
access to the Chinese market. If the U.S. does not capitalize on this 
agreement by giving China PNTR status, America's competitors in Europe 
and Asia most certainly will.
  Like most Americans, I am deeply concerned about human rights, labor 
and environmental conditions in China. Some opponents argue that 
granting PNTR status would somehow remove pressure on China to improve 
its poor record on these issues. I don't agree.
  It is important to remember that China already has the privilege of 
full access to the U.S. market. Let's get that clear. They already have 
the privilege of full access to the U.S. market. While Congress has 
repeatedly criticized China's record on these issues, it has never once 
revoked China's trade status in an annual review.
  Furthermore, granting China PNTR status would not prevent Congress or 
the administration from continuing to speak out on any and all issues 
of concern that have been raised, nor would it preclude sanctioning 
China in the future.
  In addition, I regard the expansion of our economic relationship as a 
far more effective method of influencing change in Chinese behavior 
than the status quo. If China joins the WTO, the United States will 
have an unprecedented opportunity to not only export more of our goods 
and services to China, but also our culture and values. This increased 
interaction will allow the United States to expose the Chinese people 
to Western standards of political freedom, human rights, business 
practices and environmental protection.
  No one can predict with any degree of certainty the path China will 
ultimately choose for itself. But I firmly believe that opening China 
economically to the rest of the world can only help efforts to open up 
its political system and improve the lives of its people.
  Some argue that China has become a major military rival to America 
and that increased trade would finance China's military buildup, 
thereby enhancing China's threat to our national security. I think this 
logic as inherently wrong.
  History has shown that economic integration diminishes military 
tension and the threat of war, even among historical enemies. The 
European Union, which brought together two longtime adversaries, France 
and Germany, is a prime example of this phenomenon.
  Nations that trade together share a common interest in remaining at 
peace and preserving the mutual benefits of free trade. Conversely, 
rejecting opportunities for economic cooperation would only play into 
the hands of the old hard-line elements in China who are already 
hostile to both free trade and the United States.
  As the final vote on PNTR approaches, the question that this body 
must consider is not whether China deserves to enjoy the benefits of 
WTO membership.
  At this point, that is not a decision the U.S. can make wholly on our 
own, because China will be able to join the WTO if it has the support 
of its other major trading partners. Nor does the Senate need to 
determine whether China needs to improve its record on human rights, 
labor standards and the environment. It is already clear that these 
issues need to be addressed.
  What the Senate needs to do is to decide whether our Nation will be 
able to benefit from a hard-fought agreement that unilaterally opens 
China's markets to American products, and whether the United States 
should use this trade relationship to advance democratic reform, build 
a trusting relationship, and address grievances without hostility. In 
my view, granting China permanent normal trade relations status is the 
first step in that process.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my admiration for the Senator 
from Ohio. He effectively states his case on matters of great 
importance to his State and the Nation. He always does that 
effectively. I greatly admire his views and thought processes.

                          ____________________