[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18390-18397]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 18390]]

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to vote on the passage of H.R. 4444.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to use 
some of my leader time to conclude discussion on the China PNTR.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. First, Mr. President, this is the last day of a very 
critical and helpful staff member working here with the Senate in the 
Finance Committee. That person is Debbie Lamb on Senator Moynihan's 
staff. She has been his chief trade counsel and has been very helpful, 
obviously, to Senator Moynihan and, before that, to Senator Bentsen.
  I remember specifically one night we were negotiating the final 
contours of a bill between the House and the Senate. I wound up relying 
on her counsel as we made the final decisions. People may find it 
somewhat a surprise that the majority leader, a Republican, would be 
relying on the counsel on the other side of the aisle, but it does work 
that way and it attests to her credibility and expertise. She has done 
a wonderful job. We wish her the very best.
  In that connection, too, I want to recognize the outstanding work 
that has been done by Senator Moynihan and by Chairman Roth. Here he 
is, sitting right behind me. They have been patient; they have been 
willing to spend hours here in the Senate. They waited weeks to get 
their opportunity to have it considered in the Senate. There was no 
effort made to cut off a full debate. I think every Senator believes he 
or she had the opportunity they needed to make their case, state their 
positions, and raise their concerns or why they supported it.
  Also, we had numerous amendments, and all of them failed. Some of 
them were very attractive. In fact, I felt very strongly about a couple 
of them, obviously. But they waded through all of this and we are going 
to have a final vote in a moment. I think it is going to be an 
overwhelming vote. I think it is the right thing to do and I commend 
Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan for their leadership.
  When history is written about this session, one of the things I 
believe it will say is that this is a session of Congress that did 
spend time and wound up passing some important trade bills with 
relation to not only China but the Caribbean and also Africa. A lot of 
credit goes to the leaders of this committee.
  Regardless of one's views on the merits, there is no question about 
the significance of the measure we consider today. Normalizing trade 
relations with China will not only have profound effects upon our 
economic well-being, but it will undoubtedly have significant 
implications for our relations with China and our national security.
  China accounts for a quarter of the world's population. It has one of 
the largest economies in the world--an economy that has been growing at 
a remarkable rate of nearly 10 percent per year. China unquestionably 
is and will be a major factor in the world, especially economically.
  There is also no question that China's entry into the World Trade 
Organization holds great opportunities for the United States. Chief 
among them are the economic benefits that would flow from the 
dismantling of Chinese trade barriers--barriers that deny benefits to 
our workers and businesses.
  But many people in this country have legitimate questions. They 
question whether China will live up to its commitments, whether it will 
trade fairly in our market, and whether we are ignoring China's human 
rights abuses and its destabilizing behavior in the world.
  These are not questions to be taken lightly. And that is why I have 
insisted that the Senate not rush to action on this bill, and that 
those on both sides have a full opportunity to air their views and 
their amendments.
  The Senate has had ample time to consider the agreements reached with 
China, has held numerous hearings on its potential accession to the 
WTO, and has engaged in a full and vigorous debate on this issue. That 
is certainly fitting on an issue of this magnitude.
  I know that many of my colleagues, like myself, have struggled with 
this issue in light of our larger concerns about China and its behavior 
in the world. We all know that China is a one-party State that denies 
the most basic rights to its people. We must acknowledge that it 
deprives its people of religious freedom, that it has flagrantly 
engaged in weapons proliferation, and that it has repeatedly used 
unfair trade practices in our market.
  Whle some may argue that we should, I do not believe that we can 
totally separate these broader issues from the question of our trade 
relationship with China. But I also believe that we cannot allow our 
desire for reform in China to blind us not only to the benefits we 
receive from trade with China, but from the positive effects trade may 
have within that country.
  On balance, I am convinced that expanding our trading relation with 
China is not only in our economic self interest, but in our broader 
national interest as well.
  There are many misconceptions about the action Congress is taking 
with this legislation. Chief among them is the view that we are voting 
on whether to allow China into the World Trade Organization. The fact 
is that China will almost certainly enter the WTO, regardless of 
whether the United States approves this legislation.
  What this legislation will decide is whether the commitments of WTO 
membership are applied bilaterally between the United States and China.
  Applying WTO commitments to trade between the United States and China 
is in our economic interest--and for a simple reason. We already grant 
China the favorable access to our market required by the WTO. China, 
however, does not grant similar access to our products. As such, this 
agreement will expand our access to China's market; it will not expand 
China's access to ours.
  Many of my colleagues have gone through in detail the market-opening 
concessions China will be forced to make upon entry into the WTO. Let 
me just highlight some of the major terms that will have a direct 
impact on our workers and companies:
  China will be required to cut tariffs from a current average of 
almost 25 percent to an average of around 9 percent by 2005--with 
particularly sharp reductions for farm products and information 
technology products;
  China will be required to provide our companies with full trading and 
distribution rights--eliminating the need to go through trading 
companies blessed by the Chinese government;
  China will be required to greatly expand access to its market for 
agricultural goods, ranging from cotton, wheat, soybeans, rice and farm 
products across the spectrum.
  China will for the first time be required to provide real access to 
financial services providers--allowing U.S. banks, insurers and other 
providers significant new access.
  Why would we walk away from these new and dramatic benefits--
particularly when our market is already open to Chinese imports?
  Both the farming and manufacturing community in my home state--as in 
states across the country--have voiced strong support for increased 
trade with China.
  They know that we cannot afford to neglect economic ties with a 
nation of more than 1 billion people, and a market that already is the 
sixth largest for U.S. agricultural exports. They know that with 
expanded trade China is projected to account for more than one third of 
the growth in U.S. agricultural exports. Whether it is cotton farmers 
in the delta or poultry producers in central Mississippi, our farmers 
need China's market.
  We also stand to make huge gains in the high tech sector, where the 
U.S. leads, and where my state is growing in leaps and bounds. Only 2.5 
percent of China's population has a computer and only 1 percent has 
access to the Internet--but these numbers are growing rapidly.

[[Page 18391]]

  If we do not trade with China, you can bet that our competitors in 
Japan and Europe will. And it will be their workers and industries--not 
ours--that reap the benefits of increased access to China's market.
  If the economic benefits are clear, what is it that we give up by 
approving permanent trade relations with China? Most concretely, we end 
the automatic annual review of China's trade status under the Jackson-
Vanik amendment. I do not take this lightly. We must acknowledge that 
gaining permanent trading status in our market has been a major 
objective of China's. And we should not dismiss out of hand the 
salutary effects that have resulted from a yearly review of China's 
actions and status.
  But we must also question how much leverage this review continues to 
provide--particularly given that China's most favored nation status has 
never been withdrawn in the 20 years since relations with the PRC were 
normalized in 1979. And we must consider as well what benefits and 
favorable effects are likely to accompany a closer trading relation 
between our countries.
  Trade will not solve all of our problems with China, and it will not 
change China's behavior overnight. But economic forces are powerful--
often beyond anything we can imagine. China's commitments under the WTO 
agreements will require it to loosen its grip--perhaps not dramatically 
at first, but in real and observable ways--over the economic life of 
its people.
  As wealth grows among China's middle class, as they see the benefits 
of open markets and freedom, as they share in the unbelievable exchange 
of ideas that the new economy and the Internet bring, change will come 
to China. And we must be there, to engage, to influence, and to foster 
ideas that will hopefully lead to a new flowering of democracy and 
freedom--and over the long run to a more peaceful and stable world.
  I want to stress one thing. The passage of this bill must not--and I 
can tell you that as long as I have anything to say about it, it will 
not--mark a lessening of our commitment to scrutinize China's behavior, 
to combat proliferation, and to advance the cause of human and 
religious rights.
  Our friends and allies around the world should not misinterpret what 
happened with our vote on the Thompson amendment--a vote that was 
caught up in the back and forth of how best to consider the measure. 
This country is united in its determination to combat weapons 
proliferation in China and around the world. Our commitment has not 
wavered, and we have not seen the last of this issue on the Senate 
floor.
  We must recognize the legitimate fears and concerns of many citizens 
regarding trade with China. They know China has abused our market in 
the past and has failed to live up to its end of the bargain in recent 
trade agreements.
  Ensuring Chinese compliance with its commitments will not be easy. 
But it is essential that we are unwavering in our vigilance to see that 
our workers and our companies get the benefits they are promised. This 
agreement maintains our ability to use our trade laws fully to combat 
Chinese unfair trade practices, and to take trade measures necessary to 
protect our national security. We must respond swiftly and forcefully 
where the need arises.
  This will be one of the most closely scrutinized trade agreements in 
history, as it should be. The American people know that we can compete 
and win with fair and open markets, but they will not long tolerate the 
systematic flouting of our agreements and the abuse of our market. This 
will be a test--not only of our own resolve to make trade agreements 
work for our citizens, but of the ability of the WTO and the 
international system to deliver on the promises it has made.
  This has been a remarkable year for trade legislation.
  I want to congratulate Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan once again 
for their extraordinary efforts to get our trade agenda back on track--
passing this year both the Africa-CBI trade enhancement act and now 
this critical piece of legislation. It is a record of accomplishment 
for which we can all be proud.
  But it is not a time to rest or sit back. We saw in Seattle the 
consequences of indecision, mixed messages and lack of resolve in the 
cause of freer and fairer trade.
  Making the case for freer trade and open markets will never be easy. 
The concrete dislocations and challenges that come with increased 
global trade are often easier to see and to seize upon than the more 
diffuse gains from new markets and new economic growth. It is up to us 
as policy makers and public officials to ensure that our workers and 
our businesses see the gains from trade, that they receive the benefits 
of the agreements we make, and that our security and our economic well-
being are enhanced as we seek further engagement in the global economy.
  I know there are legitimate concerns about this legislation and that 
there are those having to struggle with whether or not we can trust 
China's compliance. They are legitimate concerns about human rights 
violations, religious persecution, and nuclear weapons activities. But 
I also believe it would be a tremendous mistake to ignore the 
advantages of this trade legislation. There are a billion people in 
China. These are markets that are not now open to us. Just last night, 
I looked over what would come out of this legislation. The fact is, 
they will have to open markets. China will be required to cut tariffs 
from the current average of almost 25 percent to an average of 9 
percent by 2005, with a particularly sharp reduction for farm products 
and information technology.
  China will be required to provide our companies with full trading and 
distribution rights; it will be required to greatly expand access to 
its markets for agricultural goods, ranging from cotton, wheat, 
soybeans, rice, and farm products across the spectrum. For the first 
time, China will be required to provide real access to financial 
services providers.
  This is legislation that is good for America, that is good for the 
working people in our country. It will take a lot of vigilance. I think 
we need to make sure of its compliance. But it is the right thing to 
do. I will vote for this legislation and I hope it will be accepted 
overwhelmingly.
  Have the yeas and nays been ordered, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the third 
time.
  The bill (H.R. 4444) was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill pass? 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 83, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 251 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Robb

[[Page 18392]]


     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--15

     Bunning
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Feingold
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Mikulski
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Akaka
     Lieberman
       
  The bill (H.R. 4444) was passed.
  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.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today ends an historic debate on permanent 
normal trade relations with China. The vote we just cast was certainly 
the most important of this year and likely the most consequential of 
the past decade.
  We have had a vigorous debate on PNTR as well as the full range of 
issues my colleagues have raised through amendment.
  Because of PNTR's significance, however, I opposed all amendments to 
PNTR regardless of merit. And many of the amendments did have merit. 
Indeed, I would have supported some of them under other circumstances.
  In the case of PNTR, however, a vote for any amendment would have 
forced a conference with the House and additional votes in both the 
House and Senate on a conference report. Had we chosen that route, we 
would likely have run out of time before we could have passed PNTR in 
this Congress.
  And had we failed to pass PNTR this year, the only certain effect 
would have been to punish our workers, farmers, and businesses by 
placing them at a huge competitive disadvantage to their fiercest 
foreign competitors in gaining access to China's burgeoning market.
  That is because PNTR does not determine whether China enters the 
World Trade Organization. China will enter the WTO regardless of what 
Congress had done on PNTR; and China's entry will definitely take place 
this year according to Michael Moore, the Director-General of the WTO.
  What PNTR does is allow American firms equal access to China's market 
when China joins the WTO.
  Let us remember that in joining the WTO, China has committed itself 
to abandoning central control and throwing its market wide open to the 
United States an all the other WTO members, all within roughly five 
years. Let me note here that for our part, the U.S. market will not be 
opened further to China; our market is already open to the Chinese.
  In keeping with its obligations as a member of the WTO, China will 
have to extend permanently and unconditionally its greatly lowered 
tariffs and its expansively opened market to every other member of the 
WTO. In other words, China will have to maintain PNTR with all member 
economies of the WTO. There is only one exception to this rule: when 
another WTO member chooses not to extend permanent normal trade 
relations to China, China need not extend PNTR to that country.
  Of course, there is only one member of the WTO that even considered 
denying China PNTR--the United States. In part, that's because there 
has been a belief that in denying the Chinese PNTR we would somehow 
force them to change their behavior in any number of areas, from human 
rights to Taiwan to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  But would denying China PNTR actually have changed Chinese behavior? 
Frankly, there is little logic to this argument. After all, the only 
certain result of denying China PNTR is that we would have deprived 
U.S. farmers, workers and businesses access to China's lowered tariffs 
and more open market--access that every other member of the WTO will 
enjoy.
  How is it that putting Americans at a competitive disadvantage to the 
French, the Germans, the Japanese and the Canadians would have 
compelled Beijing to act in ways the United States would prefer?
  I submit that in denying PNTR--and thereby undermining American 
economic access to China--we actually would have lost leverage over 
China rather than gain it. Only by engaging China economically, by 
permitting Americans to work within China and thereby pressuring her 
from the inside to restructure her institutions and advance the rule of 
law, do we stand the best chance of making Beijing more cooperative.
  That's why most of China's human rights dissidents have supported 
China's entry into the WTO and PNTR. As Wang Dan, a leader of the 
demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, said, China's entry into the WTO 
``will be beneficial for the long-term future of China because China 
thus will be required to abide by the rules and regulations of the 
international community.''
  Meanwhile, the Taiwanese, the people most threatened by China, also 
support China's WTO accession and PNTR. Taiwan's current and previous 
Presidents have both publicly affirmed their support for the United 
States fully normalizing trade relations with China. And as President 
Clinton stated in a letter he sent in response to an inquiry I made 
last week, the U.S. will make sure that Taiwan gains entry to the WTO 
just as soon as China does.
  On the question of U.S. national security, the Americans most 
knowledgeable about the matter, including Presidents Ford, Bush and 
Carter, as well as virtually every living former Secretary of State and 
Defense, National Security Advisor and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff agrees that PNTR will advance American interests. They recognize, 
as General Colin Powell put it, that if Congress rejects PNTR, the 
result will be ``to make [China] more isolated, truculent and more 
aggressive . . .''
  The vote over PNTR was thus about more than just economics. It was 
also about America's response to China's emergence as a leading power, 
a phenomenon which I believe presents us with potentially our most 
serious foreign policy challenge. But it also presents us with enormous 
opportunities. We can only respond to that challenge adequately and 
seize those opportunities through a sensible overall China policy. The 
clear objective of that policy should be to encourage China's 
constructive and responsible behavior and discourage its aggressiveness 
and irresponsibility.
  I believe our China policy must have five central elements, and PNTR 
forms the core of the first--that of expanding our economic 
relationship with Beijing. We should seek such an expanded relationship 
because a China integrated into the global economy is more likely to 
behave in ways compatible with American interests and international 
norms. Thus, we should encourage China's development and participate in 
its economic growth by supporting China's accession to the World Trade 
Organization and by passing PNTR, as we have done.
  The more China is integrated into the international economy, the more 
subject Beijing is to the harsh realities of the marketplace. Should 
China choose a path toward blatant aggression and destabilizing 
domestic repression, foreign investment will dry up and firms will move 
to other countries where the risks are lower and the returns are 
higher.
  Moreover, we have a better opportunity to influence China to act in 
ways we prefer when we enmesh it in the sort of economic relationships 
fostered by granting China PNTR.
  In addition, economic growth nurtured by participation in the global 
economy tends to lead to greater demands for democratic reform. Other 
Asian countries, such as South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, have amply 
demonstrated the political evolution that accompanies economic 
development. By encouraging trade with China, we are also encouraging a 
process that is likely to lead to the sort of political liberalization 
that is in America's interest.
  The second element of any coherent China policy must include 
preparedness to deal with China if its participation in world affairs 
proves disruptive. Strengthening our current array of bilateral 
security ties in Asia is thus essential. Those ties include not only 
the

[[Page 18393]]

full security alliances we have with Japan, Korea, Thailand, the 
Philippines and Australia, but also the productive security 
arrangements we maintain with Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, 
New Zealand and other Asia Pacific nations.
  Closer cooperation on security and diplomatic initiatives with 
nations in the Asia Pacific that share our interests on China can serve 
to prod Beijing to accept the moderating influence of global economic 
integration. It also provides a hedge in the event Beijing instead 
chooses an aggressive path.
  Third, we must enforce current law regarding Chinese actions and be 
willing to challenge China on issues of concern. That is why we should 
continue to work to improve China's human rights policies and convince 
Beijing to abandon its repugnant use of forced abortions and grotesque 
practice of harvesting organs. We can pursue these ends, in part, by 
ensuring the success of the Levin-Bereuter Commission on human rights 
created by H.R. 4444, further supporting Radio Free Asia and condemning 
China at the annual human rights conference in Geneva and at other 
international fora.
  We should respond to China when it persecutes Christians, Muslims and 
those of other faiths by using the authority granted by the 
International Religious Freedom Act.
  We should continue to support Taiwan under the terms of the Taiwan 
Relations Act. The TRA affirms that any effort to determine Taiwan's 
future by other than peaceful means would, ``constitute a threat to the 
peace and security of the Western Pacific and be of grave concern to 
the United States.'' The TRA also commits the United States to making 
available to Taiwan such defense articles and services in such 
quantities as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a 
sufficient self-defense capability.
  We should push China to negotiate with the Dalai Lama regarding 
Tibet, supporting the Dalai Lama's call for ``Cultural autonomy'' 
within the Chinese system. And we should support the actions of the 
Special Coordinator for Tibetan issues within the State Department, a 
position created as a result of Congressional pressure in 1997.
  We should investigate credible allegations that Chinese goods have 
been produced by prison labor and enforce section 307 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, which bars imports of prison-made goods into the United 
States.
  We should work with the International Labor Organization to make sure 
that China lives up to its acceptance of the ILO's Declaration of 
Fundamental Rights and Principles at Work, which among other things, 
affords the people of signatory countries the right to organize and 
bargain collectively.
  We should work to counter Chinese proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction and their means of delivery through strict enforcement of 
the Arms Export Control Act, Chemical and Biological Weapons Control 
and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, the Export Administration Act of 
1979, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Nuclear 
Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994.
  And we should use the WTO's robust dispute settlement system to 
ensure that China meets its obligations to open its markets and abide 
by the rules of international trade.
  The fourth element of a coherent China policy is the continuation of 
high-level, regular dialogue with Beijing. Mistrust is bound to grow 
when we don't meet, particularly when the list of critical bilateral, 
regional and global issues requiring discussion is so long. Keep in 
mind that even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we held a 
consistent series of summit talks with Soviets.
  Finally, we must nurture aspects of the relationship where we share 
interests and can cooperate. China has the potential to play a key role 
in settling the serious threat posed by North Korea to the South, as 
well as to the 37,000 American troops we have on the ground there. I 
cannot imagine the Chinese playing a constructive role on any matter of 
mutual concern--from controlling transnational crime and narcotics 
trafficking to protecting the environment--if we only threaten and 
sanction them.
  In sum, to meet the challenge and reap the opportunities of a rising 
China, we must encourage economic relations with Beijing based on the 
China's accession to the WTO and passage of PNTR, strengthen security 
and diplomatic ties with our friends in the rest of the Asian Pacific, 
enforce current law regarding Chinese actions and be willing to 
confront China when necessary, continue high-level dialogue, and 
cooperate with China on matters of mutual concern.
  In addition, the Congress should not shy away from criticizing 
Chinese actions that run counter to internationally-recognized norms or 
American interests. For my part, I will do everything in my power as 
Chairman of the Finance Committee to see that China not only lives up 
to its WTO obligations, but also begins the process of internal change 
that is essential if Beijing is to meet those obligations.
  PNTR is not a panacea, and there will be many bumps on the road in 
relations between the United States and China. But PNTR is a key 
component of a coherent strategy for addressing the complex set of 
issues associated with the rise of China. That is why I am pleased PNTR 
passed overwhelmingly and with bipartisan support.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senate has just voted on one of the 
most significant and controversial bills of this Congress. I would like 
to take this opportunity to share my views on the issues involved and 
explain the process I went through in making my decision on how to vote 
on providing normal trade relations status to China.
  I thought about this matter a great deal and examined the issues very 
carefully. I listened to the arguments made by my colleagues in this 
Chamber and to the intense public debate over the past months. Just 
this last month, along with my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, I visited 
China. It was the first time I had been back since 1981. We were able 
to gain some valuable insights into the questions before us.
  Having listened to the debate on China PNTR, especially in the media, 
one may have gotten the idea that this is a clear-cut question. If you 
listened to the proponents, you would think PNTR is a magic elixir for 
the American economy. If you listened to the opponents, you would think 
PNTR spells utter disaster.
  After thoroughly looking into this matter, I concluded the claims of 
both sides were exaggerated. Passing PNTR was not a slam-dunk or a no-
brainer, but neither was it a sellout or a surrender on the critical 
problems we face with China. It was a matter of judging how the scales 
tipped: not which side was absolutely correct but which of the 
alternatives seemed, on balance, the best course to take. This was not 
an easy decision for me. However, I believe the balance did tip, 
although not overwhelmingly, in favor of passing this legislation 
granting China normal trade relations status.
  I would like to discuss briefly what the vote was really about and 
why I voted for PNTR.
  We had a good deal of discussion over the past several days on the 
details and implications of this legislation and on the agreement 
between the United States and China regarding China joining the WTO. 
There is no need for me to spend any time going over that again. It is 
important, though, to be clear on what the vote was really about.
  The vote on PNTR was not about whether China is going to join the 
WTO; China will. Nothing Congress can say, one way or the other, will 
make one bit of difference.
  This vote on PNTR was really about whether the United States will 
benefit from the WTO's trade rules and enforcement procedures which 
hold China accountable to negotiated trade agreements. If we did not 
grant PNTR to China, other nations, our competitors, would be able to 
take advantage of WTO trade rules and enforcement procedures but we 
would not.
  Why is that so? Because the WTO rules state that if we want the WTO 
to help us enforce fair trade rules, then we cannot treat one WTO 
member differently from another. We have to provide China the same 
continuous normal

[[Page 18394]]

trade status we provide other WTO members. We cannot single out China 
for an annual review of normal trade status and still hold China to WTO 
rules and enforcement.
  So that is what this debate really boiled down to--whether we should 
continue our annual review of normal trade relations with China or 
grant permanent normal trade relations; that is, would we gain more 
from a new trade relationship with China than we would lose by ending 
our annual review?
  I firmly believe that the more we can do to bring China's behavior 
under the rule of law, the better off we are, the better off the 
Chinese people will be, and the better off the rest of the world will 
be. That includes our ability to use the WTO to settle trade disputes 
involving China.
  Now, to be sure, we have had frustrations in the WTO dispute 
settlement process. It is far from perfect. But overall it is in our 
best interests to have a multilateral means to settle trade disputes 
with China according to the rule of law instead of trying to go it 
alone. That approach clearly has not been effective.
  U.S. trade negotiators did obtain substantial concessions from China 
in exchange for WTO membership. These concessions promise to lower 
tariffs, reduce trade barriers, and create new opportunities for 
selling U.S. goods and services in China. At the same time, the United 
States does not have to provide any new access to our markets. So the 
agreement should benefit U.S. workers, farmers, businesses, and our 
economy in general.
  But let's be realistic. The November 1999 agreement is far from 
overwhelmingly. It only requires China to go part of the way toward 
really opening up its borders and its markets. As my colleague from 
North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, has repeatedly pointed out, even under 
the agreement, China's markets will be far less open than ours.
  For example, according to the Congressional Research Service, the 
average U.S. tariff on all goods coming into the United States from 
China is 4.2 percent. That is the average U.S. tariff on all goods 
coming from China to the United States --4.2 percent. But after this 
agreement goes into effect, China's average tariff on U.S. industrial 
goods will be 9.4 percent, over twice as much. For agricultural 
products, China will only reduce its tariffs from an average of 22 
percent to 17 percent. U.S. agricultural tariffs are only 6 percent on 
average, one-third those of China.
  Or take automobiles. The U.S. tariff on autos is 2.5 percent. Under 
this agreement, China will have a 25-percent tariff on U.S. autos--10 
times higher than ours.
  I realize tariff rates are not the whole story and that China agreed 
to substantial opening of its markets. However, I am skeptical that our 
negotiators obtained as much as they could have. The United States had 
a lot of leverage in these negotiations. China needs our consent to 
join the WTO. And China had a lot at stake. The United States is the 
world's largest economy. We import nearly $100 billion from China. We 
run over an $80 billion trade deficit with China.
  They need access to our market. Our negotiators should have used our 
leverage and China's needs to get a better deal on the core trade 
issues and on other issues involving human rights, workers' rights, and 
the environment. That our negotiators did not get better tariff 
reductions and better agreements on worker and human rights I believe 
is a deeply regrettable missed opportunity. I believe our negotiators 
were simply in too much of a rush to get this deal done rather than 
address those core issues.
  In particular, let's be realistic about the benefits of PNTR for 
American agriculture. Some of the rhetoric I have heard regarding 
agriculture is wildly optimistic. We have heard that U.S. farmers will 
soon be feeding over a billion Chinese--a virtually unlimited market. 
The truth is, these claims are overstated.
  Farmers are ill served by the myth that China is a boon market just 
waiting to buy up large quantities of farm commodities and food 
products. China is strongly determined to remain largely self-
sufficient in food production, and it is adopting technology and 
following policies to meet that objective.
  For example, I visited a hog farm in China in 1981, and I visited one 
again last month. In 1981, the hogs and their management did not even 
compare to those here in America. The changes I saw this August were 
dramatic. The hogs I saw in August were every bit as lean as ours. 
Their sows are having litters of 12 to 14 pigs. They are saving 90 
percent of them. Their cost of production is low because wages are low. 
And the Government owns all the land.
  I discussed the potential for agricultural trade with the Vice 
Minister of Agriculture and other Chinese officials. They made it clear 
they do not expect to buy much corn or pork from the United States. In 
fact, they are planning to increase their exports of corn. They 
exported corn last year. But they did believe there would be somewhat 
of an increasing market in China for U.S. beef and citrus as well as 
some pork organ meats and similar such products.
  Certainly there will be opportunities for U.S. farmers and U.S. food 
and agribusiness companies, but, again, we have to be realistic.
  While I strongly believe we should sell as much food to China as we 
can, it is irresponsible to give farmers false hope that China is going 
to reverse the current depression in commodity prices or bail out the 
failed Freedom to Farm policy. More than irresponsible, it is just 
plain wrong.
  That isn't just my own opinion. In Doane's Agricultural Report in 
August, Dr. Robert Wisner, a professor of agriculture economics at Iowa 
State University, who spent 3\1/2\ weeks in China in June assessed the 
prospects for food and agricultural trade with China. He wrote:

       For the longer term we can be cautiously optimistic about 
     U.S. soybean and soybean product exports to China. But 
     optimism about U.S. corn, wheat and livestock product exports 
     should be more tempered.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       While the jury is still out on the question Who will feed 
     China? the Chinese answer is, ``China will feed China!''

  I will add, in fact, they already do.
  I now want to discuss the importance of human rights in our 
consideration of PNTR. As I see it, a key issue in PNTR is whether in 
relinquishing our annual review, the U.S. will lose important leverage 
that could be used to change China's behavior on human rights, workers 
rights, and child labor. Let us first be honest about this. China has a 
long way to go on religious freedom, freedom of movement, freedom of 
expression and association, political rights and the rights of workers. 
The China section of the U.S. State Department's annual report on human 
rights for this year and for several years running are absolutely 
appalling. But I don't have to rely on that report. As I said, I 
visited China last month.
  True, the human rights situation in many parts of China is not as bad 
as when I first visited in 1981. I could see some improvements, 
especially in the large cities. But the fact is, the state of human 
rights in China is still unacceptable. While in Hong Kong, we learned 
of a lawyer who was arrested and thrown in jail. His offense: He had 
set up a small table outside a factory to advise workers of their 
rights under Chinese law. To the best of my knowledge, he is still 
languishing in prison today.
  There is also the case of the young man, Ngawang Choepel, who studied 
music in the U.S. at Middlebury College in Vermont. He was arrested by 
the Chinese authorities several years ago while studying music in Tibet 
and charged with espionage and counterrevolutionary sedition. I was 
told this young man was convicted of spying for the Dalai Lama. He was 
sentenced to 18 years in prison.
  I responded to the Chinese that this was a ridiculous charge. But 
even if it were true, I asked them, how many tanks does the Dalai Lama 
have; how many troops does he command; how many ships does he own? To 
me, this was a strong indication of the weak foundation upon which the 
Chinese political system rests.
  We also know that forced labor and prison labor still exist in China. 
I had

[[Page 18395]]

been told by both Chinese and U.S. Government officials that there are 
no serious child labor problems in China. But now, after meeting with 
reputable worker and human rights organizations in Hong Kong, I know 
there are certainly serious child labor problems inside China. 
Estimates indicate China has from 10 to 40 million child laborers. When 
we left Shanghai and went to Hong Kong, the very next day after we were 
told by both U.S. authorities and Chinese authorities that child labor 
was not a very serious problem, this was the headline in the Sunday 
Morning Post, August 27, 2000, Hong Kong: ``Children Toil in 
Sweatshop.''
  This was in an area north of Hong Kong, mainland China, where kids as 
young as 12 years old were working making toys. This is again a part of 
the article: ``Childhood Lost to Hard Labor.''
  Also from the article:

       Lax age checks open door to underage workers at Shenzhen 
     factory producing toys for fast food chain.

  They were producing toys for a company and that company was selling 
its toys to McDonald's. McDonald's gives these toys away, when you buy 
a Happy Meal for your kids. It is the kids who are making the toys. Yet 
we are told that there are no serious child labor problems in China. 
Here was photographic proof, reporting proof that only a few miles 
across the border from Hong Kong, we had child laborers toiling to make 
these toys, working 16 hours a day and more.
  This is a quotation from the story:

       The youngsters admit they lie about their ages to get jobs 
     in the factory, where workers estimate up to 20 percent of 
     the employees are under the legal age of 16. But they say 
     only rudimentary checks are done on their ID cards by the 
     factory to make sure they are old enough to work. Asia 
     Monitor Resource Centre, a labor monitoring body, said it was 
     common for people to use fake ID cards to get work. Child 
     labor is a common problem in China. It exists in rural small 
     farms and big factories run by transnational enterprises.

  Again, we do have the problem of child labor and prison labor, forced 
labor in China. So, clearly, there are serious human rights problems in 
China that cannot be denied or swept under the rug. But they raise the 
questions: What are the best ways to address those problems and to 
bring about real progress on human rights in China? And how should 
human rights considerations affect our decision on PNTR?
  Before I go into these questions, I will take a moment to emphasize 
my long and strong commitment to human rights. My record speaks for 
itself. I have been working on human rights issues since I first took 
office in the House of Representatives 25 years ago and as a private 
citizen before then. In fact, the first legislation I authored in the 
House in 1975 resulted in the enactment of section 116(d) prohibiting 
U.S. foreign assistance to the government of any country which engages 
in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally 
recognized human rights.
  I have worked to end child labor and prison labor and religious 
persecution in the former Soviet Union, Haiti, Central America, Chile, 
East Timor, India, and other nations. I have worked very hard to free 
political prisoners and to end political violence.
  What have I learned from all these years? Frankly, I have learned 
there is no standard cut-and-dried approach when it comes to advancing 
human rights. Of course, there are established minimum standards for 
human rights, as outlined in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, 
which China has signed.
  I am not talking about weakening those standards, never. But there is 
no set formula for achieving observance of the standards. We must 
tailor our methods to the particular situation and the particular 
society.
  In the case of China, I am convinced that granting PNTR will not 
hinder our efforts to improve human rights there. I believe, in fact, 
it will actually help us in that endeavor.
  Some have claimed that passing PNTR will cause us to lose our 
leverage on human rights. The simple fact is, we have never effectively 
used the annual trade status review to influence human rights in China, 
and it is highly unlikely we would do so in the future. Annual renewal 
of normal trade status has become almost perfunctory. Even in the wake 
of Tiananmen Square, President Bush renewed China's normal trade status 
and Congress did not reverse that decision.
  As I said, I believe passing PNTR and creating a U.S.-China 
relationship in the WTO should actually help to improve human rights in 
China. How much? It is far too early to tell. However, based on my 
examination of the issues and my experience in China, I concluded that 
the best way to move China forward is to be engaged with China. And in 
order to be fully engaged with China, we had to grant PNTR.
  The simple fact is, we cannot simply wall China off. When I visited 
the Great Wall in China this summer, it reminded me how impossible such 
an effort would be. China could not be walled off centuries ago, and it 
cannot be walled off today.
  Trade and economic ties alone, however, will never magically 
transform China's human rights policies. But I can tell you, there is a 
big crack in China's great wall against human rights reform. One day 
before long, that wall, too, will come down. Look at recent 
developments in China. There has been a huge influx of new products and 
services, but more importantly, the people of China are being exposed 
to new ideas and new influences regarding human rights, political 
rights, and religious freedom.
  Now we have the Internet. I can say one thing I learned in China. The 
Chinese Government may be able to censor TV and to censor the radio and 
the newspapers, but no matter how hard they try, they will not be able 
to control or censor the Internet. Nearly every single person Senator 
Lautenberg and I talked with in China told us that we should support 
PNTR. We even met with dissidents and human rights activists in Hong 
Kong, people under no coercion from the Chinese Government, who had 
fled China, who can't even go back to China, who urged us to support 
PNTR. They said that anything that helps to open up China, that brings 
in people and ideas, is helpful.
  Throughout my over 25 years in working on human rights, I have seen 
that they are right. We must expose countries to the influence of the 
rest of the world if we want them to change their policy on human 
rights.
  I noticed the editorial in the Washington Post this morning about the 
``Catholic `Criminals' in China.'' I am sure it has been printed in the 
Record earlier today. It talked about an 81-year-old Catholic bishop 
who had been thrown in jail--again. We didn't meet with this bishop. We 
tried, but we could not. We met with Bishop Aloysius Jin Luxian, the 
Bishop of Shanghai, an 85-year-old Catholic bishop who spent 27 years 
of his life in Chinese prisons. He is a trained Jesuit. He has been to 
America more than once, to Europe several times, and while he would not 
politically comment on PNTR, he told us in no uncertain terms that 
exposure to the rest of the world would be a positive thing for 
religious freedom in China.
  I believe he is right. We must expose countries to the influence of 
the rest of the world if we want them to change. I also think this is 
true of relations with Cuba. Our policy against Cuba, trying 
unilaterally to isolate it, has been counterproductive. If we want 
Fidel Castro to change, we have to open the doors and let people trade 
and visit and move around freely. Our official policy is the best thing 
Castro has going for him.
  So I conclude that PNTR will help move China toward a greater respect 
for human rights because it will open them up to new ideas and 
influences.
  Even though I concluded that China PNTR offers opportunities for 
businesses, workers, and the economy, many people--myself included--
have legitimate concerns about the impact of this bill on America's 
working men and women. Many labor leaders were worried that passing 
PNTR would cause job shifts to China.
  This is a legitimate concern. It is true that for a number of years 
jobs have been shifting to countries--including China--that pay lower 
wages

[[Page 18396]]

and tolerate poor working conditions, even abuses of worker rights. But 
I cannot see how denying China PNTR would have done anything to prevent 
jobs from moving to other countries. Some 20 years of annual reviews of 
China's trade status have done nothing to reverse this trend. Again, as 
I said, PNTR will not make the United States any more open than we have 
been in the past to imported products.
  Instead of focusing so much just on the issue of extending PNTR to 
China, we have to take a broader focus and chart a new, bold course to 
counter the adverse effects of globalization.
  We first need to look in our own back yard, examine our own laws--
especially tax laws--to see whether they discourage businesses from 
staying and investing in American workers. We have to eliminate any tax 
provisions that encourage companies to move jobs and production 
overseas.
  We also should fully utilize U.S. laws that classify unfair labor 
practices as unfair trade practices, which, of course, they are. 
Section 301 of our trade law treats the systematic denial of 
internationally recognized worker rights as an actionable, 
unreasonable, and unfair trade practice. No case has yet been brought 
under this provision of section 301. So we do not know exactly how it 
may apply. But it is time for the United States to enforce this law to 
the maximum extent possible.
  I am encouraged by the statements of Vice President Al Gore. I will 
quote from a statement he made at an APEC business summit in Malaysia:

       And as we open the doors to global trade wider than ever 
     before, let us build a trading system that lifts the fortunes 
     of more and more people. Let us include strong protections 
     for workers, for health and safety, for a clean environment. 
     For at its heart, global commerce is about strengthening our 
     shared global values. It is about building stronger families 
     and stronger communities, through strong and steady growth 
     around the world.

  On July 9 of last year, before the Washington Council on 
International Trade, Vice President Gore said:

       We also must ensure that when it comes to trade, labor 
     rights and environmental protection are not second-class 
     issues any longer.

  He has also said:

       I will insist upon and use authority in those agreements to 
     enforce workers rights, human rights and environmental 
     protections. We need to make the global economy work for 
     all--and that means fighting to make sure that trade 
     agreements contain provisions that will protect the 
     environment and labor standards as well as open market in 
     other countries.
       We need to use trade to up standards around the world and 
     not drag down standards here at home.

  In future trade negotiations, future trade agreements, labor rights, 
human rights, and environmental protections must be an integral part of 
those agreements.
  There is no good reason why the WTO doesn't currently protect the 
rights of workers. Some will argue that labor rights are not trade 
related. I say nonsense. Intellectual property isn't directly related 
to trade, but the WTO has strong rules protecting intellectual 
property. Why should protecting intellectual property be any more 
important than protecting children against child labor or guaranteeing 
workers the right to organize? I don't understand why the WTO protects 
CDs but not child workers.
  The WTO protects the intellectual property because it is produced by 
human effort and it has value. If someone abuses intellectual property 
rights, that decreases or destroys the value of the intellectual 
property. That is why the WTO protects it.
  But what about workers? Work is also produced by human effort and it 
has value. But let's say an American worker loses a job because that 
job has been shifted to a country where worker protections don't exist, 
wages are a few cents an hour, and there is rampant forced labor and 
child labor. Hasn't the value of that worker's labor been lessened or 
destroyed in the exactly same way as intellectual property is devalued 
when it is abused? What is the difference between stealing the products 
of someone's creativity and stealing the fruits of someone's labor? 
There is none.
  Globalization is the face of the 21st century. We must keep up the 
pressure to include enforceable labor rights in future trade agreements 
and particularly in new WTO rules. As the world's leading 
industrialized Nation, the United States has the responsibility, the 
authority, and the influence to lead this effort.
  Again, I firmly believe we need a strong course of action to help 
American workers in the face of globalization. However, that was not 
what this bill was about. This bill was just about PNTR for China. It 
doesn't remove any protections for American workers or further open the 
United States to imports. And it should, as far as I can tell, provide 
some new economic opportunities for American workers.
  So, on balance, I believe that passing this bill was the right choice 
for the United States and China. But no one should be under the 
illusion that PNTR and China's joining the WTO will automatically open 
up China's markets or its society. In a sense, passing PNTR is just the 
beginning of a long, hard journey for the United States.
  Our work to bring China into the WTO and to pass PNTR won't amount to 
a hill of beans if China is not held to its commitments. We simply 
cannot afford to drop the ball by failing to stand up and vigorously 
enforce WTO rules and the agreements China has made. Joining the WTO is 
also the beginning of a long, hard journey for China.
  We must never let up in the fight to include enforceable labor rights 
and environmental protections in future trade agreements. And in the 
face of rapid globalization, it is critical that we reform U.S. labor 
and tax laws so America's working men and women don't have the deck 
stacked against them.
  As I said, trade alone is not enough to improve human rights in China 
or elsewhere. Just last month, I stood in Tiananmen Square, and right 
off of there is a big McDonald's, a symbol of Western economic 
influence in China. However, right near the McDonald's on Tiananmen 
Square, members of the Falun Gong gather each morning to do their 
exercises and meditation. They are not disturbing the peace, being 
violent; they are simply meditating and doing their exercises right in 
the shadow of McDonald's. Like clockwork, every morning, the police 
come by and arrest them. So adding more McDonald's restaurants and 
ensuring freer trade doesn't mean China will suddenly respect 
individual rights.
  We have to keep up the fight for human rights--and that includes the 
rights of workers--using all the tools available to us.
  When Senator Lautenberg and I were in China last month we raised the 
issue of prison labor at every level. We hammered away at that issue, 
and repeatedly asked to visit and inspect a prison labor facility. At 
first we ran into a brick wall, but eventually we had a breakthrough. 
Chinese officers still refused to allow us to visit a prison labor site 
ourselves, but they agreed to renew their compliance with the 1992 and 
1994 agreements against sending products of prison labor to the United 
States. In fact, we got that assurance from Premier Zhu Rongji himself.
  I am pleased to report that just a week and a half ago, U.S. Customs 
agents were able to visit a prison labor site in China.
  We must also expect and demand that United States companies that do 
business in China respect human rights and the rights of workers.
  If I may refer back to this article with the children in the 
sweatshop making toys to supply MacDonald's, when I got back to 
Washington, I immediately arranged to meet with MacDonald's executives 
in my office. They were quick to tell me that they first learned of 
this child labor scandal when they read about it in the papers, and 
that the child laborers were not employed by McDonald's, but by a 
subcontractor of a toy vendor. In fact, McDonald's has a voluntary code 
of conduct and zero tolerance policy prohibiting child labor and 
substandard employment practices. McDonald's has since cut off ties 
with that toy vendor and is responding to this child labor problem. All 
of this underscores the urgent need to rewrite our trade agreements so 
that exploitative child labor

[[Page 18397]]

and other abuses of the rights of workers are considered unfair trade 
practices and a basis for trade enforcement action in the WTO.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I voted for China PNTR, with the full 
realization that a tremendous amount of work still remains unfinished. 
That's why, having cast this vote, we must make a commitment to 
redouble our efforts to include workers' rights and environmental 
protections in future trade agreements, and strengthen our own laws and 
tax code to encourage greater investment in our American workers, and 
in education and job training.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, though we are in disagreement, I thank 
my colleague from Iowa for his fine words on the floor of the Senate.

                          ____________________