[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9393-9395]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       FREE TRADE IN THE AMERICAS

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as you know, our colleagues in the House 
passed, by a vote of 237-197, legislation to establish permanent 
normalized trade relations with China. The vote yesterday condensed 
months of intense debate over economics, foreign policy, and national 
security concerns with regard to that relationship with China.
  This is significant legislation, and I look forward to a thorough 
Senate debate on this matter. I will have more to say about this very 
important issue during that debate. There are very significant economic 
and trade concerns, but there are also some very significant national 
security issues that must be discussed.
  Over the last several months, the current administration has invested

[[Page 9394]]

considerable time, energy, and resources to achieving House approval of 
what is essentially a bilateral agreement with China. While this issue 
is a very important one, I also believe we need to place it in its 
proper context and consider whether our overall trade policies have 
been successful.
  I am concerned that over the last 4 years, the administration's 
pursuit of a bilateral trade agreement with China has come at the 
expense of missed bilateral and even multilateral trade agreements and 
economic opportunities right here within our own hemisphere.
  Regardless of what the potential economic benefits that PNTR with 
China could offer, the bottom line is that stability and economic 
opportunity within our own hemisphere always must be a top priority. To 
that extent, we, as a nation, stand to lose or gain, depending on the 
economic health and security of our own neighbors. What that means is 
that ultimately a strong and free and prosperous hemisphere means a 
strong and free and prosperous United States.
  The reality is that in 1997, we had an opportunity to move forward to 
give the President greater authority to negotiate new trade agreements 
with countries in our own hemisphere. Sadly, that did not happen. Now 
it will be up to our next President to pursue new markets in this 
hemisphere. If we as a country do not lead, other nations and their 
businesses will take our place. No country is waiting for us to act 
first.
  In the end, the longer we wait to pursue more trade opportunities in 
our own hemisphere, the more we stand to lose.
  Take, for example, my home State of Ohio. The future of Ohio's 
economy is linked to our ability to send our products abroad. Given the 
chance, Ohio's businessmen and women and Ohio's farmers can and do 
compete effectively on the world stage. For example, in most years, 
one-third to one-half of Ohio's major cash crops--corn, wheat, and 
soybeans--are found in markets and meals outside our country. In 1998, 
the city of Cincinnati increased its exports by slightly more than $1 
billion. It was the fourth-biggest such increase in the country. 
Columbus, OH, boosted its exports by $92.5 million, ranking 36th in the 
country and second in the State in terms of percentage growth. Open 
trade opportunities have allowed Ohio's and the Nation's economy to 
continue thriving.
  This argument has been used to support granting permanent normal 
trade relations with China. Much of the public debate has focused on 
the potential of more than 1 billion Chinese consumers. Yet, we are 
ignoring another very sizable market--the market within our own 
hemisphere. Right here in our hemisphere, with a combined gross 
domestic product (GDP) of more than $10 trillion--a hemisphere 
encompassing 800 million people--trade with our hemispheric neighbors 
represents vast opportunities. These are opportunities that we must not 
ignore.
  Right now, Europe, Asia, and Canada are securing their economic 
fortunes throughout Latin America and Central America. Take the example 
of Brazil--the world's eighth largest economy. In 1997, the European 
Union--the EU--exported to Brazil more than they did to any other 
country, and between 1990 and 1998, their exports grew 255 percent. 
Also, although United States exports to Argentina are double that of 
Asia's, our growth rate is less than half of Asia's incredible 1664 
percent increase from 1990 to 1998.
  As my colleagues can see, other nations are riding the tides of 
change--of free-market economics and openness--and integrating into the 
world economy. The region's ``Mercosur'' or common market--which 
includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and associate member 
Chile--is the world's largest growing trading bloc, experiencing trade 
growth of 400 percent between 1990 and 1998. In 1990, they bought less 
than $7 billion worth of U.S. products. In 1997, their U.S. purchases 
had grown to $23 billion.
  The Europeans aren't asleep at the wheel either. As of now, the 
European Union is the largest trading partner with the Mercosur 
countries. Trade between the EU and the Mercosur countries totaled 
$42.7 billion in 1996 compared to $31 billion for the United States. 
Additionally, between 1990 and 1998, the EU's market share of all 
Mercosur imports increased from 23 percent to 27 percent. It is 
becoming increasingly obvious that the European Union is not going to 
sit idly by and let the United States gain any market share in our own 
hemisphere, our own region. In fact, the EU recently has intensified 
negotiations with the Mercosur toward consolidating the two regional 
blocs. Moves like this represent more than just a loss of export 
opportunities for our Nation--they represent a lack of leadership to 
aggressively pursue new markets in our own hemisphere.
  This is the hemisphere we live in. Those should be our markets. To 
lose them through neglect would be a truly shameful outcome for our 
country.
  There is enough of a consciousness in Latin America of the benefits 
of economic liberalization that we will see more and more trade 
barriers go down--to somebody's benefit. The question that remains is: 
Will we in the United States be in on that market, or not?
  I am optimistic, though, that our Nation can capture a larger share 
of markets in our hemisphere now that the Senate passed and the 
President signed into law the Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act. 
This act will bring tremendous benefits to the United States and to the 
Caribbean Basin. It will enhance our economic security, both by opening 
new markets for American products and by strengthening the economies of 
our closest neighbors. And, it would create new hope for those left 
jobless by Hurricanes Mitch and Georges.
  The CBI law will extend duty-free treatment to apparel assembled in 
the Carribean Basin--or assembled and cut in the region--using U.S. 
fabric made from U.S. yarn. This will help strengthen existing U.S.-CBI 
partnerships in the apparel industry, because the duty-free treatment 
will help U.S. apparel manufacturers maintain their competitiveness 
with the Asian market.
  CBI is a good law. It is a good law that was long, long overdue. In 
the context of our overall trade policy, it represents a modest step 
forward. To do more toward further expanding market opportunities 
abroad will require strong leadership both in the Congress and from the 
President.
  Despite the success of CBI, plenty of unfinished business remains 
with regard to our hemispheric trading partners and our hemispheric 
trading policies, as well as our overall trading strategy. It will be 
incumbent upon our next President and this Congress to deal with this 
unfinished business of our country. I am hopeful that several important 
initiatives will, in fact, be pursued. That is why I believe the next 
administration and the next Congress needs to approve fast track 
trading authority.
  It is not a stretch to say that America's continued leadership in the 
global economy is fundamentally dependent on our ability to secure new 
markets abroad. By giving the President greater flexibility to 
negotiate trade agreements, and by giving the President the ability to 
set the pace and the timing of many of our most important trade 
negotiations, Congress would be giving the President the authority to 
negotiate trade deals very quickly, but also the ability to assert and 
protect the continued international economic supremacy of the United 
States. And that--that is key to our economic future.
  Finally, ultimately, our Nation's ability to aggressively promote 
free and fair trade and enter into trade agreements with countries 
within our hemisphere is critical. The more we pursue economic 
initiatives with our neighbors, the more we, as a nation, stand to gain 
and in ways that go beyond economic growth. In a region that is largely 
Democratic, a hemispheric commitment to free and fair trade will 
strengthen Democratic principles and the rule of law. Such pursuits are 
good for the Caribbean Basin; they are good for Central America; they 
are good for Latin America; and they are good for

[[Page 9395]]

agriculture and business right here at home in the United States. 
Overall, it just makes good sense.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, after long and difficult deliberation, I 
have decided to vote for permanent normal trade relations with China. 
The House of Representatives has now passed the bill and I expect the 
Senate to take it up next month, after the Memorial Day recess.
  California is the leading state in world trade. Its location on the 
Pacific Rim makes our relationship with Asia extremely important.
  During my congressional career, I have supported some of the trade 
relations proposals we have considered and opposed others. I believe 
that each trade proposal should be considered on its own, and I do not 
have an ideological bent on the issue of trade.
  The decision on this bill--to grant permanent normal trade relations 
status to China--has been one of the hardest I have ever had to make, 
because the arguments on both sides have merit. I would like to review 
in this statement the excellent points made by both sides in the 
debate.
  First, with respect to human rights, those opposed to PNTR cite 
China's continuing terrible human rights record. They argue that by not 
having annual review of China's trade status, we will lose our 
strongest leverage to force China to change its behavior. It is also 
argued that by granting China permanent normal trade relations, we are 
rewarding and legitimizing the leaders who have such a bad human rights 
record. Finally, the argument that increased contact with China will 
improve human rights conditions is undermined by the facts. According 
to the 1999 State Department Human Rights Report, the Chinese 
government's human rights record has deteriorated over the past several 
years, despite increased contacts between China and the United States.
  But there are human rights advocates who support PNTR for China. They 
believe that isolating China will be bad for human rights, because the 
leaders will then be under no outside pressure to change their 
behavior. They also argue that, over time, people to people contacts 
through the media, internet and travel will expose the Chinese people 
to international standards and values and will continue to gradually 
loosen rigid, authoritarian structures. This is why such esteemed human 
rights leaders as the Dalai Lama and Wang Dan, on of the Tiananmen 
Square leaders, support PNTR for China.
  The human rights concerns are why inclusion of the Levin amendment in 
the House bill is so important to me. This regime to monitor human 
rights and worker rights in China will put these issues in sharp focus 
and will significantly increase our knowledge about whether the Chinese 
people are making progress in these areas. I commend Congressman Levin 
for his leadership in attaching this important safeguard to the 
legislation.
  Second, with respect to the impact of PNTR on American jobs, there 
are arguments on both sides. Opponents say that bringing China into the 
World Trade Organization and granting it permanent normal trade status 
will result in the loss of more than 800,000 jobs in the United States. 
They believe it will allow multinational corporations to move many 
operations into China, where worker wages and benefits are much lower, 
wages being as low as 13 cents an hour.
  The principal argument in favor of PNTR is that we must pass it in 
order to get the benefits of the trade agreement negotiated by the 
Clinton administration last year, which requires China to lower trade 
barriers and open up the Chinese market to all kinds of American 
products and services, including many from my State of California. 
Supporters estimate that implementation of this agreement will increase 
exports of U.S. goods to China by more than $13 billion per year by 
2005. Supporters also argue that granting PNTR to China will give the 
U.S. the ability to force Chinese compliance with all terms of the 
trade agreement, including with WTO-authorized sanctions if necessary. 
If PNTR is not granted, the U.S. could not avail itself of WTO 
enforcement procedures.
  So it is clear that there are strong arguments on both sides of the 
human rights and workforce/labor issues.
  But the reason I have decided to vote in favor of permanent normal 
trade relations status for China is because, first and foremost, I 
believe that it is my responsibility as a United States Senator to put 
the national security of the United States above all other 
considerations. And on the national security question, in my opinion, 
there is only one rational view.
  I believe that through engagement with China we have the best 
opportunity to avoid a cold war type atmosphere, which hung like a 
cloud over this nation--indeed, the world--for 45 years after World War 
II.
  A vote against PNTR would suggest that the U.S. views China as an 
adversary and would make it much more difficult to engage China to work 
with us constructively in key strategic areas. Of particular concern to 
me is China's role in efforts to bring peace and stability to the 
Korean Peninsula. China encouraged North Korea's compliance with the 
U.S.-DPRK (North Korea) framework which halted the North's nuclear 
weapons program, and China will undoubtedly have to be part of any 
solution that integrates North Korea into the international community.
  China also plays a key role in the international community's response 
to the continuing conflict between India and Pakistan. China has in 
fact condemned both nations for conducting nuclear tests, and has urged 
them both to conduct no more tests, to avoid deploying or testing 
missiles, and to work to resolve their differences over Kashmir through 
dialogue, rather than military action.
  Finally, China is playing an increasingly active and constructive 
role in Asian security and stability. U.S. isolation of China would 
seriously undermine our ability to influence China's future 
orientation, and would set us on a dangerous path of confrontation.
  I am under no illusions that granting PNTR to China will make it our 
new best friend. But failure to do so could well make it an adversary 
of the sort that we lived with for almost half a century until the fall 
of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. That is 
a risk we should not take.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

                          ____________________