[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12229-12230]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                                  PNTR

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, here we go again, treating foreign trade 
as foreign aid, failing to compete, and giving away our technology and 
production. The permanent normal trade relations with China--PNTR--vote 
is not about access to China. The agreement doesn't provide open 
access, and even as a member of the WTO, China's market doesn't become 
open. Japan has been a member of the WTO for 5 years and her market 
remains closed. PNTR is certainly not about jobs in America, but about 
production and jobs in China. As headlined in the Wall Street Journal, 
corporate America is in a foot race to invest and produce in China. 
PNTR is not about exports. Today's $70 billion deficit in the balance 
of trade with China is bound to increase. Nor will PNTR maintain our 
``lead'' in technology. Already we have a $3.2 billion deficit in 
technology trade with China that threatens to reach $5 billion this 
year. PNTR is not about environment and labor. It took the democratic 
United States 200 years to get around to labor and environmental 
protections. Emerging countries, like us in the beginning, will 
sacrifice labor and environment to produce and build. PNTR is not about 
human rights. Human rights will be abused by a communist government in 
order to control a population of 1.3 billion. PNTR is not about 
undermining the communist regime in China. The communist regime knows 
what it's doing and unanimously favors PNTR. Finally, PNTR is not about 
China obeying its agreements, but the United States enforcing ours.
  We are in a desperate circumstance. For 50 years we have readily 
sacrificed our manufacturing sector to spread capitalism and defeat 
communism. But our security rests as if on a three legged stool. The 
one leg of values is strong. America is admired the world around for 
its stand for human rights and individual freedom. The second leg of 
military power is unquestioned. The third leg of economic strength has 
become fractured. We have gone from 41% of our work force in 
manufacture at the end of World War II to 14 percent. Manufacture 
provides the salary and benefits that produce a middle class. This 
middle class is not only the strength of an economy, but the strength 
of a democracy. As Akio Morita of Sony stated: ``That world power that 
loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.''
  ``Permanent'' is the objectionable part of PNTR. The issue is not 
whether we will trade with China--we will. But the annual renewal of 
our trade relations affords us an opportunity to once more get the 
attention of our leadership as to an impending disaster. It's not just 
trade. The U.S. influence in world diplomacy is threatened. The 6th 
Fleet and the hydrogen bomb are no longer a threat. Today, economic 
power counts. Money talks. The domestic market is the principal weapon 
in the global competition. We have the richest, but refuse to use it, 
all because of some nonsense that a trade war may ensue. We are in a 
trade war and don't know it. It shows the lack of understanding of the 
global economy, of the global competition.
  To begin with, the global competition is keen. With the fall of the 
Wall, 4 billion people have entered the work force. With technology 
transferred on a computer chip, financed by satellite, one can produce 
anything anywhere. In the age of robots, skilled production is

[[Page 12230]]

readily available. The most productive automobile plant in the world, 
according to J.D. Power, is not in Detroit, but in Mexico. Years ago as 
Governor, I was admonished to let the emerging countries produce the 
textiles and the shoes; the United States would produce the airplanes 
and computers. Today, the competition produces the textiles, the shoes, 
the airplanes and the computers. All countries have as a goal obtaining 
technology and producing technology. All protect their domestic 
agriculture. All, except the United States, protect their local market 
from foreign imports. And all, except the United States, enjoy 
government financing. The European aircraft sold in the United States 
is government financed. The Japanese car taking over the United States 
market is financed and protected--and sold for less than cost. Most 
importantly, the goal of U.S. trade is profits. The goal of global 
competition is market share. While the competition cares little about a 
standard of living, the U.S. burdens its production with a high 
standard. Before ``Jones Manufacturing'' can open its doors it must 
have a minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, clean air, 
clean water, a safe working place, safe machinery, plant closing 
notice, parental leave--and almost ergonomics. Corporate taxes in the 
U.S. are a cost of production; whereas, the competition's value added 
tax is rebated at export. The global competition saves while we 
consume. They willingly pay $4.50 for a gallon of gasoline but we go 
``ape'' when a gallon reaches $2.00. The global competition is 
organized and directed. We are totally disorganized. There are 28 
agencies and departments engaged in trade decisions and we have allowed 
the financing of our debt to control trade decisions. Former Prime 
Minister of Japan, Hashimoto, threatened one afternoon at Columbia 
University to stop buying our bonds if we insisted on enforcing our 
dumping laws. The stock market fell 200 points within an hour and the 
dumping law against Japan was not enforced. Finally, all countries in 
international trade use access to their markets as a bargaining chip. 
Refusing to compete, we cry, ``be fair; be fair; level the playing 
field''. Moral suasion has little affect in business. We continue to 
lose our technology and production. It has gotten so bad that the 
foreign corporation in a controlled economy now preys on the domestic 
bloodied from open competition. Volvo buys Mack Truck. Daimler-Benz 
seizes Chrysler. And the European Union denies the MCI-Sprint merger so 
the Deutsche Telekom can buy Sprint.
  As the United States moves now to set the parameters of trade with 
1.3 billion producers of agriculture and products, we need time. We 
need understanding. The $300 billion trade deficit, costing the economy 
1% growth, must be reversed. The PNTR vote is not against China, but to 
get the attention of the United States. We need to set trade policy and 
start competing. We need to realize that we are competing with 
ourselves. In the early 1970s our banks financing foreign investment 
began making a majority of their profits outside of the United States. 
They organized think-tanks, consultants, and entities such as the 
Trilateral Commission to promote the ``free trade'' line. Corporate 
America, making a bigger profit on foreign production, changed from 
nationals to multinationals. The campuses, sustained by corporate 
multinationals, all teach ``free trade''. The retailers, enjoying a 
bigger profit on the imported article, shout ``free trade''. The 
newspaper editorialists, financed by retail advertising, exhault ``free 
trade''. And then there's the lawyer. One country, Japan, pays their 
lawyers more to lobby Congress than the combined salaries of all the 
Members of Congress. By way of pay, Japan is better represented in 
Washington than the people of the United States. Article 1, Section 8 
of the Constitution provides ``that Congress shall have the power to 
regulate commerce with foreign nations'', but this power has been 
forsaken to the multinationals and foreign competition. PNTR will only 
continue this outrage. Trade with China will continue. But the only 
leverage we have left with China, the only chance for Congress to 
assume its responsibility for trade, is this annual review. 
``Permanent'' must be stricken from Permanent Normal Trade Relations.
  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. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to speak on Republican time at this point, and should a member of the 
other party wish to later utilize minutes remaining on their time that 
they be permitted to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________