Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. If I had my druthers, as they say back in the hill country--all right. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may require.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I don't think it is necessary to spend 3 hours on this amendment. I would like to have a vote on the amendment tomorrow morning.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the question before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I will be direct and to the point. This amendment requires the U.S. Trade Representative, acting through the Working Party on the Accession of China to the World Trade Organization, to obtain a commitment from China to disclose information about state-owned enterprises that export products and government assistance given to those state-owned enterprises. My amendment also requests a timetable for China's compliance with WTO subsidy obligations. Even the staunchest supporters of permanent normal trade relations with China recognize that U.S. trade with China will continue to be an uphill battle insofar as fairness is concerned. The administration acknowledges this fact, and my good friend Senator Roth stated the same only yesterday. There are profound implications to Sino-American relations as a result of granting PNTR to China. State-owned enterprises continue to be the most significant source of employment in most areas in China, and some reports suggest that these subsidized enterprises account for as much as 65 percent of the jobs in many areas of China. Government control reigns supreme in China. My amendment sends a message that the U.S. Senate seeks transparency in China's likely accession to the World Trade Organization, WTO. My amendment places Members on record as demanding China's compliance with the promises that China has made under the bilateral trade agreement that it signed with the United States. Opponents of my amendment state that the amendment is redundant and flawed on two bases. First, it was argued that the administration is already required to condition the extension of permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China on a finding that China's state-owned enterprises are not disruptive to our trading interests. With all due respect to my colleagues, with this bit of news that the subsidy issue rests on some administrative conclusion, I began immediately working double time to get this amendment passed. This news sounded the alarm. I think it would be better to have the information direct, and to make our own conclusions. The Senate has that latitude! In addition, if the President already has information to certify that China's state-owned enterprises are not disruptive to our trading interests, my amendment should present no problem. Let Members see the raw statistics. Let Members of Congress make up their own minds. What is the Administration trying to hide? I will have more confidence in what the administration says if I can review the material myself, and if Congress can review it. I have the same limited confidence in the proposed administrative review team that is supposed to keep an eye on China, which, as opponents of my amendment mentioned, the specifics on how this review team will operate has not yet been determined. Are Senators willing to leave this matter to fate? The opponents of my amendment also mentioned, and it is true, that China signed a bilateral agreement with the United States that proclaims that China will cease the use of subsidies prohibited under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement), including those subsidies contingent upon export performance and subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods, which are strictly prohibited under the SCM agreement. The WTO subsidy agreements do, indeed, state that many subsidies are prohibited and shall not be allowed. I'm all for that! Why should we not know this information? Help me find out by voting in support of this amendment! Help me provide the U.S. steel industry, and other industries, with an assurance--based on more than a nod from the administration--that there are no illegal Chinese subsidies. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. For my side?

Mr. BYRD. That allows me 30 minutes. I may not require all of that time today, Mr. President. I do have a second amendment on which there was an agreement, I believe last week, Thursday or Friday, which would limit the time to 3 hours to be equally divided in accordance with the usual form.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the Senate will soon consider the subsidy disclosure amendment that I offered last Friday. And I say soon. I do not mean to imply that it will be today but it could be. I simply state that within the next day or so there will be a vote on that amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of my amendment. Amendment No. 4117 (Purpose: To require disclosure by the People's Republic of China of certain information relating to future compliance with World Trade Organization subsidy obligations) Mr. President, I am informed that the amendment has not been called up. I ask that the amendment be called up and stated by the clerk.

Mr. BYRD. Parliamentary inquiry: The time utilized by the clerk in reading the amendment is not to be charged against my time, is it?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum without the time being charged against anybody.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. Voting in support of this amendment sends a message that the U.S. Senate seeks transparency to China's likely accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). It sends a message that the Senate is prepared to ``stand up'' for U.S. industries, such as iron and steel, coal mining, and petroleum, as well as U.S. agriculture producers, such as the apple industry, and the beef industry. A vote in support of this amendment places members on record that they demand China's compliance with the promises that China has made under the bilateral trade agreement that it signed with the United States. This amendment is simple and straightforward. There is no hidden poison pill! There is no trick procedure! There is no so-called catch twenty-two to this amendment! It does not impede the possible benefits of China's accession to the WTO that many of my colleagues are hoping for. My amendment would require the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to obtain a commitment by the People's Republic of China to disclose information relating to China's plans to comply with the World Trade Organization (WTO) subsidy obligations. The amendment requires the USTR to obtain a commitment by China to disclose essential subsidy information unique to China's communist market. Specifically, the amendment would require China to identify, up front, current state- owned enterprises engaged in export activities; describe state support for those enterprises; set forth a time table for compliance by China with the subsidy obligations of the WTO, and the amendment provides the USTR with authority to vote against China's WTO accession without such a commitment. This amendment only seeks to disclose information that confirms China's promised compliance with the WTO subsidy rules! It simply seeks that China disclose essential subsidy information forthright, openly, in the bright light of sunshine on a cloudless day. If China is serious about the promises that it has made to the United States on subsidies, this information should easily be provided. This amendment also helps with the many questions that have surrounded the transparency of the WTO rules, in general. Let us not place U.S. industries in the position of being unfairly injured by Chinese imports illegally subsidized. Without his information, U.S. industries will be required to pay the huge fees associated with filing antidumping and countervailing duty cases in order to pursue data on illegal subsidy behavior in China. We know that a significant portion of the economy of the People's Republic of China consists of state-owned enterprises! We know that Chinese enterprises receive significant subsidies from the Chinese government! We know that Chinese state-owned enterprises account for a significant portion of exports from the Chinese government! This is a matter of fact. So I say to my friends here in the Senate, do not fool yourselves! State-owned enterprises continue to be the most significant source of employment in most areas in China, and some reports suggest that these subsidized enterprises accounted for as much as 65 percent of the jobs in many areas of China in 1995--the most recent data that the Library of Congress could provide on this matter. That's right. State-owned enterprises likely account for 65 percent of the jobs in most areas of China. What kind of funds and other assistance do state-owned enterprises in China receive from their government? We should know. Help me find out by voting in support of this amendment! We should know. We ought to know. I ask that other Senators help us to know by helping us to find out this information. They can do that by voting in support of this amendment. I understand that China has stepped up to the plate and signed a bilateral agreement with the United States that proclaims that China will cease the use of subsidies prohibited under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement), including those subsidies contingent upon export performance and subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods, which are strictly prohibited under the SCM. But, guess what? On July 21, 2000--just a few weeks ago--the President of the Export-Import Bank of China, Yan Zilin, was quoted in the China Daily as saying that China's state-backed financing played a strong role in boosting China's exports in the first half of this year! China is subsidizing its products to ensure that they can be exported into foreign markets--including our market. U.S. companies cannot compete with such subsidies. Are Senators aware that China's machinery and electronic exports grew by 42.1 percent in the first half of 2000 reaching $47.1 billion and accounting for 41.1 percent of total exports? Moreover, since having signed the bilateral agreement with the U.S., China has expressed a view that it should be included in the grouping of the poorest countries in the WTO--thus exempting China from the disciplines of the WTO subsidy codes altogether. We need to send the Chinese a strong message about the use of subsidies. We need to put in place some disclosure procedures that improve transparency about the use of such subsidies to Chinese industries. My colleagues who are dead set against any amendments to this bill are bound to reflect back to the U.S.-China bilateral agreement and argue that the USTR has already secured an agreement from China to eliminate all WTO illegal subsidies, and that the WTO requires certain compliance procedures already. However, the Chinese government oversees the top-to-bottom operations of many industries such as iron and steel, coal mining, petroleum extraction and refining, as well as the electric power utilities, banking, and transportation sectors. The staunchest supporters of passing PNTR to China acknowledge that the trade rules that the Chinese have agreed to will likely in the short term cause widespread employment. If the past is an accurate indicator, the Chinese government will be very tempted to simply ignore the rules that they agreed to and to use their domestic state-owned enterprises as a jobs program. Former Secretary of Commerce William Daley stated that ``I do not pretend to think that this implementation of this agreement by the Chinese will be easy for them (the Chinese), and I would assume that we will have to, in the next administration, have to be very aggressive in their enforcement of the commitments that have been made.'' Let me remind you that, without doubt, subsidies with all of our trading partners have been very difficult issues to resolve, and not all subsidies are actionable. In fact, with years of trade relations and negotiations, the U.S. has yet to reach a subsidy understanding with the European Union on agriculture or on some industrial sectors such as aeronautics. There is no harm in the extra measure of protection that is provided by my subsidy disclosure amendment. It provides transparency and will help many U.S. industries make improved, more educated decisions. So I urge members to support U.S. steelworkers, apple growers, electronic producers and vote for this amendment. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier I received the permission of the Senate to offer a second amendment, not to have it debated but to have it in line for debate. I send that amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the clerk. I thank the Chair. As I understand it, the number on the amendment which was pending is No. 4117?

Mr. BYRD. May I inquire of the Chair, what will be the designation of the new amendment?

Mr. BYRD. How much is there for the other side?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4117 be set aside temporarily and that amendment No. 4131 may be the pending amendment, with the understanding that it will be temporarily set aside also for the rest of the day.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. As I understand it, there are 3 hours on the now-pending amendment, to be equally divided in accordance with the usual form. How much time is there remaining on No. 4117?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the number attached to the pending amendment?

Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor and I reserve the balance of the time on my amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wonder if I might offer that amendment today but take no time on it but just to be sure that it is offered and before the Senate? I would prefer that the final action be taken on that amendment following action on this first amendment on which I will be talking today. Final action at such time as the two leaders may agree.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may offer, before I yield the floor, that I may offer a second amendment on which there is already a time agreement of 3 hours in accordance with the usual form. I have no desire to debate that amendment today or to have a vote on it, but I simply want to get it into the mix, and at such time as the Senate would vote on the first amendment concerning which I would refer to as the subsidy amendment, then once time has run on that and we have a vote, I would be happy if we could take up the second amendment and have the debate on it and vote on it. If this causes any problem with respect to the Thompson amendment, I would be agreeable to reducing the time on my second amendment.