William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in keeping with the words of my distinguished colleague about Debbie, I want to say a few words of thanks to all those who worked so hard on this bill. Of course, first, I have to thank my dear friend, our venerable colleague, and always gracious ranking member of the Finance Committee, Pat Moynihan. It would never have been possible to be here today with the kind of vote I think we are going to enjoy if it had not been for Pat's leadership, for his knowledge and background, and his ability to bring people together. I thank him for his outstanding contributions. I also thank Senators Grassley, Thomas, Hagel, Roberts, and Rod Grams for helping manage the floor. We were on this legislation something like 11 days. There were times when Pat and I were called from the floor for other duties. It was most helpful to have these other individual colleagues helping manage the floor. Again, I thank all of Senator Moynihan's committee staff who are just as gracious as the Senator for whom they work. We have already talked about Debbie Lamb. But David Podoff--I want to express my warm thanks to you for bringing your expertise to bear on this legislative process. I agree with Senator Moynihan. This is probably the most important piece of legislation that will be adopted this year, if not this decade. But again, it could not have happened without people such as Dave. I would also like to thank Linda Menghetti, and Timothy Hogan, as well as Therese Lee, who I think was such a help as a member of the Senator's personal staff. Finally, let me thank my own staff. I would like to claim that I have the best staff on the Hill. I certainly have one of the best, if not the very best.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I only want to echo what my friend and distinguished ranking member has said about Debbie. We have accomplished a lot in the area of trade in recent years, and so much of the credit should go to the staff who have worked so hard and so long. Top among those is Debbie Lamb, who has been available not only to her side, but has been most helpful to the majority as well. Sometimes I think people don't recognize the cooperation that often exists between Members of the two parties. But I think what Debbie has done shows that bipartisanship is still alive. We would not be here celebrating today's vote if not for her splendid contribution.

Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we have had an excellent debate over PNTR, touching on many aspects of our complex relationship with China. It was, indeed, important we had such an exhaustive discussion because the vote we are about to cast on PNTR will be a defining moment in the history of this Chamber and in the history of our country. That is partly because passage of PNTR will create vast new opportunities for our workers, our farmers, and businesses. But it is also because PNTR will serve America's broader national interest in meeting what is likely to be our single greatest foreign policy challenge in the coming decades--managing our relations with a rising China. China's accession to the WTO has been the subject of intense negotiations for the past 14 years. The market access package the U.S. Trade Representative reached with Beijing represents, in my judgment, a remarkable achievement. From the point of view of every sector of the American economy, and from the perspective of every U.S. enterprise, no matter how big or small, the agreement holds the promise of new markets and future sales. For the citizens of my own State of Delaware--from poultry farmers to auto workers to those in our chemical and services businesses--gaining access to the world's largest country and fastest-growing market, which is what PNTR permits, offers extraordinary new opportunities. Passage of PNTR is in our economic interest. I hope our debate has made that clear. But I hope my colleagues and the American people have come to understand why PNTR is also in our national interest. To gain entry to the WTO, China has been compelled to move its economy to a rules-based system and to end most forms of state control within roughly 5 years. Indeed, in a number of sectors of its economy, China will soon be more open to U.S. products and services than some of our developed-country trading partners in Asia and Europe. The results of China implementing its WTO obligations will be revolutionary. But contrary to what occurred in 1949, China will be transforming itself by adopting a fully-realized market economy, thereby returning individual property rights and economic freedom to the people of China. Why has China accepted such a capitalist revolution? As Long Yongtu, China's top WTO negotiator and Vice Minister of China's trade ministry, said earlier this year, what is ``most significant at present [is that] WTO entry will speed China's reform and opening up. Reform is the only outlet for China.'' In other words, China has no choice. Its state-directed policies do not work; free markets and capitalism do. Mr. Long went on to say: China's WTO entry would let enterprises make their own business decisions and pursue benefits according to contracts and market principles. Liaison between enterprises and government will only hurt enterprises. Contracts kowtowing to government, though they look rosy on the surface, usually lead to failure. After joining the WTO, the government will be pressed to respect market principles and give up the approval economy. I agree with those who say that the rise of China presents the United States with potentially our biggest foreign policy challenge. But I also believe it presents us with enormous opportunities. The single most important step the Senate can take to allow the United States to respond to that challenge adequately and seize those opportunities is to pass PNTR. We must, and we will, continue to press Beijing on the range of issues where our interests and values diverge, from human rights to proliferation to China's aggressive stance on territorial disputes. Yet a China fully immersed in the global trade regime, subject to all the rules and sanctions applicable to WTO members, is far likelier to live under the rule of law and to act in ways that comply with global norms. Indeed, the WTO is exactly the sort of multilateral institution that can act as a reinforcing mechanism to make China's interests more compatible with ours. As that happens, and as China's economic success increasingly comes to depend on stable and peaceful relations with its trading partners, Beijing will be more apt to play a constructive regional and global role. Finally, if Asia and much of the rest of the world are any guide, China's economic liberalization will accelerate its path toward greater political freedom. In East Asia alone, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand have amply demonstrated how economic freedom can stimulate democratic evolution. Ultimately, China's participation in the WTO means the Chinese people will be given the chance to shape their own destiny. As Ren Wanding, the brave leader of China's Democracy Wall Movement said recently, ``Before the sky was black. Now there is light . . . [China's WTO accession] can be a new beginning.'' Mr. President, when we pass PNTR, that new beginning will be for the American people just as surely as it will be for the people of China. Colleagues, let us begin anew by joining together to pass PNTR overwhelmingly.

Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator. It is my intent, as his, that the 1992 MOU shall also be reviewed.

Mr. ROTH. The Senator is correct.

Mr. ROTH. The Senator from Indiana is correct.

Mr. ROTH

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 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. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, there are no further amendments in order to H.R. 4444. Therefore, the 6 hours of debate time remain. It is my understanding that the debate time will be consumed tomorrow and Monday. Therefore, there are no further votes this evening. The next vote will be on Tuesday at 2:15 p.m. on passage of H.R. 4444. I ask unanimous consent that all debate time allotted in the previous consent agreement be consumed or considered used when the Senate convenes on Tuesday, with the exception of 90 minutes for each leader to be used prior to 12:30 p.m.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy. The amendment is unnecessary because the President already has the authority to negotiate with any country about any issue at any time. The proposal is misguided because it seems to urge the President to take actions to eliminate a deficit in certain products, even if the balance of trade is not the result of any market barriers or unfair trade practices. What does this mean as a practical matter? Will the President urge the Chinese to void existing contracts until the balance of trade is in surplus? We just don't know. In the end, this type of intervention in the market is unwise and, ultimately, counter to our own interests. I would also note that many of the agriculture groups that this amendment is intended to help support my decision to oppose all amendments. This includes groups representing rice, corn, wheat, and soybean farmers. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hollings amendment. What this amendment would do is to urge the President to negotiate with the Chinese whenever there is a deficit in advanced technology products, even when there are no allegations of unfair trade practices. It is unclear what the result of these negotiations would be. Will the President urge the Chinese to prevent U.S. companies from transacting business in China until the balance of trade in these products moves into surplus? Or will the President raise barriers to imports into our own market, until the desired balance is achieved? Whatever the intended result, the price to our farmers and workers would be too high if this amendment were adopted. Let's not forget what is at stake here. With China joining the WTO, the passage of PNTR will enhance dramatically the access of American products--including high technology products--to the Chinese market. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield my minute. My understanding is that the author of the amendment yields back his time as well.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next votes in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, can I have order, please?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that at 4:45 today the Senate proceed to a series of rollcall votes in relation to the following amendments in the order mentioned: Division I of Senator Smith's amendment No. 4129; Division IV of Senator Smith's amendment No. 4129; Hollings amendment No. 4136; Hollings amendment No. 4135; Hollings amendment No. 4137. I further ask unanimous consent that any remaining divisions of amendment No. 4129 be withdrawn and the Feingold amendment regarding the Commission be withdrawn from the list of eligible amendments. Finally, I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, prior to each of the votes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my friend. The amendment is not only irrelevant to the underlying bill normalizing trade with China, it would unnecessarily limit the support Congress has directed Ex-Im and OPIC to provide to U.S. exporters worldwide. First, and most importantly, I want to remind my colleagues that the point of this bill is to ensure that American workers, American farmers, and American businesses reap the benefits of an agreement that it took 3 Presidents of both parties 13 years to squeeze out of the Chinese. Those benefits would be forfeit if this amendment were to pass and thereby hinder our ability to see H.R. 4444 enacted into law. Thus, the amendment would not only limit the actual assistance that Congress directed Ex-Im and OPIC to provide our exporters, the amendment could have the effect of denying them real export opportunities that are likely to equal $13 billion annually. Second, the bill ignores the realities of how our exporters do business--pursue markets abroad. Generally, exporting does require you to invest abroad in some form even if only in the form of a representative office, and the available economic analysis suggests that American investment abroad enhances our exports. The so-called ``benchmark studies'' of the Emergency Committee for American Trade or ECAT have amply detailed that effect. This past year, as part of the Finance Committee's review of U.S. trade policy, we heard from the Cornell professor who completed the study for ECAT. His testimony was compelling, he found that U.S. investment abroad increased U.S. exports and, pointedly, did not find any substance to the argument that trade represented a highway for run-away American plants, as some claim. The obvious reason for that phenomena is that our market is already open with very few exceptions. If American firms were interested in moving production to China simply to export back to the United States, they could already have done so for many years. One thing this lengthy debate has made clear is that our market has remained open to the Chinese, while the Chinese market, until the agreement of this past November goes into effect, remains largely closed to U.S. exporters. Firms that simply wanted an export platform to the United States could have been exporting to the U.S. for the past 20 years. In fact, what passage of PNTR promises is that U.S. companies will no longer have to move to China simply to produce for the Chinese market. Under the November agreement, our exporters can produce in the United States, export to China, and for the first time sell directly to the Chinese consumer without the interference of some state-owned trading company. In other words, passage of PNTR is the best way to halt any alleged erosion of our manufacturing base because you can make the goods here and sell them in China. Third, this amendment would have a chilling effect on normal business practices that yield export sales. The amendment does not, for example, define what it means by a production facility or what constitutes ``moving'' such a facility to the People's Republic of China. Thus, for example, would the Ex-Im Bank be required to deny any support to a U.S. exporter if it closed any facility in the United States or even reduced production in such a facility while it opened a sales office in China? Would OPIC be required to oppose any form of risk insurance for a U.S. company establishing a facility in China manufacturing goods for the Chinese market if the company had closed or merely reduced production in a U.S. facility manufacturing a completely different product? Those are just a few of the complications that would arise for the Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, and most importantly for American exporters for whom Congress created those programs if this amendment were to pass. Congress certainly did not intend that the Ex-Im Bank and OPIC be hamstrung in providing support to our exporters. To the contrary, the explicit intent of Congress in creating those programs was to enhance our exporters competitiveness, not to hobble it. I oppose this amendment for all of the foregoing reasons and ask my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. ROTH. Just let me point out, these organizations know, as I do, that passage of PNTR is vital. It is vital to our farmers and our agriculture sector. These include the National Chicken Council and the USA Poultry and Egg Export Council, both of which represent farmers from my home State of Delaware. But it also includes national organizations and companies such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Grange, Cargill, Farmland Industries, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and many others. Importantly, this list also includes groups that this amendment is ostensibly intended to help, including the National Corn Growers Association, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the American Soybean Association, the U.S. Rice Producers Group, the U.S. Wheat Associate, and the Wheat Export Trade Education Commission. This is a long list, but it is worth emphasizing for all my colleagues to realize how much is at stake and how much will be lost if this or any other amendment were to be adopted. After all, China is already our eighth largest market for agricultural exports. In fiscal year 1999, U.S. farm exports to China were about $1 billion, with an addition $1.3 billion of exports going to Hong Kong. While China is already a huge agricultural export market, the potential for the future is even greater with WTO accession. China has agreed to slash tariffs for virtually every agricultural product, and to establish very high tariff rate quotas for key products, including those covered by my colleague's amendment. As importantly, China has agreed to abide by the terms of the WTO SPS Agreement, which requires that animal, plant, and human health import requirements be based on science and risk assessment. It would be particularly ironic if PNTR were to fail because of the amendment before us now. This amendment, at best, is unnecessary. After all, the President is authorized to negotiate with any country about any issue at any time. Such negotiations would be entirely appropriate and necessary if there were concerns about market access or unfair trade practices that needed to be addressed. But this amendment would urge the President to work with the Chinese to intervene in the agriculture market to achieve a certain balance of trade. It is because we have rejected these types of statist economic policies that our economy is as strong as it is today. Going back down the road of having the Government meddle unnecessarily in the market is simply not the answer. In the end this amendment would do nothing to enhance our access to the Chinese market for our farmers. It would, in fact, threaten the potential gains that will become available to us with the passage of PNTR. That is why I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it. There is too much at stake to do otherwise. Mr. President, I am ready to yield back the remainder of my time.