William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Hollings' amendment. As my colleagues well know, I have opposed all amendments because of the impact that they could have on passage of PNTR. I want to restate that concern now. Any amendment that is adopted could doom PNTR and end our ability to gain access to the Chinese market once that country joins the WTO. Let's not forget, we are not voting on whether China will enter the WTO. China will get in, regardless of what occurs in the Senate with regard to this legislation. What we are voting on is whether we will give our workers and farmers the same access to the Chinese market as every other WTO member will get once China accedes. The decision before us is that stark and that simple. That is why I support PNTR so strongly, and that is why I have opposed all amendments, including some that I thought had great merit. That is also why virtually every major agricultural organization has supported PNTR and supported my opposition to all amendments. Mr. President, I have with me today a letter that I would like to enter into the Record from over 65 agricultural organizations. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Hollings' amendment. This amendment would authorize the President to initiate negotiations with the Chinese to eliminate the trade deficit in advanced technological products if the balance of trade does not shift to surplus in these products. To be frank, I am not sure why this amendment is being offered to the China PNTR legislation. After all, by passing PNTR, we will increase our access dramatically to the Chinese market once that country enters the WTO. The commitments that China has made as a part of its WTO accession negotiations with regard to high technology products are truly significant. For example, China has committed to eliminate quotas on information technology products at the date of its accession to the WTO and to eliminate tariffs for these products by January 1, 2005. Moreover, China has agreed to open its telecommunications and internet to United States investments and services. In addition, U.S. high technology firms will gain the right to import into China, and to engage in distribution services, including wholesaling, retailing, transporting, and repairing. This will allow our businesses to export to China from here at home, and to have their own distribution networks in China. Without these commitments, U.S. companies would be forced to set up factories there to sell products through Chinese partners. There is nothing about the grant of PNTR that will alter China's access to our market. To the contrary, China has specifically agreed to allow us to put in special safeguard mechanisms aimed at addressing disruptive market surges from China. We will also be maintaining special methodologies under our unfair trade laws that will help domestic industries in antidumping cases. Ironically, this amendment is not aimed at eliminating any trade barriers or unfair trade practices. It simply dictates that if the balance of trade in certain products is not in surplus, then the President has to use his authority to work with the Chinese to intervene in the market to achieve a certain outcome. I'm not sure how my colleague from South Carolina would envision this happening. Would the Chinese government begin to void contracts that were freely entered into by U.S. importers, until the balance of trade moves into surplus? Would our government have to do this? I don't know what the answer is to that question and, frankly, I would hope that we never have to find out. As my colleagues well know, I have opposed all amendments that have been offered to PNTR. I have done so because of my concern about how amendments would affect the chances of passage of this legislation. I want to repeat my concerns now. A vote for this amendment will do nothing to increase opportunities for our workers and farmers. Indeed, it will have the opposite effect. As such, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my distinguished colleague. The 10-K reports filed annually with the SEC are designed to inform investors about the operating conditions of publicly-held corporations offering their securities for sale on American exchanges. The 10-K reports are expressly designed to inform investors about the prospects of companies turning to U.S. securities markets and form a bulwark against misrepresentations that might mislead or defraud U.S. investors. They are, in fact, one of the bulwarks that make American capital markets function precisely because of their focus on information that is relevant to a publicly-held company's predictions of its economic conditions. The information that the amendment of my friend would require U.S. publicly-held companies to provide at some additional cost is largely irrelevant. For example, what difference does it make to the potential purchaser of IBM's stock precisely how many foreign employees it has and where they are employed? Would a single error in IBM's 10-K report regarding the number of employees in Botswana affect the investor's decision to hold IBM stock? How would it benefit the U.S. investor to know the precise dollar volume of U.S. Steel's exports and imports of manufactured products listed by product and importing country? Would the misstatement of U.S. Steel's imports of semi-finished steel products on its 10-K report actually mislead investors as to the economic condition of U.S. steel or allow the investor to better evaluate U.S. steel's economic prospects relative to other issuers of securities on American exchanges? Furthermore, SEC rules already require IBM or U.S. Steel to provide that information when relevant to the investor--in other words, where such information would affect the bottom line. My point is that my friend's amendment would not materially advance the interests of U.S. investors, but would add a potentially costly new reporting requirement on U.S. issuers. More fundamentally, to the extent that my friend's amendment succeeds and we are unable to pass PNTR as a result, the damage done to the economic prospects of American publicly-held companies and to the interests of U.S. investors vastly outweighs any hypothetical benefit to investors that would accrue from collecting this information on an annual basis. In my view, the number that U.S. investors are most likely to be interested in is the $13 billion in new U.S. exports that are likely to flow from the ground-breaking agreement negotiated by Ambassador Barshefsky. That is the number that is likely to affect the bottom line in which American investors are interested. Furthermore, to the extent my friend wants to collect the date to illustrate that American companies are investing abroad simply to export back to the United States, that information is likely already to be reflected in the investment and import data that the U.S. Commerce Department already collects. But, it is also worth questioning what those numbers are likely to reveal if we do pass PNTR and China does join the WTO. I have no doubt that what they will show is an increase in U.S. exports to China and, to the extent that we see an increase in imports from China, that those imports come at the expense of other foreign companies exporting to the United States. The International Trade Commission's report on China's accession reflects that fact. Now, it is important to remember that the ITC's report on the quantitative impact of China's accession was restricted to the effects of tariff changes under the bilateral market access agreement with China. It did not even purport to address the quantitative effects of China's removal of non-tariff barriers on trade in manufactured goods or agricultural products, much less the dramatic opening of China's services markets. Nonetheless, what the ITC found was that the accession package would lead to an overall improvement in the U.S. balance of trade and, where China did export more to the United States, those gains would come at the expense of other foreign exporters. Given that we already know the affect of China's accession, is there any real reason to collect the date required by my friend's amendment? And, if we are debating the economic impact of China's accession to the WTO, would there be any reason to collect this date with respect to every country in which an American company either buys components or sells its wares? The answer is no. The amendment serves no practical purpose, particularly in the context of this debate. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well. I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is both unnecessary and, with all due respect to my good friend, misguided. The amendment is unnecessary because the President already has----

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 13, at 2:15 p.m. to conduct a hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on S. 2873, a bill to provide for all right, title, and interest in and to certain property in Washington County, Utah, to be vested in the United States; H.R. 3676, a bill to establish the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument in the State of California; and its companion, S. 2784, a bill entitled, ``Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Act of 2000''; S. 2865, a bill to designate certain land of the National Forest System located in the State of Virginia as wilderness; S. 2956 and its companion bill, H.R. 4275, a bill to establish the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, and for other purposes; and S. 2977, a bill to assist in the establishment of an interpretive center and museum in the vicinity of the Diamond Valley Lake in southern California to ensure the protection and interpretation of the paleontology discoveries made at the lake and to develop a trail system for the lake for use by pedestrians and nonomotorized vehicles.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 13, 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on the Draft Biological Opinions by the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System and the Federal Caucus draft Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. for a hearing to consider the nominations of Gerald Fisher and John Ramsey Johnson to be Associate Judges of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 13, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 13, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. on marketing violence to children.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 13, 2000, to conduct a symposium on circulating coin design.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to hold a business meeting on September 13, 2000, in the Russell Senate Office Building room number 485, immediately following the 2:30 p.m. hearing on S. 2899, where S. 2920, a bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; S. 2688, a bill to amend the Native American Languages Act; and S. 2899, a bill to express the policy of the United States regarding the United States' relationship with Native Hawaiians, will be considered.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I assure the distinguished colleagues I want to move as expeditiously as possible toward completion of this critically important legislation.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as a result of this agreement, there will be no further votes today. However, votes can be expected throughout the day tomorrow.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask consent that time on all remaining first-degree amendments be limited to no more than 1 hour, to be equally divided in the usual form, and that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote, and limited to the ones described below. I further ask consent that following these amendments in the allotted time specified below, the bill be advanced to third reading and passage occur, all without any intervening action or debate. I also ask that no motions to commit or recommit be in order. Those remaining first-degree amendments are as follows: Feingold, regarding a commission; Hollings No. 4134; Hollings No. 4135; Hollings No. 4136; Hollings No. 4137; B. Smith No. 4129, divisions I through V. I further ask consent that there be 6 hours equally divided between the two leaders for general debate on the bill, with the following Members recognized just prior to final vote on H.R. 4444, in the order stated: 60 minutes under the control of Senator Byrd, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Helms, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Moynihan, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Roth, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Daschle, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Lott.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this amendment would unilaterally impose conditions on the normalization of our trade relations with China that would backfire by effectively barring access of U.S. companies to the Chinese markets on terms at least as good as other WTO members. The amendment would also eliminate the positive force that American companies can play in the Chinese market by potentially leading to the delay in PNTR and cutting off the benefit of China's market access commitment for U.S. firms. The amendment would have the perverse effect of narrowing the private sector in China in which some limited organizing is permitted. The point of this bill is to level the playing field between the United States and China, all of which would be forfeited if this amendment passes and becomes law. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose the Feingold amendment. Congress would, in effect, once again be asked to vote on China every year regarding the commission's recommendations on a fast-track basis. I believe adoption of this amendment would unnecessarily risk the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against it. I yield back the remainder of my time.