William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. It is outrageous what they do in the area of human rights.

Mr. ROTH. We have serious problems with respect to proliferation of weapons.

Mr. ROTH. But aren't we better off and don't we have a better chance of bringing more responsible leaders to the front if we work with them and do not alienate them?

Mr. ROTH. My own personal experience is that significant progress is being made. Let me give one illustration. When I was there the first time, an individual could not move from Beijing to another region.

Mr. ROTH. Yes, internal passports. You had to get approval of the Government. If you wanted to move from A to B, not only did you have to get the approval of the Government but you had to get somebody who was willing to move from B to A. Unbelievable. At least that is what we were told. Now these things are changing. Progress is being made, and it is critically important we encourage that. I go back to what I was saying before. It is important to understand that with permanent normal trade relations, we are not yielding access to our markets. They already have these markets; isn't that correct?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to discuss why permanent normal trade relations with China are of such critical importance to the United States. One of the most remarkable strengths of the economy has been its ability to deliver a rising standard of living and the creation of high-paying jobs. Trade plays a very critical role in achieving both goals. In that respect, normalizing our trade relations with China represents a positive step forward for American business, American farmers, American workers, and American consumers. Just let me speak very briefly about security because we will discuss that in greater detail at a later time. Moving ahead with trading relations with China will help promote the rule of law and the acceptance of the way we do business in the international market. This will help strengthen the hands of those who are most interested in promoting the rule of law. Security-wise, if we reject PNTR, there is no question but what we play into the hands of the militants, the Communists, who want no change, the Communists who oppose promoting a market economy. So I just want to say, as we discuss the economics of this agreement, that it is also critically important from the standpoint of strengthening those who want to bring China into the international community. What international trade does is let us focus on what we do best. Our exports are an indicator of where we have a strong comparative advantage because we are more efficient in producing those goods than we are at producing others. Those industries where we are most efficient represent our economic future. Over the past 20 years, trade as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product has increased by more than 50 percent. Exports of goods and services this past year was close to $1 trillion. It is no surprise that the export sectors of our economy have grown faster than the economy as a whole. Nor is it any surprise that export-based jobs pay on average of 15 percent more than the prevailing wage. According to recent reports by Standard & Poor's economic consulting arm, DRI, the benefits are 32.5 percent higher overall than with jobs in nonexport industries. Those figures reflect the fact that an increase in our exports translate into new opportunities for workers and industries with a greater number of higher paying jobs. Since 1992, the strong U.S. economy has created more than 11 million jobs, of which 1.5 million--or more than 10 percent--have been high- wage export-related jobs. The significance of PNTR to that overall picture is obvious. According to estimates by Goldman, Sachs, normalizing our trade relations with China and opening China's market through the WTO will result in an increase in our exports of $13 billion annually; thus China's accession to the WTO will enhance the economic prospects for U.S. export-led industries, and employment opportunities for U.S. workers in higher paying export-related jobs. Exports, however, are only half of the trade picture and only half of the story of normalizing our trade relations with China. We benefit from imports as well. Being able to trade for goods that we are relatively less efficient in producing means that investments in our own economy are channeled to more productive use. That enhances our ability to maintain higher than expected economic growth. Imports also enhance the competitiveness of American firms regardless of whether they participate in international markets. The ability to buy at the lowest price and for the highest quality component allows American firms to deliver their goods and services to both U.S. markets and markets overseas at competitive prices. International trade also has a broader microeconomic benefit of keeping inflation low. International competition yields more efficient producers who are under constant pressure to deliver goods and services at the lowest price possible. The United States benefits from increases in productivity that allow us to make more from less from the competition, and that yields lower prices for goods and services across the board. To the extent that international competition helps keep inflation in check, it also allows the Fed to keep interest rates low. There is no doubt that keeping interest rates low not only helps consumers when buying a home or a car but deepens the pool of low-cost capital available to American firms to invest in productive enterprises. Normalizing our trade relations with China is not a panacea, but it will have a positive impact on the economy by reducing the uncertainty and risk that our producers and farmers currently face in gaining accession to the Chinese markets and ensuring continued competition with its benefits for American companies and American consumers. In other words, a vote in support of PNTR is a vote for a stronger economic future here in the United States. I ask my distinguished colleague from New York, because I think it is important that the American people basically understand what this legislation does and does not do--I don't think people understand this legislation will not determine whether or not China will become a member of WTO. Isn't that correct?

Mr. ROTH. Absolutely. One of the things that bothered me is that the United States, under three Presidents, has negotiated for something like 13 years on this agreement. The fact is, some very major concessions are made that benefit agriculture, that benefit industry, and benefit the workers. The Senator was saying they are going to become a member of WTO. That means those concessions they made in negotiations with our USTR will become available to the other members of WTO but not ourselves if we don't grant them permanent normal trade relations; isn't that correct?

Mr. ROTH. Let me say to the distinguished Senator, I had a very similar experience. Back in the 1970s when Carter became President, he was kind enough to invite me to go with a delegation he was sending to China. The Senator's description of China in those days is right on the mark. It was truly a Communist country; everything we saw, ate, where we stayed, was controlled by the Government. One could not read anything unless it was published by the Communist Party. It was unbelievable depression. I saw those same portraits. I was dumbfounded to see this portrait of Lenin and Stalin. It was 20 years before I went back. The difference is unbelievable. The Chinese will talk to you; they are not afraid; they don't just say the party line.

Mr. ROTH. I think it was.

Mr. ROTH. I appreciate that. But let me add, you have been there, not from the beginning but you have played a major role in bringing about this world trade situation. I congratulate you and thank you for your leadership. Time is running out.

Mr. ROTH. I think I would agree. I say to our friends and colleagues that Monday will be here soon. It is important that those who have amendments they want to offer take advantage of that situation. Time is running out. For the reason the distinguished Senator from New York has spelled out, we absolutely must proceed as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. ROTH. I thank the distinguished Senator for his leadership. I have confidence that this legislation will be enacted. It will be a great step for America. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. ROTH. Yes. I say to my distinguished colleague that it was considered in executive session by the Finance Committee.

Mr. ROTH. Yes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon on Monday, September 11, the Senate resume consideration of Senator Byrd's amendment regarding subsidies. Further, I ask unanimous consent that there be 60 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form with no amendments in order to the amendment. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the debate time, the amendment be set aside, with a vote to occur on the amendment at a time determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that when Senator Byrd offers an amendment relating to safeguards, there be 3 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form, with no amendments in order to the amendment. Further, I ask consent, following that debate time, the vote occur on the amendment at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. We have more workers, percentage-wise, than any other State, including Michigan. There are significant concessions made with respect to automobiles. Chemicals, likewise, are critically important to my State. After my distinguished friend from South Dakota finishes, it might be worthwhile to spell out to the American people why this legislation is of such critical importance. Perhaps we ought to recognize Senator Johnson.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, and myself have been here for several hours for the purpose of making progress on the consideration of the permanent normal trade relations with China. We both agreed that this is the most important vote we will face this year. In fact, it may be the most important vote we have had this decade. But I am deeply concerned that we are not having any of our colleagues making themselves available to come down to bring up the amendments that they say they want to offer. Time is running out. This is the third day we have been on this bill. I thought we made some very good progress yesterday. We considered a number of amendments. But it is absolutely critically important that we continue to make that kind of progress today and next week. I point out that the regular order of business is that if there are no amendments we ought to proceed to the vote on the legislation itself. I want every Senator to have the opportunity to offer any amendments they may care to offer because there is no question about the importance of this legislation. But we cannot wait indefinitely. I ask my friends on both sides--on the Republican side and on the Democratic side--who have amendments that they want to offer on this critically important piece of legislation to please come down now. Time is running out. Would the Senator from New York not agree with that?

Mr. ROTH. That is correct.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me say to my distinguished colleague, I could not agree more with his statement as to the importance of offering any amendments Members desire to offer. I am told we have actually been on this bill 4 days this week.

Mr. ROTH. And before we had the August recess, we had discussion; that is correct. I say to Senator Moynihan, I think it is important we take some time today. I am delighted our friend from South Dakota is here. We will call upon him to make his remarks. I think it is important that the American people fully understand why this legislation is of such critical importance. It is important to our economy and to our growth. It is particularly important to provide better and more jobs to the working people of America. I can't stress how much I think it is important to agriculture in my little State of Delaware.

Mr. ROTH. You are absolutely right. I stand corrected. In my State of Delaware, the people are waiting to see action on this. For farmers, take poultry. It is critically important to the economy of my State. China is the second largest importer of poultry and has offered to cut the tariff in half. This makes a tremendous opportunity. The same thing with automobiles. I bet the Senator didn't know this.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, with respect to the energy and water appropriations bill, I ask unanimous consent that two previously submitted amendments, Nos. 4053 and 4054, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vitiation order with respect to S. 1608 be extended until 2 p.m. today.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and I would answer his question, indeed we have. In May of this year, Senator Biden and I wrote to the Chairman of the energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, indicating that the response of the Corps of Engineers to the list of concerns raised by the State of Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control regarding necessary permitting, environmental studies, and environmental protection has been entirely inadequate. In our letter, we indicated that this project must not proceed until environmental information and permitting concerns raised by Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control are satisfactorily addressed by the Army Corps of Engineers. As a strong supporter of the Coastal Zone Management Plan, I am concerned about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed channel deepening. I strongly urge the Corps to continue negotiating in good faith with the State of Delaware to resolve outstanding informational and permitting issues through a legally enforceable agreement that will safeguard Delaware's natural resources. If an agreement cannot be reached through good faith negotiations, then the State of Delaware should pursue this matter in court.