[Page: S8441]
---

   Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4444, a bill establishing permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China.

   I strongly believe that permanent normal trade relations will have a substantial and long-term political, economic, and national security benefit for our country. I have long maintained that as China becomes a member of the global community, its government and its people will benefit from these changes and the United States will benefit from better relations and, eventually, I believe, from a more liberal and less oppressive government.

   Much of China's recent past has been marked by progression and regression, starts and fits toward economic liberalization that impact all levels of society, only to be matched by periods of oppression, when the government feels

[Page: S8442]

   Like many of my colleagues, I am genuinely and deeply concerned about human rights abroad. For that reason, I traveled to China last year to investigate the human rights situation and to determine the state of religious freedom in that country. WTO membership and normal trade relations with China will eventually improve the human rights situation and, I believe, religious freedom in that country. The past few decades' gradual opening of trade, investment, and cultural exchanges with China have led to positive steps in the area of human rights and religious tolerance. That is not to say that all is well. There is much work to be done in the area of human rights, but on balance a ``carrot and a stick'' approach is better than the stick alone.

   Globalization is part of ``the carrot.'' It is globalization--the economic integration of their economy--that will introduce the Chinese people to new ideas and information. I believe that as a free market economy, we have a moral and ethical obligation to other nations to help them move toward free markets and into the global economy. Our own history shows the results of not pressing for this integration. During the late 19th century and also following World War I, our negligence in integrating both Japan and Germany had horrible results that reverberated through much of the 20th century. We must not make the same type of mistake with China.

   The economic benefits to the United States of H.R. 4444 are great. Our markets to a great degree are already open to Chinese goods; this legislation will open their markets to our goods. This is good for America. And it is good for the people of my home State of Oregon. In the first year following China's membership in the global economy--economists predict trade will double with the United States. China is the sixth-largest market in the world for American agricultural products--and following WTO membership, that trade will account for one-third of the growth in exports over the next 10 years. In addition, according to the World Bank, China will spend an estimated $750 billion in new infrastructure over the next decade.

   This is wonderful for the United States, but let me take a moment and tell you what it will do for Oregon. My State is the Nation's largest producer of solid wood products and an important agricultural exporter. China's accession to the WTO and normal trade relations will benefit:

   Wheat.--Oregon is a large wheat-growing State and China's grain policies will become more market-oriented. In addition, the 1999 U.S.-China bilateral trade agreement resulted in more exports of Northwest grain.

   Vegetables.--Oregon is a major producer of beans, corn, and onions. Under the new agreements, tariffs on vegetables will drop by up to 60 percent.

   Fruit.--Oregon grows berries, pears, cherries, and plums. China will reduce tariffs by up to 75 percent for fresh and processed deciduous fruit; and tariffs on apples, pears, and cherries will fall from 30 percent to 10 percent.

   Solid wood.--China is the world's third-largest wood importer and after WTO accession, it will substantially reduce its remaining tariffs on valued-added wood products within the next 4 years.

   Much has been said on the floor of the Senate in these past few weeks regarding normal trade relations with China. I have to confess that I do not think the arguments against this legislation stand on their own merit. Most of what I have heard in opposition to NTR has reflected the desire to punish China, the need to sanction China or the need to block China.

   Those opposing this legislation have formed their arguments around the conclusion that NTR is really just a great plum for China and benefits only China. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As I previously stated our markets are already open to the Chinese--we already buy Chinese goods. This legislation will open up their market and it is a vast pool of consumers, to our goods. It benefits the United States economy. This debate is about advancing American values halfway around the world. Ninety-nine years ago Teddy Roosevelt, speaking at a state fair, said: ``There is a homely adage which runs `Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far,' '' At that time, the big stick meant America's warships and a show of American might abroad. Now the stick means America's economic might and American values. Free and fair trade is the weapon--the economic weapon of the 21st century.

   It is free and fair global trade that will strengthen the forces of economic and political reform in China. It is free and fair global trade that will bring greater prosperity to both the United States and the Chinese people. It is free and fair global trade that will bolster human rights and improve religious freedom in that country. America can advance its values and help China integrate into the world economy with the help of this important legislation. I call on my colleagues to send a clean PNTR bill to the President and ask for his swift signature.

   AMENDMENT NO. 4132

   Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Thompson amendment which would add a sanctions mechanism and annual review regarding Chinese proliferation of nuclear and other weapons. I would like to take a moment and go over the problems with this legislation. While the issue of weapons proliferation is a serious one, most of the elements of the Thompson legislation are already covered by current law. As many of my colleagues have noted, there are already numerous laws regarding nuclear proliferation, some of these laws include:

   No. 1, the Export-Import Bank Act; No. 2, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act; No. 3, the Arms Export Control Act; No. 4, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This list goes on and on. Further, I have never been a great fan of unilateral actions. Multilateral programs agreements are by far the best and most effective approach.

   The problem with unilateral sanctions is that they, at the end of the day, are rarely effective in achieving foreign policy goals. The history of our foreign policy is littered with a trail of ineffectual unilateral sanctions. The really harmful impact of this set of unilateral sanctions will fall on American exporters. Many of these sanctions will, at the end of the day, have the effect of blocking our export sales, by blocking U.S. credits or preventing financing. These actions will not have an effect on the underlying problem--they will only replace all sanctioned American products with foreign products. And we are not talking about military sales in many cases. The scope of this legislation is exceedingly broad and includes civilian transfers that do not actually contribute to proliferation problems.

   The Thompson amendment will also tie the hands of future administrations. It will not allow any flexibility for a future President to make a decision based on contemporary issues involving the state of the Sino-American relationship at that time. And finally, as we all know, the politics of the situation dictate a clean PNTR bill. Simply put, this legislation will effectively kill this bill. If we are to pass PNTR during this Congress it is imperative we have a bill that will not require another vote in the House.

   Mr. President, as I have shown up on the floor and have listened to the debate on PNTR. I have seen many people, Republican and Democrat, proposing amendments to this bill that have great appeal to me. They have great appeal to me because they advance noble principles. They advance American ideals. They advance the best of what we want to spread around the world. Economic freedom, human rights, improved labor conditions, improved environmental conditions, all of these things I support. But I fear the real motive behind some of these is to scuttle this trade agreement. I oppose that.

   I also point out, as many others have, when it comes to these security issues, slavery issues, and whatnot, we already have these laws on the books to protect this country. We should not accede in this environment, in this debate, on a vote this important to scuttle this

[Page: S8443]

   I conclude with this story from my own life. The story is a lesson that has, frankly, governed much of my thinking with respect to trade and military security and foreign relations since I have been an adult.

   I was a student at Brigham Young University, taking a class in military history. It was at the end of the Vietnam war. My professor was a retired Air Force general. There was great turmoil on the campuses of the United States. He made a comment that struck me and caught my attention. This professor's name was Phillip Flammer.

   He said: We made a mistake to bomb the North Vietnamese with military armaments. That caught my attention--in a conservative place like this university, that a statement such as that would be made.

   I thought: That is interesting.

   He said: We should have bombed them, but we should have bombed them with Sears catalogs.

   I thought: Hmm, there is a lesson I will remember.

   His point was, if we want to tear down the walls of communism, we do it with our trade. We do it with our commerce. We do it with our culture. We do it with our communications to the world.

   We have seen in Communist country after Communist country that when they are exposed to the miracles of the marketplace, what happens is a middle class develops. When a middle class develops, people begin to demand, with economic liberty, that they have political liberty as well.

   So if you are interested in improving human rights, improving the environment, improving access for Americans to their markets, then this vote on PNTR is perhaps the most important vote that we will cast in this Congress, or perhaps any other for the economic future of our country.

   If you care about spreading American values, resist these amendments, resist voting no to PNTR because you will do more to spread American values, American democracy, and advance American security by supporting this agreement than you can ever do by trying to amend it, to kill it, or by trying to vote in opposition to it when we come to a final vote.

   I do not, for a moment, question the motives of anyone who is against this. Again, I admire the ideals advanced. But I simply question this method, this bill, at this time, to scuttle this most important agreement.

   So I urge my colleagues to vote for PNTR and vote against the Thompson amendment--well-motivated but misguided at this time, given the laws we already have.

   America needs this. We should not cede the Chinese market to the European nations. We should be there ourselves. They are already here. We have yet to go there.

   I urge an ``aye'' vote on the agreement and a ``no'' vote on the Thompson amendment.

   Mr. President, I yield the floor.

END