 |
Akron, Ohio: "Membership in the
WTO wouldn't represent a badge of honor... it would require China to
open its market, to uphold the rule of law and follow international
rules of trade... Congress should embrace the arrangement by
permanently granting normal trade relations to China." --The Akron
Beacon Journal, March 8, 2000 |
 |
Atlanta, Georgia: "A normal trade
relationship will be in America's best interest. It will be good for
U.S. consumers. It will be good for U.S. exporters. It will be good
for the whole world when China submits itself to WTO rules and
regulations... So, no more excuses. It's time to get cracking on the
China trade legislation." --The Atlanta Journal and Constitution,
March 9, 2000 |
 |
Boston, Massachusetts: "Free
trade does not destroy jobs; it creates them... Openness to trade
has helped keep the U.S. economy strong... The WTO provides avenues
to challenge failure to live up to commitments, such as cracking
down on software pirates or compensating owners whose property is
taken for public use, to mention just two areas where China has been
weak in the past." --The Boston Herald, March 13, 2000 |
 |
Omaha, Nebraska: "Entry into the
WTO would mean than China would greatly open its market to U.S.
goods, including agricultural products [like] beef, pork and
soybeans... This can be a win-win situation for both countries. The
Midlands farm economy certainly stands to benefit from increasing
its export opportunities to a nation of 1.2 billion people." --The
Omaha World-Herald, February 20, 2000 |
 |
Seattle, Washington: "Congress
should cement permanent normal trade relations with China... Making
China play by the rules and open its markets creates
opportunities--no guarantees but extraordinary opportunities...
Political and economic reform in China are nurtured from the outside
by constructive engagement..." --The Seattle Times, March 12, 2000
| |