USCC Header USCC.gov
Home

September-19-2008

Search:

 

Tools:

Adjust Text Size
Printer Friendly Page
E-mail to Friend

Hearing Calendar

< < August 2008 > >

August 2008
M T W T F
        1
4 5 6 7 8
11 12 13 14 15
18 19 20 21 22
25 26 27 28 29

View Full Schedule


Press Release SignUp!

Registration Form


Downloads:

Adobe PDF Reader

2004 Commission Report by Mr. Sarbanes

Annual Reports

U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to call to the attention of my colleagues the release on June 15 of the 2004 Report to Congress of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
The Commission was created by Congress on October 30, 2000, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2001. Its principal sponsor in the Senate was Senator BYRD. The charter of the Commission provides that it be composed of 12 Commissioners, 3 of whom are appointed by each of the Congressional leaders in both the House and Senate. The Commission is thus bipartisan, and reflective of the leadership of both the House and the Senate.
The purpose of the Commission, according to its charter, is to ``monitor, investigate and report to Congress on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.'' The Commission is required by its charter to submit an annual report to Congress, which must include a full analysis, along with conclusions and recommendations for legislative actions, if any, of the national security implications for the United States of trade and current account balances, financial transactions, and technology transfers with the People's Republic of China.
In preparation for its 2004 annual report, the Commission held 11 public hearings, including field hearings in Columbia, SC, and San Diego, CA. Through these hearings the Commission heard the perspectives of members of Congress, current and former senior government officials, representatives of industry, labor and finance, academics, journalists, and citizens. The Commission took testimony from more than 130 witnesses.
The Commission's fact-finding and examination process also included funding statistical analyses of China's role in world trade and investment, and its compliance record with its WTO commitments. Moreover the Commission contracted for the translation of articles from influential publications within China discussing Beijing's economic and security strategies and its perceptions of the United States.
During the course of its deliberations, the Commission developed a broad bipartisan agreement on the issues it was charged by Congress to
[Page: S8661]
examine, and adopted its 2004 report by a unanimous vote.
Among the key findings of the report are that in 2003 the United States ran a global goods trade deficit of $545.5 billion, of which $124 billion was attributable to U.S. trade with China. The U.S. trade deficit with China constituted over 23 percent of the total U.S. goods deficit. Further, with U.S. exports to China of $28 million and imports from China of $152 billion, U.S. trade with China constitutes our most lopsided trading relationship. The report notes that over the past 10 years, the U.S. trade deficit with China has grown at an average rate of 18.5 percent, and if it continues growing at this rate, it will double to $248 billion within 5 years. The report further notes that since 1998, the United States has moved from a global trade surplus in advanced technology products, ATP, of $29.9 billion to a deficit of $27 billion in 2003, of which $21 billion is attributed to our trade with China.
The Commission report unanimously finds that, ``The magnitude of the goods trade deficit threatens the nation's manufacturing sector, a sector that is vital for our national and economic security.'' It further notes that China has a ``coordinated sustainable vision for science and technology development'' and urges our country to develop a ``comprehensive national policy to meet China's challenge to our scientific and technological leadership.''
The report finds that China is systematically intervening in the foreign exchange market to keep its currency undervalued, and that this has contributed to the size of the U.S. trade deficit with China and has hurt U.S. manufacturers. The report further notes that China has policies in place to attract foreign direct investment ($57 billion in 2003) and to develop its national productive capacity in ``pillar industries''. These policies include tariffs, limitations on access to domestic marketing channels, requirements for technology transfer, government selection of partners for joint ventures, preferential loans from state banks, privileged access to land, and direct support for research and development.
In order to begin to help correct our trading relationship with China, the Commission urges that the U.S. immediately seek to have the yuan revalued substantially upward against the dollar and then to be pegged against a trade weighted basket of currencies. After such an immediate revaluation, the Commission recommends that China, as it addresses problems in its banking system, move to a market-based currency. It further recommends that Congress should charge USTR and the Commerce Department to undertake a comprehensive examination of China's industrial policies, described in the report, to determine which may be illegal under provisions of the WTO, and to lay out specific steps the U.S. can take to address these practices through the WTO or other means. It urges the U.S. to make more active use of WTO dispute
settlement if we cannot persuade China by negotiation to carry out its WTO commitments.
The report discusses a number of other htmects of United States-China trade and political relations. It makes a number of recommendations to help manage the relationship to minimize security risks and to enhance prospects of moving China toward a more open, democratic and law-based society to the benefit of both countries.
In my view, this 2004 report of the Commission makes a very valuable contribution to our policy deliberations on China. I salute Senator BYRD for his wisdom in calling for the creation of the Commission, and thank all the Commissioners for their contribution to our knowledge of the United States-China economic and political relationship. The Baltimore Sun ran an editorial which strongly praised the report and found that ``the case for `urgent attention and course corrections' to U.S. policies on China is well made.'' I ask that the Baltimore Sun editorial be inserted in the RECORD after my statement.
I strongly commend the 2004 report of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission to my colleagues.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Baltimore Sun, June 17, 2004]
The China Trade-Off
In the past year, some large foreign investors were for the first time allowed to enter China's domestic stock market to buy shares of Chinese firms. This includes shares of part of Norinco, China North Industries Group--a transnational conglomerate that was founded by the People's Liberation Army, that retains strong military ties, that makes everything from baby shoes to missiles, and that has drawn U.S. sanctions for arming Iran.
Given the lack of disclosure in China, foreign investors and technology traders with Norinco and other Chinese firms cannot know if their resources will end up serving China's long-term, well-coordinated strategic plan to compete with American economic, military and political power. That potential danger is the basis for the very strong alarms sounded this week by the U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan congressional group monitoring U.S.-China relations.
In its wide-ranging annual report, the commission warns that rapidly increasing trade, investment and technology flows between the two nations are far too lopsided in China's favor--eroding U.S. economic strength, abetting China's military build-up and its development as a high-tech manufacturing platform, and potentially threatening U.S. security interests. Worse, the commission found that the U.S. government often is far too blind to these hazards in arguably its most important long-term relationship.
The report will be criticized by some for demonizing Beijing just as the West is penetrating Chinese markets and succeeding in dramatically drawing China into the community of nations. But in general, the case for ``urgent attention and course corrections'' to U.S. policies on China is well made.
For starters, the commission is urging the United States to use the World Trade Organization to more aggressively press China on its undervalued currency and on state subsidies for export manufacturers, both underlying factors in America's $124 billion trade deficit with China last year. It also recommends comprehensive monitoring of: advanced technology transfers to China via U.S. investments, joint ventures and research and development projects; China's U.S. investments; and bilateral exchange and education programs.
The lengthy commission report paints a picture of China leveraging the short-term financial ambitions of diverse U.S. interests to capture money and technology vital to its highly focused, long-term goal of trumping the United States--and of the U.S. government at best adrift in monitoring and managing its side of this imbalanced and critically important relationship. It's a caution worth the highest attention.
END