[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[House]
[Page H3146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST PNTR FOR CHINA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this 5 minutes to respond 
to one of the arguments that I have heard against permanent normal 
trade relations with China.
  The argument is that China, its 1.3 billion citizens, and only 7 
percent of the world's arable land, does not need United States' 
agricultural products. USDA's Economic Research Service and private 
agricultural commodity groups believes China will continue to be a 
major market for U.S. agricultural products and that China's accession 
to the WTO will expand that market.
  For cotton, China committed to a tariff-rate quota of 743,000 tons 
for cotton in the Year 2000, increasing to 894,000 tons in 2004. The 
within-quota duty would be 4 percent and the over-quota duty would 
decline from 69 percent in 2000 to 40 percent by 2004. Nonstate trade 
companies get two-thirds of that quota, which means we help avoid the 
problem we have sometimes had in the past with quotas going unfilled.
  The ERS projects that if China did not join the WTO, it would import 
cotton worth $565 million in 2005. If China does join, ERS projects 
that its cotton imports would increase to $924 million by 2005.
  For corn, China committed to establish a 4.5 million ton tariff rate 
quota in 2000, rising to 7.2 million by 2004. Here again, ERS projects 
that China's net imports of corn in 2005 will increase by $587 million 
if China joins the WTO.
  U.S. corn exports to China have averaged about 47 million over the 
past 5 years. This will increase.
  For wheat, China committed to a tariff rate quota of 7.3 million tons 
in 2000, rising to 9.64 million in 2004. ERS projects that China's net 
imports of wheat in 2005 will increase from $231 million per year to 
$773 million if it joins the WTO.
  For soybean products, the story goes on. ERS projects that China's 
net imports of soybean products in 2005 will increase by $180 million 
if China joins the WTO.
  Now, ERS is not alone in the view that China will have to be buying 
agricultural commodities. According to Worldwatch's Lester Brown, 
China's water supplies in its grain-producing areas are falling at a 
high rate. He sees massive grain imports and growing dependence on U.S. 
grain.
  The Farm Bureau also expects great benefits from China's accession to 
the WTO. U.S. exports to the Asian region as a whole are expected to 
increase in the next few years.
  I would like to conclude my remarks tonight by putting all of these 
facts and figures into context. For years, we in agriculture have 
complained about the use of unilateral sanctions to change the behavior 
of various governments around the world. Recently, we have made some 
progress on this front, with some restrictions lifted last year that 
have resulted in sales of some corn to Iran and wheat to Libya.
  If we look at what USDA estimates that we in agriculture lost because 
of the United States' own decision not to trade with certain countries, 
the total in 1996 was about $500 million. The estimates for this year 
have to be considerably more than $500 million. That is less than a 
third of the $1.7 billion we will lose in 2005 if we do not grant China 
permanent normal trade relations.
  All six of the countries currently under sanctions, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, 
Libya, Sudan and North Korea, together, import only $7.7 billion in 
food and agricultural products each year. That is about half the $14 
billion China imports today annually.
  We need to make the right decision on China and stop giving away 
agricultural markets to our competitors. That is what those of us who 
support treating China as our competitors do. What sense does it make 
today for the United States to unilaterally say to any country that we 
will not sell them our food and medicine, when our ``friends'' sell to 
that country? That is something that I have failed to understand in 
some of the arguments against PNTR. It is one thing if we 
multilaterally, if all of our ``friends'' also agree to use food and 
medicine as a weapon. That would be a powerful tool. But to do it 
unilaterally, it seems to me, only punishes our own producers, in this 
case farmers and ranchers, and it hurts the people of which we are 
trying to help, and it strengthens the governments of which we are 
trying to change.
  I hope that this and other statements we will hear over the next few 
days will convince at least 218 of us in this body to do the right 
thing, to grant permanent normal trade relations with China, to allow 
them to come into the WTO, and, for the first time in history, have 
them subjected to the same laws that apply to the rest of the free 
world. It sure cannot hurt to try it.

                          ____________________