[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E863-E864]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAL TRADE 
           RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOSEPH CROWLEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 24, 2000

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, although I am for free and fair trade, as 
well as engagement with China, now is not the time for Permanent NTR.
  Like many of my colleagues, I look at all trade agreements on an 
individual basis and weigh their positives and negatives accordingly.
  For example, I support United States participation in the World Trade 
Organization and I supported annual NTR because I believe it is 
important to engage China. However, I opposed the Africa/CBI trade deal 
because it was bad for American workers and did not contain enough 
protections from potential trade related job losses to mitigate the 
impact it would have on American employees and my constituents in New 
York.

[[Page E864]]

  For me, this debate is not about engagement or isolation. I am 
opposed to PNTR because it is the wrong time to make permanent China's 
trade benefits with the United States.
  China, has simply not matured enough politically or economically to 
have permanent normal trade relations with the United States.
  China has a record of gross human rights violations, including the 
use of prison labor and a lack of religious freedom and it still poses 
a danger to our national security. China also has a terrible record on 
the environment and has some of the most polluted cities in the world.
  Last year, 1999, was the worst year for religious freedom in China 
since the Cultural Revolution of the late 60's, according to the U.S. 
Commission on Human Rights. In China, numerous religious and human 
rights groups have suffered severe repression, including Catholics and 
the Falun Gong. No wonder religious leaders and human rights groups are 
opposed to PNTR, including the U.S. Catholic Conference.
  Even the State Department Report on Human Rights contains tough 
criticism of Beijing's increased repression of democracy activists and 
religious groups such as Tibetan Buddhists and Chinese Christians. The 
report states that religious services were broken up while church 
leaders were harassed, detained, beaten and tortured.
  Prison labor continues to be a problem in China as well. The Laogai 
Research Foundation has documented nearly 1,100 forced labor camps in 
China. In these prison camps, laborers receive no compensation for 
their work, conditions are appalling, and beatings are common.
  China also continues to pose a threat to our national security and 
the security of our allies in the region, especially Taiwan.
  We know that China sells weapons and weapons technology to countries 
like Libya, Sudan and Iran. It should come as no surprise that veterans 
groups such as the American Legion and the Order of the Purple Heart 
are against this agreement because of the national security 
implications.
  Economic arguments are another good reason to oppose this agreement.
  Despite what PNTR proponents are saying, the economic benefits of 
this deal are overstated. We already have Normal Trade Relations with 
China, which have resulted in a large and growing trade deficit.
  United States imports from China more than tripled in real terms 
between 1992 and 1999, and the United States trade deficit with China 
increased 256 percent to $68 billion in 1999 (in 1999 dollars). While 
China runs a huge trade surplus with the United States, it has a 
sizeable trade deficit with the rest of the world.
  The existing trade deficit with China is the product of current 
United States trade policies. The United States already accepts 40 
percent of China's exports. By giving China PNTR status, Congress will 
be giving up America's most effective tool for changing those policies. 
Without the ability to negotiate directly with China, the deficit with 
China will surely grow and United States job losses as a result of the 
deficit will mount.
  The Chinese also have a bad track record when it comes to adhering to 
existing agreements.
  China has violated every trade agreement it has made with the United 
States over the last 10 years. The Chinese government has broken 
agreements on opening its markets, stopping the piracy of intellectual 
property and ending the export of slave labor-produced goods.
  The U.S. response, create a monitoring group. But, by creating a 
monitoring group the the Administration is undermining its own argument 
that, by joining the WTO, China will begin to comply with the rules.
  We already know that China has not and will not comply with their 
agreements. How will a powerless monitoring group help?
  Unless there is a mechanism that will punish China for its continued 
violations of human rights, its poor labor record, its environmental 
excesses and its religious persecution, it will not do enough to help 
the situation. A monitoring group, or the Commission created under this 
legislation is a nice idea.
  I commend my colleagues, Congressmen Sander Levin and Doug Bereuter, 
for their hard work on this Commission. They have made some promising 
steps and I encourage the Senate to retain this worthwhile addition. 
But it's only one step in a multi-step process.
  There is also no guarantee that the Chinese will cooperate with the 
commission. A commission will also not raise the issue in the public 
mind as much as the annual review process.
  Even the surge protections are a welcomed addition to the 
legislation, but its benefit is exaggerated.
  We have protections now, but under the agreement, if we use them, 
China can retaliate against us. Also, what guarantee do we have that 
the Chinese will accept our definition of a surge in imports and 
respect our decision? The real answer is maintaining the annual review 
process.
  The annual review process focuses attention on China's practices in a 
way that is unmatched with any other country. It brings awareness to 
China's practices on human rights and other issues to the highest 
levels. Because of China's record on human rights, the environment and 
compliance with international treaties, the American people should be 
making this decision every year.
  The administration's plan to set up a new rapid response team to 
monitor China's compliance with its market commitments under WTO 
reinforces the argument I've been making all along--China won't comply 
with the new agreement.
  Like some of my colleagues, I believe China must meet a set of 
benchmarks before we make these benefits permanent.
  First, they must recognize basic human and worker rights. Second, 
they must stop the proliferation of missile and nuclear technology and 
equipment. Third, they must promote environmental conservation. And 
fourth, they must comply with past and present international 
commitments.
  When China has proven itself politically and economically mature 
enough for PNTR, only then should we extend these benefits. Until then, 
we should oppose this agreement, vote down this legislation and 
maintain the annual review process.
  It is dangerous to give up the most important leverage we have in 
getting China to comply with its agreements, the annual review process 
and the carrot of permanent relations. You don't give away the carrot 
before you get the result you want.

                          ____________________