[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 71 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E931-E933]
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. BOB CLEMENT

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 24, 2000

  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, since the President asked Congress to grant 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to China, the members of this 
body--indeed, all of the American people--have been forced to consider 
broad questions about our relationship with China, about our values as 
a free people and about our fundamental best interests as they relate 
to the economy and to national security. These are very serious 
questions; and I--like many of my colleagues, I am sure--have invested 
a great deal of time in study, discussions and prayer about them.
  Make no mistake--I understand the value of international trade, and I 
am a believer in developing trade opportunities to enhance our economic 
future. I recognize the realities of the global economy that exist 
today; and there is no doubt in my mind that trade is the key to the 
future for the United States, for China and for every other nation as 
well. My record reflects my belief in free and fair trade policies, 
including trade with China. I supported

[[Page E932]]

NAFTA, GATT, fast track and the Africa Trade bill this body just 
recently passed. Opening markets benefits both countries--the U.S. 
gains new destinations to export goods, and China gains investment from 
foreign companies.
  But what I cannot support is relinquishing our annual review of 
China's progress towards free market reform and a democratic society. I 
cannot, in good conscience, award China PNTR when there are serious 
national security concerns involving China and Taiwan's volatile 
relationship as well as China's role in producing and disseminating 
weapons of mass destruction. When China's record of compliance with 
past agreements leaves much to be desired. And when China's progress in 
economic power and technological development has overlooked progress on 
human rights and religious freedom. Therefore, I am not convinced that 
the best interests of this nation and of the people of my state are 
served by rewarding China with unconditional permanent normal trade 
relations. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to extending PNTR to 
China at this time.
  Rather than granting PNTR, I believe a more prudent and responsible 
approach is to continue an annual review of China's trade status. In 
the past, as a supporter of free trade, I have favored granting normal 
trade relations to China on an annual basis. In this way, we have 
better opportunities to move that country toward a more democratic, 
free market system, while maintaining a trade relationship that 
certainly can be beneficial to the people of both nations. I see this 
annual review as an effective way to influence the Chinese government 
to reform its policies toward religious minorities, workers, and 
proponents of democracy.
  But granting permanent status to China is a significantly different 
issue. Such a move would, in a sense, take China ``off probation'' and 
remove the incentive to make progress on those issues of particular 
concern to the United States. In my opinion, the question this PNTR 
vote poses is not on the merits of free trade but rather whether the 
U.S. should relinquish our influence on trade with China permanently.


                           National Security

  My first concern about our relationship with China relates to 
national security. The prospects for peace and prosperity in Asia 
depend heavily on China's role as a responsible member of the 
international community. Perhaps our country's most important national 
security challenge is to build a constructive and stable bilateral 
relationship with China. The prospects for peace and prosperity in Asia 
depend heavily on China's role as a responsible member of the 
international community. In my opinion, a policy of engagement must be 
built on a foundation of strength and resolve that rewards responsible 
Chinese behavior and confronts provocative activities that undermine 
U.S. interests and promote greater risks of military and diplomatic 
confrontation.
  Should we reward China with PNTR status given recent highly 
provocative actions on the part of the Chinese government? Our country 
would be sending exactly the wrong message if we were to support 
China's WTO membership with PNTR at a time when the Chinese have chosen 
to adopt a far more aggressive stance toward Taiwan, a stance that they 
know could lead to a serious military confrontation with the U.S.
  China's recent provocative actions and continued demand for Taiwan to 
acknowledge its ``one China'' policy or expect military actions is 
troubling. Should we reward China for these actions? I believe we would 
be sending exactly the wrong message if we were to grant China PNTR at 
a time when the Chinese have chosen to adopt a far more aggressive 
stance toward Taiwan. I was pleased to see Mr. Chen's presidential 
inauguration in Taipai take place without incident this past weekend. 
However, Beijing's silent response leaves much to the imagination.
  This comes on top of growing skepticism expressed by our intelligence 
community--skepticism about whether the Chinese intend to live up to 
their international commitments to stem the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction, especially in the areas of short- and medium-range 
missiles and chemical weapons technology. Despite Chinese promises to 
abide by various arms control pacts, including the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty, the Director of Central Intelligence recently 
reported that China remains a ``key supplier'' of technology 
inconsistent with proliferation goals--particularly missile and 
chemical technology to Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.
  We must make it clear to the Chinese that we will extend a hand of 
friendship in good faith, but we will not turn a blind eye to its 
irresponsible or dangerous actions. It is not in our national security 
interest to condone and reward grossly irresponsible conduct by a 
country that wishes to become a leader in the international community.


                   Human Rights and Religious Freedom

  As a member of the House International Relations Committee, I am 
keenly interested in and aware of our role in international affairs. I 
have traveled to China and am amazed at what is going on there. China 
is clearly on the move and I have no doubt that they will eventually 
rival only the United States as a world superpower. However, the most 
recent State Department report on human rights practices in China 
reveals that the situation continues to grow worse. We cannot, and 
should not, overlook what our own government recognizes as abhorrent 
conditions in China.
  As China progresses rapidly in terms of economic power, technological 
development and international affairs, its progress on human rights is 
sorely lacking. In terms of political freedom, democratic institutions 
and the guarantee of basic rights, China simply does not meet any 
reasonable standard that the United States or any nation with a mature, 
democratic heritage would consider acceptable. If America stands for 
anything, it stands for personal freedom and inalienable rights for all 
people. Our values cannot be divorced from any votes or from any 
considerations, including those related to trade. I am afraid that 
granting PNTR sends China the message that we approve of their 
political system as it stands today. And that is simply not the case.
  The number of documented cases of religious persecution in China 
alarms me. As a firm believer in supporting religious freedom and 
author of the International Religious Freedom Act, I believe we must 
take a stand against human rights violations and persecution of people 
for simply expressing their religious beliefs. The Commission on 
Religious Freedom, established by the International Religious Freedom 
Act, released earlier this month a report which notes a marked 
deterioration in China's religious freedom during this past year. Make 
no mistake, the crackdown on religious expression in China has reached 
alarming and brutal proportions. China has enacted laws which have been 
used to persecute many religious groups of differing faiths. 
Unregistered groups, including home churches, have been raided and 
buildings destroyed. Individuals have been fined, arrested, tortured 
and some even killed. China continues to harass, detain, beat and 
torture members of religious groups, including Catholics, Protestants 
and Tibetan Buddhists. Tens of thousands of members of the spiritual 
movement Falun Gong have been detained and forced to sign statements 
disavowing their beliefs. An unknown number of those who refused remain 
detained; others are in prison or serving ``re-education through 
labor'' sentences. To torture and persecute people for simply 
expressing their personal beliefs is unconscionable.
  Although I believe that economic reform can lead to political reform 
and a greater respect for individual freedoms, there is a distinct risk 
that China may choose to abide by the WTO's rules while continuing to 
flagrantly ignore human rights standards. It's true that the WTO could 
be a catalyst for creating a modern legal system. However, there's no 
guarantee that the system will protect basic rights. For that to 
happen, there has to be a sustained effort to press for creation of a 
truly independent judiciary. Such sustained pressure can be most 
effective through an annual renewal process of trade agreements.


                    Worker Rights and Labor Concerns

  The right for workers to organize and bargain collectively is not 
only discouraged in China, it is punished by imprisonment or worse. 
Forced labor camps continue to exist in China; and these camps provide 
no compensation for work under deplorable conditions. Since it is well 
established that China's labor practices do not meet U.S. or 
international standards for protecting worker rights, how can we, in 
good conscience, reward China for its abysmal labor practices by 
granting PNTR?
  One of my particular concerns is the effect granting PNTR and opening 
China to U.S. companies will have on industries such as the textile 
industry. Without real labor standards and protections in place, PNTR 
could cripple our own apparel and textile markets, placing American 
jobs at risk and endangering American workers and their families. China 
is a formidable player in the world apparel and textile market. As of 
1999, it was the world's largest producer of cotton, manmade fibers and 
silk as well as of apparel products. It has the largest production 
capacity for textile products in the world and has, in recent years, 
improved the efficiency of its textile industry and increased the 
quality and value of its apparel output. China has the potential to be 
a major threat to the apparel and textile industries in the U.S. and 
the workers in those industries. I reject the option of granting PNTR 
status to China today and see dedicated employees out of work tomorrow 
because of an influx of cheap Chinese textiles.
  China's lack of PNTR status allows us annual reviews of the human 
rights and labor record in China. Granting PNTR to China will mean 
losing this annual review and any subsequent leverage to force China's 
compliance with international standards. An annual review

[[Page E933]]

 will retain the ability of Congress to examine China's willingness and 
ability to keep its commitments. It will give China incentive to 
improve its record with regard to workers' rights and human rights and 
give it an opportunity to demonstrate its adherence to fair trade and 
environmental protection.


                       A Record of Noncompliance

  To some degree, the Chinese government has avoided full compliance 
with many of the trade agreements it has made with the United States. 
While our trade deficit with China continues to grow, China has broken 
its agreements with us on opening markets, stopping the piracy of 
intellectual property, and ending the export of goods produced in the 
forced labor camps. The statements of China's negotiators on PNTR lead 
me to believe that we cannot count on a total, good-faith compliance 
with this agreement, either.
  This pattern of non-compliance, or of only partial compliance, 
bolsters significantly the argument against PNTR and in favor of the 
annual renewals that have been granted in the past. Just as ending our 
trade relationship with China altogether would be a foolish and self-
destructive for the United States, losing our annual review and any 
subsequent leverage to move
  In any number of areas--agricultural commodities, meat and poultry, 
telecommunications, petroleum, insurance-related services, and others--
American interests are best served when we can revisit compliance 
issues regularly. With PNTR, our opportunities to monitor and influence 
compliance are severely limited, if not eliminated, while an annual 
review will retain the ability of Congress to examine China's 
willingness and ability to keep its commitments.


                               Conclusion

  A ``no'' vote on PNTR will not mean an end to America's trade 
relationship with China. The U.S. and China will continue to have a 
binding trade relationship under international law, governed by the 
1979 trade agreement between our two countries and several subsequent 
bilateral deals. The ``most favored nation'' provisions of those 
agreements require that China afford to the United States any trade and 
non-trade economic benefits that China grants to our competitors. It is 
true that the U.S. would not be able to file complaints against China 
through the WTO dispute resolution process. However, we will retain the 
right to use our own laws to sanction China--by withholding or limiting 
access to the U.S. market--for unfair trade practices.
  Furthermore, if the U.S. and China are not tied through the WTO, we 
will be able to use our trade laws to redress abuses of human rights 
and worker rights. The U.S. would be prohibited from taking such 
actions if China and the U.S. have a WTO relationship. So China's lack 
of PNTR status allows us annual reviews of China's progress, thus 
giving China an incentive to improve its record with regard to workers' 
rights and human rights and give that nation an opportunity to 
demonstrate its adherence to fair trade and environmental protection.
  There is no doubt in my mind that trade is the key to the future. 
Opening markets benefit everyone--the U.S. gains new destinations to 
export goods and China gains investment from foreign companies. In my 
opinion, the question this PNTR vote poses is not on the merits of free 
trade but rather whether the U.S. should relinquish our influence on 
trade with China permanently. International trade--and the benefits it 
affords--are a fact. Likewise, it should also not be disputed as to 
whether the United States should attempt to influence Chinese behavior 
in areas of human and workers' rights, weapons proliferation and 
compliance with international commitments. Clearly we should. Thus, my 
concern lies with whether we should take China off the one-year renewal 
process. Given current conditions in China and recent actions by the 
Chinese government, I am not convinced that relinquishing this 
leveraging tool is in our best national interest at this time.
  It is for all of these reasons that I must oppose permanent normal 
trade relations at this time. I am not convinced that It is in the best 
interest of Tennesseans and our country to reward China with 
unconditional permanent normal trade relations when it is clear they do 
not meet our standards for human and worker rights and could threaten 
our national security. Clearly trade must continue and we must pledge 
ourselves to work with the Chinese reformers to move their country 
towards free market democracy. However, until significant improvements 
are made in these areas, I cannot in good faith vote to grant PNTR.
  I look forward to the day when China fully joins the international 
community in a commitment to democratic values, human rights, and trade 
that is truly free and fair. Until that time, we have a duty to use 
whatever tools we have available to us to influence China to take that 
path. My vote against PNTR for China is one such tool, and I utilize it 
in good conscience and with a conviction that it will benefit both the 
Chinese and American people.

                          ____________________