[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 110 (Monday, September 18, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8653-S8654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA
Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, on April 11, 2000 the Senate Commerce
Committee held a hearing regarding the impact of China's accession to
the World Trade Organization, WTO, on the American economy. This was a
fascinating meeting that covered a wide range of topics from trade
deficits and tariff barriers to national security and human rights.
After participating in this hearing, and after months of meetings and
speaking with Georgia farmers, small business owners, and workers, as
well as conferring with national security experts, I have concluded
that, on balance, establishing Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR)
with China--which is necessary for the U.S. to obtain the trade
concessions made by China in order to gain entry into the WTO--is in
the best interest of both our national security and our economic
security. Therefore, I plan to support the PNTR legislation that passed
the House in May.
In the April hearing, General Brent Scowcroft, the former National
Security Advisor to President Bush, stated that granting PNTR to China
would be, ``very much in the interest of the United States. This, in my
judgement goes far beyond American business and economic interests,
important as these are, to key political and security issues.'' Mr.
President, I have just returned from a trip to Japan and Korea where
the issue of China PNTR as it pertains to our national security, while
not the purpose of my trip, was an important topic of discussion with
some of our key allies in the region as well as some of the U.S.
military's finest leaders including Admiral Dennis Blair and General
Thomas Schwartz--the Commander in Chief of U.S. Pacific Command and the
Commander in Chief of the U.S. Forces in Korea respectively. After
these discussions, I am even more convinced that the Senate should
approve PNTR as an important national security measure. Admiral Fargo,
the Commanding Officer of the CINCPAC Fleet echoed these sentiments
when he mentioned that the ``right answer'' to many of the difficult
questions facing us with regard to our strategic interest in the
region, including PNTR, ``is to engage China.''
While in Japan, I met with Japanese Foreign Minister, Yohei Kono.
When asked, Minister Kono stated that he believes PNTR for China and
its upcoming membership in the WTO, will help China become a member of
the international community and, in so doing, will help stabilize not
only the Sino-Japanese relationship--which is a part of our national
security since we are treaty-bound to defend Japan and because we have
46,000 troops stationed on Japanese soil--but will further stabilize
the entire Asia-Pacific region. I find Foreign Minister Kono's
sentiments especially significant given the historically difficult
relations between these two nations and given the fact that Japan would
be a primary beneficiary of trade with China should the U.S. Congress
not approve PNTR.
Regarding the economic security of the U.S., granting Permanent
Normal Trade Relations will open up China's market to countless Georgia
goods and services, especially for Georgia's emerging high-tech and
communications sector as well as for our largest
[[Page S8654]]
industry--agriculture. Earlier this year, Tommy Irvin, Georgia's
Commissioner for Agriculture, wrote to me that, ``Normalizing trade
relations with China will surely aid our farmers and agribusinesses'
lagging export economy, which . . . has slowed over the past two years
due to the economic crisis in Southeast Asia.'' Similarly, Governor Roy
Barnes has signaled his support for PNTR and its benefits for Georgia.
Let me be clear that I do believe that U.S. trade with China, which
under our current trade rules accounts for our single largest bilateral
trade deficit, has had--and will continue to have, whether or not we
approve PNTR--a negative effect on some American industries and
workers, including some in my state in such areas as textiles and
manufacturing. And I would certainly concur that China's labor,
environmental and political rights standards fall far short of those we
enjoy in the United States.
However, it is my belief that the annual vote currently required
regarding China's Most Favored Nation status has not been an effective
tool in forcing China to expand political rights or to observe
international rules of free and fair trade. It seems obvious to me that
both the Chinese and American leaderships have viewed the threat of not
passing MFN as just that, a threat, which has never been carried out--
not even after the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is important to note
that while some Chinese dissidents in the United States have indicated
their strong opposition to PNTR, most human rights advocates who have
remained in China, the Hong Kong democratic opposition lead by Martin
Lee and the government of democratic Taiwan all support PNTR for China.
They believe that China's acceptance of the multilateral WTO as the
arbiter of its international trade polices will, in time, produce a
significant opening up of the Chinese economic, legal and, ultimately,
even political systems.
Again, let's be clear on one point. China's membership in the WTO
will happen with or without the support of the U.S. Congress. Should
Congress not pass PNTR, then businesses in the European Union, Japan
and other nations will gain the benefits of Chinese trade concessions
plus fair trade enforcement by the WTO, while U.S. exporters will be
left behind.
Each trade agreement is different and I am not one who believes that
so-called free trade is always and necessarily a good thing for
America. Several months ago, I voted against the Caribbean Basin
Initiative and the Sub-Saharan African Trade bill because I thought the
net effect on the U.S. economy was not going to be positive. In
contrast, the trade agreement signed with China in November of 1999--
which is contingent on our approval of PNTR for China--would slash
Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods and services with no concessions by the
United States.
While increased trade with China will likely result in a net benefit
for the American economy, we must not ignore the possible impact upon
industries, such as textiles and auto manufacturing, that have been
adversely impacted under previous trade agreements such as NAFTA or
indeed under our current trade policies--including annual MFN review--
toward China. Nor should we ignore China's performance on the whole
range of issues important to our bilateral relationship, including its
labor and environmental standards, its respect for the human rights of
its own citizens, its involvement in the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and their delivery systems, its relationship with
Taiwan, and its efforts to promote stability in such key regions as the
Korean Peninsula and the Indian Subcontinent. We can, and should,
vigorously defend our national interests in these matters through
diplomacy, targeted sanctions, and other appropriate means.
However, in my opinion, none of our legitimate concerns about China
will be effectively pursued via a continuation of our current annual
review of trade relations with that country. There is little evidence
to suggest that this current policy has produced any appreciable
modification of Chinese behavior on trade, human rights or the other
issues. On the other hand, a vote for permanent normal trade relations
for China will, while relinquishing what I regard as an ineffective
policy tool, secure greater access to the Chinese market for American
companies, and will make the U.S. a full party to international efforts
to enforce China's compliance with the terms of the WTO accession
agreement. And approval of PNTR will in no way prevent the United
States from considering other, more effective responses to the actions
of the Chinese government. Therefore, I intend to vote for PNTR for
China.
____________________