[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18179-18181]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 TO AUTHORIZE EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT TO THE PEOPLE'S 
                           REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 4444, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4444) to authorize extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations 
     treatment) to the People's Republic of China, and to 
     establish a framework of relations between the United States 
     and the People's Republic of China.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments on 
the legislation pending before the Senate on the permanent normal trade 
relations status for China. As announced, we will be having the final 
vote on this legislation on Tuesday. We had an extended debate on this 
issue. I think it has been a healthy debate and a good debate for the 
American people. As I announced earlier, we have disposed of all 
amendments. We have had amendments on almost every conceivable subject, 
everything from the environment to labor issues in China, to abortion 
issues. Of course, none of those amendments, I think, has received more 
than 33, 34 votes. It is clear this legislation is going to pass and is 
going to pass overwhelmingly.
  Historically, every time there was a vote in the House of 
Representatives, when I served in the House, and on the occasions in 
which there were sense of the Senates, I have voted against granting 
annual most-favored-nation status to China, that which we now call 
normal trade relations. I want to explain my thinking on this issue.
  On May 24, 2000, as the House of Representatives approved permanent 
normal trade relations status for China, Pastor Wang Li Gong celebrated 
his 34th birthday by sewing footballs in a forced labor camp in 
Tianjing. His hands are injured, and they bleed every day because of 
the work. When Pastor Wang is not trying to fulfill high production 
quotas, he is allowed only a few hours of sleep and many more hours of 
torture. He has been under administrative detention since last November 
for the crime of organizing a Christian gathering in his home.
  But Pastor Wang is not the only target of persecution. In its annual 
report on human rights, our State Department documents just about every 
violation of international norms in China. Religious persecution to 
crackdowns on political dissent, to torture, to forced labor, to 
trafficking of women and children--it is all happening in China. It is 
not getting better. At least, if you view it in terms of the last few 
years, if you go back to the Cultural Revolution, you can find there 
have been fits and starts of improvement, but as you look at the State 
Department's reports over the last few years, the situation is not 
improving.
  In the area of religious persecution, the State Department, in its 
Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, notes:

       The Government's respect for religious freedom deteriorated 
     markedly, especially for the Falun Gong and Tibetan 
     Buddhists,

[[Page 18180]]

     and the Government's repression and abuses continue during 
     the first 6 months of 2000.

  That is, of course, as far as the report extends, is the first 6 
months of this year. Its conclusion is:

       Respect for religious freedom deteriorated markedly.

  At the very time the House of Representatives was voting for PNTR, 
and during the process by which that debate has gone on in the Senate, 
the conclusion of our own Government is that ``religious freedom has 
deteriorated markedly.''
  The report goes on to note that:

       The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress 
     adopted a decision to ban ``cults,'' including the Falun Gong 
     and other religious groups.

  At the time the Chinese People's Congress adopted that law banning 
religious cults, I expressed concern to my colleagues in the Senate 
that this new law would be very broadly applied. It is bad enough to 
give a government the power to define what is a cult and what is not, 
what is acceptable religious belief and what is not acceptable 
religious belief, but this crackdown was unprecedented. There had been 
serious crackdowns in the past. At that time, I introduced a resolution 
in this Senate expressing my concern and the concern of the Congress 
that this crackdown, this harsh crackdown on the Falun Gong, would only 
be a beginning. I predicted the so-called cult law would be widely 
applied.
  My worst fears have come true. The law has been applied extremely 
broadly to other groups, including Christians. On August 23, 2000, 
Chinese police arrested 130 Christians in Henan Province. These 
Christians are from the Fangcheng church, a popular house church 
movement. The Chinese Government considers them a cult, not because of 
what they believe, not because of their teachings, but because they are 
not registered with the State; they are not under the control of the 
Chinese Government. Their leaders, arrested a year ago, are suffering 
for their faith in labor camps, a penalty under the so-called anti-cult 
law.
  The proponents of PNTR have argued that, No. 1, increased trade will 
result not only in an increased export of American products to China 
but also in the export of American values, including human rights and 
individual freedom.
  No. 2, they have asserted that the failure to grant PNTR would result 
in isolating China and driving the Chinese regime to even more 
repressive tactics.
  No. 3, they have insisted that entry into the WTO will ensure that 
Chinese misbehavior can be addressed and that Chinese violations would 
be dealt with under the World Trade Organization.
  No. 4, they have further asserted that the creation of a human rights 
monitoring commission in this legislation will guarantee the ongoing 
monitoring of human rights conditions in China.
  In my opinion, these arguments have merit. Also, the advocates of 
PNTR are, in my opinion, sincere. I would never question their 
motivations. I would never question that, in fact, they believe in all 
sincerity that this is a better route or a real route to improving 
human rights conditions in China.
  I very much want to vote for permanent normal trade relations for 
China. It will have great economic benefits in the United States; 
potentially it does. It certainly has great economic benefits to the 
State of Arkansas. Arkansas is the No. 1 rice-producing State in the 
Nation. We are looking for markets. We want to sell that rice, whether 
it is in China, whether it is in Cuba, or wherever it is in the world.
  Some have analyzed the cotton industry will be the biggest 
beneficiary under PNTR. Arkansas is in the top tier of States in the 
production of cotton.
  Arkansas is the leading State in poultry production. When I visited 
China and went to the two Wal-Marts that are in China today--a Sam's 
store and a Wal-Mart--I was surprised to see the No. 1 product being 
sold is chicken feet. It is a delicacy, a speciality in China. We in 
Arkansas grow poultry. We want to make every use of it, and China is a 
good market for it. We have major retailers in Arkansas, and the 
prospects of new markets emerging in China are very appealing to 
retailers.
  I very much wanted to vote for this bill. It is in many ways in the 
economic interest of Arkansas to see this go forward and, in fact, it 
is going to pass.
  In addition, the human rights community, while generally opposing 
PNTR, is not of one voice. It is not of a monolithic opinion. Not 
everybody in the human rights community believes that PNTR should go 
down. Some, in fact, accept these arguments as being meritorious, that 
increased trade will bring about liberalization in China, greater 
democratization, and eventually improvement in human rights. Good 
people can and do disagree. That is the case when it comes to whether 
or not China should receive from us permanent normal trade relations.
  I hope and pray the arguments that have been made by the PNTR 
proponents are all realized, that they are right on every point. I hope 
when they express their conviction that the best way to improve human 
rights in China is to see increased contact with the outside world, to 
see increased trade, to be exposed to new ideas, to see an expansion of 
the Internet, that all of those arguments are realized and realized 
soon, not in the long term but in the short term.
  We may eventually see political liberalization in China. I think we 
will in the long term. But we should not assume PNTR or the WTO will be 
the main driver of this change. While we hope for change in the long 
run, I do not believe we can remain silent about Chinese abuses in the 
shortrun. We must not ignore the lessons of history.
  I listened with great interest to much of the debate on the floor 
over the last 2 weeks, particularly the distinguished Senator from New 
York, in whom I have the greatest admiration and respect for his 
scholarship and his mind, as he went through some of the historic 
lessons of China and talked of improvements in China's human rights 
record. In one sense, that is certainly true. It is better now than it 
was during the Cultural Revolution, but let's not be selective in our 
recounting of recent Chinese history.
  During the winter months of 1978 and 1979, thousands of people in 
Beijing posted their written complaints and protests about the ills of 
China on a stretch of blank wall on Chang'an Avenue. This voice of 
protest, which became known as the democracy wall movement, was muzzled 
as the Chinese Government imprisoned its leaders such as Wei Jingsheng.
  That same year of the crackdown on the democracy wall movement, the 
U.S. established diplomatic relations with China and signed a bilateral 
trade agreement. Deng Xiaoping introduced a series of economic and 
legal reforms, and international protests against repression in China 
were drowned out by the promise of free-market initiatives. Twenty-one 
years since the United States signed a bilateral trade agreement with 
China, we have only seen increasing political repression and religious 
persecution.
  Harvard professor Dani Rodrik expressed this sentiment when he said:

       I would not assume, as many advocates of normalized trade 
     relations with China have done, that expanded trade will 
     necessarily produce greater democracy. . . . If the Chinese 
     leadership is truly interested in democratization, they do 
     not need the World Trade Organization to help them achieve 
     it. . . . There are no human rights prerequisites for WTO 
     membership. Even if the Chinese Government were to become 
     more repressive, existing WTO rules would not allow the U.S. 
     and other countries to withdraw trade privileges. The 
     pressure would have to be applied outside the WTO context.

  What he is saying is if we cede the main tool we have for applying 
this pressure, which has been the annual MFN debate, by passing the 
PNTR package, we are left with a toothless Levin-Bereuter commission. 
This commission proposal, which is included in the PNTR package we will 
be voting on, has been sold as a Helsinki Commission for China. As a 
Helsinki Commissioner, I know this proposed commission lacks a 
cornerstone, the Helsinki Final Act, which commits OSCE member nations 
to certain human rights standards. Without that foundation, we will 
simply be duplicating the efforts of the U.S. State Department's

[[Page 18181]]

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and we will find out from 
this commission what we already know: Human rights in China are and at 
least for the foreseeable future will remain deplorable.
  It would be wrong for me not to recognize the economic arguments for 
granting PNTR to China, and I have tried to acknowledge that. I believe 
business and agriculture can determine their best interests, but here, 
too, we should recognize that inflated expectations could quickly be 
punctured by an unruly China. For all the anticipation and excitement 
in the business community over PNTR, we will face a recalcitrant 
trading partner in China at the WTO. We will see the dispute settlement 
system and the very functioning of the WTO put to a great test.
  In the final analysis, though I know PNTR is going to pass and though 
I realize there are going to be some very significant economic benefits 
to our country, and while I hope the best face and the great 
expectations that have been propounded for this legislation will be 
realized, I have concluded that I must vote no on this because the 
words in the most recent State Department report on China keep echoing 
in my ears: ``The Government's respect for religious freedom 
deteriorated markedly.'' It is the most recent report--and I cannot 
escape the judgment that it has not gotten better--that the conditions 
in China have deteriorated markedly.
  In ancient Rome, the Roman Government did not really care what Roman 
citizens believed. They did not care what their religious faith was or 
necessarily if they even had a religious faith. What they did care 
about was the supremacy of the Roman Government over its people and 
over all religions. Effectively, they said to their citizens: You can 
believe anything you want so long as you will affirm that Caesar is 
lord. It was not the beliefs of Christians that got them in trouble in 
the Roman persecutions; it was the fact they would not make that 
affirmation that the Roman Government was supreme and that Caesar was 
lord.
  It seems to me that is a clear analogy to the conditions in China 
today. There is religious freedom in China only insofar as every 
religious group in China will affirm that the Chinese Government is 
ultimately supreme. To the extent that any religious group defies that 
ultimate standard, they then face intense persecution.
  So for those reasons I will cast a ``no'' vote. I suspect that there 
will be 20 to 25 Members who will cast that same vote. I hope for the 
best outcome for PNTR, but for my own conscience I will cast a ``no'' 
vote next week.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________