[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[House]
[Page 7676]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 7676]]

              PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the decision 
this Congress must make regarding extending Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations (PNTR) to China. Over the last several months I worked the 
29th district and talked to people who have varying opinions both for 
and against granting PNTR to china. These many conversations have 
reinforced my existing belief that there is no easy way to decide 
whether a vote in favor or in opposition of expanding trade with China 
is correct.
  Having been to China, I have great respect for the Chinese people, 
their culture, and their impressive history. The vitality is there, we 
should encourage it to expand. While I understand that you cannot move 
1.2 billion people from communism to a free democracy overnight it 
appears that China has been moving backwards. Recent actions by China 
to prohibit the free expression of religion and their unwillingness to 
open their domestic markets to foreign products is very troubling.
  During my tenure in Congress, I have tried to closely examine the 
various trade measures that the House of Representatives considered. I 
voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but 
supported the annual extension of Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading 
status, now called Normal Trade Relations (NTR), to China. The 
differences in my voting record reflects my concerns about blanket 
trade agreements that, once signed, will disadvantage the American 
producer.
  As the vote on granting China PNTR looms in two weeks, I want to 
discuss the criteria used to develop my position on this trade 
agreement. There were three main components that I felt had to be met 
before I could support the measure: First, we must safeguard American 
security against a potential adversary. Second, the legislation should 
encourage policies allowing greater individual liberty, the rule of 
law, and religious freedom. And finally, American economic interests 
should not be harmed.
  When I considered China's recent actions toward Taiwan and the 
possibility of a direct Chinese attack if Taiwan had decided to declare 
independence, I wondered how granting annual NTR to China in recent 
years had tempered their belligerent attitudes. This latest bluster by 
Beijing is comparable to the 1996 Chinese ``missile test'' over the 
Taiwan Straits during Taiwan's first democratic elections. Beijing's 
attempt to intimidate Taiwanese voters failed to deter them from 
electing President Lee Teng-hui. (Chen)
  Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and its people should have every right 
to elect their leaders. Has granting NTR to China stopped them from 
taking such an aggressive posture towards Taiwan? I do not believe it 
has. So, when taken in the context of preserving the security of the 
United States, the past decisions to grant China greater trading access 
has not increased our national security. The United States must remain 
on constant alert and ready to defend Taiwan if China decides to 
attack. In addition, the willingness of the Chinese government to allow 
the stoning of our embassy last year after we mistakenly bombed their 
embassy in Belgrade was of great concern to me. I find it very 
unsettling when a nation with nuclear weapons uses such tactics to try 
and intimidate our government. Because of these incidents, I feel China 
has failed to meet the first criteria of safeguarding American 
security.
  China's continuing problem with religious freedom has frequently 
caused concern in my district. China's record on religious and workers' 
rights continues to be disappointing. Take for instance the recent 
imprisonment of several thousand members of the Falun-Gong spiritual 
movement. This peaceful organization uses meditation and exercise to 
promote inner strength and healing. The Chinese government has 
responded to this movement by systematically imprisoning the leaders of 
this peaceful group on charges they are attempting to undermine the 
Communist Party.
  I find this continuing lack of tolerance by the Chinese government 
very disturbing because it simply reinforces the bloody images of the 
Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Cracking down on the Falun-Gong 
indicates to me that granting NTR, and now possibly PNTR, will have 
absolutely no effect on improving religious freedom. China wants 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations with no strings attached. Granting NTR 
on an annual basis allows us to retain some ability to impact the 
Chinese government and monitor their international conduct. 
Unfortunately, in light of recent incidents I now have concerns that 
granting PNTR will allow China to completely ignore their 
responsibilities to promote religious and individual freedom. Because 
of this belief, I feel China has failed to meet the second portion of 
my criteria dealing with improving religious freedoms and human rights.
  Finally, I am concerned that China has yet established a judicial 
system where the impartial ``rule of law'' principle is applied. Access 
to an impartial court system is critical for economic development and 
individual freedom. Unfortunately, this principle has yet to develop in 
China. Companies doing business in China have little recourse if their 
permits to enter the domestic Chinese markets are withheld because of 
resistance from within the governmental bureaucracy. The Chinese 
judicial system is still a political tool of the Communist Party. It is 
not unusual for verdicts to be decided before cases even go to trial. 
In addition, the Chinese judicial system is responsible for maintaining 
social order by imprisoning political dissidents.
  When I visited China two years ago, I saw a Kodak factory that was 
built to serve the domestic and foreign markets. During the visit I 
asked a Kodak representative if they had received permission to market 
their products in China. They had received permission by contract, but 
still could not serve the domestic market. Had this situation occurred 
in this country Kodak could have gone to court to enforce their access 
rights. Unfortunately, they were in China where access to a fair court 
hearing is questionable at best.
  Mr. Speaker, China wants the foreign investment to build new 
production facilities that can employ the millions of Chinese workers 
throughout their country. However, it is becoming quite clear that any 
new facilities will be strictly for export purposes. The U.S. trade 
deficit with China has grown from $6 billion in 1989 to $70 billion in 
1999. This staggering figure does not even include the estimated losses 
due to piracy of U.S. intellectual property, which in 1998 was $2.6 
billion and totaled $10 billion from 1995 to 1998, according to the 
International Intellectual Property Alliance.
  By granting China PNTR, we surrender the only effective economic and 
political voice to effect positive change in China, the annual vote to 
renew NTR. Growth in this new economy is very important to me, but it 
is because of freedom and individual initiative, not control.
  There are too many protesters in prison. There are too many religious 
persecutions. There are too many military threats. Granting China PNTR 
now might be economically rewarding, but it would be morally wrong. 
Last year, I supported and spoke in favor of granting a one-year 
extension of normal trade relations (NTR) with China. I support a 
comprehensive engagement with China that includes free and fair trade, 
but only after China has demonstrated a willingness to become a 
responsible member of the world community. China should move toward 
more individual freedom not less. More negotiation with Taiwan and not 
military threats. China historically is a great nation and can and 
should be part of this global economic success, but it's not 
accomplished by persecution and threats. I cannot support granting PNTR 
to China until the government gives up its reliance on threats and 
intimidation to achieve their international policy goals.

                          ____________________