[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7878-7879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, listening to my distinguished colleague from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) speaking earlier about the potential permanent normal 
trade relations vote that we will have on China soon reminded me that 
any opportunity I get I should come to the floor. And since there is an 
opportunity now, I thought I should take this 5 minutes.
  As my colleagues know, President Clinton has sent a request for 
Congress asking this Congress to yield permanent normal trade relations 
with China. He bases that request on a U.S.-China bilateral agreement 
signed in 1999. He bases that request also on a history of absolutely 
noncompliance on the part of China of any trade agreements they have 
ever signed with the U.S., be they trade agreements for market access 
of U.S. products into China's market, be they trade agreements on 
intellectual property violations by the Chinese, be they trade 
agreements on use of prison labor for export, China year in and year 
out continues to violate these agreements, and now the President has 
said, the Chinese will honor this one.
  Well, they are already backing off this one. In fact, in two areas of 
agriculture, of particular note I think to this body, the Chinese have 
a different interpretation. They are famous for reinterpreting treaties 
and agreements. For example, on the subject of wheat, the U.S. Trade 
Rep's factsheet says that wheat and grain, therefore, will be allowed 
into China. The Chinese Trade Rep says, any idea that the grain will 
enter the country of China is a misunderstanding. Beijing merely 
conceded a theoretical opportunity.
  On the subject of meat, the Trade Rep's factsheet talks about meat 
and poultry, all forms, being allowed into China. The Chinese Trade Rep 
says, not so, not quite. He says diplomacy is a way of finding 
different forms of expression, and to that extent we found new 
expressions, we were diplomatic, but where there were no material 
concessions made.
  So on the basis of a flimsy 1999 U.S.-China trade agreement, in 
which, by the way, there was little attention paid, practically none, 
to enforcement, compliance or implementation, the President is asking 
this body to surrender to the dictates of the regime in Beijing 
permanently any leverage that we have on trade and, indeed, human

[[Page 7879]]

rights and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as well.
  Even if we could put aside for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the brutal 
occupation of Tibet, the ongoing repression of human rights in China, 
the continuing proliferation of weapons, chemical, biological and 
nuclear weapons of mass destruction to rogue states, to Pakistan, the 
ongoing relationship between the Chinese and the Pakistanis in terms of 
missile technology transfer, same thing with Iran, more recently with 
Libya, since this 1999 U.S.-China trade agreement they have 
proliferated to Libya, the administration does not want that known, but 
it is in the public domain, so in any event, we have many areas of 
concern. But even if we were to make a determination strictly on the 
basis of trade alone, there is no reason for us to permanently 
surrender our leverage.

                              {time}  1945

  It is as if the U.S. wants to trade with China in the worst possible 
way, and that is exactly what the President is leading us to do in the 
worst possible way.
  There is a better way. All the President needs to do is send a 
request to Congress for a special waiver for China to have normal trade 
relations for one more year, as he does every end of May. There does 
not even have to be a vote on that. We do not have to have the debate. 
We do not have to have a vote. No one has to go on record.
  In the course of the next year, if the Chinese begin for a change, a 
drastic change, to start honoring the commitments, they do not have to 
do everything. In the agreement that would not be possible, but at 
least to take the initial steps to honor the agreement. Then next year 
around this time there should be no problem with saying, all right, 
they honored the commitment on trade, and the WTO is a trade regiment, 
so on the basis of trade alone, this might work for us.
  I do not know why everybody is so afraid to do it in the normal 
course of events. Because if we believe that China is going to honor 
the agreement, they should have no problem with that.
  The other reason that is important is because China has not even made 
its agreement with the European Union. And we are not supposed to see 
this arrangement, we are not supposed to even be voting on this until 
the Chinese reach an agreement with the other members of the WTO. So, 
effectively, the President is asking us to vote on something that we do 
not know what the terms are because they have not negotiated them with 
the EU yet.
  What the President is asking us to do is give privileges to China 
permanently before they ever have to honor any commitments to the WTO. 
Indeed, they have not even reached the agreement to join the WTO.
  What the President is asking us to do is for each of us to put our 
good names next to his failed China policy and try to redeem it with 
this rush to surrender permanently to the dictators in Beijing, thereby 
squandering our leverage on trade, squandering our leverage on our 
values, and surrendering our leverage on national security.
  So I would hope that our colleagues would pay attention and ask the 
question, where is the implementation, where is the compliance, where 
is the enforcement on this, and where are our national values on this?

                          ____________________