[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 7895]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            VOTE NO ON PNTR

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. LANE EVANS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, May 15, 2000

  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I oppose granting Permanent Normal 
Trade Relations with China. It is clearly the wrong step to take if we 
want meaningful change from China on a wide variety of issues that are 
important to all Americans.
  It must be noted that Chinese leaders have broken every previous 
trade agreement they have signed with the United States. What makes us 
believe that this time will be any different? During the last decade 
alone, China violated four major trade agreements: the 1992 Memorandum 
of Understanding on Prison Labor, the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding 
on Market Access, the 1994 Bilateral Agreement on Textiles, and the 
1996 Bilateral Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights. Most 
recently, after signing the current bilateral in November, China turned 
its back on the agreement. Their Chief Negotiator stated, ``it is a 
complete misunderstanding to expect this grain to enter the country . . 
. Beijing only conceded a theoretical opportunity for the export of 
grain.'' These governments are not ventures in theory--these agreements 
should be unbreakable.
  Another argument for supporting PNTR is that US businesses will 
introduce the Chinese people to democracy and human rights. However, 
when we look at how Chinese workers are already being treated by 
corporations such as Wal-Mart, Timberland, Nike, Alpine and others, it 
becomes clear that is not the case. Wal-Mart and Nike's operations in 
China have become synonymous with child labor, forced labor and 
hazardous working conditions. These are not the values we want to bring 
to other countries. By granting PNTR, we give up any hope of 
influencing the PRC's policy on worker and human rights. We are 
inviting US companies to leave the US to produce goods in a country 
which does not support a minimum wage, basic safety regulations, or the 
right of association. Let's export our values--not our jobs.
  It is not only workers who are oppressed by China. Religious groups 
too often are denied basic human rights. Recent examples include prison 
sentencing of Falun Gong members without trials for undetermined 
sentences. The United States Catholic Conference expressed their 
opposition to PNTR by stating, ``. . . we have urged that the well-
documented violations of the Chinese peoples' human rights, and notably 
their lack of true religious freedom be seriously addressed and 
reversed.'' Religious freedom is one of the most important freedoms 
guaranteed to US citizens. Let us not reward a country who so blatantly 
disregards this right.
  The agreement also omits any statement on environmental protections. 
Having just celebrated the 30th anniversary of Earth Day in the United 
States, we should continue to be vigilant in our pursuit of a healthy 
international ecosystem. We would send a message that protecting the 
world's natural resources and pollution control are not important if we 
agree to PNTR. According to the Sierra Club, ``nothing was done in the 
WTO/PNTR package to mitigate the increased risks to endangered 
wildlife.'' They also note the State Department's 1999 Report of 
China's Human Rights Practices, ``the China Development Union (which 
works for environmental and political reforms) virtually was shut down 
by arrests of its members during the year.'' This agreement is not just 
an affront against the environment, but also against the Chinese who 
press the government to protect their natural resources.
  Some members of the agricultural community are looking favorably on 
this agreement. However, it should be noted that China already has had 
overall agricultural surpluses and is still producing a glut of 
agricultural goods. China has already backtracked on tariff and market-
access portions of the bilateral. The PRC will not allow American 
farmers to participate in a competitive marketplace. Charles McMillion, 
a founder of the Congressional Economic Leadership Institute, wrote, 
``China's agricultural glut is likely to continue with WTO membership. 
. . .'' Even the National Farmers Union, opposes giving this permanent 
status: ``We must not unilaterally disarm our Nation's ability to 
respond if China fails to comply with commitments contained in this 
agreement.'' Make no mistake, international markets are critical to our 
farmers. However, we must not engage in agreements with countries who 
frequently renege on past agreements and who do not believe in the type 
of fair trade that will benefit American agriculture.
  President Clinton has said that this is an essential national 
security issue. He is right--but he is on the wrong side of the 
argument. There are just too many incidents where China has acted 
egregiously against American security interests. In recent years, China 
fired several live missiles in the Taiwan Straight. At the same time, 
the PRC has supplied other rogue nations with weapons that could be 
used against U.S. soldiers abroad. Already, five major military 
organizations--the American Legion, the Fleet Reserve Officers 
Association, the National Reserve Association, the Warrant Officers 
Associations, and the Reserve Officers Association--have publicly 
agreed that it would not be in the best interest of the United States 
to grant PNTR.
  This vote is one that will have repercussions for generations to 
come. We can take this opportunity to stand for military security, 
human and worker rights, the environment, and fair market access, or we 
can choose to give a ``blank check'' to China, allowing them to dictate 
a lower standard. I urge my colleagues to reject PNTR.




                          ____________________