[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[House]
[Page 7999]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 7999]]

              PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, the vote on permanent normal trade 
relations with China may be one of the most important votes that we 
will cast in years.
  China represents an agricultural market that is vital to the long-
term success of American farmers and ranchers. Agriculture trade with 
China can strengthen development of private enterprise in this country 
and bring China more fully into the world trade membership. We intend 
to work for that goal and urge all of U.S. agriculture to join with us.
  China's participation in the WTO will result in at least $2 billion 
per year in additional U.S. exports within the next 5 years. That is 
just U.S. agricultural exports.
  By 2005, the largest increases in the annual value of China's net 
agricultural imports are likely to be $587 million for corn, $543 
million for wheat, and $359 million for cotton.
  According to the Economic Research Service, net farm income would be 
higher by $1.7 billion in 2005 and higher by an average of $1.1 billion 
over the years 2000 to 2009 for each year.
  Listen to what agricultural groups are saying about China PNTR. The 
U.S. wheat growers say that PNTR represents a potential 10 percent 
increase in U.S. wheat exports. The U.S. pork producers believe that 
China PNTR will pave the way for an increased value in hogs by $5 a 
head.
  Poultry producers say that because China is already the largest 
export market for poultry, $350 million in 1999, under PNTR it can 
become a $1 billion market in just a few years.
  Cattle producers believe that a vote against PNTR is a vote against 
them. They expect to almost triple beef export to China by the year 
2005.
  Corn growers believe that they have an opportunity to immediately 
triple their 5-year average of corn exports to China with acceptance to 
PNTR.
  Some who oppose PNTR for China will weigh that China is an 
agricultural glut and will never buy U.S. commodities. That is not true 
according to USDA's Economic Research Service. They say that China's 
accession to the WTO means that U.S. farmers and ranchers can sell an 
additional $1.6 billion worth of agricultural products in 5 years.
  On top of that, $400 million of U.S. fruits, vegetables, and animal 
products can be sold by 2005 upon China's entry into the WTO. That is 
$2 billion more of agricultural exports in 5 years. This view is 
supported by the widespread support among U.S. agricultural commodity 
groups for China PNTR.
  Still, others argue that China is self-sufficient in agriculture 
production and that it produces enough to feed its own people and does 
not need U.S. wheat or corn or any commodity. But listen to what the 
Worldwatch Institute Chairman Lester Brown said. He said that China's 
water supplies in its grain-producing areas are falling at a high rate. 
He sees massive grain imports and growing dependence on U.S. grain.
  The reality is that no one can predict the future. China imports 
large amounts of U.S. agricultural commodities right now, some through 
Hong Kong, $2.5 billion in 1999 of agriculture, fish, and forestry 
products.
  Greater access to Chinese markets means greater opportunities for 
U.S. high-quality agriculture products. As the diets of the Chinese 
improve, there will be more demand for high-quality agricultural 
products and value-added food products. This is what U.S. farmers and 
the food industry can provide to Chinese consumers.
  It must be remembered that China has access to the U.S. market right 
now. China will become a member of WTO; and after its accession to the 
WTO, it will still have access to the market. The vote for PNTR will 
decide whether U.S. agriculture will have improved access to Chinese 
markets or that we will see that market to the competitors of U.S. 
agriculture.
  We have all heard the argument that PNTR is not necessary and that if 
Congress rejects China PNTR that U.S. exporters still will attain the 
benefits of China's WTO accession. But the General Accounting Office 
says that the full benefits of the November 1999 agreement negotiated 
by the U.S. will not be available unless Congress adopts China PNTR.
  Tariff concessions will be available, but there will be no way to 
enforce these. No enforcement mechanisms will be available, and the 
U.S. will not be able to use WTO dispute settlement provisions. The WTO 
dispute settlement is a critical weapon to ensure U.S. trading rights. 
The ability to enforce the tariff rate quotas will be undermined. The 
U.S. could not challenge Chinese export or domestic subsidies that hurt 
U.S. exports in third countries. We could not enforce the benefits of 
the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that was negotiated with the 
Chinese and is so important to U.S. citrus, wheat, and meat products.
  Additionally, the special safeguards provision to protect against 
import surges negotiated by the U.S. would not be available.
  Unless Congress grants China PNTR, there will be no way to ensure 
that tariff and access concessions will be available to U.S. 
agricultural exporters. WTO dispute settlement provision will not be 
available to the U.S. Those who are concerned about making sure China 
keeps its part of the bargain should support PNTR. Without WTO dispute 
settlement provisions, any ability to ensure Chinese compliance is 
severely weakened. According to a May 11, 2000 article in the 
Washington Post many of China's dissidents back China's accession into 
the WTO. This is what they are saying:

       Bao Tong, one of China's most prominent dissidents, says 
     that Congress should pass China PNTR. Mr. Bao believes that 
     China should be included in as many international regimes as 
     possible so that it must adhere to these international 
     standards. Referring to congressional passage of PNTR, Mr. 
     Bao says, ``It is obvious this is a good thing for China.'' 
     He goes on to say . . . ``I appreciate the efforts of friends 
     and colleagues to help our human rights situation, but it 
     doesn't make sense to use trade as a lever. It just doesn't 
     work.''
       Dai Qing, perhaps China's most prominent environmentalist 
     and independent political thinker, says ``All of the fights--
     for a better environment, labor rights and human rights--
     these fights we will fight in China tomorrow. But first we 
     must break the monopoly of the state. To do that, we need a 
     freer market and the competition mandated by the WTO.'' 
     According to Ms. Dai, ``One of the main economic and 
     political problems in China today is our monopoly system, a 
     monopoly on power and business monopolies. Both elements are 
     mutually reinforcing. The WTO rules would naturally encourage 
     competition and that's bad for both monopolies.
       Zhou Litai, one of China's most prominent labor lawyers and 
     represents dozens of maimed workers in Shenzhen, says, 
     ``American consumers are a main catalyst for better worker 
     rights in China. They are the ones who pressure Nike and 
     Reebok to improve working conditions at Hong Kong and Taiwan-
     run factories here. If Nike and Reebok go--and they could 
     very well (if the trade status) is rejected--this pressure 
     evaporates. This is obvious.''

  Mr. Speaker, there will be irreparable damage done to American 
agriculture if Congress does not pass PNTR.

                          ____________________