[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[House]
[Page 8949]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 8949]]

          OPPOSING PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest opposition to the 
proposal for permanent trade privileges


with China. Trade does not bring freedom, only enforceable laws in 
democratic republics bring and carry and assure freedom. Trade does not 
build a middle class, only laws governing workers rights to organize 
undergird middle-class wages and benefits.
  Before World War II, Nazi Germany's largest trading partner was 
England, and for the United States, Japan, did that stop 
totalitarianism's rise? Trade with Communist countries does nothing to 
assure that those doing the work reap any of the benefits; that is why 
the United States for so many years has held sacred its special laws 
governing trade with Communist nations. And now that the United States 
has been victorious in defeating Communist regimes in most corners of 
the world, some will choose to abandon the legal structure that we held 
in place called most favored nation replacing it with the toothless 
normal trade relations statute that we are about to debate tomorrow.
  Trade with Communist countries does nothing to assure that those who 
do the work reap the benefits. Permanent trade status for China will 
only serve to lock in the exploitative system of agricultural and 
industrial servitude that is China today; this is not a fight about 
expanding America's export markets.
  This is a fight about China becoming a vast export platform 12 times 
the size of Mexico, taking our markets in Asia's Rim and sending the 
glut of sweatshop goods back here to our shores.
  When NAFTA passed, the proponents said it would result in a huge 
export market for the United States and Mexico and that Mexico's 
workers' wages would go up and there would be no downward pressure on 
wages and benefits in this country. Look what has happened, Mexico now 
exports more cars and trucks to the United States than the United 
States does to the entire rest of the world.
  Our Nation has hemorrhaged tens of thousands of jobs, of living wage 
jobs, to Mexico, and now the China drain will accelerate if this 
measure passes. Mexico has turned into a major export platform, not an 
export market. Just look at the label on your television or your car 
engine or your truck or your electronic gismo, everything coming in 
here; the only thing America is exporting to Mexico is our middle-class 
jobs. And they are not getting paid middle-class wages.
  In the end, this fight on China is a heroic fight. It is a fight for 
democratic values in the harsh countryside and in the industrial 
sweatshops where most Americans will never be allowed to travel in the 
Nation of China. It is a fight indeed for the Chinese people, and the 
fight most of all for American principals. Will we side with the 
chauffeured limousine class, the advertisers, the retailers, the global 
companies who soothingly tell us, Everything will be just fine? But by 
their shear power and money, they hold sway over the visual and printed 
media in this country.
  For those fighting permanent trade privileges for China on the basis 
of democratic values, I say hurrah. Praise freedom lovers and the 
imprisoned China Democratic Party leaders for whom we speak here on 
this floor tonight.
  For those fighting permanent trade privileges for China on the basis 
of religious freedom, I say God bless them. And for those fighting 
permanent trade privileges for China on the basis of freedom of 
assembly, whether it is for the Falun Gong or the murdered freedom 
fighters in Tiananmen Square, I say history will judge you as 
righteous.
  America's values are freedom and valor. As we move into this Memorial 
Day week, let us renew our promise as the world's premier freedom 
fighters. Vote for freedom. Vote ``no'' on permanent normal trade 
status for China.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter sent by Wei Jinh 
Sheng, who spent nearly 2 decades of his life in Chinese prisons. Why? 
Because he fought to be an independent democratic political leader in 
his own country.
  He says to us, ``Supporters of this agreement are wrong. The United 
States is giving up something of profound importance if they were to 
approve this agreement. Please help us fight Chinese tyranny.''
  Please read his words in the Record, and tomorrow vote ``no'' on 
permanent trade status for China.

       Supporters of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for 
     China tell us the US is giving up nothing in its trade deal 
     with the regime in Beijing, that China is making all the 
     concessions. This claim is false.
       The US is giving up something of profound importance--its 
     ability to aid people everywhere in their struggle for human 
     rights and democracy. The US has enormous power, due to its 
     economic leverage. Although the US has been reluctant to use 
     this power against Chinese tyranny, the power exists; Beijing 
     recognizes this fully, even if the US does not.
       The annual renewal of China's ``driver's license'' on trade 
     may have become routine, but the power to grant the license 
     remains critical. That is why Beijing is desperate to obtain 
     PNTR, and rid itself of this power. That is why both Rep. 
     Levin and Cox's proposals, no matter their very fine points, 
     are ``toothless'' if this power is not retained. The hope 
     that the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Bank 
     will place limits on China will amount to little, for 
     multinational financial institutions are woefully inadequate 
     to take over responsibility of the US Congress. It may not 
     follow the US lead in any event.
       Framing the debate on WTO and PNTR as ``keeping the door 
     open'' is misleading. America's door is open. The door to 
     China is only half-open. However, the Chinese people have 
     learned that they lack the rights other people enjoy. If this 
     were not so, the enormous uprising in hundreds of Chinese 
     cities known as the 1989 Tiananmen movement would never have 
     occurred. Yet the door to China remains and will remain half-
     closed, because that is the way to retain power under 
     tyranny.
       Trade alone simply cannot open the rest of China's door. If 
     the US Congress grants PNTR now, it legitimizes this half-
     open/half-closed status. To certify Communist China as 
     ``normal'' in its abnormal state would deprive reformers 
     within the government of needed pressure to push for change.
       The claim that PNTR gives American access to the ``vast 
     Chinese market'' is specious, because it does not exist. 
     Simply put, we cannot construct the ``vast Chinese market'' 
     without first the rule-of-law being instituted, as President 
     Lincoln put it, ``by a government of the people, by the 
     people, and for the people.''
       In fact, the multinational business community is making an 
     unholy alliance with Chinese tyranny. The Communist 
     government uses brutality to subjugate Chinese workers while 
     U.S. corporations use the threat of moving their businesses 
     to undercut American workers' demands. Businesses in China's 
     neighboring countries--Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, 
     and Hong Kong--will use ``slave labor'' to China to flood the 
     U.S. market. PNTR is a loss-loss proposition for most workers 
     in Asia and America, but especially for China's. The business 
     community should not be so complacent, because Chinese 
     tyranny will redirect Chinese people's anger against them 
     toward the outsiders.
       The majority of pro-democracy organizations are against 
     PNTR, yet a few prominent individuals in China have announced 
     their support. Why such contradiction? The question we must 
     ask is how much can we credit the words of kidnaped victims 
     when they are at the mercy of their captors? The answer is 
     not much. We simply cannot take the current opinions of Bao 
     Tong and Dai Qing to represent their true thoughts, nor can 
     they represent the opinions of others, when Bao and Dai have 
     long been in the grip of a tyrannical government.
       Those who have experienced brutal oppression and insidious 
     threats understand their quandary. We can, and must, express 
     sympathy for their deplorable and excruciating plight. My 
     criticism is not directed at them personally, but at the 
     tiresome propaganda regularly doled out by the Chinese 
     Communist Party and their supporters in the United States.
       Still, the basic principle against PNTR is very simple: if 
     PNTR is granted, the US surrenders its power to be a force 
     for positive change in China--its power to promote human 
     rights, to deter China's increasingly aggressive military 
     posture, and as well, to compel the regime to live up to its 
     economic promises. How can anyone call this nothing?
       Wei Jingsheng has spent 18 years in prison for insisting on 
     speaking the truth to power.
       These comments are based on Chinese government honoring its 
     commitment that they will do, but they don't.


                                comments

       There are reports of ``dissidents'' in China who support 
     PNTR. First, we'll know that without freedom of speech and 
     press, the Chinese government controls what they want Chinese 
     people to know. Secondly, please put yourself into their 
     shoes--when the hostages speak kindly of their captors and 
     ask you to believe what the captors say that they will follow 
     their promises would you believe that?




                          ____________________