[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9430-9432]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAL TRADE 
           RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 24, 2000

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, the vote this week on whether to establish 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China will undoubtedly be 
the most important one we will take in this first year of the new 
millennium. I rise today to express my intent to vote ``yes'' on 
granting stable trade status to China and to explain, in some detail, 
the reasons behind my decision.
  This issue involves the economies of the United States and China, and 
indeed the economies of nations around the world. But the judgments to 
be made involve far more than economic concerns alone. What we do this 
week will affect national and international security. It will set the 
agenda for how the U.S. interacts with China on such important matters 
as human and worker rights, the environment, and religious freedom. And 
it will help to determine how both the U.S. and China address the rest 
of the world for decades to come.


                           evolution in china

  Over the last two decades, I have been fortunate to witness the 
social and economic evolution in China ``up close and personal.'' In 
January 1979, I traveled to Beijing as part of a Congressional 
delegation representing the United States as we reestablished 
diplomatic relations with China, This past week I reminisced with 
President Carter about that historic day, the intervening twenty years, 
and today's historic vote. We share virtually identical views.
  Twenty years ago China was a backward, drab country just starting to 
recover from the disaster that Mao called ``the Cultural Revolution.'' 
The streets were crowded--with pedestrians and bicycles. A few 
newspapers posted on a few walls were the only visible demonstration of 
``openness'' allowed by the government at that time.
  I went back to China a few years ago. The change and the progress in 
the human condition were profound. What had been gray now had a rainbow 
of color. Economic development--and the entrepreneurial spirit--was 
evident around every corner. The streets were still crowded, but this 
time jammed with cars. And the newspapers plastered on walls had been 
supplanted by cell phones and laptop computers with Internet access. 
There was an openness that I believed was virtually irreversible, 
although much progress still needs to be made.
  Two personal stories: (a) when first in China, a colleague used a 
Polaroid camera and the Chinese people thought a miracle had been 
wrought. They had never before seen themselves in print. Today, Eastman 
Kodak sells more film in China than in any other country in the world 
outside the United States; (b) when last in China, a human rights 
activist said to me, ``Let's keep in touch. What's your e-mail 
address?'' That's progress.
  I have no doubt that commercial relations between China and the 
United States--and the rest of the world--contributed substantially to 
these changes in Chinese society. Mao's approach was wrong, and the 
actions, if not the words, of subsequent leaders in Beijing have 
demonstrated that they know he was wrong. They have opted for a 
movement toward a market economy, with all that means for progress and 
development and, ultimately and inevitably, various forms of freedom.
  This view is also held by both President Jimmy Carter and President 
Bill Clinton, by both Vice President Al Gore and Senator Bill Bradley, 
by both Governor George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain, by both Senators 
from New York and by both Senate candidates in New York.
  I believe that bringing China further into the international economic 
system will only accelerate these trends. And I am persuaded that these 
trends enhance freedoms for the Chinese people which, in turn, should 
make Asia and the world more secure.


                       bilateral U.S.-china trade

  Looking at this purely in commercial terms, it seems fairly clear 
that the consequences of rejection of PNTR on U.S. businesses generally 
would be quite severe. There is virtual unanimity in the business 
community that welcoming China into the WTO--which will happen 
regardless of how the upcoming vote in Congress goes--and stabilizing 
our trading relations with that massive and growing market is in our 
economic interest. And if that were the only criterion on which to base 
our vote, the decision would be easy indeed.
  We should also keep in mind that the vote is solely on the status of 
our trading relationship with China. It is not a vote on whether to 
permit China to join the WTO. That will happen regardless of how 
Congress votes. The agreement before us contains provisions which 
substantially open up China's market to U.S. goods and services, but it 
does not open our market wider to China's exports. If we approve the 
agreement, our business community will be able to compete on a level 
field with European, Japanese and other exporters seeking to expand 
their business in China. But if we disapprove it, firms from elsewhere 
in the world will have a major leg up on American exporters, 
threatening our ability to participate in the growth of the Chinese 
market and reducing the number of American jobs that would otherwise be 
created as our trade with China builds.
  Even if we wanted to, we cannot build an economic wall around China 
and one-fifth of the world's people. Outsiders will trade with China; 
the only question is whether and to what extent they will be Americans. 
I fear that opposing this agreement would be tantamount to building a 
wall around ourselves, trying to deal with the world by ignoring it. 
Throughout the 20th Century we have seen all too often how ineffective 
such an approach can be.
  These points were among those made just last week by Federal Reserve 
Board Chairman Alan Greenspan when he went to the White House to 
endorse approval of normalizing trade relations with China.
  Looked at from the perspective of New York State, and from my role as 
the ranking Democrat on the Banking Committee, the case is equally 
strong. New York's financial services industry is a key source of 
economic growth and job creation--in the state and nationally--and this 
agreement will be of enormous economic benefit to that industry.
  This is not to say that the business community has been entirely 
right in its approach to this issue. Quite the contrary. American 
business leaders have almost refused to acknowledge that the concerns 
about workers' rights, human rights, religious freedom and the 
environment are legitimate ones. They have resisted calls for even 
minimal standards in

[[Page 9431]]

these areas. What they fail to recognize is that trade requires both 
capital and labor, and that therefore it's not inappropriate for a 
trade deal to address concerns of both capital and labor. What they 
ignore in this situation, as they have so often here at home, is that 
environmental degradation is a real cost of doing business, just one 
that doesn't happen to show up on their balance sheet. I wish that 
there had been greater recognition of these legitimate concerns by the 
business community as this debate progressed.


                        Jobs and Workers' Rights

  My friends in the labor movement express concerns that approving the 
China agreement might mean loss of jobs in the U.S. And they also 
express concerns that a vote for the agreement might be seen as 
approval of some of the very serious ways in which the regime in China 
undermines workers' rights there.
  These are real concerns. I do not make light of them. The labor 
leaders who express them are not alarmists; they are in the great 
tradition of leaders who have helped make the United States the most 
productive economy in the world; leaders who played such a large role 
in bringing down communism in the former Soviet Union and eastern 
Europe.
  But I also have deep respect for other labor leaders who take a 
different view. One is both the former President of the U.A.W. and the 
former Ambassador to China, Leonard Woodcock. No one would ever 
describe him as naive, and he was one of the most forceful and 
effective leaders the United Auto Workers ever had. His view of the 
proposed trade agreement is that it is an imperative to advance our 
national interests.


                   Human Rights and Religious Freedom

  The leadership in Beijing, while improving the human condition of the 
Chinese people in many ways over the past twenty years, still has 
demonstrated inadequate concern. I abhor, for example, population 
policies which condone and sometimes even demand forced abortions. 
Freedom of speech and association, among our most cherished treasures, 
are still being developed in China. And too often, individuals are 
discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.
  In the 19th Century, our nation was abhorred, and rightly so, because 
of slavery. And subsequently, well into the 20th Century, our society 
condoned or tolerated lynchings, burnings, and massive racial 
discrimination including denial of the most fundamental right, the 
right to vote. Those policies are and were wrong, our nation was wrong. 
We were equally wrong in denying women the vote for so long. But, 
fortunately, we were not ostracized from the world community. Rather, 
other countries dealt with us, despite our shortcomings, and we with 
them, despite their failures. Our nation evolved and improved, without 
others seeking to impose their approaches on us. They engaged us, and 
we learned.
  I believe that influencing human rights in another country can be 
done far more effectively through engagement than through isolation. I 
believe that if we immerse China with American people and products, it 
will generate broader freedoms in that nation. I believe that if the 
Chinese see and interact with Americans, tourists and business men and 
women, they will see what freedom brings and will demand, and get, more 
freedoms for themselves.
  We should not ignore the situation in Tibet or the recent efforts to 
suppress the Falun Gong, And some human and religious rights advocates, 
from China and elsewhere, think that disapproval of PNTR will enhance 
the cause of freedom inside China. But there are many other human and 
religious rights advocates who disagree strongly. For example, the 
views of Martin Lee and other human rights advocates in Hong Kong are 
particularly striking, to say nothing of the new democratic leaders in 
Taiwan, and the Dalai Lama. They believe that engagement with China and 
approval of PNTR will advance the cause of human rights in mainland 
China.
  Moreover, individuals in the United States who have dedicated their 
lives to advancing human rights and religious freedom for the people of 
China support granting PNTR with China. President Jimmy Carter argues 
persuasively that a negative vote would deal a serious setback to 
further democratization, freedom and human rights in China. Prominent 
Catholics, among them former-Member of Congress, Father Robert F. 
Drinan; University of Notre Dame President-Emeritus Father Theodore 
Hesburgh; and Father Peter Ruggere with the Maryknoll Fathers all 
support PNTR for China and believe it is how the U.S. can best advance 
human rights and religious freedom for the people of China. And the 
Quakers have expressed their belief that normalization of trade with 
China will advance all of the basic human security concerns--human 
rights, labor rights, arms control, and environmental protection--to 
which they are dedicated.
  As we rightly criticize China for policies that we abhor, let us also 
remember that she has done some things that are very praiseworthy as 
well. China is a poor nation, relatively speaking, but, if nothing 
else, they have found ways to ensure that their vast population has 
enough to eat. The poverty level in China is only nine percent, versus 
a poverty level of over 40% in India. Further, during the recent 
economic crisis in Asia, China stood the course, resisting the lure of 
steps which might have helped their economy in the short term (such as 
devaluation of their currency) but which would have meant much more 
serious problems for the entire region in the longer term. Finally, 
China has allowed and is supporting the spread of phones--from 
virtually none to about 130 million in a generation--and access to the 
Internet for millions--the greatest democratizing tool the world has 
ever known, for it brings ideas from every corner of the world. 
Clearly, the ability to communicate is a fundamental right that has 
grown dramatically because of our twenty years of engagement.


                 international security and geopolitics

  China is arguably the second strongest conventional military power in 
the world, and of course it is also a member of the nuclear club, with 
a small but growing capability to deliver nuclear arms. China's 
relations with her neighbors--Russia and India in particular--become 
difficult at times. And the situation concerning Taiwan is potentially 
the hottest ``hot spot'' in Asia if not the world.
  We should not approve PNTR simply because it might help ease tensions 
in Asia. But it is most appropriate to include this consideration in 
assessing PNTR. And in that light, it is illuminating to look within 
China and see how various segments of their society view the move 
toward broader trade relations with the U.S. and others.
  The fact is that the hard-liners in the Chinese government and 
military oppose or are lukewarm, at best, about China joining the WTO 
and entering into the proposed agreement with the United States. They 
believe that taking these steps will enhance freedom inside China, and 
in so doing dilute their power and influence. I think they are right, 
and that this is one more reason to engage, rather than isolate. After 
all, the best way to defeat an enemy is not to best him on the field of 
battle, but to make him your friend. Disapproving PNTR will result in 
the hard-liners saying, ``See, we told you so, America is hostile to us 
so we must guard against her.'' We should do what we can to bolster 
those in China who want to establish friendly relations with the rest 
of the world, rather than those who believe that might is the only 
thing that matters.
  The Taiwan situation warrants our most careful attention. The war of 
words between Beijing and Taipei would lead one to think that there was 
little if any meaningful contact between Taiwan and the mainland. But 
that is not the case. Already the amount of trade between the robust 
economy on Taiwan and the mainland is huge, it is growing, and the 
economic links grow tighter and tighter. Taiwan's new leaders, 
proponents of freedom and capitalism, realize that their relations with 
the leaders in Beijing can enhance or threaten these economic ties. And 
they favor PNTR.


                         avoiding past mistakes

  As I have studied the situation with China, I have found myself 
reflecting more and more about mistakes made by the U.S. this century. 
Almost a century ago, we made a gigantic mistake in not joining the 
League of Nations, and it helped lead to war with Germany.
  A half century ago, we made a gigantic mistake with regard to Cuba. I 
have concluded that our policies in that situation were seriously 
mistaken. I believe that if we had resisted imposing the embargo on 
Cuba, Castro would be history and democracy would be flourishing there 
as it is in almost every other nation of the western hemisphere. Our 
effort to isolate Cuba has contributed mightily to keeping its economy 
from growing. But obviously they did not succeed in bringing about 
political change. Quite the contrary.
  By letting a tiny but vocal minority dictate our Cuba policy, we 
missed an opportunity to send our message of freedom to the oppressed 
people there. We have strengthened Castro, unwittingly, and put 
ourselves in a situation where we have very little real influence on a 
nation only 90 miles from our shores.
  We must not make the same mistakes with a country of 1.3 billion 
people that we made with a country of 10 million people. China has over 
20 percent of the world's population; she is important, even vital, to 
world peace and prosperity in the decades ahead.


                               conclusion

  This agreement includes the strongest anti-surge controls ever 
legislated. We created the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 
to oversee every aspect of human

[[Page 9432]]

rights, including worker rights. We negotiated a provision blocking 
imports from slave or prison labor. We fought for the creation of a 
specific inventory of the rights Congress will examine annually on 
behalf of the Chinese people. This new way of keeping the spotlight on 
Beijing is crucial, in my view, as we seek to build on the progress of 
the past.
  China must become part of the world community, one way or another, or 
we will live in a more dangerous world for decades or longer. I think 
everyone involved in this debate agrees on that central point. The real 
question is how we can best influence continued change in China. 
Whatever choice this Congress makes, China will become a member of the 
WTO and an ever more important player in the global economy. That will 
inevitably impact on U.S. labor and U.S. business in ways we cannot 
avoid--only try to shape.
  Labels help to shape the debate, of course. We talk about this being 
a vote on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. But is 
``permanent'' the right word in a world where little is permanent, 
where laws can change from year to year? I don't think so. To my mind, 
the better words to use as a label for this issue would be Continuance 
of the Normal Trade Relations that have existed for 20 years. After 
all, this year's vote would simply end what has before been an annual 
automatic sunset on normal trade relations. But it would hardly 
prohibit Congress from re-visiting the matter next year or at any time 
in the future and sunsetting it with an affirmative vote, rather than 
by automatic operation of law. So those who say this is fraught with 
danger because of its ``permanency'' are, in my judgment, incorrect.
  As I have reviewed this situation, I have frequently thought about 
the young people of China. A generation ago, Chinese students traveled 
to Moscow and learned the Russian language and Marxist-Leninist 
doctrine. Now, the children of these students attend universities in 
New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and Buffalo and Rochester.
  The collaboration between the school of business at the University of 
Buffalo and its counterparts in two Chinese universities is a dramatic 
example. Graduates of those programs are now a successful and 
influential group of alumni inside China. I have no doubt that China 
benefits from this educational partnership. But I am also convinced 
that the United States benefits, too. American faculty and students 
learn about China while they learn about us. And the messages of 
capitalism and freedom are spread.
  This is but a microcosm of what engagement can mean. Look at what 
happened in Poland. Americans found ways to interact with people in 
Poland. Our labor unions supplied Solidarity with computers and vast 
amounts of assistance and encouragement. No one can know exactly how 
significant these contacts were in bringing the communist regime down 
and setting the stage for dismemberment of the old Soviet empire. But 
what we do know is that they did play a part, and the world is a better 
place for it.
  My vote, Mr. Speaker, is for engagement and against isolation. Our 
leadership in the world requires it.

                          ____________________