Text: House Democrat Gene Green Speaks Out Against China PNTR
(Economically right, morally wrong to give China PNTR)Representative Gene Green (Democrat of Texas) has joined a growing list of Democratic lawmakers who are coming out against granting permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status to China.
Green told fellow lawmakers in a May 11 speech in the House of Representatives that he cannot support permanent NTR status for China given that country's record of coercion, persecution, and intimidation.
A Deputy Whip in the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, Green was recently appointed by Minority Leader Richard Gephardt to the Democratic Caucus Steering and Policy Committee.
"China's continuing problem with religious freedom has frequently caused concern in my district," the Texas Democrat said. "China's record on religious and workers' rights continues to be disappointing."
"There are too many protesters in prison. There are too many religious persecutions. There are too many military threats," Green told fellow lawmakers.
Green acknowledged that granting China permanent NTR status "might be economically rewarding," but emphasized that "it would be morally wrong."
Green said he supports "comprehensive engagement with China," but only after that country "has demonstrated a willingness to become a responsible member of the world community."
"I cannot support granting PNTR to China until the (Beijing) government gives up its reliance on threats and intimidation to achieve their international policy goals," he said.
Following is the text of Green's remarks:
(begin text)
PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA
(House of Representatives -- May 11, 2000)Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the decision this Congress must make regarding extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to China. Over the last several months I worked the 29th district and talked to people who have varying opinions both for and against granting PNTR to china. These many conversations have reinforced my existing belief that there is no easy way to decide whether a vote in favor or in opposition of expanding trade with China is correct.
Having been to China, I have great respect for the Chinese people, their culture, and their impressive history. The vitality is there, we should encourage it to expand. While I understand that you cannot move 1.2 billion people from communism to a free democracy overnight it appears that China has been moving backwards. Recent actions by China to prohibit the free expression of religion and their unwillingness to open their domestic markets to foreign products is very troubling.
During my tenure in Congress, I have tried to closely examine the various trade measures that the House of Representatives considered. I voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but supported the annual extension of Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status, now called Normal Trade Relations (NTR), to China. The differences in my voting record reflects my concerns about blanket trade agreements that, once signed, will disadvantage the American producer.
As the vote on granting China PNTR looms in two weeks, I want to discuss the criteria used to develop my position on this trade agreement. There were three main components that I felt had to be met before I could support the measure: First, we must safeguard American security against a potential adversary. Second, the legislation should encourage policies allowing greater individual liberty, the rule of law, and religious freedom. And finally, American economic interests should not be harmed.
When I considered China's recent actions toward Taiwan and the possibility of a direct Chinese attack if Taiwan had decided to declare independence, I wondered how granting annual NTR to China in recent years had tempered their belligerent attitudes. This latest bluster by Beijing is comparable to the 1996 Chinese `missile test' over the Taiwan Straits during Taiwan's first democratic elections. Beijing's attempt to intimidate Taiwanese voters failed to deter them from electing President Lee Teng-hui. (Chen)
Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and its people should have every right to elect their leaders. Has granting NTR to China stopped them from taking such an aggressive posture towards Taiwan? I do not believe it has. So, when taken in the context of preserving the security of the United States, the past decisions to grant China greater trading access has not increased our national security. The United States must remain on constant alert and ready to defend Taiwan if China decides to attack. In addition, the willingness of the Chinese government to allow the stoning of our embassy last year after we mistakenly bombed their embassy in Belgrade was of great concern to me. I find it very unsettling when a nation with nuclear weapons uses such tactics to try and intimidate our government. Because of these incidents, I feel China has failed to meet the first criteria of safeguarding American security.
China's continuing problem with religious freedom has frequently caused concern in my district. China's record on religious and workers' rights continues to be disappointing. Take for instance the recent imprisonment of several thousand members of the Falun-Gong spiritual movement. This peaceful organization uses meditation and exercise to promote inner strength and healing. The Chinese government has responded to this movement by systematically imprisoning the leaders of this peaceful group on charges they are attempting to undermine the Communist Party.
I find this continuing lack of tolerance by the Chinese government very disturbing because it simply reinforces the bloody images of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Cracking down on the Falun-Gong indicates to me that granting NTR, and now possibly PNTR, will have absolutely no effect on improving religious freedom. China wants Permanent Normal Trade Relations with no strings attached. Granting NTR on an annual basis allows us to retain some ability to impact the Chinese government and monitor their international conduct. Unfortunately, in light of recent incidents I now have concerns that granting PNTR will allow China to completely ignore their responsibilities to promote religious and individual freedom. Because of this belief, I feel China has failed to meet the second portion of my criteria dealing with improving religious freedoms and human rights.
Finally, I am concerned that China has yet established a judicial system where the impartial `rule of law' principle is applied. Access to an impartial court system is critical for economic development and individual freedom. Unfortunately, this principle has yet to develop in China. Companies doing business in China have little recourse if their permits to enter the domestic Chinese markets are withheld because of resistance from within the governmental bureaucracy. The Chinese judicial system is still a political tool of the Communist Party. It is not unusual for verdicts to be decided before cases even go to trial. In addition, the Chinese judicial system is responsible for maintaining social order by imprisoning political dissidents.
When I visited China two years ago, I saw a Kodak factory that was built to serve the domestic and foreign markets. During the visit I asked a Kodak representative if they had received permission to market their products in China. They had received permission by contract, but still could not serve the domestic market. Had this situation occurred in this country Kodak could have gone to court to enforce their access rights. Unfortunately, they were in China where access to a fair court hearing is questionable at best.
Mr. Speaker, China wants the foreign investment to build new production facilities that can employ the millions of Chinese workers throughout their country. However, it is becoming quite clear that any new facilities will be strictly for export purposes. The U.S. trade deficit with China has grown from $6 billion in 1989 to $70 billion in 1999. This staggering figure does not even include the estimated losses due to piracy of U.S. intellectual property, which in 1998 was $2.6 billion and totaled $10 billion from 1995 to 1998, according to the International Intellectual Property Alliance.
By granting China PNTR, we surrender the only effective economic and political voice to effect positive change in China, the annual vote to renew NTR. Growth in this new economy is very important to me, but it is because of freedom and individual initiative, not control.
There are too many protesters in prison. There are too many religious persecutions. There are too many military threats. Granting China PNTR now might be economically rewarding, but it would be morally wrong. Last year, I supported and spoke in favor of granting a one-year extension of normal trade relations (NTR) with China. I support a comprehensive engagement with China that includes free and fair trade, but only after China has demonstrated a willingness to become a responsible member of the world community. China should move toward more individual freedom not less. More negotiation with Taiwan and not military threats. China historically is a great nation and can and should be part of this global economic success, but it's not accomplished by persecution and threats. I cannot support granting PNTR to China until the government gives up its reliance on threats and intimidation to achieve their international policy goals.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Return to The United States and China.Return to IIP Home Page.