*EPF308 05/10/00
Text: Pelosi Challenges Clinton Administration Claims on China Trade
(Pelosi: Clinton does "grave disservice" to China debate) (1770)
Bringing out former U.S. Presidents to speak in favor of granting permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status to China doesn't make that policy either a good one or a sustainable one, according to Representative Nancy Pelosi (Democrat of California).
Speaking in the House of Representatives May 9, Pelosi criticized President Clinton for doing "a grave disservice to this very serious debate" by trying to frame the issue as one of whether or not to engage China.
"Certainly we need to engage China," she said, "but we need to do it in a sustainable way that sustains our values and sustains our economy and sustains a world peace in making the world a safer place."
Pelosi contrasted statements U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky has made regarding the U.S.-China agreement on China's World Trade Organization (WTO) accession negotiated last November with recent ones by Chinese trade officials.
To get the benefits of that trade deal, the United States must grant permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China, since all WTO members must be given equal access to other members' markets. Granting China permanent NTR would require that the Senate and the House of Representatives vote to end the application of Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 to China (the Jackson-Vanik amendment), which subjects China's access to U.S. markets to an annual review by Congress.
According to Pelosi, the U.S. Trade Representative's fact sheet on the WTO accession agreement says China "will import all types of U.S. wheat from all regions of the U.S. to all ports in China."
China's trade representative, in contrast, "says it is a complete misunderstanding to expect this grain to enter the country. Beijing only conceded a theoretical opportunity for the export of grain," she said.
"The President's request (to vote to grant permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China) is based on broken promises, not proven performance," Pelosi said. "Already, China is engaged in its traditional reinterpretation of the agreement."
Following is the text of Pelosi's remarks:
(begin text)
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
On Trade with China
May 9, 2000
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, some people think I can talk all day on China and are afraid that I will, so I will try to be succinct and get to just a few basic points, because so many of my colleagues have touched on the very serious human rights violations and the very substantial trade violations.
Mr. Speaker, China has violated agreements between our two countries and, of course, there is the issue of proliferation. I think I will focus in the short time allotted to me, Mr. Speaker, on the fact that today a number of our former Presidents joined President Clinton in calling for Congress to pass Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. These Presidents, who have been a part and parcel of this policy which is a total failure, are asking Members of Congress to put their good names next to a policy that has failed in every respect.
Permanent Normal Trade Relations is the cornerstone of the Clinton-Bush China policy. There are three areas of concern that we have in our country about that policy. First of all, and in no particular order of priority, we have the issue, since this is a trade issue, of the substantial violations of our trade relationship which continue. When we started this debate, we were talking about 1, 2, $3 billion that was the trade deficit we suffered with China. That was over a decade ago. Now the trade deficit for this year is projected to be over $80 billion.
So this idea that if we kowtowed to the regime, and we gave them MFN, Most Favored Nation status, now called Permanent Normal Trade Relations, the name has been changed to protect the guilty, if we do that then the China market will be opened to U.S. products, it simply has not happened.
In the area of trade, China has violated every trade agreement, be it the market access agreement, the agreement on intellectual property, the agreement on use of prison labor for export, the agreement on transshipments, any trade agreement we can name.
So, President Clinton is sending us this request for Permanent Normal Trade Relations based on the 1999 U.S.-China trade agreement. What reason do we have to think that China will honor that? The President's request is based on broken promises, not proven performance.
Already, China is engaged in its traditional reinterpretation of the agreement. For example, let me give some comparisons. The Trade Rep's fact sheet, our Trade Rep's fact sheet says China will import all types of U.S. wheat from all regions of the U.S. to all ports in China. China's Trade Rep says it is a complete misunderstanding to expect this grain to enter the country. Beijing only conceded a theoretical opportunity for the export of grain.
On meat, China, according to our fact sheet, the U.S. Trade Rep's fact sheet, China will lift the ban on U.S. exports of all meat and poultry. China's negotiator said diplomatic negotiations involve finding new expressions. If we find a new expression, this means we have achieved a diplomatic result. In terms of meat imports, we have not actually made any material concessions.
The ink is not even dry on this agreement. This is a 1999 agreement that is already being reinterpreted by the regime. The list goes on: Petroleum, telecommunications, insurance, et cetera. I talked about the history of it and I do not have enough time to go into the history of their trade violations.
Some would lead us to believe that we who are opposing this request of the President are willing to risk U.S. jobs in support of promoting human rights in China. But the facts point to a situation where this is a very bad deal on the basis of trade alone. On the basis of trade alone. If we could forget the brutal occupation of Tibet. If we could forget the serious repression of religious and political freedom in China.
If we could forget that for a moment. If we could forget China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That would be chemical, biological and nuclear technology to Iran, to Pakistan, to the Sudan, to Libya.
To Libya, it is very recent. This is a major embarrassment in the Clinton administration policy. But fortunately for them, this information came out during the Easter break and it has not really sunk in. But this is a very serious violation. And it proves again that kowtowing to the regime does not get us any better benefits in terms of stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, making the world a safer place, any fairer treatment, making a fairer deal.
Mr. Speaker, they want us to give China a blank check, while China gives us a rubber check by not even honoring the deal that they are putting forth. And then in terms of human rights, we are a country of values. When people say, well, other countries do not do this. We are not other countries. We are the United States of America. We are the freest country in the world and we have a commitment to promote the aspirations of people who aspire to freedom. That does not mean we go to war for them or anything like that, but it does mean that we should at least, at least recognize the repression they are suffering for freedom.
Wei Jingsheng, a hero. He has spent many, many years of his life, probably half of his adult life in prison. Harry Wu has spent years in prison. They know that the United States must not act from fear of what the Chinese regime might do. We have to act from strength and confidence in our own sense of values.
So when the President says, `Oh, you either want to isolate China or engage China,' he does a grave disservice to this very serious debate. Certainly we need to engage China, but we need to do it in a sustainable way that sustains our values and sustains our economy and sustains a world peace in making the world a safer place.
The administration is willing to ignore Tibet and China and all of that. They are willing, more seriously, to ignore China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They are willing to say that the human rights situation is improving in China, when we have the National Catholic Conference of Bishops supporting us; when we have, as was mentioned by others, the new Commission on Religious Freedom supporting us in this, and the list goes on. In terms of the environment, the Sierra Club, in terms of agriculture, the National Farmers Union, the list goes on.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the working people of America to oppose this and say to the President there is a way to do it. A decent way. And it is a way that says let us see some proven performance before we surrender to the dictates of the Beijing regime the only leverage we have, which is our annual review.
So it is not about `engage or isolate.' Certainly we engage. It is not about whether we trade or not. Certainly we trade. It is a question of how we do it. And it does not have to be according to the terms and the timing of the Beijing regime, but more in keeping with what is right and what is appropriate for our great country. We are leaders in the world; we should continue to be so. And I would hope that the President and the former Presidents would respect the intelligence of the Members of Congress to know that they should not ask us to place our good name next to their failed policy just so that we can help redeem the lack of success they have, instead of allowing us to go forward in a very positive way.
We all have a responsibility. We all have a responsibility to come to an agreement on trade with China that is responsible. Give us a chance to do that. I urge my colleagues not to support this, but to allow us to do it right and not according to the terms and timing of the regime in Beijing. With that, I will yield back.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN