• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

18 May 2000

Excerpts: Lawmakers Debate Benefits to Agriculture of China PNTR

(China, with PNTR, a big market for U.S. agriculture) (5430)
American agriculture has a lot to gain from expanded trade with China,
a group of lawmakers said in a May 16 debate in the House of
Representatives on whether granting China permanent Normal Trade
Relations (NTR) status would help or hurt that sector of the U.S.
economy.
But while the majority saw a vast beckoning market for U.S. products,
one lawmaker urged a closer look at the supposed benefits of increased
U.S. agricultural exports to China.
Representatives Charles Stenholm (Democrat of Texas), Larry Combest
(Republican of Texas), Marion Berry (Democrat of Arkansas), Bob
Etheridge (Democrat of North Carolina), and Michael Simpson
(Republican of Idaho) made a bipartisan phalanx of support for
granting China permanent NTR status, citing the benefits to
agricultural interests.
Representative Marcy Kaptur (Democrat of Ohio) was the only lawmaker
at the debate arguing the case that China would not be a boon to
American agricultural exports.
The United States Department of Agriculture's Economic Research
Service and private agricultural commodity groups believe China will
"continue to be a major market for U.S. agricultural products and that
China's accession to the WTO will expand that market," Stenholm said.
China's participation in the World Trade Organization, fellow Texan
Combest added, "will result in at least $2 billion per year" in
additional U.S. agricultural exports.
American farmers and businesses "can compete on a level playing field
with anyone else in the world," Representative Berry said. "This
agreement goes a long way towards creating a level playing field
between America and China."
Representative Etheridge pointed out that the North Carolina Rural
Prosperity Task Force estimates "that if China would give our farmers
fair access to their markets, North Carolina exports of flue-cured
tobacco would increase by as much as 10 percent right away."
With permanent NTR status, Idaho Republican Michael Simpson said,
"wheat producers believe that they will see an increase of 10 percent
sales to China."
The increase of sales of beef, he added, "will increase even more, I
believe, as the current tariff rates are reduced from their current
level of 45 percent to 12 percent by the year 2004."
While those lawmakers were adding up the benefits of greater access to
the Chinese market, though, Representative Marcy Kaptur painted a
different possibility for agricultural exports.
China, Kaptur said, "has produced an annual glut of agricultural
commodities for over a generation. In fact, the United States has
registered a consistent and growing deficit in agriculture with China
in two-thirds of all agricultural groupings."
The Chinese "are rapidly expanding the quantity, the quality, and the
composition of products that are being exported to our country,
everything from ketchup to rice and, for the first time, in 1999,
cotton," she told fellow lawmakers.
Kaptur noted that China recorded "an overall advantage with the United
States in 1985, 1986, 1992, 1993, and 1999 in agriculture."
The United States, Kaptur said, has maintained "a chronic agricultural
trade deficit with them in 17 of 26 agricultural commodity groups,
everything from seafood, to tobacco, sugar, cocoa, vegetables, fruits,
nut, and various animal parts."
"I would say to people in rural America, think once, think twice about
all of this," she said.
Following are excerpts from the Congressional Record of May 16:
(begin excerpts)
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST PNTR FOR CHINA
(House of Representatives -- May 16, 2000)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this 5 minutes to respond to
one of the arguments that I have heard against permanent normal trade
relations with China.
The argument is that China, its 1.3 billion citizens, and only 7
percent of the world's arable land, does not need United States'
agricultural products. USDA's Economic Research Service and private
agricultural commodity groups believes China will continue to be a
major market for U.S. agricultural products and that China's accession
to the WTO will expand that market.
For cotton, China committed to a tariff-rate quota of 743,000 tons for
cotton in the Year 2000, increasing to 894,000 tons in 2004. The
within-quota duty would be 4 percent and the over-quota duty would
decline from 69 percent in 2000 to 40 percent by 2004. Nonstate trade
companies get two-thirds of that quota, which means we help avoid the
problem we have sometimes had in the past with quotas going unfilled.
The ERS projects that if China did not join the WTO, it would import
cotton worth $565 million in 2005. If China does join, ERS projects
that its cotton imports would increase to $924 million by 2005.
For corn, China committed to establish a 4.5 million ton tariff rate
quota in 2000, rising to 7.2 million by 2004. Here again, ERS projects
that China's net imports of corn in 2005 will increase by $587 million
if China joins the WTO.
U.S. corn exports to China have averaged about 47 million over the
past 5 years. This will increase.
For wheat, China committed to a tariff rate quota of 7.3 million tons
in 2000, rising to 9.64 million in 2004. ERS projects that China's net
imports of wheat in 2005 will increase from $231 million per year to
$773 million if it joins the WTO.
For soybean products, the story goes on. ERS projects that China's net
imports of soybean products in 2005 will increase by $180 million if
China joins the WTO.
Now, ERS is not alone in the view that China will have to be buying
agricultural commodities. According to Worldwatch's Lester Brown,
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 Farm Bureau also expects great benefits from China's accession to
the WTO. U.S. exports to the Asian region as a whole are expected to
increase in the next few years.
I would like to conclude my remarks tonight by putting all of these
facts and figures into context. For years, we in agriculture have
complained about the use of unilateral sanctions to change the
behavior of various governments around the world. Recently, we have
made some progress on this front, with some restrictions lifted last
year that have resulted in sales of some corn to Iran and wheat to
Libya.
If we look at what USDA estimates that we in agriculture lost because
of the United States' own decision not to trade with certain
countries, the total in 1996 was about $500 million. The estimates for
this year have to be considerably more than $500 million. That is less
than a third of the $1.7 billion we will lose in 2005 if we do not
grant China permanent normal trade relations.
All six of the countries currently under sanctions, Cuba, Iran, Iraq,
Libya, Sudan and North Korea, together, import only $7.7 billion in
food and agricultural products each year. That is about half the $14
billion China imports today annually.
We need to make the right decision on China and stop giving away
agricultural markets to our competitors. That is what those of us who
support treating China as our competitors do. What sense does it make
today for the United States to unilaterally say to any country that we
will not sell them our food and medicine, when our `friends' sell to
that country? That is something that I have failed to understand in
some of the arguments against PNTR. It is one thing if we
multilaterally, if all of our `friends' also agree to use food and
medicine as a weapon. That would be a powerful tool. But to do it
unilaterally, it seems to me, only punishes our own producers, in this
case farmers and ranchers, and it hurts the people of which we are
trying to help, and it strengthens the governments of which we are
trying to change.
I hope that this and other statements we will hear over the next few
days will convince at least 218 of us in this body to do the right
thing, to grant permanent normal trade relations with China, to allow
them to come into the WTO, and, for the first time in history, have
them subjected to the same laws that apply to the rest of the free
world. It sure cannot hurt to try it.
PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA
(House of Representatives - May 16, 2000)
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.
PNTR FOR CHINA
(House of Representatives - May 16, 2000)
Mr. BERRY. If Congress does not pass PNTR for China, it will be the
worst economic policy decision since the Smoot-Hawley act of 1930 that
the Congress has made. Smoot-Hawley was based on the idea that our
economy can succeed while all other economies of the world fail. This
is simply not the case. Failure to pass PNTR will be a step toward the
isolation of Smoot-Hawley and a step away from the global business
practices which have fueled our economic growth.
PNTR is a good deal for business, workers, farmers, consumers and all
Americans. It is an especially good deal for American agriculture. We
produce more food than we can consume. With 1.3 billion people, 20
percent of the world's population, China must import food to feed its
people. Based on this fact, the agriculture relationship is a win-win
situation for both countries.
For the district that I am fortunate to represent, the First
Congressional District of Arkansas, China PNTR represents opening the
largest market in the world to rice, soybeans, cotton, wheat, poultry,
fish, beef, pork and other products. Agriculture is just one example
of the tremendous benefits that China PNTR holds for Arkansas and
America. This agreement is also good for financial services,
insurance, information and technology, automobiles, chemicals,
entertainment, telecommunications and many others. When average
tariffs for American products that are going into China are cut from
24 to 9 percent, only good things can result for America's economy.
American farmers and businesses can compete on a level playing field
with anyone else in the world. This agreement goes a long way towards
creating a level playing field between America and China.
Additionally, we give up nothing by granting China PNTR. This
agreement grants us access to their markets but does not give them any
more access to our market than they already have.
If China PNTR does not happen, we will lose out, the rest of the world
will gain, other countries in regions from Europe to South America
will be doing business and laughing all the way to the bank with their
profits. If we do not pass PNTR, the principal effect will be to deny
the American economy the benefits of trading with the largest country
and the largest population in the world.
I also firmly believe that China's human rights record must improve.
The best way to be accomplish this is to bring them into the
international community. By trading with them rather than refusing to
relate to them, we will be able to have a positive influence on human
rights in China.
Another common misperception is that China PNTR is bad for industries
which have been hurt by trade. This is simply not true. We will have
stronger trade laws under this agreement with a product-specific
safeguard and permission to unilaterally retaliate should the Chinese
engage in unfair trading practices. This agreement contains strong
legal protections for American industries. If we fail to pass PNTR,
American business will lose these protections.
Mr. Speaker, this decision is the right one. Trade with China is good
from an economic standpoint, from a human rights standpoint, and from
a national security standpoint. We must not allow China PNTR to be
bogged down by politics. We should pass PNTR because it is the right
thing to do for America.
PNTR FOR CHINA
(House of Representatives -- May 16, 2000)
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, the vote on permanent trade status for
China is vital to our technology and small business interests in North
Carolina, but it is particularly important to North Carolina
agriculture, so I am glad this evening to come and join a number of
other colleagues and talk about this issue. In 1998, North Carolina
ranked 11th among the 50 States in the value of agricultural exports
totaling $1.5 billion. These exports supported about 22,800 jobs both
on and off the farm in our State.
Our State's largest agricultural export, of course, in North Carolina
is tobacco. In 1998, North Carolina exported $573 million worth of
tobacco leaf. It has been estimated that if flue-cured tobacco farmers
could capture just 1 percent of the Chinese market, that is 1 percent,
and 1 percent of the manufacturing in China was comprised of American
flue-cured tobacco, the stocks in Stabilization would cease to exist
and quotas would rise for our farmers.
The North Carolina Rural Prosperity Task Force that was chaired by
Erskine Bowles estimated that if China would give our farmers fair
access to their markets, North Carolina exports of flue-cured tobacco
would increase by as much as 10 percent right away. After suffering a
50 percent loss in income due to quota cuts during the past several
years, such an increase would be welcome news to many struggling
farmers and their families and to tobacco industry workers in our
State and other States.
Today China's tariff that is imposed on tobacco is currently 40
percent. Once China joins the WTO, it would drop to only 10 percent by
2004. The tariff on tobacco products will fall from 65 percent to just
25 percent during that same period.
What must the United States sacrifice to gain these trade benefits?
Nothing. All we have to do is make permanent what we have been doing
for 20 years. We have been doing it on an annual basis. The U.S.
granted China most-favored-nation status, now called normal trading
relations status, in 1980. Simply by voting to continue this policy on
a permanent basis, the Chinese will be required to reduce their
tariffs, revise their trading practices, abide by the rule of law and
remove their phony trade barriers on many of our products.
Therefore, the question coming before this House is this: Do we allow
the U.S. tobacco growers and other farmers to take advantage of this
new access? Or do we shut them out and give our competitors free reign
to enjoy the fruits of our hard work and the negotiations that have
taken place? To me, the answer is easy, which is why I support PNTR
for China.
This does not mean that I am looking at this with my eyes closed.
China has problems it needs to address before formally coming into
WTO. Of special concern to me is China's use of blue mold as a phony
barrier to keep our tobacco farmers from entering into this market.
Barring our tobacco from their market based on the contention that
blue mold could affect their crop has no basis in science and is a
barrier that does not stand the light of day. I have been helping to
lead the effort with other Members of this House to make sure that
this issue is resolved satisfactorily, and I trust that our USDA and
Chinese officials will have an announcement on this in the very near
future.
While I have spoken at length about tobacco, China's entry into WTO
will also greatly benefit North Carolina's poultry, pork, grain and
other industries in our State. The North Carolina Department of
Agriculture estimates that poultry, pork and a wide variety of other
farmers could also see a steady increase in exports if China is
granted PNTR. Last year, North Carolina exported more than $300
million in chicken and turkey products. China is the second leading
market for U.S. poultry exports, with North Carolina producers selling
tens of millions of dollars worth of poultry to China every year.
Under the WTO agreement, China will cut its tariff in half, from 20
percent to 10 percent by 2004 for frozen poultry cuts. There will be
no quantity limits at this tariff level, for China has agreed to
accept all poultry meat from the United States that is certified
wholesome by the United States Department of Agriculture. The same is
true for pork. About 60 percent of all meat consumed in China is pork.
This will make a big difference for us. I think China PNTR is a
win-win for our farmers.
PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA
(House of Representatives -- May 16, 2000)
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the permanent
normal trade relations with China.
Some people view PNTR as a gift that the United States would give to
China. PNTR with China is, in fact, in the United States' best
economic interest.
China is a huge potential market for the United States, as has been
mentioned, 1.2 billion people, or 20 percent of the world's
population. Our potential to export to them is enormous.
Idaho's share of those exports is significant to a small State with a
million people in it. In 1998 alone, Idaho exported nearly $25 million
worth of merchandise to China. And in the agricultural sector, we
exported $833 million to China.
Future gains are almost certain under the terms of the bilateral
agreement and China's WTO accession. Upon accession to the WTO,
China's average tariff rate of 22 percent will drop to 17 percent for
most products. In the agricultural sector, the reduction is even more
significant. The average 31 percent tariff will be reduced to 14
percent for agricultural products on average.
In fact, Goldman Sachs estimates that passage of PNTR will increase
U.S. exports to China by $12.7 billion to $13.9 billion by the year
2005.
Although there have been some statements to the contrary that the U.S.
can reap all of the benefits of this bilateral agreement when China
accedes to the WTO, the fact is that cannot happen unless PNTR is
granted to China. That is because one of the cornerstones of the WTO
is the concept of unconditional most favored nation or normal trade
relations between WTO members.
In the agricultural area, PNTR wheat producers believe that they will
see an increase of 10 percent sales to China with PNTR. In fact, the
increase of sales of beef will increase even more, I believe, as the
current tariff rates are reduced from their current level of 45
percent to 12 percent by the year 2004. China will also eliminate its
export subsidies upon WTO accession.
The U.S., and this is important to remember, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. is
not required to change any of its market access commitments to achieve
all of these benefits. In the high tech sector in Idaho, which is a
growing industry in Idaho, the current duties on information
technology products such as computers, electronics, fiberoptics, cable
and other telecommunication equipment currently average 13 percent but
will be eliminated by January 1, 2005. In addition, trading and
distribution rights for IT products will be phased in over 3 years.
This means that companies in my congressional district, such as Micron
and Hewlett-Packard, will be able to build upon their current exports
to China which currently average around 6 percent. Mr. Speaker, this
is a very important vote for Congress. I understand and agree with the
concerns of my colleagues with regards to human rights in China. But I
believe that we will change China more by being engaged with China
rather than standing back and throwing stones. In fact, it was
interesting. Today I had several students from Taiwan in my office.
One would think that Taiwan would be opposed to accession of China
into the WTO because of the aggressive nature that China has expressed
toward Taiwan but these students told me, and I have confirmed with
the President elect of Taiwan that they support accession of China
into the WTO because they believe that active engagement with China
will make China more like Taiwan and will free Taiwan and make them
more economically free.
Mr. Speaker, this potentially is the most important vote that we will
cast in this Congress. I urge my colleagues to support PNTR for China.
THINK ONCE, THINK TWICE ABOUT
U.S. TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA
(House of Representatives -- May 16, 2000)
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to our colleagues this evening,
think once, think twice about U.S. trade with China, particularly in
agriculture.
Recently I read a fascinating report prepared by Dr. Charles
McMillian, former editor of the Harvard Business Review. He is a man
who understands numbers. And he says, think once, think twice. China
has produced an annual glut of agricultural commodities for over a
generation. In fact, the United States has registered a consistent and
growing deficit in agriculture with China in two-thirds of all
agricultural groupings.
It is true with pork. We produced a lot of that in my corner of Ohio.
It is true with corn. It is true with citrus, with vegetables, with
fish. Just go down the categories.
China, in fact, in the last decade, had an average annual surplus,
that means they are sending more out than taking goods in, in global
agricultural trade of $4 billion annually. Just last year, in 1999,
the rate of that is increasing to where just in 1999 they had a $4
billion surplus of global agricultural trade over what they imported.
So their advantage, essentially, is increasing.
They are rapidly expanding the quantity, the quality, and the
composition of products that are being exported to our country,
everything from ketchup to rice and, for the first time, in 1999,
cotton.
China has produced an annual glut of agricultural commodities for over
a generation. In fact, the United States has registered a consistent
and growing deficit in agriculture with China in two-thirds of all
agricultural groupings.
They are rapidly expanding the quantity, the quality, and the
composition of products that are being exported to our country,
everything from ketchup to rice and, for the first time, in 1999,
cotton.
Now, China recorded an overall advantage with the United States in
1985, 1986, 1992, 1993, and 1999 in agriculture. In fact, we have
maintained a chronic agricultural trade deficit with them in 17 of 26
agricultural commodity groups, everything from seafood, to tobacco,
sugar, cocoa, vegetables, fruits, nut, and various animal parts.
What is even more troubling is that our exports to them have fallen
every year since 1995 as China has strengthened our ability to export
to them in spite of our bilateral agreements and tariff reductions has
decreased.
In fact, our agricultural exports to China in 1999 were a third less
than a decade before, while U.S. imports of their agricultural
commodities had literally doubled, gone up by nearly 100 percent.
Now, if we think about this, China's agricultural production growth
continues to outpace their own growth in domestic demand. Our own
embassy in China, our agriculture attache in Beijing, points out that
China is struggling to solve its fundamental problems of chronic
overproduction.
But it does have an inefficient distribution system. And with capital
investment that might occur there as a result of going into WTO, they
are going to be able to move that product more quickly around the
world.
Particularly key in all of this are China's partnerships with powerful
global firms such as Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and ConAgra. And
of course, those companies export. In fact, Cargill, for example, has
been in China since 1973. Cargill really does not care if it sells and
markets Chinese corn or U.S. corn.
So the point is there are some agricultural interests globally that
will win, but it will not be U.S. farmers because that Chinese corn
and pork and tobacco and seafood, and go down all the categories, are
going to depress prices even more here at home.
So I would say to people in rural America, think once, think twice
about all of this.
It is not clear that, in this recent agreement that the administration
signed with China, that any new grain commitments to purchase were
actually made. There were some promises that maybe there would be some
tariff reduction. But if we look at the tariff reduction that occurred
during the decade of the 1990s, it did not result in any more sales.
It is highly unlikely that China will eliminate its non-tariff
barriers to agriculture trade. It would put too great a risk on its
own sector advancing. Because China, since 1949, has had an
agricultural policy that said, we will be food self-sufficient.
Starvation propelled them into the most recent half century, and they
fully well understand what it means not to be self-sufficient in food
production at home.
I think that, as much as we talk about tariffs here and about
non-tariff barriers, it is also important to point out that when China
gets in trouble internationally, it does something very simple, it
devalues its currency, as it did in 1994.
So think once, think twice. China is going to put more downward
pressure on U.S. food prices if permanent normal trade relations are
approved with China.
I urge my colleagues to vote `no' on that measure.
(end excerpts)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)