• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

22 May 2000

Excerpts: PNTR Opponents Want Taiwan Security Amendment to Bill

(If China invades or blockades Taiwan it would lose PNTR) (8220)
Opponents to granting China permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR)
status want to get in on the amendment process for the legislation
that would grant PNTR to China.
In a colloquy in the House of Representatives May 19, they suggested
that the House Rules Committee allow an amendment to H.R. 4444 that
would strip China of its permanent NTR status if it blockaded or
invaded Taiwan.
China, the PNTR opponents said, has threatened to invade Taiwan unless
it agrees to reunite with the communist-ruled Mainland.
Noting that Taiwan would be inaugurating a democratically elected
president from an opposition party May 20, Representative Nancy Pelosi
(Democrat of California) said Congress should be "celebrating that
great triumph of democracy."
"We are," she lamented, "instead rejecting a very simple amendment,
and that is the Berman amendment that the majority has refused to put
in the bill, and that the administration has refused to accept."
"That simple amendment would say that PNTR would be lifted for China
if China invades Taiwan. What could be simpler than associating one's
self with the idea that if a country invades another place then they
would not get special privileges in the United States?" she asked
fellow lawmakers.
"I urge all of my colleagues to sign on to a letter to the Committee
on Rules to make this amendment in order that if China invades Taiwan,
we lift PNTR," Pelosi said.
Representative David Bonior (Democrat of Michigan), the Democratic
Whip, called China "a brutal, authoritarian police state."
If one disagrees with the communist regime there, he said, "if one
tries to form a political organization, if an individual tries to form
a religious organization, if someone tries to form a trade union, they
will end up in jail."
And that, Bonior continued, is where "literally tens of thousands of
Chinese dissidents, freedom fighters, people who care about democracy
are languishing today in prison, because they dared to try to speak
out to better their human condition in these areas."
Representative Chris Smith (Republican of New Jersey), the chairman of
the House International Relations Subcommittee on International
Operations and Human Rights, called attention to the use of torture in
China.
"Torture is commonplace in the People's Republic of China. If one is
arrested as a religious believer or a democracy promoter, they get
tortured and we are doing business with their torturers," Smith said.
Representative Marcy Kaptur (Democrat of Ohio) put in the
Congressional Record the provision to the PNTR legislation requested
by Representative Howard Berman (Democrat of California) "that would
provide that in the event that this permanent normal trade status
would be granted, that in the event that China would attack, invade,
or blockade Taiwan, that permanent normal trade relations would be
revoked."
Following are excerpts from the May 19 Congressional Record:
(begin text)
MOST FAVORED NATION TRADE STATUS
FOR PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
(House of Representatives -- May 19, 2000)
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take to the floor this
afternoon to continue our discussion on most favored nation trade
status with the People's Republic of China.
As I have said before, the problem that we are faced with, the
challenges and the choices that confront us here, are support for our
basic cherished values; the right to practice one's religion; the
right to assemble and organize and collectively bargain for a decent
wage and benefits and health care, and all the things that many of our
citizens enjoy; the right to form political organizations so that
ideas, such as good wages, decent working conditions, health care,
good educational opportunities, can flow from political participation.
All of these rights are kind of central to this debate on China,
because in China today they do not enjoy what we enjoy here, and that
is the ability to do these things.
China is a brutal, authoritarian police state. If the government is
disagreed with, if one tries to form a political organization, if an
individual tries to form a religious organization, if someone tries to
form a trade union, they will end up in jail. And that is where, my
colleagues, literally tens of thousands of Chinese dissidents, freedom
fighters, people who care about democracy are languishing today in
prison, because they dared to try to speak out to better their human
condition in these areas.
Why is it so important for us to stand with them and not with the
government of China and their partners in this trade deal, the
multinational corporations, most of whom are American? Why is it
important to stand with these heroes? It is important to stand with
them because those values that we cherish, those first principles of
our government, the right to be able to express ourselves in the God
that we believe in, in the political organization that we want to
affiliate with, in the worker organization that we want to band with
in order to improve our economic lives, these are central tenets of
what democracy is all about.
The State Department's Country Report on Human Rights, in their last
report, said that China's poor human rights record deteriorated
markedly throughout the year as the government intensified efforts to
suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent; the government
continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses
in violation of internationally accepted norms.
Permanent Favored Nation Trading Status supporters can claim that the
Internet and technology will help unshackle the Chinese people, but
the evidence shows the opposite is happening. According to the State
Department, and I quote,
Authorities have blocked, at various times, politically sensitive Web
sites, including those of dissident groups and some major foreign news
organizations, such as Voice of America, The Washington Post, The New
York Times, and the British Broadcasting system.
Just yesterday, outside these chambers on the lawn of the Capitol, we
had approximately 100 dissidents from China who are now in exile, many
of whom have spent 3, 4, 5, 10, 13 years in jail. They were here with
us, and we formed a line with a linked chain threading us as we
marched around the Capitol grounds. And then we had them come and
speak to people who were interested in hearing what they had to say,
and they all spoke about the need not to reward China with this Most
Favored Nation status by taking away an annual attempt to review their
human rights record, their dismal record on human rights.
They asked us not to do it, because every time that we continue to
have this debate, every time that we raise these issues, the Chinese
are placed in a very hard, difficult position, a position they cannot
defend, and we make progress each time we have this debate.
Wei Jingsheng, the great dissident and leader at Tiananmen Square and
other activities in China, who is here now in exile in the United
States, who spent years and years and years in prison, said do not
grant permanent trade status to China right now. He said to continue
to trade, continue to engage, continue to dialogue, but do not give
them most favored trade status permanently; have the annual review.
Because he knows how important it is for those who are still in the
gulags, still in the prisons, still fighting for justice and freedom
and liberty in China today.
So I would say to my colleagues, the news is always not good for
workers in China. The government continued to tightly restrict
workers' rights, and forced labor in prison facilities remains a very
serious problem, according to the State Department, and they give us
some examples in the State Department report.
For instance, there is the case of Guo Yunqiao. He led a protest march
of 10,000 workers to local government offices following the 1989
massacre. He is currently serving a life term in prison for doing that
on charges of hooliganism. Imagine that: Protesting on behalf of
10,000 workers of local government offices following the massacre at
Tiananmen Square, and this man is facing a life in prison.
In the case of Guo Qiqing, who was detained in Shayang County on
charges of disrupting public order, he has organized a sit-in to
demand money owed to the workforce.
Or the case of Hu Shigen, an activist with the Federation Labor Union
of China, in prison in Beijing No. 2 prison, and has 12 years
remaining on his sentence. He is seriously ill. He has been charged
with counterrevolutionary activities.
And the cases go on and on and on.
Despite the considerable leverage that we have, with 40 percent of
China's exports coming to the United States, our negotiators did not
lift a finger to help on human rights or labor rights or religious
freedoms. We can do much better than what we have done.
I would say on the religious front, there is widespread religious
persecution in China today against Buddhists, against Christians,
against Muslims, against people who want to practice their faith.
If you do, if they indeed do, you cannot belong to the military, you
cannot belong as a worker in the government, you cannot belong to the
ruling party if you practice your religion in China; and to practice
it in an organized way will often get you a long jail prison sentence.
Recently two Catholic bishops and archbishops have spent over 30 years
in prison because of their leadership in our church.
Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on and the repression goes on
and on and on.
The distinguished gentleman from Northern Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a
friend and colleague of ours, was successful, very successful, in
getting a commission established. It is called the U.S. Commission on
Religious Freedoms. And it was established in order to look
specifically at the issue of whether people can practice their faith
in China.
Seven of the nine people who were appointed to that commission were
appointed by people who share the view that we should have unfettered
free trade, most favored nation trade status with the Chinese. So the
people on the Commission, for the most part, came there with the
blessing of these kinds of leaders, the President, the leaders of the
respective bodies in the House and the Senate.
So it was a surprise when the last couple weeks ago the U.S.
Commission on Religious Freedom issued its annual report. The
Commission, as I said, is independent. Seven of its nine members were
appointed by supporters of permanent MFN. The Commission opposes
permanent most favored nation trade status for China without
substantial human rights improvements. They came out opposed to this
deal because they understand the political and religious repressions
that are ongoing at this very minute in China today.
Their leader, Rabbi David Saperstein, a highly respected religious
leader, is chairman of the Commission. Excerpts from the Commission's
findings and recommendations read as follows: `The Chinese
Government's violations of religious freedom increased markedly during
the past year.'
Another quote: `Roman Catholic and Protestant underground house
churches suffered increased repression. The crackdown included the
arrest of bishops, priests, and pastors, one of whom was found dead in
the street soon afterward. Several Catholic bishops were ordained by
the Government without the Vatican's participation or approval.'
Another quote in the report: `The repression of the Tibetan Buddhists
expanded. The Government authorities in Tibet, in defiance of the
Dalai Lama, Reting Lama, another important religious leader, Karmapa
Lama, he had to flee to India.' And it goes on and on and on. And it
says at the end of the report, `While many of the commissioners
support free trade, the Commission believes that the U.S. Congress
should grant China permanent normal trade relation status only after
China makes substantial improvements in respect for religious
freedom.'
Michael Young, Dean of the George Washington University Law School,
who describes himself as a passionate believer in free trade, said,
`The extraordinary deterioration of religious freedoms in China is
close to unprecedented since the days of Mao.' Mr. Young cited cases
of women beaten to death by police for trying to practice their
religion.
The conditions the Commission laid out are reasonable, and they
include the following: Requiring China to provide unhindered access to
religious leaders including those in prison detained or are under
house arrest in China. Secondly, release from prison all religious
prisoners in China. And third, requiring China to ratify the
International Convention of Civil and Political Rights.
So you have the State Department's Country Report on Human Rights
Practices, which I outlined, which is very, very critical of China.
You have the Religious Commission which says, do not do what we will
be voting on this next week, giving them permanent trade status,
because they have not respected religious freedoms and liberties. And
now because the votes are not there and this issue is in jeopardy, we
perhaps will have grafted onto the China deal a concept or an idea to
create another commission.
We do not need another commission, Mr. Speaker. We have enough
commissions. We have enough reports. And the reports are the quite
clear. This is a brutal, suppressive dictatorship that says to its
people, you organize, you actively engage in religious freedom,
political freedom, human rights issues, you challenge us on the
environment and you can very easily expect that you will end up in
prison.
Governments that are corrupt, that are repressive, and who just take
advantage of their people in terms of slave labor in the end have
immense problems and difficulties and eventually fall.
My friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) who has been most
eloquent and passionate on these issues has joined us. I will yield to
him for a remark. Then I want to talk about, if I could, we can share
some thoughts on the economic piece of this and the sweatshops where
the Chinese people work.
Because the other part of the freedom piece of this trade deal, as he
well knows, is that there are people working in shoe factories, in
textile mills, you name it, by the millions in China today who are
making anywhere between 3 and 20 cents an hour, working 6 days, 7 days
a week, 12 hours a day, putting together $135 pairs of Nike shoes with
toxic glue without wearing anything to cover their hands.
It is a repressive type of atmosphere outlined in this very well put
together book `Made in China' by Charlie Kernigan of the National
Labor Committee, which I encourage everyone to pick up and read. These
people are really indentured servants in many ways. They work for a
whole month for wages that are not adequate for them to even buy one
of the pair of shoes that they make.
So it seems to me that when you have a situation economically
internationally where corporations here in America can go over abroad,
whether it is Mexico or China, to manufacture products that were made
here, whether they are shoes or bicycles, Huffy is a good example that
used to make bikes in the State of Ohio and now is in China and
Mexico. When they move their facilities to these different countries,
they do it for a reason. They do it because they do not have to deal
with benefits, they do not have to deal with laws protecting workers,
they do not have to pay decent wages.
And, of course, they cannot sell these products in China or in Mexico
because the workers there, as I have just mentioned, do not make
enough to purchase that which they make. So Mexico and China then
become what are known as export platforms and these products are
shipped right back here for sale. And, of course, we lose good-paying
manufacturing jobs in this country and the multinationals make out and
workers on both sides of the border do not.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, before we talk about the `Made in
China' report and the literally slave labor conditions under which
literally millions of young women in China, almost all young and
mostly women, I want to follow up on some things that the Democratic
Whip talked about in terms of human rights.
We have, for 10 years, been engaging with China. We have traded with
China. We have opened our markets to China. During that entire 10-year
period, the Bush administration, even the Reagan administration before
the Bush administration, the Clinton administration have told us over
and over that China would be freer, that engaging with China would
really help.
You can look in these last 10 years and see how things are growing
worse, they are continuing to go downhill. The gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Bonior) mentioned the State Department's Country Report outlining
the conditions in China actually were worse this past year. As China
has tried to woo us to get into the World Trade Organization,
conditions were worse last year than the year before.
In fact, if we look at last year's Country Reports, the language that
describes China's behavior towards Tibet and towards other outlying
areas from the central government and towards minorities, in the
language that the Country Reports describes Serbia's treatment of
Kosovo, the language was almost identical. We bomb Kosovo, yet we give
trade advantages to China.
The National Religious Commission that the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Bonior) mentioned talked about religious persecution in China.
The animosity and the hostility of the central government of China
towards religion in China is worse than at any time since the cultural
revolution in the mid 1960s. The United Nations Commission on Human
Rights the Chinese continue to ignore.
So some in this body want to put faith in this congressional
commission that has been suggested as some way to deal with problems
of labor rights and human rights.
The Chinese do not pay attention to our official Department of State
Country Reports. The Chinese has not paid any attention to the
Religion Commission. The Chinese have not paid any attention to the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Why would they pay any
attention to a congressional task force that this body might pass in
tandem with permanent most favored nation status trading privileges
for China?
As William Saffire, a generally conservative columnist in the New York
Times, said in the paper yesterday after conversing, interestingly,
with Richard Nixon, who told him that this engagement and trade and
probably right before Nixon died had probably gone too far, Nixon
said, I think we may have created a Frankenstein, talking about human
rights abuses, talking about all the child labor and all of that in
these countries. Safire said that we in this country have continued to
feed the military machine in China.
That is really what we are doing with engagement. We are feeding the
suppressive regime, not just their military, but their police state,
feeding of the police statement machine, too. And that is why the
crackdown on religion, the crackdown on human rights, the oppression
of workers, all of that have continued to get worse in China because
the state apparatus is getting wealthier and wealthier, has better and
better technology as they continue to get technology from American
business and western business in China, as they continue to upgrade
their oppressive regime and that regime is fed by all the investment
and all the dollars that we send to China through our business
investments.
One more point I would like to make. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Bonior) mentioned the `Made in China' report that really does outline
the behavior of several U.S. businesses: The Kathie Lee, Wal-Mart,
Alpine, Huffy, which permanently laid off 850 Ohio workers making $17
an hour about a year ago, replacing them with Chinese workers, all
young, almost all female, all under 25, many of them 16 and 17, making
literally less than 2 percent of what they were making in China.
But this report underscores one other thing about why engagement with
China is not working, and, that is, that investors from the West,
investors from the United States and other western nations have begun
to shift in the last 5 years, have massively shifted their investments
in the developing world from democracies to authoritarian countries.
They are less interested in India, a democracy, and more interested in
China, an authoritarian government. They are less interested in
Taiwan, a democracy, and more interested in Indonesia, a police state.
Investor dollars from the West have been attracted to these kind of
regimes because they can hire people at 20 and 30 and 40 cents an
hour. Any time these workers have even complained about working
conditions, they are fined or penalized or jailed in some cases and
sometimes even worse. This workforce in China is young, it is female,
it is inexperienced, it is docile, it does not talk back, and it does
not fight back. That is the kind of workforce that investment dollars
from the United States seems to be attracted to.
That is why passing permanent most-favored-nation status trading
privileges for China will lock in that oppressive regime, will cost
American jobs, will hurt the Chinese, will lock into this life-style,
this slave labor life-style that too many Chinese workers already are
subjected to and will make things worse.
Mr. Speaker, if I could add one more point. One other thing that seems
to be happening is that the United States, Federal law from the 1931
Trade Act and from the 1992 agreement with China says that in this
country we are not allowed to accept into the country products
produced by slave labor. When we have documented that workers are
making between three and 35 cents an hour and in many cases those
workers are charged for their room and their board and their clothing
from that three to 35 cents an hour, it is pretty clear that an awful
lot of these products, Kathy Lee handbags at Wal-Mart, shoes from Nike
and Keds, all kinds of other products at Wal-Mart, bicycles from
Huffy, that these products are made by slave labor when somebody is
making only cents an hour and much of that is taken back from them by
charging them for the clothes and the food they eat, the clothes they
wear and the beds they sleep in. When that is happening, our
government should say we are not going to accept those products made
by slave labor. That has only happened once in the last 10 years, in
1991, did our government say you cannot let a product into the country
that was made by slave labor. But we are aware as Harry Wu, a very
courageous Chinese man that lives now in the United States who spent
20 years in prisons went back to China and documented case after case
after case of products that were made under slave labor conditions and
sold into the United States, our administration, the Republican
leadership in this Congress and the administration should say, we are
not going to vote on Chinese most-favored-nation status trading
privileges until we investigate whether these slave labor products are
being brought into the United States. It is illegal, and we ought to
get to the bottom of it. We have no business voting on this until we
really do find out if these are slave labor products.
Mr. BONIOR. I think the gentleman is right on target and absolutely
correct in his assessment. I want to thank him for his eloquence and
for his passion and for coming to the floor night after night to
express his concerns on the questions of basic human rights and
political and religious freedoms. They are very important parts of our
international trade debate. They need to be a part of that debate.
People tend to forget often in our country as the gentleman from Ohio
well knows that the market by itself will not bring about these
political, religious and labor reforms that are needed for workers and
families. What brings that about is the ability of people to come
together, to form civic organizations, and to fight these repressive
laws and practices. It is what happened in the United States of
America 100 years ago during the progressive era in our country. The
free market did not provide the benefits that we often take for
granted today. What provided the good wages, the health care, the
pensions, the safe working conditions, the right to vote, the right to
form political organizations, the right to freely practice your
religion, the right to speak out like I am speaking out now and you
can speak out when you walk out of this building, what made all of
that happen were courageous people like Wei Jingsheng and Harry Wu who
are now trying to bring that about for the people of China. People in
this country had to fight corporate conglomerates, trusts and power in
order for workers to have the benefits we enjoy today. It did not just
happen. People protested, they marched, they picketed, they were
beaten, they went to jail and some, yes, even died in order that we
could enjoy today many of the things that we have. Those same
struggles are happening in China and other parts of the developing
world.
A central question in this debate, certainly one of the central
questions is whose side are we on? Are we on the side of those people
who are trying to organize in China for a better life for the Chinese
people? Are we on the side of the multinational corporations who
promise us that this will help our economy and create jobs when the
reality is it does just the opposite?
(O)ur trade deficit, our trade account with China, has mushroomed, has
exploded over the past 20 years. We now have a trade imbalance with
China, they send us much more than we send them, of about $70 billion.
Just this morning, the March trade figures came out and showed that we
were running a $5.1 billion trade deficit. Last March we were running
a $4.1 billion trade deficit. That is just for 1 month. So it has
increased by $1 billion just over a year ago for the month of March.
Much of that is with China. Not quite but almost 40 percent of the
goods that are made in China are shipped to the United States of
America. Two percent of our goods manufactured here go to China. So
they are sending much more to us than we are sending to them. As a
result, we have this trade deficit with the Chinese.
You might say, why is that? There are many reasons for that. One
reason that we cannot get into the Chinese markets is because they do
not live up to any of their trade agreements. On this chart, this is
the deficit, swelling from almost zero out this far to $70 billion.
What is written in here are the agreements that were done over the
last 20 years to try to get us into their market, allow us to sell
textiles and space materials and all other types of agreements dealing
with intellectual property and software, you name it, a whole series
of agreements worked out with the Chinese. You would think after each
agreement we would have more access to their market and this number
would diminish. Just the opposite. It has expanded. It has increased.
The reason is they do not live up to their word. They have no
compliance or no enforcement mechanisms in China to implement their
agreements. And so we have this ballooning $70 billion deficit.
The people who are promoting this trade deal say, `Well, this is
another trade piece. This is one of many agreements. This one is
really going to work because it is going to reduce our tariffs, so we
will be able to send more into China and it will cost less and people
will buy it there.'
If you look at this chart, you can see that we had two tariff
reduction agreements with the Chinese. China lowers its average import
tariffs from 42 percent to 23 percent. What happened? The deficit
continued to grow, even after they lowered the tariff. Then they
lowered it to 17 percent from 23, and it continued to grow even more.
The reason is, they just do not let our stuff into their country. They
find a way to keep it out. In this latest agreement, Ms. Barshefsky,
our trade representative, went there and did a deal on wheat. Now, the
first thing people should understand is China is awash in food. They
have a lot of food, a lot of food goods. They have a lot of food in
storage. Keep that in the back of your mind when you are told that you
will be able to ship fruits and vegetables and grains and meats and
all these other agricultural products. Right after she did the wheat
deal, one of the top Chinese people in the government who deals with
agriculture and wheat said the deal that would allow X amount of
imported grain, wheat in this case into China, is a deal `in theory
only.' Those were his words. In theory only. So already they are
backing away from that opportunity.
In the area of intellectual property, and by that I mean software,
digitalware, tapes and those kinds of things, 95 percent of all
intellectual property sold in China today is pirated material, in
other words, copied and pirated. We get very little benefit as a
result of that. In fact, it is so egregious that the ministries that
are supposed to write the laws against pirating materials use pirated
software. I could go on and on and on. It is quite tragic and it is
quite sad.
The other part of this trade agreement that I think people need to be
cognizant of is the proponents of it will say, yes, but it will open
up their markets, it will allow us to sell more goods to China. What
it will do is require our multinational corporations to establish
their facilities in China. It will take our jobs and export them to
China. Those facilities will be built, people will be hired for three
cents to 35 cents an hour, slave wages, indentured servitude, products
will be put together and they will be shipped back here to the tune of
about 40 percent of all of China's exports and sold here to the best
market in the world, certainly China's best market, the United States
of America. So what we get out of this is compliance, and compliance
is not the right word but working together with the Chinese to
undermine these basic fundamental human rights, what we get out of
this as well is our manufacturing capabilities moving offshore to
China, China becomes an export platform because people making three to
35 cents an hour cannot buy the Nike shoes that they are making or the
Motorola cell phones that they are making or the television sets that
they are making because they do not make enough money, so they are put
together and they are shipped right back here and sold to our people.
Yes, our people get other jobs. They lose their good manufacturing
jobs here, and they get other jobs, but they get jobs that pay a half
to two-thirds of the amount that they were making before.
(I)t all comes back to treating people decently and with some sense of
civility, and paying them a good wage, allowing them to organize,
allowing them to worship freely, allowing them to express themselves
politically.
When you do not do that, you shut people out from the really basic
first principles of democratization. As I said earlier, you can have
free trade and free markets, but they are not going to work very well
unless you have free people. Without free people, they will explode,
they will implode, and your society will come apart at the seams, as
it did in Chile, as it did in Europe, as it did in Indonesia, as it
undoubtedly will in China at some point.
You cannot repress and hold in the basic instincts of mankind, which
is a yearning to be free, a yearning to be able to express yourself at
those various fundamental levels of religion, politics and the
worksite.
So I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a terribly, terribly
important debate that we are engaged in, and I want to congratulate
all of the courageous people in China and the dissidents who have been
exiled for standing with us. I want to congratulate the working men
and women of this country. Seventy-nine percent of the American people
think Congress should not give China more access to our products until
it improves its human rights; 79 percent. Yet we are on the precipice,
we are right there, of going ahead next week with a vote on this most
critical issue, without addressing in a fundamentally strong way the
issues of human rights and labor rights and civil rights and political
rights.
These are universal rights we are talking about. We are not talking
about American rights, we are talking about rights that have been
adopted not only in the United States of America, but since our
crusade in this area, in Latin America, our brothers and sisters in
Europe, and the revolution on human rights and civil rights and
political rights is spreading abroad and around the world in other
areas as well.
This is a very important issue for this country. It is a very
important issue in terms of the choices we make as a society. Is the
market piece of this so overwhelming? Is the promise of gold at the
end of the rainbow of this market of 1.2 billion people in China so
enticing, so captivating, so tempting that it will blind us to the
real nature of who we are as a people, what we stand for as a people,
what we have been the beacon of light for people around the world?
Will we just give that up in order to provide a few multinationals the
opportunity to set up shop and export back to this country, and abuse,
as they have constantly abused, the workers in China?
I do not think anything could be more fundamental.
I am joined today by really one of the great champions of human rights
and worker rights and trade, my friend and dear colleague, the
gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has just been
magnificent in her effort to wage an understanding of this issue for
the American people. I yield to her now for any comments she might
want to share with us.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our
great leader from the State of Michigan, our Wolverine State, a few
moments to talk about our proposal for permanent normal trade
relations for China. One certainly could not say anything about our
trade relations with China being `normal.' In fact, they are very
abnormal, with more exports coming into our market from China for over
12 years now than our exports being able to get in there, even when
tariffs have been lowered.
I wanted to say to the gentleman that I think that his fortitude on
this as the days go on is magnificent. I just wish every American
could see the hours and hours that the gentleman has put into this
personally and all the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle
enjoy working with the gentleman so very much.
I wanted to make sure to come down here during this time as we attempt
to inform the American people and our colleagues about this upcoming
vote next week on extending permanent trade relations with China, that
every major veterans organization in this country has come out in
opposition to granting permanent normal trade relations with China.
I wanted to say a word about that, because I know many of our Post
Commanders, our State Commanders, our Auxiliary Leaders across this
Nation, are phoning their Members of Congress. They have been doing it
this week, they are going to continue over the weekend and into next
week, and I thought I would read into the Record and provide for the
Record some of what these organizations have said, starting with the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, an organization of 1.9 million Members.
I have been on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of this Congress for
my entire tenure here, and I was just so elated to see their letter
this week, which said that we should not approve permanent relations
with China. They asked that the current situation where we have an
annual review here in this Congress be maintained until such time as
China changes its policies and demonstrates that it is ready to treat
its own people according to basic human rights standards of other
modern industrialized nations.
They oppose China's proliferation of missile technology and weapons of
mass destruction. They oppose their threats against this country and
other countries in the Pacific, including the democratic Nation of
Taiwan. The VFW basically says passage of the China trade bill
essentially rewards China for mistreating its citizens.
I want to thank all of the members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
all the Post Commanders, all the Ladies Auxiliary Presidents and
members, for engaging in this issue and letting their voices be heard
from coast to coast, especially where it matters most, and that is
back at home, in the home district with the home Member of Congress.
Also the American Legion, 2.8 million members strong, this week came
out against permanent trade relations with China. In its formal letter
they say that they want to force China to meet four preconditions
before any permanent trade relations with China are extended or for
any entry into the WTO by China. Those four conditions are recognition
of the Taiwanese right to self-determination; full cooperation on the
accounting of American servicemen missing from the Korean War and the
Cold War; abandonment of policies aimed at military dominance in Asia;
and encouragement and promotion of human rights and religious freedom
among the Chinese people themselves.
The National Commander of the American Legion Al Lance said in his
letter, `China should embrace Democratic values before it benefits
from unfettered American investment.'
The Military Order of the Purple Heart, again, calling their Members
of Congress around the country, I wish to extend the appreciation of
this Member of Congress for their activism on this. Over 30,000
members of the Military Order of the Purple Heart and 600,000 living
recipients of the Purple Heart. In their letter they say `China as an
international actor continues to behave in a manner that is
threatening to international stability and U.S. security interests.'
They say this Congress should delay the granting of permanent normal
trade status to China at this time because it would remove China from
the review and the openness that occurs here on this floor of
Congress, which does not even happen inside China itself. They are
very worried about the proliferation of weapons from China to other
places, and certainly their dismal human rights record.
Then the Military Order of Purple Heart goes on to say, `Today China
represents the most dangerous of the emerging threats to U.S. national
security. Her designs on Western Pacific dominance, her extreme
belligerence toward Taiwan and her persistent espionage and theft of
U.S. advanced technologies are behaviors that must be checked before
any reasonable consideration of permanent normal trade status can be
undertaken.'
It says, `Many of America's combat wounded veterans sacrificed life
and blood to repel Chinese aggression during the Korean conflict, and
now, 50 years after that war, China remains an unabashedly communistic
regime. It is time for China to change if she wishes to be a truly
welcome participant on the world stage.'
Mr. Leader, I know that I want to yield back most of the remaining
time, but I would want to place on the record the official letter from
the Fleet Reserve Association, representing 151,000 members, all
career and retired Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen of the United
States opposing permanent normal trade relations with China.
In addition to that, the Warrant Officers Association, representing
nearly 20,000 warrant officers of active Army, Army Guard and the Army
Reserve, in their letter saying `China shows few of the peaceful
democratic traits evidenced by our Nation's other major trading
partners.' `In this instance,' they say, `trade and economic
considerations cannot take precedence over the safety of our Nation
and that of our allies and friends.'
A letter from the Reserve Officers Association, which we will place on
the record, representing over 80,000 officers in all uniformed
services, indicating opposition to permanent normal trade relations
with China. They want the annual review here. They are very concerned
about China's military threats against Taiwan, and threatened military
action against the United States if we defend Taiwan.
Finally, from AMVETS, 200,000 veterans opposed in this organization to
permanent normal trade relations with China, saying the security
issues take precedence over trade relations with foreign nations.
I would just say, finally, and again to thank all the veterans
Commanders, the Ladies Auxiliaries, the Post leaders, the membership
in all these organizations across the country that are weighing in,
phoning their Members of Congress, I know we have gotten many calls in
our community and that is happening across the country, to thank them
for their activism, to encourage them this weekend and the coming
week.
I want to place in the Record finally the request made by one of our
valued colleagues from the State of California (Mr. Berman), who tried
to get a provision as we voted on this agreement that would provide
that in the event that this permanent normal trade status would be
granted, that in the event that China would attack, invade, or
blockade Taiwan, that permanent normal trade relations would be
revoked.
The administration was not willing to include that in the measure that
they have sent up to this Congress.
A BILL
Providing for the revocation of normal trade relations treatment from
the products of the People's Republic of China if that country
attacks, invades, or imposes a blockade on Taiwan.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
The Congress finds that--
(1) Article XXI of the GATT 1994 (as defined in section 2(1)(B) of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501 (1)(B)) allows a member
of the World Trade Organization to take `any action which it considers
necessary for the protection of its essential security interests,'
particularly `in time of war or other emergency in international
relations'; and
(2) an attack on, invasion of, or blockade of Taiwan by the People's
Republic of China would constitute a threat to the essential security
interests of the United States and an emergency in international
relations.
SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS.
Pursuant to Article XXI of the GATT 1994, non-discriminatory treatment
(normal trade relations treatment) shall be withdrawn from the
products of the People's Republic of China if that country attacks,
invades, or imposes a blockade on Taiwan.
SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY TO EXISTING CONTRACTS.
The President shall have the authority to determine the extent to
which the withdrawal under section 2 of normal trade relations
treatment applies to products imported pursuant to contracts entered
into before the date on which the withdrawal of such treatment is
announced. The President shall issue regulations to carry out such
determination.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising these issues
and I commend her and I commend the Veterans Administration, the
Legion, the VFW and the others that she mentioned for stepping out and
standing up, and we appreciate her leadership on this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith), who has been a great leader on this issue.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say two things. I
think the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) stated it very well when
she pointed out how the VFW and the other veterans groups are very
much opposed to PNTR. I think what came across in our press
conference, I would say to my good friend from Michigan, and he
chaired that, was the intensity factor on the part of the veterans.
They were very, very strong and bold about the security implications
of conveying, without the annual review, permanent normal trading
relations and the human rights issues.
I have had 18 hearings in my Subcommittee on International Operations
and Human Rights. I have been there three times. It does not make me
an expert but I think I have some insights and they are shared by so
many who have done likewise. Torture is commonplace in the PRC. If one
is arrested as a religious believer or a democracy promoter, they get
tortured and we are doing business with their torturers.
I think when we look at every area in human rights they have gone from
bad to worse over the last 10 years, and I think we need to say enough
is enough, and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Bonior), for having this special order.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and commend her for her leadership
as well.
This next week this House of Representatives will have a vote and
decide how we will honor the pillars of our own foreign policy,
promoting democratic values, stopping the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and growing our own economy by promoting our exports
abroad. A vote for permanent NTR does not advance any of those goals,
and I wish to associate myself with the remarks that have been made in
that regard.
I wanted to emphasize a point made by our colleague, the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) earlier. This weekend in Taiwan, the second
democratically-elected President will be inaugurated. It is cause for
celebration in the heart of every person in the world who cares about
freedom and democracy. At a time when we should all in this body be
celebrating that great triumph of democracy, we are instead rejecting
a very simple amendment, and that is the Berman amendment that the
majority has refused to put in the bill, and that the administration
has refused to accept.
That simple amendment would say that PNTR would be lifted for China if
China invades Taiwan. What could be simpler than associating one's
self with the idea that if a country invades another place then they
would not get special privileges in the United States? Not only have
we ignored China's activity to proliferate weapons of mass destruction
such as chemical, biological and nuclear technology to rogue states,
not only have we ignored that, we have certified that they are not
doing it when we know full well that they are.
If the President wants to make this a national security issue, let us
do that. In terms of national security, instead of appeasing the
Chinese Government every step of the way on their misbehavior
internationally we are missing an opportunity to say to them do not
even think about invading Taiwan. If they do not think China is going
to invade, there is no problem here. Right? Clearly, they do not trust
the Chinese, or else they would let this amendment pass.
Again, instead of saluting the democracy in Taiwan, we are rewarding
the unsafe behavior of the Chinese. So I urge all of my colleagues to
sign on to a letter to the Committee on Rules to make this amendment
in order that if China invades Taiwan, we lift PNTR.
Our relationship with every country should make the world safer, the
trade fairer and people freer. Permanent NTR at this time does not do
that. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for his
leadership.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising that very
important security issue and freedom issue and as my friend, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), did, I want to thank the veterans
of this country for coming out in opposition based on basic security
grounds and human rights grounds and encourage them to continue to
call their Members of Congress as we enter this vote at the end of the
week, the American Legion and the VFW and the AMVETS and the many
organizations that we talked about. I thank my colleagues for joining
me today.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)