Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
May 17, 2000, Wednesday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1079 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF DAN GLICKMAN SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
BEFORE THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
SUBJECT - CHINA'S WTO ACCESSION AND PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS
BODY:
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee,
it is a pleasure to appear before you once again to discuss permanent Normal
Trade Relations (PNTR) for China.
This is my third
appearance before the Committee on this topic in recent weeks, which I think
rightly reflects the Committee's recognition that this is a watershed issue for
our farmers and ranchers. I agree that this is a defining moment on which we as
a Nation are likely to be judged for years to come.
As many of you know,
recently I had the privilege of leading a Presidential Mission to China to
assess the likely impact of that country joining the World Trade Organization
(WTO). I was very pleased to have four Members of the House of Representatives
accompany me, including Congressmen Dicks, Meeks, and Hinojosa, and Congressman
Walden, a Member of this Committee. North Dakota Governor Ed Shafer also
accompanied us, representing the 47 Governors who have announced their support
for PNTR for China.
I left on that trip believing
strongly that PNTR was the right thing to do. After a week in
China, meeting with Chinese workers, religious leaders, human rights advocates,
government officials, and U.S. business interests, I returned with the
conviction that extending PNTR to China was emphatically in the
best interests of the United States and the people of China. If the United
States' status as a world leader is to remain undiminished; if we are to achieve
the goals we seek in human rights, freedom of religion, and Pacific security;
and if the average person in China is to enjoy greater freedoms in the years
ahead, then the U.S. must fully engage China, and approving
PNTR is an essential course of action.
We have heard a
lot of debate over the past few months, but in my mind the issue comes down to a
few fundamental points.
First, this is a one-way trade agreement. Unlike
conventional trade agreements, in which we offer concessions in order to gain
benefits, in the case of China's WTO accession agreement, we gave up nothing.
All the concessions were made by China, and those concessions are substantial.
They have agreed to end export subsidies for agriculture immediately, to improve
market access dramatically, to apply sound science in regulatory
decision-making, and - under an anti-surge mechanism- to allow us unprecedented
authority to take action against any import from China that may threaten injury
to a sector of the U.S. economy.
A one-sided agreement of this magnitude
does not come along very often. The question is, are we going to seize it?
Second, as WTO Director General Moore has stated, China will become a
member of the WTO regardless of the outcome on PNTR. However,
if the Congress rejects PNTR, then our farmers and ranchers
will not get the full benefits of this historic agreement.
Perhaps more
to the point, if we reject PNTR, not only will we deny benefits
to our producers, we will actually hand the China market to our competitors in
Canada, Australia, the European Union, and elsewhere. In other words, we
negotiated the agreement, we did all the heavy lifting, but if we do not approve
PNTR, then we will be standing on the sidelines while our
competitors rush in to reap all the benefits.
I am not surprised then,
when people sometimes ask me, in an incredulous tone, why would we even consider
turning down an agreement that is all to our benefit and that, if rejected,
would land in the lap of our competitors.
In my more than five years as
Secretary, and in my previous 18 years as a Member of this Committee, I have
heard it said time and time again that the U.S. must be more aggressive on
trade, that we need to stand up for U.S. producers when it comes to trade
negotiations. I would suggest that here we have delivered a trade agreement that
is unprecedented in its scope and its tilt toward American producers. Yet it
seems that this trade agreement is being judged like the trade agreements of
old, when in fact it is a watershed achievement in the history of U.S. trade
negotiations.
We estimate that this agreement could increase U.S.
agricultural exports nearly $2 billion annually by the year
2005, and a recent Harvard study has indicated that our analysis may actually be
conservative. But this agreement is about much more than economic benefits to
U.S. agriculture. It is fundamentally about the United States' leadership role
in world affairs. To maintain that leadership, the U.S. simply must remain
engaged with China on a wide range of economic and social issues in a way that
will promote human rights, freedom of religion, fair labor standards, the
advancement of democracy, and a reduction in tensions along the Strait of
Taiwan.We believe we can best achieve these goals and influence Chinese behavior
by engaging rather than isolating them, and by bringing them into a rules-based
global community, into a WTO system that is based on transparency, fair trade
practices, the application of sound science, peaceful settlement of disputes
and, most importantly, the rule of law. I think these are among the reasons why
Taiwan has also made clear that it supports China's entry into the WTO and that
it supports the U.S. extending PNTR to China.
I know
that some have concerns about China's adherence to past agreements. This
agreement provides clear enforcement authority in the form of dispute resolution
procedures and the right to impose sanctions against countries that ignore WTO
rulings. In addition, Secretary Daley has laid out a three-part plan to monitor
China's implementation of this agreement.
Finally, this agreement offers
strong evidence of China's desire to move - at some risk internally- beyond the
stagnant, protectionist policies of the past and embrace economic and trade
principles that will have a ripple effect on their economic, social and
political institutions. The reformers in China understand that they must pursue
this course if they want their people to advance, and they chose this path
despite opposition from those who favor the status quo in China, including those
few who benefit from inefficient and corrupt state- owned monopolies and certain
elements of the military. In short, we promote reform in China by approving
PNTR, and we would reward the status quo if
PNTR is defeated. We all agree that we must promote to the path
to reform.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions that Members of the Committee may have.
END
LOAD-DATE: May 18, 2000 
