Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
May 25, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1827 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY May 25, 2000 DAN GLICKMAN SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
HOUSE AGRICULTURE CHINA TRADE BILL
BODY:
May 17, 2000 Statement by Dan Glickman
Secretary of Agriculture Before the House Agriculture Committee 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.
LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2000,
Wednesday