[Page: H3036]---
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. PELOSI) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, listening to my distinguished colleague from Ohio (Ms. KAPTUR) speaking earlier about the potential permanent normal trade relations vote that we will have on China soon reminded me that any opportunity I get I should come to the floor. And since there is an opportunity now, I thought I should take this 5 minutes.
As my colleagues know, President Clinton has sent a request for Congress asking this Congress to yield permanent normal trade relations with China. He bases that request on a U.S.-China bilateral agreement signed in 1999. He bases that request also on a history of absolutely noncompliance on the part of China of any trade agreements they have ever signed with the U.S., be they trade agreements for market access of U.S. products into China's market, be they trade agreements on intellectual property violations by the Chinese, be they trade agreements on use of prison labor for export, China year in and year out continues to violate these agreements, and now the President has said, the Chinese will honor this one.
Well, they are already backing off this one. In fact, in two areas of agriculture, of particular note I think to this body, the Chinese have a different interpretation. They are famous for reinterpreting treaties and agreements. For example, on the subject of wheat, the U.S. Trade Rep's factsheet says that wheat and grain, therefore, will be allowed into China. The Chinese Trade Rep says, any idea that the grain will enter the country of China is a misunderstanding. Beijing merely conceded a theoretical opportunity.
On the subject of meat, the Trade Rep's factsheet talks about meat and poultry, all forms, being allowed into China. The Chinese Trade Rep says, not so, not quite. He says diplomacy is a way of finding different forms of expression, and to that extent we found new expressions, we were diplomatic, but where there were no material concessions made.
So on the basis of a flimsy 1999 U.S.-China trade agreement, in which, by the way, there was little attention paid, practically none, to enforcement, compliance or implementation, the President is asking this body to surrender to the dictates of the regime in Beijing permanently any leverage that we have on trade and, indeed, human rights and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as well.
Even if we could put aside for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the brutal occupation of Tibet, the ongoing repression of human rights in China, the continuing proliferation of weapons, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction to rogue states, to Pakistan, the ongoing relationship between the Chinese and the Pakistanis in terms of missile technology transfer, same thing with Iran, more recently with Libya, since this 1999 U.S.-China trade agreement they have proliferated to Libya, the administration does not want that known, but it is in the public domain, so in any event, we have many areas of concern. But even if we were to make a determination strictly on
[Page: H3037]
[Time: 19:45]
It is as if the U.S. wants to trade with China in the worst possible way, and that is exactly what the President is leading us to do in the worst possible way.
There is a better way. All the President needs to do is send a request to Congress for a special waiver for China to have normal trade relations for one more year, as he does every end of May. There does not even have to be a vote on that. We do not have to have the debate. We do not have to have a vote. No one has to go on record.
In the course of the next year, if the Chinese begin for a change, a drastic change, to start honoring the commitments, they do not have to do everything. In the agreement that would not be possible, but at least to take the initial steps to honor the agreement. Then next year around this time there should be no problem with saying, all right, they honored the commitment on trade, and the WTO is a trade regiment, so on the basis of trade alone, this might work for us.
I do not know why everybody is so afraid to do it in the normal course of events. Because if we believe that China is going to honor the agreement, they should have no problem with that.
The other reason that is important is because China has not even made its agreement with the European Union. And we are not supposed to see this arrangement, we are not supposed to even be voting on this until the Chinese reach an agreement with the other members of the WTO. So, effectively, the President is asking us to vote on something that we do not know what the terms are because they have not negotiated them with the EU yet.
What the President is asking us to do is give privileges to China permanently before they ever have to honor any commitments to the WTO. Indeed, they have not even reached the agreement to join the WTO.
What the President is asking us to do is for each of us to put our good names next to his failed China policy and try to redeem it with this rush to surrender permanently to the dictators in Beijing, thereby squandering our leverage on trade, squandering our leverage on our values, and surrendering our leverage on national security.
So I would hope that our colleagues would pay attention and ask the question, where is the implementation, where is the compliance, where is the enforcement on this, and where are our national values on this?
END