Mr. Sweeney claims we'll get tariff benefits, even without PNTR. He left out a few facts...

From the U.S. General Accounting Office:

"The commitments provided by these bilateral agreements would be substantially less than those anticipated to be provided by China in the accession agreement and in the underlying WTO agreements... this situation could potentially put U.S. business interests at a considerable competitive disadvantage." -Report to Sen. William Roth and Rep. Bill Archer, March 17, 2000

From the U.S. Trade Representative:

"Virtually all market access negotiated for services, several critical elements for meaningful market access for goods, key provisions negotiated to safeguard against injurious imports, as well as special rules, commitments and vital enforcement rights would not be available [under the 1979 agreement]." -Letter to Rep. Charles Rangel, March 8, 2000

From the Congressional Research Service:

"As the Bilateral Agreement obviously does not contain market access commitments regarding specific [service] sectors (e.g., distribution, telecommunications), it would not subject the PRC to the full scope of those commitments... It should also be added that a number of other matters covered by GATT articles and WTO agreements are not the subject of the [Bilateral Agreement]. Among these are obligations in GATT Article XI:1, which generally prohibits quantitative restrictions; Article XIX, regarding the imposition of safeguard measures in the event of import surges...; the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, relating to the imposition of subsidies; subsidy reduction commitments attached to the Agreement on Agriculture; and the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS)... In addition, the 1979 Bilateral Agreement does not expressly cover government procurement issues, an issue which would appear to be of importance because of the extent of state trading enterprises in the PRC..." -Memorandum to Rep. Robert Matsui, March 9, 2000