[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6078-H6110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         DISAPPROVAL OF MOST-FAVORED-NATION TREATMENT FOR CHINA

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, 
I call up the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 121) disapproving the 
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation 
treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of China, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 121 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 121

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Congress does not approve the extension of the authority 
     contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     recommended by the President to the Congress on June 3, 1998, 
     with respect to the People's Republic of China.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) 
and a Member in support of the joint resolution each will control 2 
hours.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on House Joint Resolution 121.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield one-half of 
my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) in opposition to 
the resolution, and that he be permitted to yield blocks of time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in support of my resolution, and that half of our time, of the 2 hours, 
be yielded to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for purposes of 
control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that following my 
opening remarks, the gentleman from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Christensen) 
be allowed to manage the time in support of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 121, which would disapprove 
the annual extension of normal trade relations with China. The open 
lines of communication and exchange that accompany a basic trade 
relationship with China protect the economic and foreign policy 
interests of the United States in a strategically important region of 
the world. At the same time, trading with China allows Americans to 
play a role as a friend and teacher in opening this country to our 
ideals of freedom, democracy, and private enterprise.
  With a severe economic depression facing many Asian countries, the 
U.S. cannot afford to adopt a protectionist response to objectionable 
behavior by the Chinese Government. Certainly U.S. workers and firms 
would suffer mirror trade retaliation against the $17 billion in goods 
and services that they sell to China. In addition, consumers would see 
an increase in the prices of necessities of life in the marketplace on 
those goods that are sold in this country, imported from China. But 
revoking NTR, normal trade relations, this year could also trigger more 
currency devaluations in the region, further compounding the steep drop 
in demand for U.S. exports that has already occurred.
  For Americans, maintaining normal trade relations means preserving 
200,000 jobs supported directly by U.S. exports to China. These jobs 
typically pay about 15 percent more than non-export-related jobs. If we 
revoked NTR, China would have the legal right to retaliate by raising 
tariffs on U.S. exports in a wide range of sectors, including 
telecommunications, information technology, aircraft, soybeans, cotton 
and wheat, to name a few. Providing a tremendous competitive advantage 
to European and Japanese companies, we would be inflicting direct harm 
to U.S. workers and businesses, as well as undermining their future 
prosperity.
  Trade with China, Mr. Speaker, enhances the affordability of clothing 
and many household items, thereby making a substantial contribution to 
the standard of living of all Americans, particularly those in lower 
income categories. Failure to renew NTR would exact the highest toll on 
low-income families, resulting in an increased tax burden of about 1 to 
2 percent of their annual income, almost $300 a year.
  U.S. issues of national security are also at stake. Revoking NTR 
would deal a devastating blow to the people of Hong Kong as they 
struggle to maintain their way of life and autonomy following the 
territory's reversion to China. Taiwan's economy, too, would suffer 
severe disruption. If the U.S. is to find a common ground with China on 
issues such as North Korea and weapons proliferation, we need a 
functioning bilateral relationship.
  A Nation of 1.2 billion citizens with a history of 5,000 years cannot 
be expected to give in to our wishes because we threaten Smoot-Hawley 
tariffs, averaging about 50 percent, against their imports. Human 
nature is what it is; threats of this kind only provoke a backlash of 
resistance on the part of the country we are aiming to improve.
  We will not ensure continued improvements in respect to human rights, 
religious freedom and democratic principles by turning our backs on the 
Chinese people and relinquishing our influence, in effect, unilaterally 
turning it over to Japan and to Europe. It is crucial that U.S. 
businesses and religious leaders remain engaged in China as an example 
and as a voice for our values.
  Denying normal trade relations with China means severing ties that 
would take years to repair, so for the interests of all Americans and 
for the Chinese people, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 121.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last month the President of the United States was 
received by the Communist dictators who run China in the very place 
where those dictators killed over 1,000 people in 1989; that place was 
Tiananmen Square.
  Mr. Speaker, that was morally wrong. Indeed, as I said before the 
Committee on Ways and Means, it was morally revolting, but it 
represents the logical result of our policy of appeasement of Communist 
China. The continuing, unlinked, and the unconditional conferring of 
Most-Favored-Nation trade status on China is the cornerstone of the 
appeasement policy, Mr. Speaker, so I have introduced this resolution 
that is before the House today, again for the ninth consecutive year, 
and which would suspend temporarily China's MFN status.
  Mr. Speaker, ever since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, there 
has been a sharp division within the Congress between those who 
advocate a policy of so-called engagement with Communist China and 
those who believe that a corrupt dictatorship should not be coddled, 
especially a dictatorship that is pursuing an arms buildup of 
unprecedented scope. Look at this headline in today's paper: China 
Conducted Tests as Clinton Visited on Nuclear Missiles.
  Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. Nine years have gone by since 
1989 when Congress first debated the merits of Most Favored Nation 
status for China. The advocates of engagement with China have told us 
for 9 consecutive years running that a policy of open, unfettered trade 
with China, as my colleagues have just heard the gentleman from Texas 
say, is the way to open up the Chinese market to American goods, to 
improve the human rights conditions for the Chinese people, and to 
modify the Chinese regimes' rogue behavior around the world. Let me 
tell my colleagues, it is rogue.
  But what does the record show on opening up the Chinese markets to 
American goods? Forget it, I say to my

[[Page H6079]]

colleagues. I want my colleagues to listen to this. Since 1989, U.S. 
exports to China, which were minimal to start with, have barely 
doubled: up 120 percent. During the same period, Chinese exports to the 
United States have gone up 626 percent.
  I ask my colleagues to think about that. Go into any of the stores 
that are across this Nation. A $6.2 billion trade deficit with China in 
1989 grew from $6 billion to over $49 billion last year.

                              {time}  1045

  By the end of this year, it will nearly be $60 billion and will be 
larger than that of Japan. Can my colleagues imagine that? How does 
that happen?
  Mr. Speaker, after 19 years of providing MFN status for China, during 
which time the gross domestic product in China has grown at an average 
rate of 9 percent, listen to this, less than 2 percent of America's 
total exports are now finding their way into the huge markets that we 
keep hearing so much about. Less than one-fifth of 1 percent of our 
total economic activity is involved in trade with China after 9 years 
of MFN treatment. So much for the huge markets, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, the advocates of engagement must be incorrigible Red Sox 
fans or Cubs fans, because their battle cry is always, ``Wait until 
next year.'' But next year never comes.
  What about human rights? We need to look no further than our own 
State Department's Human Rights Report of 1997. I will quote, 
``Continued tight restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, 
association, religion, privacy and worker rights.''
  Mr. Speaker, I continue, ``Serious human rights abuses persisted in 
minority areas, including Tibet,'' and if Members have never been 
there, they ought to go and see the devastation there, ``where tight 
controls on religion and other fundamental freedoms continued and, in 
some cases, intensified.'' This is our State Department saying that.
  Sure, there is an occasional release of a political prisoner or some 
other public relations gesture. But the fact remains that more people 
are behind bars in China right now today, I urge my colleagues to 
listen to this, than when President Clinton was there 3 weeks ago. More 
people in jail. I mean, how could we live with that?
  Of the $63 billion worth of exports China sent to the United States 
last year, an estimated one-half came from companies that are 
controlled by the Chinese military or which employ prison labor. 
According to the Washington Post, American companies that buy products 
from the Chinese military and paramilitary police are some of the 
biggest names in retailing. Listen to these: Nordstrom, Macy's, K-Mart, 
Walmart, Montgomery Ward's. And just try to buy something in Staples 
not made in China. I tried and failed.
  Do my colleagues know what surge protectors are? I went in a store 
back in my district in Glens Falls, and I could not find anything made 
in America. I went into another store. These shirts that I am wearing 
cost 23 cents an hour to make in China. How can Americans compete?
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), my good friend, said it is 
going to cost us 200,000 jobs if we do not renew MFN for China. How 
about the millions of jobs that we have lost in this country over the 
last 9 years because we cannot manufacture anything competitively with 
China, and yet they will not let our goods in there.
  Mr. Speaker, to find the source of exports that do not come from the 
military, the police, or the prisons, try looking in the sweatshops 
that work people for 70 hours a week for 23 cents an hour or less. So 
much for human rights.
  And what does the record say about rogue behavior? We got our answer 
to that one 2 months ago in the form of a nuclear arms race in South 
Asia. Days before the Indian nuclear test in May, their defense 
minister stated unambiguously that China represented the number one 
threat to Indian security. That is the Chinese saying that. Where did 
Pakistan obtain the technology needed to conduct its own nuclear tests? 
China, of course. We all the know that.
  Only last week, a bipartisan congressional commission chaired by 
former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that, ``China is 
modernizing its long-range missiles and nuclear weapons in ways that 
will make it a more threatening power in the event of crisis.''
  Again, just look at this headline. The Rumsfeld report goes on to say 
that China is ``a significant proliferator of ballistic missiles, 
weapons of mass destruction, and enabling technologies that they are 
giving to other rogue nations.''
  Only just yesterday, we learned that China has added six new ICBMs. 
These are intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the United 
States of America. Six more on top of the 13 that were already aimed 
here. The Rumsfeld report warns of a link between China's ballistic 
missile capability and its regional priorities, a linkage that was 
underscored by a senior Chinese general who has questioned whether the 
United States would trade Los Angeles for Taipei. Think about that.
  Just last year a new wild card was injected into the MFN debate by 
the revelation that the Chinese Embassy in Washington may have sought 
to buy influence with the U.S. Government through campaign 
contributions. That was confirmed when fund-raiser Johnny Chung 
admitted receiving $300,000 from Chinese military officers who were 
connected to firms involved in satellite and missile technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, the odor of money and influence peddling is hanging over 
this debate, and like everything else on the whole subject of MFN it is 
going to get worse.
  The U.S. Government has looked at the record with respect to opening 
up the Chinese markets to U.S. products; with respect to encouraging 
better human rights for the Chinese people; and with modifying China's 
rogue behavior. On every account, MFN has struck out.
  Clearly, the time has come to recognize that the burden of proof in 
this debate rests with the side of engagement. We do not have to 
suspend MFN permanently. If we did it for a month or 2 weeks or a day, 
the Chinese government would come around because they lick their chops 
at 250 million Americans with the greatest buying power in the world 
and they want to sell to us. Let us at least give our own people a fair 
bargain.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak in opposition to H.J. Res. 121, and support the 
continuation of trade relations with China. I oppose the resolution on 
the floor because I believe that our national strategic interests, not 
just our commercial interests, are at stake.
  The U.S.-China relation is by far the most important bilateral 
relationship the United States will have in the 21st century. A 
constructive positive economic and political relationship with China is 
a key to a long-lasting peace and prosperity and stability in Asia and 
throughout the world.
  Democratic and Republican presidents, President Carter, President 
Reagan, President Bush, and President Clinton have all recommended the 
extension of normal trading relations with China each year since it was 
first granted in 1980.
  We have also 17 former Secretaries of State, Defense, and National 
Security Advisors and they have written a bipartisan open letter to 
Congress urging the continuation of normal trade relations with China.
  They point out that normal trade relations advance our interests in 
China by continuing to open and reform its economy and improve the 
quality of life of its citizens. They underscore that the vital 
importance of continuing the engagement with China is serving America's 
best economic and national security interests.
  As said by previous speakers, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) 
in particular, China represents 23 percent of the world population. One 
person in every five living on this planet is a Chinese citizen. We 
cannot ignore this simple reality and we cannot and should not try to 
isolate China. Rather, we should continue to build upon and strengthen 
the positive relationship which has undeniably been an engine for 
change in China.
  This was demonstrated most recently and visibly on the President's 
recent trip to China last month when human rights and other sensitive 
issues were openly discussed and televised for the first time.

[[Page H6080]]

  There is no disagreement about the fact that China still has a long 
way to go in granting its citizens basic human rights and religious and 
political freedoms. We all know that. Change toward respect for human 
values that we cherish is gradual and obviously slower in this case 
than we wish.
  The Chinese market, of course, is not as open to our goods and 
services as we speak, and China may have shared nuclear technology with 
other nations. These are the kinds of things that obviously we deplore. 
But China is also working with us to restore stability in the Asian 
region. It is assisting in the prevention of the spread of nuclear 
weapons.
  As we know with the Asian financial crisis, which many of the 
economists in the world and in the United States in particular have 
said is comparable to the prelude before the 1930 ``Great Crash,'' the 
Chinese are assisting us by maintaining the value of its currency and 
not devaluing, obviously causing economic harm to its own citizens, 
unlike some other Asian countries, and encouraging a peaceful 
resolution in the differences among South Asian countries and certainly 
in the Korean Peninsula.
  Such cooperation on areas of mutual national interest is the result 
of a constructive diplomacy and engagement. And while we also continue 
to deal forthrightly with Chinese leaders on these areas of 
disagreement, we continue to press them in the area of human rights and 
obviously democratic principles. In fact, as many of us know, we are at 
this time working with China on an issue called the rule of law. It is 
going to take a great deal of time to get the Chinese to understand 
that they have a right to sue in their courts, but we are slowly making 
progress in that area. We believe that in the area of commercial rules 
of law, eventually and hopefully it will move into the area of human 
rights and due process, items that we in our country cherish.
  Revoking normal trade relation status will not only hurt U.S. 
exporters and help foreign competitors in the Chinese markets, but it 
will not really close our bilateral trade deficit. We continue to 
insist, as we should, that China provide meaningful market access and 
adhere to international trading rules before joining the WTO. But China 
and Hong Kong are also major customers for U.S. products. Until the 
recent financial crisis, the increasing trade deficit has largely been 
offset in our deficit with other Asian countries, particularly the Four 
Tigers.
  Mr. Speaker, I might just add to this that the Chinese now are 
wondering whether they do want to enter into the WTO under the terms 
that we have suggested. We will allow and grant the Chinese the ability 
to enter into the World Trade Organization, but only as a developed 
nation. They want to come in as a developing nation, which means they 
will not have to comply with all the WTO rules.
  But I would have to say that ultimately we will want the Chinese in 
the WTO, because that is the way to get the Chinese to abide by 
international standards that were promulgated by over 186 countries in 
1996. Cutting off normal trade relations would cut off a vital link 
between our two countries and an important catalyst for change through 
increased business and trade contracts with Chinese leaders and 
citizens.
  Even more important, our withdrawal now from a policy of normal trade 
relations would reverse the long process of engagement to encourage 
China to be a responsible and constructive member of the international 
community.
  In effect, the enactment of H.J. Res. 121 would create a new Cold War 
in the 21st century with only negative consequences for our national 
security and certainly our own national interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cast a ``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 
121, and to support a continuation of normal trade relations with 
China.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, pending the completion of my remarks, I ask unanimous 
consent that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) be allowed to 
control the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 121, 
disapproving the extension of Most Favored Nation, or whatever they now 
want to call this gift to China. We will hear a good deal today about 
China's breaking their nonproliferation promises and treaties. We will 
hear that they were testing a rocket motor while the President was 
there, with full knowledge, I might add, of our State Department, which 
now gives China one of two intercontinental ballistic missiles in the 
world, Russia having the other.
  We will hear repeatedly about the violation of the Universal 
Declaration on Human Rights, which China, the PRC, engages in 
repeatedly. We will also hear from numerous colleagues about the 
violation and the exploitation of their own labor force, the 
destruction of young girl children, the imprisonment for slave labor.

                              {time}  1100

  And we will hear repeated statements of China's unfair trade 
practices. We will hear that they ignore intellectual property rights 
with impunity, which means they copy anything they want and reproduce 
anything they want without paying the fair share for patent or 
trademarks.
  We probably will conclude that they do not play by any rules other 
than their own, U.S. or international rules. And we may conclude, given 
this inhumane treatment of human beings and complete disregard of the 
rule of law, that the Chinese Government does not deserve normal trade 
relations with the United States. We certainly do not recognize Cuba 
for far less. So we are really treating China specially.
  Each year the issues around the debate are the same: The Members in 
this body keep saying we need continued trade, it will help change 
China's practices. It has not. They have gotten worse. No one can 
indicate on the floor today that China has improved in any way. But 
China shows no progress and we continue to accommodate, acquiesce and 
back off.
  My colleagues might begin to wonder why. Well, the reason why is that 
we are here today to bail out General Motors, General Electric, 
Motorola, Westinghouse and Boeing, the five largest exporters to China. 
And my colleagues are going to say, well, that is just wonderful. I 
heard the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means suggest that we 
need this to protect the American economy. My distinguished colleague 
from California suggested there is a vital link.
  Well, I would agree. And in the words of Ross Perot, this vital link 
is a large sucking sound. And what we are hearing is the American 
taxpayers' dollars being sucked right out of the American taxpayers' 
pockets and awarded to General Motors, General Electric, Motorola, 
Westinghouse and Boeing.
  Now, how does this happen? My goodness, Boeing is selling a lot of 
airplanes. And my colleagues may say, bully, that is an American 
company, but the fact is there is a hitch. Before Boeing can sell an 
airplane, Boeing must build a factory in China or China will not let 
them sell any airplanes. Okay, so they build a factory. My colleagues 
may say there will be some more jobs. Wrong again. China requires that 
Boeing hire Chinese people in China.
  The net result is that we are not creating any new jobs, and we may 
lose some net jobs as Boeing is attracted to build more than just what 
they sell in China, but a few extra tail sections for 727s, or whatever 
they are building over there, because it saves them some money. So the 
jobs leave and we get no gain there.
  Well, then one might say, but Boeing is making some money on this and 
it helps the U.S. economy. Wrong again. The dollars that Boeing makes 
stay in China. And by staying in China, the taxpayers of America lose. 
We are not collecting any income tax from Boeing on the money they make 
and invest in China. That means American taxpayers are being suckered 
big time. We are paying extra income tax to allow Boeing to take this 
profit and invest it in China.
  Well, my colleagues say, maybe some day that will come home. This is 
not the end. For those of my colleagues

[[Page H6081]]

who are waiting for the real kicker in this, it is not enough that the 
taxpayers of the United States are subsidizing Boeing, who are putting 
the money in China at our cost, we have got to protect them.
  Not that we have to protect them with a lot of troops, we are going 
to hear about IMF, which means that now that Boeing and General Motors 
and General Electric and Westinghouse have all of this money in China, 
we cannot let the currency be devalued. So the taxpayers, suckers 
again, hearing that big sucking sound in this vital link, are going to 
be asked to come up with $18 billion more to protect the money that was 
already taken out of their pockets to give to Boeing and General 
Electric and General Motors and Westinghouse to invest in China.
  It is a sucker game. It is a sucker game by the major corporations in 
this country who are being subsidized by the American taxpayers to 
invest in China while we lose jobs in America; while all we get back 
from China are shelves stocked in our big box warehouse stores so we 
can buy cheap Nikes and cheap T-shirts as we lose good productive 
factory jobs, as we lose tax revenue, as we lose our dignity. Because 
we do all of this while we countenance torture and we countenance 
turning our back on human rights.
  It turns all things that Americans believe in on its head and it is 
wrong. That is what the trouble is. It helps no one but the large 
corporations in this country. And they are perfectly willing, in the 
interest of maximizing profits, to ignore the human rights that are so 
vital to our country's continued existence.
  So I urge my colleagues to honestly look at the promises made and 
broken, the PRC's sale of weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapon 
materials, and the growing trade imbalance, and say, why am I doing 
this? Is it so important to bail out General Motors and Boeing and 
General Electric and Westinghouse? Have they contributed so much to my 
campaign that I have to vote to perpetuate this dishonest, immoral 
regime by subsidizing them with taxpayers' money?
  I think my colleagues will find, if they examine their consciences, 
that it is in our interest and the interest of all American taxpayers 
to support the resolution, and I hope my colleagues will join me in 
voting to deny Most Favored Nation treatment to China until they decide 
to join the humane world of man and obey the human rights and the 
dignity and liberty that we all enjoy.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I know that we want to expedite this procedure, since I see some of 
my colleagues here, like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), who 
has fought against MFN all these years; and now the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Christensen); and my good friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dana Rohrabacher) over here; because all of these 
people who have waged this battle want to make sure they are out here 
on the Capitol steps at 12:30 to catch the bus to go down to the White 
House, because at 1:30 the President will be signing the legislation 
that terminates MFN.
  We will never again be using that absurd language: Most Favored 
Nation. And so I know my friends here, who have fought this battle for 
years, are taking comfort in the realization that that label will be 
made a part of history and now we can get down to serious discussion 
about what we are really talking about, and that is normal trade 
relations. Big difference. Normal trade relations.
  So I would hope some of those who are so ecstatic over their victory 
today will pay some attention to some of the arguments. We heard some 
arguments earlier from my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon), who was concerned about what was being exported to the United 
States from China versus what we were exporting over there. And we 
heard from the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) to that effect, 
too.
  Some of the arguments advanced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) were arguments that were advanced when the textile and apparel 
industry migrated from Burlington, Vermont, to south of the Mason-Dixon 
line. They did so for labor reasons and the cost of labor. And the 
textile and apparel industry has continued that flight, as my 
colleagues know, going down to the Caribbean and other countries 
because labor is cheaper in these areas where we are talking about a 
lack of skills.
  With regard to, for example, the majority of our imports from China, 
it is underwear, it is toys, it is also footwear. Those are products 
that are certainly not high-tech but, to be sure, they manufacture good 
underwear, they manufacture good shoes, and they manufacture good toys 
over there. Our exports to them, the majority of ours, are power 
generating equipment, air and spacecraft and electrical machinery.
  Now, my home State of Illinois exports over $1 billion a year of 
products to the mainland of China, and I would like to share some of 
these products with my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark), over here, who I do not know how California is doing with 
regard to the breakdown of their list, but one of our big exports is 
scrap and waste. Scrap and waste. That is one of our big exports to 
mainland China. In addition to that, agricultural products, of course, 
is a biggie. We are an ag State.
  In addition to that, let me recite some of the big exports from the 
State of Illinois. Primary metals, stone, clay, and glass products, 
rubber and plastic products, chemical products, paper products, food 
products, electric and electronic equipment, industrial machines and 
computers. It is a wide range of goods that we in the State of Illinois 
are blessed in finding markets for.
  But that is not confined to my home State of Illinois, and I think 
that it is important for our colleagues involved in this debate to 
examine the breakdown in their own States of what their exports are; 
the component parts of their exports, but the magnitude of those 
exports.
  So I would urge my colleagues to go back now and review the 
possibility of expanding, not contracting, normal trade relations, and 
to do that we have to guarantee that we defeat H.J. Res. 121.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 121, 
offered by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), disapproving extending Most 
Favored Nation trading status to the People's Republic of China.
  This disapproval resolution sends a clear message to Beijing that our 
Nation will not reward nations that ignore international standards and 
norms of behavior, and that we expect of China, as an important member 
of the international community, to change its ways on trade, weapons 
proliferation and human rights.
  Their record to date is clear. Beijing continues to bar access to its 
markets, violates trade agreements, proliferates weapons of mass 
destruction, ballistic missiles and enabling technologies, and 
represses fundamental human rights, all while enjoying unimpeded access 
to markets of our great Nation.
  China's weapons proliferation practices are a source of significant 
international concern, especially in South Asia and in the Middle East. 
China is the number one supplier of conventional arms to Iran, 
including the C-802 cruise missile which directly threatens our troops 
in the Gulf, and has aided Teheran's nuclear and chemical weapons 
programs as well.
  China has also provided significant assistance to Pakistan's nuclear 
and ballistic missile programs that resulted in greatly increased 
tensions in South Asia. That kind of behavior should not be rewarded 
with any MFN.
  China continues to violate basic human rights of its citizenry, one 
quarter of the world's population. The PRC is a one-party authoritarian 
State where freedom of expression, assembly, and religion are 
suppressed. Thousands

[[Page H6082]]

of Chinese citizens languish in so-called reform camps for alleged 
crimes of conscience.
  Moreover, China has occupied Tibet and decimated its unique culture 
and religion since 1950. With regard to Tibet, I request that a letter 
dated July 22, from the special envoy of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, 
be inserted at this point in the Record, setting forth his Holiness's 
reservations with regard to MFN.
                                                  Special Envoy of


                                  His Holiness The Dalai Lama,

                                                    July 22, 1998.
     Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
     Chairman, International Relations Committee,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Gilman: I understand that the House will be 
     voting today on whether or not to renew Most-Favored-Nation 
     (MFN) trading status to the People's Republic of China. While 
     it is not customary for His Holiness the Dalai Lama to take a 
     position on specific legislation, in this case I believe that 
     some clarification of his views on trade with China may be 
     useful.
       As you may be aware, some House Members are using quotes 
     from recent interviews with the Dalai Lama to justify MFN 
     renewal. The Alliance of Christian Ministries ran a full-page 
     ad in the Washington Post with the same intention. On neither 
     occasion, were statement concerning MFN attributed to the 
     Dalai Lama. But on both occasions, the suggestion was that 
     the Dalai Lama would support MFN renewal. Of course, I was 
     unhappy to see the Dalai Lama used in a debate in which he 
     has not been party.
       It is true that the Dalai Lama supports the U.S. process of 
     engagement with China. However, the Dalai Lama has clearly 
     stated that he does not support engagement if its primary 
     goal is material enrichment. All decisions, he believes, must 
     be guided by moral and ethical principles, including whether 
     or not China should benefit from most-favored-nation trade 
     status.
           Sincerely,

                                                Lodi G. Gyari,

                                     Special Envoy of His Holiness
                                                   the Dalai Lama.

  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, Beijing even refuses to renounce the use 
of force against Taiwan.
  Our Nation should base our foreign policy, including trade, on the 
values that have made our Nation an indispensable Nation in the world 
community for democracy, for freedom, for human rights and the rule of 
law.
  But, even if one believes that such issues such as human rights and 
weapons proliferation should not be linked to trade, continued MFN for 
China is a bad trade deal for our Nation.

                              {time}  1115

  Beijing continues to impose a 23-percent tariff on American goods 
shipped to China, while Chinese products entering our market enjoy a 
preferential 4-percent tariff under MFN. The trade deficit with China 
is now over $60 billion, that is with a ``b'', $60 billion, up 33 
percent from only 2 years ago.
  Our trade deficit with China will soon be the largest, even bigger 
than with Japan. The United States has been trying to negotiate a 
market opening trade agreement with China for the last 5 years, with no 
end in sight. And thanks to the trade advantage conferred by MFN, China 
now sends 33 percent of its exports to our Nation, but only 2 percent 
of our exports go to China.
  Continual renewal of MFN status, which, by the way, was never given 
to the Soviet Union, gives China no incentive to open its markets to 
American goods or to make its economy more competitive. While I am on 
the side of American business, American business is not being treated 
fairly in the Chinese market. American firms allowed to do business in 
China are forced to transfer their technology there and are restricted 
on the distribution and selling of their products in China itself.
  The Chinese need our markets more than we need Chinese markets. The 
leadership in Beijing badly wants MFN status from our Nation. I think 
it is time to end an arrangement that has not been fair to American 
companies or to American workers, and I think it is time to send a 
strong signal to Beijing that this inequitable and unsustainable 
arrangement must end.
  Denying MFN for China will mark an important step forward in putting 
reciprocity back into our trade relationship and will serve notice that 
we no longer will tolerate China's proliferation of weapons or 
repression of human rights. Nothing less than a strong message will 
provide the incentive that is needed for Beijing to open its markets 
and reform its behavior.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Solomon resolution, 
which revokes MFN for China.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my 
opposition to H. Res. 121, the resolution of disapproval regarding 
normal trade relations with China.
  I am concerned about the growing reluctance of the Congress to 
provide the leadership that is needed on international issues and to 
make improvements in trade relations and economic conditions throughout 
the world.
  Opponents of extending MFN have discussed China's human rights 
record, nuclear proliferation, religious freedom, and trade barriers. 
Clearly, problems exist with China and work needs to continue on all 
these fronts. However, Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, 
and Nixon have all recognized that constructive engagement is a better 
policy than isolation is.
  The reality is that China has one of the fastest growing economies in 
the world. From 1979 to 1997, China's real GDP grew at an average 
annual rate of 9.9 percent. Projected growth in China is estimated by 
some to be in the average rate of 7 percent a year over the next two 
decades. At this rate, China could double the size of its economy every 
10 years. And this policy of constructive engagement is going to ensure 
that the working men and women of the United States have access to this 
growing market opportunity.
  I represent the San Joaquin Valley of California. This highly 
productive agricultural area produces agriculture commodities worth in 
excess of $22 billion annually, more than half of which is exported, 
and China is currently the sixth largest export market for U.S. 
agriculture goods.
  In 1996, China bought over $1.9 billion of U.S. agricultural 
products. With 1.2 billion people and limited arable land, China must 
rely on imports to satisfy its demand for food. USDA estimates that 
two-thirds of the future growth in U.S. farm exports will be in Asia 
and 50 percent of that increase will come from China alone. Again, this 
policy of constructive engagement is clearly in the interest of the 
U.S. farmers.
  Our ultimate goal must be to fully integrate China into the world 
trading arena as a full participant. That means helping to encourage 
WTO accession to China to ensure that they abide by internationally 
accepted trading rules. It also means continuing bilateral talks to 
address specific issues like intellectual property rights and non-
tariff barriers.
  Madam Speaker, I recognize the problems that continue to exist in 
China, and I appreciate the efforts of some of my colleagues in 
remaining committed to making improvements in the areas of human 
rights, trade policies, and nuclear proliferation. On those issues, 
none of us disagree that there is the need to continue to define ways 
that we can see significant improvement.
  But I guess where many of us disagree is, is a policy that isolates 
the U.S. from China going to be more effective in achieving these 
improvements than the one of constructive engagement. That is where I 
clearly come down on the side that continued engagement with China is 
going to do more to ensure that the rights of the citizens of China are 
advanced both in the interest of human rights as well as religious 
persecution, and this policy of constructive engagement is clearly in 
the interest of the working men and women of this country.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the resolution to revoke most-
favored-nation status for China. I encourage my colleagues to vote in 
favor of the Solomon resolution, which would deny the special waiver 
that the President is requesting to grant MFN, NTR, whatever you want 
to call it.
  I, too, voted for the IRS reform bill which had this little provision 
in it to change the name. But a rose is a rose is a rose. And in this 
case, it is a thorn, this thorn in terms of the enormous trade deficit, 
the enormous proliferation dangers that China presents, and the ongoing 
continued repression in China and Tibet.
  Our concerns in Congress over the years have centered around three

[[Page H6083]]

issues: trade, proliferation, and human rights, and let us just from 
the start establish some ground rules. This debate is not about whether 
MFN for China will be revoked or not. We all know it will not. The 
President will not sign the bill. What this vote is today whether this 
Congress will once again associate itself with the policy that has 
failed in all three areas of concern.
  How much bigger will the trade deficit have to get for our colleagues 
to take notice? How many dissidents will have to be arrested, how much 
longer will many of them have to stay in jail for us to associate 
ourselves with their aspirations for democracy rather than calling 
Jiang Zemin, their jailor, the torturer in China and Tibet, a 
democratic leader who will take China into the future? And how much 
more proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles, 
chemical and biological war technology does China have to proliferate 
for us to say enough is enough?
  As I have said this debate is not about MFN revocation, it is about 
associating ourselves with a failed policy, or trying to give the 
President some leverage by saying this body will no longer tolerate all 
these violations of the Chinese Government in terms of trade, 
proliferation, and human rights. But on the basis of trade alone, there 
is sufficient justification, more than sufficient, to revoke most-
favored-nation status.
  When we first started this debate in the late 1980s, in 1988, the 
deficit for 1988 was about $3\1/2\ billion. For this year, for 1998, 
the trade deficit, 10 years later, will be $63 billion. And in the 
Clinton years alone, the trade deficit will be by the end of this year 
around a quarter of a trillion dollars with China alone. I repeat--in 
the Clinton years, the trade deficit with China will be about a quarter 
of a trillion dollars.
  How much is enough, and why do we have that deficit? Because as the 
President went to the Great Wall of China, he should have seen it as a 
symbol of the great wall around China's markets. China simply does not 
allow most products made in America into China.
  There is some trade: aerospace, some electronics, fertilizer. There 
are some areas. Certainly not enough from our agricultural community. 
We should be demanding more, and we are. And this trade deficit of $63 
billion does not even include the piracy of our intellectual property, 
especially software, which continues; the use of transshipments to 
avoid our quotas; the use of slave labor for exports. And the list goes 
on.
  Yes, China must come into the World Trade Organization in order to 
play by the rules. But what is more dangerous to our economy is the 
insistence of China that if we want to sell in a Chinese market, we 
must manufacture in a Chinese market and we must not only transfer our 
production, we must transfer our technology.
  And so, we have the transfer of technology to China, which will have 
a dramatic and negative impact on our own economy. As I say, a country 
that large, an economy that large that does not play by the rules is a 
danger to our own economy.
  On the technology transfer and the production transfer, do not take 
my word for it. Take the word of the president, the CEO of Boeing, who 
said, when a Boeing plane flies to China after one of aerospace sales, 
it is like it is going home so much of it has been manufactured in 
China.
  When President Clinton was at the Terra Cotta Soldiers at Tian, how 
beautiful they are, if he had gone down the road a piece he would have 
gone to the Tian Aerospace Company, where 20,000 Chinese workers make 
$50 to $60 a month making the tailpiece for the Boeing 747, $50 to $60 
a month. So if they want to call it normal trade relations, I do not 
know what their definition of ``normalcy'' is, but this is certainly 
not trade which is trade to the American workers.
  Our colleagues who support normal trade relations with China will 
tell us that China's exports to the United States have risen four times 
in the past 10 years. But do my colleagues know how many times our 
imports from China have risen? They have grown about 30 times. From 
1985 to 1997, China's exports have increased 30 times, while our sales 
to China have only risen four times.
  So let us be fair about how we present this picture. And the news in 
the paper today is not good. Let me talk about what is new on trade. 
The trade figures that came out the other day were very damning. The 
trade deficit for May of this year was 25 percent higher than it was 
for May of last year and almost 10 percent higher than April of this 
year. So the trade deficit continues to grow.
  Then we get to the subject of proliferation. What is new in that 
arena? As my colleagues know, the Office of Naval Intelligence last 
year said that China was the biggest and most dangerous proliferator of 
weapons of mass destruction technology to the Middle East. That Office 
of Naval Intelligence is not going to put out a report this year. But 
the CIA report that was held up until after the President's visit, by 
the way, but was just released demonstrates a similar and continuing 
pattern.
  In this morning's paper it was announced that while President Clinton 
was in China pronouncing that nonproliferation was a major part of his 
agenda, the Chinese were testing a ballistic missile right at that very 
time, right in the face of the President's visit. How insulting!
  While the President was there, the Chinese, on the subject of human 
rights, were rounding up dissidents and since the President's departure 
have continued to round up dissidents. Today the Washington Post writes 
about a continuing pattern of repression since President Clinton left 
China. So what was accomplished by all that?
  We would think, with the hand of friendship that President Clinton 
had extended to the Chinese, that they would have offered him some 
level of cooperation. But they handed him the three noes. No, we are 
not going to sign the Missile Technology Control Regime to stop the 
proliferation. We will study it. They have been studying it for years. 
We will sign at some later date the Convention on Civil and Political 
Rights. Kick that can down the road again. And, no, we are not going to 
lower our barriers to allow us to become qualified to join the World 
Trade Organization.
  They handed the President the three noes, and the Administration 
declared that that was a success. When is this House going to face the 
facts? Why is the House in a state of denial? But I have confidence, my 
friends, because I truly believe that we all believe in promoting human 
rights in this country and throughout the world; and I do believe that 
we associate ourselves with the pillars of our foreign policy, which is 
to promote our economy through promoting our exports, which is to 
promote democratic values, and to stop the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction.
  So a vote today is not about MFN alone, although that would be a 
justified vote. It is about a policy that is not in keeping with the 
pillars of our own foreign policy. Vote no on MFN. Vote yes on the 
resolution to make the trade fairer, to make the world safer, and to 
make the people freer.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and I want to congratulate him for his leadership on this issue, 
and for the efforts that he has made through the years to help us 
maintain normal trade relations with China. He has been a giant in this 
fight.
  Madam Speaker, I also want to respond to the comments that were just 
made by the gentlewoman from California, my friend and an individual 
whom I have a lot of respect for. She asked the question at the end, 
``Are we into denial? When are we going to stop denying reality?'' I 
might turn the question around and say, when instead are we going to 
get out of the time warp that this body has been in with regard to 
U.S.-China relations, a time warp that goes back to a deep, dark Cold 
War era and does not recognize the massive changes that are taking 
place not just in China and the United States but in the region around 
it.
  On the figures of trade that the gentlewoman pointed to, Madam 
Speaker, I would note that those trade figures do not include what is 
generally considered greater China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. We have a 
very different picture when we look at that. That really

[[Page H6084]]

is the China that we are talking about as a larger trading China. But 
even then, I concede there is still a trade deficit with greater China.
  And so I would ask the gentlewoman, at what point is the deficit 
small enought that it is acceptable to trade? When we have a trade 
deficit of only $10 billion, of $5 billion? Or is it only acceptable to 
trade with countries with whom we have a trade surplus? That would be 
unrealistic. And so I do not think that that really should be the 
criteria for maintaining normal trade relations.
  But I want to address my remarks, if I might, Madam Speaker, to some 
other issues here. We are going to hear a lot--we have already heard--a 
lot of rhetoric about China and U.S.-Chinese relations. Unfortunately, 
most of this rhetoric tends to focus not on the larger picture but 
instead upon 100 little anecdotes. Those who want to cut off relations 
with China pursue their case here on the House floor with stories of 
gulags and imports produced by forced labor. They weave stories of 
Chinese government conspiracies to steal American jobs through unfair 
competition. They talk about individual stories of forced abortions and 
political repression. They take these anecdotes, these hundreds of 
little snapshots, and they lay them side by side until a verbal collage 
emerges, one which is designed to incite fear and intimidation in the 
hearts of the American people.
  Any picture that emerges makes our hearts ache. We can see the 
exploited workers. We can visualize each individual story of political 
or religious repression. We see the tanks in Tiananmen Square. And we 
find ourselves affirming the tale of a Chinese army using trade with 
the U.S. to finance a massive military buildup, a buildup which somehow 
one day will lead to our own demise. Add to this the allegations of 
Chinese money illegally flowing into our electoral politics and we have 
all the stuff of a John LaCarre novel. In a Nation attuned to sound 
bites and slogans, this is a compelling story. But I submit that while 
these anecdotes may be individually accurate, woven together they tell 
only part of the story. The real story in China is one of slow and 
steady progress toward open markets and individual empowerment. Two 
decades ago virtually every aspect of Chinese society was under state 
control. Today over half of China's output is generated by private 
enterprise. Eighty-five percent of China's workers are employed in the 
private sector. The development of a strong, vibrant private sector, 
particularly in southern China, continues to draw power away from 
Beijing.
  Economic liberalization, the growth of trade, and economic links with 
the United States over the past two decades has promoted freedom for 
the Chinese people. With growing employment opportunities in nonstate 
enterprises, millions of Chinese have obtained the basic freedom to 
select their own employment and to change jobs when dissatisfied with 
working conditions or wages. That is why I am convinced a policy of 
engagement is working on behalf of the Chinese people as well as in our 
own national interests.
  If we look at the big picture, we will see a policy of engagement 
that is slowly and steadily working to liberalize China economically 
and expose the Chinese to Western values.
  Madam Speaker, it is time we moved beyond the anecdotes, the 
rhetoric, and the snapshot mentality of looking at U.S.-China 
relations. It is time we begin to think about a multi-year renewal of 
normal trade relations. I urge my colleagues to begin this process 
today by voting ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 121.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Solomon resolution disapproving most-favored-nation status for 
Communist China. Decisions like the one we are making today on this 
resolution define us as Members and define our Congress and our country 
as well, what do we hold dear, and for whom do we care and do we have 
convictions and principles that are transcendent above the monetary 
personal gain of a few powerful and rich interest groups. And do we 
have the strength of our convictions and the courage to stand up for 
our principles. These are all things that will be reflected in the 
decision we make today on this resolution and debates like the one we 
are having today.
  This debate is not about engagement or even about whether or not 
there should be trade between the United States and the Communist 
Chinese regime. We will hear that studded in the arguments against this 
resolution. It is not about engagement and not about whether there 
should be trade. Whether or not we have most-favored-nation status, big 
companies can still go over and trade with Communist China. There will 
still be engagement.
  Ronald Reagan never suggested that the Soviet Union while controlled 
by the Communist Party should have most-favored-nation status. That is 
why communism and tyranny disappeared in the former Soviet Union and 
they are now struggling for freedom. The question is how we should 
engage the regime, the regime that we must remember is currently the 
worst human rights abuser on the planet and a dangerous potential enemy 
for the United States.
  The question is what kind of trade rules shall apply. The current 
rules of engagement with Communist China, this dictatorship with its 
massive human rights abuses, have made Communist China grow stronger 
and more powerful and more repressive. A $60 billion annual trade 
surplus is being used by the Communist Chinese regime to build up its 
military and build weapons that could someday incinerate the people of 
the United States and kill, at the very least, kill our defenders.
  Today in the Washington Times we see a banner headline saying when 
President Clinton was in China recently talking about peace, even 
strategic partnership, reaching out his hand to the Communist Chinese, 
they were testing a new series of rocket engines that threaten the 
people of the United States.
  This is a farce. We are being played for suckers. Of course that has 
happened in the past, has it not? But our current policies toward 
Communist China have been contrary to our principles, our belief in 
liberty and justice, it has been contrary to our economic interests and 
contrary to our national security. Human rights abuses which we will 
hear about today continue and are far worse today than they were 10 
years ago, contrary to what the proponents of most-favored-nation 
status would tell us.
  In Tibet, they could incinerate the entire country of Tibet and we 
would still have big business here trying to tell us we are going to 
make the Communist Chinese more freedom-loving if we just trade with 
them, which means a quick buck for these big businessmen and means an 
out-of-work pink slip for our own workers here in the United States.
  Yes, and they are still arresting dissidents. Right after our 
President left China, they rounded up a bunch more dissidents, 
Christians and Muslims and the Buddhists in Tibet still being repressed 
and thrown into damp prisons while we sit here in this wonderful body 
and debate in the coolness of this Chamber this issue.
  No, our current trade policies have hurt our country. Yes, they have 
enriched some very major corporations. But this is not about free 
trade. Again, these companies can still go over there and trade. They 
can sell their wares. What is most-favored-nation status really about? 
I believe in free trade. I believe in free trade between free people. 
Most-favored-nation status is about whether or not these companies will 
be provided by the American taxpayer guarantees and subsidies for 
investments that they make in China that will put our own people out of 
work. Through the Export-Import Bank, through OPIC, the World Bank, IMF 
and the rest, these companies if we have most most-favored-nation 
status will put the American taxpayer behind the loans they need to 
create manufacturing units in China to put our people out of work. That 
is a betrayal of our own people.
  The relationship, the rules of the game with China have worked 
against our national security, our people's interest as well as the 
fundamental principles of liberty and justice that America stands for.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

[[Page H6085]]

  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Madam Speaker, first of all, to clarify the comments of 
the gentleman who just spoke, it is my understanding while Ronald 
Reagan never asked for MFN status for the Soviet Union, he did 
repeatedly ask and receive MFN status, now normal trading relation 
status, for the People's Republic of China. Apparently that was an 
oversight in the gentleman's comments.
  This is a difficult question. I think everybody on both sides of the 
issue has strong convictions. I think they are all pretty much 
courageous, contrary to what the gentleman from California has said. 
But I think we have to look at this in both the short term and the long 
term. This year, I think the short term is actually more important than 
the long term.
  I appreciate the concerns regarding Chinese domestic policy, and I 
agree with just about everything the gentlewoman from California stated 
regarding human rights, weapons proliferation and labor and trade 
practices in China. But the reality is that China is now our fourth 
largest trading partner, and it is a billion-person market which in the 
long term will become even more important to the U.S. economy if we are 
going to remain the world's largest economy. I think every Member of 
the House believes that is in the best interests of the United States.
  But in the short term, I think we have to look at the situation as it 
affects the country. China is part of what is at least a quarter if not 
more of the U.S. export market. It is an area of the world which is in 
a severe, or heading into a severe recession. The Chinese have tried to 
move their economy towards more market rationalization which I think 
Members on both the left, the right and in the middle would like to see 
the Chinese do because I think all of us, I certainly am a capitalist, 
believe is the best economic structure. The Chinese as they have done 
that, as they have seen their unemployment rate rise in their country 
in trying to move towards democratization, have also made a point of 
not devaluing their currency. That is terribly important if we are 
going to see the Asian economies, the South Korean economy, the 
Japanese economy, the Indonesian, Malaysian, Thai economies come back 
on the rise.
  Why is that important? Because again that is where we sell at least a 
quarter to almost a third of U.S. exports. I do not think we want to 
see that export market go away. But if we impose what this bill would 
do, if we were to allow that to become law, U.S. companies would not be 
able to go over there and trade, because there would be a tariff 
differential which would raise the price of U.S. goods. It would cause 
serious problems in our economy and it would be using a blunt 
instrument where a scalpel is needed. Furthermore, in the long term, it 
would impact our ability to bring the Chinese into the WTO, which I 
think is also in the best interests of the United States, and bring 
them in as a developed nation and not a developing nation as they would 
seek to do.
  How are we going to convince them that we want them to come in as a 
developed nation, not a developing nation, when we turn around and club 
them in the head as this type of legislation would do? This is a bad 
idea that will only hurt the American worker and the American economy. 
I would urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished Democratic whip, a champion of 
workers rights and human rights throughout the world.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time and commend her for her leadership on this issue.
  Printing up T-shirts should not be a political offense, but it is in 
China. Zhou Guoquiang, a lawyer and democracy advocate, is in prison 
today because he printed up a T-shirt that read ``labor rights''. Maybe 
that should not surprise us. China is famous for throwing people in 
prison, even executing them, for the slightest murmur of dissent.
  Yet, this Congress is considering rewarding China with most-favored 
nation status. Supporters say this is good for trade. Most-favored 
nation? Good for trade? The Commerce Department projects our trade 
deficit with China this year is growing by more than $1 billion a week 
and could reach $60 billion this year alone.
  Of course, part of the problem is that China pays its workers $2 a 
day and imposes a unilateral tariff averaging 35 percent on American 
goods. So we have got low wages, tariffs, deficits. That is not in my 
estimation free trade. That is not fair trade.
  Things are only getting worse. One of our fastest growing exports to 
China, of course, is our jobs. Electronics assembly, auto parts, toy 
manufacturing, even high-tech aerospace work, these are the kinds of 
good American jobs that are rushing to China in a race to the bottom.
  When Chinese workers speak out for better wages and better working 
conditions, when they try to form a union or even just print a T-shirt 
calling for greater democracy, the government throws them in prison. 
Should we not here be condemning such behavior instead of rewarding it? 
Should we not back up our words with action?
  If we reward China with MFN status, we are telling them that a 
unilateral 35 percent tariff is fair. If we reward China with MFN 
status, we are telling them that a $60 billion trade deficit is 
acceptable. If we reward China with MFN status, we are telling them 
that political persecution and forced labor are okay as long as they do 
not appear on the 6 o'clock news. That is not right, and we need to 
stand up and take a stand against it.
  If we do not fight for fairness and freedom in human rights, it will 
not happen. If we do not take a stand for people like Zhou Guoquiang, 
what message are we sending to the rest of the world? China has not 
earned the status of most-favored nation. Until it demonstrates a 
commitment to real reform, fair trade, and human rights, I cannot vote 
to give it that status. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on MFN.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Ewing), our good friend and colleague from my home State.
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EWING. Madam Speaker, I want to first thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane) for the outstanding work he does in regard to the 
trade relations with China.
  I rise today in opposition to the motion to reject normal trading 
relations with China. I realize there are many very deeply held views 
on this matter. I personally, as a Member of this body, have come to 
the conclusion that contact and relations and trade is the way to 
improve life in China. It is also very important to life in this 
country.
  There are only six countries that do not have normal trading 
relations. Since 1971, China has moved from 15th to fourth among our 
trading partners in importance. Revoking normal trade relations would 
take the U.S. out of China's market at a very critical time when the 
China market development is going our way. It would allow our 
competitors in Europe and Latin America and Australia to come in and 
fill the gap.
  Agriculture has a unique role in our export portfolio. While the 
total U.S. trade position has been in deficit, U.S. agricultural 
exports are in a surplus. More than a million American jobs depend on 
agricultural exports. China is one of our most important markets.
  Both sides are concerned in this body, both sides of the aisle, 
concerned about the agricultural economy. We are moving bills. We are 
doing things. We are debating on this floor how we keep agriculture 
strong in America.
  I say there is no time in American history that is more important for 
good bilateral relations and importance of U.S. China relations. It is 
time this body quit micromanaging our relationship with China. Not one 
of our trading partners has anything resembling this annual debate 
about normal trade relations. The annual fight places American 
interests in China at an extreme disadvantage. I suggest we reject this 
resolution.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith).

[[Page H6086]]

  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong 
support of this resolution. We do not have a normalized trade 
relationship with China even if it is written on paper. We must not 
isolate China. Actually, we need to continue to reach out and build a 
strong relationship with China. But we cannot reach out and close our 
eyes and our conscience at the same time and be the America that I grew 
up in.
  I agree with labor on this. Last year, the United States racked up a 
merchandise trade deficit, a real trade deficit of $50 billion. It was 
$40 billion the year before. But look back a little bit. In 1980, we 
did not have a trade deficit with China.
  You see, China is enjoying this new global economy, but they are not 
acting normal. We can change the words to ``normal trade'' from ``most-
favored nation status,'' but it still is not true that it is going to 
happen. It is obviously on paper.
  In Washington State, China today blocks all the wheat, most all of 
the apples. We hope it will be a market someday, but it is not. We can 
say it is a market, and it is our biggest market; but if they do not 
accept our goods, it is not a market.
  In the aerospace industry, China is forcing local investment and 
production at the expense of U.S. jobs. It is as simple as that. They 
require the technology be transferred and most of the planes be built, 
and they are building their own planes now. In fact, they plan on 
having their own production, their own companies run by the Red Army in 
the near future. What kind of assurance does that give the workers in 
my State that they will even have a job in 10 years? Not much.
  I think that when we turn to our conscience, we have to decide if 
America does care about freedom around the world or if the almighty 
dollar is more important than that. I think that we have to start 
thinking about the conscience of America, because if America loses its 
conscience, who is America?
  I know we are standing here and a lot of us are thinking about the 
big international corporations. Our districts are going to be really 
mad if the international market is not left open so they can continue 
to move their production.
  But I want to start you thinking. Hewlett Packard in our State moved 
1,000 jobs mostly to China 2 months ago. Those people we are trying to 
find service jobs for, sales jobs for, but there is no production. How 
much of that can we have before the families go home, and there is 
nobody home when the kids go home because mom and dad are both working 
two jobs?
  This is very serious, folks. It goes right to the heart and 
conscience of America. Let us back up and say no today. But let us 
reach out and say let us have trade with a conscience, a strong 
conscience; and that is what America is all about.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
H.J. Res. 121, the disapproval of normal trade relations with China.
  This debate in this Chamber today is entirely legitimate. There are 
people here of goodwill who strongly disagree about the manner in which 
we are about to proceed. But the argument comes down to whether or not 
we should move forward with some faith or it be turned back by fear.
  There is obviously a new twist to this debate this year as we now 
move to the statement of normal trade relations with China. But that 
statement is, indeed, a more accurate description of this trade 
relationship.
  Currently the United States holds normal trade relations with all but 
seven nations. We all acknowledge that the relationship between the 
United States and China is complex. There are many issues, such as 
human rights and democracy and nonproliferation and Taiwan and Tibet 
and trade and intellectual property rights, that make this relationship 
at times confusing.
  But the relationship at the same time is fragile, and we have to 
carefully strike an intelligent balance. This relationship is like 
walking on a tight rope, because one misstep on either side could throw 
the relationship into imbalance permanently.
  A sound relationship with China at the end of the day is in our best 
national interest. China is the world's largest country. We tried 
isolation for the better part of this century. Is there anybody here 
who would argue that that policy worked?
  We tried it and that policy failed, and we ought not on this occasion 
to repeat the mistakes of the past. Engagement with China is the best 
solution. China in this modern age cannot be isolated. We have to 
continue to engage China in a dialogue that promotes mutual interests 
and obviously a continued focus on human rights.
  President Clinton, in what I think is one of his best moments during 
the last 6 years, has just returned from a very successful visit to 
China. That relationship was advanced during Bill Clinton's visit as he 
offered a nationwide broadcast that offered his views in a candid 
moment. The broadcast of President Clinton enabled Chinese citizens to 
see the President of the United States on live TV, and everywhere 
across this globe people are marching to the drumbeat of democracy or 
at least embracing its concepts, and that will be true in China shortly 
as well.
  While Bill Clinton was there, he aggressively addressed human rights 
issues. He spoke to the notion of democracy and he spoke eloquently 
about religious freedom.
  The Dalai Lama, in a New York Times interview, referred to the 
President's press conferences as, quote, one of the best things that 
has ever happened for the Tibetan cause. We can build upon what 
President Clinton started on his visit and continue to engage the 
Chinese in a dialogue about human rights and freedom.
  Normal trade relations go beyond just the trade of goods. It is about 
exchanges of ideas and democracy and human rights as well.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) is recognized for three and a half minutes.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Speaker, the American people are fed up. The 
American worker feels betrayed, and you cannot blame them. Communist 
China has a 34 percent tariff on our products. Communist China sells 
missiles to our enemies, and a recent report says communist China has 
purchased more intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear 
warheads and is pointing those warheads at every major city in the 
United States.
  Think about it. Intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear 
warheads aimed at every American city, purchased by Chinese communist 
dictators with American dollars taken from American workers. 
Unbelievable.
  Even as the President recently visited China, listen to the 
intelligence report of our own government: The Chinese communists test-
fired, quote/unquote, test-fired a rocket motor that could propel a 
nuclear warhead at every American city and could wipe out the capital 
of the United States in a heartbeat. Beam me up, ladies and gentlemen.
  Communist China does not deserve special treatment.
  Candidate Clinton said George Bush is soft on China; no MFN. Ronald 
Reagan, for the record, never granted a special favored treatment to 
the Soviet Union and they no longer exist. What has happened to us? 
What has happened to us, ladies and gentlemen? They tried to buy our 
last presidential election. They are buying our secrets and technology 
if they can't bribe their way to get them. They are ripping us off in 
trade to the tune of $60 billion a year, taking $60 billion out of our 
economy; over one million American jobs lost every year. Are we stupid?
  This is not even a debate about trade anymore. Today's debate is 
about national security and, by God, the Congress, if they do not 
approve this resolution, will be financing the greatest military threat 
in the history of the United States.
  Quite frankly, I do not understand the White House. I am going to 
tell it right the way it is. The White House will not wise up until 
there is a Chinese rocket stuffed right up their assets. They are so 
dumb on this issue they could collectively throw themselves at the 
ground and miss.

[[Page H6087]]

                              {time}  1200

  I support this resolution. I do not want to hear any more mumbo-jumbo 
about trade. We are getting our clock cleaned. China knows it, and they 
are taking it all the way to the bank with a smile on their face.
  Not for me. Not for me. I will not support one more special favored 
treatment for Communist China, and advise everybody to do likewise.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have a quote here for my friend who was just in the 
well from President Ronald Reagan while he was President. He said,

       The U.S. and China, despite their differences, hold more 
     than enough in common to provide firm ground on which they 
     can work together for the benefit of both. China and America 
     have begun a productive partnership.

  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. While I 
strongly support efforts to improve human rights in China and to 
influence their defense and foreign policies, this resolution will only 
undermine our work in these areas and compromise our national economic 
interests. U.S. engagement has brought concrete results in human 
rights, defense and foreign policy areas. We must continue normal trade 
relations with China to further these and all American interests.
  Only continual communication, contact and engagement can bring China 
into the world community of nations on the basis of the values that 
unite the world leaders, who share a commitment to market economic 
principles as the only hope for a prosperous world, who support 
democratic political principles as the only hope for a peaceful world, 
and who oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  The pace of change in China is accelerating. The government is 
accepting a measure of debate in political matters that was unheard of 
just a few years ago.
  Earlier this year, a former Chinese Government official distributed 
an essay on advocating free elections at the highest level of 
government without censure. Further, well-regarded economists and 
professors have also spoken out freely for the first time in favor of 
democracy. The climate is changing in China, and our engagement is 
generating results in the important area of human rights.
  But trade and investment are bringing constructive change on many 
fronts in China. United Technology Corporation, Connecticut's second 
largest employer and one of the most active United States companies in 
China, has been working with the Chinese equivalent of our EPA to 
establish the highest world standards for the building of manufacturing 
plants in China. This not only will help them avoid the mistakes that 
we made that so polluted our environment, but it also will assure that 
our companies who build to those standards will not be at a competitive 
disadvantage, and it begins to lay that foundation of law and principle 
that we need China to adopt to be part of the World Trading 
Organization and part of the GATT trading protocol based on universally 
accepted legal standards.
  PPG Industries also participates in joint venture manufacturing in 
China. Each of their operations require compliance with PPG corporate 
environmental health and safety programs, which in America are 
considered the best practices in the United States, and far more 
demanding and respectful of people's rights than the common practice in 
China.
  PPG summarizes the impact they are having in China by saying ``There 
are roughly 2,000 Chinese citizens who now have some understanding of 
American ideas, work styles, management methods and commitment to 
market economies, free information flow, ethics and human values.''
  My point is that engagement, continual engagement, and contact, 
people-to-people, is what builds knowledge of the very values that 
underlie democracy and market economies. Only engagement can create 
that fundamental foundation, that change in people's beliefs about 
their own rights and opportunities, on which a modern China depends and 
on which a strong world community of nations will depend, a community 
of nations capable of spreading prosperity throughout the world and of 
keeping the peace.
  We must not reject normal trade relations with China. If we do, we 
abandon the one rational hope for social and political reform in the 
People's Republic of China, the process of change from within.
  I could give examples of how our failure to stand by normal trade 
relations will cost Americans jobs, examples of products in which we 
are making the parts and they are assembling them, but I do not have 
that time. I just say that on every front, engagement will create both 
a China that can govern with us to create a prosperous world, but also 
a China that will help create a peaceful world with respect for human 
rights.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield two minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, polls show today that the majority of 
ordinary citizens are alarmed and offended by Chinese policies and are 
opposed to our Nation's policy of appeasing China. In the debate today, 
I feel they are being left out in the cold.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts talked about we have to walk this 
very careful walk with China. What are we scared of? I do not quite 
understand it. Are we so empowered by money that we are willing to 
compromise? U.S. policy is more concerned about the Chinese than they 
are of taking them to task, because they are afraid that it will hamper 
their ability to make these untold profits in the Chinese markets in 
the indefinite future?
  Madam Speaker, the Chinese government controls nearly all the 
industries and businesses in China. You cannot go over there and own 
your own business. The Chinese government will always own 51 percent-
plus. China is much more dependent upon access to the U.S. markets. 
Thirty-three percent of China's exports come to the U.S. Only 1.7 
percent of U.S. exports go to China.
  China uses, frankly, a trade deficit to purchase advanced military 
weapons like Russian naval weapons and to develop their own advanced 
military technology, nuclear submarines, intercontinental ballistic 
missiles and such. So, frankly, I do not understand what we are scared 
of today. Why don't we stop this appeasement?
  What is the problem here? This is the United States of America. Here 
the United States is worried about China, and we have this skewed 
policy. We impose a little 2 percent tariff on Chinese products, while 
the Chinese propose a whopping 35 percent tariff on our goods.
  Again,what are we scared of? Why are we just walking around all the 
time concerned about hampering our relationship with China? We keep 
talking about engagement at the expense of appeasement. I say to all 
Members of Congress, that in China workers attempting to organize 
unions in China today do not just face opposition from companies, they 
end up in jail, in forced labor camps. Is that the kind of policy you 
want to condone by going ahead and appeasing China?
  For all of these factors, the record deficits, the tariff gap, the 
wage disparity and the abuse of workers, that is why I rise in support 
of House Resolution 121 which disapproves most favored trade status for 
China.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, as we enter the next 
millennium, the gravest national security issue facing our Nation is 
whether the world's largest country, a country that is more than five 
times as large as the United States, becomes our most dangerous 
military threat, or our greatest economic opportunity. Whether China 
becomes a threat or an opportunity depends upon whether our policy 
becomes one of isolation or one of engagement. That is the issue that 
is to be decided by this vote.
  A vote to reject normal trade relations sends a signal to China that 
we consider them an enemy in the same way that we do our avowed enemies 
like Iraq and Libya. They will then

[[Page H6088]]

have every reason to continue to proliferate weapons to such enemies 
and to aim their missiles at the United States, because we will have 
declared that our policy is not one of engagement, of the building up 
of mutual trust and respect, but of isolation, and distrust.
  If we, though, follow the advice of the many Christian missionaries 
working in the villages in China that have asked us to establish 
permanent, normal trade relations with China, we will embark on a path 
toward peace and prosperity in the next millennium, because what we are 
talking about goes far beyond dollars and cents here. What we are 
talking about is the spread of ideas and ideals. Foremost among those 
ideals is the value of human individualism, an ideal that is inevitable 
and indomitable in a fare society.
  China is a nation with a tremendous work ethic and a rich historic 
culture. Its historic ethic can enhance the entire world's march toward 
peace and prosperity. But that destination can only be reached through 
economic interdependence and mutual respect.
  From an American nationalistic standpoint, it is important to keep 
the 200,000 jobs involved in exports to China. It is important to avoid 
passing on $500,000,000 more of Chinese tariffs to American consumers. 
But, far more important is the security and prosperity of our 
children's children. That is really what is at stake today.
  If China wants to compete on the world's market, it will eventually 
have to be, with a free enterprise economy. If China wants to lead 
politically, it will have to adopt a democratic system and if it ever 
wants to realize its full societal potential it will have to be on the 
basis of respect for human rights and liberties.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against disapproving normal trade 
relations with China. Vote for the peace and prosperity that can be 
ours if we make the right decisions on these issues.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who has been a 
champion for human rights and in very tough struggles throughout the 
world and an expert on trade issues.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, let me thank my friend from California for 
yielding me this time and congratulate her for her leadership in this 
area.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and against most-
favored-nation status for China. Yes, the United States should be 
engaged in international events and in China, and we should exercise 
leadership. That is what we have done in the past.
  The United States was engaged in South Africa in its apartheid 
government. It used trade sanctions, it used its leadership to bring 
about a change in that government without bloodshed. That is 
engagement. That is leadership.
  The United States was engaged in the former Soviet Union that did not 
enjoy most-favored-nation status, and we brought about a change in that 
society because we were willing to exercise leadership. That is what 
the United States should be doing in China.
  The record in China is beyond dispute. Its legacy of human rights 
abuses, predatory trade actions, nuclear proliferation, and the list 
goes on and on and on, it should not have most-favored-nation status.
  I know that we are changing the name of that later today to ``normal 
trade relations,'' but there is nothing normal about a trading partner 
that pirates the software of U.S. companies, there is nothing normal 
about a trade partner that has a huge trade imbalance with us because 
of the tariffs and barriers that it has to its market, and there is 
nothing normal about a trading partner that has such a horrible record 
on human rights that we should not want to be associated with as a 
partner.
  China, with forced abortions and the way that it imprisons its own 
people because of political expression and the way that it prohibits 
religious activities, there is nothing normal about that type of 
country, and it should not enjoy normal trade relations with the United 
States.
  The Chinese philosopher Confucius told the story how when he was 
traveling with some of his followers in a remote part, he came across a 
woman who was weeping at a grave, who had just buried her husband who 
had been killed by a tiger. Confucius, talking to the woman, found out 
this tiger had also killed her husband's father, and Confucius asked, 
``Why do you still stay here with this tiger being here?'' The woman 
responded, ``There is no oppressive government here.'' Confucius told 
his followers, ``An oppressive government is worse than a tiger.''

                              {time}  1215

  Yes, the United States must be engaged in and exercise leadership, 
and in doing that we should deny Most-Favored-Nation status to China 
and exercise real leadership and engagement on the issue.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage and urge my colleagues to support the 
resolution before us.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have a quote I would like to share with my colleagues.

       A truly moral position would do two things. First, it would 
     honor those who have fallen by pursuing their lost dreams and 
     helping China reform from within. Second, it would open, not 
     shut, the door to the message of freedom and God's love. 
     Leaving 1 billion people in spiritual darkness punishes not 
     the Chinese government, but the Chinese people. The only way 
     to pursue morality is to engage China fully and openly as a 
     friend.

That quote was from the Reverend Pat Robertson on June 30 of this year.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to support normal trade relations for 
China and to oppose the resolution. American workers benefit most from 
normal trading status with China. I think the facts are very clear. If 
we reject normal trade relations with China, we do not improve the 
trade deficit, but we will see a substantial loss of exports to China.
  Now, in my State of Michigan alone there are some $365 million in 
exports each year. That supports some 5,000 jobs, not over there; they 
are here, they are in this country, in Michigan. If we translate that 
into the U.S. situation, it is approximately 25,000 manufacturing jobs 
each year that are a part of our trade with China.
  China has been reported as the world's third largest economy after 
the United States and Japan. It has by far the world's highest annual 
rate of growth of something like 9 percent, and we cannot, we simply 
cannot exclude America's companies, farmers, workers, goods and 
services from this very, very large market.
  In addition, we must remember that the U.S. trade with China is a way 
to directly permeate a society which has been closed off to the world 
for centuries. Increased economic prosperity creates a desire for 
political freedom among individuals. China's economic reforms which 
were instituted in the past 20 years have demonstrated that, and I use 
the word ``engage'', an engaged China is more conducive to change.
  The record is crystal-clear: personal freedom in China is on the 
rise, people are living better, the principles of democracy are 
spreading at the grassroots level, and there is an unquestioned 
relaxation of control over the press and the media. American principles 
are spreading in China.
  Madam Speaker, for the sake of our businesses, our jobs, our workers, 
not to mention the well-being of the Chinese people, we must reject 
this resolution. We must not slam the door on one-fourth of the world's 
population. If we really want to promote human rights and civil rights, 
and by the way, I do, and we want to plant the seeds of mutual 
understanding first, then continue normal trade relations. I urge 
opposition of this resolution.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my colleague and good friend and a true 
champion for the unborn and for human rights all around the world.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, when the People's Liberation 
Army massacred, wounded, and incarcerated thousands of peaceful pro-
democracy activists in June of 1989, the well-intentioned but wishful 
thinking and fashionable view of the 1980s that somehow the PRC was 
turning the page on repression was shattered. The myth was gone.
  The brutal crackdown on the reformers, some of whom still today 
languish

[[Page H6089]]

in gulags, in laogai, was not the end but was the beginning of a new 
systematic terror and cruelty campaign which continues to this very 
hour.
  To a significant degree, President Clinton put a happy face on China 
during his recent trip. While paying some attention to human rights, he 
minced his words, he heaped praise on Jiang Zemin and painted a largely 
upbeat, far too optimistic picture of a brutal dictatorship. He made 
the powerful architects of repression somehow look respectable. I am 
sure he meant well.
  However, Amnesty International testified at the Subcommittee on 
International Operations and Human Rights, which I chair, on June 26, 
and Amnesty believed and said that they believed that President 
Clinton's trip represented his Dunkirk, his human rights Dunkirk. It 
was.
  Stephen Rickard, director of the Washington office of Amnesty said, 
and I quote, ``The history of President Clinton's policies on human 
rights in China is unfortunately a history of retreat after retreat, 
until there is no longer any room to retreat.''
  As a trade and as a public relations trip, the trip was clearly a 
success. As a human rights mission, it was, I believe, an unmitigated 
disaster.
  Madam Speaker, it is my deeply held conviction that back in 1989 and 
by the early 1990s the hardliners in Beijing had seen enough of where 
indigenous popular appeals for democracy, freedom, and human rights can 
lead. The Communist dictatorships that controlled Eastern and Central 
Europe and even the Soviet Union had let matters get out of hand, and 
Beijing took careful note as, one-by-one, tyrants like Nicolae 
Ceausescu of Romania, Erich Honecker of East Germany, and Wojciech 
Jeruzelski of Poland were ousted.
  Everything Beijing has done since Tiananmen Square and since the 
President's trip points to a new bottom line that we ignore and that we 
trivialize at our own peril, and that is, democracy, freedom and 
respect for human rights will not happen in the PRC any time soon.
  This dictatorship is not going to cede power to and respect for the 
people of China, especially when we fail to employ the tremendous 
leverage at our disposal. However unwittingly, however unintended, we 
are today empowering the hardliners. Withholding MFN I believe will 
spur reform. Where else will the Chinese find markets for their $60 
billion worth of exports? They are not going to find it in Europe, they 
are not going to find it in South America or Central America or 
anywhere else. They want our market. We have leverage, and we are 
squandering that leverage.
  Madam Speaker, any honest assessment of the true human rights picture 
on the ground must recognize that torture, beatings, detentions and 
arrests of dissidents, even during the President's trip and immediately 
after, increased reliance on the hideous and pervasive practice of 
forced abortion and coerced sterilization, and new, draconian policies 
to eradicate religious belief, especially the underground church, the 
Christianity and the Tibetan Buddhism, all of these are on the rise.
  As a matter of fact, if we look at Tibet, there is a genocide taking 
place, ethnic cleansing. People are escaping, being pushed out; forced 
abortion is used with greater impunity there, and they are, as we all 
know, incarcerating monks as well as nuns in Tibet.
  Some have argued, Madam Speaker, that conditions have improved, and 
at times they cite the cultural revolution as a backdrop to measure 
improvement, but I believe that is a false test. The depths of 
depravity during that period have few parallels at all in history, and 
the Chinese leaders knew themselves that such extreme treatment of 
their people could not be sustained. But the real test is the post-
Tiananmen Square reality, and the jury, unfortunately, is in. China has 
failed miserably in every category of human rights performance since 
1989, and it is getting worse, not better.
  I would invite Members of this body to come to some of the hearings. 
We have had over a dozen hearings in my subcommittee, heard from 
everybody, especially the human rights community, and they speak in one 
accord, that repression is on the rise.
  Madam Speaker, I met with the great democracy wall leader Wei 
Jingsheng in Beijing before he was thrown back into jail, a man of 
candor and incredible courage. Both then and now that he is released, 
he says he is incredulous, he cannot believe how naive and shortsighted 
the Clinton Administration and the bipartisan majorities are in this 
Congress who support MFN. He cannot believe how complicit we are 
willing to be, and again I think he says, and I agree with him, some of 
it is naivete.
  At a recent hearing of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, I asked Wei 
what practical effects MFN and other concessions to the Chinese 
government had had for prisoners of conscience. He said that the 
torturers are usually more cautious in their treatment of political 
prisoners at times when the U.S. is withholding. I repeat, they are 
more cautious, this is Wei talking, and he knows, he spent years in the 
gulag; they are more cautious when we withhold something than when we 
offer it to them on a silver platter.
  He said as soon as there is a turn for the better in Sino-American 
relationships, like when the U.S. declared its intention to establish a 
strategic collaborative partnership with China, immediately the 
prisoners were beaten and received other abuses. The bully boys are 
unshackled, they can do with impunity to those human rights and 
religious prisoners as they wish.
  We heard similarly that in Xinjiang province a Muslim Uighur talked 
about they waited until right after MFN was confirmed again before they 
executed 7 people, and they killed 9 people as they paraded these 
people through the marketplace where people were crying for their loved 
ones who were going to be executed.
  Madam Speaker, I am deeply disturbed that the President did not even 
raise some of the issues that we were led to believe that he would, 
such as organ harvesting and prison labor, when we met with Jiang 
Zemin. Harry Wu has implored us, has implored us to cease our 
appeasement and to speak out boldly and strongly.
  Regarding forced abortion, the President disregarded the recent 
testimony from Mrs. Gao, a former Chinese official charged with 
administering the PRC's program in Fukien. She said, with tears in her 
eyes, ``I was a monster in the daytime, but in the evening I was like 
other women and mothers, enjoying life.'' She talked about how women 
are routinely forcibly aborted all over China, and she did it herself. 
She recently escaped China in April, and came to our subcommittee and 
gave us that information.
  Madam Speaker, for the victims of human rights abuses, the policy of 
comprehensive appeasement has been tried. Madam Speaker, we stood up to 
the Soviet Union, we said that Soviet Jews mattered, that human rights 
mattered. We withheld MFN to the Soviet Union, even risking a nuclear 
power exchange with that country at the height of the Cold War. Why can 
we not do it with China? The human rights abuses are horrific, they are 
horrendous. Appeasement does not work. We need to have constructive 
engagement that says we are willing to risk profits, to put people 
above profits, because people do matter. Let us stand with the 
oppressed, not the oppressor.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the Solomon resolution. I 
am deeply concerned about our relationships with China. They need more 
attention, not less. This is true of trade relations, of human rights, 
of Tibet, of proliferation issues. And I think the question really is 
whether denial of MFN or NTR will accomplish that goal in any of these 
areas, and I think the answer is no, it will not work.
  I want to spend my few minutes talking mostly about trade, but I do 
not view that any more importantly than I do human rights issues--I 
have worked on them over the years, or Tibet, our family has been 
deeply involved in that issue, or proliferation issues.
  Let me focus for a minute on trade. We have a skyrocketing deficit 
with China, and one can explain it in various ways. In some respects it 
is not as large as it seems if we look at the

[[Page H6090]]

whole region. But look, the point is, denial of MFN will not settle the 
problem of the trade deficit.
  China is a large, burgeoning, controlled economy. They have a very 
different system than we do. They have State subsidization. They have 
control of wages and working conditions. And it raises more 
dramatically than any other country how this country of ours, this 
beloved Nation with our free market, will relate to nations that 
control their economies, control their wages, subsidize their 
industries and the like. And what is true of China is true of other 
nations, especially in what was once called the Third World.

                              {time}  1230

  We need to face these issues in the negotiations over their status 
with WTO. We need to attack these issues directly. We need a 
comprehensive policy. Withdrawing MFN is not going to move us one step 
forward in that direction. In fact, I think it would distract from it. 
It would distract from it.
  Look, I hate the notion of isolation. I am for engagement. But there 
is something kind of in between. We need engagement but it has to be 
even more than constructive. It has to be hard-nosed. It has to be part 
of a comprehensive plan, and this annual discussion over MFN distracts 
us from arriving at this goal.
  So let us in this House, on all these issues, human rights and other 
issues, let us pledge ourselves from here on in to have a day-to-day 
involvement with these issues, not the once a year discussion through 
MFN. I oppose the Solomon resolution.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). 
We should have more discussion about this issue until we address the 
problems that have been caused by the current policy, of which MFN for 
China is the centerpiece.
  Madam Speaker, could you tell us the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Crane) has 37 minutes; the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Christensen) has 27\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) has 39 minutes; and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) has 35 minutes remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. McKinney), next in our cavalcade of the champions of human 
rights throughout the world.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, the emperor has no clothes. The United 
States has been stripped naked by the Chinese communists, and ``the 
sight ain't a pretty one.''
  Madam Speaker, our own policies support a regime that is repugnant to 
the American values we espouse so sincerely, yet we continue down the 
same dangerous path. First of all, we sell invaluable technology to the 
Chinese that increases the accuracy of their missiles. And what do they 
do? Point those very same missiles back at us.
  Then President Clinton pays Beijing a courtesy call and at the same 
time they embark on a building program for ICBMs that shakes Asian 
stability, China's neighbors, and our friends.
  So little respect do the Chinese have for our government that they 
have led us from one embarrassing event to another. The message we send 
to the Chinese is that we really do not care about those values we talk 
about, as long as they keep signing those contracts.
  The litany is a long one. China's violation of human rights; her 
unfair trade practices and obstacles to market access; China's lack of 
legal and regulatory transparency; her outrageously uncooperative 
attitude in weapons and nuclear nonproliferation; the large and growing 
U.S. trade deficit with China; and, more recently, the allegedly 
illegal Chinese donations.
  Candidate Bill Clinton said, ``We will link China's trading 
privileges with its human rights record and its conduct on trade and 
weapons sales.'' But Bill Clinton's own State Department has this to 
say about China: ``The government continued to commit widespread and 
documented human rights abuses in violation of internationally accepted 
norms.''
  Maybe the United States is following the bad advice of a fortune 
cookie, or it is the pressure of too many Gucci-clad lobbyists trying 
to help corporate America make a fortune at the expense of American 
values, the Chinese people, and American workers.
  Madam Speaker, the Chinese have learned all too well that for the 
United States money talks and everything else walks.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have another quote I would like to share with my 
colleagues.

       It's critically important to have a broad range of contacts 
     with China. The West should not try to isolate the communist 
     regime . . . Economic change does influence political change. 
     China's economic development will be good for the West, as 
     well as for the Chinese people. China needs Most-Favored-
     Nation trade status with the United States and it should 
     fully enter the world trading system.

  Madam Speaker, that quote is from Wang Dan, student leader, Tiananmen 
Square, July 6, 1998, and he spent all but 2 of the years since 
Tiananmen in prison in China.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Trade, I rise today 
in strong support of the President's decision to renew normal trade 
relations with China. I have come before this House many times to talk 
about how increased trade with Western countries has exposed the people 
of China to democratic values and practices.
  I have Dear Colleague letters which show that spiritual leaders from 
across the spectrum, from Pat 4Robertson, Billy Graham, to the Dalai 
Lama support engagement, not isolation. Engagement with China, I 
believe, is the key to better human rights conditions for the Chinese 
people.
  The people of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other Asian nations have asked 
us to renew normal trade relations with China, because not renewing NTR 
could have a real negative impact on their economies and their people.
  Madam Speaker, most profoundly of all I was reminded just yesterday 
of the importance of the U.S.-China trade relationship when I met with 
Walter Hanson. Walter is the CEO of Ibberson, Incorporated, in my 
district, which is an agricultural design, engineering, and 
construction service company. Mr. Hanson was in town to receive an 
award from the United States Chamber of Commerce, the ``Small Business 
Success Story Award,'' for his company's success in China.
  This is a great story about an American business, how Ibberson has 
grown because of its trade not only with China, but other foreign 
nations. In fact, Ibberson did not even venture into foreign markets 
until I believe it was 1985. Now the international arm of this company, 
which employs 182 people, accounts for 50 percent of company sales with 
one-third of these international operations alone in China.
  This is about jobs, Madam Speaker. When questioned about the 
company's involvement in China, what it has meant to the Chinese, Mr. 
Hanson explained it very well. He said that the food processing plants 
that his company designs and builds generate better feed for Chinese 
livestock which, in turn, improve the nutritional value of food for the 
Chinese people. The processing plants they design in China meet all 
U.S. standards for worker and environmental safety. They are setting a 
great example for the Chinese people.
  The Chinese people that Ibberson employs in building and running the 
operation receive higher pay. After going back and forth to China for 
over 10 years, Mr. Hanson learned that the Chinese people emulate the 
West and he saw how they used their higher pay to buy more of our 
products.
  These jobs also, Madam Speaker, are not jobs that have been stolen 
from Americans, as some of my friends on the other side of this issue 
will tell us. In fact, according to Mr. Hanson, the opportunities to 
export to China create jobs back in Minnesota and many other States in 
our country. If it were not for international sales, Mr. Hanson 
believes that his small business could have gone down the same path 
that its 10 leading competitors did. They are

[[Page H6091]]

gone. They are out of business. Think of what that means to the 182 
employees of this company.
  Madam Speaker, continuing normal trade relations with China 
acknowledges the progress that has been made, but it does not disregard 
the need for further improvements in human rights for Chinese citizens. 
As a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I too abhor any 
and all human rights abuses. But if we are not engaged with the 
Chinese, how can we influence their policies? How do we stop these 
abuses? We must be engaged.
  Madam Speaker, a normal engaged relationship between our country and 
China is critical for improving the lives of people in both countries 
and for job creation and economic growth. I urge my colleagues very, 
very strongly to oppose this resolution before us today and to support 
normal trade relations with China. It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to correct the record. The Dalai Lama, as of 
today with the statement that the Dalai Lama has clearly stated he does 
not support engagement if its primary goal is material enrichment. All 
decisions, he believes, must be guided by moral and ethical principles, 
including whether China could benefit from Most-Favored-Nation trading 
status.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf), a champion of human rights all around the world.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Christensen), for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, let me stipulate at the beginning, because I feel so 
passionate about this, I want to stipulate that there are good and 
decent people on both sides of the issue. I believe that. I mean that. 
I do not question anybody's position on this issue.
  But I believe that the administration's policy is fundamentally 
immoral and this Congress is ready to ratify a fundamentally immoral 
policy, a policy that has no morality behind it.
  Did my colleagues see today's Washington Times? ``China conducted 
tests as Clinton visited.'' And then it goes on to say, ``China 
continued to supply missile technology to Iran and Pakistan last year 
and also sold Iran poison gas equipment,'' and then tested it when the 
President was there.
  Madam Speaker, did my colleagues also see the story out of the 
Pentagon yesterday saying that our Special Forces will be training the 
Chinese People's Liberation Army? Are they going to train them so they 
can invade Taiwan? Are they going to train them to shoot better when 
they do whatever they do? Why would the Clinton administration support 
the training of the Chinese People's Liberation Army by American men 
and women? That is immoral. That is immoral.
  Nuclear proliferation. China gave the technology to Pakistan, which 
then triggered India to test their nuclear weapons, which then 
triggered Pakistan to test their nuclear weapons, which has brought 
disorder and made it a dangerous subcontinent. China did that. No one 
else.
  We are not going to take away MFN. This vote is not to take away MFN. 
This vote is to send a message to the Chinese government. We know the 
Senate will not do it. We know the President would never sign it. So 
this is not a vote for engagement or disengagement or taking away MFN. 
It is a vote to send a message.
  Human rights. There is no progress. Bishop McCarrick, who is one of 
the three people the President sent to China, sent a letter up 
yesterday asking us to take away MFN to send a message. There is no 
progress on human rights in China.
  There are more people in jail today in China than there were when the 
President landed in China. Catholic priests are in jail. Bishops are in 
jail. I was in Beijing Prison Number 1 with the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith); 240 prisoners that we saw working on socks to 
export to the United States are still in jail. Protestant pastors are 
being persecuted.
  Tibet. I visited Tibet last year. China has plundered Tibet. For 
those who care about culture and history, China has destroyed the 
buildings. There are TV cameras monitoring the streets. The public 
security police are all over. They have destroyed 4,000 monasteries. 
Lhasa is nothing more than basically a dirty Chinese city because of 
what they have done. So in human rights, there is no progress. There is 
regress. We are going back with regard to weapons proliferation, with 
regard to trade. We have a $50 billion trade imbalance and it's going 
up 20 percent a year. They send us 30 to 40 percent of their goods, 
which could be made by American workers. We send them .02 percent of 
our goods.
  Slave labor camps. Remember Solzhenitsyn's book ``Gulag 
Archipelago''? There are more slave labor camps in China today than 
there were when Solzhenitsyn wrote the book ``Gulag Archipelago'' about 
the former Soviet Union.
  We are sending a message. The message is that we care. The American 
people are not where the administration is and the American people are 
not where this Congress is. The policy of this administration is 
fundamentally immoral and MFN for China will ratify a fundamentally 
immoral policy.
  Now, I am all for jobs. I have got a 90 percent Chamber of Commerce 
voting record. But jobs, jobs, jobs. It says in the Bible that ``man 
does not live by bread alone.'' What about the monks in Dracphi Prison? 
What about the Buddhist nuns that have been tortured? What about the 
Catholic priests, some persecuted for 30 years? We've heard very little 
talk about that.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly rise and urge those who are searching, 
those who are thinking, those who are undecided, we are not voting on 
MFN today. We are really voting on whether or not we want to send a 
message. Do we want to send a message of hope, a message to the 
Catholic bishop who was there because he gave Holy Communion? Do we 
want to send a message of hope to the Dracphi Prison, which I went by 
in Tibet where the man who took me by was even afraid, because he 
risked his life to take me by so I could take a picture of it.

                              {time}  1245

  Or do we want to send a message that all we care about is the policy 
of business, and we will train the Chinese People's Liberation Army, 
and we will allow them to test their missiles when our President is 
there, because fundamentally all we care about in this country is 
business and we do not care about human rights. That is the issue.
  I urge support of the Solomon amendment, whereby we will not be 
denying MFN but we will be sending a message of hope to the Chinese 
people and those who are being tortured in the prisons.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 121, to revoke 
Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) status from China. I do so because since 
current U.S. policy has been in place--a policy of so-called 
``constructive engagement''--there has been no progress on human rights 
in China. No progress on weapons proliferation. And no progress on 
trade. It is a failed policy and this House should vote to put some 
backbone into this policy of appeasement.
  Year after year we debate this issue. Year after year the House votes 
to continue MFN to China. Year after year, the Chinese Communists in 
Beijing continue to harshly control religious practice; imprison 
religious leaders and dissidents; plunder Tibet; sell weapons to Iran, 
Pakistan and other rogue or unsafeguarded countries and engage in 
unfair trading practices. Congress must send a message to Beijing that 
we are serious about our values, our national security and our 
commitment to fair trade.
  Our policy on China is amoral--and I would argue that it borders on 
being immoral--because it is focused on preserving good relations with 
a brutal regime in order to help American companies get business deals. 
It is a one-sided policy that ignores the most fundamental values of 
the United States.
  First, on the issue of human rights. There has been absolutely no 
progress since President Clinton de-linked trade from human rights in 
1994 and no progress since the President's recent trip to China. In 
fact, more dissidents are in jail today than before the President's 
trip. As Air Force One was landing, Chinese democracy activists and 
religious leaders were being harassed and detained.
  The Washington Post reports today that yet another dissident has been 
given a three-year jail sentence--part of a continuing pattern of

[[Page H6092]]

tightening repression in the weeks following the President's trip.
  Just days after the President left China, 11 dissidents who tried to 
register a political party advocating democracy were detained by the 
Public Security Bureau. Five remain in detention. Last week, some 100 
dissidents released an open letter calling for their release. Most of 
them are under suveillance or house arrest.
  Religious persecution persists. Christians are still being put in 
jail for holding Bible studies in their homes, meeting with other 
believers, conducting Catholic mass and distributing Bibles. Leaders in 
China's underground church are constantly under surveillance, placed 
under house arrest, interrogated and pressured to close down ``house'' 
churches. Many are arrested or sent to labor camps. Over the past year, 
the number has gone up.
  There are still a number of Catholic bishops in jail on account of 
their religious activity. None have gained their freedom. More have 
been arrested. Mercifully, the Chinese released 78-year-old Bishop Zeng 
from prison several months ago because his health was failing, but he 
is still under house arrest. The Chinese government also revoked the 
passport of a 96-year-old Cardinal, Cardinal Kung, who lives in the 
United States in exile.
  A large number of Protestant house church leaders are in fail. Not 
one of the 30 religious prisoners on the list presented to the Chinese 
government during the President's visit or the visit by the 3-person 
religious delegation in February have been released.
  There has been absolutely no progress.
  In Tibet, the Chinese government continues to destroy the Tibetan 
culture, imprison dissidents including a large number of monks and 
nuns, restrict religious activity, monitor monasteries, denigrate the 
Dalai Lama, and leave millions of Tibetan people without hope for a 
better future.
  Since the debate on MFN last year, I have visited Tibet. I saw first-
hand the repression taking place. Absolutely nothing has improved for 
those people. Lhasa is no longer a Tibetan city. Surveillance cameras 
are all over. So are Chinese security officials. I heard story after 
story of harsh repression. Prisons are a growth industry.
  Tibetans are sinking further and further into despair as Chinese 
immigrants rush to settle Tibetan lands. Chinese karaoke bars and 
prostitutes line the streets, many across from the Potala Palace, the 
historic home of the Dalai Lama. Young Tibetan men, denied a meaningful 
role in society, are idle and increasingly alcoholic. They are without 
hope.
  China is sinking millions of dollars into Tibet--for roads, factories 
and telecommunications, energy, housing and so on. Lots of people are 
getting rich, but very few of them are Tibetans. Most are Chinese. 
China's constitution allows the state to claim all natural resources 
for its own, and Beijing is making millions on Tibetan virgin lumber 
and minerals.
  At the same time, Tibetans are being robbed of their language and 
their culture. They are told it is inferior. Chinese propaganda spews 
out of the public address system and public security cameras record 
private conversations. Monks and nuns are forced to choose between 
undergoing ``patriotic re-education campaign'' and denouncing the Dalai 
Lama or being expelled from the monastery and sent to prison.
  Tibetan refugees--monks and nuns forced out of their monastery, 
children sent out by their parents to be schooled, the young seeking an 
opportunity simply to live as Tibetans, and the elderly hoping the see 
the Dalai Lama before they die--continue to risk their lives to flee 
over the highest mountain passes in the world into freedom
  There has been no progress in Tibet. Absolutely none.
  Uighurs in Northwest China--who are predominately Muslim--are also 
being persecuted. They are deprived of their right to religious freedom 
and having their culture destroyed. Nothing has improved for them 
either.
  So on the issue of human rights--there has been absolutely no 
progress. In fact, things are getting worse.
  Second is the issue of weapons proliferation. So maybe human rights 
has not improved, but haven't we at least been able to work with the 
Chinese to get them to stop proliferating weapons of mass destruction 
and make America safer? No. There has been no progress here either.
  Thanks to China, the world is a more dangerous place today. China has 
continued to sell missiles and missile technology to Pakistan, despite 
continuous pledges not to do so. Because China helped advance 
Pakistan's nuclear program, India decided to resume nuclear testing. 
Several days later, Pakistan conducted its own nuclear tests. Now we 
have an arms race in Southeast Asia.
  We put sanctions on Pakistan and sanctions on India. But we continue 
to kowtow to the Chinese government.
  China also sells nuclear technology to Iran and helps Iran's missile 
program. China is helping the Khartoum government build a pipeline to 
pump oil out of Sudan--a country that sponsors terrorism and engages in 
genocide against its Christian population. China is helping the junta 
in Burma. China's friends are this world's most ardent enemies of 
democracy.
  So sadly, there has been no progress on preventing China's 
proliferation of weapons and weapons technology.
  I should also note that China is also modernizing its military and 
building ICBM missiles capable of hitting the United States. The 
Washington Times revealed yesterday that six more were built in the 
first four months of this year. A secret Air Force intelligence report 
released recently said China's new mobile ICBM's ``will be a 
significant threat not only to U.S. forces deployed in the Pacific 
theater, but to portions of the continental United States.'' China is 
the only country with missiles currently pointed at the United States, 
in spite of claims otherwise by some in our government.
  Third, fair trade. Our policy has not helped open China's market to 
U.S. goods. Today, China's trade surplus with the United States is 
almost $50 billion. In May, it was up 24 percent over April. While 
China's trade surplus with the U.S. continues to skyrocket, American 
goods are being kept out of the Chinese market. China sends 30-40 
percent of its merchandise exports to the U.S. In contrast, the U.S. 
sends only .02 percent of its merchandise exports to China.
  What about the huge Chinese market? The real story is that 80 percent 
of China's total imports are re-exported to the rest of the world.
  Harry Wu--who spent 19 years in China's gulag on account of his 
beliefs--advocates revocation of MFN to send a message. He says ``the 
undoubted primary beneficiary of foreign trade in China is the Chinese 
Communist Party. . . . As the Chinese economy grows so does the power 
of the Chinese Communist Party.''
  China forces American companies to turn over technology and transfer 
production to China in exchange for doing business there. China not 
only uses this technology to modernize its military, but also to 
compete with American companies and American workers. America is losing 
jobs to China.
  So the current policy has resulted in no progress toward promoting 
more fair trade with China either.
  No progress on human rights. No progress on proliferation. No 
progress on trade. The sign of a failed policy.
  The Clinton administration says the way to achieve progress in these 
three areas--human rights, proliferation and trade--is to continue our 
policy of ``constructive engagement.'' The same administration 
confirmed yesterday that U.S. special forces will begin training 
Chinese PLA troops to ``develop rapport and understanding.'' It is also 
the same administration that allowed two American companies to export 
sensitive satellite technology to China--which proliferation experts 
say significantly improved China's missile program--allegedly in 
exchange for campaign donations.
  In my view, this administration doesn't have much credibility on this 
issue. They have achieved nothing with their current policy besides 
some good soundbites and photo-ops. It is a failed policy.
  I'd rather listen to the advice of Wei Jingsheng, one of China's most 
noted dissidents. He has spent 18 years in prison for his outspoken 
views on democracy.
  He says that voting to revoke MFN for China is the ``most concrete 
and most effective means available to address Chinese human rights and 
political reforms and gives President Clinton real power to represent 
the American people in his discussions with the Chinese communists over 
the questions of trade conditions, human rights, regional and global 
security and other issues.'' I submit his entire statement for the 
record.
  He also says his conditions in prison improved when the Chinese 
really believed that MFN would be taken away.
  Archbishop McCarrick, one of the religious leaders who went to China 
earlier this year as part of a religious delegation, also believes the 
House of Representatives should send a message to Beijing by voting to 
revoke MFN. He urges a strong vote in favor of H.J. Res. 121. He says 
``A strong vote to deny MFN status to China should strengthen the 
Administration's commitment to putting human rights at the top of the 
China agenda and send a strong signal that the status quo is not 
acceptable.'' I also submit his letter for the record.
  There are many reasons to revoke China's MFN status. But, there are 
good people on both sides of the issue.
  I want to end by addressing those who think revoking MFN is a blunt 
instrument. Remember, that at the end of the day, Congress will not 
take away China's MFN. The vote today is not really about revoking MFN, 
it's about sending a message.
  A message of hope to the Christians, Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists 
suffering for their faith. A message of hope to the political 
dissidents who still bravely speak out for justice

[[Page H6093]]

and freedom despite the risk of going to prison. A message of hope to 
these men and women being beaten, tortured, raped, imprisoned and 
killed for their beliefs.
  This vote is also about sending a message to the regime in Beijing. A 
message that we are serious about our values, our national security and 
our commitment to fair (not just free) trade.
  If you vote in favor of H.J. Res. 121, you will be sending a message, 
not taking away MFN. I urge you to send this message.
  How long will we continue to rubber stamp our current policy--a 
policy of appeasement? A policy that is amoral and not in line with the 
values of the American people.
  Let's put some strength back into our China policy. Let's put some 
morality back into our China policy.
  Vote YES on H.J. Res. 121.
  Madam Speaker, I also include for the Record newspaper articles and 
letters from various organizations discussing the current situation in 
China with regard to many of the areas I have spoken on:

               [From the Washington Times, July 22, 1998]

                China Conducted Test as Clinton Visited

                            (By Bill Gertz)

       China test-fired a rocket motor for its newest long-range 
     missile during President Clinton's recent visit to China, 
     Pentagon officials said yesterday.
       The July 1 motor test for the DF-31 missile was part of 
     China's ongoing strategic weapons modernization effort, which 
     included producing six new long-range missiles in the first 
     four months of the year.
       In commenting on a report in The Washington Times about the 
     surge in ICBM production, the State Department said yesterday 
     that China's strategic nuclear modernization will not affect 
     efforts to develop a cooperative security relationship with 
     Beijing.
       ``The U.S. and China are building a cooperative security 
     relationship, as symbolized by the agreement of the two 
     presidents not to target strategic nuclear missiles at each 
     other,'' State Department spokesman James P. Rubin said, 
     referring to last month's summit.
       ``At the same time, we are aware that China continues its 
     limited efforts to modernize its nuclear forces,'' he said.
       Asked about The Times' report, Defense Secretary William S. 
     Cohen declined to comment. ``If it's an intelligence report, 
     I wouldn't comment,'' he told reporters at the Pentagon.
       Pentagon officials with access to intelligence reports told 
     The Times that the test-firing of the new solid-fuel rocket 
     motor is part of efforts to develop Beijing's newest ICBM, 
     the DF-31 road-mobile missile. When deployed in the next 
     several years, the missile will be the second mobile ICBM in 
     the world. Russia's SS-25 is now the only mobile ICBM in 
     service.
       The officials said the test was unusual because it came 
     during Mr. Clinton's June 27-July 3 visit.
       A U.S. official who is an expert on missiles said he 
     believes the Chinese intentionally timed the test to coincide 
     with Mr. Clinton's visit.
       The official noted that Secretary of State Warren 
     Christopher traveled to China several years ago to discuss 
     human rights and the Chinese responded by arresting 
     dissidents before, during and after the visit.
       ``President Clinton said proliferation would be high on his 
     agenda [during the summit], and by testing this key component 
     for a new long-range missile when they did, the Chinese have 
     made clear their lack of respect for both the president and 
     his message,'' the official said.
       This official does not believe China has ``de-targeted'' 
     its long-range missiles away from U.S. cities despite its 
     recent pledge. The CIA reported earlier this year that 13 of 
     18 CSS-4 missiles are targeted on U.S. cities.
       The Chinese apparently knew the rocket motor test would be 
     detected by U.S. spy satellites or other electronic 
     listeners, Pentagon officials said. The test was carried out 
     at the Wuzhai Missile and Space Test Center, located about 
     250 miles southwest of Beijing, they said.
       Highly classified intelligence reports on the test were 
     sent to Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright in China as 
     she accompanied the president, the officials said.
       According to reports by the Air Force's National Air 
     Intelligence Center (NAIC) the DF-31 is a single-warhead 
     missile with a range of more than 4,500 miles in the ``late 
     stages'' of development. Its solid-fuel propulsion is a major 
     improvement over liquid-fuel CSS-4s, the current mainstay of 
     the Chinese ICBM force.
       ``The DF-31 ICBM will give China a major strike capability 
     that will be difficult to counterattack at any stage of its 
     operation,'' said a December 1996 NAIC report labeled 
     ``secret.'' ``It will be a significant threat not only to 
     U.S. forces deployed in the Pacific theater, but to portions 
     of the continental United States and to many of our allies.''
       A map accompanying the report showed that the DF-31 could 
     hit targets throughout the western United States along a line 
     running southwest from Wisconsin through California.
       The DF-31 will give China a strategic missile design 
     ``similar to those of current generation Russian missiles,'' 
     the report said, noting that the missile will probably be 
     fitted with decoys and chaff to defeat missile defenses.
       Deployment of the DF-31 is expected within the next year 
     and a half at the earliest, the report said.
       China also is building a second mobile ICBM, the DF-41, 
     that will have a range of more than 7,000 miles. It will be 
     deployed soon after the DF-31.
       Regarding the new CSS-4s, Pentagon officials told The Times 
     that China delivered six of the ICBMs to the People's 
     Liberation Army nuclear forces between January and April. The 
     surge in production, which was spotted by U.S. spy satellites 
     and other electronic monitors, is part of a defense industry 
     restructuring that will result in the closing of Beijing's 
     sole ICBM production facility, at Wanyuan, in central China, 
     within the next several months.
       Two more CSS-4s will be produced before the shutdown, they 
     said.
       The underground production facility at Wanyuan is being 
     relocated to a missile production center near the industrial 
     city of Chengdu in central China, the officials said.
       The CIA estimates China has 18 CSS-4s. The new missiles are 
     the ``Mod 2'' version of the systems.
       ``This is a very serious problem,'' said House Majority 
     Leader Dick Armey.
       The majority leader said he has many questions about the 
     Chinese missile program, including why the United States did 
     not learn earlier about Beijing's weapons proliferation 
     efforts, which he called ``frightening,'' and how China 
     acquired the technology to build missiles.
       ``We have a lot of serious, very serious, questions,'' he 
     said.
       The biggest question: ``Does my grandson have to learn to 
     duck and cover like I did when I was a boy?'' Mr. Armey 
     asked, referring to nuclear air-raid drills common in schools 
     during the 1960s.
                                  ____


        Beijing Continued Arms Sales to Pakistan, Iran Last Year

                            (By Bill Gertz)

       China continued to supply missile technology to Iran and 
     Pakistan last year and also sold Iran poison gas equipment 
     and advanced conventional arms, according to a CIA report to 
     Congress made public yesterday.
       The report identified China, Russia and North Korea as 
     major suppliers of weapons of mass destruction and delivery 
     systems to ``countries of concern''--the CIA's term for rogue 
     states seeking unconventional arms and missiles.
       ``During 1997, Chinese entities provided a variety of 
     missile-related items and assistance to countries of 
     proliferation concern,'' the CIA said in its semiannual 
     report to Congress on activities during 1997.
       ``China was an important supplier of advanced conventional 
     weapons to Iran,'' it stated, noting that Beijing apparently 
     has halted sales of C-801/C-802 antiship cruise missile as 
     promised in late 1997.
       The report also said that ``Chinese and North Korean 
     entities continued to provide assistance to Pakistan's 
     ballistic missile program in 1997,'' and that Beijing gave 
     ``extensive support'' to Pakistan's program to develop 
     weapons of mass destruction.
       Pakistan test-fired its 925-mile-range Ghauri missile for 
     the first time in April.
       An eight-page unclassified section of the report was 
     released by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Its findings 
     contrast sharply with recent Clinton administration 
     assertions that China is curbing dangerous weapons 
     proliferation activities.
       Sen. Richard C. Shelby, Alabama Republican and chairman of 
     the committee, said the report was disturbing.
       ``The report shows a high level of activity about the 
     ongoing sale of missile technology and weapons of mass 
     destruction by China, Russia and North Korea, who are the 
     worst offenders,'' Mr. Shelby said in an interview. ``It also 
     shows that Iran, Iraq and Pakistan are the greatest 
     benefactors.''
       A review of the policies should be carried out by Congress 
     and the administration to see what can be done to solve the 
     problem, he said.
       It is the second report to Congress by the CIA and was 
     required by a section of the 1997 Intelligence Authorization 
     Act. The law requires a report every six months. Release of 
     the report was overdue by a year and was doubled to cover the 
     entire 12-month period of last year.
       It also was delayed from release until after President 
     Clinton's visit to China last month in an apparent effort to 
     avoid offending Beijing, according to congressional sources.
       The CIA report on global weapons proliferation activities 
     during 1997 discloses these key findings:
       Russia, China and North Korea continued to supply missile-
     related goods and technology to Iran.
       ``Iran is using these goods and technologies to achieve its 
     goal of becoming self-sufficient in the production of medium-
     range missiles,'' the report said.
       China provided Iran with chemical warfare material to 
     supplement its stocks of blister, blood and choking agents 
     and bombs and artillery shells. Iran is seeking ``a more 
     advanced and self-sufficient chemical weapons 
     infrastructure,'' it said.
       Egypt is working with North Korea on a joint missile 
     development project, according to a North Korean army 
     defector.

[[Page H6094]]

       China also continued to supply nuclear technology to 
     projects under International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring 
     but appeared to be abiding by a pledge not to engage in new 
     nuclear projects in Iran and halted its support for a uranium 
     conversion plant.
       Iraq is developing ``dual-use'' items that could boost its 
     chemical weapons production capabilities and has purchased 
     vaccines, growth media and thousands of pesticide sprayers in 
     1997 with potential biological weapons applications.
       On Russian weapons proliferation efforts, the CIA said 
     ``Russian firms'' supplied a variety of missile-related goods 
     to rogue nations seeking missile delivery systems. Russian 
     help to Iran ``means that Iran could have a medium-range 
     ballistic missile much sooner than otherwise expected,'' it 
     said.
       Russia also supplied India with extensive technology that 
     could be used for nuclear weapons, and provided conventional 
     weapons and spare parts to countries in the Middle East, 
     including Iran and Syria.
       North Korea continued to export missile equipment and 
     components to rogue states in what the CIA said was an effort 
     to obtain hard currency for the cash-strapped Pyongyang 
     government.
       Western nations such as the United States, Germany, 
     Britain, Italy and France were major targets of weapons 
     acquisition efforts by states seeking nuclear, chemical and 
     biological weapons and missile systems, the report said.
                                  ____



                                     Wei Jingsheng Foundation,

                                      New York, NY, July 15, 1998.
     To All Honorable Members of the House of Representatives.
       Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Some people are saying that 
     President Clinton's visit to China was extremely successful, 
     while others say it was not. My own view is that he only half 
     succeeded, or, to put in another way, it wasn't a total 
     failure. Mr. Clinton did in fact exert greater efforts in 
     Beijing, but his efforts on behalf of America demands did not 
     achieve tangible results. Why? Because Mr. Clinton didn't 
     build up adequate pressures to back his demands.
       When I was still in prison, I clearly felt that if Most 
     Favored Nation trade status passed the Congress with ease, 
     various ``instructions'' from the Chinese community judiciary 
     organs made treatment for political prisoners much worse. 
     When there were reports in the People's Daily that talked of 
     ``hostile forces' inside the American Congress who plotted to 
     revoke China's most favored nation status, the prison guards 
     received less ``instruction'' and the treatment of political 
     prisoners improved accordingly. During eighteen years in 
     prison, I never stopped making demands for improved treatment 
     so I was sensitive to any change in the treatment of 
     prisoners.
       Perhaps because of the daily flow of so many resolutions in 
     the Congress, many friends have grown somewhat weary of the 
     burden of the MFN vote. They may not fully recognize the 
     importance of the vote in their hands. In fact, on the 
     question of Chinese relations, legislatures control all the 
     initiative. To put it more bluntly, only the U.S. Congress 
     controls the real initiative.
       During his trip to Beijing, Clinton needed to make some 
     demands. Otherwise he would have no way to account for his 
     trip to the American people and Congress. Yet he did not 
     intend to do things too boldly, because without adequate 
     pressure from the Congress and public commentary, he lacked 
     the means to persuade Jiang Zemin or Zhu Rongji to make 
     further concessions. Meanwhile, the pressure put on Clinton 
     from both Jiang and Zhu could not be small, so he didn't want 
     to offend anyone.
       Jiang and Zhu had no choice but to accept the 
     inconsequential demands of Clinton; at the same time, they 
     also had no choice but to resist making substantive results. 
     Cognizant of the pressure from the Congress and public 
     opinion, both Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji felt they needed to 
     give Clinton some face. Otherwise they might lose any chance 
     to get collaboration on the larger issue: the need for 
     President Clinton's cooperation to maintain their shaky 
     dictatorship. But there remain great pressures from Communist 
     Party hardliners that continue to influence Jiang and Zhu and 
     their positions within the party. This battle line is 
     determined by the amount of pressure exerted by the U.S. 
     Congress. It can be said that both Clinton and Jiang Zemin 
     accurately assessed the prevailing strength of the two sides. 
     There were no great mistakes. (This conclusion is only 
     limited to their behavior in Beijing and Shanghai.)
       Now, there is only one key variant that Clinton could use 
     to persuade Jiang and Zhu; Jiang and Zhu could then use this 
     excuse to persuade the hardliners in the CCP. This is 
     precisely pressure from the American congress. If the 
     Congress is not able to make the Chinese communist realize 
     that the loss of MFN is possible, then the more enlightened 
     wing of the CCP cannot pass this pressure on to persuade the 
     hardliners. Therefore, in considering the temporary 
     cancellation of MFN for China, we can see it not only as the 
     most concrete and most effective means available to 
     addressing Chinese human rights and political reforms, but 
     also gives President Clinton real power to represent the 
     American people in his discussions with the Chinese 
     communists over the questions of trade conditions, human 
     rights, regional and global security and other issues. This 
     is the best means to gain more achievements.
           Your eternal friend,
     Wei Jingsheng.
                                  ____



                               The Laogai Research Foundation,

                                      Mitpitos, CA, July 13, 1998.
     United States House of Representatives.
       To the Honorable Members of the House of Representatives: 
     As we approach this year's vote, I wish to voice again my 
     support for the revocation of Most Favored Nation trading 
     status for the People's Republic of China. Some may wish to 
     call this degree of involvement ``Normal Trade Relations'' 
     but under any name, I must oppose treating this oppressive 
     regime as a worthy trading partner for the United States.
       China serves as the single exception in the history of the 
     United States' stance towards communist countries. The United 
     States refused to grant MFN status to the Soviet Union, and 
     has maintained its position against the repressive regimes in 
     Cuba and North Korea. Why do we grant this totalitarian 
     regime a privileged position when it comes to trade 
     relations?
       The question remains: who benefits from China's MFN status? 
     While some of the Chinese people have experienced an 
     increased standard of living, the undoubted primary 
     beneficiary of foreign trade in China is the Chinese 
     Communist Party. In other words, as the Chinese economy 
     grows, so does the power of the Chinese Communist Party. This 
     is the same Chinese Communist Part that remains guilty of 
     systematic, egregious human rights violations; the same Party 
     that uses the technology it acquires from the United States 
     to modernize its military; the same Party that unequivocally 
     refuses to undergo political reform, or even to tolerate 
     calls for political reform.
       The Party continues to enforce, with severe measures, its 
     planned birth policy. Recent testimony has shed light on the 
     use of forced abortions and sterilizations. Additionally, in 
     one of the most barbaric violations of human rights, the CCP 
     sanctions the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners, 
     some of whom may be facing the barrel of a gun because they 
     expressed their political beliefs. This same party runs the 
     prisons which house the Laogai, China's forced labor system, 
     where Chinese prisoners labor to produce goods to be sold on 
     the international market. Religious persecution persists in 
     China, ads do the repressive policies towards the people of 
     Tibet. Each of these acts is intended to sustain the Party's 
     stronghold of power.
       Some have argued that granting Most Favored Nation status 
     could lead to progress in human rights and other issues, 
     including nuclear proliferation, in which China remains 
     outside the international norm. This argument was never used 
     in reference to the Soviet Union, North Korea, or Cuba. We 
     know that bolstering those nations' economies would only 
     strengthen their political power. Despite arguments to the 
     contrary, mere economic contact with democratic nations would 
     not suffice to bring the Chinese leadership in line with 
     international standards of behavior. The Chinese Communist 
     Party is well aware of those standards, and continually 
     chooses to flaunt them.
       I urge each of you to recognize the importance of your 
     individual vote on Most Favored Nation trading status for 
     China.
           Sincerely,
     Harry Wu.
                                  ____


             [From the China Reform Monitor, July 20, 1998]

  Pentagon: Elite U.S. Special Forces Seek to Train Chinese Commando 
                                 Forces

                             (By Al Santoli)

       Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon confirmed an AP dispatch 
     that elite Special Forces soldiers will train Chinese PLA 
     troops under a plan being considered in Washington, the South 
     China Morning Post reports. ``You need to engage, so you 
     develop rapport and understanding,'' says U.S. Special 
     Operations commander, General Peter Schoomaker. ``What we 
     encourage is low-level contact at the small-unit level. . . 
     To develop trust and confidence that then brings in higher 
     level people to the point where you establish the kind of 
     relationship where you can have different types of 
     dialogue.'' Military collaboration with the PLA is endorsed 
     by U.S. Pacific Command chief, Admiral Joseph Prueher.
       Talking with reporters, Bacon also confirmed the 
     conclusions of a Congress-sponsored panel on ballistic 
     missile threat to the U.S. chaired by former Defense 
     Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, that China is a major exporter of 
     ballistic missile to Iran and other states. ``It's true, and 
     it's unfortunate,'' Bacon said.
       The Rumsfeld panel's final report identified China as a 
     threat to U.S. national security, ``as a significant 
     proliferator of ballistic missiles, weapons of mass 
     destruction and enabling technologies.''
                                  ____

         U.S. Catholic Conference, Department of Social 
           Development and World Peace,
                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 1998.
       Dear Representative, As the Congress again takes up the 
     matter of accepting or rejecting the President's waiver 
     regarding the extension of favored trade relations to the 
     People's Republic of China, I write to express the views of 
     the United States Catholic Conference in this regard.
       Each time over the past several years when the issue has 
     arisen, it has been our conviction that the Administration--
     both present and previous--has been insufficiently committed 
     to pressing the Chinese authorities

[[Page H6095]]

     on their systemic violations of certain fundamental human 
     rights. We have cited the persecution of religious groups, 
     such as the unregistered Protestant and Catholic churches, 
     the Buddhists of Tibet and others. We have raised the 
     questions of the one-child policy and of coerced abortion, 
     and have noted the widespread practice of using conscript 
     labor for many of China's manufactured products, among other 
     well-documented charges.
       We acknowledge that President Clinton made a significant 
     effort to raise these issues during his recent state visit to 
     China, and we applaud that. But little, if anything, has 
     changed on the human rights front since the visit. Indeed, 
     the continued arrest and detention of democracy advocates 
     there only point up the necessity for unrelenting official 
     U.S. firmness on issues of human rights and religious 
     freedom.
       The Most Favored Nation debate may not be the best forum, 
     but it does offer the Congress an important opportunity to 
     raise the priority of human rights and religious liberty. 
     Therefore, we urge the Congress to send the Administration as 
     clear a message as possible by voting in large numbers to 
     overturn the President's waiver of applying the relevant 
     sanctions of the Trade Act of 1974. A strong vote to deny MFN 
     status to China should strengthen the Administration's 
     commitment to putting human rights at the top of the China 
     agenda and send a strong signal that the status quo is not 
     acceptable.
           Sincerely yours,
     Most Reverend

                         Theodore E. McCarrick,

       Archbishop of Newark, Chairman, Committee on International 
     Policy.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I rise today to discuss the issue of normal trade relations 
status for China.
  We know that MFN tariff treatment is not a privileged trading status, 
but the normal tariff treatment we extend to most nations, including 
many with whom we have substantial disagreements. MFN has been 
supported by every administration that has confronted the issue since 
1980. China should be afforded MFN status again this year.
  I think we all agree that China has not done enough on human rights, 
enough on intellectual property rights, and enough on proliferation 
issues. Encouraging improvement in China's records in these areas is an 
important goal for U.S. policy, and I commend and support many of my 
colleagues for continuing to press the administration to address these 
issues with China, as do I.
  However, I would like to focus on one part of the critics' argument 
that we should not grant MFN for China because we have a large trade 
deficit with it. While it is true China is the second largest trading 
deficit partner of the United States, this should not preclude our 
continuing trade with this Nation, nor should it cloud the fact that 
the U.S. economy benefits substantially from trade with China despite 
the deficit.
  Japan is our number one deficit trading partner and there is no call 
today to terminate our trading relationship with Japan. In fact, the 
calls are to strengthen Japan's economy so that it will not fail, 
because Japan's importance to our economy dictates that if it fails, it 
has important consequences for the U.S. economy despite the Japanese 
deficit with us.
  I know that there has been heavy debate on whether a higher trade 
deficit is evidence of a trade policy failure. Actually, the trade 
deficit is evidence that our strong economy enhances consumer 
purchasing power, which draws imports, giving U.S. consumers a wide 
selection of goods to choose from at the most competitive prices.
  Indeed, withdrawal of China's MFN status would result in U.S. 
consumers paying approximately $390 million more a year for goods such 
as shoes, clothing, toys and small appliances. For manufacturers the 
cost of goods made with Chinese components would increase, reducing the 
competitiveness of their finished goods in domestic and international 
markets.
  Recently Secretary Rubin and others in the administration have echoed 
this argument that the rise in our trade deficit reflects the strength, 
not the weakness of the U.S. economy. We must evaluate the trade 
deficit in this larger context. Look at the facts: We have not seen the 
trade deficit undermine our strong economic performance. The U.S. 
economy remains on a track of sustained growth, low inflation and low 
unemployment.
  Revoking China's normal trading status will only serve to hurt U.S. 
exporters and manufacturers, not close the trade deficit. We have an 
important decision before us, Madam Speaker. Will we engage China so 
that other nations will not gain a competitive edge in developing 
Chinese markets over us? Or will this Congress choose to encourage 
China to improve its records on human rights, on weapons proliferation, 
and other issues?
  I would urge my colleagues to choose both courses, and that extending 
NTR to China is a step in the process of doing just that.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who has been an active participant in the fight 
for human rights and workers' rights throughout the world.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  We can change the name of the debate to normal trade relations, but 
we cannot change the issues that are before the Members of this 
Congress. We can say it is only a debate about trade relations; we must 
discard our concerns about human rights; we must discard our concerns 
about Chinese involvement in the proliferation of high-technology to 
terrorist nations; we must discard other principal concerns of our 
Nation, this is only about trade. But even the United States Trade 
Representative and their spin doctors cannot make China's trade policy 
look good or normal by anybody's means.
  Sixteen single-spaced pages replete with special tariffs, taxes, 
written and even, yes, unwritten rules and restrictions against U.S. 
goods. The goods they want in, the high-technology goods to foster 
their military or their future economic superiority, they get in, and 
they do profit a few U.S. corporations. But the goods they want to 
produce, the industries they want to nurture, the areas where they want 
to employ their people, those U.S. goods, no matter how much better, no 
matter how much cheaper, they cannot get in. If they cannot stop them 
with the tariffs or they cannot stop them with the taxes, or the 
written rules, they stop them with the unwritten rules, the corruption 
and the bribery. China is the most unfair trading nation on earth.
  Now, the proponents say the choice is isolation or engagement. What 
about reciprocity? What about reciprocity, the American principle, the 
ideal of a level playing field? No, the proponents of normal trade 
relations, well, they prefer the doormat policy. We have a doormat 
trade policy.
  Anything and everything produced anywhere in the world, no matter how 
unfairly, no matter by prison labor, child labor, whatever else, it is 
welcome here. And if we do that, someday, someday those nations might 
reciprocate and allow our goods into their countries.
  It is not working too well, folks, and we have to start somewhere. 
China is the most egregious example. Let us start there. This is the 
last 3 years of unfair trade policies against U.S. goods. Look, the 
book is getting thicker every year. It is time to act.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to share another quote with my colleagues.

       It is in the vital interest of the United States that China 
     continue to open and reform its economy and improve the 
     quality of life of its citizens. We can advance that vital 
     interest by continuing to extend normal trading relations to 
     China.

  That was on June of this year by former Presidents Ford, Carter, Bush 
and 17 former U.S. Secretaries of State, Defense and National Security 
Advisers.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Today, Madam Speaker, we take up legislation that is freighted with 
more emotion and ideology than almost any other that this Congress may 
consider this year. Yet the outcome of this debate will shape our 
relations with one of the great nations of the world and our 
opportunities in the world's greatest emerging market. It will play a 
major role in shaping the economic and

[[Page H6096]]

strategic geography of the next century, a century which, I believe, 
will be dominated by American ideals, American innovation and American 
culture, but only through engagement.
  Our relationship with China is, obviously, in a difficult phase. We 
have disagreements of the most fundamental sort over trade, human 
rights and arms proliferation, and the Chinese Government has been 
justly criticized for their abominable record in each of these areas. 
But the proponents of this resolution offer as a blanket solution to 
these disputes the disruption of normal trade relations with China; in 
effect, cutting off our growing trade opportunities in the vast 
emerging market of mainland China, while treating the People's Republic 
as a pariah on a par with a few rogue nations.
  Not one of the proponents of isolating China has answered the 
fundamental question: How will ending normal trade relations address 
the problems facing Sino-American relations? It will not address the 
problem of marketing access. Clearly, that is a problem. But the 
solution to opening up Chinese markets is to negotiate their entry into 
the World Trade Organization on a liberal basis; it is not ending 
normal trade relations.
  Clearly, there is a problem with intellectual property rights. It is 
intolerable that in the past the Chinese have tolerated piracy within 
their borders of American products and American technology. But the 
solution is selective pressure, which has worked recently; it is not 
ending normal trade relations.
  Clearly, there is a problem with human rights, and I do not want to 
minimize this, including political rights and religious freedom. The 
solution is to promote reform from within China, promoted by contact; 
not by ending contact.
  And here I want to quote Wang Dan, the eloquent veteran of Tiananmen 
Square and of the gulag, who wrote recently in Newsweek that, 
``Economic change does influence political change. China's economic 
development will be good for the West as well as for the Chinese 
people. China needs Most Favored Nation trade status with the United 
States, and it should fully enter the world trading system. The terms 
of that entry must be negotiated, of course, but in any case the rest 
of the world must not break its contact with China.''
  Madam Speaker, in my view, American ideals are infectious. Through 
engagement we can introduce them decisively to the largest and most 
important developing nation. I urge my colleagues to look at this issue 
dispassionately and to vote to continue the engagement that is the sole 
catalyst for Chinese reform, that will strengthen human rights and 
build a durable market economy that American products can enter and 
compete in.
  Oppose this ill-conceived resolution and ill-conceived policy, not 
for their sake but for our sake.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining 
on all sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) has 27\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Christensen) has 22\1/4\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) has 36 minutes remaining; and the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 31 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly), the distinguished member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  There is no doubt we should have normal trade relations with China. 
It is very important to the future of the United States of America, and 
we come here today to vote on this issue again. The stakes are high. So 
often this is the case in important legislation. And the rhetoric is 
heated. And this also happens when people feel very strongly on a 
subject. But, for once, claims that this issue is critical to our 
future are fully justified.
  Understanding that this is a difficult vote for many Members of this 
body; it, in fact, is one of the most difficult votes that we cast on 
China. On the one hand there is the China of opportunity: vast, 
populous, an almost infinite market, with its growing production, and 
bustling economy. And on the other hand there is the China of reality, 
where democracy is not a reality, a place where 2,000 languish in labor 
camps, a place that welcomes an American President but arrests others 
who might be dissidents if they disagree.
  For me, the question is not whether to accept China as it is, it is 
how to best move China toward what we want in America, and I think the 
majority of the Chinese people would wish for, a place of additional 
hope and opportunity.
  For me, the best path is that of engagement, not retreat. Normal 
trade relations cannot make China a worse place for democracy than it 
already is. Normal trade relations cannot decrease the freedoms 
available to the Chinese people at this very moment. And normal trade 
relations cannot limit our opportunities to shape the future of China.
  We really have an opportunity today to do what we called the new 
legislation ``normal trade relations'' with China. I urge my colleagues 
to vote for normal trade relations and get on with the business of the 
United States of America and China.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say that it is wonderful to have this debate because we have big 
problems with China, and they are the result of this policy, of which 
MFN for China has been the centerpiece.
  All this quoting from letters of former Presidents and Secretaries of 
State, et cetera, they are the people that got us in the spot we are in 
right now. It is no wonder they support their own position. But we are 
here today to change that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown), one of the agents of change.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for yielding.
  Every day we see more and more Chinese products on American shelves, 
products made by child labor, products made in terrible working 
conditions, products made by prison labor, products made by grossly 
underpaid workers.
  Chinese workers and slave labor conditions make dolls like this for 
America's children; 14-year-old children in China make softballs like 
this for 14-year-old children in America to play with on playgrounds. 
Every year we buy $75 billion of goods from China, a nation of slave 
labor and child labor and a nation which sells nuclear weapons to our 
enemies and shoots missiles at Taiwan, a regime that terrorizes 
political dissidents and brutalizes Tibet.
  Is that what we stand for as a nation? Are these values our values? 
Are these the values that we want to teach our children? Is this the 
legacy we want to leave our children?
  I ask Members of the House to vote no on MFN, to vote yes on H.R. 
121.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to share one other quote with our colleagues here:

       I am optimistic about China, and the reason is because I 
     believe China will meet the challenges it faces. I think it 
     will add many new chapters to its modern success story. And 
     in this, let me say, I hope the United States plays a 
     positive role.

  This was former President George Bush in June of this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution 
and in support of normal trade relations with China.
  The open exchange of goods and services has been a critical component 
of fostering understanding between nations for centuries and has helped 
bring about regional economic and diplomatic stability.
  As Reverend Pat Robertson stated so eloquently in a piece in the Wall 
Street Journal last month,''Leaving a billion people in spiritual 
darkness punishes not the Chinese but the Chinese people. The only way 
to pursue morality is to engage China fully and openly as a friend.''
  And the best policy, Mr. Speaker, continues to be engagement. The 
same

[[Page H6097]]

can be said about Congress' obligation to protect our national 
security. Will cutting off trade with China help us maintain adequate 
intelligence and diplomatic ties with a growing superpower? The answer, 
of course, is no.
  While presidential summits occur only once in a great while, the day-
to-day act of engaging in commerce continues unabated. It is the 
majesty of free trade that brings together businessmen and women in a 
ritual that has solidified relationships and fostered goodwill among 
the people of nations, not just their governments.
  Make no mistake about it, denying normal trade relation status to 
China will drive U.S. tariffs into the 50-percent range and destroy our 
trading relationship. It is the equivalent of a declaration of economic 
war. Is this the signal we want to send to the Chinese people?
  United States Government indicators already suggest that the Asian 
economic crises is beginning to affect the domestic production of goods 
in the United States. As a result, this debate takes on added 
significance.
  China's resolve in holding firm in their commitment not to devalue 
their currency has helped to keep that region from slipping even 
further into an economic abyss. Any sudden and drastic shift in trade 
policy will only cause further harm to our economy and cause greater 
instability in a region already struggling with economic and nuclear 
proliferation problems. Free trade brings both economic and diplomatic 
benefits. Now, more than ever, we must continue our normal trade 
relations with China.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Solomon resolution. By doing so, 
we will allow American businessmen and women, religious leaders, and 
human rights advocates the ability to share their products, their 
philosophies, and their ideas with this rapidly-changing country.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record documents endorsing this vote 
against this resolution by the United States Chamber of Commerce.

    The Voice of Business--Preserve Normal Trading Status With China

                         (By Thomas J. Donohue)

       Washington.--The President's recent trip to China 
     highlighted an important annual debate in Washington: Should 
     Congress renew China's Most Favored Nation trading status 
     with the United States?
       Some believe that Congress ought to restrict trade with 
     China pending further human rights reforms and democratic 
     changes in that country. But others recognize that cutting 
     off trade will backfire--it could actually work to the 
     detriment of those well-meaning goals, while hurting American 
     businesses, workers, and consumers.
       To begin with. Most Favored Nation (or ``MFN'') trading 
     status is not special in any way--it's a term for the normal 
     trading relationships that the United States has with the 
     rest of the world. Just six nations are without MFN status--
     North Korea, Cuba, Serbia/Montenegro, Laos, Vietnam, and 
     Afghanistan--and they face either extremely high tariffs or 
     embargoes on their goods. By granting MFN status, we are not 
     doing any country a favor--we are simply treating that 
     country as a normal trading partner.
       And not doing so with China would be an enormous economic 
     and strategic mistake. China is a vitally important trading 
     partner of ours. In 1977, two-way trade was $400 million. By 
     1997, this figure had exploded to more than $75 billion--and 
     it's still growing.
       US-China trade supports over 200,000 export-related 
     American jobs, as well as tens of thousands of jobs in US 
     retail, financial services, consumer goods and transportation 
     companies--not to mention American companies that rely on 
     imported Chinese components to make their finished goods. 
     Restricting trade with China would hurt a range of American 
     companies--from large, globally competitive corporations, to 
     tens of thousands of small enterprises.
       Ironically, destroying the opportunities of thousands of 
     American entrepreneurs is being touted as a moral and just 
     policy. Indeed, some believe that refusing to grant MFN 
     status is the best way to express distaste with China's 
     domestic policies. This is wrong, too. Trade allows us the 
     best opportunity to set the example and create the necessary 
     relationships to effect change in China. Foreign companies 
     there set the tone for democracy by reducing area poverty, 
     helping to increase the standard of living, and teaching the 
     values and behaviors necessary for open trade and democracy.
       Trade helps to strengthen China's growing civil sector, 
     creating independent pockets of wealth that allow people to 
     reduce their dependence on the state. And by engaging China 
     on the economic front, it has gradually become more open and 
     tolerant. In fact, missionaries working in China have asked 
     Congress to continue to grant China MFN trading status--they 
     believe that it is having a positive effect. Commercial 
     engagement naturally won't solve all the problems of the 
     world--but it sure goes a long way.
       Finally, refusing MFN status in order to forward one 
     political goal--expressing disapproval of China's human 
     rights record--would make achieving other political goals 
     much harder. As a nuclear power with the largest population 
     in the world. China is crucial to the stability of the Asian 
     region. China is also taking steps to become a part of the 
     world economic community. And China's cautious and helpful 
     reaction to the Asian financial crisis has helped contain the 
     problem.
       As the door to China has opened wider, ideas of freedom are 
     flooding in. It is in the U.S.'s enlightened self-interest to 
     trade and work with China--creating an economic and national 
     security ally in an area of the world that demands it.
                                  ____


           Engagement With China Has Led to Concrete Benefits


                                 trade

       In 1977, two-way U.S.-China trade was $400 million. By 
     1997, two-way trade had grown to $75.3 billion.
       U.S. exports to China grew to $12.8 billion in 1997.
       U.S.-China trade supports over 200,000 export-related 
     American jobs, as well as tens of thousands of jobs in U.S. 
     retail, financial services, consumer goods, and 
     transportation companies.
       China is the 6th largest export market in the world for 
     U.S. farmers. In 1997, the United States exported $1.6 
     billion in agricultural products to China. The American Farm 
     Bureau called China ``the most important growth market for 
     U.S. agriculture into the 21st century.''
       The World Bank estimates that China's infrastructure needs 
     over the next decade are in the neighborhood of $750 billion. 
     U.S. companies in the power generation, telecommunications, 
     petroleum and other industries are well poised to meet these 
     needs.


                                security

       China helped broker a United Nations (U.N.) peace accord in 
     Cambodia.
       During the Persian Gulf War, China acceded to U.S. military 
     action against Iraq by not exercising its U.N. Security 
     Council veto.
       In 1994, Chinese pressure helped defuse a crisis over North 
     Korea's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons, and more recently 
     China has played an important role in the Four-Party Talks 
     between the United States, China, and North and South Korea.
       China and the United States have made concrete progress on 
     nuclear cooperation and nonproliferation goals. China joined 
     the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1992; signed the 
     Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993; and signed the 
     Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1996.


                         human rights democracy

       The best way for the United States to see a prosperous, 
     free China is for U.S. companies to stay commercially 
     engaged. Commercial engagement is not a panacea that will 
     solve all the problems of the world, but the human impact is 
     clearly positive.
       A June 8, 1998 Asian Wall Street Journal commentary noted 
     that foreign companies in China set the tone for democracy by 
     (1) reducing poverty; (2) teaching the values and behaviors 
     of democracy (open communication, receptivity to change, 
     teamwork, information sharing, and initiative); (3) 
     supporting the rights of the individual, and (4) hiring on 
     the basis of merit.
       Trade is helping to strengthen China's growing civil 
     sector, creating independent pockets of wealth that allow 
     people to reduce their dependence on the state. Economic 
     freedom is an essential dimension of other freedoms.
       The lives and freedoms of ordinary Chinese have improved 
     dramatically in the last twenty years. Access to outside 
     sources of information, such as foreign television programs, 
     books, and magazines, has expanded dramatically.
       On June 14, The Washington Post reported that genuine 
     elections have become commonplace in roughly half of China's 
     928,000 villages.
       While China must further improve its human rights climate, 
     sustained senior-level U.S.-China dialogue will mean 
     continued attention to U.S. concerns in this area.


                  international financial cooperation

       China has received a great deal of international praise for 
     the responsible role it has played to date in the Asian 
     Financial Crisis. China has not devalued its currency in 
     spite of the very damaging effect the crisis has had on its 
     exports. Senior U.S. and Chinese officials have had ongoing 
     consultations about how to address the crisis.

  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue for all of 
us, something we need to consider seriously. Are we or are we not going 
to trade with China? Are we or are we not going to have normal trade 
relations with China? Are we going to say that

[[Page H6098]]

1.2 billion people we ought to totally ignore and isolate?
  Do we want to go back to the Cold War? Do we want the Germans and the 
French and the Russians and every other country on the face of the 
Earth to do business in China but yet the United States of America is 
not going to do business anymore? That is the question we are asking 
ourselves today.
  I have come to the conclusion that we should have normal trade 
relations with China. I think it is in the United States' best interest 
to trade with China. I firmly believe that the best way we can continue 
to influence and impact change in China is through engagement, not 
estrangement.
  Certainly, the Chinese government must take serious legitimate steps 
to reverse its record of human rights violations and it must 
incorporate democratic reforms to promote liberty, freedom, and justice 
for the Chinese people. We want that to happen.
  As a matter of fact, when President Clinton visited China recently, 
and I thought it was a tremendous success, even though we had many 
critics even here in the House of Representatives that said, Oh, Mr. 
President, do not go to China. You should not go to China. You should 
not go to China at all for any purpose, even though it might improve 
relations and solve a lot of problems that exist today. Well, I say to 
all of them, those of them that believe strongly in freedom and rights 
and human rights, this is the opportunity we have in the United States 
of America to make sure that we continue to move forward.
  China has a population of 1.2 billion people. Shanghai alone, one 
city in China, has 17 percent of all the building cranes in the world 
just in that one city. The Minister of Education in China said not long 
ago that ``we are teaching more Chinese English than you have in 
population.'' I say that not to raise fears or concerns. I am saying 
that they are on the move.
  And there is no doubt we will see sometime in the 21st century that 
China will be a superpower. Yes, it is just a developing nation today. 
It will be a superpower. I want a friend, not a foe. I ask my 
colleagues to vote no on H.J. Res. 121 and support normal trade 
relations with China.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). While only a 
freshman, it is impossible to believe he is only a freshman, with all 
the work that he has done on this issue so successfully.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I hold up an ad that was in The Hill 
today, which cost $3,885 for the record. It is a part of the democracy 
we live in. I will not name the firm, but the firm writes this: ``This 
firm is committed to helping China develop sustainable economic 
growth.''
  And I find that to be very, very laudable. But what about us in this 
country? That is what this is all about. And to answer the last speaker 
who spoke eloquently here, we are all for freedom. The question is, 
what does that freedom mean?
  We have seen what has happened to the textile industry in this Nation 
over the last 30 years. If that was not bad enough, China is currently 
the third largest source of U.S. textile and apparel imports. Chinese 
textile and apparel exports to the United States are limited by U.S. 
quotas established under a bilateral agreement with China. The most 
current agreement was reached in February of 1997.
  The U.S. Customs Service, that is us, has found evidence that China 
has attempted to circumvent the U.S. textile quotas by transshipping 
Chinese products through other countries to the United States using 
false country-of-origin labels. This is a very common problem. I ask 
the opposition to this resolution to respond to this illegal 
trafficking of goods into this country.
  We talk about the sliding Asian economy. As it gets worse, there will 
be a propensity to produce more cheap goods to flood our markets. That 
is what this is all about. We cannot have normal relationships with the 
Chinese government. Our fight is not with the Chinese people. God, they 
have been treated horribly. Our argument is with the Chinese 
government.
  Instead of thinking about what kind of message will we send them if 
we put sanctions, if we do this or that, my question is, when are they 
going to start sending us messages that are not confusing messages, 
that speak to this very one-sided ad in The Hill newspaper this 
morning? When are they going to begin following the law of the land and 
of the world? When are they going to be treating their workers as human 
beings? When are they going to stop trading nuclear weaponry equipment 
to countries that are our enemies? That is a very serious question.
  We believe in freedom in America, and we cannot wish it through a 
trade agreement that is not reciprocal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) will control the time allocated to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Morristown, New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a very hard-
working member of the Committee on Appropriations, one of the leaders 
in the cause of our strategy of engagement.
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of normalizing trade relations with 
China and against the resolution.
  As a Member of Congress who supports increasing our trading exports 
and increasing American jobs, the only way we can accomplish this is by 
continuing normal trading relations with China.
  While there has been much heated rhetoric over this annual decision, 
the fact is that a vote against extending trade relations with China 
will indeed cast a serious doubt in the United States and abroad on 
Congress' capacity to deal constructively with many of the serious 
issues facing our relationship with China and, for that matter, other 
nations.
  The U.S. must send a signal that we will continue to be engaged with 
China. Engagement has worked and continues to work. Without engagement, 
we cannot expect any constructive movement towards our mutual goal of 
protecting human rights or dealing with the Asian financial crisis.
  Our policy of engagement allows us to press human rights directly 
with Chinese leaders. Normal trade and economic engagement has 
continued the process of opening China, exposing Chinese citizens to 
our politics, our ideas of freedom, and all the things that we hold 
dear in our country.
  In addition, China has played an important role in responding to the 
Asian financial crisis, in part by maintaining its exchange rate. Would 
these things have happened if we would not have pursued continuing 
engagement with China? Probably not.
  An estimated 400,000 jobs depend on exports to China and Hong Kong. 
In my home State of New Jersey, approximately 5,000 to 8,000 jobs 
depend upon our continuing trading with China. Our national exports to 
China have more than tripled.
  I rise against the resolution and for normal trading relations.
  China is now our fifth largest trading partner. In New Jersey exports 
to China amount to $350 million and range from manufacturing products 
such as electric and electronic equipment to various food and paper 
products. Revocation of trading status with China would invite 
retaliation against U.S. exporters and investors, giving a huge edge to 
other nations, thus hurting U.S. consumers, who pay upwards of half a 
billion dollars more per year on products because of higher tariffs.
  Mr. Chairman, I support trade relations with China and improving 
human rights in China and urge my colleagues to vote against this 
resolution.
  While there has been much heated rhetoric over this annual decision, 
the fact is that a vote against extending trade relations with China 
will cast a serious doubt in the U.S. and abroad on Congress' capacity 
to deal constructively with many of the serious issues facing our 
relationship with China and the nations! The U.S. must send a signal 
that we will continue to be engaged with China. Engagement has worked 
and continues to work. Without engagement we cannot expect any 
constructive movement towards our goal of protecting human rights or in 
dealing with the Asian financial crisis. Our policy of engagement 
allows us to press human rights directly with China's leaders. Normal 
trade and economic engagement has continued the process

[[Page H6099]]

of opening China, exposing Chinese citizens to our politics, ideas and 
personal freedoms.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support trade with China. It is 
absolutely essential for America's farmers. We can face the challenges 
with trade that China represents, or we can turn our back and face the 
consequences: lost markets for American farmers and the possibility of 
food shortages in China.
  China cannot produce enough food. They have 25 percent of the world's 
population, 7 percent of the world's arable land.

                              {time}  1315

  In 1997, U.S. ag sales to China totaled $4 billion. Huge trade 
surplus in agriculture, almost 250 percent in our favor. One of our 
largest wheat importers.
  China is increasing its food imports. Normal trade relations with 
China is absolutely critical to continued market access. As the China 
economy improves, more value-added goods will be bought by China.
  China will have to play fair to enter the World Trade Organization. 
China must show improved access for U.S. ag products to enter the World 
Trade Organization. Revoking normal trade relations will derail this 
progress.
  Engagement results in improvements. We want a peaceful, prosperous 
China. A billion hungry Chinese does not lead to a stable democracy. 
The U.S. is well positioned to help feed their people while maintaining 
positive relations. Turning our back on China today would be a huge 
mistake. We must recognize we are in a global economy.
  Human rights is a great concern. But just recently in my home State 
of Arkansas we found that the governor had ignored torture and abuse of 
children in our State in juvenile detention centers. That is a terrible 
thing. None of us approve of that. But we did not stop trading with the 
State of Arkansas because that happened. We must continue an effort to 
have constructive engagement. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 121.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Before I yield, I want to comment on the gentleman's statement about 
agriculture. I think it is absolutely true that our agricultural 
products should have access to China. Unfortunately, they do not. Just 
over 2 percent of U.S. agricultural exports are allowed into China. A 
witness before the committee on Ways and Means in favor of MFN for 
China, nonetheless his testimony, Mr. Micek's testimony said:

       Our ability to participate in some of China's agricultural 
     markets remains restricted. The Chinese central government 
     controls grain production, pricing and distribution. The 
     government also controls how much fertilizer and agricultural 
     chemicals are imported, what prices will be paid for grain 
     and cotton, and how much of these commodities can be 
     exported. The government maintains monopolies on grain and 
     fiber purchases, as well as on the main distribution channels 
     for agricultural inputs. We have had difficulty collecting on 
     contract obligations, even from branches of the government.

  I do not understand why the agricultural community in this country is 
not demanding more in terms of access to Chinese markets instead of 
following down this path of just keep waiting another 10 years and 
maybe we will be able to increase our exports to China above 2 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to quote Senator Kent Conrad from the Senate 
Finance Committee hearing on July 9, 1998 when he said China has 
reduced imports of American wheat from 3 million tons a year to 400,000 
tons in the past 4 years while wheat farmers in North Dakota were 
facing disaster.
  In agriculture as in other trade sectors, and these are my words, the 
administration's policy is not working. Let us change that. Let us 
change the status quo.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), a champion of human rights in this Congress.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to most-
favored-nation trade status with China, or whatever it may be called 
today.
  Yes, I know that all of corporate America wants us to pass MFN. I 
know that companies who contribute tens of millions of dollars to both 
political parties want us to pass MFN. I know that the corporate media 
wants us to pass MFN. But nonetheless, we should do the right thing, 
protect American workers, protect decent-paying jobs, and we should 
oppose MFN.
  Mr. Speaker, our current trade policy is a disaster. This year we 
will have a record-breaking trade deficit of some $200 billion. That 
means that we are importing $200 billion more in goods and services 
than we are exporting, with the loss of some 4 million jobs, many of 
them decent-paying jobs. Our trade deficit with China this year is 
exploding, and this year will reach some $60 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, American workers should not be asked to compete with the 
desperate people of China who are forced to work at wages of 15 cents 
an hour, 20 cents an hour, 30 cents an hour, and who are unable to form 
free trade unions, elect their own government or speak out for their 
rights. That is not fair competition or a level playing field. We 
should not continue through MFN to encourage our corporations to throw 
American workers out on the street while they invest tens of billions 
of dollars in China in search of cheap labor. Let us not forget, Mr. 
Speaker, that over the last 20 years, while trade with China has 
increased and our deficits with them have soared that the standard of 
living of American workers has gone down and people are working longer 
hours for lower wages.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend and 
classmate from Findlay, OH (Mr. Oxley) the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Finance and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution of 
disapproval.
  Mr. Speaker, before I get into the thrust of my comments, I think 
most of all we need to be reminded that this debate is really all about 
extending normal trading relations with China, something that we do 
with 223 other countries and we finally got around to changing that 
nomer and I am glad that we did.
  We have got to consider how far our relationship has gone with China 
in the last 20 years. In 1978, China was trying to recover from the 
results of the cultural revolution. The little economic activity that 
did take place was completely controlled by the government in a 
traditional, centrally-planned system. The Chinese people were lucky to 
have rice on the table. There was no religious or political freedoms 
whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, 20 years of economic freedom have created a thriving 
middle class of 350 million people. Freedom of religious expression, 
while certainly limited, has returned and churches of all faiths are 
active across the country. Finally, local elections are now free and 
competitive. People are beginning to have a say in politics.
  Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, I had the opportunity to visit China 
with several other members. We were pleased to participate in a 
luncheon that was hosted by AT&T, one of our major telecommunications 
companies that are opening markets within China. I was seated beside a 
young lady who was working at that time for AT&T. We discussed her past 
and her future and she told me that she had been a student at Brown 
University, one of 20,000 college students from China who study in the 
United States every year, most of whom return to China to build a new 
China. That is what she said she was all about, that she wanted to 
return to her home country, build a new China, and she said, I realized 
my utmost dream, and that was I had a chance to be educated in the 
United States and work for an American company in my home country.
  China is changing. We have to recognize that fact. I ask that the 
resolution be defeated.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pensacola, FL (Mr. Scarborough).

[[Page H6100]]

  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and I rise in support of this resolution. I love these 
debates just because of the things that we hear. I heard earlier the 
human rights conditions in Arkansas being compared to the human rights 
conditions in China. Just 5 minutes ago we heard it. How desperate can 
you be to pass this thing?
  In Arkansas you were not drug off away from your family for holding a 
religious service in your home for 2 years. That happens in China. 
There are not 1.2 million people from Arkansas who have had to flee 
their country or their State simply because they believe in Buddhism as 
has happened in Tibet. In Arkansas you are not taken out and killed if 
you disagree with the government. That still happens in China. In 
Arkansas, 60 million people have not been killed over the past 50 
years. That has happened in China. Ten times the number of people 
killed in the Holocaust by Adolf Hitler during World War II, 10 times 
that amount of people have been killed in China since 1949. Yet the 
human rights condition in the State of Arkansas is compared to the 
human rights condition in China. How desperate.
  I also hear, ``I want a friend, not a foe.'' I think that is a sweet 
sentiment. I also want a friend, not a foe. But does a friend just 2 
years ago threaten nuclear annihilation of Los Angeles, California? 
Now, maybe you do not like Hollywood or the Dodgers, but this is a 
dangerous thing. You do not threaten nuclear annihilation of Los 
Angeles.
  Also, we are constantly being given false choices. We have to be 
told, you are either a friend or a foe of China. We will either engage 
in China or be knuckle-dragging isolationists. That is a false choice. 
We all recognize that the 21st century will be the American and Asian 
century. We all recognize that seven out of 10 countries in the Pacific 
rim will be the largest economic powerhouses in the world in the next 
50 to 60 years. We all recognize we will once again face a bipolar 
world that we will be sharing with China. The question is, when we are 
negotiating in this bipolar world, will China receive the message that 
we are going to be negotiating every time by Chinese values, or by 
normal, human issues and values?
  I think it is essential that at the beginning of this new century, we 
have to lay down markers and say this is what we believe in, this is 
what we stand for, these are principles that we will not negotiate. I 
thought that is what we did in 1995 when we said we will extend MFN, 
the good old days, when it was called MFN, we will extend it under 
three conditions: Number one, do not abuse human rights; number two, do 
not export nuclear weapons; number three, stop stealing our 
intellectual properties.
  The past 3 years have only shown things have gotten worse. In human 
rights, ask Wei. He was at a press conference yesterday saying things 
are no better today than they were 3 years ago. Tibetans are still 
being crushed. Christians are still being crushed. Human rights are not 
respected in China today any more than they were in 1995.
  As far as their nuclear export business, let us look and see what has 
happened in India and in Pakistan. Let us see what has happened in 
Iran. Let us see what has happened in Iraq. They continue to export 
weapons technology that place my children and your children and 
everybody else's children under a graver threat of nuclear annihilation 
today than we were in in 1995. Yet we just blow it off. We lay down 
these markers, the Chinese scoff at us, and we pass it in 1996 and 
1997.
  The Chinese say they are going to cooperate with the President more, 
and they fire missiles, they conduct weapons tests while the President 
is in Beijing. The Chinese have a word for it. The word is kowtow, and 
it is what many people in this Congress, many people in this 
administration, and many of these people on Wall Street have been doing 
for years. The question is why? The question is why are we doing this? 
Why are we negotiating away what we stand for? Why have we turned our 
back on Jeffersonian democracy? Two reasons. They are the next great 
export market. Well, God bless the next great export market. And also 
it is cheap labor. Let us face it, this is the dirty truth. Cheap 
American products are fueled by what we would consider slave labor in 
China.
  I believe, like the gentleman from Nebraska, like the gentlewoman 
from California and like many others in this fight that no matter how 
cheap goods are that we import from China, cheap goods, paid with the 
blood of fellow human beings, are too expensive. I say support this 
resolution, and for once send a message to China that we will not 
continue to kowtow to them, and once they understand that, then we can 
begin the next century which we will share with Asia and together we 
will work together to fight for the things that should matter to both 
of us.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California (Mr. 
Matsui) for yielding to me. I want, first of all, to salute him and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) on our side for their hard work 
on this issue, as well as recognizing the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) on the Republican 
side for their bipartisan effort on this very, very critical issue. I 
also want to congratulate the President on his recent trip to China and 
the success of that recent trip.
  As I get into my remarks, I want to be very clear about what this 
debate is about and what it is not about. It seems to be more and more 
that we have a number of myths about this debate.
  The first myth is that this debate is about MFN, most-favored nation 
status, or it is about normal trade relations, or it is about 
isolationism. It is not about any of those terms. It is about 
constructive engagement with maybe the most important bilateral 
relationship that the United States will have over the next 50 or 100 
years.
  Will we constructively engage, cajole, criticize, beat up a power 
that we do not agree with on some fundamental issues? I believe in the 
President's policy of constructive engagement. This is a nation that is 
accelerating in power around the world. The Russian relationship is 
declining. The Chinese relationship is quickly accelerating.
  China has 1.2 billion people, the fastest growing economy in the 
world, growing at 9 to 13 percent a year, and plays a critical role in 
this Asian crisis going on right now for our exports and for the 
strength of our economy. This is a vitally important relationship.
  Many people get up and argue the second myth: This is in the Chinese 
people's interests for us to engage China. No, it is in the United 
States' interest to do this. It is in our interest to do this for 
trade.
  I am not happy with the $63 billion trade deficit. I wish the 
President would have had some more success on this issue, quite 
frankly. But the income level of the average Chinese citizen is growing 
rapidly. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, this citizen in 
China is going to be more and more free, religiously free, politically 
free, and economically capable of buying more and more U.S. products.
  It is in the American interests for us not to isolate China on 
defense than for us to spend more and more money on our defense budget. 
It is in our interests in international competition. It is in our 
interest on international cooperation, where China has been very, very 
helpful with issues of concern and sensitivity to North Korea.
  Finally, the last myth is, that those who support constructive 
engagement are not in favor of human rights. I want to dismiss that 
myth very forcefully. Nobody is more sensitive to what happened in 
Tiananmen Square than, I think, President Clinton. He has taken on 
Jiang Zemin in Washington face to face, he has taken on Jiang Zemin in 
China face to face, and he has done it on TV.
  Many of the supporters of constructive engagement recently voted for 
the Political Freedom in China Act, the enforcement ban on slave labor 
products, enforcing restrictions on Chinese missile exports, and so 
forth.
  If we want to truly move China in the right direction, if we want to 
make them more sensitive to human rights, open up religious freedoms, 
make them eventually sign the missile technology control regime, let 
us, in a bipartisan

[[Page H6101]]

way, vote for constructive engagement today.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is a nationally recognized 
leader on human rights throughout the world.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for 
her tremendous international as well as national leadership on this 
issue.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 121 and, therefore, vote 
``no'' on extending most-favored-nation to China. Why do I say so? 
Mainly because the policy is not working. It is one way. Most-favored 
nation is not normal. It is abnormal. It is preferential.
  How can you say, when China keeps 40 percent tariffs up against our 
goods, and we allow their goods to come in here at 2 percent, that kind 
of differential, how can that be normal? It is preferential. It is 
defective. It is not reciprocal. It is not normal.
  Why should we reward, therefore, a growing trade deficit to our 
country that results from that system? Over $50 billion now, a 350 
percent increase during the last decade, knocking off a quarter point 
off our GDP. People say, well, what does that really matter? It matters 
because it erodes productive power inside this society as we cash out 
our middle class jobs and working class jobs across the Pacific.
  We have had to raise the minimum wage here. We have to save health 
benefits for our people. We have to try to somehow retain pension 
benefits at the level they existed in the past decades. And this begs 
the question of the other issues that should concern us on China--
nuclear weapons proliferation, the kind of religious and human rights 
abuses China is famous for, the brutality toward Tibet.
  If you look at agriculture, even in this so-called era where we are 
supposed to have a beachhead with China, we actually reached our little 
teeny weeny blip in exports in 1996 and have had a 23 percent decrease 
since that time.
  They keep their tariffs up on our soybean oil. They do not let in our 
citrus. They keep their state-run monopolies on fiber and wheat. What 
are we to do?
  In this post-Berlin Wall era, what is it that the United States 
stands for? Are we using our moral, political, and economic power to 
build democracy in developing nations of the world? Or are we, as 
Nelson Mandela reminded us during President Clinton's visit there in 
Africa, part of a web of forces that exploits ordinary people on behalf 
of repressive regimes and transnational corporations who hold a disdain 
for democratic principles themselves?
  I can tell which side of the question the passion in this debate is 
on. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 121. Let us represent the voices of millions 
of people in this country and in China who feel they are held in 
bondage by those who fundamentally do not respect and will not tolerate 
the very idea of democracy for all.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have another quote I want to share with my colleagues: 
If each person in China were to eat one more slice of bread every day, 
they would need 400 million bushels more. That is about what Kansas' 
entire output was last year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a very contentious 
issue that deserves debate. This is a debate between religious freedom 
and human rights in China as well as about how to promote democracy and 
economic freedom throughout the world.
  As a supporter of freedom as well as free trade, I wish trade 
relations with China were a much easier issue. However, the actions of 
the Chinese leadership in Beijing make this a very, very complicated 
issue.
  As a member of the House Committee on National Security, I am very 
concerned about China's role as a proliferator of weapons of mass 
destruction and for fueling the nuclear arms race between India and 
Pakistan. As a Christian, I am concerned about the slowness of China's 
progress in the area of human rights and religious liberty.
  However, after much prayerful thought, I continue to believe that the 
best way to affect China morally, economically, and politically is 
through interaction with the Chinese. We should demonstrate the 
American way of integrity, honesty, and openness.
  During last year's debate I quoted this editorial from the Economist 
which stated: ``If you hear your neighbor beating up his children, do 
you give a shrug and say it is none of your business?''
  I answered absolutely no last year and I do so again this year. We 
should not shirk our duty to go next door and try to stop the abuse.
  I urge my colleagues to support normal trade relations with China in 
hopes of continuing our influence of religious and economic freedom.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and 
friend, the gentlewoman from Florida, (Mrs. Fowler).
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and to 
oppose granting China normal trade relations status.
  China continues to sell weapons of mass destruction and missile 
technologies to rogue states. Approval of normal trade relations 
status, formerly known as MFN, will not persuade China to act more 
responsibly.
  Last year the Director of Central Intelligence reported that China 
was a most significant supplier of weapons of mass destruction-related 
goods and technology to foreign countries, end of quote. China has 
provided key technologies for Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs, 
and has driven India's programs. It continues to provide weapons of 
mass destruction and missile technologies to Iran. Last January, a 
Chinese state firm agreed to provide Iran with hundreds of tons of 
hydrofluoric acid, used for making nuclear weapons, and Sarin poison 
gas under falsified documents.
  On top of this, China only this year increased its ICBM arsenal by 
one-third, weapons that can target the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to tell China's leaders they must change course. 
Support this resolution.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of extending normal trade 
relations to China for the coming year and against House Joint 
Resolution 121.
  Extending normal trade relations is in the best interest of the 
United States. It will strengthen our presence in Asia and allow us to 
remain engaged on such questions as human rights and protecting the 
global environment.
  Further, it will help to integrate China with the rest of the world 
and expose China to American values of individuality, freedom and 
democracy. Our engagement with China has resulted in the release of Wei 
Jingsheng and Wang Dan and the signing of an international covenant on 
economic, social and cultural rights.
  Extending normal trade relations to China does not endorse their 
disregard for human rights. Instead, it provides the United States with 
an opportunity to speak against China's human rights violations, as the 
President did on his recent visit.
  Our relationship with China has made it possible for organizations 
such as China's Children to facilitate the adoption of 154 baby girls 
in my district alone. Next week's Children's Hope International, of 
which China's Children is a member, will be meeting right here in our 
Nation's Capital to discuss and determine how this new engagement will 
facilitate even further progress.
  One quarter of the world's people live in China, Mr. Speaker, and it 
is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. It is estimated 
that China's energy demand will double within 10 years. It is already 
the world's largest producer of ozone-depleting substances and the 
second largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Building trade relations 
with China will open the door for the United States to work with China 
to protect the global environment we are all concerned about.
  Trade relations will also provide opportunities for cultural 
exchange. The United States and China have agreed to implement cultural 
and educational programs to increase the interaction between the two 
societies, including high school student exchanges, scholar exchanges 
for the Fulbright program, and book donations of 550 American

[[Page H6102]]

volumes to Chinese educational institutions. These exchanges are the 
key to promoting American ideas of individual freedom and democracy in 
China.
  Finally, approximately 400,000 American jobs depend on export to 
China and Hong Kong, and export to these countries have more than 
tripled over the past decade. China is our fifth largest trading 
partner and it is crucial that we continue our relationship with China.
  In 1997, my State of Missouri exported $296 million in goods to 
China, and from 1995 to 1996 our exports to China grew by 631 percent. 
China is in Kansas City's eighth largest export destination, with $61 
million in merchandise and export in 1996 alone. My district exports 
plastic materials and resins, automotive parts, telecommunications 
equipment, building materials, food and dairy products, agricultural 
machinery and pollution control equipment to China.
  Since 1988, 51 percent of all new manufacturing jobs in Missouri have 
been as a result of foreign investment in China, and these new 
positions have been higher paying than traditional manufacturing jobs. 
The average monthly wage for Missouri employees who work for a foreign 
subsidiary is 13 percent higher than all Missouri businesses.
  For example, Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, one of Missouri's 
leading law firms and the Nation's fastest growing firm, employs more 
than 320 attorneys and 500 staff members, and many of their clients 
transact business with China and anticipate growth in that area.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Speaker, a small manufacturing company in Kansas City, Dan Bunch 
Enterprises, has shared with me that they expect a 40 percent increase 
in jobs for their company this year as a direct result of trade 
relations with China.
  I urge my colleagues to support extending normal trade relations to 
China, and to continue to work toward engaging this country on 
international issues of importance. Please oppose House Joint 
Resolution 121. Help to bring freedom and democracy to the people of 
China.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises Members the following time 
remains in this debate: For the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), 
18\1/2\ minutes; for the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Christensen), 15 
minutes; for the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), 19\1/2\ 
minutes; and for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), 19 
minutes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield three minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink), a real powerhouse for American 
workers.
  (Mr. KLINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time and 
being so kind in her comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to support this legislation, H.R. 121, and I must 
oppose normal trade relations for China. I wish I could come here and 
say that I wanted to promote normal trade relations with China, that I 
felt that that would solve all of our problems, but my conscience will 
not allow that to happen.
  You see, we keep granting the Chinese favorable trading status in 
hopes that they are going to clean up their act, that they are going to 
fix all of these problems, and each year we are increasingly more and 
more disappointed.
  Since the Tiananmen Square massacre back in 1989, the U.S. trade 
deficit with China has soared from $6 billion a year to $60 billion 
this year, tenfold. If we use the common multiplier of 20,000 jobs for 
every $1 billion in trade, that is 1.2 million U.S. jobs that we have 
lost this year. If that is normal trade relations, Mr. Speaker, I, for 
one, want nothing to do with normalcy.
  China continues to use slave labor conditions to produce its goods 
and products, using children and military and exporting the goods to 
America, while our goods to China face tariffs that are 5 to 20 times 
that of the Chinese exports to the U.S. If that is normal, Mr. Speaker, 
then maybe we need abnormal trade relations with the Chinese.
  Furthermore, in the area of human rights, the Chinese continue to be 
the most serious of violators. Indeed, China's treatment of the people 
who attempt to practice freedom of religion is directly responsible for 
many of us here voting earlier this year to support the Freedom from 
Religious Persecution Act. The Chinese have little tolerance for 
freedom of speech or assembly, and the Chinese have been implicated in 
aiding the nuclear weapons program of Pakistan and Iran. Mr. Speaker, 
if all this adds up to normal trade relations, then I want nothing to 
do with it.
  One of the previous speakers talked about Kyoto. I was in Kyoto last 
year, and we spoke to the Chinese. Whether you agree with global 
warming or disagree, you have to admit that it does not do any of us 
any good to emit pollutions into the atmosphere.
  The Chinese sat across from us and said they will not do anything in 
the next 20 years, or the next 50 years, or the next 100 years, or the 
next 150 years. It was no, no, no. That is the same approach they take 
to trade. The Great Wall of China is in fact the word ``no.'' When they 
tell us repeatedly they are not going to do business with us in a fair 
way, why should we try to establish normal relations with them?
  We want to try to improve our relations with the Chinese, but it has 
to be a two-way street. The government of China has to tell us that 
they are willing to treat us with respect, and we must send a message 
back to the 1 billion-plus Chinese people that we stand beside you. 
When we in the United States say that we believe in equal rights for 
everybody, it is everybody, whether they live in our country or they 
live in China. So we must approve H.J. Res. 121.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind colleagues on the floor and who are 
following this debate that if we are losing all these jobs, I do not 
know where we will find the labor force, since we have been at full 
employment for two years. But, in addition to that, on the religious 
persecution issue, to be sure there are restrictions that remain, but 
there are now an estimated 12 to 20 million Protestants in mainland 
China, 4 to 10 million Catholics, 100 million Buddhists, 18 million 
Muslims, and 2 to 3 million Taoists currently practicing their religion 
in China. There are more than 12,000 official Protestant churches and 
25,000 homes or other unofficial meeting places where church services 
are held.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had a meeting with Doug Johnson of the 
Center for Victims of Torture, who is working to find innovative ways 
to address human rights problems all around the world. He said to me, 
``When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a 
nail,'' and I believe that this is a statement that applies directly to 
this situation. Our hammer is MFN, and all we have is a problem that 
looks like a nail.
  We have to find other tools to deal with China. There is not anyone 
in this Chamber that does not know that the bottom line is that MFN is 
not going to be withdrawn. Even if the Senate were to agree with the 
House and even if the House were to pass it, the President would veto 
it, and it is not going to happen.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said earlier, yes, but it 
holds out hope to prisoners. If that is so, it is a good debate and we 
should have it. I have the highest respect for the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and his judgment and his leadership on these 
issues, but we have to look, Mr. Speaker, for the other tools.
  Last year, we introduced legislation in the Congress that would add 
other tools to our addressing human rights abuses in China. Together 
with a number of colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and others, we introduced 
legislation that would provide us with real tools to change China: 
Increased funding for Radio Free Asia, increased funding for the 
National Endowment for Democracy, discrete sanctions on human

[[Page H6103]]

rights abusers, increased reporting on human rights by the State 
Department, increased contact between Chinese people and Americans, and 
more. This body passed that legislation. It is over in the Senate now.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the way we have to address these problems and 
solve them.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I do identify very strongly with the 
comments we just heard from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
  Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of shaping our relationship with 
China for decades to come, but we are also in the process of defining 
what kind of international leadership in the post-Cold War era we are 
going to have, moving away from military might and trying to 
thoughtfully exercise our role in a changing economy.
  Our annual ritual of threatening to revoke normal trade relations is 
understandably mystifying, not just to the Chinese, but to many others 
around the world.
  But looking at the Chinese, this ancient culture can appropriately be 
baffled by the many voices of Congress and the administration that 
happens every year in this debate, when they and every Member on this 
floor is aware that there are problems in many other countries that 
enjoy normal trading relations, in Asia, in the Middle East, in Africa, 
that have problems with human rights, environmental issues, religious 
persecution, and enjoy routinely normal trading relations. Normal trade 
relations is in fact a blunt instrument which does not advance our 
agenda of integrating the Chinese into the community of nations with 
whom we share economic, environmental and human values.
  We also need to pause for a moment on this floor to reflect upon the 
important and complex relationship that this country has in fact 
enjoyed with China over the course of this century. The Chinese were a 
key ally in dealing with the former Soviet Union, and it was as a 
result of that relationship that we hastened the end of the Cold War. 
They continue to be a moderating influence in the area where the 
American troops are most likely to be engaged in armed conflict, the 
Korean Peninsula.
  We also need to realize the environmental value to the United States 
of remaining engaged with the Chinese. Strengthening our relationship 
will help influence their decisions on controlling pollution and 
development.
  I do not think anybody should accept Chinese behavior assisting rogue 
nations or denying that we should do all in our power to encourage 
greater freedom for the Chinese people. There is, in fact, much more 
that needs to be done. But, as the President's recent trip to China 
highlighted, significant progress has been made over the course of the 
last couple of decades. There have in fact been gains, even in areas of 
religious freedom, and there are the stirrings of grassroots democracy, 
unthinkable only a few years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, the environmental progress, progress on human rights, 
greater freedom for the Chinese people, peace and stability in Asia, 
greater economic opportunity for the United States, these are all key 
long-term goals that are in fact shared by the vast majority of people 
on this floor. I strongly urge the rejection of the resolution before 
us.
  I would just make one brief reference to a dinner I had in my 
district two weeks ago with a variety of representatives from high tech 
companies. One small high-tech company admitted that their software was 
in fact continuing to be pirated by the Chinese. They stepped back for 
a moment and said to me, ``Yes, it is true. But, you know, the way we 
are looking at it, we have them hooked on our product. Ultimately they 
are going to be relying on us for the product, in the long run.'' I 
think this is the sort of approach we could engage in this debate as 
well.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show the rate of 
piracy of software in China is 95 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased to yield one minute to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her outstanding 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of withdrawing normal trade relations 
with China. Does anyone really think that this is going to be the norm, 
this is the type of norm we want? We want a country that uses its 
platform, a very large country, for nuclear proliferation, for 
conventional arms sales, like missiles, for weapons of mass 
destruction? That, of course, has such an abysmal record on human 
rights, that is threatening countries with force, threatening parts of 
its nation, Taiwan and Tibet, with force?
  If one just wanted to look at the trade issues, is it normal to in 
fact trade with countries that have encouraged child labor, that have 
forced labor, that have slave labor, that use their military production 
capacity for consumer product production, that have no worker rights? 
Is that the norm?
  There are no safety rights and no health rights for workers, as well 
as blatant disregard for intellectual property and other types of 
normal trade rules. Prohibitive and unfair tariffs, which they 
unilaterally impose, is that normal, or offsets they require, so much 
so, as one of my colleagues said, that a Boeing plane is at home when 
it arrives there?
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we ask for what is normal and vote up 
this resolution to deny normal trade with China--over two decades of 
excuses and excusing China is enough. China is not entitled to be 
treated special when its actions are so below the norm.
  I rise today in support of the resolution to withdraw normal trade 
relations with China. Because of the limited progress that has been 
attained on vital issues between the United States and China, extending 
normal trade relations is inappropriate. The action to curtail normal 
trade relations is harsh, but based upon the objectives, values, and 
facts as they pertain to United States-China relations, necessary.
  China's government continues to be one of the most oppressive in the 
world. The United States has a responsibility to employ our economic 
leverage and respond to the irresponsible, inhumane and unjust 
behavior. Revoking trade relations may not be an ideal vehicle, it is 
at best a blunt instrument. But it is one of the only mechanisms we 
have today to highlight China's lack of compliance with internationally 
accepted human rights norms. And yes, their conduct and behavior is 
such that this type of profound action is indeed justified.
  Many of my colleagues are willing to set the human rights issues 
aside, reasonably concerned about economic impacts which may result in 
revoking normal trade status. It has been said that this legislation 
would hurt American labor. However, the trade deficit with China is in 
reality actually costing American jobs, notwithstanding the upside-down 
logic that has been repeatedly advanced by the interests that profit 
from the United States/Chinese trade deficit. Some 63B this past year.
  If China was a market for made in the USA goods, it would indeed be a 
vital method of boosting our economy. If we were importing goods from 
Chinese-owned businesses, we would be promoting free enterprise within 
China. However neither one of these scenarios reflect reality. Some 
American companies use China as a production platform--a namufacturing 
site for goods which are then sold in the United States. Jobs which 
have traditionally provided American workers with living wage 
employment within the USA and a real chance to join the middle class 
are being given to Chinese workers, who are paid $2 a day or less!
  It has been said that all of these issues will be more effectively 
addressed within the framework of normal trade relations; that trading 
with China would encourage the breakup of the socialist economic, 
political, and social systems and support free enterprise; that we 
don't want to offend China for fear of further oppression. 
Historically, reduced tariffs have not automatically resulted in 
enhanced human rights. After all, trading indiscriminately with Nazi 
Germany, or Japan in the 1930's didn't cause reform, and it is unlikely 
to cause reform today. In fact, we can take some solace in the action 
which limited economic intercourse with the former Soviet Union, or on 
a different scale, with nations like South Africa. These limits and 
economic sanctions did have positive results.
  Let's change the focus of this debate. Rather than focusing on what 
kind of country China is, we must ask ourselves; what kind of nation 
are we? Has the United States reached the point where we believe that 
economic change alone will deliver human rights? That trade relations 
are supreme to the welfare of American workers? More important than 
standing up for freedom and democracy? All of the factors being 
discussed here today; the record deficit, the tariff gap, the wage 
disparity and the abuse of workers, illegal copying of intellectual 
property, arms proliferations, weapons

[[Page H6104]]

of mass destruction, and technology transfers--all of these undermine 
values which this country is committed to uphold. Continuing to grant 
normal trade relations status to China would send a clear message; 
business as usual, our Nation will bend if the price is too high. 
Frankly, that is a price that we cannot afford. Human rights and people 
must come first in our world view and values. If this is the norm, the 
U.S. may as well put on the shelf its advocacy and values when it 
engages in trade.
  Chinese actions, both internally and internationally, do not merit 
special status or normal trade status with the United States. I 
encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, 
which sends a clear message to the Chinese government that such actions 
will not be tolerated and that the U.S. policy in light of such Chinese 
policies and actions is not business as usual and normal trade 
relations.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have another quotation I would like to share with my 
colleagues. ``No country has a larger interest than Taiwan in seeing 
prosperity take hold on the mainland, for prosperity will help push 
mainland China into becoming a responsible member of the international 
community. MFN is a useful tool in steering the PRC on the path to 
prosperity and eventually democracy.''
  That is a quote from the Honorable Jeffrey Koo, Advisor to Taiwan 
Government, Chairman, Chinese National Association of Industry and 
Commerce, in May of this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox).

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support normal trade 
relations with China. However, I share the concerns of others in this 
body about stopping the human rights violations. This should be 
achieved, I believe, through constructive engagement with China.
  Of special concern are those particular human rights violations that 
involve the killing of minor criminals whose body parts are then sold 
for profit. I will note that the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York is 
investigating these crimes. The need for engagement goes beyond the 
improvement of human rights violations, but also making sure the 
balance of payments, of trade, are improved, and stopping the nuclear 
proliferation.
  My hope for the future, Mr. Speaker, is that China moves to 
democratic rule and the U.S. becomes their role model nation. I believe 
that by working together, the government that flourishes now in Taipei, 
Taiwan can be what the people of Beijing, China yearn for and will 
receive. I hope that my colleagues join me in supporting normal trade 
relations.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter), my good friend and colleague.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, a lot has been made about the label of this debate. Is 
it over ``normal trade relations'' or is it over ``Most-Favored-Nation 
status?'' In reality, it is over $64 billion. It is a $64 billion 
question, because we send to China $64 billion more each year than they 
send to us.
  The second question we should ask is, is it in America's interests to 
send $64 billion a year to China? Well, let us examine some of the 
things they are doing with that money. They are buying missile cruisers 
that were designed by the then-Soviet Union to do one thing: kill 
American aircraft carriers and the men and women who operate those 
aircraft carriers. That is one thing they bought with the money we have 
given them.
  What are some of the other things they have done with the money we 
have given them, some of that $64 billion? They have upgraded their 
strategic systems. That means the Long March missiles, some of which 
are aimed at American cities like New York, like San Diego, like Los 
Angeles. So they have built and deployed and aimed nuclear weapons at 
some of our cities with some of the money that we have given them.
  What are some other things they have done with some of the $64 
billion we have given them? They have proliferated poison gas 
components and nuclear weapons components to such adversaries of the 
United States as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea. They have sent 
poison gas and nuclear components with some of that $64 billion that we 
have given them.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, if this is a business deal, the 
currency of this business deal may be death in the future for young 
Americans in uniform, and that is the worst kind of trade deficit. Vote 
up on this resolution.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
disapproval motion and in support of renewing normal trade relations 
with China.
  The question is whether renewing normal trade relations with China is 
really a false and antiquated choice. We can no longer afford to ignore 
this superpower. We need to maximize our lines of communication. Where 
we can agree with China on matters of trade, we need to agree; where we 
disagree with respect to human rights or national security, we should 
fight like the dickens to protect our interests, and we certainly can 
assume they will do the same with respect to their interests.
  It is fair to say that a trade deficit exists with China that we need 
to aggressively tackle. It is estimated that about 400,000 well-paying 
jobs are created in this country as a result of trade with China, but 
it is not nearly enough. But make no mistake about it, the solution to 
that problem does not lie in revoking normal trade relations with 
China, it lies in hard-nosed negotiating at the bargaining table.
  In my State of Florida there are many nontariff barriers that exist 
with respect to importation of agriculture into China, and at the 
bargaining table where we have a voice is the best way to effectuate 
that change.
  Much has been said about human rights violations in China. Billy 
Graham wrote a letter last year to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) citing the work of his son, Ned, with churches in China, in 
which he advocated improving our relationship with China and having a 
stronger relationship. The best way for us to effectuate positive 
change in elevation of religious freedom and other democratic values we 
so deeply cherish is by exposing that country to our values and doing 
so by a more aggressive relationship with China where there is more 
interaction. That happens by normal trade relations; it happens by 
sending more of our religious leaders and other leaders concerned about 
human rights into China to bring about change from within.
  We cannot ignore this superpower. We need to continue to have normal 
trade relations. It is in the best interests of our country in terms of 
trade; it is our best way for effectuating positive change within the 
borders of China.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am very, very privileged to yield 1 minute 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who comes closest in 
my mind to being the conscience of this Congress.
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for her leadership in this regard. I rise in 
support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been told and we are hearing today that economic 
engagement will solve China's abuses of human rights and that China has 
made progress in many areas. To that I ask, what progress? Repression 
of religion is not progress; forced abortion is not progress; nuclear 
proliferation is absolutely not progress; and repression of peaceful 
expression is not progress.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been told that revoking MFN status would 
discourage progress or a change in China. Well, I do not believe that 
for one second. The Chinese bluster, they bully, and if they believe we 
are committed to progress, they will progress themselves because they 
want to sell their products to the United States. To ensure that China 
makes real progress in labor rights, religious tolerance, basic human 
rights and the end of nuclear proliferation, vote for H.J. Res. 121.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for 
another quotation.

[[Page H6105]]

  ``Vigorous economic development leads to independent thinking. People 
hope to be able to fully satisfy their free will and see their rights 
fully protected. And then demand ensues for political reform * * * The 
model of our quiet revolution will eventually take hold on the Chinese 
mainland,'' end of quote. That was from the new Taiwanese President, 
the first elected President of Taiwan, in his inaugural address 2 years 
ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham), our distinguished colleague.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, China is a rogue nation, as dangerous to 
us and the world as a dangerous pit viper. It is ruled by totalitarians 
and lying communists over a people that want to be free.
  Dissidents beg us to stay engaged, both diplomatically and 
economically, and I take a back seat to no one in fighting Communists 
or socialists in this country and abroad. China is different than it 
was 10 years ago because we have engaged economically. Go there and see 
the differences that we have made. If we had not engaged, China would 
not be different. Trade with Middle East, trade with Northern Ireland, 
we could make the same arguments on trading with them.
  I understand why the other side is opposed to this issue. I am that 
close to being with them on the issue, because while engaging in trade, 
the President has failed the other side. You do not walk softly and 
carry a big stick of candy in trade. You do not not stand up for 
American rights and let China have high tariffs. You do not let our own 
forces train the Communist PLA that will be used against Taiwan. You do 
not slap Taiwan in the face and support China. You do not not stand up 
for human rights. And the other side is absolutely correct, but I 
believe unless we trade economically, unless we try and change this 
10,000 year-old dog, that we will be behind.
  COSCO, Long Beach shipyard. You do not let a pit viper in the crib of 
your baby. You do not let a communist Chinese shipping company that has 
shipped chemical and biological weapons into California. They have 
shipped AK-47s into California. They have shipped to Iran and Iraq, the 
reason that we are there right now in California.
  So the President has failed in his policies with China, but he has 
also traded with them, and I think that will make the changes 
necessary.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), my good friend and colleague.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I stand in essence where the gentleman from California, my colleague, 
stands, and that is, it has been said that it is but a straw that can 
break the camel's back, and that is where I am with this vote, because 
on the one hand I very much believe in free trade. I look back at the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) back there, who has been 
courageous in leading for free trade around the globe, and I believe 
with him in that very simple concept.
  But I also believe that we in Congress have a fiduciary 
responsibility to send a message where we think a message ought to be 
sent, and that is where I am struggling. Because if we look right now, 
I would say that there is a growing sense that there is an expansionist 
policy in the South China Sea with China, and that we ought to send a 
signal that says that is not okay.
  Now, admittedly, using MFN to send that signal is a very blunt 
instrument, but as a Member of Congress it is the only instrument that 
I have that will mean something to the Chinese. So it is with great 
reluctance that I will be voting against MFN, but I do so because of 
what is happening.
  We look at for instance what happened in the Straits of Taiwan last 
year when they opened democracy. Taiwan was trying to hold its own 
elections when China had military exercises. We would say we have a 
problem. If we look at what happened with Mr. Fareef or the Spratly 
Islands, you would say we have a problem. When China moved natural gas 
drilling rigs into what was clearly identified as territorial waters of 
Vietnam, you would say we have a problem. I think we ought to send a 
signal that says expansionism is not okay.
  So other people may have a problem with human rights or trade or a 
variety of issues, but for me it comes down to one very simple thing, 
and that is an expansionist policy is bad for the region in Southeast 
Asia and it is bad for our allies in Southeast Asia.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
very distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, my Most Favored Nation, America, has 
freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of 
assembly, believes in the rights of minorities, believes in human 
rights, believes in workers' rights, believes in nuclear 
nonproliferation, and believes that life is sacred.
  China has no freedom of speech, no freedom of press, no freedom of 
religion, no right of free assembly, does not believe in the rights of 
minorities, does not believe in human rights, does not belief in 
workers' rights, does not believe in nuclear nonproliferation, does not 
believe life is sacred.
  Why then should China become the Most Favored Nation of the United 
States of America? Most Favored Nation indeed. Of whom? Most-Favored-
Nation status is now held up as the elixir of liberty, the cure-all. 
Give MFN to China, let us just keep giving China access to our markets, 
expose them to our values, they say, and they will become more like us. 
Even as they take away millions of American jobs and arm the Asian 
subcontinent.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote will not tell us anything about what China is 
or what it is becoming, but it will tell us plenty about what America 
is and what we are becoming. The Bible says, ``He who troubleth his own 
house shall inherit the wind.''
  When we place free trade over human rights, when we place free trade 
over democratic rights, when we are so eager for a friendship with 
China that we forget our moral compass, we are a Nation which is 
preparing to inherit the wind.
  Send a message: liberty and justice in trade, in America, and even in 
China.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
share another quote with my colleagues. ``The current debate about 
renewing China's `Most Favored Nation' trading status no doubt raises 
many complex and difficult questions. . . However, I am in favor of 
doing all we can to strengthen our relationship with the Chinese 
people. . . Furthermore, in my experience nations respond to friendship 
just as much as people do.'' The Reverend Billy Graham, June of last 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Barrett).

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to oppose ending 
normal trade relations with China. Proponents of ending trade with 
China fail to answer the question: If we end normal trading relations 
with China, then how do we influence change?
  The days when the U.S. could act like a bull in a China shop are 
over. Countries simply go elsewhere if they do not like the sounds that 
are coming from ours.
  That is why maintaining normal trade relations with China is vital to 
agriculture. Ending trade with China could cause a 3-year loss of more 
than $2 billion in U.S. farm income. At $1.6 billion, China is our 
seventh largest agricultural export market, and almost half of our 
exports are of wheat, corn, and soybeans, staples of our Nebraska 
exports.
  Some may claim a moral victory if we end trade with China. I am 
confident it will be a hollow victory, washed away in a few months when 
our trade competitors fill the void left by exiting U.S. businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to reject this resolution, and 
maintain the engine of change. Maintain trade with China.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.

[[Page H6106]]

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) for yielding me this time, and I also offer my congratulations 
and thanks to her for her strong, outstanding leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Most Favored Nation status, and 
rise in support of the resolution. People will say that we have made 
some progress in our dealings with China. I do not see that progress. I 
see a $64 billion trade deficit. I see jobs that should be in this 
country that are in China. I see the piracy of intellectual property by 
China going unabated.
  Mr. Speaker, the reality is basically this: If we do not take a 
strong stand, we will continue to be the loser. They have engaged in 
trade practices that do not benefit this country, but some people 
somehow say that that is progress despite the fact that we continue to 
lose jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, our best jobs, the so-called good-paying, high-tech jobs 
come out of our intellectual property. But they pirate our intellectual 
property and guarantee that we will not see the benefit of those good 
jobs.
  It is suggested we must stay engaged. We must stay engaged, but 
engaged based on toughness and strength, not on weakness.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the resolution.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman).
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of another year's 
extension of normal trade relations, formerly known as ``Most Favored 
Nations trade,'' for China.
  This is a tough issue, and I have great respect for people who come 
down on either side of the question. But in the end, I have concluded 
that I should base my vote not on what I hope may be in terms of 
China's future, but on what I think China's leaders can do.
  Last year, I voted against MFN for China because of my concern that 
China's leaders were not living up to their international agreements in 
regard to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. 
I was concerned that the administration had failed to make this enough 
of a focus in its discussions with the Chinese and had not produced the 
results which I thought were necessary.
  The administration's efforts to engage China to make new commitments 
and to live up to old ones have intensified over the past year. They 
have produced some encouraging results.
  The U.S. and China agreed to not target strategic nuclear weapons on 
each other. I know this is a small step. Retargeting nuclear missiles 
can be accomplished in a matter of hours, if not minutes, but it is a 
sign that the Chinese are willing to take active steps to reduce the 
risk of accidental launch, and the challenge we now face is to extend 
this small, positive step in the direction of a more serious effort at 
eliminating the threat of nuclear war.
  China indicated during the President's trip that it is actively 
considering membership in the Missile Technology Control Regime. I am 
quite cognizant of the fact that we have been inhaling the vapors of 
Chinese commitments in this area for many, many years. But I am willing 
at this point, based on all the things that have been happening, to 
accept the administration's analysis that the latest commitment by the 
Chinese to consider joining the MTCR is a sign they will soon join the 
MTCR regime.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for another year's extension of normal 
trade relations--formerly known as most-favored nation trade--for 
China.
  I have supported MFN in the past although last year I voted against. 
it. As Ranking Member of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, I have 
spent many hours in hearings and meetings on China. I have traveled to 
China and Hong Kong, meeting with senior leaders, including the new 
Chief Executive for Hong Kong, C.H. Tung.
  Much of China's behavior since the last time we voted on this issue 
has been deeply disturbing.
  Our trade deficit with China continues to expand at an alarming rate 
while our trade negotiators appear to be no closer to reaching a firm 
agreement with China on entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO)--
an agreement that would guarantee more opportunities for American 
exports. Our companies continue to invest in China and China continues 
to export to the United States but access for American goods remains 
restricted. I am struck by a brochure distributed to Members by General 
Motors, extolling the value of its investment in China even as GM's 
operation in the United States are being struck by American workers. GM 
claims that it needs to shrink its American operations while at the 
same time it trumpets its 18 automotive projects in eleven provinces of 
China employing over 10,000 people.
  Maybe the Chinese gave GM no choice: either produce in China or don't 
sell to China. Maybe China keeps its tariff levels so high that 
American cars won't sell in China unless they are produced there. 
Either choice is the wrong one. A trade policy which results in larger 
and larger deficits and comes at the cost of jobs for American workers 
will not long have the support of the American people. Corporate 
America, the Administration, and the Chinese Government should be aware 
that if these trade problems are not resolved the Administration's 
policy of engagement with China will collapse from the weight alone of 
this failure.
  The human rights situation continues to be troubling. As the State 
Department Human Rights Report this year noted, ``the Government 
continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses, 
in violation of internationally accepted norms stemming from the 
authorities' very limited tolerance of public dissent, fear of unrest, 
and the limited scope or inadequate implementation of laws protecting 
basic freedoms.'' In other words, not much has changed in a year.
  I am concerned that in some areas the situation may be worsening. I 
recently introduced H. Con. Res. 283, expressing the sense of the 
Congress about the situation in Tibet. Repression in Tibet has 
increased steadily since 1994 and, despite the joint pronouncements on 
Tibet during the President's recent visit to China there is no sign 
that the Chinese are willing to take the initiative of meeting with the 
Dalai Lama.
  I continue to believe that change in China's human rights behavior 
will only come through internal pressure--pressure that can be nurtured 
to some extent by outside support but which will ultimately depend upon 
the will of the Chinese people. Those leaders who risk their lives to 
speak out today are the vanguard of the future.
  But my vote has not depended upon setting a standard of what China's 
leaders should do but cannot now accomplish. I recognize the type of 
reform which I would want to see in China would require a revolution in 
the Chinese political system. However much I may wish that, I recognize 
that it is unrealistic. I believe that we need to continue to press the 
Chinese to release individual prisoners and to reform their system to 
permit greater freedom but I believe that the final revolution in China 
must be one by the people.
  That day is inevitable. There is no doubt that there has been 
tremendous progress in China in terms of economic development and 
opportunity for the Chinese people, accelerating the forces of change 
in China in a direction that can only lead to greater personal liberty 
for the Chinese people. What impresses me most is not the shallow 
monuments of contemporary office buildings but the changes being 
wrought in the Chinese people as a result of greater access to modern 
ideas. China is being changed by its exposure to us in ways more 
profound than any glass edifice.
  However, I do not base my vote on what I hope may be but on what I 
think China's leaders can do.
  Last year I voted against MFN for China because of my concern that 
China's leaders were not living up to their international agreements in 
regard to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. 
I was concerned that the Administration had not made this enough of a 
focus in its discussions with the Chinese and had not produced the 
results which I thought were necessary.
  The Administration's efforts to engage China to make new commitments 
and to live up to old ones have intensified over the past year and have 
produced some encouraging results:
  The United States and China agreed to not target strategic nuclear 
weapons at each other. I know this is a small step. Retargetting 
nuclear missiles can be accomplished in a matter of hours if not 
minutes. But it is a sign that the Chinese are willing to take active 
steps to reduce the risk of accidental launch, and the challenge we now 
face is to extend this small, positive step in the direction of more 
serious efforts at eliminating the threat of nuclear war.
  China indicated during the President's trip that it is actively 
considering membership in the Missile Technology Control Regime

[[Page H6107]]

(MTCR). Chinese membership in the MTCR would be an important step * * * 
if it comes before the Chinese have exported all the missile equipment 
they want to rogue regimes. I know that our policy makers have been 
breathing the vapors of Chinese commitments on the MTCR for years from 
private letters to President Bush's Secretary of State to pledges to 
the Clinton Administration to abide by MTCR guidelines. I am willing to 
accept the Administration's analysis that the latest commitment by the 
Chinese to ``consider'' joining the MTCR is a sign that they will soon 
join the MTCR.
  China has put a place for the first time comprehensive controls on 
nuclear exports and joined the Zangger Committee which coordinates 
nuclear export policies among Non-Proliferation Treaty members. In 
joining the Zangger Committee I look forward to seeing the Chinese play 
a constructive role in promoting the work of the Committee, not use 
their position to weaken international controls.
  The Chinese also promised to halt their nuclear cooperation with 
Iran. Stopping aid to Iran is an important step. We have yet to obtain 
a similar commitment from Russia to cease support for safeguarded 
nuclear facilities.
  The Chinese also committed to cut-off all cruise missile aid to Iran. 
Cruise missile technology is important. With short-range cruise 
missiles, the Iranian Navy could endanger American warships in the 
Persian Gulf if not threaten directly American control of that vital 
waterway.
  If we were to revoke normal trade relations with China, we would 
jeopardize the progress we have achieved in these areas. The 
Administration's efforts to engage in a dialogue with the Chinese on 
critical issues would definitely become a dialogue with the deaf. We 
would lose much and gain little. Continuing our trade relations with 
China offers the prospect of further progress.
  But in voting to maintain China's current trade status with the 
United States, I do so because of the assurances which I have received 
that these achievements will be matched in the coming year by real 
progress in gaining, first, Chinese membership and participation in 
international agreements to halt the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction, and, second, that the Chinese will take unilateral action 
to control the export of technology and material which is used in the 
production of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems.
  In voting to maintain China's current trade status with the United 
States, I do so with the expectation that there will be substantial 
progress in the coming year to eliminate barriers for American exports 
to China and to improve protection of American intellectual property.
  In voting to maintain China's current trade status with the United 
States, I do so with the expectation that China will follow through 
with the commitments it made this year to sign and ratify the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 
(ICESCR). Prior to the Clinton-Jiang summit in Washington, the Chinese 
signed the ICESCR but have not yet ratified it. They have since 
indicated that they would sign the ICCPR. As with the MTCR, these are 
commitments which China needs to follow through on now that they have 
been made.
  I will vote no on the resolution of disapproval this year not because 
I am satisfied with the progress that has been made but because I 
believe that what has been achieved promises to be the basis for more 
progress during the coming year.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a shame Congress does not have a ``truth in 
advertising'' law, and it is a shame it does not apply to this bill. If 
we had a truth in advertising law, this bill would be called the Annual 
$20 Billion Tax Forgiveness for the Most Oppressive Communist Regime in 
the World.
  That is what it is all about. When we give them normal trade 
relations, formerly known as Most Favored Nation, they changed the name 
because the American public did not like the idea of giving them a $20 
billion tax break. So now they are going to try to slide it in again.
  Why is it wrong? They charge us 40 percent on America products when 
they are sold in China. This would allow our country to charge them 
only 2 percent. I am getting a little tired when I go to visit the 
troops of finding out that we have 12,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
and marines on food stamps, but we cannot find the $100 million to help 
pay them a little better.
  I am a little tired when our military retirees are saying they are 
not getting the health care that they were promised, when we do not 
have the $2 billion to fulfill that pledge.
  I am extremely tired every time an American helicopter and an 
American plane crashes because it is too old to be flying our kids 
around, and we do not have the money for weapons procurement. But, Mr. 
Speaker, we just gave the most repressive regime in the world 20 extra 
billion dollars to modernize their equipment.
  The Chinese communists in the past 3 years have acquired ports on 
both ends of the Panama Canal. On the first day of the year 2000, we 
lose our last base in Panama. We lose, they gain. Chinese communists 
are getting ready to take over what was an American naval station in 
California. We lose, they win.
  So, for those Members who want to give them the $20 billion tax 
break, I hope they are ready to explain this to the people of their 
districts.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind all colleagues that China is our 
fastest growing export market. And in addition to that, its growth rate 
in terms of U.S. exports to China has more than doubled in the last six 
years. So, there is considerable hope about vast improvement in our 
economic relations.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Smith), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, there is no question about the 
issue before agriculture in America. We must normalize trade with 
China. It is $2 billion today for trade with China for agriculture in 
America. And with the largest population of any country in the world, 
of course it is a great opportunity for agriculture.
  It is no secret that when China is in the business of buying wheat, 
we have $6 wheat in America. When China is not buying wheat, as they 
are not today, we have $2.50 per bushel wheat. If we block China from 
ever buying wheat, we will continue to have $2.50 wheat.
  A month ago I joined with the Speaker and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) in a bipartisan effort to help solve the crisis of 
agricultural prices in America today. We joined by suggesting that we 
have a square deal for agriculture, the four corners of which are as 
follows: Lift sanctions for Pakistan and India; pass the International 
Monetary Fund funding; normalize trade with China; and pass fast track 
so that we can be again competitors in the international market.
  That is the square deal that we propose for agriculture, and this is 
one more step to improving the crisis in agriculture in America.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today reluctantly in support of 
H.J. Res. 121. I served in the Bush administration and 5 years on the 
staff of U.S. Senator Trent Lott. During that time, I always supported 
the extension of Most-Favored Nation status, because I believed it was 
the right way to achieve our trade objectives. But, sadly, I have come 
to the conclusion that the current policy is failing. It is flawed, 
fundamentally flawed, and it needs to be changed and replaced.
  At a time where we are taking bold leadership in other areas of our 
policy with China, taking a stand with the passage of the Religious 
Persecution Act, trying to find ways to limit technology transfer and 
to limit the proliferation that we are seeing, we are sticking and 
staying in the rut of the status quo of the MFN debate.
  Mr. Speaker, year after year we have done that for the past 10 years, 
and no change. The deficit gets worse every year. Our objective of 
getting them into the World Trade Organization seems to be slowing and 
lessening. What incentives do they have now to join the international 
community, to play by the rule of law, to open their markets, to reform 
their state-owned entities? The truth is the incentives today all work 
against our trade objectives. This policy, the current policy, works 
against our objective of opening their markets.
  Let me be clear, my opposition is not one of closing our market. It 
is not one

[[Page H6108]]

of isolating China, but it is advocating going from appeasement and an 
outdated policy from the Cold War to a policy of effective engagement, 
a constructive framework.
  I would join the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the 
others who care about opening the markets in China, but there is a 
better way, there is a better alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been working with the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) on an 
approach that has good support from the ag community and is gaining 
support in the business community as a new way, a new policy for the 
21st century. This is the purpose of the legislation.
  It would simply say, if China joins the WTO, we will automatically, 
prospectively grant Most-Favored Nation status. We give them credible, 
date-certain incentives to join the WTO by the end of the year 2000, 
and failure to join could create reasonable and realistic cost 
incentives for them to join.
  There would be flexibility built into it that if there are snap-back 
provisions, that it could be sector by sector, so that waivers could 
apply. So it is certain, it is credible, it is doable, and it is 
flexible.
  We need a new framework for the 21st century with the right 
incentives to open their market. I would urge my colleagues to work 
with us as we go into the next year's debate, and I reluctantly support 
the present resolution.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of extending normal trade relation 
status to China and urge my colleagues to oppose the Solomon resolution 
for two reasons: Vital American interests are at stake, and engagement 
is working.
  Over the years, Members of this body have raised numerous reasons why 
trade relations should be cut off between our countries, and rightly 
so. China has traditionally had many problems of concern to all 
Americans. And human rights abuses, weapons proliferation, intellectual 
property protection and other issues continue to worry me and my 
constituents.
  But, Mr. Speaker, things are changing, and President Clinton's recent 
trip highlights many of those improvements. Perhaps the most important 
was President Clinton's uncensored broadcast in China of his news 
conference held with the Chinese leader.
  Last year I quoted Secretary of State Albright in noting that 
engagement does not mean endorsement. I stand by that statement, while 
recognizing that engagement does mean, and has meant, opportunity; 
opportunity to export our values of free enterprise, personal liberties 
and democracy, and the opportunity to promote a better and more secure 
world for our children and the children of China.
  Just in the past year, Chinese leaders have endorsed accelerated 
privatization of industry, banking reforms, legal due process, and more 
open political debate. These improvements, while not complete, are 
largely due to quiet prodding by the United States.
  I believe there is no greater opportunity or challenge in American 
foreign policy today than to secure China's integration into the 
international system as a fully responsible member. I believe we can 
better influence China's direction by exposing them to our democratic 
ideals. We can more effectively move the Chinese to change by 
increasing their exposure to the United States, because we are the 
model of democracy and freedom for the world.
  Revoking NTR would severely damage American interests and undermine 
our ability to influence China's directions. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is an important day. The 
Republican leadership, and much of the Republican Party, will take a 
brief time out from attacking the President over China to vote for what 
China most wants. So that no one should be confused by these criticisms 
of the President in China, because today, with I believe the support of 
the majority of Republicans, China will get that which it most wants, a 
continuation of one of the most imbalanced trade and political 
relationships in the word.
  No one I know of is suggesting we should have no relations with 
China. What we are saying is that we have negotiated a lousy deal. We 
obsess that they might not think so much of us. Frankly, if I were the 
Chinese, I would be worried about what America thought of them. And I 
believe we have, with this enormous market of ours, of which they take 
great advantage, we have an enormous power to put better terms on our 
relationships with China.
  The question is not whether we should have normal or nonnormal 
trading relations. By the way, I am also glad to see the Republican 
Party repudiate their attacks on political correctness. By changing 
this from Most-Favored-Nation to Normal Trading Relations, they 
obviously show the power of semantics. But we can get a better deal 
than the one we are prepared to buy today.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller), the very distinguished ranking member of the 
Resources Committee of the Congress, former chair of the Natural 
Resources Committee.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, only in Washington, D.C. and inside the so-called 
beltway would this be considered a normal relationship. Unfortunately, 
when we talk about this normal relationship, we talk about the 
engagement of China. Every time this administration engages China, it 
must diminish and depreciate the American values of religious freedom, 
of freedom of speech, of human rights and self-determination, of 
national security, of nonproliferation, and of fair trade.
  Each and every time the administration sets out its goals for China, 
they sound laudable and they sound supportable. The only problem is the 
Chinese Government does not meet those goals, and yet we call that 
engagement. We call that engagement because in order for this 
administration to continue to engage, they must concede these very 
basic American values, values that have built this Nation and values 
that this Nation has been a beacon for across the world.
  To say that engagement is not endorsement sounds like a child-rearing 
policy of the 1960s when we wanted not to admit what our dysfunctional 
children were doing.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been the fourth year I have had an opportunity to 
work on this issue, and for the last three I have always voted with my 
colleagues on the right here in favor of renewing MFN. Last year I gave 
a statement that said that we are going to give it one more year to see 
if things change. But, my colleagues, things have not changed.
  Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed in the trade imbalance. The 
trade imbalance has grown. We have heard today that it is at $60 
billion. Over a billion dollars every week we grow the trade deficit 
with China.
  Has the issue of human rights gotten any better? No. We have had 
testimony this past week and this past month in the various committees, 
talking about the various human rights violations, various forced 
abortion issues, the slave labor camps, the harvesting of organs, the 
repercussions with dissidents, the taking away of free speech, whatever 
free speech there is. Nothing has gotten better. But yet each and every 
year we continue to renew this. But the number is growing.
  Has anything gotten better in the area of national security? No. Our 
good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Duke Cunningham) stated 
that in Long Beach, California, the port has been given over to the 
communists. The Straits of Taiwan, the continued persecution of the 
Taiwanese people.

[[Page H6109]]

 The taking away of liberties, of religious faith, whether of Muslim, 
whether a Tibetan monk, whether it is a Christian. If an individual 
does not belong to the patriotic Catholic church, they are not in an 
officially recognized religion and they are under persecution.
  Nothing has gotten better. Whether it is economic, whether it is 
national security, whether it is weapons proliferation, or whether it 
is human rights, not one single area has gotten better over the last 
four years. And no longer could I continue to go along and say, yes, 
engagement, intervention is the way to go.
  I believe we need to call it exactly as many have spoken here today; 
that the policy is a failed policy; that we must hold them accountable; 
that we must move from normal trading relations back to what I believe 
is the right policy, and that is holding them accountable. The Chinese 
people are crying out. Human rights around the world are not like they 
are in China. We must do a better job. We must send a message.
  This is going to pass. It has the votes. So it is not an issue about 
renewing the MFN or the normal trade relations. This is about sending a 
message to Jiang Zemin and the people of China who are looking to us 
for hope and help.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Fazio).
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
resolution and support of normalized trade relations with China.
  Let me be clear, granting NTR to China benefits, I believe, America's 
security and its economic interests. We need to be at the table with 
China for constructive dialogue to occur instead of peeking over our 
neighbor's fence wondering anxiously what they may be up to.
  Normal trade relations and increasing economic engagement has 
continued the process of opening China and exposing the Chinese to our 
politics, ideas, and personal freedom. And China has made significant 
strides not only in global affairs but within its own borders. It has 
contributed significantly to enhancing Asian political stability by 
condemning India's and Pakistan's nuclear tests and encouraging 
restraint.
  China's role is critical to preventing nuclear proliferation.
  Ten years ago religious liberty in China was nonexistent. Today, 
China has made tremendous strides in the tolerance of religious 
freedoms by accepting U.S. religious leaders on its shores and allowing 
the practice of Christianity.
  Furthermore, revoking normalized trade relations will not achieve our 
human rights goals.
  Engagement does work. If we build relationships, we can directly 
influence a country's human rights record. China is changing quickly 
and our policy must keep abreast with these changes.
  I think this is also part of an overall test that this Congress 
faces, and that is whether or not we will play up to the role of world 
leader in every sense of that term, whether it is funding the 
International Monetary Fund or looking to reach further global trade 
agreements that will strengthen the creation of jobs in this country.
  All of these are hard to do, particularly in a period even of 
economic growth, as we have experienced in the 1990s. It is so much 
easier to tell the American people things that perhaps are more 
acceptable about things they believe, whether it be religious 
persecution, or the loss of jobs through trade imbalance, or where we 
ought to be spending our tax dollars here at home, not overseas. But we 
know that we are not only the world's leading military power, but its 
leading economic power as well, and we have to project that strength, 
that vision of what the world economy can be, not just for Americans 
but for people across the globe.
  So I urge my colleagues not just to vote against this resolution but 
to remain focused on the relationship with China and to move further, 
as this Congress unfolds, to fund the IMF, to take other steps that 
will help shore up the economies of Asia and the former Soviet Union so 
that we can, in fact, continue the kind of leadership that we provided 
since Harry Truman at the end of World War II, where the American 
people, with tremendous challenges here at home, played the role of 
economic leader for the world.
  In the long run, it is the American people who will suffer the 
consequences of nonengagement, not the Chinese, if we fail today.
  Mr. Speaker, today, many will attempt to muddy the waters by saying 
that China should not be granted Normal Trade Relations because of its 
history of human rights abuses, unfair trade relations and nuclear 
proliferation.
  I won't deny the validity of these allegations, however, shutting the 
United States off from engagement with China severely reduces our 
leverage for open dialogue.
  Shutting ourselves off to the most populated country in the world is 
more detrimental to monitoring human rights abuses than productive.
  Engagement promises long-term rewards because it allows the U.S. a 
way to influence China's human rights policy at a grass root level. It 
would be foolish to follow a contrary policy. Renewing NTR is important 
to our nation, and it is important to California and the district that 
I represent. Exports to China and Hong Kong from California totaled 
nearly $5.7 billion in 1997. Exports supported over 108,000 jobs. 
Agriculture exports alone, from California to China, totaled over $300 
million.
  Denying NTR would translate into the loss to the agricultural market 
for the farmers in my district. Shutting these farmers off from trade 
would allow Canada, Chile and other nations to fill the trade vacuum 
that would be created. Denying NTR would be reminiscent of our 
sanctions against the Soviet Union in the early 80's in regard to its 
invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union didn't get out of Afghanistan 
and our wheat farmers suffered the consequences of our policy. Our 
sanctions penalized us--benefitting other nations that capitalized on 
our policy.
  Americans deserve us to act in their best interest--engagement 
promises not only jobs but security to the United States.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, what is the status of the time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Christensen) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining; and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 7 minutes remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair discuss the order of closing 
for us?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The order will be the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) will be first, then the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui), then the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Christensen), and then the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  Ms. PELOSI. So the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) will 
ultimately close, and we go in this order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be able to have this 
opportunity to stand here in the well and say that just a few minutes 
ago the President signed the IRS Reform Bill, which has now established 
exactly what it is we are debating.
  There is nothing favored about this. We are talking about normal 
trade relations. Even many of the leading proponents of this resolution 
admit that it is not a serious legislative proposal; it is just a 
signal, a primal scream of frustration, a helpless yelp of resignation.
  We must send a clear signal. Furthering reform in China is a moral 
issue. And I think it is important for us to listen to some moral 
leaders who have commented on it.
  The Reverend Billy Graham said: ``I am in favor of doing all we can 
to strengthen our relationship with China and its people. China is 
rapidly becoming one of the dominant economic and political powers in 
the world, and I believe it is far better for us to keep

[[Page H6110]]

China as a friend than to treat it as an adversary.''
  The Reverend Pat Robertson: ``Leaving a billion people in spiritual 
darkness punishes not the Chinese Government but the Chinese people. 
The only way to pursue morality is to engage China fully.''
  And His Holiness the Dalai Lama: ``Confrontation or condemnation: I 
don't think it works. The only practical way is to be a genuine 
friend.''
  Mr. Speaker, we know that the single most positive change in the 
5,000-year history of China has been the economic reform, those 
economic reforms which have empowered hundreds of millions of 
individuals to be lifted out of poverty. It is the height of absurdity 
to send a signal attacking the one positive change.
  We have found over the years, over the last decade and a half, that 
maintaining economic engagement has in fact led to the positive 
political reform that we all seek. We found that out in Chile. We found 
that out in Argentina. And in the Pacific Rim, we found that out in 
both Taiwan and South Korea.
  We never thought of cutting off economic ties with any of those 4 
countries, which had horribly repressive human rights policies. And 
what has it brought about? That policy has helped us improve political 
pluralism, human rights, the rule of law in those nations. And it will 
do the same in China.
  If we are going to send a positive signal, we should be doing the 
very important things that we have discussed repeatedly here in the 
Congress. For one thing, $22 million for Radio-Free Asia, which is 
included in the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill, is a 
request that is over that that the President has requested.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), 
chairman of that very important subcommittee, who has led the charge to 
help in this effort supporting the increased funding for the National 
Endowment for Democracy.
  I am privileged to work with the International Republican Institute, 
a very important arm of that. We now have over half a billion Chinese 
people who have participated in village elections there; and in 40 
percent of those elections, we have seen non-communist candidates 
actually victorious.
  I think it is also very important for us to send a signal to the 
other body. That signal is they should pass the very important China 
bills that we successfully reported out of the House of Representatives 
last year.
  Maintaining this strategy of engagement is the wave of the future. We 
have to recognize that if we are going to do everything that we can to 
help the people in the United States and the people in China, we must 
maintain normal trade relations.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I request how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Christensen) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. And the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 7 minutes remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, is it my understanding that if we have a 
call of the House that we would each have 4 minutes or less, depending 
on how much time we have for the closing presentations?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not party to any agreement.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today, the debate on the floor today 
is not whether China will get Most Favored Nation status or that same 
status by any other name. The debate on the floor today is whether 
Members of Congress want to associate themselves with a failed policy, 
a policy which in the last 10 years has seen our trade deficit with 
China increase from $3 billion to $63 billion projected for 1998.
  It is interesting to hear people talk about normal trade relations, 
as it will now be called. As I said before, a rose is a rose is a rose. 
In this case, a thorn is a thorn is a thorn.
  Because the fact is that the Chinese regime has already decided that 
we are not going to have normal trade relations with them. They have 
done that by having the Great Wall of China around their markets 
resulting in that big trade deficit, by using slave labor for export, 
by using transshipments to avoid our quotas, and by pirating our 
intellectual property in the case of software at a rate of 95 percent.
  So they must be having a great big chuckle over there in Beijing to 
see that we are debating to give them what they have already decided 
will not be a normal trade relationship.
  Let us hear it for a normal trade relationship. I hope we can achieve 
one. But clearly, we have not gotten from here to there with this 
failed policy of granting Most Favored Nation status to China.
  I just want to talk about a couple things I have heard said here. I 
heard people say they are making progress in human rights because they 
freed a few political prisoners. They forcefully exiled those people. 
That is punishment. That is not progress.
  That is why Wei Jingsheng has been speaking out since he came to the 
United States to say, unless there is a threat of withholding this 
preferential trade treatment from China, the hands of the reformers in 
the government are not as effective in trying to persuade the hard-
liners to change. To change, to open the doors to the prisons of those 
who are still in prison from the Tiananmen Square massacre and many 
from the Democracy Wall era, which is 20 years ago. We cannot put the 
Tiananmen Square massacre behind us until those people are free, until 
the exiles are able to return home and speak freely within China.
  I have heard others say that China is moving on human rights because 
they are going to work on the rule of law. How the Beijing rulers must 
enjoy that one. In Chinese, it is the rule by law. And that can be 
very, very oppressive.
  I have heard people say here that the President made great progress 
on the proliferation issue because of the targeting. They present that 
notion and then they belittle it because they know that that is not a 
summit accomplishment.
  And what was really happening while the President was there? While 
they may have been not targeting us, China was conducting a test. And 
an official of our own Government said, ``President Clinton said 
proliferation would be high on his agenda during the summit. And by 
testing this key component of a long-range missile when they did, the 
Chinese have made it clear their lack of respect both for the President 
and his message,'' they said.
  Trade, proliferation, human rights. Let us have a normal trade 
relationship. Yes, let us use the leverage that we have to make the 
world safer, the trade fairer, and the people freer.
  I ask my colleagues, is $1 billion a week deficit normal? Vote 
``yes'' on the resolution and ``no'' on MFN for China.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                          ____________________