[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6111-H6119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVAL OF MOST-FAVORED-NATION TREATMENT FOR CHINA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the matter pending before the House, the
following time remains: The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi)
has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has
6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Christensen)
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane)
has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as the House is coming to order, as one who
has had a long interest in this U.S.-China trade debate, I want to
commend you for your distinguished presiding over the House today
during this very important issue to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I now have the privilege of recognizing our
distinguished Democratic leader of the House, a champion for promoting
democratic values throughout the world, promoting our own economy
through promoting exports, and stopping the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt).
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would begin my statement today with a
question that I think all of us have to ask as we decide which way we
are going to vote. The question is, if we had kept in place in the mid-
1980s a policy of constructive engagement with South Africa that is
very much like the policy of constructive engagement we now have with
China, would not Nelson Mandela be the President of South Africa today,
or would he still be in jail? That is the question.
I know no two countries are alike. I know no two sets of policy can
be exactly the same. But I believe with all my heart that the policy we
are following, which is basically a policy of saying that more trade,
more economic relationships, more communication is sufficient to bring
about real change in China, is a failed policy and it has not worked.
If you will, simply look at the facts. Let us first look at trade. In
1987 the trade deficit with China was about $3 billion between the
United States and China. Today it is over $60 billion.
Our own Trade Representative has stated, as of this year, as of this
year, that there is essentially a closed market in China to American
products. Put aside the tariff difference. Our average tariff on their
goods coming here, 2 percent. Their average tariff on our goods going
there, 17 percent.
But put that aside. The greatest barrier to our products going into
China are nontariff barriers. Our own Trade Representative has said
that their market is essentially closed now to our products. They had
been unwilling to meet up with our demands to put them in the WTO. They
are simply unwilling to allow for fair and free trade.
So if my colleagues look at this in terms of trade policy, we are not
making progress. We are going in the wrong direction. We are not going
in the right direction.
Let us take a look at human rights. Again, no progress. The President
was there, and I admire him for going, and I think it was right to go.
But let me tell my colleagues something. The Chinese leadership is
happy to have our President or anybody else come and make statements
about human rights as long as they do not have to do anything about
human rights. Talk is cheap. I am from Missouri. Show me. Nothing is
happening.
One hundred fifty dissidents who were in Tiananmen Square are still
in jail. Even as our President came to China, people were locked up.
People were locked up for no causes. People were locked up because they
dared to try to express themselves politically freely.
There are no human rights in this country. Every violation that could
be made of human rights has been made, and there is no progress. Look
at the record. If the policy were working, the record would be
different. It is not. So if a policy is not working, we need a new
policy, and I believe that policy has to have actions as well as words.
I respect deeply my colleagues who believe that more trade and more
talk will work. I respectfully disagree. I do not think that anything
but solid action will make a difference.
I want to remind my colleagues of what was said in the debate about
South Africa in 1985. I want to read my colleagues a statement. One of
our Members in 1985 said this: ``South Africa is making positive and
concrete strides under an American policy of constructive engagement.
Given the progress already made and the virtual irreversibility of the
trends, sanctions and other punitive activities can hardly be expected
to produce more salutary results than President Reagan's policy of
constructive engagement.''
Our respected colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), said
those words on this floor in 1985, but
[[Page H6112]]
this House in a bipartisan way stood for taking a definitive action.
Words were not enough. We had to stop having a normal trading
relationship with South Africa to get their attention.
Our trade deficit with China is financing the present leadership in
China. They have a deficit with other countries put together. We are
the only country they have a huge surplus with. In effect, our trade
policy is financing the policy that they follow.
Let me end with this: We always are told that the reason we cannot do
this is because of money. We are going to lose contracts. We are going
to lose business. We are going to lose a billion consumers in the
future.
Let me just end by saying this to you as you search your heart in
this vote: This country has always stood for much more than simply
money and economic success. This country is an idea. It is a universal
idea that applies to every citizen of the world.
Abraham Lincoln in 1861 said this: ``I have often inquired of myself,
what great principle or idea it was that kept this Nation so long
together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the colonies
from the Motherland but something in that declaration giving liberty,
not only to the great people of this country but hope for the world for
all time.''
That is what we are. That is what we have to be. That is what we have
to represent to the people of China and the people of the world. Wei
Jingsheng was in my office a few months ago and I asked him what we
should do on this vote, and he said, ``Congressman, please understand
that the only thing the leaders in China understand is money and trade
and whether or not you are willing to really stand for what you believe
in.''
Your vote today is for what we believe in. Let us change China. Let
us have real engagement. Let us bring about liberty finally, as only we
can, for the people, the great people of China. Vote against a normal
trading relationship with China.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
resolution that would end normal trade relations with China.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), the former chair
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the ranking member of the
Committee on International Relations.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 121. I
support retaining normal trade relations with China. This is not just a
vote today about trade. NTR, or Normal Trade Relations, is the keystone
of our policy of engagement. So the question today is the fundamental
one: Do you wish to pursue a policy of engagement or of isolation?
{time} 1530
Members have argued on the floor today that you can vote to end
normal trade relations with China and still work with Beijing on
nonproliferation and human rights and all of the other problems we have
with China. That argument cannot be sustained. To withdraw normal trade
relations from China is to declare economic warfare against China. We
cannot declare economic warfare against China and expect China to play
by our rules on nonproliferation and human rights and security.
Political engagement and economic cooperation go hand-in-hand. You
cannot separate the two.
What we must ask ourselves on the floor of this House today and what
we must understand is that China is changing. Go back 20 years, when
our policy of engagement began. At that time it was simply unimaginable
to have a public discussion on any issue with China.
Today American businesses operate in China, the state share of the
economy is falling, the standard of living of the people of China has
improved sharply, two presidents debate with one another in Beijing
about human rights, the American president is given access to all the
people of China on Chinese television. The average Chinese citizen
today has more freedom, not enough, but more freedom than that citizen
has ever had in the history of China. The rule of law is making
progress. Local elections are being held.
How can you describe that policy as a failed policy? That is not a
failed policy. This is a policy under six presidents that has been one
of engagement, and it has worked.
These trends that I have identified are good for China and they are
good for the United States. They show that engagement, including
engagement's foundationpiece, normal trade relations, works. And I
believe that as the doors to freedom in China begin to open, they will
be increasingly hard to shut.
Now, the stakes are very high in this vote today, because China does
stand at a crossroads. Whether it emerges as a stable country,
integrated into the world community, will be decided by China. But we
can influence China, and we have influenced China over a period of
years.
We should not, however, delude ourselves into thinking that by
withholding normal trade status from China we will have greater
influence with China. Not on your life. It would mean less influence
with China.
Now is not the time to slap China. No matter how you may have voted
on this question in the past, the case for normal trade relations with
China today is stronger than it has ever been. Look what happens if you
have a financial Asian meltdown. China has played a key role by
maintaining the value of its currency.
Withdrawing normal trade relations from China at this juncture would
be the worst step we could take. Look at China's economy. It is
precarious. Premier Ju is committed to an ambitious program of economic
reform. It moves in the direction we want China to move. The United
States supports those reforms. But if we come along now and strip most-
favored-nation treatment, as we used to call it, or normal trade
relations from China, that will help kill those reforms.
Look at what China is doing on all kinds of regional problems, I do
not have time to go into that, but with India, Pakistan and Korea.
Terminating access to U.S. markets would almost certainly mean that
China is less willing to work with us on key security problems.
Take a look at the American economy. Everybody in this Chamber has
noted the drop in growth in the second quarter compared to the first
quarter, one of the most dramatic drops in the history of our economy.
We must not take a step that would exclude one person out of every four
on the face of the Earth from trade relations if we deny normal trade
relations.
We can all acknowledge a very difficult problem on trade deficits.
China is not an open market, but you have to address that problem in
such a way that you do not penalize the American producer.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the resolution.
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on
Rules and the author of this resolution for the last 9 years, a
champion of human rights.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from New York is
recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for
yielding me time.
First of all, let me just thank those who have stood for human rights
in this House for many, many years. I talk about the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), certainly the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith), certainly the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and my good
friend from Nebraska. But, Mr. Speaker, as I sat through this 4 hours
of debate and it will be my last debate, I will not carry this bill
again but you would think there is nothing wrong.
I heard my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), whom
I have served with for 20 years, say, well, we have to worry about
200,000 jobs that would be lost if we do not renew MFN for China today.
I look at my district, and I just wonder whether it is different from
his.
I represent the old Rust Belt in America. We used to manufacture
[[Page H6113]]
shirts like I have on here. These were choice shirts. We had most of
the market. We used to manufacture gloves, a whole litany of things.
Today, in my district, there just are no more jobs. GE has laid off
some 24,000 people. IBM has laid off some 14,000 people. There are
hardly any entrepreneurial manufacturing companies left that used to
create all of these jobs.
I look at people who have served in the military, came home, got
married, have three or four children, and they work in Little League
and Boy Scouts. Now they are 45 and 50 years old, and they do not have
a job, they do not have a decent job. They no longer have that job with
GE, where they made $40,000 or $50,000 as a laborer. Now they have
three little jobs, and they do not even make $25,000 in total. They
cannot make a living for their families. Yet I hear people stand up
here and say there is nothing wrong.
Well, when only 2 percent of our exports go to China, but they unload
on us, there is something wrong there. What was the note I just had?
Ambassador David Aaron, the Undersecretary of International Trade, U.S.
Department of Commerce, just testified about an hour ago, and he was
posed with the question, Why do we have this $60 billion trade deficit
with China, bigger than Japan's now? Ambassador Aaron's comment was the
reason for our trade deficit with China is trade barriers.
Now, what is normal trading relations if we cannot export? A major
electrical razor manufacturer closed its plant, 250 people out of work,
and it went to China. Now, in China, I do not know whether you have
been there. I have been there several times and they do not buy
electric razors. They do not even use them much. Therefore, all of
those razors are going to be exported back to the United States. Yet
250 people are out of work. So something is drastically wrong.
Withholding MFN for China, right now, today, does not mean we are
doing it for a year, 10 years or 20 years. We are doing it temporarily.
It can be for 30 days, because this Congress can turn it around like
that.
Let me tell you, the Chinese people are the smartest people in the
world. If we ever withheld this favored treatment and came back to
regular relations, so we would have the same trade tariffs between our
countries, do you not think China would come to us crawling, because we
have 250 million Americans with the greatest buying capacity in the
world? They would lick their chops to do business with us. And we do
nothing? That is a disgrace.
That is why we ought to pass the Solomon resolution now. Whether MFN
is withdrawn for a week, 2 weeks, a month or 3 months, we would find we
would pretty soon renegotiate our trade with China to where we would no
longer have that $60 billion deficit and Americans would have jobs in
this country.
Please support my amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I noted at the very outset that, for the past nine
years, the argument has been presented that maintaining MFN status for
China is necessary in order to gain access to the Chinese market for
U.S. products, to induce the Chinese dictatorship to treat its own
people with a decent respect for their human rights, and to modify the
rogue behavior of the Chinese communists.
Abundant evidence has been presented during the course of this debate
that 19 years of MFN have failed to promote any one of these
objectives.
MFN has been an issue before Congress for the past nine years--ever
since the Tiananmen Square massacre. But MFN status for China actually
goes back ten years before that--to 1979.
I would just ask the advocates of MFN for China: When does America
start getting access to the Chinese market? When does the great payoff
start?
China is the largest country in the world, with one-fifth of the
world's people. But after 19 years of MFN, less than one-fifth of 1
percent of U.S. economic activity is involved in trade with China.
No more than 1.9 percent of our total exports are now making their
way into that huge market. When does the payoff start?
And when will the Chinese people start being treated as citizens,
instead of as comrades or economic units to be exploited, manipulated,
and abused?
And when will China start assuming a responsible and respectable role
in the world, instead of being the arms merchant to every outlaw state
in business and any other country that wants weapons that are out of
scale to its legitimate needs?
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting experience. We had a
debate on the floor yesterday and I was semi-joking about the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Yates) coming to Congress when I graduated from high
school, but that was the same year that Lee Hamilton and I met each
other in our freshman year in college. We were college chums together
for a couple of years. Of course, we are going to be losing the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) too, who retires after this year,
and we have had our agreements and disagreements along the way on a lot
of issues.
But I am particularly proud of the eloquent presentation today by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) on behalf of maintaining our
normal trade relations with China. It is probably the most important
country that we can have relations with on the face of this Earth, and
I say that because of what the future holds for China.
In those years that I described, talking about the election of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), his first term here, and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) and I going off to college
together, the fact of the matter is that was the beginning of the Great
Leap Forward, that you remember cost 30 million Chinese lives from
starvation. That is when they put the wall up, for all practical
purposes, and locked out contact with civilized human beings. Then they
did the Great Leap Forward after that for another decade, and hundreds
of thousands of Chinese people were executed, put to death, for
political reasons.
Then Deng Xiaopeng finally took charge, and Deng Xiaopeng, to his
credit, believed in what he referred to as Leninist capitalism, the
ultimate oxymoron. What he passionately was embracing was free
enterprise, he did it with a vengeance, and he turned China around.
Today more Chinese people enjoy a higher standard of living than ever
before in the 5,000 years of recorded history. It is providing hope and
opportunity. A middle class has already developed in South China.
Now, these are accomplishments that we can aid and abet with our
presence and our influence. The Chinese have respect for us, and our
leaders in this country, and this goes back to Gerry Ford, it goes back
to Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, to the current occupant,
Bill Clinton, they have all embraced going forward with this policy. It
is not a partisan question. It is not Republican versus Democrat, it is
what is in the best interest. We can have legitimate disagreements, as
I have had with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) throughout
the years, have disagreements on this.
But I submit, if you look at the reforms taking place in China, and
that is local democratic elections, one-third of the Chinese people
have already participated in the democratic process, and they are not
communists. In addition to that, as I say, the advancement of free
enterprise, and the advancement also of religious freedom and what is
going on there with a vengeance today, in contrast to not that long ago
when this was impermissible, now an estimated 20 million Protestants,
possibly as many as 10 million Catholics, 100 million Muslims, these
are accomplishments that are far from perfect, but we know that it is
movement in the right direction.
I argue that trade relations provide that opportunity for personal
contact, which ultimately has the most civilizing impact on mankind.
I urge all Members to think long and hard and vote against this
resolution.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, opponents argue that China's
record on human rights, trade, proliferation and other issues do not
justify extending normal trade relations. Though I agree that much must
be done to alleviate these very serious problems, I have to disagree
with some of my colleagues on this issue. I feel that we should use
every type of engagement--including normal trade relations--to bring
China into the international community and to achieve U.S. objectives
on human rights, trade and proliferation.
[[Page H6114]]
The Chinese economy is one of the fastest growing economies in the
world. While many Chinese remain poor peasants, hundreds of millions
have seen their lives improved through economic reform. Market reform
is the single most powerful force for positive change in China this
century, and possibly in the country's long history. Recent economic
progress, which has significantly improved living conditions in China,
represents real benefits for both the United States and China.
Congress should extend normal trade relations for another year. By
supporting normal trade relations, the House is choosing a policy of
engagement over a policy of isolation. Engagement has been the policy
of every President, Democratic and Republican, for twenty-five years.
Engagement is not appeasement. It does not mean ignoring our
differences with China or engaging them blindly. It means actively
engaging China to resolve our differences. It means hard bargaining in
pursuit of American objectives and keeping lines of communications open
to breech new markets.
These new markets will have a direct impact on the U.S. economy.
U.S.-China trade was valued at $75.3 billion in 1997, supporting an
estimated 400,000 American jobs. Last year, California led all other
states in total exports to China, amounting to $2.3 billion in sales.
California agricultural exports made up over $40 million of these
exports.
I have seen a dramatic increase in the amount of agricultural exports
to China in the last several years. In my Central Coast district in
California, agricultural exports have increased to more than
100,000,000 pounds of produce entering China and Hong Kong. China
receives more produce from the 17th District of California than every
country except Canada and Japan. American producers are just starting
to get a toe-hold in the Chinese market, and additional commodities are
entering China at an increasing rate.
With China's reduction in import tariffs last October, on average by
about 25%, the future looks very bright for increased exports of U.S.
products to China, both direct to mainland ports and via Hong Kong.
It is imperative that the United States continue to work towards
improved human rights for both political activists and religious
dissenters. However revoking NTR will only slow progress in resolving
our difficulties with China. Continued engagement will provide the most
fertile ground to improve human rights, copyright law enforcement, and
Chinese foreign policy. I feel that it is essential that we support our
farmers whenever possible and closing this market would be devastating
to my district. For these reasons I can not support House Joint
Resolution 121.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution
121, the legislation to disapprove Normal Trade Relations with China
(formerly Most Favored Nation Status), for several reasons. During the
past several months I have had extensive discussions with individuals
both in support and in opposition to Normal Trade Relation status for
China including the United Auto Workers of America, the AFL-CIO, the
U.S. Business and Industry Council, and the business community in the
Bay Area. I do not cast this vote lightly, but with much thought and
input from individuals and groups with many points of view.
While in the California Legislature, I served as a member of the
California State World Trade Commission and was appointed by the late
Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown to serve as a member of the District
Export Council. I led the effort to encourage commercial trade between
the State of California and the Continent of Africa. I support fair and
free trade and recognize the importance of trade in the creation of
jobs for Americans, especially in my home state of California, where we
are the 10th largest economy in the world.
Essential to the creation of jobs for American workers, however, is
the absolute requirement that the Chinese market be open for imports
from the United States. The U.S. labor force is harmed by lack of
access to China's markets for the majority of U.S. products and
services. Trade with China has not been reciprocal. Existing trade
barriers create a severe trade imbalance in which the United States
imports many more goods from China than it exports. Last year alone,
the United States imported $62.6 billion worth of goods from China,
while exporting only $12.8 billion. Only 1.9% of all U.S. exports are
allowed into China, whereas 34.3% of Chinese exports come to the United
States.
Normal Trade Relations Status with China hurts American workers by
driving manufacturing industries abroad for cheaper labor, which is
particularly damaging to women and minorities. In my state of
California, the effect of trade with China is extremely damaging to
agriculture, to aerospace, and to the garment industry. The software
and high tech industries are also hit particularly hard due to China's
theft of copyrighted material. According to the Software Publishers'
Association, 96% of the business software in China is pirated from
American companies.
Mr. Speaker, U.S. companies and U.S. goods have very limited and
restricted access to the Chinese market due to China's high tariffs, as
well as its non tariff barriers. As I made my decision to vote for
House Joint Resolution 121, I concluded that the current MFN China
policy is a ``business loser'' and ``job loser'' here at home.
In addition, as a person who supports human rights both in the United
States and abroad, I cannot ignore the fact that in China there are at
least 250 people still imprisoned since the 1989 Tiananmen Square
Massacre, that there are more than 2,000 political and religious
prisoners, and that there are at least 230,000 prisoners being held
without charge or trial in ``reeducation through labor'' camps. As a
person who has been and will continue to be committed to world peace
and to non proliferation of nuclear weapons, I cannot ignore China's
assistance in building nuclear and ballistic missile programs in
Pakistan and sale of missile test equipment to Iran. I cannot help but
be extremely concerned about China's recent test fire of its newest
long range missile during President Clinton's visit, illustrating
China's lack of respect for nonproliferation.
I support ending the trade embargo with countries such as Cuba, which
many supporters of MFN oppose. There seems to be no logic or
consistency in the arguments promoted by many of those who support
trade relations with China, while simultaneously opposing trade with
Cuba. I believe that our foreign policy objectives can be achieved,
that democracy and human rights can be encouraged, and the jobs can be
created for American workers through fair and free trade with
countries, whether Communist or not.
I believe that my colleagues of the California Bay Area Delegation,
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, The Honorable George Miller, The Honorable
Pete Stark and The Honorable Lynn Woolsey are correct in their decision
to oppose MFN for China. I unite with them in this effort to support
U.S. workers and the U.S. labor.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of renewing
normal trade relations (NTR) with China. As you know, the IRS reform
legislation, signed by the President today, changes the designation of
``Most Favored Nation'' trading status to a name more representative of
what we are trying to do--establish normal trade relations. This is a
status held by every single one or our trading partners, except those
that have been specifically denied by statutory authority.
I strongly believe that renewing NTR is critical to advancing U.S.
interests and relationships in Asia. Revoking NTR would significantly
raise tariffs on Chinese imports--costing U.S. consumers more of their
hard earned money--and would effectively sever our economic
relationship with China, making it impossible to influence China in
several areas, including human rights.
Failure to extend NTR would also hurt our economic interests. U.S.
exports have been steadily growing every year and support thousands of
U.S. jobs. In my home State of Ohio, the 8th largest export State, Ohio
firms exported $283.5 million worth of products to China in 1997--an
18.4 percent increase for the year, which has led to more jobs,
increases in their wages and higher standards of living in Ohio. The
Chinese would undoubtedly retaliate, putting our jobs and exports at
risk. We would be giving our competitors a competitive advantage in one
of the world's fastest growing markets.
A policy of engagement with China, however, does not mean that we
approve of its practices. I have grave concerns about China's human
rights record. But it is through active engagement with China that we
can make the most progress in this and other areas. The Chinese are
becoming increasingly familiar with the benefits of an open market
system and an open society through our contact with them, Revoking NTR
would cut us off from the Chinese, limiting our ability to engage the
world's other emerging superpower.
Mr. Speaker, renewal of NTR has been supported by every President who
has faced this issue, and is supported throughout Asia, including Japan
and Taiwan. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the disapproval
resolution and support renewing normal trade relations status to China.
Continued engagement with China is the best way to help China become a
constructive force for stability and prosperity in Asia, and advance
important American interests. Thank you.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, for the next generation and perhaps century
the most important bilateral relationship in the world is likely to be
the one between China and the United States.
In this context, the Congress would be well-advised to extend normal
trade relations (what used to be known as most-favored-nation or MFN)
with China.
Maintaining open trade relations will be the linchpin of a
relationship that will have profound importance to the future of peace
and prosperity not just in Asia, but for the world.
[[Page H6115]]
From a historical perspective free trade is a natural extension of the
open door policy that hallmarked American involvement in China at the
end of the 19th century. Breaching or revoking normal trade relations
would effectively drive a stake through the heart of our economic ties
with China and place in jeopardy the future possibility of greater
Chinese democracy, as well as our relationship with one-fifth of the
world's population.
President Clinton correctly emphasized continuity with a bipartisan
American tradition of engagement during his recent trip to China, but
it appears trade may have taken a back seat to politics. In this
regard, it must be stressed that although our economic ties to China
have grown rapidly in recent years, so too has the size of our trade
deficit. It is up some 20% in the first quarter of this year, and may
reach a record $60 billion in 1998. It is time American leaders make
the fundamental point that normal trade relations are all about
reciprocity. A billion dollar a week trade deficit is politically and
economically unacceptable.
The best way for countries to have good sustainable political
relations is to have reciprocal open markets, and the best way to
achieve reciprocity in trade is to get politics out of economics and
economics into the market.
Balanced and mutually beneficial trade could be a cornerstone of good
Sino-American relations, just as unbalanced trade contains the
smoldering prospect of social rupture. Hence little is more in the U.S.
interest than to promote reform and liberalization of China's economic,
trade, and investment regimes and to bind China to the rules of
international commerce.
With regard to the latter issue, the obvious deserves repetition:
common rules of trade are in the vested interest of all countries which
want to be part of the modern world. Those nations which want
privileged status to protect their own industries, usually on grounds
of the old infant industries argumentation, generally hurt themselves.
Financial services is a classic example. While China has become
dramatically more integrated into the international financial system
over the last decade and a half, it has only taken modest steps to open
up its banking, insurance, and financial service industries to foreign
competition. Yet China and its economy would be far better off to
welcome U.S. and other foreign financial institutions and their panoply
of low-cost commercial and investment banking products.
With this in mind, no fully satisfactory outcome to our trade
difficulties can be achieved until Beijing agrees to a commercially
viable package of terms for jointing the World Trade Organization. A
commercially viable agreement must address U.S. concerns for opening
China's market to U.S. agricultural and industrial goods. Likewise,
U.S. service industries--particularly banking and insurance--deserve
access to the Chinese market. Once this agreement is achieved, Congress
should not hesitate to grant China permanent normal trade relations.
Failure to do so would leave the U.S. unable to apply WTO rules and
obligations to China, including mechanisms for dispute resolution.
At the heart of the annual Congressional debate over normal trade
with China lies the issue of economic sanctions. All Americans support
common-sense efforts to advance the cause of human rights in China, and
elsewhere around the world. The question is one of means, not ends,
whether self-righteous indignation advances or undercuts a just cause.
Although arguments can be marshalled in support of trade revocation,
at this time they are clearly uncompelling. Indeed, for this Congress
to revoke normal trade relations with China as a means to assert
legislative displeasure with Beijing on one or any number of social
issues would be so counterproductive as to be tantamount to an
irrational act.
Members of Congress and many Americans are frequently vexed by what
they perceive to be the slow pace of political change in China. But
here it must be stressed that the only political system that fits
economic free enterprise is political free expression reflected in
governmental institutions of, by, and for the people. Advancing freely
associated economic ties with the West has only one political side
effect: it builds bridges to democracy. Quixotic attempts to isolate
China economically run a far greater risk of assuring oppression than
advancing democracy.
Chinese society is changing far more rapidly than most Americans
realize. The late Deng Xiaoping underscored the new Chinese pragmatism
with his cat and mice metaphor, and by promoting ``socialism with
Chinese characteristics.'' That pragmatism has led to unprecedented
social and economic change in China. Indeed, despite continued
political repression, China may be changing more rapidly than any other
country in the world. Not only is it looking outward to trade and
establishing a market-oriented internal economy, but in terms of
private discussion there is much more freedom of expression than
existed two decades ago. Privately, one can now criticize the
Government without repercussion; it is public criticism that remains
shackled. This latter circumstance is indefensible, but the looseness
of controls on the former is not without significance. Nor are recent
decisions allowing elections at local levels.
Nonetheless, China's social and economic transformation can't proceed
in the long run without effecting significant political change. At some
point Beijing's new leaders must recognize the incompatibility of free
enterprise and an authoritarian political system, and must recognize as
well that instability can be unleashed in society when governments fail
to provide safeguards for individual rights and fail to erect political
institutions adaptable to change and accountable to the people.
Wheather the 21st century is peaceful and whether it is prosperous
will most of all depend on whether the world's most populous country
can live with itself and become open to the world in a fair and
respectful manner. How the United States, its allies, and the
international system responds to the complexities and challenges of
modern China is also one of the central foreign policy challenges of
our time.
Revocation of MFN would not be responsive to the challenge. It would
not effectively address our legitimate concerns on human rights,
nonproliferation, Taiwan, or trade. On the contrary, it would
constitute a supremely counter-productive act.
The United States would be far better to develop a bipartisan and bi-
institutional approach that maintains an open door to China and with it
a constructive relationship that will be the key to peace, stability,
and prosperity in the 21st century than to annually threaten this
political brinksmanship. I urge the defeat of this self-defeating
legislation.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regret this annual ritual to attempt to
deny regular trading status to a country comprising one quarter of the
world's population.
The United States has normal trade relations with every country in
the world except six: Afghanistan, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam,
and Yugoslavia. We even grant normal trade relations status to Iran,
Iraq, Burma, and Libya. It is not to our advantage to put China in the
same category as these rogue states, and impose trade restrictions.
By denying normal trade relations with China we hurt ourselves. China
is the world's largest nation and a vast untapped market for U.S. goods
and services. We can deny MFN to China, but other countries won't. And
in the long run, we will be shut out of this market. This will not
serve American workers, American consumers, or American
competitiveness.
In my own state of California, trade with China accounts for $2.3
billion in exports, and thousands of high-skill, high-wage jobs. In the
district I represent, trade with China has generated new jobs not only
through exports, but imports as well. Since 1995, the number of jobs at
the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach has increased five times over
(from 800 to 4,700). And these are good, high paying jobs--many of them
union jobs.
And let's be clear: if we deny normal trade relations with China, we
leave the door open to quotas and tariffs that raise prices on the
goods we buy. If we deny MFN, we hurt our own consumers. Is this what
we want for hard-working American families?
Making China a regular trading partner does not mean downgrading our
interest in getting China to improve its human rights and its
nonproliferation record. As a member of the House National Security and
Intelligence Committees, I have worked very hard to address the threat
of missile proliferation from China and other countries, and I will
continue to do so. The imposition of targeted economic sanctions on
firms that proliferate is, in my view, a far better way to deal with
this.
Refusing to grant normal trade relations status to China won't move
it one iota on the issue of human rights or missile sales. What will?
Engagement. Engagement means that we will continue to expose the
Chinese people to our way of life and our values. As you will recall
from the events that swept Eastern Europe less than a decade ago,
opening the door just a little can result in tremendous change.
Wang Dan, the student protester who spent 7 years in a Chinese jail,
recently said he hoped to learn about the U.S. political system and
``bring the good things'' back to China. He wants constructive
engagement, and so should we.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to
President Clinton's decision to extend Most-Favored-Nation (MFN)
trading status to the People's Republic of China for another year. I
also express my full support for H.J. Res. 121, legislation introduced
in the House of Representatives that would override the President's
decision and revoke China's MFN status.
I am opposed to continuing China's MFN status for three reasons: (1)
China's continuing disregard for our nation's trade laws, which has led
to a skyrocketing trade deficit; (2) China's atrocious record on human
rights; and (3)
[[Page H6116]]
China's efforts to assist countries such as Iran, Libya, and Pakistan
in developing weapons of mass destruction.
During my career in the Congress, I have worked hard to level the
playing field for America's working families. I believe that if you
work hard and play by the rules, you are entitled to a fair wage that
allows you to buy a house, raise a family, and receive a good pension
upon retirement. Unfortunately, these values are falling prey to
foreign countries that aim to undermine U.S. jobs by producing goods
with cheap labor and then violating our trade laws by importing those
goods into the U.S.
China is a prime example of a country that engages in this type of
behavior. There is irrefutable evidence that China produces consumer
goods using slave labor, child labor, and even military labor in order
to keep production costs as low as possible. In fact, Chinese workers
are paid an average of $2 per day. China then violates U.S.-China trade
agreements, including intellectual property laws, quota rules, and
numerous other U.S. trade laws as it imports its goods into the United
States.
It should come as no surprise that our trade deficit with China has
risen from $3 billion in 1989 to a projected $63 billion for 1998.
Trade figures for May 1998, show a 28 percent increase in the deficit
compared with May 1997. These figures indicate that our trade imbalance
with China is growing by more than $1 billion per week.
Out trade deficit with China will only get worse because continuing
to grant MFN perpetuates a fundamentally unfair tariff system. Under
MFN, the average tariff rate on Chinese goods being imported into the
U.S. is just 2 percent, while China sets a whopping 35 percent tariff
on U.S. goods. Continuing the current system gives China no incentive
to lower its tariff rates or respect the trade laws currently in place.
Revoking MFN would increase U.S. tariffs on 95 percent of the goods
being imported from China, which will put the brakes on the growing
trade deficit and help balance the playing field for American workers.
In the area of human rights, China's record speaks for itself. In
1997, the U.S. Department of State's annual report on human rights
repeatedly chastised the Chinese for committing a range of human rights
violations. According to the report, ``The [Chinese] 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 implmentation of laws protecting
basic freedoms.''
The evidence is also clear that China continues to provide rogue
nations such as Libya, Iran, and Pakistan with assistance in developing
nuclear weapons and advanced ballistic missiles. China has supplied
Iran with C-802 cruise missiles, which will allow Iran to deliver
deadly payloads throughout the Middle East. China has also provided
Pakistan with the technical assistance it needed to develop nuclear
weapon capabilities. Recent reports even indicate that the Chinese were
testing advanced ballistic missiles while President Clinton was
visiting their country last month.
Mr. Speaker, China was originally granted MFN status with the hope
that doing so would encourage China to lower its tariffs, improve its
record on human rights, and become a responsible member of the
international community. Seventeen years later, China's record on these
issues shows little improvement. It is time to reject those who say
``constructive engagement'' is the only way to deal with the Chinese
government, and revoke MFN status until China commits itself to making
trade fairer, people freer, and the world safer.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, a 19th century British politician once
said, ``Commerce is the greatest of all political interests.'' The
Administration's actions lends credence to the statement. In early
June, the Administration threw its support behind the renewal of
China's MFN status. The interests of multinational corporations have
once again been placed before the interests of American working
families.
We gave MFN status to China, and exactly what has that given us? It's
given us a surging U.S. trade deficit with China that was $50 billion
in 1997 that is expected to reach over $60 billion this year. The
Administration's cozy trade relationship with China has come at the
cost of tens of thousands of American jobs--in the name of constructive
engagement, of course.
What is the bottom line with MFN for China? Multinational
corporations take advantage of MFN and cheap Chinese labor by moving
U.S. manufacturing jobs to China, produce the goods there, and export
the products back to the U.S. Our jobs are being exported to China, so
multinational corporations can raise their profits. They're putting
profits before people.
Who wins? Communist China and multinational corporations.
Who loses? American workers.
Why? In the name of constructive engagement.
Constructive engagement should not come at the cost of American jobs.
We should engage on our terms, so that all Americans can enjoy a rising
standard of living--not just multinational corporations.
Mr. Speaker, while I am an idealist, I am also a realist. We just do
not have the votes here today to reject MFN for China. What we do have,
however, is an opportunity to send a message to the leaders in Beijing,
China. The U.S. Congress will not stand idly by as China continues to
close her markets to American products. Congress cannot ignore
predatory trade practices that cost American jobs and threaten the
livelihood of American workers. We must take stronger actions to open
up China's market.
But the Administration has been telling us that they've been in
negotiations with China. They're working very hard to open up China's
market. The Administration has been negotiating to open up China's
market since 1992, and in my opinion, nothing seems to have changed for
the better. I think it's about time to stop talking and start doing.
Congress has provided the Administration with an extremely powerful
tool at its disposal. Sections 301 through 309 of the Trade Act of
1974, commonly known as Section 301, gives the President and the U.S.
Trade Representative the authority to respond to foreign trade barriers
which restrict U.S. exports. It further authorizes the President and
the USTR to retaliate usually in the form of 100% tariffs on targeted
imported products from the offending country. Section 301 can do a lot
to pry open foreign markets, especially in China. They've just chosen
not to use it--in the name of constructive engagement, of course.
It's time for the Administration to pull Section 301 out of the
closet, dust it off, and utilize it to pry open China's markets and
correct the unfair trade deficit. It's time to initiate a Section 301
investigation of China. It's time to take the Section 301 sledgehammer
to China's other Great Wall. Break it down and open it up to good, old
Made-in-USA products. And if the Administration is reluctant to use
Section 301, then it's up to Congress to make sure the Administration
does.
Mr. Speaker, I am in strong of H. J. Res. 121 to revoke MFN status
for China, because it hasn't helped America, it's only hurt us. MFN for
China is a dead-end street for American workers. I urge all of my
colleagues to vote for the resolution and send a message to Communist
China that American workers will no longer bear the burden of
constructive engagement.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution
to disapprove so-called normal trade status to China. In the past I
opposed efforts to grant this privilege to China, and following a trip
I made to China last year, I continue to have reservations about
extending this status.
Since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, concern in Congress about
the U.S.-China relationship has focused on three areas: China's
violations of our trade agreements, proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, and human rights abuses. While congressional hearings and
commissions have met and many reports have been issued, in each of
these areas where Chinese violations have occurred, it is clear that
our national policies of constructive engagement have failed. In fact,
there has been deterioration, not improvement, under recent policies.
Looking from the economic perspective, the U.S. deficit with China
has climbed exponentially to $50 billion last year. China's high
tariffs and non-tariff barriers limit access to the Chinese market for
most U.S. goods and services and violate the GATT agreement. China's
communist rulers also refuse to enforce laws to prevent the piracy of
intellectual property and patents. We must take action to assure that
from an economic standpoint we have a level playing field.
Secondly, I am concerned about Chinese efforts to transfer nuclear,
advance missile, chemical and biological weapons technology to nations
like Iran and non-safeguarded nations like Pakistan. China is the
largest nuclear power in the world and the only nation which produces
long-range nuclear missiles. We cannot continue to ignore China's
transfer of dangerous technology to that region. Such activity
threatens to destabilize not only our nation but other regions of the
world.
Most importantly, human rights issues continue to concern me. As
recently as last week, the Chinese government arrested a group of
Chinese citizens for attempting to form an opposition political party.
Chinese officials ruthlessly enforce laws limiting families to having
one child. It is well-documented that individuals in China who gave
birth to a second child experienced loss of job or government benefits,
fines and in some cases forced sterilization. The freedoms we often
take for granted in America are what makes our citizens the envy of the
world. As a national policy, I do not support offering economic
incentives to a nation which discourages and disallows the freedom for
individuals to express themselves.
[[Page H6117]]
Our nation has a responsibility to use its leverage to act on behalf
of fairness and must insist on a reciprocal relationship with China. It
is my strong desire that once and for all these three issues can be
addressed so that both countries can have a satisfactory trade
relationship. However, this will not happen by once again overlooking
the serious problems that are occurring in China. Please do not reward
China for their abuses of power; vote to deny ``normal trade status''
to China.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, last year I voted against MFN. I did so for a
variety of good reasons--primarily because of changes regarding nuclear
technology issues and the suspicion that indeed we had seen the
transfer of such to other countries.
I had a pretty good feeling that then, and now, MFN would continue.
The issue of ``engagement'' would indeed prevail. But I voted against
it in 1997 because I believed that we should send them a signal--if not
now, when?
The last number of days, I, and a number of my colleagues have had
lengthy discussions with the State Department, Defense Department,
USTR, and others regarding the real security of these technologies.
I'm convinced, that we have made real progress in sending the message
that any transfer of these technologies to other countries is simply
not acceptable. Engagement this past year has indeed been productive on
this front and I am glad to see real improvements.
I am hopeful that this progress will continue and I will also
continue to watch world events with a careful eye.
My vote today will be cast in favor of normal trade between our two
countries.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to see China improve its human rights
record, stop repressing the people of Tibet, allow civil liberties and
public dissent, and stop persecuting religious minorities.
So I understand the appeal of voting for this resolution. It would be
very satisfying, for a few minutes, to feel that I did something, that
the Congress did something, to make China change. But I have to step
back and ask whether revoking Most-Favored Nation (MFN) trading status,
now called Normal Trade Relations (NTR), for China would have the
desired effect, and if not, what will. I don't think passing this
resolution will make China change.
This cannot be a one-sided debate. We must consider not only the
areas where we have real and heartfelt disagreement with the Chinese
government's actions and policies, but also those often complex areas
where Chinese cooperation with the United States has had and will have
enormous consequences. And there are important areas where China has
cooperated with us: working with us to stop North Korea's nuclear
weapons development; helping us in the UN Security Council on the war
against Iraq and subsequent sanctions; assisting U.S. efforts to
implement the nuclear test ban and extend the nuclear nonproliferation
treaty. In these areas, cooperation and engagement with China made all
the difference in policies that are vital to our national security.
I have long advocated improved human rights in China. After the 1989
massacre in Tiananmen Square, I organized a protest march of more than
two dozen Members of Congress who walked across Washington from the
U.S. Capitol to the Chinese embassy, where we met with the Chinese
ambassador and presented in the strongest possible terms our views that
the Chinese government needed to change its ways.
I have also been very concerned about the persecution of Christians,
and other religious minorities in China. Yet activists working to stop
the persecution of Christians are of two minds on this issue. Many,
including the Rev. Billy Graham and a number of Chinese Christians,
have said that they feel engagement with China is the better course.
Revoking NTR means in effect that the United States would be imposing
a huge unilateral increase in tariffs on Chinese goods. No other
country is expected or likely to join us in raising tariffs, and that
means revocation of NTR would be a unilateral economic sanction. Given
the particular culture of the Chinese, I do not believe that this kind
of sanction will be any more successful against China than unilateral
trade sanctions have been against any other country. And many of our
international competitors are quite ready to take over the U.S. share
of the Chinese market.
Most worrisome would be the effect of raising U.S. tariffs, and thus
risking contracting the Chinese economy at a time when the aftershocks
of the Asian financial crisis are reverberating around the world. It is
frankly in our own self-interest to encourage economic stability in
Asia right now. Our own country could not be immune to recession if the
Asian contagion spreads.
China has held the line on its currency during the Asian financial
crisis, doing its part to keep the crisis from spreading further. It's
highly unlikely China could continue to resist revaluation in the face
of the impact of ending NTR status.
A year ago, Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty. We in Congress
pressed China to live up to its promise of ``one country, two systems''
for Hong Kong. While we want to see further democratization for Hong
Kong, China so far has substantially lived up to its pledges on
political and economic autonomy for Hong Kong. Now that Hong Kong is
under Chinese rule, trade with Hong Kong would also be subject to stiff
tariff increases if NTR trading status in revoked. This could undermine
Hong Kong's independence and autonomy by severely damaging its economy
at a time when the Asian financial crisis has already wrecked havoc on
it. It's estimated that revoking NTR would cut Hong Kong's economic
growth in half, reduce trade by $30 billion, and cost 85,000 Hong Kong
workers their jobs--making Hong Kong dependent on the Chinese regime.
The debate in the past has suffered from semantics. I hope the name
change from ``most-favored nation'' (implying something special and
concessionary) to ``normal trade relations'' (the tariff schedule that
applies to almost every other nation we trade with) will help clarify
what we are discussing here. Even countries with human rights records
far from our liking get NTR status. There are only five countries to
which we deny NTR status: Afghanistan, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and
Vietnam. Even the ``rogue states'' of Iran, Iraq, and Libya, although
subject to other economic sanctions, are technically eligible for NTR
status. Countries, like Syria or Indonesia, whose human rights records
we often decry in the Congress, have NTR trading status.
Cutting off NTR status would mean that we would lose the opportunity
to expose China to free market principles and values. American
businessmen and women, interacting with their Chinese counterparts, are
able to demonstrate the merits of many such principles and values. Over
time, it will make a difference, not just in economics, but in human
dignity and human rights.
The globalizing world economy and the revolution in information
exchange and technology offers an unprecedented set of circumstances
that will tend to push all but the most isolated of nations toward
integration with the international community. To finance expanding
trade, China needs foreign capital and investment. With that investment
comes exposure to internationally-recognized values and freedoms. With
advances in information technology, such as the Internet, electronic
mail, and fax machines--most of which are essential for doing business
today--repressive governments like China's are fast losing their
ability to control what people can read, learn, and think.
There are other, more positive, levers we can use to encourage China
to loosen its repressive policies. One of those levers is Chinese
accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). I expect our
negotiators to drive a hard bargain for market access and improved
business practices before we can agree to China joining the WTO, a body
China feels is essential for its trade expansion policies.
Engagement will take time, and it is hard to be patient. It will take
time for trade, investment, and foreign enterprise to break the iron
grip the Chinese regime has over its people. But American trade,
products, and most importantly exposure to American values and people
carry the seeds of change. Ultimately, China cannot sustain the
economic liberalization supporting its trade with the United States
without seeing an inevitable erosion of its political isolation and its
authoritarian regime. Those are the ultimate, if eventual, objectives
which inform our policy. To reverse that policy now might provide some
temporary emotional and even moral satisfaction. But the advocates of
such a reversal have not explained how it would lead to anything but a
practical--and moral--dead end.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
resolution that would end normal trade relations with China. What we
are considering today is whether we would continue giving China average
treatment. With normal trade relations, our farmers and ranchers can
sell their products in China on the same terms as their competitors
from Australia, South America, and Europe.
U.S. agricultural exports to China already exceed $3.3 billion a
year, and China's economy is growing at a rate of about 7% each year.
Our agricultural exports have nearly tripled in the past 5 years making
China the fourth largest market in the world for U.S. agricultural
products. China accounts for approximately 25 percent of total world
cotton consumption.
This year, China has become the leading importer of U.S. soybeans and
products, estimated at over $1.4 billion. China is now the ninth
largest market in the world for U.S. solid wood exports. U.S. solid
wood exports to China totaled $152 million in 1997.
During 1997, China's estimated poultry consumption reached 12.8
million tons, accounting for 25 percent of global demand. Poultry
[[Page H6118]]
consumption in China grew from only 12 percent of total meat intake in
1990 to about 24 percent in 1997.
China is by far the world's largest wheat consumer, and is second
only to the United States in corn use. By 2005, China will be a net
importer of 32 million tons of grain annually. WTO accession could
expand those numbers dramatically--USDA estimates that China's net
agricultural imports would increase by over $8 billion annually.
Revocation of normal trade relations would undoubtedly set back
progress towards a WTO accession agreement, and provide Europe,
Australia, and Canada the opportunity to build long-term market share
in China.
Joining the WTO means bringing China into a rules-based trading
system. China must make laws public, require judicial review of all
trade actions, apply all trade laws equally, and submit to WTO dispute
settlement to ensure compliance with WTO rules. All of these measures
will enhance the rule of law and the application of international norms
in China's trade regime, to the benefit of China and the United States.
The rule of law in trade in turn spills over to benefit the rule of law
elsewhere.
We cannot afford to lose China as a market, just as we cannot in good
conscience ignore our disagreements on social issues. This vote will
determine whether United States values will continue to be of influence
in China.
Shutting down trade with China or making the terms of trade
impossibly restrictive would put in place a policy of unilateral
confrontation that would not change China's behavior. If we remove MFN
from China, we disengage our government from a leadership role in the
region and would remove the positive influence that our business
community has in China.
We must engage China if we are to persuade its leadership to deal
with important social issues, and if we are to persuade China to open
its markets to more U.S. agricultural products. Engagement of China has
also helped maintain our agricultural markets in a very visible way in
recent months--China has played an extremely helpful role in the Asia
crisis. China has maintained the value of its currency despite pressure
to devaluate. A Chinese devaluation would almost certainly set off a
new round of competitive devaluation in the region the U.S. agriculture
cannot afford. China has also participated actively in the Manila
Framework and Willard Group processes, which are working to address
problems identified by the crisis, and China has contributed directly
to the international support package for Thailand.
Until we can reach a commercially viable agreement with China on
Accession to the WTO, we must maintain normal trading relations with
China--and that means renewing MFN.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this disapproval resolution.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to cast my vote against
renewing normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China. In
doing so, it is time to send a strong signal to Beijing along a number
of fronts.
First, it is time to send a strong message that the hoped-for policy
of trade engagement with China leading to greater democracy and
responsibility from the Chinese government hasn't produced the results
which merit renewal.
Our trading practices with China are reason enough not to renew
normal trade relations. Because China continues to engage in predatory
trade practices, we now have a $50 billion trade deficit. China
continues to refuse to enforce laws against piracy of intellectual
property and patents, continues to ship products made with prison
labor, evades U.S. restrictions on Chinese textile exports by trans-
shipping pieces through Hong Kong and effectively prohibits thousands
of foreign products which run counter to the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade.
Clearly, countless extensions of this trading privilege, formerly
known as Most Favored Nation trading status, have not produced
favorable conditions for the U.S. Also very clearly, this is a
privilege the Chinese need more than we do.
Secondly, there are serious questions about the Chinese and their
military spending which has been fueled and financed by billions of
dollars the Chinese make through managed trade with us. Instead of
entering the international community and trying to stem the flow and
proliferation of nuclear arms, there is strong evidence the Chinese
have continued to transfer advanced ballistic missile technology to
Syria and Pakistan as well as nuclear and chemical weapons technology
to Iran.
In the area of human rights, China has not made the kind of progress
which deserves our support for Normal Trade Relations. Just a few weeks
ago, President Clinton visited China and emphasized the need for
greater freedom and the rule of law. Since President Clinton left
China, there have been almost daily reports in the news media regarding
China's increasing intolerance--including numerous arrests of people
associated with China's democracy movement. There is a crystal clear
record of religious persecution, restrictions on the press, use of
slave and prison labor, and the persecution of the people of Tibet.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint
Resolution 121 and in support of normal trade relations with China.
Every year we debate the extension of NTR to China, but the debate is
not really about trade, it's about how we relate to China. There are
many reasons for members to object to aspects of the U.S.-PRC
relationship. There are issues involving missile proliferation, nuclear
technology transfers, religious freedom, human rights, and Taiwan.
Opponents of NTR will claim any or all of these issues as justification
for discontinuing normal trade relations.
For me, the issue has always been how best to convey our concerns to
China and how to persuade them to be constructive actors on the
international stage. The best way is through engagement because if we
don't deal with China, none of the issues that we believe are important
will be addressed.
This is equally true where we share a common agenda with China. For
example, it is in both our interests that North Korea not develop
nuclear weapons. Likewise, it is in both our interests that China not
devalue the yuan. Such a step could worsen the already severe economic
crisis in Asia and undermine American interests there. Would China be
more willing to be constructive on these issues if we cut off normal
trade relations? I doubt it.
This is not a call for business as usual or an indication that we
should abandon our security, proliferation or human rights concerns. On
the contrary, we must forcefully articulate our views to China where we
disagree. The President did just that when he was in China a few weeks
ago. He had the unprecedented opportunity to speak directly to the
Chinese people about American concerns and American values. This
opportunity would not have occurred had we cut off NTR last year and I
believe U.S. interests would be seriously damaged if we approve this
resolution today.
Mr. Speaker, when the United States Government deals directly with
China, when U.S. companies do business in China, and when U.S. citizens
travel to China, China is exposed to American values. That's the best
way for us to engage China.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution and support normal
trade relations with China.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President's
decision to extend most-favored-nation, or normal trade relations
status, to the products of China for another year. I urge my colleagues
to vote no on H.J. Res. 121, which would disapprove the President's
decision.
The Committee on Ways and Means decided by a bipartisan voice vote to
report this resolution adversely, and to continue our present trading
relationship with China.
We all share similar goals with respect to China. We all want China
to observe international norms with respect to human rights, religious
freedom, and democratic principles. We all want China to provide
greater market access for our goods and services. We all want China to
be a responsible trading partner.
Continued engagement with China through increased trade is not an
endorsement of China's policies with respect to human rights and
political and religious freedoms. The point is that withdrawing normal
trading status from China (after the 18 years we have treated the
Chinese in the same manner as we do all but a handful of other
countries in the world) will not advance our goals with China. Rather,
it will be a major step backward and hinder achieving those goals.
Using trade as a weapon can work only if we have a consensus with our
trading partners that we will work collectively to achieve common
goals. As our unilateral embargo against Cuba demonstrates, seeking to
change the behavior of Chinese leaders by withdrawing from our normal
trading relationship is unworkable. It will result only in foreign
countries filling the vacuum we leave. We lose the jobs increased trade
would have provided, and the situation we target does not improve.
It is our policy of working to expand areas of cooperation with China
while dealing directly with our differences--not a policy of
isolation--that has the support of our foreign allies, as well as
religious leaders, including the Reverend Billy Graham and the Dalai
Lama.
We should increase communication through business and trade contacts
in order to continue the progress being made toward resolving our
differences with Chinese leaders. That dialog will create further
understanding among the people of the most populous nation on Earth
about our democratic values.
The televised discussions about human rights which took place during
the President's recent visit to China demonstrated that our policy of
continued engagement is making a difference with the new Chinese
leadership and the Chinese people.
[[Page H6119]]
Mr. Speaker, I also support the President's decision to continue our
engagement with China because this is a foreign policy and a national
security issue, not just a trade issue. China is cooperating with us in
a number of areas of strategic importance to promote stability in Asia,
including on nuclear nonproliferation and the financial crisis. For the
Congress now to disapprove normal trading status and, instead, impose
prohibitive tariffs on Chinese products clearly would have negative
consequences for our overall strategic as well as economic relations.
The United States-China relationship is a key to global peace,
prosperity, and stability for many years ahead. Management of this
relationship in a constructive, positive way is of critical importance
to our national interests. The wisdom of this course was demonstrated
by the President's trip and I believe it must be maintained.
We should defeat H.J. Res. 121.
{time} 1545
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to the order of the
House of Friday, July 17, 1998, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that proceedings will
resume on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1689,
immediately following this vote, and without objection, the Chair will
reduce the time for that vote by the yeas and nays to not less than 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 264, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 317]
AYES--166
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bishop
Blunt
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Cardin
Carson
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins
Condit
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehrlich
Engel
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Forbes
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Goode
Goodling
Graham
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hefner
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
Lantos
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McIntyre
McKinney
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mink
Mollohan
Myrick
Nadler
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pickering
Pombo
Riley
Rivers
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sisisky
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Linda
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Weygand
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NOES--264
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Clement
Coble
Combest
Conyers
Cooksey
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
DeLay
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Fossella
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Snowbarger
Snyder
Stabenow
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Towns
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
NOT VOTING--5
Ford
Gonzalez
McNulty
Serrano
Young (FL)
{time} 1604
Mr. RUSH and Mr. McCRERY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. VISCLOSKY and Mrs. MYRICK changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the joint resolution was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________