[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.

                          ____________________