[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 107 (Tuesday, July 27, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6434-H6475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DISAPPROVING EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT TO PRODUCTS OF 
                       PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, 
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 57) disapproving the 
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations 
treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of China, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of H.J. Res. 57 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 57

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Congress does not approve the extension of the authority 
     contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     recommended by the President to the Congress on June 3, 1999, 
     with respect to the People's Republic of China.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of Thursday, July 22, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) 
and a Member in support of the joint resolution each will control 1\1/
2\ hours.
  Is the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) in favor of the joint 
resolution?
  Mr. STARK. I am in favor of the joint resolution, Mr. Speaker.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) will 
state his inquiry.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, if all of these Members who are 
controlling time favor normal trade relations for China, I would ask 
unanimous consent to control half of the time on this side in 
opposition to normal trade relations for China.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
Ohio that the time has already been divided, half in favor and half 
opposed to the joint resolution.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous matter on House Joint Resolution 57.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield one-half of 
my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) in opposition to 
the joint resolution, and that he be permitted to yield further blocks 
of time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
yield half of my time in support of the joint resolution to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and that in turn, he be 
allowed to yield blocks of that time so yielded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of July 
22 and the unanimous consent agreement of today, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Archer), the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) each will be recognized for 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).

[[Page H6435]]

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution, which 
would cut off normal trade relations between the U.S. and China.
  The relationship between China and the U.S. is very fragile now, as 
we all know, perhaps more fragile than ever. A number of developments 
have contributed to the precarious position in which we find ourselves 
today: the concern about Chinese espionage, escalating tensions between 
China and Taiwan, the mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassy in 
Belgrade, and more recently, the repression of Chinese civilians who 
wish to practice their faith.
  In no way should we discount the gravity of these developments, nor 
their impact on the U.S.-China relations. Rather, we should respect the 
significance of each and resolve to improve the situation. We should 
certainly not take steps that would cause relations to deteriorate even 
further, lest we risk far greater consequences for America, for China, 
and for the entire world in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, denying normal trade relations to China at this volatile 
stage would be such a step, and that is why I strongly oppose this 
resolution. House Joint Resolution 57 proposes to subject all Chinese 
imports to prohibitive duty rates averaging about 44 percent. Of our 
234 trading partners, only six, countries such as Cuba, Laos, and North 
Korea, receive this exclusionary tariff treatment.
  As a practical matter, China would likely retaliate with mirror 
sanctions against U.S. exports of goods and services to China totalling 
$18 billion and growing. Exports to China support 200,000 U.S. jobs. 
These are high caliber high-paying jobs, paying about 15 to 18 percent 
above the average manufacturing wage.
  American firms and workers have competitors in Japan and Europe with 
a keen interest in this dynamic market. China's infrastructure needs 
require a total of $744 billion over the next decade, including 
transportation, power generation, telecommunication, and many, many 
other services. They must be sourced abroad. Japan and Europe will be 
more than happy to replace the United States as a reliable supplier to 
China, capturing the business Americans would be forced to forfeit.
  The question is, who will be hurt? The answer is, not the Chinese. It 
will be American workers losing high-paid manufacturing jobs.
  House Joint Resolution 57 penalizes U.S. consumers, as well. China 
supplies low-priced consumer goods such as toys and games, apparel, 
shoes, and simple electronics. Americans, particularly those in lower-
income brackets, depend on access to these reasonably priced items for 
their families, to improve their family's standard of living.

                              {time}  1100

  Revoking China's NTR status would amount, in effect, to a $300 a year 
tax increase on the average American family of four. Costs of goods 
used as inputs in U.S. factories would also skyrocket, reducing the 
competitiveness of finished American manufactured products worldwide. 
The question is: Who will be hurt? The answer is: Not the Chinese, it 
will be American families.
  It is less easy to quantify how dangerous H.J. Res. 57 would be to 
U.S. national security interests in this turbulent region of the world. 
By throwing thousands out of work, revoking NTR would deal a 
devastating blow to the people of Hong Kong as they struggle to 
maintain their way of life and autonomy following the territory's 
reversion to China. Taiwan's economy, too, would suffer with severe 
disruption. Securing Chinese cooperation on dangerous issues such as 
North Korea and the weapons proliferation will never happen without a 
functioning trade relationship between the U.S. and China.
  China is one of the world's oldest and most influential 
civilizations. I recognize that progress toward a more democratic and 
open society is slow, agonizing, irregular; but it is common sense to 
appreciate that China will not respond positively to draconian trade 
sanctions. Advancement of human rights, religious freedom, and 
democratic principles will not be achieved if we cut ties completely 
with the Chinese people.
  American political business and religious leaders need to remain 
engaged in China in order to further our values there. The most 
valuable American export to China is American ideals. Religious freedom 
is increasing in China, and we even see free elections in Chinese 
villages where non-Communist candidates have been elected. The question 
is: Would this be happening without the impact of Americans and 
American society on China: The answer is: No, it would not.
  The open lines of communication that accompany a basic trade 
relationship with China support the economic and foreign policy 
interests of the United States in a strategically important and 
dangerous region of the world.
  We cannot undermine U.S. political, economic, and security interests 
by unraveling the trade relations that benefit both countries. We 
cannot turn our backs on the Chinese people who compromise one-fifth of 
the world's population. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 57.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted 
to distribute it as he sees fit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose renewing normal trade relations with the 
People's Republic of China. Indeed, it may be among the world's oldest 
civilizations, but today those wonderful people are lead by barbarious 
fascists.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, asked: Who is hurt? I can give my colleagues a list of 
the people who are hurt now by our current relationships with China: 
Millions of Tibetans, 6 million having been killed since the Chinese 
occupation in 1949; 2,000 political prisoners, these are just religious 
dissidents; 30 to 40 million Muslims have suffered; women and children; 
women pregnant outside of family planning rules have been abducted and 
forced to have sterilization.
  The inhumane treatment of human beings in China is documented over 
and over and over again. As far as national security, it has been 
documented recently by the Cox committee that China is stealing 
military secrets from us in preparation for nuclear war and has 
violated the proliferation and nonproliferation agreements and does not 
deserve our trading partnership.
  Whatever help may go to Boeing and Hewlett-Packard and whoever wants 
to sell a bunch of roam phones and airplanes to China is paid for by 
the blood and sweat that makes the cheap T-shirts and cheap shoes that 
are sold by Wal-Mart and others who import the slave labor produced 
goods.
  We cannot continue this. This is just a matter of will Americans do 
business with murderers, with torturers, with child molesters, with 
people who are being lead by leaders who have no spark of humanity. 
This cannot go on.
  The only message they understand is profit. They care not one whit 
for decency. The only thing we can do is cut into our profit at some 
small risk to the richest manufacturing companies in this country. Let 
us do it. Let us make a statement for human rights. Let us make a 
statement for childhood suffrage. Let us make a statement for decency. 
Let us make a statement for all the American values and suggest that we 
are rich enough and strong enough in this country to support Boeing and 
Hewlett-Packard and all of those people, and McDonald's franchises, all 
of those people who would supposedly be hurt if we do not.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), one of the leading Members of the 
freshman class of the House of Representatives in the Democratic Caucus 
who has much experience and knowledge in this area.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, as the first Chinese American to stand in this House, as 
a trade and international trade lawyer, I feel a special responsibility 
in this debate. But special responsibilities run deep in this House, 
because the Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 
assembled almost

[[Page H6436]]

exactly 223 years ago committed themselves to the path of liberty and 
committed to each other their lives, their fortune, and their sacred 
honor.
  America has lead the way for 223 years on the path of freedom, 
sometimes with a certain stride and sometimes through great adversity, 
but always leading the way and shining a light for others to follow.
  What this debate is about, it is about who we are as a free people, 
what we stand for as a country, the courage of this Congress, and the 
integrity of each of us as individuals. What this debate is not about 
is engagement. Of course we must engage China, 1.2 billion people.
  We are engaged with China, and we will be engaged with China. We must 
be engaged with China culturally. There are 6,000 Chinese on cultural 
exchange visas here in the United States. We must be engaged with China 
educationally. There are 14,000 Chinese on student visas in the United 
States. We must be engaged with China on environmental issues, on labor 
issues, on human rights issues. We must be engaged with China on issues 
where we agree and where we disagree.
  Of course we must be engaged with China in business and trade. But 
the business of America must be more than business alone. An engagement 
must be through more than just the cash register. Let me give my 
colleagues the difference between cash register engagement and real 
engagement.
  Cash register engagement would have us see the Chinese people as 
workers and as consumers, as 2 billion strong-arms to do our work, as 2 
million legs to wear American jeans.
  Real engagement recognizes the Chinese people as real people, people 
who have hopes and aspirations, people who would walk the path of 
freedom without.
  Cash register engagement would say they are not ready for freedom. 
Real engagement recognizes that freedom is young everywhere. It is only 
220 years old here in America. It is 150 years old in Britain. It is 
100 years old in France, 50 years old in Germany and Japan.
  I stand here as living proof that the Chinese people can fully 
participate in democracy. I stand here as proof that all people deserve 
to walk the path of freedom.
  Where have we been walking in the past 10 years? Through two 
administrations, we have been walking, not the path of freedom, but the 
moral wilderness. We have been called off the path of freedom by the 
siren song of the cash register, and we have closed our ears and our 
hearts and we have walked away from those who had walked the path of 
freedom with us.
  What has it gained us? What has it gained us? A larger trade deficit, 
more people in jail than ever. We have tried it the wrong way for 10 
years. Let us try it the right way for this 1 year.
  I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution and against 
most favored nation status for the Chinese Government.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution, and I call on my colleagues to 
vote against it. We, as Americans on the bridge of going into the next 
century, while we have a boom in our economy, there is no question 
that, in order to sustain this economic boom, we are going to have to 
continue to maintain our technological leadership and expansion in 
trade. The whole thing for the next century is going to be trade, 
trade, trade, and more trade.
  It is true that we have lost a lot of our low-skilled jobs here, and 
we have to do more to protect those people that have been dislocated 
and placed out of work. There is no question that, as a result of our 
important leadership role in the world, that more and more is expected 
of us to protect the human rights and political rights of other people.
  But I think that there is a lot of hypocrisy in terms of America's 
ability to monitor these things all over the world and, at the same 
time, to ignore many of the same inequities that exist in our country.
  I was among those who lead the fight in sanctions against South 
Africa because the whole world saw exactly what was happening to 
majority rule there. But, now, America has singled out sanctions and 
trade punishment when most of the time we stand alone, Cuba being an 
example of how just wrong trade policy can get.
  It would seem to me that we have an obligation for the next 
generation to say what we have done to prove that America leads the way 
in moral leadership; that we never have to explain how we get on the 
Amnesty International list in terms of violation of human rights; that 
we should not have to explain why 1.8 million Americans are locked up 
in jail, why 90 percent of them are locked up for nonviolent crimes, 
and how we find that most all of them came from the most terrible 
schools that we have in America.
  We have to make certain that this new technology, that we have 
investments in it, and that we move forward and turning away from 
countries that we trade with, but to take advantage of our power, our 
influence, to make certain that, by example, we show the people that we 
protect human rights and political rights in this country and 
throughout the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
allocate that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as the author of this legislation that we are discussing 
today, I dedicate this bill to Ginetta Sagan, a champion of human 
rights, who has inspired me for many, many years.
  The legislation we are talking about will deny normal trade 
relations, formerly Most Favored Nation status, to Communist China. 
This preferential trade status should not be granted to a despotic 
regime. It should not be granted to regimes that are engaged in 
aggression, militarism, proliferation, and a systematic abuse of human 
rights of their own people.
  I certainly disagree with the last speaker who suggested that the 
United States of America is in some way morally equivalent to this 
dastardly, dastardly tyrannical regime, the world's worst human rights 
abuser. By ignoring the nature of the Communist regime that rules China 
with an iron hand we are doing no favor to the American people and we 
are doing no favor to the Chinese people.
  Mr. Speaker, we will be told time and again during this debate that 
bestowing this preferential trade status on Communist China will tend 
to civilize and moderate the gangster-like rulers there. All empirical 
evidence suggests the opposite. Since Tiananmen Square 10 years ago, 
which was a massacre of democracy advocates that the Beijing regime 
still denies, but since then the genocide continues in Tibet and the 
repression throughout China has escalated.
  We have just heard today someone say that freedom of religion has 
never been greater in China. Yet, in fact, in the last few weeks a new 
generation of victims are being rounded up and brutalized, many 
disappearing into the Lao Gai prison camps, which are the Chinese 
version of the Nazi concentration camps, or the gulag system of the 
former Soviet Union. The latest victims are part of a meditation and 
exercise movement, a religious minority based purely on Chinese 
cultural and spiritual traditions. This has grown to some 70 million 
practitioners, including some members of the Communist party and their 
families.
  Yet these innocent people, who have no political agenda, have now 
joined the Tibetans, the Chinese Muslims, and the Christians, who 
refused to register in their registered churches, in that they are all 
becoming enemies of the state.
  The leaders of this same tyrannical regime that is persecuting these 
religious people still boasts in their meetings, and it has been quoted 
in their last meeting just a month ago, that they will ``destroy 
capitalism.'' I think we can read that the United States of America is 
who they want to destroy.
  This is the same regime that is using its annual $70 billion trade 
surplus, and we are permitting them that trade surplus with our 
irrational policy that we are talking about today, they are using that 
to modernize their military. They

[[Page H6437]]

are building nuclear-armed missiles based solely on American 
technology, and stolen American technology, missiles that are aimed at 
the United States and that could incinerate millions of Americans.
  After 10 years of debating this issue in Congress, as their trade 
surplus with the United States continues to grow, there is absolutely 
no sign of moderation or liberalization on the mainland of China.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we will hear that China must be given this 
preferential trade status because we cannot isolate or refuse to trade 
with this vast potential market. Glassy-eyed businessmen can overlook 
any crime, shut their ears to any pleas for mercy in their quest for 
the China market. Well, China is the market of the future, it always 
has been, and as long as it is under Communist Chinese rule, it always 
will be. The Communist rulers are playing Americans as saps. Little 
Taiwan, with 20 million people, buys more from us than all of mainland 
China with its 1.2 billion people. So does tiny Singapore.
  This debate, no matter how the other side may claim otherwise, is not 
about isolating China or cutting it off from trade. Americans will 
still be free to trade with China at their own risk. But those are the 
operative words we are talking about today. They will be trading at 
their own risk. The reason these powerful business lobbies are pushing 
for normal trade relations status is that it will permit wealthy 
financial interests to invest in Communist China with the benefits of 
subsidies provided by the American taxpayer.
  In short, American businessmen will be able to close down their 
factories in the United States, as they have been doing, and they will 
be able to move them to China with a subsidy by the taxpayers of the 
United States of America. And that is what this debate is really all 
about. Because people will still be free to sell their products over in 
China, no matter what happens in this particular debate.
  This debate is not about free trade. Obviously, it is about subsidy, 
as I just said. But if it was truly about free trade, I would be on the 
other side. I believe in free trade. Free trade between free people. 
What we have is manipulated trade on their side and free trade on ours. 
That ends up benefiting the Communist Chinese and their clique that 
rules that country. It is not free trade; it is just a masking phrase 
for a totally insane policy that permits huge tariffs on any American 
product that they are trying to sell into China versus low tariffs on 
the Chinese goods that are flooding into the United States and putting 
our people out of work.
  There has been a short-term profit. Sure, there has been a short-term 
profit, to a few billionaires in the United States. But it is not in 
the long-term interest of the American people, who are now in the 
shadow of Chinese nuclear weapons that are aimed at the United States 
and our cities.
  I am asking my colleagues to join me in changing a policy that is out 
of control and self-destructive. Our current policy is not good for the 
American people, it is not good for the Chinese people, it is not 
making peace more likely, and America's technology is flowing to a 
regime that is very similar to the Japanese militarists of the 1930s. 
This is simply emboldening. Just like our trade policy did with the 
Japanese back in the 1920s and 1930s, we are simply emboldening the 
bully boys in Beijing to continue their repression, their aggression, 
and their belligerency.
  This immoral policy of accommodating the Japanese back in the 1920s 
did not work and did not lead to peace or freedom, and it will not give 
us peace and freedom in our time. I ask my colleagues to join with me 
in standing up for democracy, for the economic interests of our people, 
and for a rational approach to world peace.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 57, which would 
terminate normal trade relations with China 60 days after enactment. By 
raising tariffs to the prohibitive levels that applied before 1980, and 
thereby prompting mirrored retaliation on the part of the Chinese 
against $18 billion of U.S. exports, this resolution would effectively 
extinguish trade relations between our two countries.
  And for my distinguished colleague and friend from California who was 
just on the floor, I would remind him that his State exported $2.5 
billion worth of goods. And these were not all those powerful 
interests, although maybe in the scrap and waste industry, because the 
gentleman's State exported $124 million worth of scrap and waste. And I 
am glad that China was willing to take it instead of dumping it in my 
back yard.
  But in addition to that, manufactured goods out of the State of 
California were $2.5 billion, and that translates into roughly 40,000, 
almost 50,000 domestic jobs that pay, on average, 15 to 20 percent more 
than most jobs.
  During the debate today, proponents of the bill will urge Members to 
send a signal to China in order to protest violations of human rights. 
Unfortunately, revoking normal trade relations is a rash policy that 
offers no practical plan for bringing the political and economic change 
to China that we all seek. I urge my colleagues to support a more 
pragmatic policy which acknowledges that a nation of 1.2 billion people 
is more likely to imitate our powerful example over time than it is to 
bend as a result of our threats.
  My goal in maintaining normal trade relations is to support the 
continued presence of Americans throughout Chinese society, whether 
they be entrepreneurs, teachers, religious leaders, or missionaries. 
And speaking of missionaries, I might note that we had a visit here on 
the Hill with Ned Graham, Billy Graham's son, and they have been 
engaged in missionary activity in mainland China for several years and 
have distributed literally millions of Bibles in their missionary 
efforts. They have even contracted with a publishing firm in mainland 
China to print their Bibles. These contacts would be threatened if we 
revoked NTR.
  Since the economic opening of China by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 and the 
transition in China from centrally planned socialism to a more 
capitalist system, 200 million Chinese citizens have been lifted out of 
absolute poverty. Likewise, while restrictions on organized religion 
remain, there has been a marked growth in religious activity in China 
during the last decade. To be sure, there are several severe problems 
remaining, but listen to Reverend Pat Robertson, who has urged Congress 
``to keep the door to the message of freedom and God's love'' open, not 
shut. ``Leaving a billion people in spiritual darkness punishes not the 
Chinese Government but the Chinese people,'' he wrote. ``The only way 
to pursue morality is to engage China fully and openly as a friend.''
  In the past few years we have observed democracy beginning to take 
root in the form of functioning elections at the village level in 
China. To date, one in three Chinese citizens have participated in 
local elections where many successful candidates have been non-
Communists.
  Many observers believe that freedom in China is greater now than at 
any time in its long history. The Chinese Government has allowed an 
unprecedented increase in the ability to own property, a home or a 
business, to travel and to keep profits. In a few years, more than half 
of the state-run industries will be privatized.
  While preserving NTR trade status offers hope for improving the 
welfare of the Chinese people, it is also squarely in the U.S. national 
interest. Revoking NTR would be interpreted by the Chinese as an act of 
hostility. This would strengthen the hand of those in China who oppose 
further reform and opening to the West. It would jeopardize China's new 
willingness to embrace the market-oriented trade disciplines of the WTO 
as evidenced in the April 8 package of concessions put on the table by 
Premier Zhu Rhongji at the summit meeting with President Clinton.
  U.S. negotiators secured progress toward an expansive bilateral 
market access agreement, along with Chinese commitments to adopt WTO 
rules relating to such issues as technology transfer, subsidies, 
product safeguards, and state enterprises. China also agreed to end 
sanitary and phytosanitary bans on the importation of United States 
wheat, meat, and citrus products.

[[Page H6438]]

  If implemented, these commitments could represent substantial new 
opportunities for U.S. exports to China, because Chinese markets, 
already huge, will grow even further in areas such as agriculture and 
information technology.
  Unlike any other major trade agreement, this is a one-sided set of 
concessions. In exchange for steep tariff reductions and wholesale 
reforms of the Chinese trading system, the United States gives up 
nothing. At the same time, we preserve our positive influence over the 
direction of the turbulent change that is occurring in China.
  I urge the administration to get back to the table with the Chinese 
as soon as possible. The United States has a unique opportunity at this 
point in time. In my view, the President should have seized this 
historic opportunity to lock China into a binding WTO agreement. 
Clearly, a protectionist move to revoke normal trade relations with 
China would permanently derail the potential WTO deal. History in Asia 
and the political evolution in China will be entirely different if we 
allow this deal to slip through our fingers.
  Maintaining normal trade relations is in the economic interest of all 
Americans because it preserves 200,000 U.S. jobs which are directly 
supported by U.S. exports to China.

                              {time}  1130

  My home State of Illinois sold almost a billion dollars of products 
to China in 1992. These are jobs that pay wages, as I indicated 
earlier, 15 to 20 percent higher than jobs supported by sales to the 
domestic market. They would be the first casualties in a war of trade 
retaliation.
  Mr. Speaker, trade is the one area where the mutual advantage for 
China and the United States is clear; and, for that reason, I strongly 
urge a ``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 57.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I see nothing clear in the advantage of 
trade with China.
  Ten years ago, the Chinese tanks rumbled into Tiananmen Square to 
crush an historic call for freedom and reform. Despite that danger, 
many demonstrators stood their ground. Hundreds were beaten; they were 
arrested; and they were shot.
  Now, 10 years later, many of those arrested that grim day are still 
in prison. One of them, Zhang Shanguang, served 7 years. After 
Tiananmen Square, he was released, only to be rearrested because he 
dared to speak out on behalf of laid-off workers.
  Just over the past week, Chinese authorities arrested more than 5,000 
people solely on the basis of their religious beliefs. They joined 
countless others already locked away in dark cells and reeducation 
camps simply because they spoke about their faith or their right to 
form a union or their right to seek justice in their country.
  By any measure, any measure conceivable, this is an abysmal record. 
And what is our response today? Well, some say we need to give the 
Chinese authorities more time, we need to give them more time by way of 
economic incentive to change. We are told to be patient.
  Ten years is long enough to see that nothing has changed. In fact, it 
has gotten worse. The current regime continues to abuse human rights 
and political rights without the slightest hesitation.
  The authorities even arrested a man recently in downtown Beijing for 
wearing a T-shirt and on the T-shirt were the words ``labor rights.'' 
They arrested him and threw him in prison for wearing a T-shirt.
  Even as we speak, Nike is negotiating a deal with a sweatshop in 
China that pays teenage girls 16 cents an hour to make gym shoes that 
sell for $120 a pair. They work 12 hours a day for 16 cents an hour. 
And they have no power, no power to speak up for a better deal or to 
organize or no right to basic dignity, no hope at all in this situation 
they find themselves in.
  That is unless we do something about it, unless we use our courage to 
leverage our economic strength to enact real reform. We could give the 
people of China a chance to help themselves.
  Our policy of granting China special trade status no matter what they 
do year after year has failed.
  How long are we going to ignore China's policy of slave labor, of 
prison labor, of forced abortions, of ethnic persecution, of religious 
persecution? And what are we ignoring it for? A $67-billion trade 
deficit?
  Now, this is really surreal when we think about it. We sell more to 
Belgium than we do to over a billion Chinese. So let us adopt a common-
sense approach, a new approach. Let us demand proof of progress before 
we grant China special trade status.
  Let us not, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) so eloquently spoke 
just a few minutes here, engage in a system of cash register engagement 
with China. Let us be beyond that. Let us be bigger than that. Let us 
stand for the ideals for which our Founding Fathers came before this 
country and before the world.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution to deny China 
MFN status.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time there is 
remaining on all sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Crane) has 31 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) has 42 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) has 37\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) has 33\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57.
  Our relationship with China indeed faces many major challenges. The 
question in each case is whether using this annual review to withdraw 
NTR will confront the challenges.
  I want to focus today on two of these aspects, our trade 
relationships and our human rights relationships.
  First is the trade. Clearly, there are major problems to confront in 
our trade relationship with China. The large and growing current trade 
deficit; how we integrate a huge economy that remains nonmarket-based 
in many vital respects and that does not operate within a clear rule of 
law into a world trading order based on free market rules and the rule 
of law.
  Neither of these problems is easily solved. The current trade deficit 
results, in part, because China restricts market access and because it 
exploits and manipulates its nonmarket mechanisms, both capital and 
labor.
  It is imperative we address these problems in negotiations with the 
Chinese in the bilateral WTO access talks. Some were addressed before 
the negotiations broke off, but others were not. And they were reasons 
the U.S. could not sign off on an agreement with the Chinese a few 
months ago.
  The answer on key trade issues is not to withdraw NTR today but to 
insist on clearly adequate terms and conditions before NTR is granted 
on a permanent basis. Enactment of today's resolution would bring 
further trade negotiations with the Chinese to a halt, to a complete 
halt. It would indeed lower our trade deficit. It would do so by 
terminating most of our trade rather than by addressing the structural 
issues, issues which are helping to create the trade deficit today, 
which must be addressed as we look at the longer run when China will 
increasingly be a competitor as well as a consumer of American made 
products and services, and issues which must, as I said, be fully 
addressed before permanent NTR is even considered.
  Now let me, if I might, address human rights issues, which indeed 
must be addressed. Recent events in China demonstrate that the U.S. 
must bring sustained pressure on China on human rights. The recent 
suppression of followers of Falun Gong demonstrates once again that, 
however more open in some respects Chinese society is today compared to 
a decade ago, and it is, when it comes to any perceived threat to 
communist authoritarian control, the power of central authority will 
trample individual rights.
  The problem with the use of this annual debate as a main tool is that 
it involves an instrument, withdrawal of NTR, which, absent a 
cataclysmic event, everybody knows in the end will not be invoked.
  On the one hand, I agree with those who say that withdrawal of an NTR 
is

[[Page H6439]]

not a sufficiently relevant or effective mechanism to press ahead on 
human rights. On the other hand, I agree that the operation of a normal 
trade economic relationship will not likely by itself transform China 
on human rights and Democratic values.
  In a word, we need to find an alternative instrument.
  I realize it is not easy to find such, but I urge that we have not 
worked hard enough in its search. We debate once a year and then mainly 
wait for the next year.
  We, the administration and the Congress, do not spend sustained time 
trying to persuade other nations to join themselves with us on human 
rights issues. There is no certain answer. But quite clearly, the 
withdrawal of NTR is not, partly because idle threats rarely create 
much, if any, pressure.
  So, in both respects, both as to trade and human rights, a ``no'' 
vote on this resolution is in order. But, and I say this with the full 
depth of conviction, it must not be the end of this work on trade and 
human rights but a stimulus to further vigorous efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution. I oppose these 
so-called normal trade relations with China.
  Trade with communist China is a one-way street. It now exceeds $1 
billion a week. Experts say it will exceed $70 billion this year.
  I want the Members to know that China, with money from Uncle Sam, is 
buying attack aircraft, nuclear submarines, and intercontinental 
ballistic missiles.
  And we are continuing to simply talk about a trade scenario. 
Unbelievable.
  The record is clear. China has already threatened to nuke Taiwan. And 
we are now kow towing to China with a one-China policy.
  China, as we debate this measure, has 14 intercontinental ballistic 
missiles pointed at American cities according to the Central 
Intelligence Agency. China is arming terrorist nations who hate Uncle 
Sam. And we are today voting again to continue a policy that is anti-
American and threatens our national security.
  The bottom line of this debate: Congress is financing the greatest 
threat in our Nation's history.
  We have got to be dumb, my colleagues. This is not just a trade 
matter. This is much more. The records show over the last several years 
China is spying and buying America right out from under us while 
Congress is granting Chinese officials gallery passes.
  I heard about all of the trade surpluses. I am sure I am going to 
hear one from Ohio. Ohio has got a deficit with China. Ohio has got a 
deficit with Japan. The Nation has a $70-billion deficit, and we are in 
fact threatening the future of each and every one of our constituents 
and citizens.
  I do not know what it is going to take. I do not think Congress will 
wise up until there is a Chinese dragon eating our assets around here. 
I think that is what it is going to have to take.
  I want a reciprocal trade agreement with China, with Japan. 
Engagement is fine if it is not a one-way toll bridge for American 
companies.
  I think it is time for our committees who have jurisdiction over 
trade to start bringing out the trade measures. That is the most 
significant problem facing our country.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Houghton) our distinguished colleague.
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we are doing this to 
ourselves. I mean, every single year we come up and beat the tambourine 
and hit the drum.
  This is not going to go anyplace. We cannot cut off our relationship 
with China. We do not want to do it. It is the wrong thing to do. There 
are hundreds of ways to make China an enemy. This just happens to be 
one of them.
  Now, it is very easy to get into specifics here, but I have been to 
China. I have done business there. I know what they are doing. We have 
a trade deficit. It is not going to get turned around soon. There are 
human rights problems. There are labor problems. There are 
environmental problems.
  But I can remember talking to one of the people in one of our plants 
over there who said, You can be philosophic about trade relations with 
China. You can cut it off or increase the tariffs. Let me tell you 
something, my job is on the line; and I want you to remember that, 
because I am trying to have an impact here not only with my company but 
also with my family.

                              {time}  1145

  We must be able to relate and to talk and share ideas and to trade. 
How else do things change? Just by shutting off things? No. So to cut 
off the normal trade status with China, I think, is wrong, and I think 
we must oppose H.J. Res. 57.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank my friend from California for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 57, to deny trading 
privileges to the People's Republic of China.
  Every year when we debate this issue, America's CEOs stream into 
Ronald Reagan Airport seeking special favors for the world's worst 
abuser of human rights. They are helped by former government officials 
that know how the machinery of government operates, including former 
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Trade Representative 
Carla Hills, and former Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor.
  This fall, Mr. Speaker, ``Fortune'' magazine is sponsoring a 3-day 
business trip to China. This gala, which CEOs by invitation only of the 
largest companies in America will attend, will feature dinner with the 
world's leading Communist, Jiang Zemin, and will feature lunch with 
Henry Kissinger. It concludes just prior to the celebration on October 
1 of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of 
China, the 50th anniversary of the victory of communism, the 50th 
anniversary of the ``who-lost-China'' debate.
  These CEOs from America's largest companies, many of them will travel 
from Shanghai to Beijing on October 1 to watch a parade in Tiananmen 
Square. As this military hardware from the People's Republic of China 
goes by and is viewed by America's most prosperous and successful CEOs, 
most prosperous capitalists as they watch this Communist parade go by, 
as ludicrous as this all sounds, it is safe to say there probably will 
not be much discussion by these CEOs to each other or to Communist 
leaders about the forced abortions in China, probably not much 
discussion about nuclear weapons sales, technology sales to Pakistan, 
probably not much discussion about persecution of Christians, probably 
not much discussion among these capitalists and Communists about 
China's slave labor camps or its child labor or all of its human rights 
abuses.
  Mr. Speaker, we should vote ``yes'' on this Rohrabacher resolution. 
We should demand to see if China, for only 1 year, can stop its human 
rights abuses; we should demand to see if China, for only 1 year, can 
stop its use of slave labor and child labor; we should demand if China, 
for only 1 year, can stop threatening the democracy, the democracy next 
door, Taiwan; and we should demand, if only for 1 year, that China open 
up its markets so that instead of a $65 billion trade deficit, 
persistent trade deficit we have with that country, that maybe we could 
deal on an equal footing.
  Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote on H.J. Res. 57 is an opportunity to send 
a message to the American business community and most importantly to 
the thugs that run the Communist Party in China. It is an opportunity 
to send a message that this kind of behavior that they have exhibited 
is no longer acceptable.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), an expert on trade matters.
  Mr. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that if you look at China's record 
on

[[Page H6440]]

human rights, on the whole issue of espionage, the trade deficit, one 
would have to say that our relationship with China is a very difficult 
one, it is an uncertain one, and it is one that obviously has a lot of 
ups and downs.
  I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) recently in an op-
ed piece in the Los Angeles Times described it as a roller coaster ride 
that we have with China. But in spite of all this, I think, as the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) mentioned, we are going to 
continue on our trade relations with China.
  It is somewhat unfortunate that we have this debate tied with trade, 
because what eventually happens here is the fact that trade continues 
on and to some extent the comments made by the opponents of trade with 
China become diminished. We should really highlight the issues of human 
rights, the whole issue of proliferation, but it should be in a 
different forum, one in which we can all join together and deal with.
  The reason we must continue on trade with China is pretty simple. 
China is 22 percent of the world population. One out of every five 
individuals on this planet is Chinese. Over the next 20 or 30 years, 
China will become one of the most dangerous players in the world if we 
begin to try to isolate them; or, on the other hand, if we engage the 
Chinese, perhaps, not certainly but perhaps, we can enter into a period 
where the U.S. and China and other countries of the free world begin to 
operate and work together. This is a strategic issue for the United 
States. This is an important issue for the United States.
  Let me address, if I may, the issue of human rights just for a moment 
in conclusion. Yes, there is political repression in China and there is 
very little political rights in China. On the other hand, with the 
continuing engagement of the U.S. and other countries with the Chinese, 
there are probably more personal freedoms than we have ever had. 
Hopefully that middle class in China will begin to understand that it 
must, over time, change its own government. That is the key to trade 
with China and that is the key to make China a more open form of 
government, along with the open economy it is trying to achieve at this 
time.
  I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me again state, this is not about isolating China; this is not 
about not trading with China. Those arguments are irrelevant. Those 
arguments are not what this is about. Normal trade relations, by 
providing this privileged status for Communist China, simply says that 
if we provide that, and I am saying we should not, and those voting for 
this resolution are saying we should not, provides that we can 
subsidize the investment in China by the American taxpayers.
  If my resolution passes today, people will still be able to trade 
with China all they want. They can sell all their goods, they can try 
to set up their factories, but they have to do so at their own risk. 
The reason the business community is fighting this is because we are 
then, by taking away normal trade relations with China, taking away 
their right to get government subsidies when they close factories here 
and set them up in Communist China. It does not isolate China. People 
can continue in engagement. We are just not going to subsidize them and 
subsidize the people who are providing them what they need to build 
their infrastructure to outcompete us. That makes all the sense in the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill for a 
simple reason. This is not the time to reward a government which poses 
a threat to U.S. national security, which closes its markets to 
American products, which not only steals nuclear secrets from our labs 
but violates U.S. intellectual property rights. Before we extend normal 
trade relations to the PRC, we should ask ourselves what trading with 
this regime, an abuser of human rights, has accomplished thus far.
  Has it accomplished the overall goal of changing unacceptable 
behavior by the Chinese Government? Are the Chinese people any freer? 
Are they able to exercise their rights as individuals and as citizens 
of the state without reprisals? Do American businesses have unlimited 
access to Chinese markets? Or are they subject to barriers and 
widespread discrimination? Are the American people any safer?
  Reports by the Central Intelligence Agency show that 13 of China's 18 
long-range strategic missiles have single nuclear warheads aimed at 
U.S. cities. China also has an array of strategic missiles that U.S. 
military and intelligence officials say are targeted on U.S. forces 
deployed in Asia.
  Defense and intelligence experts show that China continues to 
transfer dangerous technology to Iran and Pakistan and is actively 
involved in the transfer of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons 
and missiles to other rogue states. The PRC is subsidizing Chinese 
missile and nuclear industries and prolonging the status quo. We have 
all read with grave concerns the report by the Select Committee on U.S. 
National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's 
Republic of China.
  Looking at the issue from a strictly commercial perspective, looking 
at it as if trade is the most important aspect, affording China normal 
trade relations also makes no sense whatsoever. It would be rewarding 
China for its closed markets which in just the first 4 months of this 
year has resulted in an $18.4 billion trade deficit for the United 
States.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill to disapprove NTR for 
China.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article referred 
to by the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). It was an L.A. Times 
article that was written by the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

                         [From the L.A. Times]

                   End the U.S.-China Roller Coaster

                           (By David Dreier)

       Twists and turns, slow and measured ascents followed by 
     stomach churning plunges. A roller coaster at your local 
     theme park? No, U.S.-China relations over the last few years. 
     And it's a bad way for two enormous and important countries 
     on opposite sides of the Pacific Rim to deal with one 
     another. The U.S. should seize the upcoming opportunity to 
     fashion common-sense trade rules that will offer the American 
     and Chinese peoples greater hopes for stability, prosperity 
     and freedom.
       The U.S.-China relations roller coaster will crest this 
     summer as the annual trade debate over normal trade 
     relations--sometimes called ``most favored nation'' status--
     is merged with the more debate about China's admission to the 
     World Trade Organization. These intricate trade negotiations 
     and rules that are the stuff of lawyers and government 
     officials are vitally important because prices, product 
     quality, consumer choice, jobs and investments are ultimately 
     tied to trade. Trade with Asia is critical to California's 
     and America's continued economic growth.
       The American people have been exposed to China in the last 
     year like never before. Unfortunately, much of this attention 
     has been the negative headlines of espionage, protests 
     against the tragic mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassy in 
     Belgrade and illegal campaign activities. Though these all 
     deserve to be discussed and examined in full, what has not 
     received enough attention has been the truly revolutionary 
     change sweeping across China.
       China is literally revamping its entire economic system, an 
     enormous undertaking. It's the equivalent of the people 
     switching to driving on the other side of the road, 
     repudiating their whole political ideology and changing their 
     economic language all at once. This type of economic and 
     political revolution can't happen overnight. If it did, there 
     could be such instability and shock to the system that 
     retrenchment, bloodshed and political repression might 
     reappear. When China tried swift, radical change during the 
     Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward, 60 million 
     people died.
       But things are changing in China, and mostly for the 
     better. We can be under no illusions about the fact that the 
     Beijing government is a repressive, authoritarian 
     dictatorship. Yet although political rights are largely 
     nonexistent, there is no question that personal freedom is on 
     the rise, due in large part to market reforms.
       Year after year, the United States has extended normal 
     trading relations to China over the objections of those who 
     think that curtailing trade will solve our problems with 
     China. I have never understood the argument that limiting 
     Chinese interaction with America's vibrant free market, 
     democratic institutions and renowned individual spirit of 
     free enterprise would somehow strengthen democratic activists 
     and weaken entrenched hard-liners. Trade with China is not a 
     gift or reward that should be given and taken away; it is a 
     crucial tool needed to foster change and reform in a very 
     old, proud and different culture.
       This annual debate over commercial relations with China 
     will end once that country

[[Page H6441]]

     is admitted to the WTO and agrees to take the painful steps 
     necessary to bring its economy in line with world standards 
     and practices. China's WTO membership will bring major 
     benefits to Americans, by fully opening China's vast market 
     to American manufacturers, farmers and service industries. Of 
     particular importance to my state of California will be the 
     protections of intellectual property rights of our world-
     class entertainers and high-tech industries. What a win-win 
     scenario this is for American workers, businesses and 
     consumers.
       As Americans, we must pursue China for our own self-
     interest as much as to help China get better, with the top 
     priority being the safeguarding of our national security. 
     China is a business partner, but we cannot confuse that with 
     a strategic relationship. We do share some mutual interests 
     that it is hoped would be increased as friendly ties improve. 
     But just as a business wouldn't share its confidential 
     marketing strategies or cost structure with a competitor, the 
     U.S. government and American businesses must take care not to 
     leak sensitive material to the Chinese government. China is 
     simultaneously our business partner and our competitor.
       What we must do is approve normal trade relations and its 
     entry into the WTO for the sake of both our nations. A stable 
     and open trade relationship, divorced form the wild roller 
     coaster ride of yearly fights and political trends, will 
     increase prosperity and improve the lives of the American and 
     Chinese people.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller).
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution and 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  I stand here today in support of free trade with China, our globe's 
most populous nation, our fourth largest trading partner. When we have 
issues such as this before this House, I am often asked, as I travel 
throughout the diverse district that I have the privilege of 
representing, what does this all mean. What does this debate that we 
are having today mean to the folks on the South Side of Chicago and in 
the south suburbs of Illinois?
  Exports to China total almost $1 billion from the State of Illinois. 
An economist will tell you that for every $1 billion in exports, it is 
over 17,000 jobs that are at stake. Illinois sent over 775 million 
dollars' worth of manufacturing exports, tractors made in the Quad 
Cities, industrial heavy equipment made in Joliet, food products, 
textile mill products, apparel, lumber and wood products, furniture, 
paper products, printing goods, chemical products, rubber and plastics, 
leather products, stone, clay and glass products, fabricated metal 
products, transportation equipment, electronic equipment, farm goods, 
corn, soybeans, wheat, pork, beef, all from the State of Illinois.
  I learned firsthand in the late 1970s what it means for free trade 
with China. After President Nixon opened up China, we sent a shipment 
of breeding stock, breeding swine from Illinois to China and they came 
from our farm. That was the first shipment of American breeding stock 
to China. We learned the advantage personally at that time. But for 
thousands of Illinoisans, free trade means jobs.
  When you think about it, this vote today could jeopardize over 17,000 
jobs in Illinois. I urge my colleagues when they consider how to cast 
their vote as to which of their neighbors will lose their job if this 
resolution succeeds. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to suggest that while there 
were $14 billion of stuff that we exported to China, you figure 20,000 
jobs per billion, that is 280,000 jobs. That is hardly as many as the 
Chinese have killed in Tibet since their horrid reign. It is how you 
decide you want to take care of people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the leader in the fight for human rights in 
China, for sensible and reasonable trade negotiations that will lead to 
nonproliferation and workers' rights and human rights.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of her 
remarks that she be allowed temporarily to control my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1200

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I have to husband the time very carefully 
because we proudly have so many people who want to come to the floor 
today to speak on behalf of human rights in China, fair trade for the 
United States, and a safer world.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the President must request a 
special waiver to grant what is now called normal trade relations to 
China. He must request a special waiver for normal trade relations to 
China. What we are not here about today is to isolate China or any 
discussion of it. So anyone who is on the other side of this issue who 
wishes to characterize those of us who want to help the Chinese people 
as isolating them do a grave disservice to the debate.
  The issue is not whether bringing this issue every year is productive 
or constructive or has improved human rights in China. The issue before 
this body is: Is the present policy, the Bush-Clinton China policy, 
working?
  We were told when they delinked trade and human rights that it would 
lead to improvement in both. Wrong, it has led to failure in both.
  Now we are calling this normal trade relations because we changed the 
name last year. There have been all kinds of name changes. For example, 
this policy was called constructive engagement before. It was neither 
constructive nor true engagement, so then they changed it to a 
strategic partnership. It was not that either, so now they call it 
purposeful, principled engagement with our eyes open.
  Do not take my word for it, it is in their book: Purposeful, 
principled engagement with our eyes open.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a refreshing change from with our eyes closed, 
blinded to the atrocities in China and the unfair trade practices and 
the proliferation of weapons. And I am just waiting for next year when 
I think maybe it will be called purposeful, principled engagement with 
China with our eyes wide open and the wax cleaned out of our ears.
  Because then, maybe then, the administration and the proponents of 
this absolute concession to China, maybe then with the wax cleaned out 
of their ears, they will hear the pleadings of the monks and nuns in 
Tibet who have been tortured for decades by the People's Liberation 
Army. They will hear them over the sound of the army of lobbyists here 
in Washington, D.C. here to lobby on this issue. And maybe then with 
the wax out of their ears, they will hear the crying of the Panchen 
Lama, the baby chosen by His Holiness to be the next Dalai Lama, 
kidnapped by the regime. And we have said nothing.
  Maybe then they will hear that baby cry over the clinking of 
champagne glasses as they toast the abusers of human rights in China. 
And maybe with the wax out of their ears they will hear the cries of 
people still in prison for speaking freely. Maybe then they will hear 
the pleadings of the families and the prisoners still in prison, 
hundreds of them, for speaking freely in Tiananmen Square, and the 
thousands who are in jail because of their religious beliefs.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to put in the Record the statement of the U.S. 
Catholic Conference of Bishops opposing renewing MFN and in support of 
this resolution:

                                              Department of Social


                                  Development and World Peace,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 1999.
       Dear Representative: The upcoming vote on extending 
     ``normal trade relations'' status to the People's Republic of 
     China presents the Congress with a significant opportunity 
     and challenge to send an unmistakably clear message about our 
     national concern for the protection of basic human rights.
       Each time over the past several years when the issue has 
     arisen, it has been our conviction that no Administration has 
     been sufficiently committed to pressing the Chinese 
     authorities on their systemic violations of certain 
     fundamental human rights. Our Conference has focused 
     particularly on the issues of religious freedom and we have 
     repeatedly cited the persecution of religious groups, such as 
     the unregistered Protestant and Catholic churches, and the 
     intrusive interference by the state in the internal life of 
     the ``open'' or recognized churches. The persecution and 
     control of Tibetan Buddhism is especially shameful and known 
     to all.
       We acknowledge that the present Administration has made 
     efforts to raise these issues with the Chinese authorities, 
     but little, if anything, has changed on the human rights

[[Page H6442]]

     front in these last years of increased engagement. Indeed, 
     the continued detention of religious figures as well as of 
     democracy advocates only point up the necessity for 
     unrelenting official U.S. firmness on issues of human rights 
     and religious freedom.
       The trade status debate may not be the best forum, but it 
     does offer the Congress an important opportunity to raise the 
     priority of human rights and religious liberty. Therefore, I 
     urge you to send as clear a message as possible by voting to 
     overturn the President's waiver of the relevant sanctions of 
     the 1974 Trade Act. A strong vote to deny MFN/NTS status to 
     China should strengthen the Administration's commitment to 
     putting human rights at the top of the China agenda and send 
     a strong signal that the status quo is not acceptable.
           Sincerely yours,

                                                 Most Reverend

                                            Theodore E. McCarrick,
         Archbishop of Newark, Chairman, International Policy 
           Committee, U.S. Catholic Conference.

  So, Mr. Chairman, I plead with my colleagues who have voted on the 
other side of this issue. Ten years is enough. The trade deficit has 
gone from 3 billion to 56 billion. It will be $67 billion for this 
year.
  It has not led to better trade relations, it has not led to more U.S. 
products going into China. Quite the reverse. A $67 billion trade 
surplus for the regime to consolidate its power, the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction continues, the human rights violations 
continue. And this past week, they have arrested between 10 and 20,000 
people for the practice of their self-help, for their own self-help 
group. Ten to 20,000 people, no food, no water. Do not give the regime 
a waiver to abuse human rights, abuse trade practices, and proliferate 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Vote for the Rohrabacher amendment. This is not normal.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of normal trade 
relations with China and do so because we are confronted with two 
choices. The choices are clear and simple. We can have a constructive 
and purposeful engagement policy with China or we can have a new Cold 
War with a new evil empire with new costs to our taxpayers for a larger 
defense budget.
  Now I think that we have made some limited progress with China, 
probably the most important bilateral relationship that we are going to 
have with any country in the world over the next 50 years. What are 
some of the things that we have done where we have been successful? We 
hear a lot of the problems on the floor today. Well, one example is the 
East Gates International headed by Ned Graham, the son of the Reverend 
Billy Graham, has been able to distribute 2.5 million Bibles legally in 
China since 1992 and help us work toward some more religious freedoms.
  With respect to proliferation and arms control efforts, China has 
joined the nuclear nonproliferation treaty; they have signed a chemical 
weapons convention; they have signed the biological weapons convention; 
they have signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and they have 
signed the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.
  Now there are some successes. Have they made enough progress on human 
rights? Absolutely not, and that is one of the reasons why we need to 
engage them, and I had a meeting with a host of my colleagues at Blair 
House with Premier Zhu Rongji a few months ago, and we pushed him and 
we pushed him and we asked questions and we tried to get him to do more 
and more and more on the human rights issue.
  But the choice is clear. Are we going to have a constructive 
engagement policy with China or a new evil empire with China? Please 
vote down this policy on the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 57, 
disapproving the President's request to provide ``Normal Trade 
Relations'' (NTR) in 1999 with products made in China. Since I have 
served in Congress, I have supported ``constructive engagement'' with 
China as a method of improving our critically important bilateral 
relationship and pursuing our foreign policy goals to advance human 
rights and religious freedom. While progress at times remains slow and 
painful, continued talks and diplomacy are key aspects of this 
important bilateral relationship.
  Ten years ago in Tiananmen Square, Chinese students courageously 
demonstrated in support of democracy, but they were met by violence 
from a regime fearful of change. We continue to stand for human rights 
in China, and I firmly believe that a continued policy of principled 
and purposeful engagement reinforces our efforts to move China toward 
broader freedoms and openness. We have successfully influenced China to 
make significant progress, but much more must be achieved.
  We continue to have serious differences with China on human rights, 
their efforts to acquire sensitive information, nuclear 
nonproliferation, regional stability and transnational threats such as 
drug trafficking, terrorism, and smuggling people across borders. We 
will continue to deal directly with these differences. As the President 
stated when he announced his decision to extend NTR: ``We pursue 
engagement with our eyes wide open, without illusions.''
  Accordingly, we should continue to speak and negotiate frankly about 
our differences and to firmly protect our national interests. However, 
a policy of disengagement and confrontation would serve only to 
strengthen those in China who oppose greater openness and freedom. 
Through constructive engagement, we will remain sensitive and respond 
quickly to ongoing human rights violations, including China's recent 
massive crackdown on members of Falun Gong and religious suppression in 
Tibet and against Protestant ``house churches'' in Henan.
  In particular, we should call for the immediate release of three 
Chinese activists--Xu Wenli, Qing Yongming and Wang Youcai--who 
received stiff prison sentences for advocating the China Democracy 
Party last year. Earlier this year, I met Premier Zhu Rongji at the 
Blair House and wrote a follow-up letter that was signed by ten Members 
of the House of Representatives who support NTR in which we called for 
their immediate release.
  Clearly, trade encourages human rights, and it has facilitated the 
work of Western religious ministries active in China. For example, East 
Gates International, headed by Ned Graham, son of evangelist Billy 
Graham, has been able to distribute 2.5 million Bibles legally in China 
since 1992. This organization can communicate freely with its contacts 
in China because of the proliferation of information-exchange 
technology such as e-mail, faxes, and cellular telephones--a 
development made possible by trade and economic reform. As Billy Graham 
has written, ``Do not treat China as an adversary but as a friend.''
  Revoking NTR would rupture our relationship with a third of the 
world's population and jeopardize our political and economic security. 
Such an action would make China more defensive, isolated and 
unpredictable, weakening the forces of change and nullifying the 
progress achieved so far. Moreover, revoking NTR would undermine our 
efforts to engender constructive Chinese participation in international 
organizations that will promote China's adherence to international 
standards on human rights, weapons of mass destruction, crime and 
drugs, immigration, the environment, economic reform and trade. Indeed, 
constructive engagement means advancing U.S. interests in tangible 
ways.
  As Brent Scowcroft said in a recent New York Times article, ``The 
U.S. has at least another two decades to encourage China's responsible 
development before it presents us with a direct military challenge. As 
China's intentions are clarified by its actions, the U.S. and its 
regional partners will be able to make constant course adjustments.'' 
To be sure, we will keep a close eye on China, particularly in the wake 
of its recent moves in the disputed Spratly Islands where it has 
unilaterally installed military facilities, and its hostile posturing 
against Taiwan.
  While the Cox Report uncovered troubling lapses in security at the 
U.S. national laboratories, we must maintain perspective on China's 
limited but emerging military capability. To that end, we should 
continue to engage China in easing tensions on the Korean Peninsula, as 
well as cooperative efforts to combat terrorism, drug trafficking and 
intellectual property piracy. As a result of our engagement policy, 
China has joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and Zangger 
Committee, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons 
Convention. Additionally, China signed the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Treaty and pledged to ratify it soon, and has ceased nuclear 
cooperation with Iran.
  Furthermore, maintaining NTR with China--as every President has 
requested since 1980--is good for U.S. farmers, workers, small 
businesses, and the economy. Last year, we exported $14 billion worth 
of goods, making China our largest growing market abroad. Revoking NTR 
would invite retaliation against U.S. exporters and investors, as 
tariffs on imports from China would immediately increase from an 
average 6 percent to 44 percent. In turn, China would immediately start 
buying from our European and Asian competitors. This would seriously 
jeopardize more than 400,000 U.S. jobs which currently depend on 
exports to China and Hong Kong.

[[Page H6443]]

  Moreover, withdrawing from our constructive engagement policy will 
preclude us from pursuing opportunities to open new markets to American 
products. Earlier this year, the U.S. negotiated far-reaching market 
access for agricultural and industrial goods as well as a wide range of 
service sectors. Additionally, significant agreements were reached on 
important rules of commerce, but differences remain on the 
implementation and duration of provisions governing dumping and product 
safeguards.
  We also successfully negotiated tariff reductions with China from 80 
percent to 25 percent in the year 2005, with auto tariffs decreasing to 
an average of 10 percent. However, without NTR, we cannot reasonably 
hope to pursue additional tariff reductions to further open Chinese 
markets to U.S.-made automobiles, nor improvements to improved consumer 
financing so that more autos can be purchased. We must also encourage 
China to update its antiquated distribution system which penalizes 
foreign competitors.
  Improving trade relations is similar to peeling an onion, as numerous 
layers must be pared before the job is finished. I am hopeful that the 
Chinese will approach improving future trade relations with a view to 
the whole picture, rather than making small adjustments one layer at a 
time. At the same time, China must demonstrate progress for individual 
liberties by releasing arrested political, religious and human rights 
activists, if they hope to continue to enjoy strong relations with the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I am confident that constructive engagement with China 
will lead to positive results, advancing our trade interests and 
foreign policy goals of religious freedom and improved human rights. I 
strongly encourage my colleagues to support constructive engagement and 
vote against this resolution to disapprove Normal Trade Relations with 
China.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear about all these 
agreements Communist China has signed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf).
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to MFN. I know it is a 
difficult vote for a lot of Members and there is a lot of soul 
searching, so I just want to tell people why I am strongly opposed to 
MFN.
  For me it is an issue of the soul; it is an issue of conscience; it 
is an issue that 10 years from now when I look back, I want to know 
that I did maybe not what was right, maybe people differ, but what I 
think my God told me to do.
  Now I think we maybe in a situation similar to the Parliament in the 
1930's in Great Britain when Winston Churchill tried to alarm people 
about what was taking place, and yet they still wanted to trade with 
Nazi Germany, and Nazi Germany went on to do horrific things. My sense 
is, and I hope I am wrong, but that is what is going to happen today 
with China.
  And I would say to my friend from Indiana, they are the evil empire 
and they are the evil empire like Ronald Reagan said in 1983 with 
regard to the Soviet Union.
  There are 13 Catholic bishops in jail in China today. I would change 
my vote if they set those bishops free. Bishop Su, who has been in jail 
because he gave holy communion to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith); he has been in jail for over 20 years. Thirteen Catholic 
bishops, a large number of Catholic priests are in jail. There is the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). He can tell my colleagues; go up 
and ask him. Bishop Su is in jail because of giving him holy communion.
  So the next time on Sunday the call comes to go forward to the rail 
when colleagues take holy communion, think about Bishop Su. I hear all 
these missionaries quoted. Does anyone ever quote Bishop Su any more? 
Does anyone even ask to see Bishop Su any more?
  There are a large number of Catholic priests in jail. There are a 
large number of evangelical house church people that are in jail. 
Muslims in China are being persecuted like my colleagues will not 
believe. I have a letter talking about electric volts and shocks being 
used on the Muslims.
  Then there's Tibet. I am the only Member of Congress who has been to 
Tibet for years. When I was there, and we came in not as a Member of 
Congress, but as a tourist, I was told of unbelievable persecution. 
Lhasa is a Chinese city. It is no longer a Tibetan city. The Chinese 
government has destroyed 4,000 monasteries, not 4 monasteries, but 
4,000 monasteries.
  There are more slave labor camps in China today than when 
Solzhenitsyn wrote the book Gulag Archipelago. The book was a best 
seller. We all went out and hailed it, and it broke the world open. 
There are more gulags, more gulags in China today than there were when 
Solzhenitsyn wrote the book on the evil empire in Russia. If you don't 
believe it, call the CIA; they can share the pinpoint maps.
  Then there are forced abortions. They track women down and throw them 
on the table. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) can tell my 
colleagues about forced abortions. In some respects this ought to be a 
major pro-life vote. Steve Mosher of the Population Research Institute 
told me the other day there were 12 to 15 million abortions last year 
in China, and it is basically the abortion capital of the world. I do 
not understand, frankly, why this is not a pro-life vote.
  Then there is slave labor. There are Chinese workers, slave laborers, 
in Sudan building a pipeline, and in Sudan every major terrorist group 
in the world, Abu Nidal, Hamas are all there.
  What would my colleagues tell Bishop Su if we could see him today? I 
want to tell him that I know we will not take away MFN, but I wanted to 
send a message with my vote. I urge my colleagues to talk to the 
Romanian people. When we took MFN away from Ceausescu, the people told 
us that they heard the news on Radio Free Europe, and I want to send a 
message to the Chinese people on Radio Free Asia that the Congress 
stood with them on behalf of the persecuted church in China. There are 
good and decent men and women on both sides. For me, this is a vote of 
conscience and I urge support of the Rohrabacher resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 57, the resolution 
disapproving normal trade relations (NTR)--formerly called Most-
Favored-Nation (MFN) status--with the People's Republic of China. I 
commend my colleague from California, Representative Rohrabacher, for 
sponsoring this legislation. I also want to applaud the valiant and 
always steadfast efforts of Representative Nancy Pelosi. She is a 
consistent voice for freedom in China and a true advocate for human 
rights around the world.
  Today, while we debate this issue on the floor of the House of 
Representatives, the Chinese government is suppressing and persecuting 
practitioners of Falun Gong. In the past several weeks, China has been 
engaging in one of the largest crackdowns of a group of people since 
the Tiananmen massacre of 1989. Thousands of Falun Gong practitioners, 
including many of its leaders and government officials, have been 
arrested. It is estimated that over 40 million people in China practice 
Falun Gong, many of them poor or unemployed. They are not involved in 
politics, but the Chinese government has chosen to crack down harshly 
on this movement.
  This illustrates perfectly why I continue to oppose NTR for China. 
Many argue that the way to improve human rights in China is to keep 
giving China NTR status. The problem is that this has been our policy 
for the past ten years, but human rights have not improved. China's 
human rights record is as bad today as it was in 1989, when the Chinese 
government killed and injured hundreds of students who were peacefully 
demonstrating for political reform on Tiananmen Square.
  The persecution of the underground Christian church continues.
  Many Protestant pastors, Catholic bishops and priests are still being 
arrested, fined, beaten and imprisoned. Some have been in prison for 
many, many years--even decades. I will insert for the Record a partial 
list of Chinese Christians currently detained or imprisoned for 
religious reasons.
  House church Christians and laypeople are still being arrested, 
fined, beaten and imprisoned.
  Churches are still being destroyed.
  Bibles are still being confiscated.
  The Tibetan culture and religion are still being systematically 
destroyed. Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns are being arrested and 
tortured. Tibetan Buddhist monasteries are still being controlled by 
cadres of Chinese communist security officials. The Tibetan people are 
still being deprived of their freedom, their livelihood and their 
culture.
  I have seen the repression in Tibet with my own eyes. It is 
frightening.
  Muslims in the Northwest portion of China are still being 
persecuted--Amnesty International issued a comprehensive report on 
persecution of Muslim Uyghurs earlier this year. Uyghurs are being 
arbitrarily detained.

[[Page H6444]]

Thousands of Uyghur political prisoners are in jail and are being 
tortured. Recently, a group of Uyghurs shared with the Congressional 
Human Rights Caucus how they had been tortured in prison. I am 
submitting for the Record the testimony of Mr. Abdugheni Musa, who was 
arrested and tortured in 1995 for organizing a peaceful youth rally.
  Democracy activists are still being watched, arrested, imprisoned, 
held under house arrest and sent to reeducation through labor camps. 
Scores of individuals associated with the Democracy Party have been 
arrested and given long sentences just in the last few months.
  Over one hundred Tiananmen Square protesters are still in prison.
  Those wishing to remember the 10th anniversary of the tragic events 
of spring 1989 when hundreds of protesters were brutally massacred at 
Tiananmen Square were prevented by the Chinese government from doing 
so. The families of the dead, wounded and exiled who are demanding an 
apology from the government of China for its actions in 1989 are being 
persecuted.
  The Chinese government allowed and encouraged protesters to destroy 
the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. They bused in people. The Chinese 
Ambassador insulted the intelligence of the American people on Sunday 
talk shows with his demands.
  China still runs a massive system of gulag slave labor camps--the 
laogai. The State Department's 1998 report on human rights in China 
said 230,000 people were detained in ``re-education through labor 
camps'' in China at the end of last year. People are sent to re-
education through-labor camps without a trial or any kind of judicial 
proceeding.
  China still has a program in which the kidneys, corneas and other 
organs are taken from executed prisoners and sold to foreign buyers for 
tens of thousands of dollars. Some of these organs are being peddled in 
the United States, against U.S. law.
  It still engages in coercive population practices--including forced 
abortions and sterilizations. There are 7 to 15 million abortions a 
year in China, 6 to 12 times more than in the United States. According 
to the Population Research Institute, most of these abortions are 
performed under duress, with threats, bribes and sanctions--and 
sometimes outright force--used to elicit compliance.
  So nothing has really changed with regard to human rights in China.
  Our policy has done nothing to improve China's behavior regarding 
proliferation. According to Director of Central Intelligence George 
Tenet, China remains a ``key supplier'' of technology inconsistent with 
our nonproliferation goals--particularly missile and chemical 
technology to Pakistan and Iran. On April 15, 1999, the Washington 
Times cited intelligence reports that the Chinese are continuing to 
sell weapon technologies.
  Finally, our policy has resulted in no improvement in ending China's 
unfair trade practices. The U.S. trade deficit with China continues to 
skyrocket (approaching over $60 billion), U.S. goods are shut out of 
China's market and U.S. jobs continue to be lost to cheap Chinese 
labor. In 1989, at the time of the Tiananmen massacre, our trade 
deficit with China was only $6 billion. today it is 10 times that.
  This year a new element has been thrown into the mix that should make 
this Congress think twice about continuing our business-first policy--
undisputed evidence of China's espionage in U.S. nuclear labs and its 
acquisition of knowledge about some of America's most advanced nuclear 
warheads.
  As I look at this issue and the Cox report, I am concerned that the 
United States will be providing China the economic means through trade 
to develop missiles on which to attach advanced nuclear warheads 
designed with information stolen from the United States so these 
missiles can then be used to hit our grandchildren, or even our 
children.
  the report of the bipartisan Select Committee on National Security 
and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China 
chaired by Representative Chris Cox found clear evidence that design 
information stolen from the United States will enable China to build 
thermonuclear warheads and attach them to ICBM missiles sooner than 
would have otherwise been possible. It said ``the PRC has the 
infrastructure and the technical ability to use elements of U.S. 
warhead design information in the PLA's next generation of 
thermonuclear weapons. . . . The PRC could begin serial production of 
such weapons during the next decade. . . .'' It also concludes, ``The 
Select Committee judges that elements of the stolen information on U.S. 
thermonuclear warhead designs will assist the PRC in building its next 
generation of mobile ICBM's, which may be tested this year.'' China's 
mobile ICBM missiles will have the ability to hit the United States.
  We are giving China the economic means to develop these weapons.
  While it may be painful for some if we restrict China's ability to 
trade on favorable terms with the United States, China is now a greater 
threat to the U.S. national security than it has ever been in the past.
  We also need to remember that China has deliberately tried to 
influence our political process through illegal campaign donations.
  Our current policy has yielded very little progress on issues that 
the American people care about. Some 67 percent of Americans surveyed 
by Zogby earlier this year said that they would like the U.S. to put 
increased restrictions on trade with China because of China's human 
rights abuses. Many Americans are concerned about China's nuclear 
espionage as well.
  It is interesting to note that in years past, when the Chinese 
government actually feared that MFN would be taken away by this 
Congress, people were released on their treatment in prison improved. 
Wei Jingsheng, one of China's most noted dissidents, wrote in a recent 
message to Congress, ``Although the lack of willpower and consistency 
in U.S. policy have prevented effective pressure on China to 
democratize, the effectiveness of the use of the MFN issue to improve 
conditions for political prisoners and limit arrest of dissidents has 
been clearly shown.''
  He has a personal example. In late 1993, after serving 14 years in 
jail, he was released from prison at a time when China wanted to be 
selected to host the year 2000 Olympics and President Clinton had 
publicly threatened now to renew MFN again unless human rights 
improved. He was arrested again in early 1994, but kept in a guest 
house where he was free to go out for dinner with a police escort. Once 
President Clinton assured the Chinese privately that he would delink 
trade from human rights in 1994, Wei was moved to a harsh prison where 
conditions were very bad. He as kept there until he was released on 
medical parole in 1997 after intense international pressure.
  I submit for the Record a copy of his statement.
  Nobody has been released in the last few weeks in China. Quite the 
opposite. China is engaged in one of the harshest crackdowns on dissent 
this decade.
  China knows they have nothing to fear from this Congress. Beijing is 
confident that trade will trump everything else and the American 
government will continue to make any concessions necessary to ensure 
favorable conditions for trade.
  This Congress must stand up for the values of freedom and democracy. 
We must be on the side of those fighting for freedom, not standing with 
the oppressors. The hundreds of political and religious prisoners in 
jail in China today are counting on this Congress to speak out for 
them. It may be the only thing that saves their life or wins their 
freedom.
  Trade has not brought freedom to China despite ten years of 
unconditional NTR, but this debate and vote is not actually about 
restricting trade with China. We all know that at the end of the day 
the status quo will not change. But if the House were to disapprove NTR 
for China, it would send a powerful message to Beijing--one the Chinese 
government will not forget.
  Let's change our course--let's vote for one year not to renew NTR.
  Think about the Catholic bishops, the Catholic priests, the Tibetan 
Buddhist monks and nuns, the Falun Gong practitioners, the Uyghur 
Muslims, the democracy activists and the many, many others who are 
sacrificing their freedom for their beliefs. Think about them when you 
cast your vote. Our current policy has done nothing to help them. This 
vote may be the only hope they have.

                           Personal Testimony

       Dear honorable congressmen and congresswomen,
       Today I thank you very much for giving me this precious 
     opportunity to testify before you. My name is Abdugheni Musa. 
     I am a Uyghur from Ghulja City in the Xinjiang Uyghur 
     Autonomous Region of P.R. China. I want to testify on the 
     brutal torture methods of the Chinese government through my 
     personal accounts of suffering in the Chinese prison.
       In February 1995, some young Uyghur businessmen and I 
     organized The Ili Youth Mashrap, a traditional Uyghur 
     cultural event, in order to improve morality, say no to 
     drugs, strengthen our religious faith and build local 
     economy. This traditional event had a very strong social 
     impact on the Uyghurs in Ghulja City and was welcomed 
     everywhere.
       However, the social impact of Mashrap shocked and worried 
     the Chinese authorities. Thus, it became the very reason for 
     the Chinese government to suppress the Mashrap and its 
     participants.
       First of all, the Chinese government labeled Mashrap as 
     illegal and then started arresting the Uyghur youth that 
     organized and participated this event.
       The Ghulja municipal police arrested me on June 7, 1996 and 
     detained me in Yengi Hayat prison. In jail, I constantly and 
     repeatedly faced physical and mental torture from the Chinese 
     prison guards.
       Two days after my arrest at 12:30 a.m., the Chinese prison 
     guards dragged me into a

[[Page H6445]]

     basement interrogation cell and started interrogating and 
     torturing me. Since then, the Chinese guards started a habit 
     of torturing me every night.
       All of these Chinese guards spoke very good Uyghur 
     language. These Chinese guards put me in the electric chair 
     for seven times. For five times, they put a high voltage 
     electric shocker on my head that caused extreme convulsion 
     all over my body. My heart irregularly pounded and my eyes 
     blackened. I fainted several times during the tortures.
       Exactly on the seventh day of my arrest, again the Chinese 
     guards dragged me to the basement for confession in the 
     middle of the night and inserted a wire with horsehair on top 
     into my genital. The more the guard inserted the more he 
     wound it. This caused severe damage to my urinary system. As 
     a result, my genital swelled up and I urinated blood for more 
     than a month.
       During the torture, one of the Chinese guards pointed his 
     finger at me and said, ``We will castrate the inferior 
     masculinity of your turban-heads and prostitute your girls. 
     What can you turban-heads do to us great Chinese nation? With 
     our spit, your will all drown.'' Then, they used electric 
     club and knocked me down again and again.
       For three times, the Chinese guards allowed the Chinese 
     inmates to brutalize me. For many times, the Chinese inmates 
     kept me standing awake for several days. I fainted almost 
     every time when they did this to me. They forced me to squat 
     and put my hands back to kiss the wall from a meter apart. 
     The Chinese inmates kicked me, hit me and punched me whenever 
     I failed to kiss it. I bumped into the wall and my nose 
     started bleeding.
       The Chinese prison guards seriously tortured, brutalized 
     and severely injured me for more than one and a half-month. 
     In the end, I collapsed because of fever, coughing with 
     blood, sweating, frailty, lung problems and genital pain. I 
     could stand and go to the restroom only with the help of 
     others. I was bedridden for many days in the cell.
       On July 20, The Chinese prison doctor came to see me. He 
     was shocked to know my physical problems. Then, for fear of 
     my death in jail, he ordered the jail to send me to the 
     municipal military hospital on July 25th.
       I stayed for only a week in the hospital. And then I 
     escaped the hospital on August 3. Later, I successfully 
     escaped to Kazkhstan via Korghas border on August 5.
       While I was in Chinese prison, the Chinese police but six 
     of my Uyghur friends and me into the same jail. Like me, all 
     of them faced serious tortures from the Chinese prison guards 
     to confess. We were all forced and tortured to confess that 
     Mashrap was organized to carry out anti-Chinese government 
     activities and separating Xinjiang from China. However, in 
     the face of extremely painful tortures, all of us denied 
     these charges.
       On July 5, the Chinese guards dragged all of us into the 
     basement interrogation cell and forced us to confess our 
     crimes. We told the guards that we had nothing to confess 
     since we didn't break any law. The angry Chinese guards 
     stripped Yusuf naked and forced him to confess. Since he 
     denied all the criminal charges and said Mashrap was a 
     traditional and cultural Uyghur event aimed at improving 
     moral and social values.
       The Chinese guards couldn't find a way for him to confess, 
     and also hoping to teach all of us a lesson, brought in two 
     German shepherds in the cell and started using the dogs to 
     bite naked Yusuf. One of the dogs viciously attacked him and 
     bit his genital. He fell and crawled on the floor holding his 
     private area. But the ruthless Chinese guards continued to 
     molest him with the dogs hoping to annihilate our will of 
     resistance.
       Yusuf and I were put into the same cell at that time. Today 
     he is still serving prison terms in the Chinese prison.
       To get his confession, the Chinese guards tortured my 
     friend Abdusalam Keyim on a high voltage electric chair. Then 
     he was stripped naked and forced into an extremely low degree 
     freezer. Later, the Chinese guards nailed metal sticks into 
     his fingers and pulled out his nails one by one. In the end, 
     they hit the back of his head with an electric bar and 
     permanently damaged his brain. Since then, be became mentally 
     insane and released from the jail. Abdusalam was from the 
     Watergate neighborhood in Ghulja City.
       My friend Muhammad Eli Mamatimin faced the most brutal 
     torture in jail. One day he was forced to confess his crimes 
     by the Chinese guards. He denied every single charge. To 
     punish him, the guards put a wine bottle into his anus and 
     kicked the bottle every time he denied one charge. 
     Immediately he internally bled and fainted. Then, we has 
     taken into the cell. We was what the Chinese guards did to 
     him and all of us cried. Since then, Muhammad couldn't sit 
     or sleep on his back and walk straight.
       The most shocking and heinous crime the Chinese prison 
     guards committed in jail is that they allowed the Chinese 
     inmates to rape the Uyghur girls by taking turns. On 27 in 
     June 1996, the Chinese prison guards brought Peride, a 21-
     year old pious Uyghur Muslim girl, from the ladies cell into 
     the men's jail. The Chinese guards striped her naked and told 
     her to ask her God to save her. Later, they put her naked 
     into a cell with six Chinese inmates. These six Chinese 
     criminals took turn and raped her one by one.
       We heard Peride's painful cries coming out of the Chinese 
     cell. We yelled, cried, kicked the metal bars and the wall. 
     Instead of punishing the Chinese inmates, the guards 
     furiously rushed into our cell and beat us up with electric 
     bars. Then, they held Peride out of the Chinese cell since 
     she was already fainted. Peride was from the Konqi 
     neighborhood in Ghulja City.
       When I escaped to Kazakhstan, a friend of mine who was put 
     in this jail told me the following account. One day in 
     January 1997, the Chinese prison guards stripped Rena, a 23-
     year old Uyghur girl, naked and put her into Chinese cell. 
     Like Peride, Rena was group-raped by the Chinese inmates. 
     Rena was from Kepekyuzi village at the Jilyuz County.
       Now I want to give a list of names of my Uyghur friends and 
     acquaintances that suffered and continually suffered in the 
     Chinese prisons. Some of their whereabouts are still unknown 
     or missing today.
       1. Turghan Tursun, 27, religious student, arrested on 
     February 5, 1997 as a ``separatist''. He was sentenced to 5-
     year in jail. Currently, Turghan is serving his prison terms 
     in Ili Prefecture Jail. He was from Ghulja tannery.
       2. Iminjan, 29, teacher, arrested after February 1997 as a 
     ``separatist''. He was sentenced to 15-year in jail. 
     Currently, Iminjan is serving his prison term in Ili 
     Prefecture Jail. He was from Ghulja tannery.
       3. Yusufjan Eysa, 29, private businessman, arrested in 
     January 1997. He was missing for one year. Later found by his 
     father in Qapqal jail. Yusufjan was sentenced to 5-year in 
     jail. Currently, he is serving his term at Ghulji municipal 
     prison.
       4. Seydehmet Yunus, 24, religious student, arrested in 
     April 1998 as a ``separatist''. He was from Erkin Street in 
     Ghulja City. He is still missing.
       5. Ablet, 26, religious student, arrested in April 1998 as 
     a ``separatist''. He was from Mashrapbay Street in Ghulja 
     City. He is still missing.
       6. Tursun, 26, religious student, arrested in April 1998 as 
     a ``separatist''. He was from Totdukan neighborhood in Ghulja 
     City. He is still missing.
       7. Kahar, 26, religious student, arrested in May 1998 as a 
     ``separatist''. He was from Totdukan neighborhood in Ghulja 
     City. He is still missing.
       8. Ablikim Muhammadjan, 24, religious student, arrested in 
     April 1998 as a ``separatist''. He was from Dong neighborhood 
     in Ghulja City. He is still missing.
       9. Mirzat, 25, religious student, arrested in April 1998 as 
     a ``separatist''. He was from the Watergate neighborhood. He 
     is still missing.
       10. Zulpikar Mamat, 26, religious student, arrested in 
     March 1998 as a ``separatist''. He was from Aydong 
     neighborhood in Ghulja City. He is still missing.
       11. Ilyar, 26, religious student, arrested in May 1998 as a 
     ``separatist''. He was from Urumqi Nenming neighborhood. He 
     is still missing.
       12. Dawud, 28, religious student, arrested in May 1998 as a 
     ``separatist''. He was from Azatyuz village at Jeliyuz County 
     in Ghulja. He is still missing.
       13. Ablet Karihaji, 53, a religious mullah, arrested in 
     December 1996 as a ``separatist''. He was sentenced for 20 
     years. He was from Kepekyuz village at Jeliyuz County in 
     Ghulja. Due to severe torture, he was taken out with a 
     handcart to meet his wife and kids when they came to visit 
     him in prison.
       14. Muhammadjan Karim, 29, religious teacher, arrested in 
     June 1997 as a ``separatist''. He was from Topadeng 
     neighborhood in Ghulja City. He is still missing.
       15. Sultan Tursun, 25, religious student, arrested in 
     February 1997 as a ``separatist''. He was Dong neighborhood 
     in Ghulja City.
       Dear ladies and gentlemen, all of these people are my good 
     friends. The Chinese government has imprisoned a person from 
     almost every Uyghur family in Ghulja City since 1996. At 
     present, the Chinese government is still arresting hundreds 
     of Uyghurs and mercilessly torturing them in the prisons. The 
     Chinese human rights violation of the Uyghur people is 
     nowhere to be found in the world.
       It is my sincere hope from the bottom of my heart that the 
     United States, the United Nations, and the international 
     community take necessary measures to guarantee the 
     fundamental human right of the Uyghur people and help free 
     all the Uyghur political prisoners in the Chinese prisons.
       Thank you,
       Abdugheni Musa.
                                  ____

                                              Department of Social


                                  Development and World Peace,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 1999.
       Dear Representative: The upcoming vote on extending 
     ``normal trade relations'' status to the People's Republic of 
     China presents the Congress with a significant opportunity 
     and challenge to send an unmistakably clear message about our 
     national concern for the protection of basic human rights.
       Each time over the past several years when the issue has 
     arisen, it has been our conviction that no Administration has 
     been sufficiently committed to pressing the Chinese 
     authorities on their systemic violations of certain 
     fundamental human rights. Our Conference has focused 
     particularly on the issues of religious freedom and we have 
     repeatedly cited the persecution of religious groups, such as 
     the unregistered Protestant and Catholic churches, and the 
     intrusive interference by the state in the internal life of 
     the ``open'' or recognized churches. The persecution and 
     control of Tibetan Buddhism is especially shameful and known 
     to all.
       We acknowledge that the present Administration has made 
     efforts to raise these issues with the Chinese authorities, 
     but little, if

[[Page H6446]]

     anything, has changed on the human rights front in these last 
     years of increased engagement. Indeed, the continued 
     detention of religious figures as well as of democracy 
     advocates only point up the necessity of unrelenting official 
     U.S. firmness on issues of human rights and religious 
     freedom.
       The trade status debate may not be the best forum, but it 
     does offer the Congress an important opportunity to raise the 
     priority of human rights and religious liberty. Therefore, I 
     urge you to send as clear a message as possible by voting to 
     overturn the President's waiver of the relevant sanctions of 
     the 1974 Trade Act. A strong vote to deny MFN/NTS status to 
     China should strengthen the Administration's commitment to 
     putting human rights at the top of the China agenda and send 
     a strong signal that the status quo is not acceptable.
           Sincerely yours,
                              Most Reverend Theodore E. McCarrick,
             Archbishop of Newark; Chairman, International Policy 
     Committee, U.S. Catholic Conference.
                                  ____


 FRC Urges House To Take a Stand For Human Rights and Freedom, Reject 
                ``Abnormal Trade Relations'' With China

       Washington, DC.--``On June 3, President Clinton with 
     callous audacity commemorated the eve of the 10th anniversary 
     of the Tiananmen Square massacre by asking Congress once 
     again to reward China with renewal of its Normal Trade 
     Relations (NTR) status. A strange thing to do, considering 
     that there's nothing `normal' about U.S. relations with 
     China,'' said Bill Saunders, Foreign Policy and Human Rights 
     Counsel for Family Research Council (FRC), on Thursday. 
     ``What is normal about conducting business as usual with a 
     Chinese regime that lies to its people about NATO's 
     accidental embassy bombing and virtually holds our ambassador 
     hostage in the U.S. embassy by staging riots around him?''
       While the President insists that the Administration's 
     policy of ``constructive engagement'' is having a positive 
     impact in China, all of the evidence shows that this is not 
     true. The State Department's annual Human Rights Report 
     released in February found that human rights deteriorated 
     significantly in China in the past year. Along with the 
     ongoing crackdown on political dissidents, the report 
     highlighted religious persecution of Protestant and Catholic 
     groups, continued abusive reproductive policies including 
     forced abortion, and persecution of ethnic minorities. The 
     Cox Report reveals that espionage can occur and national 
     security can be threatened when we treat an authoritarian 
     regime as if it's a democratic ally sharing American 
     interests.
       ``The last time America seriously debated China's trade 
     status, two years ago, it went by another name, Most Favored 
     Nation (MFN). Changing MFN's name can't change the fact that 
     there is less reason for normal trade with China today than 
     there was in 1997,'' said Saunders. ``The situation in China 
     has gone from bad to worse, and the U.S. government is 
     enabling the Chinese regime to continue its stranglehold on 
     the Chinese people.
       ``The Congress must take a stand for the self-evident truth 
     that all people, including the Chinese people, are endowed by 
     their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The Congress 
     must turn rhetoric about freedom into action to secure 
     freedom. The Congress must reject NTR for China.''
                                  ____

         General Board of Church and Society of The United 
           Methodist Church,
                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 1999.
       Dear Representative: This week's vote on whether to extend 
     most favored nation status to the People's Republic of China 
     presents Congress with a basic choice about human rights.
       Every year when the issue has been voted, we have watched 
     carefully for signs of improvement in China's human, labor, 
     and environmental rights record. Last year, we did not urge 
     Congress to withhold this trading status from China. We were 
     waiting to see if the Administration's overtures to China 
     lead to changes in China's actions. In the past year, 
     however, despite promises from the Clinton Administration, 
     that China's policies were improving, we have observed 
     slippage in the most basic rights in China.
       The persecution of indigenous people and their religions is 
     of special concern to me. The situation of the Tibetans is 
     most well known, but all of the 50 or so indigenous peoples 
     in China experience restrictions of their freedoms.
       The Clinton Administration has made an effort to raise 
     issues of human rights, labor rights, and religious freedom 
     with the Chinese, but little has changed. The current 
     detention of members of the Falun Gong sect suggested that 
     the Chinese policies have changed in the wrong direction. 
     Other religious leaders and democracy activists still 
     languish in jail.
       I urge you to deny what is now called ``normal trading 
     status'' to China until the Administration can certify that 
     China is respecting the basic human rights of all groups in 
     China. A ``no'' vote to this status will signal that the US 
     Congress makes respect for human rights a priority.
           Sincerely,
                                      Dr. Thom White Wolf Fassett,
     General Secretary.
                                  ____


the Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House, Priority List--Chinese 
       Christians Persecuted for Religious Reasons, July 14, 1999


                              protestants

       1. Peter Xu Yongze. Pastor Peter Yongze Xu, China's most 
     prominent underground Protestant leader, was sentenced to 
     three years of labor camp on September 25, 1997, in 
     Zhengzhou, Henan province, for ``disrupting public order.'' 
     His trial was closed to the public and he was denied a 
     defense lawyer. Pastor Xu, the 56-year-old leader of the 
     three- to four-million-strong New Birth Movement of 
     evangelicals, was arrested on March 16, 1997, as he was 
     meeting with other leaders of large evangelical churches in 
     China. His wife and several of his associates were also 
     imprisoned.
       2. Liu Fenggang. A 37-year-old active member of a 
     unofficial Protestant house-church in Beijing, Liu was 
     arrested on August 9, 1995, at his home as part of a general 
     crackdown on the dissident community in Beijing prior to the 
     UN Fourth World Conference on Women. In early December 1995, 
     Liu was sentenced to 2.5 years of ``re-education through 
     labor.''
       3. Wang Changqing. A 52-year-old house-church leader of the 
     Zhoukou Prefecture, Henan province, Wang and five other 
     Christian house-church leaders were sentenced without trial 
     to three years of ``re-education through labor'' on August 
     14, 1995. The house-church leaders were accused of belonging 
     to outlawed religious organizations and scheming to overthrow 
     the Communist Party with foreign religious groups. Wang and 
     the other Christian house-church leaders denied belonging to 
     any of these ``outlawed'' religious groups because 
     they consider them heresies. Wang has been transferred to 
     Henan's Xuchang Labor Reform Center to begin his third 
     prison term at a labor reform camp.
       4. Zheng Yunsu. Leader of popular Jesus Family religious 
     community in Duoyigou, Shandong province, Christian Zheng was 
     arrested in June 1992 with thirty-six other community 
     members, including his four sons. Their arrests are thought 
     to be in part the result of the community's May 1992 efforts 
     to prevent security forces from tearing down their church. 
     The elder Zheng was charged with holding ``illegal'' 
     religious meetings, ``leading a collective life,'' disturbing 
     the peace and resisting arrest. Sentenced to 12 years of 
     imprisonment, he is thought to be held at the Shengjian 
     Motorcycle Factory labor camp near Jinan city. Other 
     community members received sentences of five years (another 
     source says three). Public Security Bureau officials raiding 
     the church compound in June 1992 leveled the church and 
     confiscated personal property.
       5. Pei Zhongxun (Korean Name: Chun Chul). The 76-year-old 
     ethnic Korean Protestant leader from Shanghai, Pei, was 
     arrested in August 1983 for counter-revolutionary activities. 
     Accused of spying for Taiwan (because of ties to Taiwanese 
     Christians) and of distributing Bibles and other Christian 
     literature to others in the house-church movement, he was 
     charged with ``counterrevolutionary crimes,'' and sentenced 
     to 15 years of imprisonment. He is reportedly imprisoned in 
     Shanghai Prison No. 2. His family is permitted to visit him 
     for half-an-hour each month.
       6. Wang Xin Cai. Evangelical Wang was arrested with Pastor 
     Peter Xu Yongze and imprisoned on March 16, 1997, in 
     Zhengzhou, Henan. There is no further information on his 
     legal situation.
       7. Qin Musheng. Evangelical Qin was arrested with Pastor 
     Peter Xu Yongze and imprisoned on March 16, 1997, in 
     Zhengzhou, Henan. He has been sentenced to two and a half 
     years of education through labor.
       8. Qing Jing. Qing, the 30-year-old wife of Pastor Peter Xu 
     Yongze, was arrested along with her husband on March 16, 
     1997, in Zhengzhou, Henan. She has been sentenced to one year 
     of education through labor.
       9. Sister Feng Xian. Evangelical Feng was arrested with 
     Pastor Peter Xu Yongze and imprisoned on March 16, 1997, in 
     Zhengzhou, Henan. She has been sentenced to two and one half 
     years of education through labor.
       10. Su Yu Han. The 37-year-old evangelical was imprisoned 
     on July 25, 1996, and sentenced to a reeducation labor camp 
     for one and a half years. He is from the Tongnan neighborhood 
     in Wu Tong town in Tong Xiang Country, Zhejiang Province, an 
     area that has been targeted for severe repression by a 
     specific Party directive. His house church with eight rooms 
     was destroyed completely on the night of his arrest. All of 
     his property was confiscated.
       11. Wu Bing Fang. The 22-year-old brother of imprisoned 
     evangelical Su Yuhan was imprisoned on July 25, 1996, and 
     sentenced to a re-education labor camp for one and a half 
     years. He is from Xin Ku neighborhood, Hong Yong town, Jia 
     Xing district, Zhejiang Province. All of his property was 
     confiscated.
       12. Cao Wen Hai. Evangelical Cao was imprisoned on August 
     10, 1997, in Ping Ding Shan, Henan. His hometown in Fang 
     Cheng county, Henan Province, is known as the ``Jerusalem of 
     China'' where the Chinese House church movement was initiated 
     in the 1980's. He was helping in the ministries of millions 
     of Christians in China.
       13. Zhang Chun Xia. Evangelical Zhang was imprisoned on 
     August 10, 1997 in Ping Ding

[[Page H6447]]

     Shan, Henan. Her hometown in Fang Cheng county, Henan 
     Province, is known as the ``Jerusalem of China'' where the 
     Chinese House church movement was initiated in the 1980's. 
     She was helping in the ministries of millions of Christians 
     in China.
       14. Zhao Song Yin. Evangelical Zhao was imprisoned on 
     August 10, 1997, in Ping Ding Shan, Henan. His hometown in 
     Fang Cheng county, Henan Province, is known as the 
     ``Jerusalem of China'' where the Chinese House church 
     movement was initiated in the 1980's. He was helping in the 
     ministries of millions of Christians in China.
       15. Philip Guoxing Xu. Philip Xu is a 43-year-old 
     evangelical traveling preacher and Bible teacher based in 
     Shanghai, was arrested on June 16, 1997, and is presently in 
     solitary confinement. Since late 1997, he has been allowed 
     family visits and was allowed to send a letter from prison in 
     May 1998. His legal situation is uncertain. He was sentenced 
     without a trial to 3 years of labor camp (with labor at day 
     and solitary confinement at night) in DA FUNG in northern 
     Jiangsu Province. His wife was turned away when she tried 
     to visit him on October 22, 1997, after traveling 20 hours 
     by bus from Shanghai. Previously, he had been arrested on 
     March 14, 1989 for a ``thorough investigation.'' At that 
     time the authorities found ``no political motivation, no 
     intention for collecting money, and no sexual 
     misconduct,'' he was released. He had also been arrested 
     on November 6, 1989 while teaching a Bible study class, 
     and was sentenced without trial to three years of labor 
     camp. After completing that sentence, Guoxing was 
     released. He is married, and now has a young daughter. His 
     birthday is March 16, 1955. He lived in California between 
     1980 and 1982.
       16. Huang Dehong. Huang Dehong, a Protestant from Baokang, 
     Hubei province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Baokkang Prefectural Labor 
     Educational Camp.
       17. Huan Debao. Huan Debao, a Protestant from Baokang, 
     Hubei province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Wuwei Labor Educational Camp 
     in Gansu.
       18. Hei Qunhu. Hei Qunhu, a Protestant from Lushi, Henan 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Wuwei Labor Educational Camp in Gansu.
       19. Dai Chenggang. Dai Chenggang, a Protestant from 
     Baokang, Hubei province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Zhenglin Labor Educational 
     Camp, in Zhaoyang, Hubei.
       20. Zhang Shangkui. Zhang Shangkui, a Protestant from 
     Zhaoyang, Hubei province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Zhenglin Labor Educational 
     Camp, in Zhaoyang, Hubei.
       21. Li Qingshu. Li Qingshu, a Protestant from Zhaoyang, 
     Hubei province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Zhenglin Labor Educational 
     Camp, in Zhaoyang, Hubei.
       22. Zhang Jun. Zhang Jun, a Protestant from Zhaoyang, Hubei 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in a local township educational camp in Hubei 
     since April 6, 1999.
       23. Brother Song. Brother Song, a Protestant from Zhaoyang, 
     Hubei province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Shayang Labor Educational 
     Camp in Hubei since April 6, 1999.
       24. Hu Shoubin. Hu Shoubin, a Protestant from Qianjiang, 
     Hubei province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Shayang Labor Educational 
     Camp in Hubei.
       25. Jia Ping. Jia Ping, a Protestant from Xiantao, Hubei 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Shayang Labor Educational Camp in Hubei.
       26. Huang Zhihai. Huang Zhihai, a Protestant from Hebei 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Tangshan Labor Educational Camp in Hebei.
       27. Fan Jinxia. Fan Jinxia, a Protestant from Hebei 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Tangshan Labor Camp in Hebei.
       28. Yang Xiaofang. Yang Xiaofang, a Protestant from Hebei 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Tangshan Labor Camp in Hebei.
       29. Liang Fujuan. Liang Fujuan, a Protestant from Hebei 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Tangshan Labor Educational Camp in Hebei.
       30. Huang Xiaojuan. Huang Xiaojuan, a Protestant from Hebei 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Tangshan Labor Educational Camp, in Hebei.
       31. Zhu Qin. Zhu Qin, a Protestant from Beijing, affiliated 
     with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is being detained in 
     Tongxian Labor Educational Camp in Hebei.
       32. Zheng Fang. Zheng Fang, a Protestant from Xinyang, 
     Henan province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Shibalihe Labor Educational 
     Camp in Zhengzhou, Henan.
       33. Xu Ying. Xu Ying, a Protestant from Xinyang, Henan 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Shibalihe Labor Educational Camp in 
     Zhengzhou, Henan.
       34. Ye Kensheng. Ye Kensheng, a Protestant from Xinyang, 
     Henan province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Xinyang Municipal Labor 
     Educational Camp.
       35. Xiao Minghai. Xiao Minghai. a Protestant from Xinyang, 
     Henan province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Xinyang Municipal Labor 
     Educational Camp.
       35. Zhang Jinchen. Zhang Jinchen, a Protestant from 
     Xinyang, Henan province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Xinyang Municipal Labor 
     Educational Camp.
       36. Wang Xuchua. Wang Xuchua, a Protestant from Xinyang, 
     Henan province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Xinyang Municipal Labor 
     Educational Camp.
       37. Li Zhongchang. Li Zhongchang, a Protestant from Henan 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Nanhu Labor Educational Camp in Anhui.
       38. Zhan Guohua. Zhan Guohua, a Protestant from Henan 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Hefei Labor Educational Camp in Anhui.
       39. Li Liya. Li Liya, a Protestant from Huo Qiu, Anhui 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Nanhu Labor Educational Camp in Anhui.
       40. Hou Feng. Hou Feng, a Protestant from Jianchuan, Anhui 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Nanhu Labor Educational Camp in Anhui.
       41. Tian Lin. Tian Lin, a Protestant from Jianchuan, Anhui 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Nanhu Labor Educational Camp in Anhui.
       42. Meng Qingli. Meng Qingli, a Protestant from Shangqiu, 
     Henan province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Shangqiu Labor Educational 
     Camp in Anhui.
       43. Wu Guifang. Wu Guifang, a Protestant from Xingiang 
     province, affiliated with China Evangelistic Fellowship, is 
     being detained in Urumqi Labor Educational Camp in Xinjiang.
       44. Guei Chuan-Lun. Guei Chuan-Lun, a Protestant from Feng 
     Yang, Anhui province, is being detained in Baofeng Labor 
     Educational Camp in Xuanzhou, Anhui.
       45. Liu Hai-Kuan. Liu Hai-Kuan, a Protestant from Feng 
     Yang, Anhui province, is being detained in Baofeng Labor 
     Educational Camp in Xuanzhou, Anhui.
       46. Zhang Wan-Bao. Zhang Wan-Bao, a Protestant from Feng 
     Yang, Anhui province, is being detained in Baofeng Labor 
     Educational Camp in Xuanzhou, Anhui.
       47. Lin Ke-Wei. Lin Ke-Wei, a Protestant from Li-Xin, Anhui 
     province, is being detained in Nanhu Agricultural Labor 
     Educational Camp.
       48. Peng Shu-Xia. Peng Shu-Xia, a Protestant from Chang 
     Feng, Anhui province, is being detained in Women Labor 
     Educational Camp in Hefei, Anhui.
       49. Wang Chuan-Bing. Wang Chuan-Bing, a Protestant from 
     Qing-gang, Heilongjiang province, is being detained in Qing-
     gang Detention Center in Heilongjiang.
       50. Wang Xincai. Wang Xincai, a Protest from Lushan, Henan 
     province, is being detained in Qiliyan Labor Educational Camp 
     in Zhengzhou, Henan.
       51. Wu Juesheng. Wu Juesheng, a Protestant, is being 
     detained in Da-an Labor Educational Camp in the Biyang 
     Prefecture of Henan province.
       52. Zhang Chunxia. Zhang Chunxia is being detained in 
     Shibalihe Female Labor Educational Camp in Zhenghou, Henan 
     province.
       53. Xu Dajiang. Xu Dajiang, a Protestant from Xinyang, 
     Henan province, affiliated with China Evangelistic 
     Fellowship, is being detained in Xinyang Municipal Labor 
     Educational Camp.
       54. Zhao Wu Na. Zhao Wu Na is a 50-year-old (born 1948) 
     evangelical Christian woman from Shanghai who was arrested on 
     December 28, 1997, and detained in a labor camp. A graduate 
     of the government-sponsored East China Theological Seminary, 
     she resigned from the Patriotic Three-Self movement and began 
     to evangelize independently. Her husband has disappeared and 
     she believes that he has been kidnapped by government agents 
     in a covert operation.


                            ROMAN CATHOLICS

       55. Bishop Zeng Jingmu. [Transferred to house arrest on May 
     9, 1998]. The 78-year old Roman Catholic Bishop of Yu Jiang, 
     Jiangxi province, Bishop Zeng was sentenced without a trial, 
     in March 1996 to three years of ``reeducation through labor'' 
     in the laogai for his religious activities for being arrested 
     the previous November. He had already spent about two decades 
     in communist prisons for his faith. Reportedly, Bishop Zeng 
     was weakened by a serious case of pneumonia which he had 
     contracted during a short prison detention in October 1995. 
     In 1994, he had been arrested on August 14, one day before an 
     Assumption Day raid by Public Security officials from the 
     town of Yu Jiang and held without charge until December 1994. 
     He has been adopted by Amnesty International as a``prisoner 
     of conscience.''
       56. Bishop An Shuxin. Bishop An was arrested in February 
     1996 as a preemptive strike against the popular annual May 24 
     Catholic Pilgrimage to the shrine of Mary in village of 
     Donglu in Hebei. Police crushed all commemorations, other 
     clergy from the area were imprisoned or placed under house 
     arrest, and some churches and prayer houses in the area were 
     desecrated. He remains in detention. He is an auxiliary 
     bishop to Bishop Su.

[[Page H6448]]

       57. Bishop James Su Zhimin. Bishop Su Zhimin, 65, the Roman 
     Catholic bishop of Baoding in Hebei Province who respects the 
     authority of the Vatican, has spent twenty years in Chinese 
     prisons. During one prison stint lasting 15 years, he was 
     subjected to extreme torture. In one incident, the board, 
     which was used to beat him, was reduced to splinters. The 
     police then ripped apart a wooden door and continued to beat 
     Bishop Su until it also disintegrated into splinters. Other 
     tortures used against him included being hung from his wrists 
     while being beaten on his head, and on another occasion being 
     placed in a cell which was partially filed with water. The 
     Bishop was left there for days, unable to either sit, lie 
     down or sleep. He suffered extensive hearing loss as a 
     result. In 1996, Bishop Su wrote a courageous letter of 
     protest about religious violations of Chinese government 
     authorities. He was arrested most recently on October 8, 1997 
     for religious reasons after 18 months in hiding. On October 
     24, the U.S. State Department reported that it had received 
     word from Chinese authorities that the bishop had been 
     released from jail, but this turned out to be false and local 
     Catholics report that government agents are now blocking 
     access to the bishop's residence. Bishop Su is believed to be 
     in detention. Reliable reports indicate that on November 7, 
     1998 he was transferred from Qingyuan prison to a government 
     guest house or apartment building in Qingyuan where he was 
     held incommunicado and kept under strict 24-hour police 
     surveillance. The transfer probably occurred to defuse 
     protest during the Chinese president's state visit to 
     Washington. The American religious delegation that traveled 
     to China in February 1998 were refused permission by the 
     government to visit Bishop Su. Chinese Ambassador Li 
     Zhaozing continues to spread disinformation about the 
     Bishop; on May 18, 1998, he wrote to Congressman Vince 
     Snowbarger denying that Bishop Su was under detention, 
     stating he ``is a free man.'' His whereabouts and well-
     being are not known. He is in state custody, presumably in 
     a labor camp.
       58. Bishop Julias Jia Zhiguo. The 58-year-old Bishop of 
     Zhengding, Hebei province, and secretary-general of the 
     underground Chinese Bishop's Conference, Bishop Jia was 
     arrested on August 27, 1995, and held at a detention center 
     in Yong Nian until being released two months later. He had 
     been subjected to frequent short detentions at the hands of 
     the Public Security Bureau. He was arrested on January 7, 
     1994, and but released shortly thereafter, and re-arrested 
     January 20, 1994, but subsequently released in early 
     February. He was arrested again on February 9, 1994, and 
     reportedly released in one month later. He had been arrested 
     on April 5, 1993, with eight other priests, all of whom were 
     released later that year. He is currently under police 
     surveillance and severe restrictions of movement that are a 
     form of house arrest.
       59. Bishop Joseph Li Side. In his 60's, the Bishop of 
     Tianjin diocese was arrested May 25, 1992, exiled in July 
     1992 to a rural Liang Zhuang, Ji county, and forbidden to 
     leave. According to most recent report, he is being held 
     under a form of house arrest on the top of a mountain. He had 
     previously been detained several times, including 1989, when 
     he was arrested for playing a role in the underground 
     episcopal conference and reportedly tried in secret.
       60. Bishop Gu Zheng Mattia. The Bishop of Xining diocese, 
     Qinghai province, was arrested on October 6, 1994, but 
     released sometime in early December 1994. He has been placed 
     under police surveillance and restrictions of movement. 
     Church sources report as of July 1997, he was again placed 
     under detention by Public Security organs.
       61. Bishop Joseph Fan Zhongliang. Bishop Fan, the 74-year-
     old acting bishop of Shanghai, is under ritual house arrest 
     at his apartment in Shanghai. During Easter Week, Bishop 
     Fan's residence was ransacked and his Bible, catechism, code 
     of Canon Law, and meager diocesan treasury were confiscated 
     by police. He has been previously imprisoned for his faith 
     for 25 years between 1957 and 1982. He had also been arrested 
     on June 10, 1991, reportedly in response to the Vatican's 
     elevating to Cardinal another Chinese bishop, Ignatius Kung. 
     On August 19, 1991, he was transferred to a form of house 
     arrest in Shanghai, which was confirmed by a Freedom House 
     delegation in mid-1997.
       62. Bishop Casimir Wang Milu. The 55-year-old Bishop of 
     Tianshui diocese, Gansu province, Bishop Wang was arrested 
     April 1984 for counter-revolutionary activities, including 
     ordaining priests (after his own secret consecration as 
     bishop by Bishop Fan Xueyuan in January 1981), having contact 
     with the Vatican and other Chinese Roman Catholics, and 
     criticizing government religious policy and the Catholic 
     Patriotic Association. In 1985 or 1986 he was sentenced to 
     ten years of ``reform through labor'' and four years of 
     deprivation of political rights. He was imprisoned for a time 
     at labor camp in Pingliang, Gansu and then transferred to a 
     labor camp near Dashaping in Lanzhou. Released on parole on 
     April 14, 1993, he remains under severe restrictions of 
     movement, that are a form of house arrest. He was previously 
     imprisoned for his faith during the Cultural Revolution.
       63. Bishop Cosmas Shi Enxiang. The 71-year-old auxiliary 
     Bishop of Yixian, Hebei province, Bishop Shi was originally 
     arrested in December 1990 and held by Xushui County Public 
     Security Bureau. His whereabouts remained unknown for close 
     to three years. He was thought to have been held in a 
     ``reeducation through labor'' camp near Handan or in an ``old 
     age home.'' On November 31, 1993, he was released and 
     permitted to return home. Although reportedly in poor health, 
     he resumed duties as Auxiliary Bishop of Yixian, thought 
     under police surveillance and restrictions of movement.
       64. Bishop Han Dingsiang. Bishop Dingsiang was arrested in 
     Yong Nian. He has been arrested and released several times 
     and it is believed he is currently in jail.
       65. Bishop Han Jingtao. Bishop Jingtao has been prevented 
     by police from exercising his ministry.
       66. Bishop Liu Guandong. Bishop Guandong, of Yixian, is 
     under strict surveillance by Chinese security forces.
       67. Bishop Zhang Weizhu. Bishop Weizhu was arrested in 
     Xianxian on May 31, 1998.
       68. Rev. Guo Bo Le. A Roman Catholic priest from Shanghai, 
     Rev. Guo was sentenced in January 1996 to two years of 
     imprisonment at a ``reform through labor'' camp because of 
     ``illegal religious activity.'' He was arrested while 
     celebrating Mass on a boat for about 250 fishermen. 
     Guo's other ``illegal'' activities included administering 
     the Sacrament of the Sick, establishing underground 
     evangelical church centers, organizing catechetical 
     institutes, teaching Bible classes and ``boycotting'' the 
     Catholic Patriotic Association. Fifty-eight-year-old Guo 
     has already spent thirty years--over half his life--in 
     Chinese prisons because of his faith.
       69. Rev. Vincent Qin Guoliang. Rev. Qin, a 60-year-old 
     Roman Catholic priest, was arrested on November 3, 1994, in 
     the city of Xining, Qinghai province, on unknown charges by 
     Public Security officials. He was arbitrarily sentenced to 
     two years' ``reeducation through labor'' at Duoba labor camp 
     20 kilometers from Xining. Father Qin was forced to carry 
     rocks and blocks of ice in the camp, but after one month of 
     this hard labor he became seriously ill. In March 1995, he 
     was allowed to perform light duties and is now the treasurer 
     of the prison. According to press accounts, the sentencing 
     procedure circumvented the need for his name to appear on any 
     legal documents, thereby preventing him from being officially 
     recognized as a ``prisoner.'' It is not known if he has been 
     released but if he has he probably was returned to his 
     previous status as an ``employee detainee'' for the State. He 
     had been previously, arrested on April 21, 1994, while 
     celebrating Mass, and released on August 29, 1994. Beginning 
     in 1955, he served 13 years of imprisonment because of his 
     refusal to renounce ties with the Vatican. Upon completion of 
     prison term, he was transferred to a labor camp as an 
     ``employee detainee'' to make bricks at No. 4 brick factor in 
     Xining. After another 13 years of this forced labor, he was 
     refused government permission to return to his home in 
     Shanghai. He was forced to continue working at the No. 4 
     brick factor in Xining until his re-arrest in April 1994. He 
     was secretly ordained a priest in 1986 and carried out his 
     apostolic work in the province of Qinghai.
       70. Rev. Liao Haiqing. Rev. Liao is a 68-year-old priest in 
     Fuzhou, Jiangxi province. Arrested in August 4, 1995, he was 
     last known to be detained at Lin Chuan City's detention 
     center. Father Liao has a heart condition and high blood 
     pressure, but he is not allowed to receive medication from 
     his family, who are barred from visiting him. Previously 
     arrested on August 11, 1994, on unspecified charges and held 
     in detention until mid-November 1994. Prior to that, he had 
     been arrested while celebrating Mass, on August 16, 1992, and 
     held until March 1993. He has also previously served a ten-
     year term, which ended in July 1991.
       71. Rev. Peter Cui Xingang. The 31-year-old Pastor of the 
     Church of Our Lady of China in Donglu village, Hebei 
     province, the site of the famous underground Catholic 
     procession, was arrested in late March 1996 and detained 
     along with Bishop Su Zhimin. He had been reportedly in and 
     out of detention since then and at last report in mid-1997 
     was behind bars once again. He had been previously, arrested 
     on July 28, 1991, and held without trial until being released 
     in August 1995.
       72. Rev. John Wang Zhongfa. Rev. Zhongfa, a is a 67 year-
     old Roman Catholic priest of Wenzhou diocese, Zhejiang 
     province, was arrested on November 24, 1997, and sentenced in 
     January 1998 to one year of re-education through labor for 
     ``disturbing the peace.'' He Wenzhou city council, which 
     imposed the sentence, reportedly said that his sentence is to 
     expire on November 23, 1998. The priest, labelled ``Number 
     One Evil'' by security officials, was arrested for organizing 
     an unauthorized Marian event last October. According to a 
     report from a Catholic source in Hong Kong, Fr. Wang is out 
     of 15,000 yuan (US$1,800) bail but must report regularly to 
     police. He was arrested while conducting a private funeral 
     service for a nun.
       73. Rev. Shi Wende. Rev. Wende, of Yixian diocese, Hebei 
     province, was arrested on March 14, 1998, while visiting the 
     home of an underground Catholic in Liu Li Quao, according to 
     the Cardinal Kung Foundation. His whereabouts are not known.
       74. Fr. Deng Ruolun. Fr. Ruolun, a first apostolic 
     Administrator of the Diocese of Yujiang, was arrested in 
     Jiangxi province on August 14, 1997, while celebrating Mass 
     at a private home. His father was later detained on August 
     20, along with five others whose names remain unknown.
       According to a report by Amnesty International released on 
     March 31, 1998, over 200 Roman Catholics were detained in 
     Jiangxi province in 1997. The arrests were apparently carried 
     out in two separate incidents: the first in August 1997; and 
     the second, between mid November and December. Some of those

[[Page H6449]]

     arrested were jailed or tortured. Their current whereabouts 
     and legal status are unknown. The following 11 names are 
     those identified as detained:
       75. Zhang Jiyu. Zhang Jiyu is a 48-year-old Catholic woman, 
     who are arrested and detained in Jiangxi province on August 
     13, 1997, after protesting the arrest of her 17-year-old 
     daughter, who herself had been detained for religious 
     reasons.
       76. Liu Haicheng. Lui Haicheng was arrested in Jiangxi on 
     August 15, 1997, for allowing a private mass at his home 
     (where Fr. Deng Ruolun had been arrested). Police reportedly 
     tortured Haicheng in order to extract a confession of guilt 
     to criminal charges.
       77. Zhou Xiaoling. Zhou Xiaoling, like Liu Haicheng, was 
     arrested in Jiangxi province on August 15, 1997, and then 
     tortured for allowing a private mass in his own home.
       78. Xiao Lan. Xiao Lan, a 32-year-old Catholic nun, was 
     arrested in Jiangxi province in mid August of 1997.
       79. Long Mei. Long Mei, a 24-year-old Catholic nun, was 
     arrested in Jiangxi province in mid August of 1997.
       80. Yuan Mei. Yuan Mei, a 20-year-old Catholic nun, was 
     arrested in Jiangxi province in mid August of 1997.
       81. Cheng Jinli. Cheng Jinli, a 24-year-old Catholic nun, 
     was arrested in Jiangxi province in mid August of 1997.
       82. Hua Jingjin. Hua Jinglin, a 30-year-old Catholic nun, 
     was arrested in Jiangxi province in mid August of 1997.
       83. Jun Fang. Jun Fang, a Catholic nun, was arrested in 
     Jiangxi province in mid August of 1997.
       84. Zhang Jiehong. Zhang Jiehong, a 50-year-old Catholic 
     laywoman, was arrested in Jiangxi province in mid August of 
     1997.
       85. Fr. Lin Rengui. Fr. Rengui, of Pingtan county, was 
     arrested during Christmas of 1997. His sentence is unknown.
       86. Fr. Ma Qinguan. Fr. Qinguan, a priest from Baoding, is 
     being pursued for capture.
       87. Fr. Wang Chengi. Fr. Chengi, was arrested in December 
     of 1996. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He is 
     currently at Shandong Jining Reeducation Camp.
       88. Fr. Wei Jingkun. Fr. Jingkun, of Baoding, was arrested 
     on August 15, 1996.
       89. Fr. Xiao Shixiang. Fr. Shixiang, was arrested in June, 
     1996 and given a three-year sentence. He is currently at 
     Tianjin #5 prison.
       90. An Xianliang. An Xianliang, a Catholic from the village 
     of An Jia Zhuag, was arrested in 1996.
       91. Di Yanlong. Di Yanlong, a Catholic from the village of 
     An Jia Zhuang, was arrested in 1996 and sentenced to three 
     years in prison.
       92. Gao Shuping. Gao Shuping, a Catholic citizen of Lin 
     Chuan, was arrested in November 1996.
       93. Gao Shuyun. Gao Shuyun, a Catholic from Chongren 
     County, was arrested in April 1995.
       94. Huang Guanghua. Huang Guanghua, from Chongren County, 
     was arrested in April 1995.
       95. Huang Tengzong. Huang Tengzong, from Chongren County, 
     was arrested in April 1995.
       96. Jia Futian, from the village of Yangzhuang, was 
     arrested in 1996 and sentenced to three years in prison.
       97. Li Lianshu. Li Lianshu, a Catholic, was arrested during 
     Christmas of 1995. He was sentenced to four years and is 
     currently at Shandong #1 Reeducation camp.
       98. Li Quibo. Li Quibo, a Catholic, was arrested in Easter 
     1996. He was sentenced to three years and is currently at 
     Shandong #1 Reeducation camp.
       99. Li Shengxin. Li Shengxin, a Catholic from An Guo, was 
     arrested in 1996 and sentenced to three years in prison.
       100. Li Xin. Li Xin, a Catholic, was arrested in 1996 and 
     sentenced to three years in prison.
       101. Pan Kunming. Pan Kunming, a Catholic from Yu Jiang, 
     was arrested in 1996 and sentenced to five years.
       102. Rao Yanping. Rao Yanping, a Catholic from Yu Jiang, 
     was arrested in April 1995 and sentenced to four years.
       103. Wang Chengqun. Wang Chengqun, a Catholic from Baoding, 
     was arrested in April 1996 and sentenced to three years.
       104. Wang Yungang. Wang Yungang, a Catholic, was arrested 
     during Christmas 1996, and sentenced to two years and 
     currently is at Shandong Changle Reeducation Camp.
       105. Xie Suqian. Xie Suqian, a Catholic from Baoding, was 
     arrested on August 15, 1998.
       106. Yao Jinqiu. Yao Jinqiu, a Catholic from the village of 
     An Jia Zhuang, was arrested in 1996 and sentenced to three 
     years.
       107. Yu Qixiang. Yu Qixiang, a Catholic from Yu Jiang, was 
     arrested in April 1995 and sentenced to two years.
       108. Yu Shuishen. Yu Shuishen, a Catholic from Yu Jiang, 
     was arrested in April 1995 and sentenced to three years in 
     prison.
       109. Zhou Quanxin. Zhou Quanxin, a Catholic layman, was 
     arrested in Baoding, Hebei Province, during an underground 
     Holy Mass on Pentecost Sunday, May 23, 1999, while aiding the 
     escape of the presiding priest.
       110. Zhou Zhenpeng. Zhou Zhenpeng, a Catholic layman, was 
     arrested in Baoding, Hebei Province, during an underground 
     Holy Mass on Pentecost, May 23, 1999, while aiding the escape 
     of the presiding priest.
       111. Zhou Zhenmin. Zhou Zhenmin, a Catholic layman, was 
     arrested in Baoding, Hebei Province, during an underground 
     Holy Mass on Pentecost Sunday, May 23, 1999, while aiding the 
     escape of the presiding priest.
       112. Zhou Zhenquan. Zhou Zhenquan, a Catholic layman, was 
     arrested in Baoding, Hebei Province, during an underground 
     Holy Mass on Pentecost Sunday, May 23, 1999, while aiding the 
     escape of the presiding priest.
       Sources: Cardinal Kung Foundation; Church sources in China; 
     Family members of religious prisoners; Compass Direct; Fides 
     (news agency under the auspices of the Vatican's congregation 
     for mission countries, Propaganda Fides); Information Center 
     of Human Rights and Democratic Movement in China (Hong Kong); 
     The Oregonian; Reuters; U.S. State Department Human Rights 
     Reports on Countries (1999); Zenit; Christian Solidarity 
     Worldwide; Amnesty International; Union of Catholic Asian 
     News.
       See Center's Web site for further information: 
     www.freedomhouse.org/religion.
                                  ____


                       The Effect of MFN on China

                           (By Wei Jingsheng)

       The reason that a representative of the highest level of 
     the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) met with me in 1994 was 
     that many in the inner circles of the CCP believed that I 
     could influence the future of MFN, due to my meeting with 
     Secretary of State Warren Christopher.
       Among the conditions which were promised to me at that 
     time, some were met very faithfully. Even though I had been 
     illegally taken into custody, they scrupulously fulfilled two 
     agreements: one was the freeing of Wang Juntao, Chen Ziming 
     and several other political prisoners. The other was that 
     after I agreed to their conditions they would not arrest my 
     associates, including Wang Dan, Liu Nianchun, Liu Xiaobo and 
     many others who fell within the protective scope of the 
     agreement.
       However, there were promises that they did not keep. These 
     include not allowing the democracy faction to carry out 
     public activities and buy banks and newspapers, and releasing 
     another group of prisoners, such as Hu Shigen and Zhou 
     Guoqiang. Because U.S. President Clinton decoupled MFN from 
     human rights considerations, many people inside the CCP 
     decided that there was no need to continue to keep the 
     promises they had made.
       I found out in prison that the treatment of political 
     prisoners followed the political atmosphere, changing as the 
     atmosphere changed. The most important elements in the 
     political atmosphere were U.S.-China relations and the 
     question of MFN.
       In 1994, after my secret negotiations with the CCP's 
     representative, I was put under house arrest in a high-level 
     guesthouse. Living conditions were quite good, and it was 
     possible to go out to eat in the company of a policeman, for 
     example; the only thing I could not do was have contacts with 
     the outside world. They were obviously planning to release me 
     after a short time, because they were concerned that my 
     opinion could influence the future of MFN. They had no 
     control over the future of MFN, and so they treated me a high 
     degree of courtesy.
       But about a month after Secretary of State Christopher 
     returned to the U.S., they suddenly sent me to a place where 
     conditions were even harsher than in a prison. It was damp, 
     there were no facilities for washing, and I could not even go 
     to the toilet without being under the scrutiny of a guard. 
     There was no access to newspapers, TV or radio. Not only did 
     I have no contact with the outer world, but even my sources 
     of news were cut off. This occurred because, although the 
     delinking of MFN with human rights had not been made public, 
     the Chinese government had already received reliable 
     assurances of this from the American side. At the time I 
     guessed that this was the situation, and after I came to the 
     U.S. in 1997 I received proof that confirmed my earlier 
     suspicions.
       While the Chinese government began to lobby in the U.S. for 
     permanent MFN status, I was sentenced to 14 years and was 
     sent to prison. From the end of 1996 until early 1997, as 
     lobbying for ``permanent MFN status'' for China was called 
     for openly in the U.S. Congress, the CCP convened a meeting 
     on politics and law, and the ranking politics and law 
     committee member, Luo Gan, publicly called for a crackdown on 
     resistance, hunger strikes and other activities by political 
     prisoners.
       Conditions for political prisoners in China's jails quickly 
     became more oppressive. Almost all conditions necessary to 
     sustain life disappeared, many more were beaten and the use 
     of handcuffs and punishment cells became more common. I also 
     received this type of treatment. For details, please see the 
     newspaper reports from the first part of 1997.
       In June and July of 1997, revelations about the conditions 
     of Chinese political prisoners were comparatively frequent. 
     During discussions about MFN in the U.S. Congress, this issue 
     was often discussed. Demands to suspend MFN increased, and, 
     in China, the government ceased carrying out oppressive 
     measures against political prisoners. The use of shackles and 
     punishment cells stopped, prisoners were returned to their 
     normal cells, and the most necessary items for daily life 
     were restored.
       The events described above show clearly that the strategy 
     of using MFN to put pressure on the Chinese government is 
     highly effective. Although the lack of willpower and 
     consistency in U.S. policy have prevented effective pressure 
     on China to democratize, the effectiveness of the use of the 
     MFN issue to improve conditions for political prisoners and 
     limit arrests of dissidents has been clearly shown.

[[Page H6450]]

       In other words, if the pressure of the MFN issue is lost, 
     it means collusion with the hardliners of the CCP as they 
     persecute and oppress China's opposition.

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleague from Virginia to consult 
with the Reverend Billy Graham and Pat Robertson.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to this resolution. Denying NTR to China will undermine our interests, 
United States economic interests. It is our twelfth largest market and 
increased imports from the United States 11 percent last year all on 
products made by highly skilled workers earning high wages.
  Connecticut exports to China in 1998 totaled more than 301 million 
ranking it tenth in the Nation. Connecticut businesses and its workers 
have a direct interest in maintaining normal trading relations with 
China and with further opening China's markets. With a quarter of the 
world's population and the third largest economy, China's buying power 
will grow tremendously in the years ahead. If we do not engage this 
emerging major market, other nations will replace U.S. companies and 
these significant profits gained as a competitive advantage over us. 
That has already happened in the helicopter and other markets through 
shortsighted American policy.
  Mr. Speaker, it is just a fact that China is making quiet but 
significant progress in many areas. Unlike Russia, China has recognized 
the need to recapitalize their state-owned businesses and has gradually 
sold many to foreign companies. They are modernizing their economy 
without the level of unemployment, crime, and turmoil that has plagued 
other nations faced with this challenge.
  Furthermore, western companies have brought management practices to 
China that develop individual initiative and respect workers' ideas. 
They have brought more stringent health safety and environmental 
standards accomplishing goals like reducing industrial waste 35 percent 
and harmful air emissions 36 percent, as did Carrier since 1995.
  And western companies have brought more opportunity to workers like 
Otis Elevator's home ownership program.
  In addition, China has had direct elections in half its villages, 
gaining experience with secret ballots and multicandidate elections. In 
some provinces, 40 percent of the candidates are young entrepreneurs 
and not Communist Party members. In 1997, as part of the rule of law 
initiative the training of legal aid lawyers began.
  In sum, China is modernizing its economy and governance through a 
process that is harmonious with her long history and cultural 
traditions, but that should not obscure the growth of values in common 
with people in the west. It should certainly not obscure our common 
interest in the growth of trade between our nations based on the 
principles that undergird the WTO relationships. By renewing NTR and 
working with China to enter WTO we can help China adopt free and fair 
trade policies. Lower tariffs make our goods more affordable. 
Distribution rights under WTO will provide access to customers. Good 
for China, good for us.
  I urge renewal of the normal trade relations with China and 
opposition to this resolution of disapproval.
  I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. Denying NTR to China 
will undermine our entire U.S. economic interests. It is our 12th 
largest market and increased imports from the U.S. 11% last year. With 
a population of 1.2 billion, China imported approximately $18 billion 
worth of U.S. goods and services in 1998, supporting thousands of high-
wage, high-skill, export-related American jobs. This represents an 
increase of more than 11% from the previous year, making China the 12th 
largest U.S. export market.
  Connecticut exports to China in 1998 totaled more than $301 million, 
ranking it 10th in the nation. Connecticut businesses and its workers 
have a direct interest in maintaining normal trade relations with China 
and in further opening its markets.
  With a quarter of the world's population and third largest economy, 
China's buying power will grow tremendously in the years ahead. If we 
do not engage this emerging major market, other nations will replace 
U.S. companies and use the significant profits gained as a competitive 
advantage over us. That has already happened in the helicopter market 
with U.S. producers guilty of short-sighted policy.
  It is just fact that China is making quiet but significant progress 
in many areas. Unlike Russia, China recognized the need to recapitalize 
their state-owned businesses and has gradually sold many to foreign 
companies. They are modernizing their economy without the level of 
unemployment, crime and turmoil that has plagued other nations faced 
with this challenge. Furthermore, western countries have brought 
stringent management practices to China that develop individual 
initiative and respect workers' ideas, have brought management health, 
safety and environmental standards, accomplishing goals like reducing 
industrial waste 35% and harmful air emissions by 36% as did Carrier 
since 1995 and western companies have brought new opportunities to 
workers like Otis Elevator home ownership programs.
  In addition China has held direct election in half its villages, 
gaining experience with secret ballots and multi-candidate elections. 
In some provinces, 40% of the candidates are young entrepreneurs and 
not communist party members. (They seek better schools and roads, and 
are cracking down on corruption.) In 1997, as part of a rule of law 
initiative, the training of legal aid lawyers began.
  In sum, China is modernizing its economy and governance through a 
process that is harmonious with her cultural traditions, but that 
should not obscure the growth of values shared by people in the West.
  China is now on the verge of gaining membership in the World Trade 
Organization. WTO membership requires a country to adopt free and fair 
trade practices. We must encourage this progress toward a more open 
market economy because with it will come the opportunity for American 
companies to distribute their goods in China far more broadly and the 
lower Chinese tariffs will make our goods competitive in that growing 
market. It should certainly not obscure our common interest in the 
growth of trade between us based on the principles that undergird WTO 
relationships (transparency of law and regulation, equal treatment of 
foreign and domestic producers, lower tariffs and reduced non-tariff 
barriers, intellectual property protection and dispute settlement 
through a fair process.) By allowing NTR and working with China to 
enter the WTO, we can help China ``adopt free and fair'' trade 
practices and assure the growth of our economy. The lower tariffs 
required by WTO will make our goods more affordable and the 
distribution rights under WTO will provide us access to customers good 
for us and good for China.
  Denying normal trade relations with China will only limit our ability 
to influence and work with China in other areas of mutual concern. Only 
a policy of principled and persistent engagement will promote American 
interests on all issues from economic security to non-proliferation, 
the rule of law, and human rights.
  I urge the renewal of normal trade relations with China and 
opposition to this resolution of disapproval.

                              {time}  1215

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a champion for human rights throughout the world 
and at home.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the supporters of Most Favored 
Nation status may have changed the name to ``Normal Trade Relations,'' 
but the situation in China has not changed. In fact, the conditions are 
getting worse.
  Just a few days ago, the Chinese government conducted its largest 
crackdown since Tiananmen Square. Thousands of religious worshippers 
were arrested. Chinese soldiers took people from their homes and places 
of worship. Some were beaten. The human rights abuses continue, and yet 
there are those who would reward China with MFN.
  Business as usual, trade as usual, and China does not change. We are 
sending the wrong message. We have a moral obligation, a mission, and a 
mandate to stand up for human rights and for democracy. We must send a 
strong message that China must change its ways if it wants to continue 
doing business with the United States. Our foreign policy, our trade 
policy must be a reflection of our ideals and values. Renewing MFN 
allows China to continue its terrible abuses without repercussion. That 
is not right.
  Where are our morals? Where are our values? Where are our principles? 
I believe in free and fair trade, but it must not be trade at any 
price, and the price of renewing MFN for China is too high.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I want 
to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for taking the 
lead

[[Page H6451]]

in standing up for human rights and for democracy in China.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we should continue normal 
trade relations with China. This is a very important issue to the 
United States of America, as well as to the future of China.
  As is the case with almost all important legislation, the rhetoric is 
heated and the arguments are exaggerated. That is only natural, because 
the debate we are involved in is a complexity that oftentimes is far 
beyond the immediate issue in front of us: trade.
  The debate ranges on both sides to economic, political, strategic, 
security, and humanitarian issues. Yet, we have this one vehicle to 
express our opinions, our positions, and even our frustrations about 
our relationship with China.
  China is the largest emerging market in the world, and it is 
increasingly important politically and militarily to the United States. 
China's leadership will, whether we like it or not, shape much of what 
happens throughout Asia and the Pacific. We must try to influence what 
happens inside of China. We must influence the course of conduct by 
China's influence and leadership, and, of course, we must take the 
opportunity to see how best we can influence how China emerges as a 
greater economic and military power.
  But how do we influence China if we refuse to trade with them and 
they retaliate against us? How do democratic values emerge? How do they 
learn to tolerate dissent? How do they come to respect human rights and 
religious liberties? Do we sit back and hope that the Europeans are 
willing to demonstrate these values, or do we actively engage the 
Chinese at all levels and patiently work for change within that 
country?
  I do not think there is anybody who is willing to say that there has 
been no change in China during the last 20 years. I do not think anyone 
would say that that change has been sufficient. In fact, it seems 
painstakingly slow, but it is occurring, and we must see to it that it 
continues to occur.
  We must not lose site of the penalty here. It is to deny to China 
what we give to almost every other nation in the world: normal trade 
relations, exactly what the term implies. The aberration is not with 
those who would grant NTR to China; it is with those who would apply 
the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act to China.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations and a Member of this body who served in World War II in the 
Pacific and knows full well the price that we pay as a country for an 
unrealistic policy towards a militaristic regime.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 57, a resolution 
disapproving granting MFN, now called NTR, to the People's Republic of 
China.
  It has been 10 years since the massacre of Tiananmen Square, and 
since then, the world has witnessed a marked deterioration of human and 
religious rights in the People's Republic of China and in occupied 
Tibet and in East Turkestan. Since 1989, our trade deficit has grown 
from $6 billion to a projected $67 billion. China's bold threats 
against democratic Taiwan and its naval actions against the Philippines 
directly reflect its new-found wealth and its military prowess. Both 
give unrestricted access to our U.S. markets.
  U.S. industry estimates of intellectual property losses in China due 
to counterfeiting and due to trademark piracy have continually exceeded 
$2 billion over the past several years. Some U.S. companies estimate 
losses from counterfeiting account for 15 to 20 percent of their total 
sales in China. It is my understanding that Microsoft alone has lost an 
estimated $1 billion in software piracy by China over the past 10 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration's transfer of American resources and 
wealth through our so-called ``engagement policy'' with the dictators 
in Beijing has led to serious long-term consequences. The engagement 
policy failure has fueled an enormous trade imbalance that dwarfs all 
reason. China's enormous foreign currency reserves permits Beijing to 
belligerently dismiss U.S. protests of its transfer of deadly weapons 
of mass destruction to terrorist nations. So-called engagement has 
cleared the way for China's regional hegemony.
  China's experts within the administration have presided over this 
Nation's singular greatest foreign policy disaster. It has led to the 
thefts of our nuclear weapons designs, the weakening of our national 
security and strategic alliances, and the trivialization of respect for 
our American interests.
  Last week, it was reported that a Protestant worshipper was killed by 
security forces; and this week, thousands of followers of Falun Gong, 
the spiritual movement that was recently outlawed, were arrested.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I support H.J. Res. 57 and I urge my 
colleagues to support this important resolution.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), my neighbor.
  (Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
oppose the resolution revoking Normal Trade Relations for China.
  Many of my colleagues have said that this body should signal our 
disapproval of Chinese policy by denying NTR. I would caution those who 
seek to send such a signal to first answer one very basic question: 
Will your vote to revoke NTR for China today actually change the 
behavior of China tomorrow? Think about it. Will ending NTR free the 
political prisoners, reverse the abuse of human rights, and stop the 
persecution of religious groups? Will denying NTR teach the youth of 
China the values of democracy, the principles of capitalism, and the 
merits of a free and open society?
  Make no mistake; ending NTR for China will not achieve these goals. 
It will portend, however, the end of U.S. trade with China and the end 
of our influence in China.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to retain our influence and our 
trade relations with China by voting against the resolution today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against the 
resolution to revoke Normal Trade Relations (NTR) for China.
  Many of my colleagues have said that this body should signal our 
disapproval of Chinese policy by denying NTR.
  Mr. Speaker, I would caution those who seek to ``signal'' China by 
ending NTR to think for just one moment today about the likely 
consequences and first answer one very basic question.
  Will your vote to end NTR for China today actually change the 
behavior of China tomorrow? Think about it.
  Will ending NTR free the political prisoners, reverse the abuse of 
human rights, and stop the persecution of religious groups?
  Will denying NTR bolster the moderates or will it strengthen the 
hands of the hard-liners as they struggle to control the future course 
of China policy?
  Most importantly, will revoking NTR teach the youth of China the 
values of democracy, the principles of capitalism, and the merits of a 
free and open society?
  Mr. Speaker, if I thought that ending NTR would achieve these goals 
in China, I too would cast my vote of disapproval today.
  But make no mistake: denying China NTR denies the U.S. the ability to 
influence China's workers, China's human rights policies, China's 
politics, and perhaps most importantly, China's future.
  Make no mistake: ending NTR for China will effectively end all hope 
of gaining WTO accession. It will end our best hope of getting China to 
open its markets and live by the world's trade rules. And it will 
effectively put an end to our trade with China.
  In short, revoking NTR for China will send much more than a signal: 
it will portend the end of U.S. trade with China, and the end of our 
influence in China.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to retain our influence--and our trade 
relations--with China by voting against the resolution today.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has been a

[[Page H6452]]

champion of human rights, particularly in the New Independent States 
and in eastern and central Europe, and a champion throughout the world 
for human rights.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding to me, who herself has been such a great leader on this issue.
  I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 57 
disapproving the extension of Normal Trade Relations to the People's 
Republic of China.
  We have, of course, none of us a quarrel with the 1.2 billion 
citizens of China. But in extending this trading status we have to ask 
ourselves, what has the Chinese Government done, one of the last 
Communist dictatorships on earth, to deserve, to merit this 
consideration?
  The Chinese Government's record reads, frankly, more like an 
indictment. China flagrantly violates the human rights of its own 
citizens and internationally recognized labor standards. It fomented 
anti-American hatred after our clearly accidental bombing in Belgrade. 
It recently began saber rattling against Taiwan, and it repeatedly, 
repeatedly has been unwilling to make vital democratic reforms.
  This past June marked the 10th anniversary of the Chinese 
Government's crackdown on the advocates of democracy in Tiananmen 
Square. Has the injustice stopped since Tiananmen? No, not at all. Over 
the past few months the government has once again detained dissidents, 
handing down sentences of up to 4 years in prison for, and I quote, 
``subverting State power, assaulting the government, holding illegal 
rallies, and trying to organize workers laid off from a State-run 
firm.'' I suggest all of those are values that America holds dear.
  The Washington Post reported this past Sunday that Chinese security 
forces have rounded up in this month 4,000 people in Beijing alone 
during a massive nationwide crackdown against the popular Buddhist-
based spiritual movement, Falun Gong. But the human rights and labor 
standard violations are only one in a series of provocative acts by the 
Chinese Government.
  China's recent threat of military action against Taiwan threatens the 
very security of that region. In addition, the breach in security at 
American nuclear weapons labs over the past 20 years threatens us.
  I say to my colleagues, reject Normal Trade Relations, adopt this 
resolution. Send a clear, clear message of American values.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could we be informed of the time on all 
sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) has 30 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) has 24 minutes remaining; the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) has 25 minutes remaining; and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) has 22 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  (Mr. BERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, trade with China is absolutely essential. We 
face the challenges that trade with China press, or we can turn our 
back and face the consequences: lost markets for America's farmers and 
the possibility of food shortages in China. China does not have enough 
food to feed its population. They have 25 percent of the world's 
population and 7 percent of the world's arable land. We have an 
agriculture trade surplus with China that is absolutely essential to 
our agriculture community. In 1997, U.S. agriculture sales to China 
totaled $4 billion. We have a huge trade surplus in agriculture with 
China, 250 percent in our favor. They are one of our largest wheat 
customers.
  China is a growth market. They are increasing food imports. NTR is 
critical to our market access. As the Chinese economy improves, more 
value-added goods will be bought. China will have to play fair to enter 
the World Trade Organization. China must show improved access to U.S. 
agriculture products and revoking NTR will derail this progress.

                              {time}  1230

  Engagement will result in improvements. We want a peaceful and 
prosperous China. One billion hungry people does not lead to a stable 
democracy. The U.S. is well-positioned to help feed their people while 
maintaining positive relations. Turning our back on China today would 
be a huge mistake.
  I urge Members to vote to maintain trade with China. Vote no on House 
Joint Resolution 57.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns), a great champion of American values.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to support House 
Joint Resolution 57, to disapprove the extension of what I call most-
favored-nation trading status for China.
  To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I say that we as 
Americans are not being true to our heritage if we continue to do 
business with people who are tyrants, who trample upon all that we hold 
sacred. Let me repeat that, we are foolish to do business with tyrants 
who trample upon all that this great Nation holds sacred.
  Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations, and we all use it as a guide 
in trade relations. He quotes three reasons to put up tariffs and 
protect American companies. One is for retaliation of unfair trade 
practices, which has been occurring. Two is to phase out trade tariffs 
in our country to protect obsolete industries. We should do this as a 
moral imperative. Lastly, it is to protect a nation's national 
security.
  I submit to this body today, the question on this resolution is one 
of our national security. We cannot continue to do trade with a country 
that is arming itself to the teeth with our money, has provided 
missiles to Iran and nuclear technology to Pakistan, has fired missiles 
towards Taiwan to intimidate its government, has launched the greatest 
military buildup in Asia since Japan in the 1930s. It is continuing to 
warn Japan and trying to intimidate it.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a country that is arming for war. It has stolen 
U.S. satellite missile technology, has targeted 13 of its 18 
intercontinental ballistic missiles at the United States of America. It 
has ignored our protests of the persecution of Christians and political 
dissidents.
  Are we being prudent? Are we going to turn our back on all the sacred 
heritage of our country for the dollar sign? I submit that China itself 
is dysfunctional, it is going to have a currency collapse soon and we 
should not go forward with this most favored nation status for China.
  In the sixth century B.C., Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote, ``The 
opportunity to defeat the enemy is often provided by the enemy 
himself.'' Are we providing China this opportunity? I urge the approval 
of this resolution.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Chair will remind Members 
that all graphs and charts to be used on the floor should be put in 
place at the beginning of the speaker's presentation and then removed 
at the end of the speaker's presentation, so the Chair would ask 
Members to take down charts that are not utilized at that time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  I rise in opposition to this resolution and in support of continuing 
trade relations with China. For my part, I do not believe that 
isolating China economically will do anything to improve their human 
rights record. We must not make the mistake of now believing we can 
isolate one quarter of the world's population and then expect to have 
any influence on their social and political institutions.
  I, too, am outraged by the political and religious oppression that 
has taken place in China, but shutting the few openings in China that 
exist cannot stop it. Rather, I believe that the more involved we 
become, the more we are commercially engaged with China, the more 
results we can achieve in securing greater political and religious 
freedoms for the people of China, as well.

[[Page H6453]]

  Mr. Speaker, trade does open the window of the world to the Chinese 
people and to our American ideals. We need to keep that window open. 
Closing it hurts us more than China.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57 and in support of 
continuing Normal Trade Relations (NTR) with China.
  This debate over China NTR gives focus to our economic, as well as 
strategic relations, with China. And this debate allows Members to 
express the deep concerns of all Americans about political and 
religious oppression that occurs in China.
  For my part, I do not believe that isolating China economically will 
do anything to improve their human rights record. We must not make the 
mistake now of believing we can isolate one-quarter of the world's 
population and then expect to have any influence on their social and 
political institutions.
  I, too, am outraged by political and religious oppression that has 
taken place in China, but shutting the few openings in China that exist 
cannot stop it. Rather, I believe that the more involved we become, the 
more we are commercially engaged with China, the more results we can 
achieve in securing greater political and religious freedoms for the 
people of China as well.
  Trade does open the window to the world for the people of China.
  In that regard, just let me talk briefly about just one industry--the 
telecommunications industry--and what its greater presence will do for 
the people of China. All of our lives are being changed dramatically by 
the ``information'' revolution. And, all of us realize that increased 
access to information for the people of China from sources outside 
China is one of the best ways we have of exposing Chinese citizens to 
new ideas, to broader horizons, and to new opportunities and choices 
for their future.
  Our American telecommunications companies are at the forefront of 
building the infrastructure that makes information available to people 
around the globe.
  So, let's look at China's market for these information technologies.
  China is adding the equivalent of one million cell phones per month.
  China is adding the equivalent of one Bell company per year.
  In 1998, only ten percent of China's population had a telephone in 
their home.
  In the U.S., roughly one half of all households have access to the 
Internet. In Brazil, one out of 70 families has access. In China, only 
one out of 400 families has access.
  Yes, this is a vast untapped market for U.S. companies. And, I can 
assure that if we are not in China, all of our foreign competitors will 
be.
  But it is also much more than an untapped market. Expanding access to 
information for the Chinese people is an untapped opportunity to expose 
them to our ideals and our freedoms.
  There are so many other examples of both the economic and strategic 
opportunities in China.
  And those economic opportunities are significant.
  Last year alone, the United States exported $18 billion in goods and 
services to China, now our fourth-largest trading partner. Already, 
hundreds of thousands of American jobs are supported by trade with 
China.
  For my State of New Jersey, China is now our fifth largest trading 
partner. Our exports to China amount to over $350 million and that 
trade employs some 5,000 to 8,000 residents of my state. And the 
potential for growth is enormous.
  Here are a few examples.
  One New Jersey company that has been active in China for twenty 
years, signed a contract for the largest single boiler project in 
Chinese history. This project alone will yield $310 million in orders 
for American goods and services, including sales for many small and 
medium sized companies.
  Another New Jersey infrastructure company projects a market of $18 
billion for its products in China over the next decade. And their sales 
have already increased 100% over the past five years.
  One of our energy companies anticipates a $13 billion market in China 
over the next ten years.
  For one of our insurance companies, 40% of their new premiums were 
sold in China in 1998.
  It is clear from just these few examples that failing to extend 
Normal Trade Relations Status to China will slam the door shut for 
American products and services in the world's most populous market. It 
only serves to leave China open to our foreign competitors who all have 
normal trade relations with China. American companies and their 
employees would be punished by this shortsighted action, not the 
Chinese government.
  Again, renewal of NTR is as much an economic decision as it is a key 
component of our national strategy to integrate China more fully into 
the family of nations. We need to maintain a stable political and 
economic relationship with China.
  I believe that the best way to promote the cause of human freedom and 
democracy and our American ideals is our very presence, economically 
and otherwise, in China.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and 
in support of extending Normal Trade Relations with China.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been so very hard at 
work on behalf of human rights in China and a fair deal for the 
American worker.
  (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House 
Resolution 57. I find it interesting that many of the same folks who 
talk about political espionage are here defending trade.
  To those who argue for us to continue putting the leaders of Beijing 
above the workers of America, I ask them to please listen for a moment. 
This is hypocrisy. After years of hearing the same arguments for most-
favored-nation trading status, it is time for this Congress to say 
enough is enough.
  Extending this status to China has failed to produce the results we 
want. We still see unconscionable human rights abuses, which we would 
not tolerate in other countries. We still see nuclear weapons 
proliferation, which we have not tolerated in other nations. We still 
see a widening trade deficit every year.
  The annual exercise of reviewing and renewing China's NTR status has 
been a complete failure. It is an annual exercise in futility. America 
needs a new approach. The data tells us what we need to do today. We 
are told we need to engage China in order to achieve our economic 
goals. Let us get beyond the rhetoric and look at the facts.
  We are on track to surpass last year's deficit with China, not close 
the gap. If the trend continues, our trade deficit would reach $66 
billion. What does this huge imbalance mean to American taxpayers, 
American workers? China has engaged that strategy to manage trade, not 
normalize trade. It ignores intellectual property rights, it evades 
restrictions on Chinese textile exports, and has put the Great Wall up 
to prohibit foreign products from entering the market.
  The U.S. levies an average NTR tariff rate of 2 percent on the 
Chinese. They levy a 17 percent rate on NTR trade. This is a one-way 
street. We should think about the families in America, and stop holding 
our noses and allowing this unfairness to continue.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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. With 
normal trade relations, our farmers and ranchers can sell their 
products in China on the same terms as their competitors from Canada, 
Australia, South America, and Europe.
  Last year U.S. agricultural exports to China exceeded $3 billion, 
making it the fourth largest market in the world for U.S. agricultural 
products. Demand for agricultural products is likely to increase as 
China's economy continues to grow at a rate of about 8 percent 
annually. That is why our competitors are eager for us to give up on 
the Chinese market.
  In recent years the Canadian Wheat Board has worked tirelessly to 
promote its products in China.
  The Australians hold an 8 percent stake in a flour and feed mill in 
Shenzen, China, and it brought together a consortium to upgrade China's 
grain handling and storage facilities with $1 billion worth of 
projects.
  Our farmers are facing record low prices. While our competitors are 
out building market share in China, we sit here and debate whether we 
even want to have a normal trade relationship with its 1,237,000,000 
customers.
  We must continue to work towards WTO membership for China. However, 
we have consistently told China that its entry to the WTO depends upon 
a commercially meaningful agreement.

[[Page H6454]]

China cannot expect to maintain indefinitely the $1 billion per week 
trade surplus it currently enjoys with the United States.
  In agriculture, the message seems to have been received. China is 
changing slowly, but it is changing surely. In connection with its bid 
to join the WTO, China has agreed to reduce overall average tariffs for 
agricultural products from the current 30 to 50 percent to 17 percent 
by 2004. For priority U.S. products, the rate will be even lower, 14\1/
2\ percent. USDA estimates that with entry into WTO, China's net 
agricultural imports would increase by over $8 billion annually. That 
is a benefit to the United States workers, men and women producing the 
tractors, making the fertilizer, making all of the products that are 
utilized here in the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting normal trade relations 
with China by voting no on this disapproval.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), a healer, a doctor, a person concerned about 
human health and human beings.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have put a sign I know that not everybody can read, 
but this is a contrast between two countries, country A and country B. 
It is the exact representation made by the State Department as far as 
human rights in those two countries as of the end of 1998.
  I want to share with the Members just a minute what our own 
government says about these two countries. Then I am going to tell 
Members what these two countries are. The government human rights 
record worsens significantly, there were problems in many areas, 
including extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture, brutal 
beatings, arbitrary arrests, and detention. That is country A.
  Country B, the government's human rights record deteriorated sharply 
beginning in the final months of the year with a crackdown against 
organized political dissent. Abuses included instances of extrajudicial 
killings, torture, mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, 
arbitrary arrests, detention, lengthy incommunicado detention, and 
denial of due process.
  One other area let us look at, discrimination and violence against 
women remain serious problems. Discrimination against women and ethnic 
minorities worsened during the year.
  Country B, discrimination against women, minorities, and the 
disabled. Violence against women, including coercive family planning 
practices, which sometimes include forced abortion, forced 
sterilization, prostitution, trafficking in women and children, and 
abuse of children. They are all problems.
  I want Members to know who these two countries are. Country A we just 
spent billions of dollars bombing. It is called Yugoslavia, the great 
enemy Yugoslavia, that perpetrated such terrible acts on the Kosovar 
Albanians. We spent billions bombing them.
  The other country, country B, is China, which we have elevated and 
said we must trade with, regardless of what they do to their people. We 
are schizophrenic if we do continue to have normal trade relations with 
China. Why would we bomb one that has an identical record, and say the 
other must be our best trading partner?
  It has to do with money, Mr. Speaker. Is America going to sell its 
soul?
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of extending normal trade 
relations to China. Trade between the United States and China is a net 
plus for the American people. It supports hundreds of thousands of 
high-paying jobs. It creates competition in the economy. It results in 
the American people receiving better goods and services at more 
affordable prices.
  During today's debate, and I have heard much of it already, there has 
been a lot of talk about the trade deficit, about nuclear espionage and 
human rights. These are all very important issues. They deserve our 
immediate attention. However, disrupting our economic relationship with 
China will not do anything to solve these problems. It will only add 
more tensions to an already tense relationship with the Chinese and 
create bigger problems in the long run.
  Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge my colleagues to protect the economic 
interests of the United States by supporting normal trade relations 
with China. Vote no on House Joint Resolution 57, and yes for better 
paying jobs and greater economic opportunities for the American people.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), who has been a hard worker 
for human rights throughout the world and a star in the freshman class.
  (Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to renewing 
normal trade relations with China. I do believe that the United States 
needs to engage with China in an ongoing dialogue about joint economic 
concerns, but our dialogue cannot be limited to a discussion of trade. 
America's agenda needs to be broadly based, reflecting our democratic 
values, like free speech, freedom of religion, the right to privacy, 
and the right to organize. Trade is only a part of our relationship 
with China.
  This is my first time participating in this annual ritual of NTR 
renewal. I call it a ritual because each year we walk through the same 
steps in which many of us criticize China's political and social 
repression. Then the majority decides we must continue NTR as our best 
hope for creating change in China.

                              {time}  1245

  It certainly seems to make sense except for one thing. It has not 
been working. Since 1980 when we began this NTR renewal ritual, we have 
seen some reforms. However, no similar progress is being made on human 
rights, labor standard, and democratic reform. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting in favor of H.J. Res. 57.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
his courtesy in yielding me this time.
  Today, the United States and China spend hundreds of millions of 
dollars spying on each other. But despite all the spying, I do not 
think we really know each other very well.
  China is in fact a study in contradictions. Today, it is more modern 
and open than ever before in its 4,000-year history. Yet, it is in fact 
reacting defensively in an agitated fashion regarding the continued 
controversy with Taiwan.
  We have our demonstrators outside here on the grounds of the Capitol 
dealing with the local religious movement, Falun Gong, that has 
captured so much interest in China.
  It is an ancient nation that is modernizing rapidly, but this society 
filled with state-run activities is paying a substantial price as it 
downsizes its bureaucracy, modernizes its institutions, and privatizes 
it its state-owned industry.
  The United States has paid a terrible price in the past for 
misunderstanding China. During World War II, we bet on the wrong horse. 
Barbara Tuchman's brilliant biography of Joe Stillwell makes clear the 
waste of resources for the corrupt Kuomintang government of Chiang Kai-
Shek, who was not interested in fighting the Japanese, when we could 
have done something more constructive with Mao Tse-Tung.
  During the Korean War, we had thousands, tens of thousands, of 
needless American casualties because General McArthur, in flagrant 
disregard of orders and common sense, overplayed his hand. Yet, the 
Cold War was won more quickly in part because Richard Nixon had the 
courage to reverse his course of action and engage in a strategic 
alliance with China.
  Lots of countries we disagree with abuse human rights and do not 
honor democracy or the free market. Sometimes, sadly, that happens with 
the United States complicity. We gave arms to terrorists with Ronald 
Reagan.
  Normal trading relations does not mean we condone that behavior. It 
just

[[Page H6455]]

gives us more tools and opportunity to do something about it. The world 
will be a better place sooner. One only has to review 4,000 years of 
Chinese history and look at where we are today to know that we are, in 
fact, on the right path.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 4\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding me this time. I want to thank the gentleman for 
leading our debate and introducing his resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, each year at this time, Congress has the opportunity to 
review the results of the administration's China policy, and each year 
it becomes more clear how miserably that policy has failed.
  In the 5 years since President Clinton delinked China's MFN status 
from human rights, there has been significant regression, not progress 
in China. Now, even as we hold this debate, Beijing is conducting 
another major crackdown, the most important internal security exercise 
since the Tiananmen Square massacre against religious freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, the Chinese government knows this vote is taking place 
today. We are being watched, and we are being tested. The test is 
simple. If we ignore the latest escalation in the brutality, if we just 
vote the same way we have in the past, then we fail. We will have 
abandoned the Chinese people. We will have abandoned our ideals of 
democracy and human rights.
  I ask my colleagues, what will it take for us to say no more business 
as usual with Communist China? I would respectfully submit that any 
reasonable limit has been passed a long time ago.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration's so-called policy of constructive 
engagement on behalf of human rights has been a disaster, even 
according to the administration's own benchmarks. In quarterly reports, 
Amnesty International tracks the seven human rights policy goals that 
President Clinton announced before his 1998 trip to Beijing.
  Those Amnesty reports detail a complete lack of progress in all 
categories. Let me explain. On the release of all prisoners of 
conscience and Tiananmen Square prisoners. Amnesty reports total 
failure, regression.
  Two, review of all counter-revolutionary prison terms: Total failure, 
no progress.
  Allow religious freedom. Amnesty reports total failure, no progress.
  Four, prevent coercive family planning and harvesting of organs: 
Total failure, no progress.
  Five, fully implement pledges on human rights treaties: No progress.
  Six, review of reeducation through labor system: Total failure, no 
progress.
  Seven, end police and prison brutality: Again, Amnesty reports total 
failure, no progress.
  Mr. Speaker, the Communist government of the PRC blatantly and 
systematically violates the most fundamental human rights. It tracks 
down and stamps out political dissents. Just turn on television news. 
It is happening before our very eyes. The Beijing dictatorship 
imprisons religious leaders, ranging from the 10-year-old Panchen Lama 
to the elderly Catholic Bishop Su of Baoding. The gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) mentioned this holy and heroic man earlier. I led a 
human rights delegation to China a few years ago. Biship Su met us and 
celebrated mass. For that he was put into prison. Bishop Su said 
nothing offensive about the government. He loved those who hated him.
  The Chinese government also harvests and sells the internal organs of 
executed prisoners. Harry Wu--the great Chinese human rights leaders 
testified about this practice at one of my hearings. China, as we all 
know forces women who have unauthorized pregnancies to abort their 
babies and then to be sterilized against their will. Brothers and 
sisters are illegal in China--forced abortion is common place. China 
continues to brutalize the indigenous peoples of Tibet and of Xinjiang 
Uighur Autonomous Region, and it summarily executes Muslim Uighur 
political and religious prisoners.
  Mr. Speaker, when will we learn the lesson that, when dealing with 
the PRC, the U.S. cannot settle for paper promises or deferred 
compliance? The Chinese dictatorship regularly tells bold-faced lies 
about the way it treats its own people. It says, for example, that 
nobody died in Tiananmen Square. Mr. Cho Hao Tlea, the Defense Minister 
in this city, said no one died there.
  Mr. Speaker, I convened a hearing of several of the leaders of the 
democracy movement, some of the dissidents in correspondence who gave 
compelling testimony about how people died at Tiananmen Square; and, 
yet, the defense minister said nobody died. Incredible! I invited the 
defense minister to our hearing--he was a no show.
  Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Chinese Government claims religious 
freedom exists in the PRC. We know now there is no religious freedom. 
But brother knows better.
  Mr. Speaker, since my time is about to expire, I just want to remind 
Members that when the business community and the administration want to 
see intellectual property rights protected, what do we do? We threaten 
sanctions. I believe we should put people at least on par with pirated 
software, CDs, and movies. This Congress should declare that torture, 
forced abortion, and overt crimes against humanity count at least as 
much as protecting copyrights and consumer goods. Sanctions do work if 
consistently applied.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the very important resolution of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). And salute him for his 
wisdom in offering it today.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing).
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the resolution which would 
unilaterally isolate China from the U.S. only. Support normal trade 
relations with China. I support China being a part of the WTO. China 
will be one of the superpowers in the next millennium. Peaceful co-
existence between us is to all of our benefit.
  Now, we all understand that things are not as we would like them in 
China. But how do we most impact that? I think by engaging them, 
engaging them in how to handle human rights, by engaging them in fair 
trade, our intercourse with China since the close of the Cold War has 
paid dividends. To put our head in the sand and to back away from it 
would be ill-advised.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to again express my strong 
support for continuing Normal Trade Relations with China.
  Since I came to Congress in 1991, this debate has gone on every year 
and every year I have come to the floor to explain how important trade 
with China is to our farmers.
  It is essential that we continue to grant Normal Trade Relations to 
China. China will be the most important market for the United States in 
the 21st Century and granting Normal Trade Relation status is the 
foundation of any typical bilateral trading relationship.
  The recent negotiations for China's accession to the World Trade 
Organization are proof that China is ready to join the international 
trade community and we cannot pass up this opportunity.
  My home state of Illinois is the 6th leading exporter in the United 
States and over half a million jobs in Illinois rely on exports. The 
current crisis in agricutlrue has placed a spotlight on the huge need 
for increased foreign market access.
  USDA has predicted that 75% of the growth in American farm exports 
over the next 10 years will be to Asia--and China will make up over 
half of this amount.
  China is already America's 4th largest agriculture export market and 
if the administration will complete the WTO accession agreement our 
farmers and ranchers will have the level playing field that they have 
been waiting for.
  I urge members to vote against this resolution of disapproval and 
urge the Administration to complete the bilateral agreement for China's 
accession to the WTO.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a person who has been a 
faithful trooper in the fight for human rights throughout the world and 
a great leader.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we have been told that, with MFN, China has 
made progress in many areas. To that I ask, what progress?

[[Page H6456]]

  Right now, as we speak, thousands of Buddhists have been and are 
being arrested and jailed, jailed and arrested for their beliefs, and 
that is their only crime. Repression of religion is not progress.
  Just last year, last year, three founders of the China Democracy 
Party were jailed for expressing opposition to China policy. Repression 
of democracy is not progress.
  Child labor and the forced labor of political prisoners continues to 
be business as usual in China. Denial of workers' rights is not 
progress. Forced abortion, nuclear proliferation, and an expanded trade 
deficit is not progress. Extending China's NTR status amounts to 
rewarding China for continuing its human rights violations.
  Vote to support real progress. Vote for H.J. Res. 57.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we are not in conflict over the 
facts. I think we agree on the facts. What we are debating is the 
conclusions as to how to best address those facts.
  We agree that forced sterilizations and forced abortions occur, and 
they are wrong. We are not disputing that. We agree that communism does 
not work, that it is a bankrupt ideology, that it offends the human 
condition, that it represses the human spirit, that it is just plain 
wrong.
  But I would hope we would also agree on other facts that cannot be 
disputed. One such fact is that there is no other major Nation that 
does not extend normal trading relations with China. That is all we are 
talking about, continuing the normal trading relations that we extend 
to every other trading partner, but for a very few pariahs.
  We would also hope that we would agree that there are about 200,000 
American jobs involved here. We would also hope that we would agree 
that if we cut off normal trading relations with China and isolate 
them, that there is an adverse impact upon our economy, and that there 
will be other countries coming in to fill the gap, countries who, in 
many cases, have far less commitment to human rights and economic 
progress, and individual liberties than the United States does. We must 
all share a confidence in our universal commitments to human rights. 
Surely, no one on the other side is suggesting that we who will vote to 
extend NTR to China are so heartless that we don't care about the 
numerous violations of human rights that occur on a daily basis.
  I think these things are clear. So when we weigh all the facts, we 
who agree that human rights are being violated every day, have come to 
the conclusion that the best way to change China's attitude is to 
improve their standard of living.
  If we improve their standard of living, they will want to have 
individual freedoms. They will insist upon it. They will insist upon a 
free enterprise economy. Eventually, they will become a democratic 
state. That is what we want. We agree on the facts. We want to get to 
the same place. We are just as committed.
  Support normal trade relations with China. Reject this resolution 
before us today. Give the Chinese people their best chance to break the 
chains of communist ideology.
  I rise to oppose this resolution and support renewal of normal trade 
relations with China.
  This is not a disagreement over facts but rather over judgement on 
how best to address those facts. I share the concerns expressed by some 
of my colleagues regarding human rights abuses by the People's Republic 
of China.
  I am deeply troubled by the religious persecution that is occurring 
in China, including the recent crack-down on Falun Gong practitioners. 
Christians, Catholics and anyone who puts their God above their State 
is considered to be a threat to China's leaders today. However, I 
disagree with the premise that discontinuing normal trade relations 
will somehow positively improve human rights in China.
  Promoting normal trade and continued economic engagement, over time, 
will help open up Chinese society. History has proven this 
inevitability. The very activities that trade and engagement bring to 
China help foster a climate under which religious teachings can spread 
and flourish.
  Canceling or conditioning NTR further isolating China would only 
damage our interests and undermine support among our allies to keep 
pressure on the Chinese government to institute more fundamental 
political and economic reforms and human rights protections.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that trade is not a partisan 
issue. NTR status for China has been supported by every President, 
Republican and Democrat alike, who has confronted this issue.
  By continuing normal trading relations with China, we extend ordinary 
tariff treatment that we grant to all but a few nations. We are not 
providing China special treatment and we are not endorsing China's 
policies. We are simply supporting the best way to promote U.S. 
interests.
  But, we should continue normal trade relations with China for more 
than just economic reasons. It is in our national interest.
  By resuming NTR with China, we advance our long-term national 
interests in achieving democratic and market reforms in the world's 
most populous nation.
  Our national interest are best served by a secure, stable and open 
China. The way we engage the Chinese government will help determine 
whether China assimilates into a community of nations and follows the 
rule of law or becomes more isolated and unpredictable.
  Continuing normal trading relations with China also serves our best 
economic interests. Approximately 200,000 U.S. jobs are tied directly 
to U.S. exports to China.
  In the absence of this relationship, we would be placing our firms 
that are making great strides gaining new market share in China at a 
severe disadvantage.
  We would be standing alone on a trade policy that neither our allies 
nor our trade competitors would follow. Our competitors would reap the 
benefits of business opportunities that would otherwise go to U.S. 
firms.
  The United States is the only major country that does not extend 
``permanent'' normal trade relations to China. Revoking NTR status with 
China would only increase prices which U.S. consumers pay for goods and 
services and ultimately cost U.S. jobs. If the Chinese do not buy our 
products, they will buy them from Europe and other Asian countries.
  We would also be passing the cost of higher tariffs on Chinese 
exports, more than $500 million annually, on to U.S. consumers. 
Clearly, it's the American consumer who loses if we do not continue NTR 
with China.
  Higher tariffs on Chinese exports would only shift our demand for 
inexpensive, mass-market consumer goods to other developing countries 
and would not result in a net gain in U.S. manufacturing jobs.
  China is the fifth largest trading partner of the U.S. Two-way trade 
between the U.S. and China has increased almost tenfold between 1990 
and 1997, increasing from roughly $10 billion to $75 billion.
  This growth is expected to continue to rise in the 21st century as 
more Chinese benefit from an improved standard of living and increased 
purchasing power.
  Our current trade imbalance with China can best be narrowed through 
increased trade and liberalization of the Chinese economy. As their 
income rises, demand for high-quality U.S. products increases and our 
trade deficits decline.
  In short, we have much to lose and little to gain by failing to 
continue our current trading relationship with China. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in our national interest 
and support normal trade relations with China.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton), the man who has studied this issue and realizes 
that Japan and Nazi Germany were both very, very developed in their 
economy, and they also were aggressors and human rights abusers.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. First we gift 
wrap and hand over to Communist China virtually all of our most 
sensitive secrets. Now we are going to grant them most preferential 
trade status. What in the world is going on?
  China has stolen data on the W-88 nuclear warhead and the neutron 
bomb. They have funneled illegal campaign contributions to the 
Democratic party and the administration. They are transferring missile 
technology to countries like North Korea and Iran. They continue to 
violate basic human rights. They are circumventing our trade laws by 
transshipping their textile goods through third countries.

                              {time}  1300

  Does this sound like a country that deserves preferential treatment?
  According to Paul Redmund, the CIA's chief spy hunter, China's spying 
was far more damaging to national security than Aldrich Ames and would 
turn out to be as bad as the Rosenbergs, who were executed back in the 
1950s for that.
  A team of U.S. nuclear experts practically fainted when the CIA 
showed

[[Page H6457]]

them the data that China has stolen. The Chinese penetration is total, 
said one official. They are deep, deep into the labs' black programs, 
thus endangering every man, woman and child in this country.
  Why are we rewarding China for its spying? For God's sake, this is 
the country that funneled illegal contributions to President Clinton's 
1996 reelection campaign. This is the country that told Johnny Chung, 
we like your President, and then gave him $300,000 to give to the 
Democrat Party.
  Johnny Chung testified under oath that he was directed to make 
illegal contributions to the President's campaign by General Ji, who is 
the head of China's military spy operations worldwide. General Ji met 
with him three times and ordered that $300,000 be directed to Chung for 
political contributions here in the United States.
  One of its joint ventures was the Indonesia-based international firm 
called the Lippo Group, run by Mochtar and James Riady, close friends 
of the President, and who frequently visited the White House. James 
Riady's chief adviser on political donations was John Huang, a former 
employee of Lippo. John Huang received a job from the Clinton 
administration at the Commerce Department. He later left Commerce to 
work for the Democratic National Committee where, with the help of 
James Riady, he collected nearly $3 million in illegal contributions 
from China. Mr. Speaker, Johnny Chung, John Huang, and Charlie Trie 
together raised over $3 million in illegal donations that we know of 
that have been linked to the Bank of China.
  Over the past 2 years, my committee has been conducting an 
investigation into illegal fundraising, including illegal efforts by 
the Chinese Government to influence our elections. We asked the Bank of 
China to provide us bank records that would show the origins of 
millions of dollars in foreign money that was funneled to the DNC. The 
Bank of China turned us down flat.
  We had 121 people take the fifth amendment or flee the country. A 
number of the most important people among this list are hiding in 
China. When my staff attempted to travel to China to interview these 
people, the Chinese Government denied us visas and threatened to arrest 
our investigators. Does this sound like a country that deserves 
preferential trade status?
  Does it really make sense to give preferential trade status to a 
country that is helping North Korea build a missile capable of 
delivering nuclear warheads to the West Coast of the United States?
  With respect to trade, in the last 10 years, 91 percent of all 
illegal transshipment cases have been filed against China. The U.S. 
Customs Department has cited China for illegally transshipping textile 
and apparel goods through more than 30 other countries.
  Mr. Speaker, in just about every area I can think of China's record 
stinks. They spy on us, they try to buy our elections, they send 
missile technology to just about every rogue regime in the world, they 
are actively working to improve the missile technology of our enemies, 
and they thumb their noses at our trade laws and have one of the worst 
human rights records in the world. How all this merits preferential 
trade status is beyond me.
  I urge a vote in favor of House Joint Resolution 57. It is time to 
show China some backbone and stop letting them walk all over America.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that the Chinese Government 
is in desperate need of reform. Everyone agrees they violate human 
rights. Its leaders imprison dissidents, muzzle free speech, raid house 
church meetings, force women to have abortions, and outlaw opposition 
political parties. However, according to humanitarian workers in China, 
revoking normal trade relations would be counterproductive. They have 
told me that revoking NTR would strengthen the Chinese regime and 
actually intensify these human rights abuses.
  We should listen to these people, many of whom have committed their 
lives to service in China. They know the language, they know the 
culture, and they know the mentality. And I wish to share a couple of 
comments from them with my colleagues.
  Reverend Daniel Su, a member of a Christian house church in China 
says, ``To revoke China's NTR status as a way to better its human 
rights performance is like setting your car on fire when it stalls.''
  I have many quotes which I will not have time to say here, but listen 
to this quote of a letter signed by 32 Christian groups working in 
China. ``NTR is the core of America's engagement policy toward China. 
Taking it away will hurt the Chinese people, particularly those who are 
persecuted because of their religious faith. When U.S.-China 
relationships deteriorate, Christians in China will be blamed and 
penalized.''
  Mr. Speaker, let us listen to these people who have a deep, 
longstanding involvement in China. They are working in China because 
they love the Chinese people and believe that revoking NTR will hurt 
those that we are seeking to help. I believe it is more effective for 
the U.S. to address our human rights abuses through the diplomatic 
perspective. Support NTR.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an inquiry about how 
much time is remaining in the debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) has 18 minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining; and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 21\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 
a champion of human rights; and also, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to yield control of the time back to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, China's human rights record ranks with the 
former Soviet Union and the former apartheid government of South 
Africa.
  One of the proudest moments in the history of our Nation is when we 
used trade to bring about change in the Soviet Union, when we used 
trade to bring about change in South Africa, and we can do it again. 
The reason is quite clear. China needs the U.S. consumer. It gives us 
leverage to bring about change. It has worked in the past and it will 
work again.
  U.S. consumers should not be financing the oppressive regime in 
China, and that is exactly what they do if we extend the Most Favored 
Nation status to China. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution 
of disapproval so that we can speak with a clear voice as to what is 
happening today in China.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding 
me this time.
  In the past, I have always supported normal trade relations with 
China, and this year it is much more difficult because of the response 
of the Chinese Government and the people of China to the accidental 
bombing of the embassy in Belgrade. A country that wants to be our 
friend and partner does not use misfortune or tragedy as an opportunity 
to attack our diplomats and also to damage United States property.
  I have worked with companies in my district to expand their business 
in China. I expected a much different response from a country that has 
such a long history and is known for its courtesy. I hope the 
Government of China realizes they cannot expect our friendship and 
cooperation on one day and then attack our country's representative the 
next.
  Our balance of trade deficit with China bothers me a great deal. 
Knowing the state of our relations with China, it is not the time to 
revoke

[[Page H6458]]

normal trade relations. We need to have cooler thoughts, both in our 
government and in China. By not renewing normal trade relations for 
this year, we invite international competitors to establish a stronger 
foothold while further isolating our companies in what has the 
potential to be one of the largest consumer markets. Again, our 
competitors are not as concerned about the human rights in China as we 
are.
  Also, we need to remember that this is just the annual renewal of 
normal trade relations with China. We have a lot of work to do before 
we admit China to the World Trade Organization, but we are heading down 
the right path, and this is one step in that direction. We will revisit 
this issue again, if not this fall, again next year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this resolution.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this measure 
which would disapprove continued normal trade relations trading status 
with China.
  As we know, NTR trading status does not provide any preferential 
treatment but rather grants the ordinary tariff treatment that the 
United States extends to virtually every nation in the world. Fewer 
than a dozen countries do not have NTR status, including North Korea, 
Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Libya.
  The problem with the underlying resolution, as well intentioned as it 
is among its sponsors, is, I believe, that it will alienate any type of 
relationship we may have with China. And while we have had severe 
problems because of their espionage program against the United States, 
and we all have severe concerns about their human rights violations, I 
do not think it is a country that we want to just cut off relations 
with. I think there are both foreign policy concerns and economic 
concerns.
  Furthermore, I think, in my opinion, there really are two China's. 
There is the old hard-line China that is fighting the new market-
oriented China. And we have a fight going on in the upper levels of the 
Chinese Government of whether or not to move the economy towards more 
market orientation, which we know will bring about capitalism and will 
bring about more freedoms in the countries; and the old-hard line 
regime that wants to stop that. I think by cutting off trade relations, 
as the underlying resolution would propose to do, it would undercut 
those who want to move towards a more market- oriented government.
  Finally, what effect would this have? This would force the Chinese to 
devalue their currency, which would be incredibly destabilizing to the 
region where the U.S. has about 35 percent of its export market. That, 
in turn, would increase our trade deficit here, cost American jobs, not 
create American jobs; and I think that would be detrimental to the 
American economy. So to vote for this resolution, while well 
intentioned, it is, in my opinion, a vote against American industry and 
a vote against the American worker.
  Mr. Speaker, maintaining China's NTR status is important because of 
the significant impact it has on the U.S. economy. In 1998, the U.S. 
exported over $14 billion in goods and services to China, benefiting 
thousands of U.S. companies and hundreds of thousands of American 
workers. In the state of Texas, exports to China provide jobs and 
income for more than 33,000 families; and China and Hong Kong were the 
state's seventh-largest export market in 1998. In Houston, the trade 
ties to China are equally significant. Trade through the Port of 
Houston totaled $577 million in 1997, with exports accounting for 76 
percent of that total.
  The relationship between the U.S. and China has undergone significant 
strain in recent months with the theft of nuclear weapons secrets, the 
accidental NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, increased 
tensions between China and Taiwan, and China's recent crackdown on 
political demonstrators. While these are legitimate national security 
concerns, U.S. security interests would not be enhanced if relations 
with China worsen as a result of revoking NTR. The best way to bring 
about broad and meaningful change in China is through a continued 
policy of frank, direct engagement that enhances our ability to work 
with and influence China on a broad range of concerns. While the 
bilateral relationship continues to be tested, it is vitally important 
that the fundamental elements of the relationship be maintained.
  Failure to renew NTR would further destabilize the Pacific Rim region 
economically and politically at a time when many Asian countries are 
beginning to recover from their worst financial crisis since World War 
II. Revoking NTR would put additional pressure on China to devalue 
their currency, likely resulting in another round of currency 
devaluations in Asia that could undermine the efforts of the 
International Monetary Fund and the U.S. Treasury to contain the crisis 
and worsen our trade deficit.
  Through our continued policy of engagement, the U.S. has worked to 
ensure that China's accession to the World Trade Organization is 
predicated on strong commercial terms that provide significant market 
access for exports of U.S. goods and services. Our policy of engagement 
has also obtained significant Chinese concessions on South Asian 
security, nuclear proliferation, drug trafficking and human rights. 
Much work remains to be done. Normal trade relations will continue to 
advance the process of opening China, exposing Chinese people to 
American ideas, values and personal freedoms.
  A policy of principled engagement remains the best way to advance 
U.S. interests and create greater openness and freedom in China. The 
renewal of NTR trading status is the centerpiece of this policy, and I 
urge my colleagues to reject this resolution and support continued 
trade with China.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will defeat the resolution.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a man who represents tens of thousands of 
U.S. Marines and their families in his district, and a man who cares 
deeply about American national security.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.J. Resolution 57. For the last 5 years, I have opposed 
extending Most Favored Nation status to China. Every year the 
administration promises that our relations with the Communist country 
will improve, and every year China proves us wrong.
  In 1995, Congress extended normal trade status to China. The 
conditions were to stop abusive human rights practices and stop 
exporting lethal weapons. China has not stopped these practices. The 
CIA reported in 1996 that China was the greatest supplier of weapons of 
mass destruction and technology to foreign countries.
  China has not put an end to its long and established history of human 
rights abuses, like forced abortion and sterilization. China never 
lives up to its end of the bargain.
  The Chinese citizens who seek democracy are often jailed, tortured, 
and even killed. Religious leaders are harassed and incarcerated, and 
places of worship closed or destroyed when the faith and church are not 
sanctioned by the Chinese Government.
  Mr. Speaker, what is more frightening is that our own government 
seems unconcerned about the security of America. This administration 
turns a blind eye when China sells technology to our enemies and steals 
our nuclear secrets.
  Mr. Speaker, before we extend this economic advantage to China, we 
must see proof that China is serious about extending freedom to the 
Chinese people and becoming a partner in this world.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H.J. Resolution 57 and encourage my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to the resolution.
  I would like to take a few moments to discuss the effects of trade on 
our economy. Whenever trade policy is discussed, people forget the many 
benefits that free trade bestows on our Nation. Today, tradeable goods 
represent approximately 30 percent of our gross national product, and 
the export sector remains one of the shining lights of our economy. 
Exports have grown rapidly in the last decade, creating thousands of 
new jobs, and these jobs pay considerably more than jobs that are 
unrelated to trade.
  Trade also benefits consumers. As these trade barriers fall, 
resources are able to flow more efficiently. American companies engaged 
in international trade become leaner and more competitive. As a result, 
consumers in all our districts enjoy lower prices and better products.

[[Page H6459]]

  Indeed, the efficiencies created by trade have been a critical 
component to the economic prosperity we now enjoy. I urge my colleagues 
to defeat this resolution.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) a leader in the fight for human 
rights and my neighbor.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California (Mr. 
Stark) for his consistent work on behalf of human rights throughout the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, I am joined with my very courageous colleague from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu) in support of this resolution to not oppose normal 
trade relations with China.
  I do not cast this vote lightly. My district is part of the wonderful 
gateway to Asia. Our local economy is heavily dependent on our trade 
with China even with the trade deficit increasing from $63 billion to 
about $70 billion.
  However, I am acutely and painfully aware of the importance of basic 
human rights for people throughout the world. There continues to be 
major violations by the Chinese Government of the rights of the Chinese 
people.
  I am a firm believer of self-determination for China. China has 
chosen communism. That is their right. However, it is wrong to round 
up, to intimidate, and to arrest people, place them in slave labor 
camps with no due process.
  The time is now to send a strong, unyielding message that the United 
States will not condone mass suffering and oppression.
  We are not talking about cutting off our relationship with China. We 
want to modify our trade relations so that people of China and the 
United States can benefit from a fair and free trade policy.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
opposition to this resolution of disapproval regarding normal trade 
relationships with China.
  Clearly, the United States' relationship with China is complicated. 
Recent events, including the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in 
Belgrade, China's reaction to the bombing, and evidence of spying in 
our national labs have only added complexities to our relationship.
  We are all in agreement that we must take steps necessary to protect 
our national security interests and to ensure that our 
counterintelligence programs prevent future security breaches. But at 
this critical juncture, we would be foolish to abandon our economic and 
political relationship with China and with it our ability to influence 
their economic, political, and humanitarian policies in the future.
  I agree with Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Ford that 
a policy of engagement is better than a policy of isolation. We cannot 
afford to embrace a Cold War mentality that would demonize and isolate 
China.
  A policy of economic and political engagement is the surest way to 
promote U.S. interests in China, to advance democracy and human rights 
within China, and to enhance future economic opportunities for U.S. 
workers and businesses.
  In addition to today's important vote, we must move swiftly to 
finalize a WTO agreement that will bring China into the international 
trade community. The United States is aggressively pursuing a WTO 
agreement for the past 21 months, and Ambassador Barshefsky should be 
complimented for the agreement that she has negotiated to date; and, 
hopefully, it will soon be finalized.
  While a WTO agreement would present tremendous opportunities for U.S. 
workers and businesses, bringing China into the WTO is more than just a 
matter of market share. China's accession into the WTO would lock China 
into a rules-based international organization and bring them into the 
legal framework of the international community through the WTO.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize the problems that currently exist in China. 
I appreciate the efforts of some of my colleagues and remain committed 
to improving in the area of human rights and trade policy and 
proliferation.
  Since the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with China in 1979, 
total trade between our two nations has increased from $4.8 billion in 
1980 to $75.4 billion in 1997. This makes China our fourth largest 
trading partner. China's economy is growing at an average rate of 
almost 10 percent a year, making it one of the fastest growing 
economies in the world.
  In order for the United States to remain the dominant economic power 
in the world, we cannot close the door on the most populous nation in 
the world. China will continue to have a growing influence on the 
world's economy. For U.S. businesses and workers to continue to prosper 
and grow, we need continued economic engagement with China by renewing 
Normal Trade Relations.
  In addition to today's important vote, we must move swiftly and 
finalize a WTO agreement that will bring China into the international 
trade community. The United States has been aggressively pursuing a WTO 
agreement for the past 21 months, and while an agreement has not been 
finalized, the deal currently on the table presents tremendous market 
opportunities for all sectors of the U.S. economy including 
agriculture, information technology, financial services, and 
manufacturers. Ambassador Barshefsky and her negotiating team are to be 
commended for their extraordinary efforts in reaching this 
unprecedented agreement.
  As a member who represents the nation's number one agricultural 
district, I want to thank the Administration for negotiating an 
agreement that presents tremendous opportunities for U.S. producers. 
With respect to agriculture, high Chinese tariffs on nearly all 
agricultural products would be reduced substantially over the next four 
years. It is projected that by the year 2003, 37 percent of the world 
food demand will come from China. America ranchers and farmers are the 
most efficient and competitive in the world. The WTO agreement on the 
table would move to level the playing field and allow U.S. agriculture 
tremendous access to the world's largest agricultural market.
  And agriculture isn't the only sector that would benefit. The 
agreement would also open Chinese markets to a number of U.S. 
industrial products and services including information technology 
products, automobiles, insurance and financial services. Quotas on 
information technology products would be reduced from 13.3 percent to 
zero, and China would agree to adhere to the Information Technology 
Agreement negotiated in 1996. In addition, the agreement offers U.S. 
investment in telecommunications and entertainment for the first time, 
and would subject China to WTO requirements on intellectual property 
protection to ensure respect for U.S. copyrights, trademarks and 
patents. Automobile tariffs would be reduced from 80-100 percent to 25 
percent. American insurance companies would be able to sell a wide 
range of products throughout China, as compared to the current policy 
that limits life insurance sales to Shanghai and Guangzhou. And 
American banks would be able to operate anywhere in China.
  In addition to tariff reductions and other market access agreements, 
bringing China under the umbrella of the WTO would make China 
accountable for its trade practices and subject to WTO enforcement 
actions.
  I support the Administration's policy, and am encouraged by recent 
reports that negotiations will resume in the near future. In spite of 
the recent strains place on our relationship with China, it is in our 
overwhelming interest to finalize a WTO agreement and maintain our 
policy of economic and political engagement. A policy of continued 
engagement is the most effective tool we have to protect our national 
security interests and promote our economic political ideals.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize the problems that currently exist in China, 
and I appreciate the effort of some of my colleagues in remaining 
committed to improvements in the area of human rights, trade policy and 
proliferation. However, I strongly disagree with the philosophy of 
isolation and disengagement, and believe it would be a mistake to 
disapprove the extension of NTR.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), a new member of the Committee on International 
Relations, a strong voice for America's values and American security.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 57, 
which was commendably introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) in direct defiance to the Jackson-Vanik waiver renewed by 
the President on June 3.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to address an issue that we 
characterize as

[[Page H6460]]

normal trade status, normal trade relations, and we want to extend it.
  The implications, of course, going along with that phrase ``normal 
trade status,'' ``normal trade relations,'' would be that something 
good is happening as a result of it and, therefore, we want to continue 
it, normal trade relations. But in reality, Mr. Speaker, nothing good 
is happening as a result of having these trade relationships with 
China.
  Now, we in fact do not export very much and as a matter of fact every 
year it gets worse. The amount of products that we actually export from 
the United States to China is relatively small. A variety of reasons: 
The Chinese, of course the government keeps a number of obstacles in 
place to prevent us from actually exporting our merchandise. And beyond 
that, of course, there is no market.
  Relatively few people in China can buy anything when the at average 
income is $600 a year. That is one problem.
  On the other side, of course, we do import a great deal from China; 
and we say that this is a good thing because we can import products 
that are cheaper, our consumers can buy cheaper products.
  Well, it is absolutely true that we can buy cheaper products from 
China. It is much more difficult for American workers to compete with 
workers in China because, of course, workers in China, for the most 
part, are not paid anything. They are, in fact, slave laborers.
  A recent South China Morning Post article stated, China directory 
contains detailed financial information on 99 labor camps with annual 
commercial sales of $842 million to the United States.
  In other words, we import almost a billion dollars of slave labor 
products, slave labor produced products. How proud does that make my 
colleagues feel?
  Vote for the amendment.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman), our distinguished colleague on the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the continuation of 
normal trade relations between the United States and China.
  There is no doubt that China has, in fact, been a significant factor 
in the economic expansion we have all enjoyed in this country during 
the 1990s.
  In my own district, in Cincinnati, Ohio, we have almost doubled our 
exports to China during that time period. That means more jobs for my 
constituents, more prosperity for the families and businesses that I 
represent in southwest Ohio, and a healthy economy for my area, for the 
State of Ohio, and indeed for the entire country.
  China is far from perfect. The lack of respect for human rights, the 
findings of the Cox report, the situation in Taiwan and other issues 
are serious problems. But none of these problems can be solved by 
disengagement.
  In fact, our involvement with China, our engagement with China is one 
of the major reasons that the Chinese Government is continuing to 
stumble and lurch in the right direction with regard to liberalizing 
their economy in particular, but also relaxing restrictions on human 
rights, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) pointed out a 
moment ago based on the testimony of missionaries who are in China.
  Mr. Speaker, today this Congress is presented with a very clear and 
stark choice. We can choose to be constructive agents for positive 
change in China by continuing normal trade relations, or we can choose 
to be virtual enemies, returning to an antagonistic Cold War style 
relationship.
  I would just ask my colleagues a few questions. Will our Nation's 
best interests be served by putting the world's most populous country 
into the rare category of only six countries who do not have normal 
trading relations, countries like Cuba, Laos, North Korea? Will our 
Nation benefit by denying NTR status to China when not one of our 
competitors in Europe or Asia are not likely to follow suit?
  Finally, will our children live in a safer and more secure world if 
we spend the next 50 years in a costly and distracting Cold War in 
China?
  Mr. Speaker, I support continued engagement.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, there is a grotesque quality to this debate. 
If someone walks into this room, he really does not know whether he is 
listening to people who favor or oppose extending preferential trade 
relations with China because almost everybody begins by denouncing the 
horrendous human rights conditions in China.
  Well, they are indeed horrendous. Ten years ago, I put up in my 
office this poster demonstrating how a single individual with the 
courage of his convictions stood up to this monstrous, corrupt, 
communist dictatorship.
  Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. What moral authority this 
body has, it relinquishes it every year as we debate this issue.
  The future of China does not rest with the communist leadership of 
this country. It rests with the new people who are passionately 
committed to a free and Democratic vote, are arrested daily, and are 
persecuted by this rotten dictatorship.
  Support the resolution.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) our distinguished 
colleague and a member of the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, although I understand and deeply 
respect the arguments of my colleagues who believe it is in the best 
interests of the United States to remove NTR with the People's Republic 
of China, I must respectfully oppose adoption of the measure before us.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact cannot be contested that it is the direct fruit 
of our policy in China engagement which has been upheld in bipartisan 
fashion by five administrations since President Nixon.
  Mr. Speaker, I concur with my colleagues that China has much more 
progress to make, especially in the areas of human rights, weapons 
proliferation, fair trade, and Taiwan's status. However, punishing 
China with NTR removal will not further these meritorious aims.
  An economic war with China will result in disengagement with the U.S. 
I believe this will fundamentally isolate the forces for continued 
progress and gradual reform in China, while propping up strongmen and 
hardliners like Li Peng and the PLA leadership who would relish, Mr. 
Speaker, the opportunity for heightened conflict with our country.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a dangerous move at a time when even China is 
already volatile and extremely unstable both economically and 
politically.
  In the interest of peace and stability for the people of China, 
people of the United States, and the peoples of the Asia-Pacific 
nations, I urge our colleagues to consider carefully the ramifications 
of H.J.Res. 57 and vote against this measure.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), a man who served in Vietnam and a man who 
represents many military personnel deeply concerned about the security 
of our country.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Let us kind of review the bidding here. China has stolen American 
nuclear secrets. China has used hard American dollars that we have sent 
them pursuant to this trade loss that we experience with them every 
year to buy missile cruisers from Russia which have one mission, and 
that mission is to kill American aircraft carriers.
  China has proliferated the components for weapons of mass destruction 
to terrorist nations which have a stated goal of using those weapons of 
mass destruction on America.
  A lot of my friends have talked about this policy of engagement. And 
yet what do we see in terms of China's real view of the United States? 
I think China's view of the United States is one that is seen through a 
very cynical lens. They view America's policy toward China as being one 
that is driven by corporate greed. And because of that, they see no 
reason to change their policy in any of the very important areas where 
we would like to see

[[Page H6461]]

a change of policy because they feel that America's real goals, our 
goals of trying to secure the world, our goals of trying to help our 
friends and allies, some of whom are threatened by China, will always 
be superseded by what they view as corporate greed.
  Let us prove them wrong. Let us pass Rohrabacher.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).
  (Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of extending normal trade relations 
with China and in support of keeping open the lines of communication 
and the doors through which we not only trade goods and services but 
also promote ideas and sell democracy.
  The House should soundly defeat this resolution.
  For many, China's spying and its poor record on human rights are 
reason enough to pass this resolution. But, it's not enough. And it 
would be counterproductive. Ignoring and trying to punish this country 
of 1 billion accomplishes nothing but further isolating the very people 
we want to help. And we risk jeopardizing a peaceful relationship with 
a country emerging as a world superpower.
  The lines of communication and trade must stay open. It is through 
them that the power of American ideals, such as respect for the 
individual and the importance of individual freedom, can be shared. I 
will agree with many of my colleagues who have taken the floor today to 
call this a vote about abortion, but I disagree that a vote for this 
resolution is a prolife vote. I want to keep open the means we have to 
touch those lives and let those poor people know there is a form of 
government that would never allow coerced abortions and force 
sterilizations upon its citizens.
  By engaging China, we have and do make a positive difference. Change 
has been slow in China, but change will continue only with our 
continued input and influence.
  No less important are the benefits to Americans of NTR. We must 
consider what denial of NTR will do for our exporters, especially US 
farmers and ranchers. We're in the depths of a price crisis in 
agriculture. Our producers haven't received prices this low for 
decades. Closing off even one trade avenue would only worsen the 
situation, and it would have only a negligible affect on China's 
behavior.
  By 2003, China will account for 37 percent of the world's food 
demand. That's a lot of mouths to fill. With China's growing middle 
class and their growing demand for our superior products, this presents 
a tremendous opportunity for US producers.
  I urge my colleagues, please don't ``cut off our nose to spite our 
face'' with China. Our farmers and ranchers need this market, and the 
people of China need our ideas and support if they are to bring about 
change in their government and in their lives. Let's keep the doors 
open.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to disapproving normal trade 
relations status for the People's Republic of China.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation has had some serious issues with China: 
China's abysmal human rights record, its alleged attempts to influence 
the White House by way of illegal campaign contributions, its theft of 
our military secrets.

                              {time}  1330

  These are legitimate points of concern between our nations. But 
supporters of this resolution are wrong to state that these issues are 
connected or can be somehow corrected by revoking normal trade 
relations with China.
  Let me repeat what has been said many times before. Engaging China 
through trade does not constitute an endorsement of China's actions or 
policies. As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright correctly stated in 
a letter to Congress, ``Revoking normal trade relations would do 
nothing to encourage the forces of change in China. It would not free a 
single prisoner, open a single church, or expose a single Chinese 
citizen to a new idea. It would seriously disadvantage America's 
growing economic interest in China, rupture the overall United States-
Sino relationship, and place at risk efforts to bring China into the 
rules-based international community.''
  I would hasten to add that revoking normal trade relations with China 
would also jeopardize thousands of American jobs and would dramatically 
drive up prices for American consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the most constructive step Congress can take 
today to fortify our Nation's political ideals and economic foundation 
is to say ``no'' to renewing China's ``special'' trade status. There is 
nothing ``normal'' about China's trade relationship with the United 
States today. It is astoundingly abnormal, with gigantic and growing 
trade deficits.
  This year it will amount to over $60 billion more of Chinese goods 
coming into this country than our exports allowed into their nation; 
over half a million lost jobs in the United States; China, now the 
second largest holder of U.S. dollar reserves and buying political 
influence around the world with that money, restructuring their markets 
and transshipping goods through Japan here to the United States.
  All I can say is our ancestors in the Kaptur and Rogowski families 
came to this country for freedom. They were freedom lovers. They were 
opportunity lovers. I refuse to be a placeholder in this Congress for 
Chinese state monopolies or the Communist Party, and I am certainly not 
going to be a placeholder for some of the largest multinationals on the 
face of the globe who merely want to make profits off the backs of 
those who work as slaves.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57 which would cut off 
normal trade relations with China.
  We have heard a number of bad things that have been occurring in 
China and certainly all of us would concur that they are bad and they 
must change. But there are, I think, a number of issues that have to be 
raised before we deal with the issue of normal trade relations and 
decide what we should do with a country as large and as important as 
China.
  I respect the point of view of my colleagues who have expressed 
support for this resolution, especially the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) who have 
been so adamant on this issue and so in many ways responsible in what 
they have done. We must change that trade imbalance that we have with 
China. That is not tolerable. The human rights conditions in China must 
improve. We all know that. And the piracy of American ingenuity, our 
intellectual products, whether it is our films, our music, we must 
protect all of those things from piracy that we see going on in China. 
But you cannot negotiate and you cannot settle anything if you are not 
willing to sit down at the table with folks. You have to engage. There 
is no way we can ever deal with the piracy issues, the human rights 
issues, the issues of the trade imbalance, if we are not willing to sit 
down with the Chinese and say, ``This is where we need to go 
together.'' It would be foolish for us to just all of a sudden break.
  Are the Europeans, any European country breaking relations with China 
on economic matters? Are the Asians, any Asian country breaking 
economic relations with China? Are the Latin Americans, any Latin 
American country breaking relations with China because of the issues 
that we have raised here that are of concern to all of us? Not a one. 
Not one country that is part of the WTO has said, ``We're going to 
treat China the way this resolution would have the U.S. treat China.''

[[Page H6462]]

  How would we want to unilaterally try to do this and hope to 
accomplish anything, whether on human rights, on trade, on piracy, if 
we are not willing to sit down and talk to either friend, foe or 
otherwise? We must be there at the table to try to get from them 
something. Otherwise, they are going to treat us the way we would treat 
any other enemy, like someone they do not need to deal with.
  What about all the jobs in places like Los Angeles? We must protect 
those as well. At the end of the day it is better for us to engage and 
treat these folks like people we would sit down with rather than as 
economic pariah.
  I urge Members to vote against this resolution.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would like to remind the Members exactly what we are debating here. 
We are debating not whether or not we are ever going to talk to China 
again. We are not talking about cutting all relations or isolating 
China. We are talking about whether or not China should continue to 
have huge tariffs on our products while we let them flood their 
products into our country with low tariffs on their products while they 
keep our products out of their country with high tariffs.
  We are also talking about whether or not our businesses that shut 
down factories here, whether those businessmen should be able to get 
taxpayer support, subsidies for their loans in setting up factories 
over there to use slave labor. Those are the issues we are talking 
about today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, somewhere in America today, 
someone who served honorably in the American Armed Forces will be 
denied care at a Veterans' Administration hospital for lack of funds. 
Twelve thousand young soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will 
continue to be eligible for food stamps because of lack of money. 
Military retirees who served our country honorably for 20 years will be 
told you can no longer go to the base hospital for lack of money.
  Yet this Congress today will vote whether or not to give the 
Communist Chinese a $20 billion tax break so they can continue to enjoy 
a $60 billion trade surplus with our country which they will use to 
build the weapons, the technology of which they stole from us over the 
past decade.
  That is what it is all about. No one wants to say it. This is a $20 
billion tax break for the most repressive government on this earth. A 
``yes'' vote says that, ``No, we're going to treat you the way you 
treat us and charge you what you charge us.'' A ``no'' vote is a $20 
billion tax break for the Communists.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in opposition to this resolution and in support of free 
trade.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason a country engages in free trade is not 
altruism--we do not encourage trade and low tariffs for the benefit of 
a trading partner. Even if the reciprocal country does not lower its 
tariffs we can still benefit.
  Open and free trade with all nations, short of war, should be pursued 
for two specific reasons. One, it's a freedom issue; the right of the 
citizens of a free country to spend their money any way they see fit, 
anywhere in the world. And two, free trade provides the best deal for 
consumers allowing each to cast dollar votes with each purchase 
respecting quality and price. The foreign competition is a blessing in 
that it challenges domestic industries to do better. The Japanese car 
industry certainly resulted in American car manufacturers offering more 
competitive products.
  In setting trade policy we must not assume that it is our job to 
solve any internal political problems of our trading partners any more 
than it is their responsibility to deal with our internal shortcomings.
  Our biggest problem here in the Congress is that we seemingly never 
have a chance to vote for genuine free trade. The choice is almost 
always between managed-plus-subsidized trade or sanctions-plus-
protectionism. Our careless use of language (most likely deliberate) is 
deceitful.
  Genuine free trade would involve low tariffs and no subsidies. 
Export-Import Bank funding, OPIC, and trade development subsidies to 
our foreign competitors would never exist. Trading with China should be 
permissible, but aid should never occur either directly or through 
multilateral banking organizations such as the IMF or World Bank. A 
true free trade policy would exclude the management of trade by 
international agencies such as the WTO and NAFTA. Unfortunately, these 
agencies are used too frequently to officially place restrictions on 
countries or firms that sell products ``too cheaply''--a benefit to 
consumers but challenging to politically-favored domestic or 
established ``competitors.'' This is nothing more than worldwide 
managed trade (regulatory cartels) and will eventually lead to a trade 
war despite all the grandiose talk of free trade.
  Trade policy should never be mixed with the issue of domestic 
political problems. Dictatorial governments trading with freer nations 
are more likely to respect civil liberties if they are trading with 
them. Also, it is true that nations that trade are less likely to go to 
war with one another.
  If all trade subsidies are eliminated, there is less temptation on 
our part to impose conditions on others receiving our grants and loans.
  Before we assume that we can improve the political liberties of 
foreign citizens, we must meet the responsibility of protecting all 
civil liberties of our own citizens irrespective of whether it is 
guaranteeing first and second amendment protections or guaranteeing the 
balance of power between the states and the federal government as 
required by the ninth and tenth amendments.
  Every argument today for trading with China is an argument for 
removing all sanctions with all nations including Cuba, Libya, Iran and 
Iraq. None of these nations come close to being a threat to our 
national sovereignty. If trade with China is to help us commercially 
and help the cause of peace, so too would trade with all countries.
  I look forward to the day that our trade debate may advance from the 
rhetoric of managed trade versus protectionism to that of true free 
trade, without subsidies or WTO-like management; or better yet, free 
trade with an internationally accepted monetary unit recognizing the 
fallacy of mismanaged fiat currencies.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, rejecting this resolution and renewing NTR with China 
will help to safeguard American security with respect to a potential 
adversary, will serve American economic interests, and will encourage 
policies that will allow individual liberty, the rule of law and thus 
respect for human rights ultimately to flourish in China.
  On the security front, NTR and the expanded trade opportunities that 
it brings in nonmilitarily sensitive goods reduces the likelihood of 
military conflict between the United States and China. Countries with 
extensive trade relations are simply less likely to go to war with each 
other than countries without these ties.
  Renewing NTR with China will benefit our economy by expanding U.S. 
export opportunities and by providing American consumers access to low-
cost goods.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, renewing NTR with China will help the Chinese 
people to liberate themselves from the dictatorship under which they 
live. Chinese Communist leadership has embarked on, what is for them, a 
dangerous course. Unlike most other Communist dictatorships this 
century, Deng Xiaoping chose to open China to foreign investment, 
limited free enterprise and engagement with the West. His bet was that 
he could enjoy the economic benefits of capitalism without losing the 
Communist Party's monopoly on political control.
  If we engage China, Deng's successors will lose that bet and the 
people of China will be the winners of freedom. Freedom is ultimately 
indivisible and once tasted, Mr. Speaker, it is irresistible. People 
who enjoy economic freedom will demand political freedom. People who 
read American newspapers will eventually demand their own free press. 
People who travel to the United States on business will see the 
incomparable superiority of freedom and in time demand it for 
themselves.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be about trade, but I 
also

[[Page H6463]]

think it might be about a form of genetic engineering. We are taking a 
gene of the global multinational corporation with its campaign to drive 
down wages and lower working conditions and knock out workers rights 
and we are genetically combining it with a totalitarian Communist 
government which uses slave labor, violates human rights, attacks 
religious liberties, tortures children, forces abortions and attacks 
people who simply want to survive, and the same government is involved 
in the manufacturing of weapons of mass destruction.
  Now, this is genetic engineering and we are combining this and we 
call it normal trade relations. There is nothing normal about this 
combination. We are talking about creating a Frankenstein. We should go 
back to the laboratory and work with the living.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment generally on 
the overall policy that the United States has had with China over the 
years. I think it is important to note that this is not a Democratic 
issue or Republican issue. In fact, even in the good will and 
intentions of the Nixon administration in opening the door to China, we 
might have misstepped even there.
  And so we come to this point where annually we go through a ritual of 
dealing with a country that seems not to listen. I am troubled in both 
our debate and what we are requested to do. And so I would like to just 
offer what I hope as the votes are taken today and as I reluctantly 
vote to provide the NTR with its continuation, that the American 
policy, both Republican and Democrats, both this administration and 
Congress, be focused on action items of what we should be doing.
  First of all, I think that it is horrific, of the siege of the 
American embassy even after the terrible act of bombing of the Chinese 
embassy in the former Yugoslavia which we apologized, I think we should 
demand compensation for the U.S. embassy and its consul offices. I 
believe we should demand, of course, the relationship between Taiwan 
and China, actively engage in making sure that there is a fairness and 
an ability to negotiate and not to oppress. I think that we should 
ensure that there is no transshipment and no dumping along with some of 
the other issues of slave labor. We have been too meek and mild in our 
negotiations. And, yes, we did offer a resolution in the United Nations 
which failed, and I do compliment our administration for doing that, 
but we should do it over and over and over again. And then we have not 
been successful in the trade imbalance. What we need to do is to make 
as part of our key trade efforts, to emphasize small and medium-sized 
businesses.
  The policies with China have been wrong for Democrats and 
Republicans. It is time for the United States to get some guts and 
gumption and to do something about it.
  I rise today to express my serious concern regarding normal trade 
relations with China. Opponents of the resolution argue that while 
China continues to engage in many noxious practices, they believe that 
revoking normal trade relations is too drastic a step and would most 
likely prove to be counterproductive.
  This year's annual vote on the trade status between the United States 
and China has drawn more than its usual amount of attention. This year 
has presented the U.S./Chinese relationship with many obstacles and 
hurdles to maintaining a normal dialogue between our two nations. We 
are all more than familiar with the issues in this relationship 
including:
  The trade deficit with China which continues to widen. Second only to 
Japan, Chinese predatory trade practices have resulted in a trade 
deficit of an estimated $60 billion. This trade deficit is growing at a 
faster rate than that with any other major trading partners.
  The unresolved status of Taiwan continues to go unresolved. The 
Chinese refusal to agree to renounce the use of force continues to 
alarm its Asian neighbors.
  China's slow and often times stagnant pace of reform in the area of 
human rights. The Chinese seemingly have learned little from the 
Tiananmen Square massacre; ten years later they continue to hamper pro-
democracy efforts and religious freedom.
  Chinese efforts to stem the proliferation of nuclear-arms continue to 
proceed at a snail's pace. They continue to transfer advanced ballistic 
missile technology to Syria and Pakistan, provides nuclear and chemical 
weapons technology to Iran, and refuses to comply with the nuclear non-
proliferation treaty.
  In addition to these issues, the United States is still reviewing the 
ramifications of the Cox Report. We are also still struggling to come 
to an understanding of the Chinese government's reaction to the 
mistaken bombing of the China's embassy. The tragic bombing was clearly 
a mistake and the administration apologized for this mistake but 
despite these efforts the Chinese government allowed a violent protest 
to go unchecked and threaten the lives of our embassy personnel.

  Opponents of this legislation have stated that the argument over 
normal trade status is not just about what kind of country China is--it 
is about what kind of nation we are. I agree with this statement 
because I believe that we are not a nation who quits in the middle of 
the race. Our relationship with China is not a sprint but rather a 
marathon race. A relationship begun in earnest during the Nixon 
administration, China has continually opened itself largely due to the 
insistence of the United States.
  The stakes in this year's Normal Trade Relations debate are higher 
than ever. The United States and China are on the verge of a major 
trade agreement regarding the terms for Chinese accession to the World 
Trade Organization. Such a breakthrough would open China's markets to 
American products, companies, workers, and farmers and bring China 
under global trade rules and enforcement procedures. A strong show of 
House support for Normal Trade Relations is important to our efforts to 
complete a World Trade Organization. The China market is particularly 
important for American agriculture, which is experiencing a serious 
economic downturn because of declining U.S. exports to Asia.
  Removing Normal Trade Relations would almost certainly remove all 
hope of reducing the widening gulf between our two nations and building 
a lasting bridge of communication. In simple dollar and sense terms it 
will cost Americans both exports and jobs. United States exports to 
China have tripled over the last decade and supports over 170,000 
American jobs.
  America's relationship with China will go through many ups-and-downs, 
just like our relations with every other nation. Difficult issues may 
require the strong assertion of U.S. interests. But it is vital that 
the fundamental elements of stable U.S.-China relations remain intact. 
Revoking Normal Trade Relations or enacting anti-China legislation is 
not a solution and would threaten America's vital stake in cooperation 
with China on proliferation, security, and trade. However, the United 
States must be firm in its relationship with China on its Human Rights 
abuses compensation for the trashing of the U.S. Embassy in China after 
the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo 
conflict, the continuing trade imbalance that must end, the dumping of 
Chinese goods in other countries to avoid U.S. import laws and many 
other concerns. I reluctantly vote no on this resolution.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), a friend of the steelworkers, a man who has 
sometimes disagreed with me, but always in a very pleasant way, but one 
who shares our basic values and concern for the working people of our 
country and his district.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I got here in 1995 and I certainly was no 
expert in trade matters. So I was persuaded by the proponents of normal 
trade relations that engaging China would be the way that we could help 
lower this trade deficit we had, and engaging China was the only way to 
help China grow and lessen these human rights abuses, and I voted for 
Most Favored Nation status for China in 1995, and I waited a year, and 
it got worse. And in 1996 we heard the same arguments over again, 
engagement was the only way to lower the deficit and improve human 
rights. And I voted for it again, Mr. Speaker, and it got worse, and 
the same the following year, and the same last year.
  When I got here in 1995, the trade deficit with China was $33 
billion. Today it is projected to be $67 billion.
  I have heard a speaker say that there is no argument about the facts 
here, only about what the end result is going to be. Well, Mr. Speaker, 
the facts are this: our engaging China and Most Favored Nation status 
has not worked.
  It is time to try a different approach.
  This year I intend to vote with the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), our colleague on the Committee on 
Ways and Means.

[[Page H6464]]

  (Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, in 
support of normal trade relations.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia 
and the Pacific and a member of the Cox Committee, I rise in opposition 
to the resolution. I strongly support the continuation of NTR status 
for China because it is clearly both in America's short-term and long-
term national interests. Continuing NTR is not about granting a favor 
or a preference to China; it is about acting in our own national 
interest. That is what this debate is all about. Rather than ranting 
and raving about problems in human rights and democratic freedoms, I 
prefer to focus realistically on doing something about them. This is 
not the right forum for addressing those issues.
  Mr. Speaker, ever since President Nixon traveled to China, U.S. 
policy has sought to promote a stable and peaceful Asia where America's 
trade interests could be advanced without sacrificing security. 
Successive administrations have made expansion of trade relations and 
economic liberalization key tenets of our China policy. The goal is not 
only to expand U.S. trade, but also to provide a means of giving China 
a stake in a peaceful, stable, economically dynamic Asian Pacific 
region and pulling that country into an international community.
  Overall, this responsible approach has been successful despite the 
increasingly problematic nature of Sino-American relations. It has 
protected not only our own national interests, but also those of our 
friends and allies.
  The U.S. has convinced nearly every other country in the region that 
the best way to avoid conflict is to engage each other in trade and 
close economic ties. Abandoning this basic tenant of our foreign policy 
with respect to China would be a serious shock and would be an 
extraordinary setback for much of what our Nation has been trying to 
achieve in the entire Asian Pacific region. Mr. Speaker, it would send 
many countries scrambling to choose between China and the United 
States.
  Finally, remember that it is certainly premature to view China as an 
enemy or an adversary, although we can make it our adversary if we 
adopt a policy of trying to isolate and ostracize China.
  There is perhaps no more important set of related foreign policy 
issues for the 21st century than the challenges and opportunities posed 
by the emergence of a powerful and fast-growing China. However, today 
we are not having a debate focused on those important challenges. 
Instead, we are debating whether to impose 1930s Great Depression-era 
Smoot-Hawley trade tariffs on China that the rest of the world and 
China know for our own American interests we realistically will never 
impose.
  This particular annual debate has become highly counterproductive; it 
is very damaging to Sino-American relations with almost no positive 
results in China or in our relationship with that country and its 
people. It unnecessarily wastes our precious foreign policy leverage 
and seriously damages our Government's credibility with the leadership 
of China and with our allies. It hinders our ability to coax the 
Chinese into the international system of world trade rules, non-
proliferation norms, and human rights standards. Moreover, Beijing 
knows the United States cannot deny NTR without severely harming 
American workers, farmers, consumers or businesses, or do it without 
devastating the economies of Hong Kong and Taiwan.
  It is true as NTR opponents argue, that ending normal trade relations 
with China would deliver a very serious blow to the Chinese economy, 
but the draconian action of raising the average weighted tariff on 
Chinese imports to 44 percent harm the United States economy as well. 
China is already the 13th largest market abroad for American goods and 
the 4th largest market for American agricultural exports. If NTR is 
denied to China, Beijing will certainly retaliate against the over $14 
billion in U.S. exports to China. As a result, many of the 
approximately 200,000 high-paying export jobs related to United States-
China trade would disappear while the European Union, Canada, Japan, 
Australia, Brazil, and other major trading nations would rush to fill 
the void.
  Maintaining NTR is crucial to being able to re-engage in negotiations 
with China on its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), 
negotiations which could result in a much greater opening of China's 
markets to U.S. agricultural, industrial and service exports. As the 
pending agreement is export-oriented, it is the American worker, farmer 
and businessman who benefit from increased sales to China. The 
agreement would also institute important reforms that reduce the 
competitive coercion on American businesses to transfer their 
industrial technology to China or for China to require manufacturing 
offsets to transfer jobs from the United States to China.
  Just focusing specifically on agriculture for a minute, it is 
certainly worth remembering that the American Farm Bureau has called 
China ``the most important growth market for U.S. agriculture in the 
21st century.'' The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that, over 
the next decade, 75 percent of the growth in American farm exports will 
be to Asia, of which half will come from increased U.S. exports to 
China. In the China WTO accession negotiations and have been halted but 
which the Administration quite rightly wants to resume having 
mistakenly rejected a commercially viable package during Premier Zhu's 
visit last April, it is China that is making all of the concessions. 
The United States is not giving up anything. In manufactured goods and 
service exports, the news was almost all incredibly good. In 
agriculture, for example, the pork, beef, soybean, corn and wheat 
markets in China that are essentially closed to American exports today 
would be opened significantly with tariffs dropping from over 40 
percent today down to 12 percent or lower. Indeed, the National Pork 
Producers Council has called this deal a ``grand slam home run.''
  Revoking the extension of NTR for China would have the effect of 
scuttling these stalled negotiations during what we hope will be their 
final phase and jeopardizing the substantial benefits to American 
exports and jobs a new trade agreement and China's accession to the WTO 
promise. Revoking NTR would turn our grand slam home run into a dismal 
strike-out. Rejecting NTR status for China is self-evidently neither in 
our short term nor our long term national interest.
  Some have advocated the revocation of NTR status for China in order 
to punish Beijing for its espionage operations against the United 
States. As one of the nine members of the bipartisan Cox Select 
Committee (Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/
Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China) which 
investigated and reported on Chinese espionage, and as a former 
counter-intelligence officer in our military, this Member adamantly 
rejects such linkage. The United States has been and will continue to 
be the target of foreign, including Chinese, espionage. We should have 
expected China to spy on us, just as we should know that others, 
including our allies, spy on us. While our outrage at China for spying 
is understandable, that anger and energy ought to be directed on 
correcting the severe and inexcusable problems in our own government. 
Our losses are ultimately the result of our own government's lax 
security, indifference, naivete and incompetence, especially in our 
Department of Energy weapons laboratories, the National Security 
Council and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The scope and quality 
of our own counter-intelligence operations, especially those associated 
with the Department of Energy's weapons labs, are completely unrelated 
to whether or not a country like China has NTR status. Indeed, revoking 
NTR status for China does absolutely nothing to improve the security of 
our weapons labs or protect militarily sensitive technologies. However, 
this feel-good symbolic act of punishment would inflict severe harm on 
American business and the 200,000 American jobs that exports to China 
provide. It makes no sense to punish American farmers and workers for 
the gross security lapses by our own government of which the Chinese--
and undoubtedly other nations--took advantage.
  We should first remember to do no harm to our own Nation and 
America's citizens. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this Member is strongly 
opposed to House Joint Resolution 57 and urgently urges its rejection.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, we currently have a $67 billion trade 
deficit with China which equates to the loss of 1 million jobs. It also 
is lowering real wages for American workers. Should the working people 
of this country be forced to compete against desperate people who are 
paid 20 or 30 cents an hour? Should we continue a policy where 
corporate America throws American workers out on the street and runs to 
China and hires those people? I think not.

[[Page H6465]]

  Let us support this sensible resolution. Let us end the policy which 
just does not work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.
  I am not anti-Chinese.
  I am not a xenophobe.
  I do not want another cold war with China, and I want to see our 
country do everything it can to establish warm and positive relations 
with China.
  I support this resolution because our current trade policy with China 
is a disaster. We currently have a $67 billion trade deficit with 
China, in a year in which we are experiencing a record breaking $224 
billion overall trade deficit. Economists tell us that for every one 
billion dollars we have in a trade deficit we lose 17,000 jobs--many of 
them decent paying manufacturing jobs. That means that our trade 
deficit with China is costing us approximately 1,139,000 jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that, over the last 20 years, many 
of the largest corporations in America have invested tens of billions 
of dollars in China in the search for very cheap labor. They are not 
investing in Vermont, New York or Mississippi. They are not hiring 
young American workers. They are not re-building our manufacturing 
base. Instead, they are hiring desperate workers in China at 20 or 30 
cents an hour to produce products which are then sold in the United 
States and elsewhere--products not meant for the Chinese market but for 
the world market.
  The result of this whole trend is that corporate profits soar, the 
average American worker today is earning 12% less in inflation 
accounted for weekly earnings compared to 1973. In terms of hourly 
wages, in 1973 the average American worker earned $13.61. Today, in the 
midst of this so-called booming economy, that worker is earning $12.77 
an hour--6% less than in 1973. I should also add that that American 
worker is now working 160 hours a year more than was the case 20 years 
ago in order to make up for the drop in his or her real wages.
  Mr. Speaker, we must stop the race to the bottom. I want to see the 
people in China and all developing countries improve their standard of 
living, but we must help that happen in a way that does not hurt 
American workers. We must not continue to play American workers off 
against Chinese workers. American workers should not have to compete 
against the workers in China who are paid extremely low wages, who 
cannot form unions, who cannot even elect their political leaders.
  In fairness to the working people of this country, we must not 
continue MFN with China.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. 57, 
a resolution to disapprove normal trade relations with the People's 
Republic of China.
  It is clear to see that our trade deficit with China has skyrocketed 
over the years, and hundreds of thousands of good paying American jobs 
have been exported. In 1993 we had a $22 billion trade deficit with 
China. Last year the deficit was $60 billion. Thanks to this 
administration's misguided trade policies, we have traded away good 
paying American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, over the years we have been bending over backwards for 
Beijing. I ask the question: Why?
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. J. Res. 57, a 
resolution to disapprove normal trade relations with the People's 
Republic of China.
  It's clear to see that our trade deficit with China has skyrocketed 
over the years, and hundreds of thousands of good paying American jobs 
have been exported. In 1993, we had a $22 billion trade deficit with 
China. Last year, the deficit was $60 billion. Thanks to the 
Administration's misguided trade policies, we've traded away good 
paying American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, over the years, we've been bending over backwards for 
Beijing.
  Why?
  They need us more than we need them. They need the American market. 
We have one of the strongest and wealthiest consumer markets in the 
world. They sell billions of dollars of their products in our market. 
They need us. They need America. But while they insist we open up more 
of our markets, they've steadfastly refused to open up theirs.
  Then why should we give NTR to China? Supporters argue that by 
staying engaged with China is the only way we can improve their 
behavior. But I would ask those supporters, in the last twenty years, 
have we seen any improvements?
  Has China improved their human rights record? No. They're still 
considered one of the most egregious offenders in the world. They 
prosecute Christians, throw pro-democracy activists in labor camps and 
gulags, and promote forced abortions and sterilization.
  Has China improved their unfair trade practices? No. They continue to 
keep out American products by imposing high trade barriers. They dump 
our shores with their cheap products, but won't allow us to fairly sell 
American goods in their market. Democratic Taiwan, a little island of 
only 23 million people, buys more American products than all of 
Communist China, a huge land mass of over 1.2 billion consumers.
  Has China been our friend in the international arena? No. They send 
spies over to steal our nuclear technology. They continue to threaten 
their democratic neighbors in the Pacific region. They recently renewed 
threats to keep Taiwan from declaring itself an independent state. They 
refuse to join international efforts to control nuclear proliferation. 
They continue to sell advanced missile technology to rogue nations.
  We've given China opportunity after opportunity to show their 
friendship. We've offered our hand in friendship, but they've refused 
to take it. They continue to confront us as enemies.
  A recent article in The People's Daily, a Communist controlled 
newspaper in China, the U.S. was likened to Nazi Germany. Is that the 
action of a friend?
  Mr. Speaker, extending NTR to China is not in line with our strategic 
interests, and it is not in line with American ideals. I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote for this resolution and against NTR for China.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Rohrabacher amendment, and listening to the arguments that have been 
made today that suggest we discontinue normal trade relations with 
China, one of the points that is being made is that we need to send a 
message to China that we disapprove particularly of some of the 
reprehensible behavior that appeared to have occurred recently with 
their government.
  I agree we need to send a message to China. They certainly should not 
be engaged in conduct that is contrary to the very values which we 
stand for and practice every day. But I strongly disagree that this is 
the proper means by which to send a message.
  This is not just a sense of Congress, this is not just a message. 
This is a complete collapse of our trade relationship with China.
  Listen to what some of the missionaries have said who serve in that 
country and care very deeply about many of the human rights issues that 
we have discussed here on the floor of the House today. They have 
argued for constructive engagement to continue in China.
  Let us not set off another trade war just to send a message. The 
United States trade representative has estimated that it could cost 
consumers as much as half a billion dollars in increased prices for 
shoes, clothing, and small appliances if we were to end this trade 
relationship entirely and set off a trade war.
  Now the question has been raised today by a number of very eloquent 
speakers, what has changed since we have allowed normal trade relations 
to continue over the years? Where have we seen progress? Well, what is 
about to change is that we hopefully will have a debate on the floor of 
the House in just a few months about whether China enters the World 
Trade Organization, and this will be an incredibly fundamental debate. 
It will be an opportunity for us to engage China on a broader scale 
than ever before in an attempt to expose them to our values and to 
expose them to more people from our country.
  A number of us met with the premier of China just a few months ago, 
and many of us told him that, as we begin to trade more with this 
country, we invariably will expect more from that country as we expose 
them to our values, as we exchange more citizens on a regular basis. We 
believe democracy will be contagious, we believe our values will be 
contagious because we think that we stand for many universal truths. 
That is when constructive engagement really begins to have a dramatic 
and long term impact, when we begin the debate on WTO accession, and we 
talk as a Congress about how we are going to use that to really have 
truly long-term improvement in the lives of the citizens of China 
regardless

[[Page H6466]]

of what their government chooses to do and the progress the government 
chooses to make.
  So today let us send the appropriate message which is this is not an 
endorsement of policies that China is engaged in that we strongly 
disagree with, but it is a clear recognition once again that a trade 
war is not in our Nation's best interests and that we should defeat 
this motion today.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for 
the moment.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of normal trade relations 
with China and in opposition to this resolution of disapproval. I have 
grave concerns about the Chinese Government. Their policy and practice 
include religious persecution, stealing our national secrets, unfair 
trade practices, and military intimidation of their neighbors.
  Let us be clear. The Chinese government is no friend of the United 
States or democracy. However, I would subscribe to Ronald Reagan's 
philosophy on dealing with potential adversaries: contain them 
militarily, engage them diplomatically, and flood them with Western 
goods and influence.
  Sadly, the Clinton-Gore administration has failed on the military 
front, is suspect on the diplomatic front; yet on the trade front where 
Congress has a say, we should not fail. Maintaining normal trading 
relations is important to the Chinese people, but it is also important 
to California farmers. These hard-working farmers support 1.4 million 
jobs in California, have led the Nation in production since 1948. 
California's agricultural exports to China have risen nearly 50 percent 
since 1993 and now total over $2.4 billion annually.
  With all these exports to China, California sent an equal amount of 
American ideals, moral values, and capitalism.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just take a moment to respond to 
some comments I have heard here today.
  First, we are here to complain about a policy that does not work. To 
those who say that the trade will lead to human rights, this trickle-
down notion, this trickle-down liberty notion has not worked. So we do 
not want to start a trade war with China. I am going to tell my 
colleagues why that is not going to happen.
  First of all, though I want to recognize once again that the name has 
been changed from Most Favored Nation status to Normal Trade Relations, 
and that the name was not changed to protect the innocent. The human 
rights violations continue. As we speak, the regime that we want to 
hand $67 billion to is rounding up people for their freedom of 
expression in China.
  On the trade issue, here is the item: $71 billion. So if we threaten 
to revoke MFN or NTR, whatever colleagues want to call it, the Chinese 
are not going to walk away. Where are they going to sell 71 billion 
dollars' worth of goods? They cannot. The same threat that the 
administration used on intellectual property violations should apply 
here. So they are not going any place with 72 billion dollars' worth of 
goods.
  I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the resolution.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the 
Chair.
  Is there some notion or plan for a quorum call? So we just finish 
this debate in the next few minutes, and there will be no quorum call?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. No.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Then I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. At this point a point of no quorum is not in 
order. The debate will proceed until closing when Members are 
recognized for closing statements. Members will be recognized in 
reverse order of opening. First, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher); secondly, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin); third, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark); and, fourth, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Crane).

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It is just like clock work. As spring 
turns into summer and the throngs of tourists begin their dissent on 
the Nation's Capital once again, we come to the House floor for what 
has become an almost ritualistic debate about trade relations with 
China. Once again, we find ourselves driven to view our trade relations 
with 1.3 billion people through the narrow prism of a decades-old 
statute that was not even designed to fit this situation. Mr. Speaker, 
it is time for us to end this kind of debate. If we are ever to develop 
a truly coherent and a comprehensive policy towards this nation, the 
largest on the face of this planet, we have to break free from this 
debate.
  Our relationship with China is complex, and it is increasingly 
important. There are a myriad of issues that are intertwined in this 
relationship: nuclear proliferation, regional security, the bilateral 
trade balance, intellectual property protection, religious freedom, the 
future of Taiwan, Tibet and Hong Kong, and political and economic 
freedom for the people of China. How can we possibly deal with these 
complex issues through an annual congressional debate that asks a 
single question: Should we conduct commercial relations with China on 
the same basis that we do with other countries?
  Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to take a step forward with me 
today. Vote down this resolution of disapproval and join in forging a 
truly comprehensive policy towards the People's Republic of China.
  I believe to my very core that the most important thing we can do for 
human rights in China is to help bring a rules-based system of trading 
to that country, and the only certain way we can do this is to get 
China into the World Trade Organization. We must help those who are 
reformers in China to help themselves. We must continue to work to 
bring the rule of law to China. We must strengthen our relationship 
with our allies by maintaining a strong military presence in that 
region, and we must be clear and consistent in our message to the 
Chinese government.
  But one thing is clear. This annual debate over whether we will 
continue our political and economic relations with China is never 
constructive. It hampers our ability to formulate a comprehensive and 
effective policy toward the region, and I believe it is time for it to 
end.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a renewal of Normal Trade Relations. History has 
shown economic growth to be an effective catalyst for political change. 
The principles of individual liberty and a freedom embodied in economic 
liberalization will prevail, but only if we have the political courage 
to make the right choice to let them flourish, and that means renewing 
Normal Trade Relations with China.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, last year legislation overhauling the 
Internal Revenue Service included a provision changing the term Most 
Favored Nation trading status to Normal Trade Relations. Apparently, 
supporters of MFN for China decided that changing the name would make 
this debate go away. The debate is the same. Only the names have been 
changed in order to protect the guilty.
  And make no mistake about it, the People's Republic of China is 
guilty. They are guilty of stealing American nuclear weapons secrets. 
They are guilty of proliferating weapons of mass destruction around the 
world. They are guilty of gross violations of human rights. They are 
guilty of a wide array of unfair trade practices. China has already 
been convicted in the court of

[[Page H6467]]

public opinion. The question is, what is this Congress going to do in 
response to China's reckless behavior? Are we going to extend Normal 
Trade Relations for another year, or are we going to stop business as 
usual until China reforms its ways?
  Let us look at Beijing's proliferation rap sheet. They refuse to join 
international efforts to stem proliferation of nuclear arms, continue 
to transfer advanced ballistic missile technology to Syria and to 
Pakistan; and they provide nuclear and chemical weapons technology to 
Iran, and they refuse to comply with the nuclear nonproliferation 
treaty. The Central Intelligence Agency has reported in February of 
this year that China remains a key supplier of technology inconsistent 
with nonproliferation goals.
  Mr. Speaker, the only thing that will really make them reexamine this 
behavior is if this Congress actually denies them Most Favored Nation, 
Normal Trade Relations. Let us not forget that we already have a $60 
billion trade deficit with them. Only Japan exceeds it, and that will 
not last for long. They continue to engage in proliferation activities; 
they continue to engage in human rights violations.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this disapproval motion.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in an imperfect world, we do not have the 
choice of dealing with perfect nations. Certainly, China is far from 
perfect as a nation, as are we, and I must admit I am especially 
bothered by recent detentions in China, and I hope the Chinese know 
that this Congress is sensitive to those detentions.
  But we have a choice today. It is engagement, or it is isolation. Let 
us see how that has worked in other circumstances. We chose isolation 
in the case of our dealings with Cuba. What has happened? Thirty-eight 
years later Castro is in power. Let us choose engagement and look at 
that and its track record. We chose to engage the former Soviet Union. 
Today, they are a democratic nation, struggling with an economy, 
albeit, but a democratic nation.
  The choice today is not dealing with perfect nations; it is a choice 
between isolation and engagement. I would suggest that the policy of 
engagement with China, as important of a nation as it is, makes sense 
for America and the world in the 21st century.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) to be used for 
yielding on his side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).
  (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the joint resolution 
and in opposition to the extension of MFN to China.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and in opposition 
to the extension of normal trade relations with China.
  Our agricultural economy is in a desperate situation and we need to 
move to improve access to international markets. But China has had 
years to prove that it is a viable market for American agricultural 
products and has failed to do so.
  Despite years of engagement and normal trade relations, our trade 
with China has been going backwards and we still face severe roadblocks 
in agricultural goods.
  Let's review some of the supposed benefits the United States has 
realized from normal trade relations:
   Our overall trade deficit had increased from $6.2 billion in 
1989 to $56.9 billion in 1998.
   The average Chinese tariff on agricultural imports is 40%.
   Some agricultural commodities are assessed tariffs greater 
than 100%.
   Agricultural exports to China have actually decreased by 
nearly $100 million since 1989.
  Such a deal! I am sure those that claim trade benefits from this 
relationship have some ``lake front'' property in the Gobi desert for 
us too.
  I believe we must increase our access to international markets for a 
variety of agricultural commodities, especially meat like pork.
  Like many of my colleagues and my constituents, I am concerned about 
the future of America's pork industry. China is a huge potential 
market--there are more than one billion people in China and they 
consume vast quantities of pork.
  Well, let's take a look at how this market has treated the American 
pork industry under normal trade relations:
  Chinese pork production in 1997 was 42.5 million metric tons compared 
to the 7.8 metric tons produced in the U.S. How can we expect to 
increase our pork exports to this market that produces 6 times the 
amount of pork we do when there are agricultural barriers in place?
  U.S. pork exports to China in 1997 totaled only 150,000 metric tons--
less than 2% of our domestic production.
  Overall pork and swine exports to China in 1998 amounted to only $6.5 
million dollars.
  Some point to recent reductions in agricultural tariffs on certain 
products as an indication of Chinese capitulation. Yet, they fail to 
note that China continues to implement several non-tariff trade 
barriers.
  The U.S. Trade Representative reported this year that China still 
conducts import substitution. In other words, the Chinese government 
can and does deny permission to import foreign products when a domestic 
alternative exists, or, given their closed society, whenever they want.
  Look at the numbers I just cited: China produces a lot of pork. NTR 
will not alter this competitive structure.
  Normal trade relations have not altered these protectionist policies 
and will not promote changes in the future.
  Years of normal trade relations have not resulted in a significant 
reduction in trade restrictions. Normal trade with China has not 
resulted in a better trade relationship.
  Instead, China has sold us a bill of goods in which realization of 
potential markets remains perpetually around the corner.
  The result has been an increase in our trade deficit with a Communist 
regime.
  Let's think about that. We can argue the benefits and detriments of 
trade with China all day. But we also need to consider that this 
Communist government spied on American nuclear facilities.
  They stole vital American nuclear secrets. They have the capability 
to strike American soil with nuclear weapons!
  How can we reward such actions with Most Favored Nation trading 
status. That's right--we may have changed its name, but the impact is 
the same--Most Favored Nation.
  What kind of message do we want to send to the international 
community? We can send one of two messages:
  ``Steal from us, threaten your neighbors and violate your people's 
basic human rights and you will reap the benefits of American 
capitalism.''
  Or, ``Play by rules, respect the security of your neighbors and 
preserve the rights of your people, or feel the consequences of your 
actions.''
  Let's send the right message. That America will not be violated or 
manipulated.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against rewarding this country with 
preferential trade status and vote for House Joint Resolution 57.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox), the distinguished chairman of the Cox Commission, 
a bipartisan select committee that was set up to investigate certain 
national security challenges that we face with Communist China.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the President's 
waiver of the Jackson-Vanik law, which, by its terms, requires that in 
order to get low tariff treatment, the People's Republic of China must 
have fair immigration policies. Yet, having listened to the debate, I 
have not heard the substance of Jackson-Vanik come up at all; neither 
the supporters nor the opponents of this resolution have even mentioned 
the PRC's immigration policies. Instead, this debate has been cast by 
the opponents of the resolution as a debate about free trade, and by 
the supporters of the resolution as a debate about political, economic, 
religious, civil and other human rights concerns in the People's 
Republic of China.
  If this resolution really were about free trade, if this debate were 
really about free trade, then I would vote in support of free trade, 
because it is in America's interests and it is in the interests of all 
of our trading partners. It is at least arguable that human rights 
violations are a separate issue from the question of tariff rates on 
beanie babies being imported into the United States.
  Yet, sadly, in order to assure the defeat of this resolution, its 
opponents are whitewashing the government's record, making extravagant, 
that is to

[[Page H6468]]

say the People's Republic of China's record, making extravagant claims 
about the progress of democracy in China; there is none, or the liberal 
limbs of certain of China's Communist rulers. That certainly requires a 
double standard. Or the more favorable economic standards that some 
Chinese find themselves in now as compared to, say, the time of the 
cultural revolution. That is a fact, but it is also a fact that the 
Communist portion of China has an economic product per person that is 
less than Guatemala's, while the democratic government and people and 
society in Taiwan buy far more from the United States than all of the 
PRC and have one of the highest standards of living in the world.
  Whitewashing human rights abuses in the PRC, which is what this 
debate has come to symbolize is not in our Nation's interests, nor in 
the interests of the people of China. It is for this reason, especially 
on a vote that is largely symbolic, because the President has already 
granted this waiver and everyone knows that there will not be a two-
thirds vote in the Senate or the House or both to override, so 
especially on a symbolic vote, I cannot join with the opponents.
  The PRC really does deny freedom of speech; the PRC really does deny 
freedom of thought. The Communist government really does persecute 
religious groups that it cannot control, and it really has jailed 
millions of people, prisoners of conscience, in the notorious laogai 
slave labor camps that Harry Wu has so courageously documented.
  Last year, President Clinton signed a law passed by this Congress 
that required the Secretary of Defense to send us a list of People's 
Liberation Army-controlled companies operating in the United States. 
The administration is in violation of that law; they have been for half 
a year. What that means is that the extension of Normal Trade Relations 
to the People's Republic of China is also an extension of normal trade 
relations to the People's Liberation Army. I know of no responsible 
U.S. corporation that wishes this.
  This debate and this vote is not about tariff rates. It is about 
sending a signal to Beijing. I cannot rubber stamp the Clinton policy 
towards China, and I am heartened that a big number of Republicans and 
Democrats today will not do so either.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, this is not a lot of time to debate such a 
sensitive issue, but I will say this. After having served a mission 
from my church among the Chinese people, after having learned about 
their language and their culture and communicating one on one with 
these people for 2 years in my youthful life, I learned a lot of 
things, I thought, not only about their society, but about our society. 
I have learned one thing painfully clear in my life, and that is you 
never improve any relationship by walking away from it. Right now I 
think this relationship is at an all-time low and I think both sides 
have some culpability in that situation.
  But I will say this: the last speaker was right on. There are human 
rights violations, there are problems with Taiwan, there are nuclear 
nonproliferation problems. But I will say this as well: when it comes 
to the espionage issue, I do not fault China nearly as much as I do 
this administration for falling asleep at the switch. Let us not try to 
penalize China what we should take out on this administration for not 
doing its job. Let us not close the door on a lot of people who would 
like to be able to open up their doors to Christianity, and they would 
not get that opportunity, I believe, if we revoke MFN. Please, let us 
vote against this measure.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) 
has 11 minutes remaining; the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) has 2 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) has 6\1/2\ remaining.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important that we 
recognize that in a community of nations, there are going to be 
differences between nations. And in fact, the differences between our 
Nation and China represents a fundamental difference in the political 
system where we honor representative government; in the economic 
system, where we recognize the value of capitalism and free markets; 
and in the value system that underpins our society where we recognize 
the fact that we answer at the end of the day to a higher being. 
Frankly, the Chinese reject all of that. They do not share our 
political objectives; they do not share our political system; they do 
not share our economic system; and they do not share our value system.

                              {time}  1415

  Does that mean we should totally isolate them and walk away? The 
answer is no. But in the course of relations, there are times when we 
will get along better than when we will not get along.
  But the problem has been that the Chinese continue to engage in 
proliferation, including recent reports that involve proliferation of 
sensitive technology to the North Koreans, of all nations of the world, 
that perhaps provides for us the most complicated set of problems. Yet, 
the Chinese have proliferated to the North Koreans, in addition to 
other nations in the world.
  Secondly, they have stolen our secrets. And to blame us for the fact 
that they stole our secrets I think is really the wrong way to pinpoint 
the problem. The fact is that nations should not be engaging in 
stealing of secrets, which violates fundamental values.
  Thirdly, they have engaged in constant abuse of human rights.
  Finally, their recent relationship and difficulties with Taiwan.
  This all underscores the fact that because they do not share our 
political system, our economic system, or our value system, now is not 
the time to reward them. This is a down time between U.S. and China.
  Does it mean it is the end of the road? Of course not, because they 
live on the same street where we live. But just like when we have a 
neighbor that breaks the fundamental rules of the neighborhood, it is 
necessary for Nations to punish other countries that do not share their 
values, and break the fundamental rules and values that have been 
established in the neighborhood.
  Accept this resolution. It will do this country well, and it will 
send an important message to the entire world.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution. I have listened to some of my colleagues today who want to 
revoke normal trade relations status for China. I, too, am deeply 
concerned that top nuclear secrets were stolen from U.S. nuclear labs, 
but I blame the United States more than I blame China. In my judgment 
the Clinton administration failed to understand the fundamental 
difference between promoting a strong business relationship with China 
and maintaining a strong strategic military advantage with that Nation.
  The distinguished Cox Report counsels changes in our 
counterintelligence and military security, but it does not call into 
question our business relationship with China. I continue to support 
maintaining normal trade relations with China, not favored, but normal 
relations.
  We should not give up on trade relations between our two countries. A 
nation cannot have a prosperous free market economy without educating 
its citizens. The more educated a country's citizens become, the more 
they will demand an open society and freedom. Only through economic and 
social engagement will this transformation truly take place making, 
China, the United States, and the world a better place.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam 
(Mr. Underwood).
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 57, which would revoke normal trade relations with the 
People's Republic of China. I fully recognize the emotional content of 
the debate today.

[[Page H6469]]

  Some have characterized this as a debate about whether China has 
violated human rights and whether China has much of a defensible record 
on religious freedom, or whether they have much of a progressive record 
towards democracy. But I readily concede, and I think most people who 
stand in opposition to the resolution readily concede that China does 
not have a sterling record on any of these items. In fact, it has an 
abysmal record.
  But this is really a debate as to whether the denial of normal trade 
relations will have much of an effect on any of these matters. Closing 
the door to the PRC, and in de facto punishing it with high tariffs, is 
not the answer to alleviating human rights conditions there or 
preventing espionage in the future. This is just simply too simplistic.
  The United States is already tied to the rest of the globe in a 
sophisticated and integrated tapestry of economic, political, and 
social coexistence. We need to maintain our policy of engagement with 
China.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57, which would revoke 
Normal Trade Relations (NTR) with the People's Republic of China (PRC).
  Closing the door to the PRC and de facto punishing it with high 
tariffs is not the answer to alleviating human rights conditions there 
or preventing espionage in the form of stealing nuclear secrets This 
so-called solution is too simplistic a plan. The fact is the United 
States is already tied to the rest of the globe in a sophisticated and 
integrated tapestry of economic, political and social co-existence. 
This punitive act will only serve to harm our interests in global 
commerce and leadership. What evidence do we have that suspension of 
NTR would lead to a conciliatory PRC ready to bend at the will of 
American morality and ethics? None. On the other hand, free traders and 
many observers will attest that NTR suspension will backfire on the 
United States guaranteed. A minimum of 400,000 American jobs, which 
depend on exports to the PRC and Hong Kong, will be threatened. In 
addition, Asia's recovery from the Asian financial crisis will stall 
and further hurt American businesses and workers. Our economic 
competitors would be more than eager to supplant the United State's 
position as one of the PRC's largest trading partners. It takes little 
genius to realize that the phenomenon that has protected the United 
States from the Asian crisis has been our aggregate consumption. This 
measure would be sure to stymie this indeed.
  The political ramifications of suspending NTR with the PRC are 
clearly negative. There is the very real threat of hard-line PRC 
leaders coming to the fore as feelings of American attempts to 
ostensibly contain the PRC are heightened. In addition, our ASEAN and 
Asian allies fear that political instability in the PRC will mean 
instability in the Asia-Pacific region. Americans living in the 
continental United States may feel insulated from the turmoil in the 
Asia-Pacific, but for the Americans living in the area, such as the 
residents of Guam, this threat of tumult, whether economic or 
political, is very real. While the rest of America rode on an economic 
high during the height of the Asian financial crisis, Guam experienced 
an economic depression which has catapulted our unemployment level to 
14% today.
  I am fully in support of improving the lives of PRC citizens, which 
includes greater democracy, respect for human rights, and regional 
stability, but suspending NTR is not the way to do it. Engaging the PRC 
is the answer. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 57 in the 
interests of all Americans.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, as the first Chinese American to serve in this House, as 
a high technology and international trade attorney, I have a special 
responsibility in this debate. I thank my colleagues for the honor of 
speaking now.
  This debate is not about engagement, because we all believe in 
engagement; but not just business engagement, because the business of 
America must be more than just business, and engagement must be through 
more than just the cash register. This debate is about how we view the 
Chinese people and about how we view ourselves.
  Cash register engagement views the Chinese people as just workers and 
consumers, 2 billion strong arms to do our work, 2 billion legs to wear 
American jeans. Full engagement recognizes that Chinese people are 
people like us, people with hopes and aspirations, aspirations to walk 
the path of freedom that we have blazed.
  That, Mr. Speaker, is what this debate is really about. It is about 
who we are as a free people, what are our values, what does this 
Congress stand for; our integrity as individuals. Can we live up to the 
legacy of our forebears, those in this Congress who swore themselves to 
liberty, and in so doing, pledged their lives, their fortunes, and 
their sacred honor?
  In this debate, in this debate I would like to address three groups.
  First, to the Chinese people, so rich in culture and history and 
heritage, I encourage them to strive not just for prosperity but for 
freedom, also, because if they achieve prosperity, their children will 
thank them. But if they achieve both prosperity and liberty, their 
children will view them the way that I view my parents, as ordinary 
people who rose to extraordinary challenges. And in rising to these 
great challenges, they became giants of their era. Just as I measure 
each day what I achieve against what my parents achieved in their era, 
their children will measure themselves against the legacy of freedom 
and prosperity that they can leave them. Rise to the challenge of 
history.
  To the people of Oregon, those who have honored me back home with the 
greatest honor that an immigrant boy who came to this country not being 
able to speak English could ever hope to have, to represent them in 
this Congress, I know that we have a trade-dependent State, but they 
and I understand that the business of America must be more than just 
business.
  We understand that those who came West, whether they came West across 
the ocean in creaking wooden ships or whether they came West across the 
prairie in creaking wooden wagons, they came West not just to get rich, 
they came West to be free.
  Oregonians expect to be represented by men and women of conscience. 
Join me in my vote of conscience today. Stand with me and stand with 
our forebears.
  Finally, to my colleagues in this Chamber, they know what it means to 
cast this vote in a trade-dependent district, but I ask them to stand 
with me and to stand with our forebears who put their lives, their 
liberties, and their sacred honor on the line. Stand with me, and stand 
with all those who would walk the path of freedom with us.
  For the past 10 years we have strayed from the path of liberty. 
Through two administrations we have listened to the siren song of the 
cash register. We have walked into a moral wasteland. What has it 
gained us but 10 years of growing trade deficits, $60 billion in an 
annual trade deficit, more Chinese prisoners of conscience than ever?
  We can change this with a vote today. Let me make this perfectly 
clear. If Members take away nothing more than this from this debate, 
know this, that with our vote today we can make one of the clearest 
differences of our congressional service. When we take this voting card 
and we insert it into that slot, when we insert it into that slot, we 
are literally reaching into the deepest, darkest dungeons ever built by 
man. When we face that red button and that green button, we can 
literally set people free by choosing that green button, because years 
ago, 6 or 7 or 8 years ago when the vote was close in this Chamber, the 
government in Beijing would set people free every single year in order 
to affect the vote in this Chamber. By choosing the green button, we 
can set people free today.
  For us, it is merely a choice between two buttons, green and red. For 
our forebears, it was their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred 
honors. Because of their sacrifice, we have an easier choice today. 
Choose the green button. Choose freedom today.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Seattle, Washington (Ms. Dunn), who will be hosting 
the WTO ministerial this fall.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, by a previous agreement, I yield 30 seconds 
to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Dunn) is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution 
and in support of our continuing policy of engagement through normal 
trade relations with China.
  The open exchange of goods and services has been a critical component 
of

[[Page H6470]]

fostering understanding between nations for centuries. Creating an 
environment of normal relations and ongoing engagement only serves to 
lower the walls of fear and suspicion while building a spirit of 
cooperation through joint venture.
  Make no mistake, our relationship with China is complex and evolving, 
a road filled with obstruction. We have legitimate concerns about 
nuclear proliferation: our own security protection, the security of 
Taiwan and the rest of the region, and human rights.
  So what should be our objective with China with respect to trade 
relations? I believe that liberalized trade with a Communist society in 
the process of opening itself up to the community will some day deliver 
to our trading partners our most precious gift, and that is the gift of 
freedom.
  There is important work being done in China by western groups 
attempting to fan this flame of democracy. The National Endowment for 
Democracy and the International Republican Institute are just two such 
groups sowing the seeds of freedom inside China. Ned Graham, a resident 
of my home State of Washington and son of evangelist Billy Graham, has 
been very successful in spreading the message of religious freedom in 
China.
  His group, Eastgates, International, has distributed 2.5 million 
Bibles in China since 1992. According to Mr. Graham, he can communicate 
freely with his contacts in China because of the proliferation of 
information exchange technology, a development that has been made 
possible by trade and economic reform.
  Continuing normal trade relations with China, the United States' 
fourth largest trading partner, will only serve to build on this 
success. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the honorable chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, by prearrangement, I yield 1 additional 
minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of my friends for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate between those who care about 
national security and the security of our Nation's labs and those who 
care about trade. In fact, national security is our number one priority 
and should continue to be. In a bipartisan way, we are going to work to 
address that.
  At the same time, we can not ignore the very important issues of 
human rights and of religious persecution. Mr. Speaker, I will take a 
back seat to no one when it comes to raising concerns about those human 
rights issues.
  Ten years ago this summer, I joined with my colleagues marching to 
the Chinese Embassy to protest the Tiananmen Square massacre. Just last 
week, I met with family members of the Falun Gong religious movement 
whose relatives are being persecuted in China.
  The fact of the matter is, our national interests are best served by 
maintaining commercial relations with our fourth largest trading 
partner and an emerging power in the Pacific. The key fact today is 
that the very same market reforms that underpin our vibrant commercial 
relationship have been the single most powerful force for change in the 
5,000-year history of China.
  Now, in the last 2 decades, China has undergone a remarkable 
transformation. I should say to my colleagues who have raised the issue 
of Taiwan that, 2 decades ago, in Taiwan, there was a very repressive 
regime. Yet, we maintain commercial relations, and that was key to 
bringing about democratization.
  So in the last 2 decades, if we look at China, it has, in fact, 
undergone a remarkable transformation driven by market-based economic 
reforms and an open door to trade and foreign investment. Now this 
transformation is changing Chinese society and accelerating progress 
towards increased personal freedom, individual economic choice, and 
access to outside sources of information.
  Many thoughtful analysts who study these changes that are taking 
place in China believe that the best hope for freedom and democracy in 
China lies along this path of reform.
  About 10 days ago, I called professor Harry Rowen at the Hoover 
Institution who served in the Reagan administration, in fact one of the 
great experts on China. I asked him if this year's bad news in U.S.-
China relations has caused him to change his mind about the long-term 
prospects for political freedom in China, which he wrote about 3 years 
ago in ``National Interests.'' While repression is a reality today, it 
is just as true that we are witnessing several remarkable pro-
democratic developments in China.
  For the first time in Chinese history, the judicial system gives 
criminal suspects the same basic rights afforded our system. Forced 
confessions have been ruled invalid as a means of proving guilt. These 
reforms have led to a rapid rise in commercial litigation and in cases 
being brought against the Chinese Government. There are even civil 
rights lawsuits that exist.
  Now, I have been following for years, having served as a board member 
of the International Republican Institute, the work of that arm of the 
National Endowment for Democracy. We have been working to bolster 
freedom in village elections. Thanks to our efforts, we have seen in 
rural life a whole thrust towards elections. Today 500 million Chinese 
experience local democracy by voting in competitive village elections 
where half of the winners have been nonCommunist candidates.
  China's Internet users have doubled to 4 million since the end of 
1998, and we now have seen just a report this morning that there are 
going to be 280 million cell phone users there. This is the right thing 
to do to maintain our commercial ties. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
resolution.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about maintaining commercial 
relations with Communist China. It is about maintaining the current 
commercial relations with Communist China. This is not about isolating 
Communist China or disengaging from Communist China. It will not 
prevent anybody from talking to Communist China. This is not about 
banning trade with Communist China or ending trade with Communist 
China. It is about altering the current rules of the game with trade.
  This is about what? H.J. Res. 57 raises tariffs on Chinese goods as 
long as they keep their high tariffs and roadblocks to American 
manufactured products. In other words, it ends the Chinese tariff 
advantage against our products.
  What does it also do? It eliminates the subsidies. This resolution, 
H.J. Res. 57, would end the trading status which eliminates the 
subsidies. Our resolution eliminates the subsidies and loan guarantees 
that are now given to U.S. businessmen to close their factories in the 
United States and set them up in Communist China in order to take 
advantage of slave labor. Do we really want to subsidize businessmen 
this way? This resolution ends that practice.
  Yes, it changes the current rules of the game. Under the current 
system, under those rules of the game where they can have high tariffs 
against our products, we let them flood their products into our 
country, and we subsidize the investment of our businessmen in China, 
in Communist China, to give jobs to their people and put our people out 
of work, give them the ability to outcompete us with our technology.
  Under those rules of the game, we have had a $70 billion trade 
surplus. What have they done with that? They have used it to modernize 
their weapons. With that technology that they stole from us, from our 
missiles, and our weapons systems, they are using that $70 billion to 
build weapons to aim at us and to threaten American cities and threaten 
the lives of every American person.
  Does a government like this deserve normal trade relations? I say no. 
It is time to change the rules of the game to protect America's 
interest, America's security.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel deeply about the outstanding issues with China. 
We have had, indeed, a healthy debate. These are the right issues. 
Unfortunately, this resolution is the wrong answer.

[[Page H6471]]

  I want to talk about trade and human rights. We have to be concerned 
about the imbalance of trade as shown on this chart. We have to be 
concerned about how we integrate a still nonmarket economy and one that 
is not based on the rules of law into a system that is based on the 
rule of law and on free market economy rules. We have to worry about 
that integration and how it is going to occur.
  I very much disagree with those who think it is easy, that we should 
have just signed on the dotted line when Premier Zhu was here. There 
were outstanding issues that needed to be resolved, both in terms of 
market access and also in terms of the role of capital markets and 
labor markets in China when it is still not anything close to a market-
based society.
  How are we doing that? The best hope is to negotiate these issues in 
WTO accession by China. That is the best way to do it. Are we there 
yet? No. Can we get there? Perhaps. If we do not, I will vote ``no'' on 
permanent NTR. If we make more progress, I could vote ``yes''.
  But look, face it, all of our concern about market issues, about the 
imbalance here, all of our hopes to, in a rather soon fashion, address 
these issues will be pulled away from us if we were to pass this 
resolution. China accession, WTO accession negotiations would come to a 
careening halt, not only now, but for the foreseeable future. We have 
got to do the hard work on trade.
  I want to say a word about human rights. I feel deeply about this, 
too. One of my family entered China the day of Tiananmen Square. But, 
look, this discussion every year is not moving the ball forward. 
Everybody knows that, if we were to pass this resolution, it would not 
pass the Senate. If it were ever to pass the Senate, it would be vetoed 
by the President. We have got to do the hard work on human rights 
beyond this annual discussion.
  So, look, the issues are the correct ones. But we need more than 
symbolism. We need more than symbolism. We need to do the hard work 
every day, day-to-day, on these trade issues and human rights issues. 
In that sense, this resolution is a diversion.
  I hope out of this discussion will come a dedication to do WTO China 
right in the interest of American workers and businesses and on human 
rights to every day find new mechanisms to express ourselves.
  We do not take ourselves seriously enough when we devote ourselves 
only once in a year. This is an every-year job on trade. It is an 
every-day job on trade. It is an every-year job on human rights. It is 
an every-day job on human rights.
  Let us roll up our sleeves and do more than symbolism. I urge that we 
vote ``no'' on this resolution and then get busy solving the trade and 
human rights issues that are embedded in our present relationship with 
China.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the 
distinguished minority leader, to close debate for our side.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I commend the leadership of the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) who has truly been the leader 
on this issue. I want to commend all of my friends on the other side of 
the aisle who have also stood and spoken their minds on this issue.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), a new Member of 
the House who comes from a district that is heavily dependent on trade. 
I want to commend his courage in making the statement he made today. He 
obviously did it from his heart and his mind, and I really, really 
admire the statement that he made.
  I rise today to ask Members to vote for this resolution. It is clear 
to me that, on any of the grounds that we must look at, trade, rule of 
law, human rights, that not only has China not made progress in the 
last year, in fact, I would say that they are moving in the exact wrong 
direction that they ought to be moving in.
  Let us first talk about trade. In 1988, the year before Tiananmen 
Square, we had a $3.5 billion deficit with China. In 1997, it was $50 
billion. This year, it will be $70 billion. In fact, our exports to 
China in this year will decline to less than $14 billion. We export 
more to Belgium, a country of 10 million people, than we export to 
China.
  Why is this the case? It is the case because we are not allowed to 
export our items to China. They do not want our goods. They want one-
way free trade. They want to support the deficits they have with most 
every other country in the world with what they can sell to the United 
States. They want to play us for a sucker because we are willing to let 
them do it.
  If we continue to be willing to let them do what they want to do, the 
trade deficit with China will be $100 billion soon, $140 billion, $200 
billion. How much unfair trade do we want to put up with? It makes no 
sense.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) says we have to maintain 
commercial relationships. This much? How much is enough commercial 
relationship to allow them to make so-called progress? This is 
ridiculous. There is no common sense in it whatsoever.
  Now let us talk about rule of law.

                              {time}  1445

  Trade relations depend upon rule of law. Rule of law in China would 
benefit our businesses. Our business community comes to us and says, 
when are we going to get intellectual property protected in China? If 
we do not take a stand ultimately on MFN, how do we expect to get them 
to accept the rule of law?
  A country that arrests people for speaking their minds is not about 
to protect people's property. A country that seizes political 
dissidents is not about to protect our property. A country that seizes 
the assets of foreign corporations is not about to protect our 
property. If we do not take a stand on MFN, ultimately there is no way 
to get China to ultimately accept a rule of law and protect our 
property.
  Finally, let me talk about human rights. Abraham Lincoln said that 
our Declaration of Independence gave liberty not alone to the people of 
this country, but hope to all the world for all future time. The issue 
of human rights is not just an American issue, it is an issue for every 
human being in this world. And the primary reason to take this stand 
today against MFN for China is because they refuse, right till today, 
to give their people basic, decent human rights.
  We remember Tiananmen Square, but let us fast forward to today. There 
is a group in China that wants to practice its own form of religious 
belief, Falun Gong. They are arresting people today who they do not 
want to express their beliefs. They are arresting people in their own 
government who are suspected now of allowing the people to carry out 
these beliefs in China.
  Tell me if they are making progress. They are making progress in the 
wrong direction. When will America stand up and finally say that the 
human rights we enjoy must be enjoyed by every citizen in this world, 
including the billion people who live in China.
  Today is the day to take that stand. Vote for this resolution. Let us 
stand for trade, let us stand for rule of law and let us stand, most 
importantly, for the human rights of the people in China.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.
  Before I get into the thrust of my comments, I think we must all once 
again be reminded that what this debate is really all about is 
extending normal trading ties with China for another year.
  Normal Trade Relations, or NTR, does not grant some special benefit 
to the Chinese. Rather, it simply grants the Chinese the same trading 
status that the U.S. has with most of the rest of the world.
  China is our fourth largest trading partner. We exported $14 billion 
in goods and services to the Chinese in 1998, which supported over 
200,000 high-wage American jobs.
  Revoking NTR would push tariffs on Chinese goods from four to 40 
percent, resulting in an effective tax increase of nearly $300 per 
American family.
  I understand and appreciate the concerns opponents of NTR have with 
the government of the People's Republic of China. I harbor no illusions 
about the benevolence of the PRC's leadership.

[[Page H6472]]

  However, I firmly believe that engagement with China offers the best 
hope for democratic reform there. I have to ask what opponents of 
engagement hope to accomplish by revoking NTR. To my mind, it would be 
a step backward.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and promote, 
rather than stifle, positive change in China.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me wrap up by expressing my total commitment to the 
traditional bipartisan support we have given toward advancing normal 
trade relations with China, and I am talking about all of our 
presidents, President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, 
President Bush, President Clinton, all of them; and most recently, in 
addition, 17 former secretaries of State, Defense and national security 
advisers, all of whom endorse the wise, prudent policy we have pursued 
of continuing normal trade relations with China.
  Normal trade relations supports U.S. jobs. In addition to that, it 
maintains our ability to create a positive change in China, paves the 
way for further trade liberalization, and preserves our security 
interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 57.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the resolution which 
would unilaterally isolate China from the United States. I support 
Normal Trade Relations with China. I support China being part of the 
WTO. China will be one of the superpowers in the next millennium. 
Peaceful coexistence is of benefit to us all.
  Now, we all understand that things are not as we would like them in 
China. But how do we most impact that? I think by engaging them in fair 
trade, our discourse with China since the close of the cold war has 
paid dividends. To put our head in the sand and to back away would be 
ill advised.
  I come to the floor today to again express my strong support for 
continuing Normal Trade Relations with China.
  Since I came to Congress in 1991, this debate has gone on every year 
and every year I have come to the floor to explain how important trade 
with China is to our farmers.
  It is essential that we continue to grant Normal Trade Relations to 
China. China will be the most important market for the United States in 
the 21st Century and granting Normal Trade Relation status is the 
foundation of any typical bilateral trading relationship.
  The recent negotiations for China's accession to the World Trade 
Organization are proof that China is ready to join the international 
trade community and we cannot pass up this opportunity.
  My home state of Illinois is the 6th leading exporter in the United 
States and over half a million jobs in Illinois rely on exports. The 
current crisis in agriculture has placed a spotlight on the huge need 
for increased foreign market access.
  USDA has predicted that 75% of the growth in American farm exports 
over the next 10 years will be to Asia--and China will make up over 
half of this amount.
  China is already America's 4th largest agriculture export market and 
if the administration will complete the WTO accession agreement our 
farmers and ranchers will have the level playing field that they have 
been waiting for.
  I urge Members to vote against this resolution of disapproval and 
urge the administration to complete the bilateral agreement for China's 
accession to the WTO.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, Members on both sides of this debate agree 
that the Chinese government behaves badly, and does things we don't 
like.
  We agree that we want a future China that is more democratic, more 
respectful of the rights of its citizens, and a member of the 
international community that plays by the rules.
  We also agree that U.S. policy should promote a better China.
  But we disagree on the best way to do that.
  One side argues that the best way is to punish China for past 
behavior.
  The other side argues that the best way is to engage China to 
encourage better behavior in the future.
  I agree with the latter.
  If we approve this resolution, and cut off Normal Trade Relations 
with China, we can say we have punished China for bad behavior. But 
will it cause them to release the members of the Fulan Gong religious 
group? Will it cause them to stop threatening Taiwan? Will it cause 
them to drop market barriers to our products, and equalize our trade 
balance? I have not heard a convincing case that, if we withdraw NTR, 
China will make these improvements we seek.
  China has 1.3 billion people. It has a larger landmass than the U.S. 
We can't push China around. Dictates by our government will have 
minimal, if any, effect on the degree of freedom and democracy with 
China. These values are more effectively transmitted to the Chinese 
people through non-governmental means: business engagement, global 
financial linkage, cultural and educational exchange, non-governmental 
organization involvement and, most of all, the Internet.
  The United States-China relationship is very complex, and requires 
careful management and diplomacy. The sledgehammer approach will not 
solicit better behavior, and will likely backfire on us.
  Change in China will not happen overnight. We must be firm and strong 
in communicating our differences with the Chinese government. But at 
the same time, we must recognize that long-term change is best nurtured 
through engagement with the Chinese people.
  I urge members to vote against H.J. Res. 57.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss my deep concerns 
with our continued relations with the People's Republic of China. Mr. 
Speaker, today we must send a crystal clear message to China that their 
business-as-usual attitude must not continue. On almost every level 
China is promoting and advocating policies which indicate an 
unwillingness to negotiate honestly with the United States.
  Whether it be on copyright infringement, use of prison labor, 
religious freedom, military build up, trading of weapons of mass 
destruction, labor rights, the illegal importation of guns into the 
United States, espionage against the United States, illegal campaign 
contributions to United States candidates and general repression of the 
rights and freedoms of the Chinese People, the government of the 
Peoples Republic of China must change their policies. They must 
understand that if we are going to consider their inclusion into the 
World Trade Organization (WTO) they must make substantial, measurable 
progress in all of these areas.
  As world leaders in commerce and industry and the world's only 
remaining superpower, we must set the example for the rest of the world 
to follow on this issue. This afternoon, my good friend the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox), spoke on the floor of China seeing the 
United States as a ``paper tiger.'' That rings of truth. The government 
of the Peoples Republic of China will not take our words seriously 
unless we are willing to back our demands for action and negotiation 
with concrete actions of our own.
  Let me be clear, I do not stand here today advocating for passage of 
H.J. Res. 57. Passage of this joint resolution would send the wrong 
message. I voted against H.J. Res. 57 and was pleased that it failed. 
We should not unilaterally cut off trade relations with China. That is 
the wrong policy and will only serve to fuel the forces of repression 
and lawlessness in China. Today I speak for the development of a new 
relationship with the government of the People's Republic of China. A 
relationship that rewards positive, measurable actions and penalizes 
them for double dealing, theft and repression. I call on the 
Administration to develop new relations with China based on these 
principles before China's government descends further down the wrong 
path.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the 
resolution pending before us today to deny Normal Trade Relations (NTR) 
Status for the People's Republic of China.
  I cast this vote with some reluctance. I do believe that there is 
value to a policy that engages China--the most populous country in the 
world and permanent member of the United Nations Security Council--in 
an effort to move it in the right direction. My vote against the 
renewal of NTR does not mean that I do not support free trade or the 
possibility of including China in the World Trade Organization (WTO).
  Having said that, however, I continue to be deeply troubled by 
aspects of Chinese behavior--behavior that in my judgment ought to 
impede forward progress on the NTR issue. It is because I still have 
grave concerns about a variety of issues regarding China, that my vote 
on this bill will remain consistent with my votes in previous years.
  First, the revelations of the Cox Report raise profound questions in 
my mind about the suitability of conferring NTR status on China at this 
time.
  Second, despite commitments by Chinese leaders, China continues to 
engage in the proliferation of technologies related to weapons of mass 
destruction and ballistic missiles. Press reports only last week 
indicated that Chinese companies continue to sell missile technology to 
North Korea, despite our nation's active efforts to prevent further 
transfers to that country.
  I have also expressed concern in recent years about Chinese companies 
that are owned by the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA). Legislation I 
proposed called on the Defense Department to publish the names of 
Chinese companies exporting products to the United States that are 
owned and operated by the PLA. Despite this legislation being signed 
into

[[Page H6473]]

law last year, this process has not been put into action. The bill also 
allowed the President to take additional action against PLA-owned 
companies by doing things like denying these particular companies NTR 
status. However, the Administration has not taken advantage of this 
part of the law either.
  At this time, the PLA uses U.S.-derived profits to build weapons--
weapons that may well be used against the United States. In other 
words, the PLA continues to run a number of Chinese companies, and is 
able to take profits from these companies--who sell their products in 
the U.S.--and turn around and use these profits to build weapons. Free 
market capitalism is an admirable objective, but it must be pursued 
without supporting PLA.
  In addition, there are the continuing concerns about religious and 
human rights in China. The country continues to pursue policies in 
these areas that warrant condemnation.
  The latest saber-rattling over Taiwan is another deeply troubling 
development in regard to China.
  Finally, I am not able to support NTR for China due to the fact that, 
although we have been voting each year since 1980 to renew NTR, there 
still has not been a sufficient move toward a balance of trade between 
the two countries. We continue to maintain a United States trade 
deficit with China, and over the past decade it has increased from $6 
billion to an expected $305 billion by the end of 1999.
  I am hopeful that consideration of the inclusion of China in the WTO 
will be the start of a move toward more open access to the Chinese 
market, and that it will provide a fundamental change in dynamics 
between the two countries that will result in fair trade practices. 
While I understand the importance of maintaining trade relations with 
China, I also think that it is important that our country be on an 
equal footing with China in regard to trade.
  If China were to resume negotiations on entry into the World Trade 
Organization and reach a bilateral agreement with the United States on 
the terms of participation, the issue of NTR would merit a thorough 
reconsideration. In that case, the primary benefit, in my judgment, 
would accrue to the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint 
Resolution 57, which would disapprove the President's extension of 
Normal Trade Relations--what used to be called Most Favored Nation 
status--with the People's Republic of China.
  Let me stress, I have no quarrel with the more than 1.2 billion 
citizens of China. They are a good, industrious and honorable people. 
But, in extending this trading status, we have to ask ourselves: What 
has the Chinese government--one of the last communist dictatorships on 
earth--done to deserve it?
  The Chinese government's record reads more like an indictment. China 
flagrantly violates the human rights of its own citizens and 
internationally recognized labor standards. It fomented anti-American 
hatred after our clearly accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in 
Belgrade. It recently began saber rattling against Taiwan. And it 
repeatedly has been unwilling to make vital democratic reforms.
  Just last week, this House passed a resolution marking the 10th 
Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the West's victory over 
communism. Ironically, this past June also marked the 10th Anniversary 
of the Chinese government's crackdown on the advocates of democracy in 
Tiananmen Square.
  An estimated 5,000 Chinese were killed on June 3 and 4, 1989, when 
government troops crushed pro-democracy protests. Another 10,000 were 
injured and hundreds more were arrested.
  Has the injustice stopped? Not at all. Over the past few months, the 
government has once again detained dissidents, handing down sentences 
of up to four years in prison for ``subverting state power, assaulting 
government, holding illegal rallies, and trying to organize workers 
laid off from a state run firm.''
  And the Washington Post reported this past Sunday that Chinese 
security forces have rounded up more than 4,000 people in Beijing alone 
during a massive, nationwide crackdown against the popular Buddhist-
based spiritual movement Falun Gong. The government banned the group 
last week.
  At the dawn of the New Millennium, China--in many respects--has 
barely entered the 20th Century on human rights. And that simply is not 
acceptable. Nor should it be countenanced by the greatest democracy in 
the world.
  But the human rights and labor standard violations are only one in a 
series of provocative acts by the Chinese government.
  China's recent threats of military action against Taiwan threaten 
future stability in the region. Although Taiwan's President Lee Teng-
hui has retreated on remarks declaring his nation a separate state from 
the mainland, China has proceeded with ``war-time'' mobilization drills 
in protest of those remarks.
  In addition, the breach in security at American nuclear weapons labs 
over the past 20 years and recent revelations concerning the 
development of the neutron bomb and the long range DF-31 missile raise 
serious concerns about China's advancing military capability and its 
commitment to non-proliferation of weapons.
  Furthermore, China has shown no compunction about violating U.S. 
intellectual property rights, shipping products made with prison labor 
and prohibiting thousands of foreign products from entering the Chinese 
market through a maze of regulations.
  Now, in fairness, it can be said that the people of China are 
somewhat better off than they were 10 years ago. The government has 
extended some basic rights to its citizens. Whether starting a 
business, choosing a job, or watching a foreign movie--these rights, 
albeit restricted, signal some progress.
  But has China gone far enough in adopting democratic policies and 
respecting human rights. The answer clearly is no.
  Undeniably, China is one of the great powers in the world today, and 
our ability to influence its decisions is limited. But we do know that 
more than one-third of China's exports today are sold in the United 
States. In the month of May alone, the Department of Commerce reported 
a trade deficit with China of $5.25 billion and it is projected to 
reach $67 billion in 1999.
  The extension of Normal Trading Relations is one of the few economic 
levers we possess that can spur China to improve its behavior on these 
critical issues. We should not forfeit our economic leverage outright. 
Coddling has never worked.
  I implore my colleagues to vote for this Resolution, which would send 
an unmistakable message to the Chinese government that it cannot 
continue business as usual.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57, a 
resolution of disapproval of normal trade relations (NTR) status for 
products from China. I believe that it is in the best interest of 
United States agriculture to continue, and eventually expand, our 
trading relationship with China.
  U.S. agriculture exports to China were more than $3 billion last 
year. China represents an agriculture market that is vital to the long-
term success of our farmers and ranchers. Agriculture trade with China 
can strengthen development of private enterprise in that country and 
bring China more fully into world trade membership.
  More than 60 agricultural organizations representing producers, 
processors, and exporters support extension of normal trade relations 
with China.
  There are few countries that do not have normal trade relations (NTR) 
status with the United States. NTR status allows a country's products 
to enter into the United States at the same tariff rates that apply to 
other trading partners. In fact, NTR provides no special treatment. It 
allows us to treat all countries' imports in the same manner. Failure 
to do so often has a serious negative impact on American agriculture, 
the first to feel the impact of embargoes and retaliation.
  Recently the United States signed a bilateral agreement with China 
that will break down the artificial barriers China erected for certain 
U.S. exports. China has closed its market for far too long to high 
quality U.S.meat, wheat, citrus and poultry. Under this agreement, 
China will accept specific science-based standards and our farmers and 
ranchers will have access to the vast Chinese market.
  Failure to continue normal trade relations with China may jeopardize 
this agreement.
  Additionally, I am encouraged by the progress made by the U.S. Trade 
Representative in negotiating the rules for China's accession to the 
World Trade Organization. The goal is to open China's marketplace and 
secure China's agreement to trade concessions that result in lower 
tariffs and improved access. Based on the information provided by the 
USTR, if the preliminary agreements reached remain a part of a final 
agreement with China, significant progress has been made. I urge the 
Administration to continue its negotiations. Free and fair trade 
agreements are good for U.S. agriculture.
  International trade is important for American agriculture and for the 
success and prosperity of American farmers and ranchers.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.J. Res. 57.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution and 
in support of extending Normal Trade Relations with China.
  U.S. exports to China have quadrupled over the past decade and last 
year alone, our exports to China totaled over $14 billion dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the U.S. economy is envied by the 
rest of the world. Our economy has rebounded and flourished because we 
decided it was more prudent to engage our trading partners than to 
build walls around our borders.
  We do have the responsibility to actively continue an aggressive push 
for human rights and environmental reforms, recognizing that

[[Page H6474]]

these responsibilities need not come at the expense of our economic 
prosperity. They can and should be addressed in concert with economic 
issues.
  The U.S. policy of engagement ``with our eyes wide open'' best 
exemplifies the vision needed for global trade success in the new 
economy.
  Today, we should renew this policy and defeat this resolution. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this resolution and support the continuation of 
Normal Trade Relations with China.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57, a 
motion disapproving of normal trade relations (NTR) with China. I 
support the continuation of normal trade relations with China because 
it is in the best interests of both the United States and China.
  We must realize that normal trade relations does not confer any 
special benefits upon the Chinese government. NTR status simply means 
that the United States will not impose prohibitive tariffs on Chinese 
products. In return, China must agree to extend NTR treatment to the 
United States. NTR is a well-established principal under international 
trade laws and the guidelines of the World Trade Organization.
  Nearly every American agrees that China has a long way to go in 
providing its people with greater political, social, and economic 
freedoms. Furthermore, concerns about China's development of weapons of 
mass destruction and espionage activities are troubling. If I believed 
revoking China's NTR status would address these concerns, I would 
oppose this extension.
  Instead of turning our back on China, a policy of continued 
engagement will allow the United States to continue to press the 
Chinese government to give its people greater freedoms and a better 
standard of living. Since the establishment of normal trade relations 
with China 20 years ago, living standards for average Chinese citizens 
has increased dramatically. The continued American presence in China 
has provided the people with access to more outside information and 
ideas than ever before. Finally, increased American trade and 
investment in China has provided a foundation for bilateral cooperation 
that has led to a more open forum to discuss sensitive topics such as 
foreign policy and international security matters.
  Trade with China is extremely important to the American economy. 
According to the National Association of Manufacturers, American 
businesses exported $14 billion of goods to China in the past year. 
These sales support roughly 400,000 high-skill and high-paying jobs in 
the United States. There is also the vast potential for further sales 
of American products to China. China has 1.2 billion people--one-fifth 
of the world's population. Its economy will only continue to expand as 
China spends more than $700 billion on infrastructure projects. To 
close the Chinese market to American businesses would have a 
devastating impact on our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, I support a continuation of normal trade 
relations with China because it is in the best interest of both 
nations. American trade and investment in China will afford the Chinese 
people with greater freedom and a better life. It will also preserve 
hundreds of thousands of high-skill, high-wage jobs for future 
generations of American workers.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, the decision that Congress will make today 
with regard to maintaining Normal Trade Relations with the People's 
Republic of China represents another important step in defining our 
future relationship with China.
  The Select Committee on U.S. Security and Military/Commercial 
Concerns with the People's Republic of China, on which I served as 
Ranking Minority Member, found some very disturbing information with 
regard to the theft of nuclear technology from our research labs by the 
PRC. However, the most disturbing findings of the Committee were that 
these losses resulted from our own security and counter-intelligence 
failures. Together with the Administration, we have begun to take steps 
to address this problem, and I am hopeful that our plan will be 
successful in preventing another sever security breach.
  Although I fully recognize the seriousness of these thefts, I do not 
believe that they should deter us from maintaining our trade 
partnership with China.
  Trade between the United States and China is of tremendous benefit to 
both nations. China, with one-quarter of the world's population, 
represents the world's largest emerging market. Although many segments 
of China's economy have not yet matured, the United States today 
exports $14.3 billion worth of goods to China annually--four times 
greater than 10 years ago--supporting more than 400,000 high-wage jobs. 
Within the State of Washington alone, exports to China totaled nearly 
$1.1 billion in 1996, and more than $8 billion worth of goods passed 
through the ports of my state either going to or coming from China.
  China represents a huge potential market for future sales in my state 
for the sale of aircraft, high-tech products, agricultural goods, and 
forest products. For aircraft alone, the Chinese market is worth over 
$140 billion during the next 20 years. Lack of NTR trading status would 
not only jeopardize access to that market, but also bring retaliation 
against our country's trading sectors and hundreds of thousands of 
workers.
  The people of China also benefit from trade with the United States. 
As that market opens wider and the Chinese economy develops, the 
Chinese middle class grows in strength, both political and economic. I 
believe that developing a viable middle class in China is the best way 
to provide a solid foundation upon which an open, democratic society 
may be created. Denying NTR status through this Resolution today will 
run counter to that objective, greatly hindering this transition, and 
is clearly not in our nation's best interests.
  Supporters of this Resolution argue that by denying NTR status to 
China, we will be forcing the government to make significant changes to 
their policies. I believe the exact opposite result would occur.
  If we choose not to renew NTR status to China, our international 
competitors will not hesitate to fill the void that will be left by our 
absence. Effectively, we will be excluding ourselves from the economy 
of the largest nation on the earth.
  In the aerospace industry, for example, the European consortium 
Airbus is both willing and capable of replacing Boeing as the leading 
supplier of commercial aircraft to China. Similarly, I believe it would 
be exceedingly more difficult for our government to make progress on 
curbing the enormous problem of software piracy that robs Microsoft and 
the many other American software companies of hundreds of millions of 
dollars each year. Let me assure my colleagues that in the long run, 
denying NTR status will be much worse for our economic well-being than 
it will be for China's.
  As we vote today to decide the future of our relationship with China, 
I urge members to support continued engagement with China by opposing 
the Resolution to disapprove Normal Trade Relations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 22, 1999, the 
joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment and 
the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 170, 
nays 260, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 338]

                               YEAS--170

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Evans
     Everett
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Ney
     Norwood
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi

[[Page H6475]]


     Pickering
     Pombo
     Rahall
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sisisky
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--260

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clayton
     Clement
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Slaughter
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     McDermott
     Oberstar
     Peterson (PA)

                              {time}  1510

  Messrs. HOEFFEL, SIMPSON, PETRI, and SHADEGG changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ENGEL, Mr. WISE, and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``aye.''
  So the joint resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________