[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3292-H3297]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           GRANTING PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TO CHINA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I said during the one-minute speech I 
delivered just a few minutes ago, I am going to talk about this very 
important vote that we are going to be facing next week here in the 
Congress.
  I will tell you during my nearly decade-and-a-half as a member of the 
minority, I often would utilize this special order time to talk about a 
wide range of issues, but during the past 6 years since we have been in 
the majority, since we have been very successful at implementing so 
many of those issues around here, I have not taken a lot of special 
order sessions to talk about public policy questions. But I think it is 
very important for us to talk about this one, because, as I have said, 
the vote that we will face next week that will decide whether or not we 
grant permanent normal trade relations to the People's Republic of 
China, which will allow the United States of America to finally gain 
access to that consumer market of China, is, as I said, at least, at 
least, the most important vote that we will cast in this session of 
Congress, and there are many who have come to me and said things, like 
Leon Panetta, the former White House Chief of Staff, the former 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the former chairman of 
the House Committee on the Budget, my former California colleague, said 
to me when I ran into him the other night, ``David, I believe this will 
be the most important vote of the decade.''
  My colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), with whom I 
have been working very closely to put together bipartisan support for 
this vote, said that he believed that this will be probably the most 
important vote that will be cast during the entire Congressional 
careers of Members.
  I, for that reason, felt it important to take some time to explain 
why it is that this is such an important vote and to try and clarify 
some of the very confusing statements and, frankly, some of the 
inaccurate statements that have been put forward by a number of people 
who are opponents.
  Let me begin by saying that I share the concern that opponents have 
raised about a wide range of issues. In fact, I would like to say that 
I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to demonstrating 
outrage over the human rights policies that we have seen in the 
People's Republic of China, or anyplace in the world, for that matter.
  I am very concerned about the fact that we have an imbalance of 
trade. I am very concerned about the continued threats that we have 
observed from Beijing to Taipei, the most recent one having been made 
today. I am very concerned about religious persecution that exists in 
China. I am very concerned about the people who are in Tibet and have 
been mistreated.
  So as we go through these issues, it is important for us to realize 
that this is not, as many have described it, simply a desire on the 
part of the proponents to line the pocketbooks of the U.S. business 
sector of our economy and worshipping at the altar of the all-mighty 
buck. That is an absolutely preposterous claim that the opponents have 
made.
  Those of us who have embraced this policy do so because we recognize 
that the single most powerful force for positive change in the 5,000 
year history of Chinese civilization has been what? Economic reform, 
reform of the economy which began in 1972 with Deng Xiaoping's embrace 
of what was known as, following the Shanghai  Communique, dramatic 
economic reforms. Those economic reforms have led to some tremendous 
changes that are positive in China.

  Guess what? Not many people are aware of this. There are more 
shareholders, more shareholders, in the People's Republic of China 
today than there are Members of the communist party. There are in fact 
today in China people who have their own small businesses. So we have 
private property recognized, we have a entrepreneurial class that is 
recognized, and we have these very, very bold and dynamic reforms that 
Premier Zhu Rongji has put into effect which have led towards 
privatization, decentralization. He has closed down state-owned 
entities.
  These reforms are things that cannot be ignored. And, guess what? 
These are the kinds of reforms that are based on what we in the United 
States of America believe in, and that is individual responsibility and 
initiative, pursuit of the free market, opportunity.
  Now, I am not claiming that life is perfect in the People's Republic 
of China. In fact, life is not that great in the People's Republic of 
China. We need to address religious persecution, human rights 
violations, the threats toward Taiwan, the transfer of military weapons 
and technology to Pakistan and Iran and other spots. Those sorts of 
threats are very, very important and we need to address them. But in 
trying to address those, we should not consider withdrawing the one 
good thing that exists there, which has been the economic reform.
  Now, I am one who has actually sat down and gone through the full 
intelligence briefing on this issue, on the national security question, 
and I asked myself, how is it that we can deal with the espionage 
problem and those other things that are out there? I say, well, suppose 
we have the opportunity to close off the United States of America, to 
prevent any opportunity for access to be gained in the United States of 
America. But, guess what? We live in a free society today, and that is 
not going to happen. We are not going to see the United States of 
America close itself off to the rest of the world.
  So while we are concerned about things that have taken place in 
China, what is the best way for us to deal with those concerns? It is 
to do everything within our power to open it up, to get in there.
  Now, what we have before us is a vote which will be coming next week 
that, for the first time ever, we are going to not say, as we have for 
the last two decades, simply that China, the People's Republic of 
China, will be able to gain one way access to the U.S. consumer market 
by selling their goods and services here at very low tariffs, being 
able to get into our consumer market. What we are saying is now we have 
the reverse situation, where we are going to, by seeing China accede to 
the World Trade Organization, which, of course they will be able to do 
anyway, so the U.S. worker and U.S. businesses will be able to gain 
access there, we will be, again, prying open that market, with a 
population that approaches five times that of the United States of 
America. We are the third most populous nation on the face of the 
Earth, behind the People's Republic of China and India, which has just 
now gone to a billion people. We are the

[[Page H3293]]

third most populous. Yet the most populous nation is nearly five times 
the size of ours. So, think about that; the chance we have to open up 
that market is one which we would be foolish, foolish, to deny.
  I see this vote that we are going to face as a win-win-win. It is a 
win for our first class U.S. workers, and it is a win for our farmers 
in this country.

                              {time}  1800

  Earlier today a news conference was held by members of the Committee 
on Agriculture in which they were pointing to the fact that an 
opportunity to export U.S. agricultural products into the People's 
Republic of China is a very important thing.
  The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Combest, last night 
took some time here on the floor to talk about the importance of that. 
So it is a win for our workers. It is a win for businesses and farmers. 
I am convinced that when Americans compete, Americans win. We have 
proved that time and time again.
  The thing that I want to talk about this evening, that I believe is 
very, very important, is to talk about American values and our quest to 
spread those American values throughout China, and frankly throughout 
the world. The rest of the world is embracing those American values. We 
know that to be the case, not universally, but it is spreading.
  This building in which I am standing right now is a symbol throughout 
the entire world of freedom and liberty, and that kind of freedom is 
today taking place. I mean, we are taking bold steps forward in China.
  What I would like to do is, again, point to the very serious problems 
that exist there, realize that there are many people who have been 
victims of the repressive policies in China, who have said time and 
time again, and just as to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) pointed out, that it is very, very important 
for the U.S. to grant permanent normal trade relations if they are 
going to have a chance to gain further freedom and further liberty.
  The power of the United States to get those values in has been 
enhanced through technology. Today there are 70 million cellular 
telephones in the People's Republic of China. Now what does that say? 
It says that people are communicating. We knew that the spread of fax 
machines brought down the evil empire and the Iron Curtain. Similarly, 
we are able to get our values spread throughout China with fax machines 
and, of course, the World Wide Web is one of the best ways to get our 
values spread throughout there.
  Just a few years ago there were roughly 4 million Internet users, 
computers in China. Today we are up to 9 million. That is going to 
continue to grow dramatically in the coming years.
  Why? Because the proverbial genie is out of the bottle and they 
cannot put the cap back on it. Yes, they have tried to control the 
Internet, but as someone pointed out not too long ago, a kid can crack 
through the kind of protection and limitation that the government has 
tried to impose. So the genie is out of the bottle.
  I believe that the leaders of China understand that. Why is it that 
they are embracing this? Well, there happens to be a great deal of 
poverty that exists in China, and they know that in dealing with the 
couple of hundred million people who live in poverty in China, that the 
best way for them to see their standard of living to improve is to 
continue with economic reform. That is really what has led them to do 
that.
  A number of my colleagues have sent out letters in opposition to 
this, in which they have somehow described this as a gift, a gift, to 
the leadership in Beijing. If the people in Beijing want this, it is 
obviously bad for the people of China, bad for the United States of 
America and bad for the rest of the world.
  I not only do not see this as a gift, Mr. Speaker, I see this as, 
again, the best way to undermine the repression that exists in China 
and has existed there.
  Now I would like to get very specific and point to a couple of 
individuals who have really stepped forward and indicated that this 
vote will, in fact, be the best way to deal with the human rights 
situation that exists there.
  One is a statement, and this is from a dear colleague letter which I 
would commend to all, that I suspect is on the Web page of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), and I know that that would be 
available to our colleagues, but this is a dear colleague letter that 
he sent out from having met with a number of religious leaders, and I 
would like to share some of the quotes. This is a statement from Zhang 
Rong-Liang, and I will not say who he is because he describes it, and 
this is the statement that he has released. He said, I am a leader of a 
Chinese house church and a co-worker of the Unity Movement of China's 
church. I have been in ministry for 20 years. It will have a direct 
impact on China if it joins WTO and keeps its door open to the outside 
world.
  As a result of it, Christians from overseas can enter China in great 
numbers, thus challenging the ideas and old thinking of the Chinese 
people. By keeping itself open to the outside world for over the past 
10 years, the door of the gospel has already gradually opened as China 
undergoes its open door and reform policy. If China cannot enter WTO, 
that means closing the door on China and also on us Christians.

  Now, that is the statement from Zhang Rong-Liang, who is one of 
obviously the religious leaders in China.
  Now, I am happy to also state that I just received a letter that came 
to me last week from the Reverend Billy Graham. Many people have talked 
about the fact that religious leaders in this country are opposed to 
this because of the problems that exist in China. Well, Billy Graham is 
clearly one of the most respected human beings not just in the United 
States, but throughout the world because of the inspirational 
leadership that he has provided.
  I would like to share the letter that he sends because he does not 
actually come out and say we need to vote for permanent normal trade 
relations because Billy Graham, and I have a great deal of respect for 
him, because of this, does not inject himself into political debates; 
but he did feel so strongly, as we head towards this, that he wanted me 
to share this with my colleagues.
  He says, Dear Congressman Dreier, thank you for contacting me 
concerning the People's Republic of China. I have great respect for 
China's long and rich heritage and I am grateful for the opportunities 
I have had to visit that great country. It has been a tremendous 
privilege to get to know many of its leaders, and also to become 
familiar with the actual situation of religious believers in the 
People's Republic of China. The current debate about establishing 
permanent normal trade relations with China raises many complex and 
difficult questions. I do not want to become involved in the political 
aspects of this issue. However, I continue to be in favor of 
strengthening our relationship with China. I believe it is far better 
for us to thoughtfully strengthen positive aspects of our relationship 
with China than to treat it as an adversary. In my experience, nations 
can respond to friendship just as people do.
  While I will not be releasing a formal statement on the permanent 
normal trade relations debate, please feel free to share my view with 
your colleagues. May God give you and all of your colleagues His wisdom 
as you debate this important issue.
  I think that that is a very telling statement from Reverend Graham. 
He is not injecting himself into the debate, but he knows that next 
week we are going to be voting on this, and he does talk about the 
importance of having a relationship with China which does, in fact, 
include openness and extending a hand.
  I believe that if we look at what has taken place, again, at the last 
decade, that Reverend Graham has said that if one goes back to 1992, 
there were 200,000 Bibles distributed throughout China. Mr. Speaker, 
last year 2 million Bibles were distributed throughout China. So this 
opportunity to spread the gospel, to spread our goal of western values, 
is one that has been dramatically enhanced since in the last couple of 
decades we have had this policy of openness.
  I would also like to share a statement. One of the most prominent 
dissidents in China is a man called Tong Bao, and he lays out a very 
key division about the issue of human rights

[[Page H3294]]

and that aspect of the debate. While everyone supports greater freedom 
and democracy in China, Bao points out that some want things in China 
to get as bad as possible, primarily, through the denial of commercial 
relations. And it is true, there are some who want things to get as 
horrible as possible as Tong Bao points out.
  Now, I believe that since we have observed not a perfect society but 
improvements, we need to do everything within our power to make sure 
that those positive things continue.
  I have lots of other thoughts on this, but I am happy to see that 
several of my colleagues have entered the Chamber, and at the direction 
of my friend from Dallas who is on the Committee on Rules, I would like 
to recognize my very good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) for yielding.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman for having this special order. I 
have been somewhat disappointed, I have to say, at the way this issue 
has been framed, both by the opponents and by the administration. This 
is a very, very important vote, and unfortunately there is a 
misunderstanding among an awful lot of Americans that somehow we are 
giving up an enormous amount to the Communist Chinese under this 
agreement. Really, the exact opposite is true. Under this agreement, 
what happens is the Chinese lower their tariffs from somewhere in the 
neighborhood of about an average of about 27 percent down to a level 
more like the rest of the world deals with, for us to get into their 
markets.
  The Chinese already have almost unlimited access to American markets, 
and that is part of the reason we do have a very large trade deficit 
with the Chinese. That is true. It is also true, there are human 
rights problems with China. The way they deal with Tibet, the way they 
deal with religious leaders in China, all of those things, there is at 
least a strong degree of truth to it.

  I really do have to fault the President and the Vice President for 
not doing a better job of explaining to the American people why this is 
important and what is at stake.
  Recently I had a chance to visit with some people from the 
administration, some of the highest ranking people down at the White 
House, and I suggested that the President give an Oval Office speech to 
the American people, and in that speech I really think he needs to 
reframe what this debate is about. I really believe it comes down to 
this: This is really a debate between those who believe that America 
can compete in a world marketplace and those who believe that we 
cannot. And I for one am not willing to give up on American farmers, 
American workers, American businesspeople, American entrepreneurs, and 
most importantly, I am not willing to give up on American ingenuity.
  Someone that we admire greatly, jointly, Winston Churchill, said at 
the beginning of the last century, when he first entered the stage, how 
important trade was, and he said that the countries that master trade 
and develop the newest technologies and are willing to compete in the 
world marketplace, those are the countries to bet on. He was absolutely 
right then, and it is true today. So this is a debate between people 
who believe at the end of the day America cannot compete in a world 
marketplace and those who believe that we can.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would just say that Winston 
Churchill was obviously one of those on the cutting edge of the 
establishment of what was the initial organization that has today 
become the World Trade Organization. It was in 1947 and it was the 
general agreement on tariffs and trade, following the war, we observed 
an effort made by the free countries in Europe and the United States, 
who came to the realization that protectionist policies, in fact, 
played a role in the rise of the Third Reich. And if you look going 
back to the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, which, I am embarrassed to say, it 
was a Republican initiative, but I should say it was a Republican 
initiative that began as a tariff reduction measure and ended up being 
the greatest tariff increase since 1893, but it led to the Great 
Depression, and I believe and most economists agree that those 
protectionist policies strengthened the hand of Adolph Hitler.
  Well, following the defeat of Nazism, we saw the free countries come 
together and realize that the goal of eliminating tariff barriers was a 
very, very important priority. So in 1947, when the general agreement 
on tariffs and trade was established, that was the goal, and it has had 
a great deal of success over the years, and then in the middle part of 
the last decade, we established the WTO, which has been the follow-on 
organization, heavily criticized by many people in this Congress and 
around but, in fact, it has continued with that goal of tax reductions 
because we all know a tariff is a tax, so it has continued that pursuit 
of tax reductions.
  My friend mentioned a 27 percent tariff level which exists. In fact, 
we export about 600 automobiles per year to the People's Republic of 
China. The tariff on automobiles is 45 percent. Now, under this WTO 
structure, with that tariff level reducing, it seems to me that we will 
have a greater opportunity to export more U.S. manufactured automobiles 
into the People's Republic of China, and in light of that, while we 
have the United Auto Workers and other friends of ours within organized 
labor adamantly opposing this measure, why are they doing it, I ask 
rhetorically? Because we know if the tariff barriers come down in the 
PRC, the chance to export more automobiles is enhanced.

                              {time}  1815

  So what I have concluded is that the pro-union member vote is for 
permanent normal trade relations, because the U.S. worker, which is the 
most competitive and dynamic and successful on the face of the Earth, 
will have an enhanced opportunity to get that expertly crafted vehicle 
or other good into the People's Republic of China.
  I think we have a wonderful, wonderful opportunity to benefit the 
U.S. worker. I think that while a lot of us have become friends with 
some of the union leadership here in Washington, I think that union 
members are being ill-served by this call by union leadership to oppose 
the granting of permanent normal trade relations.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for having this 
special order. I hope the people at the other end of Pennsylvania 
Avenue would realize this is a very important vote. If it is left to 
some other people to define the terms and conditions of this debate, we 
could lose. I do not mean just we who support PNTR. I think the 
American people could lose. If this vote goes down, I think this is a 
loss that will take literally generations to recover from.
  Let me just say in closing, I think virtually every economist worth 
their salt has come to the conclusion that free markets, free people, 
ultimately lead to a much higher standard of living, and that is true 
literally from the days of Venice. If we look at all of the great city 
states and countries that have shown great economic prosperity for 
their times, the one thing they all had in common is that they were 
trading nations.
  We must be a trading Nation. We must be engaged in the world market. 
We cannot ignore China. To try and wall it off now, as we enter the 
next century, it seems to me would be a mistake of historic 
proportions.
  Winston Churchill was correct: Free markets, free people, free trade, 
lower tariffs, ultimately raises the standard of living of all people.
  Mr. DREIER. My friend is absolutely right. I thank him very much for 
his very thoughtful contribution to this debate and for his strong 
support of this.
  I am not going to argue with him, but I will make one point in slight 
disagreement. That is, I do not make it a pattern of standing here and 
praising President Clinton unless he is right.
  In the 1992 campaign, he opposed George Bush, saying that a policy of 
engagement and trade with China was wrong. We Republicans have stood 
firmly as a party for free trade since the failure of the Smoot-Hawley 
Tariff Act in the 1930s. Guess what, President Clinton has come to our 
position on this.
  I can criticize his trade policy, and my good friend the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is here and we can

[[Page H3295]]

 talk about fast track negotiating authority, about his statements in 
Seattle last December, about the fact that a year ago last month when 
Zhu Rongji was here with a terrific deal on WTO, better the one we 
ended up with, the President made a mistake in turning that down. So 
there is room for criticism.
  But I do believe that the event that the President held, which had 
former President Jimmy Carter, former President Gerald Ford, former 
Secretaries of State from past administrations, did in fact bring 
together a bipartisan coalition.
  Again, everyone knows that Republicans are going to be providing many 
more votes for this than Democrats are, because the Republican party is 
the party of free trade. But there are some thinking Democrats who have 
agreed to support this, and I congratulate and welcome their support.
  I would like to continue, as my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Gutknecht) has, to encourage the President to continue his work. I 
think it would be great if in the next week he could go on television 
and make as compelling a case as he possibly can.
  Today the presumptive Republican nominee for President, George W. 
Bush, made a spectacular speech in Seattle, Washington, in which he 
talked about the benefits of trade. So we do need to do this in a 
bipartisan way.
  In many respects, if we look throughout history, trade has been a 
bipartisan issue. We want to do everything we can to encourage that. I 
welcome President Clinton to our position, even though he was dead 
wrong in 1992 when he was campaigning for President. I thank my friend 
for his contribution.
  Let me just say that there is no one in this House who has done more 
on behalf of the cause of free trade than the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe). He is an expert on it, has a great understanding, and has 
provided inspiration and leadership to many of us.
  I had the privilege of attending the world economic forum at which 
President Clinton said in his remarks that it would be a grave mistake 
for the future of the United States if we did not do that. I attended 
that meeting, along with my friend, the gentleman from Tucson, Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe), and most recently he led a great delegation for the 
largest congressional turnout in two decades for the Mexico-U.S. 
Interparliamentary Conference. On a wide range of these issues he has 
done a great job. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe), and I would compliment him on his sartorial splendor at 
the same time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) for taking this special order tonight, and I thank him for his 
statements.
  As I was listening to his opening remarks, it occurred to me that 
those of us who have been proponents of permanent normal trade 
relations, of developing this relationship with China, have perhaps 
been falling down on the job. We have been so busy talking to our 
colleagues, so busy working the issue, that we have not really taken 
the time I think sometimes to explain not only to our colleagues but to 
the American people the benefits that flow from permanent normal trade 
relations with China.
  I think those benefits are many. We have heard many of them talked 
about here tonight, particularly in the economic area. I thought I 
would just emphasize one that perhaps has not yet been talked about. 
That is what I believe is the importance of this vote, this decision to 
grant PNTR to China as it relates to what I would call a national 
security issue for the United States.
  It is an important national security issue. In fact, I would argue 
that this may be the most important national security issue that any of 
us in this Congress will face in these 2 years, or perhaps in the last 
decade.
  As we have seen the end of the Cold War come a decade ago, we have 
now struggled as the United States has tried to find exactly its role 
in the world. Today I think we clearly can see that the U.S.-China 
relationship is going to be the most significant relationship that will 
occupy the face of the Earth over the next 50 years.
  We have an opportunity to get this right, to not find ourselves 
thrust into another cold war, as we did at the end of World War II, but 
to have the opportunity to engage China, not necessarily to agree with 
them, not necessarily always to be friends with them, but to have a 
constructive engagement so we can have a dialogue, a political 
dialogue, as well as an economic dialogue with China.
  I believe that when we do that, that both countries will benefit and 
the world will benefit because the United States and China are engaged 
in a constructive dialogue.
  We do not need to spend more of our money than we have to, than we 
should have to, on arms. We do not need to spend it in fearing a 
confrontation with this large country. We need to be engaged with them. 
That is why I believe this is of such importance.
  I think the Chinese understand that, as well. Zhu Rongji knows very 
well that his opportunity to cut the cord from the State-owned 
industries in China depend on his joining the global forces that are at 
work around this Earth today. He knows becoming a member of the World 
Trade Organization is absolutely critical to doing that. So he is 
fighting his own battle within China.
  Perhaps that is not well understood by some of the people here in 
this body or in the United States, but he has his own struggle against 
those who would not seek reform in China. He clearly stands on the path 
towards reform.
  In helping China become a member of the World Trade Organization 
through granting permanent normal trade relations so we can have this 
relationship ourselves with China strengthens the hand of reformers in 
China. I am convinced, and I know my colleague knows as well, believes 
this as well, that with economic reforms, political reforms will 
follow.
  We saw that in Taiwan, we have seen that in South Korea. We have seen 
it even more recently in Mexico, a neighbor directly to our south, as 
they are going through major political changes today. Economic reform 
leads to political reform. When people have choices in the economy, 
when they have more opportunities, more wealth, more choices of the 
goods they have, they will also want to have the same choices in the 
political realm.
  I believe very strongly that this is a national security issue for 
the United States. Those who would vote against it because they believe 
that China is an adversary of ours need to think twice about that, 
because indeed, we have an opportunity not to let them become an 
adversary, but to have them on a constructive path, not always where we 
are going to agree with them, not always where we are going to be 
friends with China, but to at least engage them. I believe that is why 
this vote is so important.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful 
contribution. I will say that as the gentleman was speaking, I was 
reminiscing in my mind about 7 years ago when we stood at this table as 
a team debating the question, should U.S. trade policy be used to 
enforce human rights.
  We took the negative in one of the three Oxford-style debates that 
were held here in the Congress. One line that we used over and over and 
over again was that trade promotes private enterprise, which creates 
wealth, which improves living standards, which undermines political 
repression.
  When my friend mentioned Taiwan and South Korea, and the fact that we 
are going to be seeing on July 2 a very historic election, for the 
first time in seven decades we may see an opposition party in fact win 
the election there.
  It is just an incredible thing to see the kind of political pluralism 
that has spread throughout Mexico, but also in this hemisphere two 
other countries that immediately come to mind in the last decade and a 
half, countries in which we have had very strong economic engagement 
and we have brought about political reform, who can possibly forget the 
very repressive human rights policies that existed in Chile?
  In that country we for years saw a strong economy. They were the only 
country during the decade of the 1970s and 1980s that was successfully 
servicing its debt as many other countries in South America were having 
a great deal of economic difficulty. We maintained strong ties there. 
That economic involvement I believe played a

[[Page H3296]]

big role in bringing about political pluralism, the recognition of 
human rights, and an overthrow and change of the repressive policies of 
Augusto Pinochet.

  Similarly, in Argentina we saw very repressive policies, and again, 
bold economic reforms there. In fact, they moved in many ways in 
Argentina, as we know, more boldly than the United States in the area 
of economic reform, and that brought about the recognition of political 
freedom. So the way my friend appropriately described the 
interdependence of economic and political freedom is right on target.
  I am happy to further yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Very briefly, because I also have an obligation downtown, 
and I know there are other people waiting to speak here this evening, 
but I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I also want to thank him 
for taking this special order tonight.
  As I do, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership. There has 
been nobody in this House of Representatives that over the years has 
been as stalwart on this issue as the gentleman has been. His 
leadership now in the Committee on Rules has been absolutely essential 
to this. I think this country owes him a tremendous debt of gratitude. 
I am very grateful to him. It is a great opportunity and a privilege to 
work with the gentleman on this issue.
  Frankly, I look forward and I am confident that we will have victory 
next week on this issue, because I believe the American people want to 
see us have this permanent normal trade relations with China.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman very much. If the gentleman was to 
continue those sorts of kind remarks, I would hope that the gentleman 
would cancel that event that the gentleman is headed to downtown and 
continue talking that way. I understand that the gentleman has probably 
said all the nice things about me that he possibly could, so he should 
get off to his event now.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Dallas, Texas 
(Mr. Sessions), my good friend and an able member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my 
chairman, for yielding to me, and would like to pick up on the same 
comments that our colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) 
talked about.
  For those who are listening to this, I would say to my chairman that 
we have just ended just a few minutes ago the meeting that we had, what 
is called a whip meeting, the permanent normal trade relations meeting. 
A good number of Members are around and very excited.
  We had a great report today not only about the status, what we call 
the whip check, but we also took comments and feedback from a number of 
Members of not only their concerns but also their ideas about what this 
all entails, what this PNTR stands for, the importance not only for 
America, but we broke it down during this meeting. We talked about the 
farmers, we talked about middle America, we talked about the importance 
of them being able to open up markets and get markets around the globe 
that will be available to them; in particular, China.
  How about if the people from Texas or the Midwest were able to sell 
an extra just one, one hamburger a day to every person in China? A 
billion hamburgers a day would be consumed. We talked about people who 
are in telecommunications and commerce in this country, the things that 
they develop. We know that many times it is not only goods and 
services, but it also includes intellectual property, the things that 
are developed as a result of the computer age, the technology that 
America has.

                              {time}  1830

  And what is put at risk by this and China becoming a member of the 
WTO is nothing less than as I or United States Customs officials will 
tell us, them being in China and going throughout the stores in China, 
which in some sense are just like America, they have the Wal-Marts and 
the Biz-Marts and the everything marts, but on their shelves are many 
of the same items that we would have in America by a different name, 
because you see they do not have to follow the trade policies of the 
general world community.
  They can have what are called pirated software, pirated pieces of 
information, and that is the intellectual property that belongs to 
America. When they are a part of normal trade relations and WTO, they 
will participate with America and be trading partners. They will be 
interested in making sure that what is on theirselves is a relationship 
between the American company that makes this and the Chinese worker 
that will buy it.
  Continuous improvement, we talked about that being at risk. We talked 
about what is being at risk in terms of the ability that we have in our 
country to ensure that our national security, as well as the freedom in 
China is further. I can think of no better relationship to have with 
the country to continue being friends then to reach out to them and 
offer them not only the handshake of economic opportunity and trade, 
but also for them to become more like America. This is how they become 
more like America.
  Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time on that point, I would say our 
quest to have them become more like America is one which is, as my 
friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has said very 
appropriately, is recognition of the rule of law, and he touched on the 
fact that piracy has existed, the so-called intellectual property 
debate, and it is an important one. The promotion of the rule of law is 
key to that relationship.
  And we have made great strides in our quest to improve it. I know of 
people in this government who have been working very hard for years to 
try and promote that rule of law, because that, again, recognition of 
private property and, again, intellectual property is something that we 
cannot ignore and is a very important part of the debate.
  And one person who I think has underscored the importance of that has 
been Martin Lee, who a week before last met up in our Committee on 
Rules office and talked with a few of our colleagues about the issue. 
Martin Lee is someone who some may have forgotten. If we go back nearly 
3 years ago, to 1997, when we observed the handover of Hong Kong from 
British colonial rule to the People's Republic of China, Martin Lee has 
been on the cutting edge in Hong Kong as the greatest promoter of 
democracy and freedom and human rights.
  He came to Washington as the great champion of human rights and 
democracy in Hong Kong to say that he believed that it is so important 
that we grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Now, this is not 
someone who is involved with industry and all the disparaging remarks 
that have been made by opponents of Permanent Normal Trade Relations. 
He is not a part of that camp.
  He is one who simply focuses on democracy, the rule of law, freedom 
and opportunity, and he has made great sacrifices in the pursuit of 
that. And in his statement, he said that China's WTO membership, and I 
quote, would not only have economic and political benefits but would 
serve to bolster those in China who understand that the country must 
embrace the rule of law.
  He understands that it is very key to the promotion of the rule of 
law for China to become a member of the World Trade Organization.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is this infancy that we are talking 
about of the idea of democracy, a fair play of world order, and what is 
interesting is that reformers in China are those who are asking for 
America to recognize them and for what they are trying to accomplish. 
That is why PNTR; that is why WTO.
  And after watching China, and I know the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Dreier), not only as a Member of Congress for a longer period 
of time, but also just his esteemed vision of China for quite some 
time. We know that what happens is that when China joins this 
organization of world nations that what they will do is then begin to 
have a different agenda and instead of it being an adversarial one 
where, perhaps, it might manifest itself in the use of force, I believe 
and they believe that it will manifest itself to looking inward to 
China.

[[Page H3297]]

  The changes I believe and others espouse is that foreign or outside 
pressure will not be that which is the catalyst for change in China. It 
will be what is inside that comes from the people, that comes from the 
heart, which comes from their own ingenuity, which comes from their own 
spirit for freedom. And if we are able to match our can-do attitude, 
American ingenuity, with Chinese desire, we can create a catalyst that 
will change even the coldest heart. It is these things that America 
needs to stand for.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is why it is so 
important to recognize that we should not considering withdrawing the 
one good thing which is encouraging that reform there. It is the 
Chinese people who are going to in fact lift themselves up and improve 
their standard of living so that they are able to buy more U.S. goods 
and services, and if we decide that we are going to pull up the 
drawbridge and erect some kind of barrier, letting the rest of the 
world into that market but cutting the United States of America out, we 
would be, for lack of a better term, cutting off our nose to spite our 
face.
  I believe that if we look at a tiny spot of 24 million people, the 
Island of Taiwan, known as the Republic of China, where Chiang Kai-Shek 
in the latter part of the 1940s, 1949 fled trying to get away from the 
Communism that had taken over in China. This is a wonderful, wonderful 
spot, and these are people who have desperately sought and have now 
been able to successfully obtain freedom, and they unfortunately are 
being targeted often by Beijing, and it is wrong.
  I am a strong supporter of the Taiwan Relations Act we passed. And I 
voted for the Taiwan Security Act here, but it is important to note 
that the candidate who, according to news reports, was the least 
desirable candidate on the part of Beijing was elected President of 
Taiwan. His name is Chen Shui-bian and he had an interview with the Los 
Angeles Times the morning after his election, and in that interview he 
said that one of the most important things that needed to take place 
was for the People's Republic of China to become a member of the World 
Trade Organization.
  Taiwan is, as I say, a small island with 24 million people, 
juxtaposed to the nearly 1.3 billion people in the People's Republic of 
China, but they stand for the things that we as Americans embrace, and 
something that I like to point to is the fact that they are playing a 
role just as the United States is in extending freedom throughout 
China, because there are 46,000 businesses on the mainland that are 
owned by Taiwanese nationals.
  They, too, are working to pursue that, to encourage the people of 
China, to improve their standard of living, so they will be able to 
again be the beneficiaries of the U.S. manufactured goods and services 
which we finally achieve as they lower those tariffs and live with the 
rules based trading system in China by opening up their markets for us.
  I think that Ronald Reagan, and I was honored to have been elected to 
the Congress the same day he was elected President of the United States 
back in 1980, and he said, if we give people a taste of freedom, they 
will thirst for more, and that is why when I said earlier that the 
genie is out of the bottle, the people of China are getting a taste of 
freedom, and the technological changes which have taken place here in 
the United States and throughout the world have eliminated so many of 
these barriers that existed in the past.
  Thank heavens that genie is out of the bottle and so they have gotten 
that taste of freedom, and it is obvious that the people of China are 
thirsting for more. And so it would be a great disservice if we as the 
greatest Nation on the face of the Earth, the symbol of freedom for the 
world were to say you go it on your own and we are not going to stand 
up for the principles that make this country so great.
  I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution. I know that 
he is here, and we in about 3\1/2\ hours are going to be meeting in the 
Committee on Rules on the Department of Defense authorization bill, and 
we have got lots of work ahead of us. As I said at the outset, this is 
the most important vote that we will cast at least in this session of 
Congress.
  I hope very much that the American people will understand how key 
this is to our global leadership and the need for us to maintain our 
economic prosperity and will urge my colleagues to vote in support of 
it.

                          ____________________