[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.
____________________