[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 63 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3464-H3472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOST FAVORED NATION TRADE STATUS FOR PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for delaying the Chair, and I
thank the Chair for its patience.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take to the floor this afternoon to
continue our discussion on most favored nation trade status with the
People's Republic of China.
As I have said before, the problem that we are faced with, the
challenges and the choices that confront us here, are support for our
basic cherished values; the right to practice one's religion; the right
to assemble and organize and collectively bargain for a decent wage and
benefits and health care, and all the things that many of our citizens
enjoy; the right to form political organizations so that ideas, such as
good wages, decent working conditions, health care, good educational
opportunities, can flow from political participation. All of these
rights are kind of central to this debate on China, because in China
today they do not enjoy what we enjoy here, and that is the ability to
do these things.
China is a brutal, authoritarian police state. If the government is
disagreed with, if one tries to form a political organization, if an
individual tries to form a religious organization, if someone tries to
form a trade union, they will end up in jail. And that is where, my
colleagues, literally tens of thousands of Chinese dissidents, freedom
fighters, people who care about democracy are languishing today in
prison, because they dared to try to speak out to better their human
condition in these areas.
Why is it so important for us to stand with them and not with the
government of China and their partners in this trade deal, the
multinational corporations, most of whom are American? Why is it
important to stand with these heroes? It is important to stand with
them because those values that we cherish, those first principles of
our government, the right to be able to express ourselves in the God
that we believe in, in the political organization that we want to
affiliate with, in the worker organization that we want to band with in
order to improve our economic lives, these are central tenets of what
democracy is all about.
The State Department's Country Report on Human Rights, in their last
report, said that China's poor human rights record deteriorated
markedly throughout the year as the government intensified efforts to
suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent; the government
continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses
in violation of internationally accepted norms.
Permanent Favored Nation Trading Status supporters can claim that the
Internet and technology will help unshackle the Chinese people, but the
evidence shows the opposite is happening. According to the State
Department, and I quote,
Authorities have blocked, at various times, politically
sensitive Web sites, including those of dissident groups and
some major foreign news organizations, such as Voice of
America, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the
British Broadcasting system.
Just yesterday, outside these chambers on the lawn of the Capitol, we
had approximately 100 dissidents from China who are now in exile, many
of whom have spent 3, 4, 5, 10, 13 years in jail. They were here with
us, and we formed a line with a linked chain threading us as we marched
around the Capitol grounds. And then we had them come and speak to
people who were interested in hearing what they had to say, and they
all spoke about the need not to reward China with this Most Favored
Nation status by taking away an annual attempt to review their human
rights record, their dismal record on human rights.
They asked us not to do it, because every time that we continue to
have this debate, every time that we raise these issues, the Chinese
are placed in a very hard, difficult position, a position they cannot
defend, and we make progress each time we have this debate.
Wei Jingsheng, the great dissident and leader at Tiananmen Square and
other activities in China, who is here now in exile in the United
States, who spent years and years and years in prison, said do not
grant permanent trade status to China right now. He said to continue to
trade, continue to engage, continue to dialogue, but do not give them
most favored trade status permanently; have the annual review. Because
he knows how important it is for those who are still in the gulags,
still in the prisons, still fighting for justice and freedom and
liberty in China today.
So I would say to my colleagues, the news is always not good for
workers in China. The government continued to tightly restrict workers'
rights, and forced labor in prison facilities remains a very serious
problem, according to the State Department, and they give us some
examples in the State Department report.
For instance, there is the case of Guo Yunqiao. He led a protest
march of 10,000 workers to local government offices following the 1989
massacre. He is currently serving a life term in prison for doing that
on charges of hooliganism. Imagine that: Protesting on behalf of 10,000
workers of local government offices following the massacre at Tiananmen
Square, and this man is facing a life in prison.
In the case of Guo Qiqing, who was detained in Shayang County on
charges of disrupting public order, he has organized a sit-in to demand
money owed to the workforce.
Or the case of Hu Shigen, an activist with the Federation Labor Union
of China, in prison in Beijing No. 2 prison, and has 12 years remaining
on his sentence. He is seriously ill. He has been charged with
counterrevolutionary activities.
And the cases go on and on and on.
Despite the considerable leverage that we have, with 40 percent of
China's exports coming to the United States, our negotiators did not
lift a finger to help on human rights or labor rights or religious
freedoms. We can do much better than what we have done.
{time} 1345
I would say on the religious front, there is widespread religious
persecution in China today against Buddhists, against Christians,
against Muslims, against people who want to practice their faith.
If you do, if they indeed do, you cannot belong to the military, you
cannot belong as a worker in the government, you cannot belong to the
ruling party if you practice your religion in China; and to practice it
in an organized way will often get you a long jail prison sentence.
Recently two Catholic bishops and archbishops have spent over 30
years in prison because of their leadership in our church.
Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on and the repression goes
on and on and on.
The distinguished gentleman from Northern Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a
friend and colleague of ours, was successful, very successful, in
getting a commission established. It is called the U.S. Commission on
Religious Freedoms. And it was established in order to look
specifically at the issue of whether people can practice their faith in
China.
Seven of the nine people who were appointed to that commission were
appointed by people who share the view that we should have unfettered
free trade, most favored nation trade status with the Chinese. So the
people on the Commission, for the most part, came
[[Page H3465]]
there with the blessing of these kinds of leaders, the President, the
leaders of the respective bodies in the House and the Senate.
So it was a surprise when the last couple weeks ago the U.S.
Commission on Religious Freedom issued its annual report. The
Commission, as I said, is independent. Seven of its nine members were
appointed by supporters of permanent MFN. The Commission opposes
permanent most favored nation trade status for China without
substantial human rights improvements. They came out opposed to this
deal because they understand the political and religious repressions
that are ongoing at this very minute in China today.
Their leader, Rabbi David Saperstein, a highly respected religious
leader, is chairman of the Commission. Excerpts from the Commission's
findings and recommendations read as follows: ``The Chinese
Government's violations of religious freedom increased markedly during
the past year.''
Another quote: ``Roman Catholic and Protestant underground house
churches suffered increased repression. The crackdown included the
arrest of bishops, priests, and pastors, one of whom was found dead in
the street soon afterward. Several Catholic bishops were ordained by
the Government without the Vatican's participation or approval.''
Another quote in the report: ``The repression of the Tibetan
Buddhists expanded. The Government authorities in Tibet, in defiance of
the Dalai Lama, Reting Lama, another important religious leader,
Karmapa Lama, he had to flee to India.'' And it goes on and on and on.
And it says at the end of the report, ``While many of the commissioners
support free trade, the Commission believes that the U.S. Congress
should grant China permanent normal trade relation status only after
China makes substantial improvements in respect for religious
freedom.''
Michael Young, Dean of the George Washington University Law School,
who describes himself as a passionate believer in free trade, said,
``The extraordinary deterioration of religious freedoms in China is
close to unprecedented since the days of Mao.'' Mr. Young cited cases
of women beaten to death by police for trying to practice their
religion.
The conditions the Commission laid out are reasonable, and they
include the following: Requiring China to provide unhindered access to
religious leaders including those in prison detained or are under house
arrest in China. Secondly, release from prison all religious prisoners
in China. And third, requiring China to ratify the International
Convention of Civil and Political Rights.
So you have the State Department's Country Report on Human Rights
Practices, which I outlined, which is very, very critical of China. You
have the Religious Commission which says, do not do what we will be
voting on this next week, giving them permanent trade status, because
they have not respected religious freedoms and liberties. And now
because the votes are not there and this issue is in jeopardy, we
perhaps will have grafted onto the China deal a concept or an idea to
create another commission.
We do not need another commission, Mr. Speaker. We have enough
commissions. We have enough reports. And the reports are the quite
clear. This is a brutal, suppressive dictatorship that says to its
people, you organize, you actively engage in religious freedom,
political freedom, human rights issues, you challenge us on the
environment and you can very easily expect that you will end up in
prison.
You cannot maintain free markets, unfettered free markets, without
free trade, without free people. You can have unfettered markets and
you have can free trade. But unless you have free people, you will not
be able to maintain that which you seek to do. Because at some point in
your society things will come apart, as they did in Chile when they had
so-called economic reforms under Pinochet, as they did in Nazi Germany
under Hitler, as they did with Mussolini, as they did with Suharto in
Indonesia recently.
Governments that are corrupt, that are repressive, and who just take
advantage of their people in terms of slave labor in the end have
immense problems and difficulties and eventually fall.
My friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) who has been most
eloquent and passionate on these issues has joined us. I will yield to
him for a remark. Then I want to talk about, if I could, we can share
some thoughts on the economic piece of this and the sweatshops where
the Chinese people work.
Because the other part of the freedom piece of this trade deal, as he
well knows, is that there are people working in shoe factories, in
textile mills, you name it, by the millions in China today who are
making anywhere between 3 and 20 cents an hour, working 6 days, 7 days
a week, 12 hours a day, putting together $135 pairs of Nike shoes with
toxic glue without wearing anything to cover their hands.
It is a repressive type of atmosphere outlined in this very well put
together book ``Made in China'' by Charlie Kernigan of the National
Labor Committee, which I encourage everyone to pick up and read. These
people are really indentured servants in many ways. They work for a
whole month for wages that are not adequate for them to even buy one of
the pair of shoes that they make.
So it seems to me that when you have a situation economically
internationally where corporations here in America can go over abroad,
whether it is Mexico or China, to manufacture products that were made
here, whether they are shoes or bicycles, Huffy is a good example that
used to make bikes in the State of Ohio and now is in China and Mexico.
When they move their facilities to these different countries, they do
it for a reason. They do it because they do not have to deal with
benefits, they do not have to deal with laws protecting workers, they
do not have to pay decent wages.
And, of course, they cannot sell these products in China or in Mexico
because the workers there, as I have just mentioned, do not make enough
to purchase that which they make. So Mexico and China then become what
are known as export platforms and these products are shipped right back
here for sale. And, of course, we lose good-paying manufacturing jobs
in this country and the multinationals make out and workers on both
sides of the border do not.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, before we talk about the ``Made in
China'' report and the literally slave labor conditions under which
literally millions of young women in China, almost all young and mostly
women, I want to follow up on some things that the Democratic Whip
talked about in terms of human rights.
We have, for 10 years, been engaging with China. We have traded with
China. We have opened our markets to China. During that entire 10-year
period, the Bush administration, even the Reagan administration before
the Bush administration, the Clinton administration have told us over
and over that China would be freer, that engaging with China would
really help.
You can look in these last 10 years and see how things are growing
worse, they are continuing to go downhill. The gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Bonior) mentioned the State Department's Country Report outlining
the conditions in China actually were worse this past year. As China
has tried to woo us to get into the World Trade Organization,
conditions were worse last year than the year before.
In fact, if we look at last year's Country Reports, the language that
describes China's behavior towards Tibet and towards other outlying
areas from the central government and towards minorities, in the
language that the Country Reports describes Serbia's treatment of
Kosovo, the language was almost identical. We bomb Kosovo, yet we give
trade advantages to China.
The National Religious Commission that the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Bonior) mentioned talked about religious persecution in China. The
animosity and the hostility of the central government of China towards
religion in China is worse than at any time since the cultural
revolution in the mid 1960s. The United Nations Commission on Human
Rights the Chinese continue to ignore.
So some in this body want to put faith in this congressional
commission that has been suggested as some way to deal with problems of
labor rights and human rights.
[[Page H3466]]
The Chinese do not pay attention to our official Department of State
Country Reports. The Chinese has not paid any attention to the Religion
Commission. The Chinese have not paid any attention to the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights. Why would they pay any attention to
a congressional task force that this body might pass in tandem with
permanent most favored nation status trading privileges for China?
As William Saffire, a generally conservative columnist in the New
York Times, said in the paper yesterday after conversing,
interestingly, with Richard Nixon, who told him that this engagement
and trade and probably right before Nixon died had probably gone too
far, Nixon said, I think we may have created a Frankenstein, talking
about human rights abuses, talking about all the child labor and all of
that in these countries. Safire said that we in this country have
continued to feed the military machine in China.
That is really what we are doing with engagement. We are feeding the
suppressive regime, not just their military, but their police state,
feeding of the police statement machine, too. And that is why the
crackdown on religion, the crackdown on human rights, the oppression of
workers, all of that have continued to get worse in China because the
state apparatus is getting wealthier and wealthier, has better and
better technology as they continue to get technology from American
business and western business in China, as they continue to upgrade
their oppressive regime and that regime is fed by all the investment
and all the dollars that we send to China through our business
investments.
One more point I would like to make. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Bonior) mentioned the ``Made in China'' report that really does outline
the behavior of several U.S. businesses: The Kathie Lee, Wal-Mart,
Alpine, Huffy, which permanently laid off 850 Ohio workers making $17
an hour about a year ago, replacing them with Chinese workers, all
young, almost all female, all under 25, many of them 16 and 17, making
literally less than 2 percent of what they were making in China.
{time} 1400
But this report underscores one other thing about why engagement with
China is not working, and, that is, that investors from the West,
investors from the United States and other western nations have begun
to shift in the last 5 years, have massively shifted their investments
in the developing world from democracies to authoritarian countries.
They are less interested in India, a democracy, and more interested in
China, an authoritarian government. They are less interested in Taiwan,
a democracy, and more interested in Indonesia, a police state. Investor
dollars from the West have been attracted to these kind of regimes
because they can hire people at 20 and 30 and 40 cents an hour. Any
time these workers have even complained about working conditions, they
are fined or penalized or jailed in some cases and sometimes even
worse. This workforce in China is young, it is female, it is
inexperienced, it is docile, it does not talk back, and it does not
fight back. That is the kind of workforce that investment dollars from
the United States seems to be attracted to.
That is why passing permanent most-favored-nation status trading
privileges for China will lock in that oppressive regime, will cost
American jobs, will hurt the Chinese, will lock into this life-style,
this slave labor life-style that too many Chinese workers already are
subjected to and will make things worse.
Mr. Speaker, if I could add one more point. One other thing that
seems to be happening is that the United States, Federal law from the
1931 Trade Act and from the 1992 agreement with China says that in this
country we are not allowed to accept into the country products produced
by slave labor. When we have documented that workers are making between
three and 35 cents an hour and in many cases those workers are charged
for their room and their board and their clothing from that three to 35
cents an hour, it is pretty clear that an awful lot of these products,
Kathy Lee handbags at Wal-Mart, shoes from Nike and Keds, all kinds of
other products at Wal-Mart, bicycles from Huffy, that these products
are made by slave labor when somebody is making only cents an hour and
much of that is taken back from them by charging them for the clothes
and the food they eat, the clothes they wear and the beds they sleep
in. When that is happening, our government should say we are not going
to accept those products made by slave labor. That has only happened
once in the last 10 years, in 1991, did our government say you cannot
let a product into the country that was made by slave labor. But we are
aware as Harry Wu, a very courageous Chinese man that lives now in the
United States who spent 20 years in prisons went back to China and
documented case after case after case of products that were made under
slave labor conditions and sold into the United States, our
administration, the Republican leadership in this Congress and the
administration should say, we are not going to vote on Chinese most-
favored-nation status trading privileges until we investigate whether
these slave labor products are being brought into the United States. It
is illegal, and we ought to get to the bottom of it. We have no
business voting on this until we really do find out if these are slave
labor products.
Mr. BONIOR. I think the gentleman is right on target and absolutely
correct in his assessment. I want to thank him for his eloquence and
for his passion and for coming to the floor night after night to
express his concerns on the questions of basic human rights and
political and religious freedoms. They are very important parts of our
international trade debate. They need to be a part of that debate.
People tend to forget often in our country as the gentleman from Ohio
well knows that the market by itself will not bring about these
political, religious and labor reforms that are needed for workers and
families. What brings that about is the ability of people to come
together, to form civic organizations, and to fight these repressive
laws and practices. It is what happened in the United States of America
100 years ago during the progressive era in our country. The free
market did not provide the benefits that we often take for granted
today. What provided the good wages, the health care, the pensions, the
safe working conditions, the right to vote, the right to form political
organizations, the right to freely practice your religion, the right to
speak out like I am speaking out now and you can speak out when you
walk out of this building, what made all of that happen were courageous
people like Wei Jingsheng and Harry Wu who are now trying to bring that
about for the people of China. People in this country had to fight
corporate conglomerates, trusts and power in order for workers to have
the benefits we enjoy today. It did not just happen. People protested,
they marched, they picketed, they were beaten, they went to jail and
some, yes, even died in order that we could enjoy today many of the
things that we have. Those same struggles are happening in China and
other parts of the developing world.
A central question in this debate, certainly one of the central
questions is whose side are we on? Are we on the side of those people
who are trying to organize in China for a better life for the Chinese
people? Are we on the side of the multinational corporations who
promise us that this will help our economy and create jobs when the
reality is it does just the opposite?
Let me demonstrate that point, if I could. This is a confusing
looking chart, and I will try if I can to simplify it. The chart says
U.S. goods trade balance with China, tariff cuts, agreements, 20 years
of most favored trade status and accelerating collapse. What this chart
shows is that our trade deficit, our trade account with China, has
mushroomed, has exploded over the past 20 years. We now have a trade
imbalance with China, they send us much more than we send them, of
about $70 billion. Just this morning, the March trade figures came out
and showed that we were running a $5.1 billion trade deficit. Last
March we were running a $4.1 billion trade deficit. That is just for 1
month. So it has increased by $1 billion just over a year ago for the
month of March. Much of that is with China. Not quite but almost 40
percent of the goods that are made in China are shipped to the United
States of America. Two percent of our goods manufactured here go to
China. So they are
[[Page H3467]]
sending much more to us than we are sending to them. As a result, we
have this trade deficit with the Chinese.
You might say, why is that? There are many reasons for that. One
reason that we cannot get into the Chinese markets is because they do
not live up to any of their trade agreements. On this chart, this is
the deficit, swelling from almost zero out this far to $70 billion.
What is written in here are the agreements that were done over the last
20 years to try to get us into their market, allow us to sell textiles
and space materials and all other types of agreements dealing with
intellectual property and software, you name it, a whole series of
agreements worked out with the Chinese. You would think after each
agreement we would have more access to their market and this number
would diminish. Just the opposite. It has expanded. It has increased.
The reason is they do not live up to their word. They have no
compliance or no enforcement mechanisms in China to implement their
agreements. And so we have this ballooning $70 billion deficit.
The people who are promoting this trade deal say, ``Well, this is
another trade piece. This is one of many agreements. This one is really
going to work because it is going to reduce our tariffs, so we will be
able to send more into China and it will cost less and people will buy
it there.''
If you look at this chart, you can see that we had two tariff
reduction agreements with the Chinese. China lowers its average import
tariffs from 42 percent to 23 percent. What happened? The deficit
continued to grow, even after they lowered the tariff. Then they
lowered it to 17 percent from 23, and it continued to grow even more.
The reason is, they just do not let our stuff into their country. They
find a way to keep it out. In this latest agreement, Ms. Barshefsky,
our trade representative, went there and did a deal on wheat. Now, the
first thing people should understand is China is awash in food. They
have a lot of food, a lot of food goods. They have a lot of food in
storage. Keep that in the back of your mind when you are told that you
will be able to ship fruits and vegetables and grains and meats and all
these other agricultural products. Right after she did the wheat deal,
one of the top Chinese people in the government who deals with
agriculture and wheat said the deal that would allow X amount of
imported grain, wheat in this case into China, is a deal ``in theory
only.'' Those were his words. In theory only. So already they are
backing away from that opportunity.
In the area of intellectual property, and by that I mean software,
digitalware, tapes and those kinds of things, 95 percent of all
intellectual property sold in China today is pirated material, in other
words, copied and pirated. We get very little benefit as a result of
that. In fact, it is so egregious that the ministries that are supposed
to write the laws against pirating materials use pirated software. I
could go on and on and on. It is quite tragic and it is quite sad.
The other part of this trade agreement that I think people need to be
cognizant of is the proponents of it will say, yes, but it will open up
their markets, it will allow us to sell more goods to China. What it
will do is require our multinational corporations to establish their
facilities in China. It will take our jobs and export them to China.
Those facilities will be built, people will be hired for three cents to
35 cents an hour, slave wages, indentured servitude, products will be
put together and they will be shipped back here to the tune of about 40
percent of all of China's exports and sold here to the best market in
the world, certainly China's best market, the United States of America.
So what we get out of this is compliance, and compliance is not the
right word but working together with the Chinese to undermine these
basic fundamental human rights, what we get out of this as well is our
manufacturing capabilities moving offshore to China, China becomes an
export platform because people making three to 35 cents an hour cannot
buy the Nike shoes that they are making or the Motorola cell phones
that they are making or the television sets that they are making
because they do not make enough money, so they are put together and
they are shipped right back here and sold to our people.
Yes, our people get other jobs. They lose their good manufacturing
jobs here, and they get other jobs, but they get jobs that pay a half
to two-thirds of the amount that they were making before. As a result
of that, people end up often working two jobs, sometimes three jobs,
and you have got America on this treadmill. We are doing very well
economically but people's lives have changed radically. They do not
have enough time for their families or for themselves. I saw this
figure recently, and I am loath to quote it because I am not quite
sure, but over the last generation or maybe generation and a half,
Americans are working I think something like 31 days longer a year,
something like that, if you add up all the extra hours.
{time} 1415
So there is no time or no adequate time for family often, and then
what happens when that occurs is the parents are not home for their
children when they get home from school, and then you have all the
maladies that flow from that, with alcohol, teen pregnancy and drugs,
and we get ourselves into a vicious cycle and a breakdown in the whole
social structure of our country.
I have come a long way in winding this down to our own problems, but
it is all related, and it all comes back to treating people decently
and with some sense of civility, and paying them a good wage, allowing
them to organize, allowing them to worship freely, allowing them to
express themselves politically.
When you do not do that, you shut people out from the really basic
first principles of democratization. As I said earlier, you can have
free trade and free markets, but they are not going to work very well
unless you have free people. Without free people, they will explode,
they will implode, and your society will come apart at the seams, as it
did in Chile, as it did in Europe, as it did in Indonesia, as it
undoubtedly will in China at some point.
You cannot repress and hold in the basic instincts of mankind, which
is a yearning to be free, a yearning to be able to express yourself at
those various fundamental levels of religion, politics and the
worksite.
So I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a terribly, terribly
important debate that we are engaged in, and I want to congratulate all
of the courageous people in China and the dissidents who have been
exiled for standing with us. I want to congratulate the working men and
women of this country. Seventy-nine percent of the American people
think Congress should not give China more access to our products until
it improves its human rights; 79 percent. Yet we are on the precipice,
we are right there, of going ahead next week with a vote on this most
critical issue, without addressing in a fundamentally strong way the
issues of human rights and labor rights and civil rights and political
rights.
These are universal rights we are talking about. We are not talking
about American rights, we are talking about rights that have been
adopted not only in the United States of America, but since our crusade
in this area, in Latin America, our brothers and sisters in Europe, and
the revolution on human rights and civil rights and political rights is
spreading abroad and around the world in other areas as well.
This is a very important issue for this country. It is a very
important issue in terms of the choices we make as a society. Is the
market piece of this so overwhelming? Is the promise of gold at the end
of the rainbow of this market of 1.2 billion people in China so
enticing, so captivating, so tempting that it will blind us to the real
nature of who we are as a people, what we stand for as a people, what
we have been the beacon of light for people around the world? Will we
just give that up in order to provide a few multinationals the
opportunity to set up shop and export back to this country, and abuse,
as they have constantly abused, the workers in China?
I do not think anything could be more fundamental. That is why these
debates, whether they were on NAFTA or fast track or now China, are so
vigorously fought, so heartfelt, so passionate and so encompassing.
Seattle was not an aberration. Seattle happened because the rules of
the
[[Page H3468]]
game in a global world are now changing. What the proponents of China
most-favored-nation trade status are about, it seems to me, is
masquerading the past as the future. They have not been able to make
the transition to the realization that we live in a global society,
and, as a result of that, we affect each other more fundamentally, more
immediately, and, as a result of that, the rules have to change.
Let me, for example, take the environmental issue. You could say
well, why does the environment have anything to do with trade? It has
to do with trade because it is a lever on conducting trade in a clean,
green way.
China is one of the most, if not the most, polluted places on the
face of the Earth. Five of the ten most polluted cities in the world
are in China. Two million people die in China each year from air and
water diseases. Eighty percent of the rivers in China have no fish
because of pollutants and toxics.
China produces more fluorocarbons than any other nation on Earth,
which eats away at the ozone layer and causes the problems that we are
all familiar with, including skin cancer. So that is important, because
the ozone layer does not just affect the spot above China, the rivers
that are polluted do not only run through China. The waters and lakes
and oceans that are polluted affect people in other countries, so we
are all interconnected here in a way we have never been before.
So that is why we argue that we need to discuss these issues in the
context of our broader international agreements.
I am joined today by really one of the great champions of human
rights and worker rights and trade, my friend and dear colleague, the
gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has just been
magnificent in her effort to wage an understanding of this issue for
the American people. I yield to her now for any comments she might want
to share with us.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our
great leader from the State of Michigan, our Wolverine State, a few
moments to talk about our proposal for permanent normal trade relations
for China. One certainly could not say anything about our trade
relations with China being ``normal.'' In fact, they are very abnormal,
with more exports coming into our market from China for over 12 years
now than our exports being able to get in there, even when tariffs have
been lowered.
I wanted to say to the gentleman that I think that his fortitude on
this as the days go on is magnificent. I just wish every American could
see the hours and hours that the gentleman has put into this personally
and all the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle enjoy
working with the gentleman so very much.
I wanted to make sure to come down here during this time as we
attempt to inform the American people and our colleagues about this
upcoming vote next week on extending permanent trade relations with
China, that every major veterans organization in this country has come
out in opposition to granting permanent normal trade relations with
China.
I wanted to say a word about that, because I know many of our Post
Commanders, our State Commanders, our Auxiliary Leaders across this
Nation, are phoning their Members of Congress. They have been doing it
this week, they are going to continue over the weekend and into next
week, and I thought I would read into the Record and provide for the
Record some of what these organizations have said, starting with the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, an organization of 1.9 million Members.
I have been on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of this Congress
for my entire tenure here, and I was just so elated to see their letter
this week, which said that we should not approve permanent relations
with China. They asked that the current situation where we have an
annual review here in this Congress be maintained until such time as
China changes its policies and demonstrates that it is ready to treat
its own people according to basic human rights standards of other
modern industrialized nations.
They oppose China's proliferation of missile technology and weapons
of mass destruction. They oppose their threats against this country and
other countries in the Pacific, including the democratic Nation of
Taiwan. The VFW basically says passage of the China trade bill
essentially rewards China for mistreating its citizens.
I want to thank all of the members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
all the Post Commanders, all the Ladies Auxiliary Presidents and
members, for engaging in this issue and letting their voices be heard
from coast to coast, especially where it matters most, and that is back
at home, in the home district with the home Member of Congress.
Also the American Legion, 2.8 million members strong, this week came
out against permanent trade relations with China. In its formal letter
they say that they want to force China to meet four preconditions
before any permanent trade relations with China are extended or for any
entry into the WTO by China. Those four conditions are recognition of
the Taiwanese right to self-determination; full cooperation on the
accounting of American servicemen missing from the Korean War and the
Cold War; abandonment of policies aimed at military dominance in Asia;
and encouragement and promotion of human rights and religious freedom
among the Chinese people themselves.
The National Commander of the American Legion Al Lance said in his
letter, ``China should embrace Democratic values before it benefits
from unfettered American investment.''
The Military Order of the Purple Heart, again, calling their Members
of Congress around the country, I wish to extend the appreciation of
this Member of Congress for their activism on this. Over 30,000 members
of the Military Order of the Purple Heart and 600,000 living recipients
of the Purple Heart. In their letter they say ``China as an
international actor continues to behave in a manner that is threatening
to international stability and U.S. security interests.'' They say this
Congress should delay the granting of permanent normal trade status to
China at this time because it would remove China from the review and
the openness that occurs here on this floor of Congress, which does not
even happen inside China itself. They are very worried about the
proliferation of weapons from China to other places, and certainly
their dismal human rights record.
Then the Military Order of Purple Heart goes on to say, ``Today China
represents the most dangerous of the emerging threats to U.S. national
security. Her designs on Western Pacific dominance, her extreme
belligerence toward Taiwan and her persistent espionage and theft of
U.S. advanced technologies are behaviors that must be checked before
any reasonable consideration of permanent normal trade status can be
undertaken.''
It says, ``Many of America's combat wounded veterans sacrificed life
and blood to repel Chinese aggression during the Korean conflict, and
now, 50 years after that war, China remains an unabashedly communistic
regime. It is time for China to change if she wishes to be a truly
welcome participant on the world stage.''
Mr. Leader, I know that I want to yield back most of the remaining
time, but I would want to place on the record the official letter from
the Fleet Reserve Association, representing 151,000 members, all career
and retired Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen of the United States
opposing permanent normal trade relations with China.
In addition to that, the Warrant Officers Association, representing
nearly 20,000 warrant officers of active Army, Army Guard and the Army
Reserve, in their letter saying ``China shows few of the peaceful
democratic traits evidenced by our Nation's other major trading
partners.'' ``In this instance,'' they say, ``trade and economic
considerations cannot take precedence over the safety of our Nation and
that of our allies and friends.''
A letter from the Reserve Officers Association, which we will place
on the record, representing over 80,000 officers in all uniformed
services, indicating opposition to permanent normal trade relations
with China. They want the annual review here. They are very concerned
about China's military threats against Taiwan, and threatened military
action against the United States if we defend Taiwan.
Finally, from AMVETS, 200,000 veterans opposed in this organization
to permanent normal trade relations with
[[Page H3469]]
China, saying the security issues take precedence over trade relations
with foreign nations.
I would just say, finally, and again to thank all the veterans
Commanders, the Ladies Auxiliaries, the Post leaders, the membership in
all these organizations across the country that are weighing in,
phoning their Members of Congress, I know we have gotten many calls in
our community and that is happening across the country, to thank them
for their activism, to encourage them this weekend and the coming week.
I want to place in the Record finally the request made by one of our
valued colleagues from the State of California (Mr. Berman), who tried
to get a provision as we voted on this agreement that would provide
that in the event that this permanent normal trade status would be
granted, that in the event that China would attack, invade, or blockade
Taiwan, that permanent normal trade relations would be revoked.
{time} 1430
The administration was not willing to include that in the measure
that they have sent up to this Congress.
AMVETS,
Lanham, MD, May 16, 2000.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Cannon House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Wolf: AMVETS, the nation's fourth
largest organization, represents more than 200,000 veterans
who honorably served in the Armed Forces of the United
States, and opposes Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR)
for China.
While the U.S. relationship with China is important, AMVETS
believes that national security issues take precedence over
the trade relations with foreign countries. We concur in your
belief that our nation cannot afford to give leverage to the
Republic of China--which exports weapons of mass destruction
and missiles, maintains spy presence in the U.S. and
continues to threaten Taiwan with military force.
When Congress votes in the House during the week of May 22,
let it be known that AMVETS says ``no'' to the Permanent
Trade Relations with China.
Sincerely,
Charles L. Taylor,
National Commander, 1999-2000, AMVETS.
____
Reserve Officers Association of
the United States,
Washington, DC, April 27, 2000.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: The Reserve Officers Association
(``ROA''), representing 80,000 officers in all seven
Uniformed Services, is concerned about the proposal to grant
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (``PNTR'') to China.
ROA acknowledges the importance of our relationship with
China, including our growing economic ties to China.
Nevertheless, ROA believes that it would be a mistake to
grant PNTR to China at this time. The annual process of
reviewing trade relations with China provides Congress with
leverage over Chinese behavior on national security and human
rights matters. Granting PNTR would deprive Congress of the
opportunity to influence China to improve its human rights
record and behave as a more responsible actor on the national
security stage.
Just within the past few weeks, China has made military
threats against Taiwan and threatened military action against
the United States if we defend Taiwan. Just four years ago,
China fired several live missiles in the Taiwan Strait,
necessitating a deployment of two American carrier battle
groups to the area.
A report issued last month by the CIA and FBI indicates
that Beijing has increased its military spying against the
United States. Less than a year ago the Cox Committee
reported that China stole classified information regarding
advanced American thermonuclear weapons.
Additionally, Beijing has exported weapons of mass
destruction to Iran and north Korea, in violation of treaty
commitments. Finally, China's record of human rights abuses
is well documented.
A recent Harris Poll revealed that fully 79% of the
American people oppose giving China permanent access to U.S.
markets until China meets human rights and labor standards.
On this issue, Congress should respect the wisdom of the
American people. Now is not the time to grant Permanent
Normal Trade Relations to China.
Sincerely,
Jayson L. Spiegel,
Executive Director.
____
United States Army
Warrant Officers Association,
Hemdon, VA, May 9, 2000.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Wolf. On behalf of the membership of
this Association I write to express support and appreciation
of your actions, and that of several of your colleagues, in
opposing Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
The USAWOA represents nearly 20,000 warrant officers of the
Active Army, the Army Guard, and the Army Reserve. These
highly-skilled men and women serve as helicopter pilots,
special forces team leaders, intelligence analysts, command
and control computer and communications managers, armament
and equipment repair technicians, and in other technical
fields critical to success of the modern battlefield. Daily,
many of them are in harm's way.
From our perspective, it appears that China has done little
to deserve such consideration. Of more concern is the fact
that China shows few of the peaceful, democratic traits
evidenced by our Nation's other major trading partners.
Indeed, China appears to striving to achieve not only
economic dominance of the Pacific Rim but also a significant
military advantage over her neighbors, and quite possibly,
the United States.
In this instance, trade and economic considerations cannot
take precedence over the safety of our Nation and that of our
allies and friends. Until fundamental, lasting changes take
place in China, normalization of trade relations should not
take place.
Respectively,
Raymond A Bell,
Executive Director.
____
Fleet Reserve Association,
Alexandria, VA, April 21, 2000.
Hon. Christopher H. Smith,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Smith: Please be advised that the Fleet
Reserve Association (FRA), representing its 151,000 members,
all career and retired Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen
of the United States Armed Forces, joins you and your
colleagues in opposing Permanent Normal Trade Relations
(PNTR) for China.
FRA shares your concern that weapons of mass destruction
exported by that country can be used against U.S. military
personnel, and also our Nation's citizens. Further, China
already has obtained considerable knowledge of our Nation's
weapons technology without normal trade relations. Should the
United States open its doors to normal trade relations, it is
worrisome that China will discover even more of that
sensitive information.
One of the most important goals of this Association is to
protect its members as well as every active duty and reserve
uniformed member of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
To fulfill that commitment, FRA must do all that it can to
oppose any move that could possibly send those brave men and
women into harms way without `rhyme or reason.' With the
possibility that the future will hang dark shadows over open
trading with a yet unproven China, FRA is sensitive to the
harm that country may inflict upon our Nation.
Loyalty, Protection, and Service,
Charles L. Calkins,
National Executive Secretary.
____
Military Order of the Purple Heart,
May 15, 2000.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: The Military Order of the Purple
Heart (MOPH), representing the patriotic interests of its
30,000 members and the 600,000 living recipients of the
Purple Heart, is seriously concerned with the
Administration's proposal to grant Permanent Normal Trade
Relations (PNTR) status to the Peoples Republic of China.
The MOPH is familiar with the current series of U.S.
Government reports concerning China to include: the Cox
Committee Report, the Rumsfield Commission Report, the 1999
Intelligence Community Report on Arms Proliferation, and
Chairman Spence's May 2000 HASC National Security Report on
China. These and other similar security assessments clearly
indicate that China, as an international actor, continues to
behave in a manner that is threatening to international
stability and U.S. national security interests.
Given the broad consensus that has formed about this issue,
to include the recent Harris Poll indicating 79% of all
Americans are against granting PNTR status to China, the MOPH
believes it both prudent and reasonable to delay the granting
of PNTR status to China at this time. Speaking as patriots
and combat wounded veterans, we believe that granting PNTR
status to China would relieve them from the current pressure
caused by annual Congressional review of their trade status.
Clearly, Congressional review has caused China to improve its
dismal human rights record and to modify to some extent its
proliferation of dangerous arms on the world market. Yet
these modifications must be seen as the beginning not the
end.
Today, China represents the most dangerous of the emerging
threats to U.S. national security. Her designs on Western
Pacific dominance, her extreme belligerence towards Taiwan,
and her persistent espionage and theft of U.S. advanced
technologies are behaviors that must be checked before any
reasonable consideration of PNTR status can be undertaken.
Many of America's combat wounded veterans sacrificed life
and blood to repel Chinese aggression during the Korean
Conflict. Fifty years after that war China remains an
unabashedly communistic regime. It is time for China to
change if she wishes to be a truly welcomed participant on
the world's stage. It is also time for Congress and the
Administration to reflect upon the sacrifices
[[Page H3470]]
of its combat wounded veterans and ensure that China will not
once again become our enemy. In the view of the MOPH this
objective must be reached before PNTR status should be
granted to China.
Yours in Patriotism,
Frank G. Wickersham III,
National Legislative Director.
____
The American Legion,
Washington, DC.
For immediate release
China Trade Opposed by The American Legion
Indianapolis (Wednesday, May 10, 2000).--Taking into
account nuclear espionage charges, human rights abuses, saber
rattling against Taiwan, and influence-peddling indictments,
the 2.8-million member American Legion today demanded the
U.S. government withhold Permanent Normalized Trade Relations
with the People's Republic of China and oppose its entry into
the World Trade Organization.
The American Legion's board of directors, during its annual
spring meeting here recommended Congress and the Clinton
administration force China to meet four preconditions both
for entry into the WTO and for ending the annual
congressional review of its trade status:
Recognition of the Taiwan's right to self-determination;
Full cooperation on the accounting of American servicemen
missing from the Korean War and the Cold War;
Abandonment of policies aimed at military dominance in
Asia; and
Encouragement and promotion of human rights and religious
freedom among the Chinese people.
``China should embrace democratic values before it benefits
from unfettered American investment,'' American Legion
National Commander Al Lance said: ``The American Legion sets
forth the prerequisites for peace and stability, without
which Communist China will become economically and militarily
more formidable even as it embarks on policies pursuant to
regional instability. A something-for-nothing trade
arrangement with China--one that severs trade from national
security and human rights--threatens stability, rewards
antagonism, and strengthens a potential foe of American sons
and daughters in the U.S. armed forces.''
Founded in 1919, The American Legion is the nation's
largest veterans organization.
____
[Veterans of Foreign Wars News Release]
VFW Urges Congress to Reject Permanent Trade Relations With China
Washington, D.C., May 17.--The Veterans of Foreign Wars of
the United States today urged Congress not to grant Permanent
Normal Trade Relations with China.
Citing the need for a change in China's human rights
standards, the 1.9-million member VFW said. ``The United
States should maintain its current annual congressional
review of China's trade status until such time as China
changes it's policy and demonstrates that it is ready to
treat its people according to the basic human rights
standards of other modern industrial nations.''
In a letter to all members of Congress, VFW Commander in
Chief John W. Smart said, ``A vote against Permanent Normal
Trade Relations with China will send a clear message that the
United States does not tolerate China's persistent human
rights violations, and will not agree with it's proliferation
of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction, it's
military threats against the United States and other
countries in the Pacific region including repeated threats
made against Taiwan.
``Passage of the China Trade Bill, essentially rewards
China for mistreating its citizens, violating its current
trade agreements, threatening its neighbors and the United
States with military action, proliferating weapons of mass
destruction, stealing nuclear, military and industrial
secrets from the United States, increasing espionage against
the U.S., and practicing religious oppression. We believe
this bill sends the wrong message to China and the rest of
the world,'' Smart said.
The VFW was founded in 1899. As an organization of former
servicemen and women, the VFW remains committed to a strong
national security and the well being of those serving on
active duty, in the National Guard and the Reserves.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 17, 2000.
VFW, AMVETS, and Purple Heart Veterans Join the Ranks of Veterans'
Organizations in Opposition to PNTR for China
Dear Colleague: VFW, the second largest veterans'
organization, AMVETS, the fourth largest veterans
organization, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart,
have added their forceful voices in opposition to Permanent
Normal Trade Relations for China. Veterans groups
representing over 5.1 million members have now voiced their
objection to this critical trade legislation.
VFW, representing 1.9 million members, states: ``Passage of
the China Trade Bill, essentially rewards China for
mistreating its citizens, violating current trade agreements,
threatening its neighbors and the United States with military
action, proliferating weapons of mass destruction, stealing
nuclear, military and industrial secrets from the United
States, increasing espionage against the U.S., and practicing
religious oppression. We believe this bill sends the wrong
message to China and the rest of the world.''
AMVETS, representing more than 200,000 veterans, states:
``We concur in your belief that our nation cannot afford to
give leverage to the Republic of China--which exports weapons
of mass destruction and missiles, maintains spy presence in
the U.S. and continues to threaten Taiwan with military
force. When Congress votes in the House during the week of
May 22, let it be known that AMVETS say `no' to the Permanent
Normal Trade Relations for China.''
Military Order of the Purple Heart, chartered by Congress,
and representing 30,000 members and the 600,000 living
recipients of the Purple Heart, states: ``Today, China
represents the most dangerous of the emerging threats to U.S.
national security . . . Many of America's combat wounded
veterans sacrificed life and blood to repel Chinese
aggression during the Korea Conflict. Fifty years after that
war China remains an unabashedly communist regime. It is time
for China to change if she wishes to be a truly welcomed
participant on the world's stage. It is also time for
Congress and the Administration to reflect upon the
sacrifices of its combat wounded veterans and ensure that
China will not once again become our enemy.''
National Commander Al Lance of the American Legion,
representing 2.8 million, states: ``China should embrace
democratic values before it benefits from unfettered American
investment. The American Legion sets forth the prerequisites
for peace and stability, without which Communist China will
become economically and militarily more formidable even as it
embarks on policies pursuant to regional instability. A
something-for-nothing trade arrangement with China--one that
severs trade from national security and human rights--
threatens stability, rewards antagonism, and strengthens a
potential foe of American sons and daughters in the U.S.
armed forces.''
The Fleet Reserve Officers Association, representing
151,000 members, career and retired Sailors, Marines, and
Coast Guardsmen, states: ``One of the most important goals of
this Association is to protect its members as well as every
active duty and reserve uniformed member of the Navy, Marine
Corps, and Coast Guard. The Fleet Reserve opposes Permanent
Normal Trade Relations for China.''
The Naval Reserve Association, representing 37,000 officers
and enlisted members from the Naval Reserve Services, states:
``China is aggressively building its military. The PRC's
ambitions include reunification by force with Taiwan, and
territorial claim over the energy resources in the
international waters of the South China Sea.'' They conclude
by stressing, ``Now is not the time to offer Permanent Normal
Trade Relationships (PNTR) for China.''
The Warrant Officers Association, representing nearly
20,000 warrant officers of the Active Army, the Army Guard,
and the Army Reserve, states: ``In this instance, trade and
economic considerations cannot take precedence over the
safety of our Nation and that of our allies and friends.
Until fundamental, lasting changes take place in China,
normalization of trade relations should not take place.''
The Reserve Officers Association, representing 80,000
officers in all seven uniformed services, states, ``Just
within the past few weeks, China has made military threats
against Taiwan and threatened military action against the
U.S. if we defend Taiwan. Now is not the time to grant
Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China.''
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
Chris Smith,
Member of Congress.
David Bonior,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives, May 17, 2000.
Vote With America's Veterans on Memorial Day--Vote No on PNTR for China
Dear Colleague: This week the VFW, the Military Order of
the Purple Hearts and AMVETS, joined the American Legion and
several other veterans organizations in opposition to PNTR
for China.
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, United States Army Warrant
Officers Association, Reserve Officers Association, The
American Legion, Naval Reserve, Military Order of the Purple
Heart, Fleet Reserve.
This vote is scheduled just a few days before Memorial Day,
a day which honors our armed forces personnel who have given
their lives for our freedom. We should heed the voices of our
men and women in uniform and America's veterans who are
asking us to vote no on PNTR for China.
Sincerely,
Frank Wolf,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2000.
If Congress Passes PNTR, China Can Export Cheap, Semi-automatic Weapons
to the U.S.
Dear Colleague: Upon approving the annual Most Favored
Nation status for China in 1994, President Clinton issued an
embargo
[[Page H3471]]
on the imports of assault weapons from China. This complete
prohibition was issued because Chinese gun manufacturers had
exported almost one million Chinese rifles to the United
States--more than made by all U.S. manufacturers combined in
1992 according to the BATF.
The most popular import was the SKS semi-automatic rifle,
once a standard weapon among East Bloc forces and used
against U.S. troops in Vietnam. The SKS was the fourth most
frequently traced firearm in America--surprising since
handguns, not rifles, tend to be the guns that criminals use
most. They were particularly popular among neo-nazi's, white
supremacists and street gangs. What made them attractive was
their power and inexpensive price, only $55.95.
If Congress approves permanent NTR, World Trade
Organization regulations will apply to the U.S. ban of gun
imports from China. Under WTO regulations, the U.S. is
required to treat foreign and domestic goods identically.
Since these weapons are legal in the U.S., China will be able
to challenge our embargo on these dangerous firearms. The
U.S. would have to lift the import ban on China or prohibit
the manufacture of those assault weapons domestically.
Is the U.S. prepared to lift the import ban on assault
weapons from China?
Or is the U.S. prepared to ban the manufacture of those
weapons in the U.S.?
Don't give China the power to decide gun policy in the
United States.
Don't allow China to sell these cheap, dangerous assault
weapons on the streets of America.
Oppose PNTR for China.
Sincerely,
Pete Stark,
Member of Congress.
Carolyn McCarthy,
Member of Congress.
Nancy Pelosi,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2000.
China Threatens War Over Taiwan
Dear Colleague: BEIJING (AP).--An official Chinese
newspaper threatened war today if Taiwan's president-elect
refuses to recognize that the island is part of China.
Stepping up pressure ahead of this weekend's inauguration,
Beijing wants Chen Shui-bian, who was elected March 18, to
recognize the ``one China principle'' to allay its fears over
his previous pro-independence stance.
China's government and entirely state-run media have for
weeks demanded that Taiwan accept that it is part of China as
a precondition for talks. But the China Business Times went
further, threatening war if Chen fails during his
inauguration Saturday to heed Beijing's demands.
``If Taiwan's new leader refuses in his inaugural speech to
recognize the one China principle and even makes a speech
that inclines toward Taiwan independence, then relations
between the two sides will certainly take a turn. War in the
Taiwan Strait will be difficult to avoid,'' the newspaper
said in a front-page article alongside photos of a tank, a
warplane and military exercises.
SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS.
Pursuant to Article XXI of the GATT 1994, nondiscriminatory
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) shall be
withdrawn from the products of the People's Republic of China
if that country attacks, invades, or imposes a blockade on
Taiwan.
Sincerely,
Howard L. Berman,
Member of Congress.
A BILL
Providing for the revocation of normal trade relations
treatment from the products of the People's Republic of China
if that country attacks, invades, or imposes a blockade on
Taiwan.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
The Congress finds that--
(1) Article XXI of the GATT 1994 (as defined in section
2(1)(B) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501
(1)(B)) allows a member of the World Trade Organization to
take ``any action which it considers necessary for the
protection of its essential security interests,''
particularly ``in time of war or other emergency in
international relations''; and
(2) an attack on, invasion of, or blockade of Taiwan by the
People's Republic of China would constitute a threat to the
essential security interests of the United States and an
emergency in international relations.
SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS.
Pursuant to Article XXI of the GATT 1994, non-
discriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment)
shall be withdrawn from the products of the People's Republic
of China if that country attacks, invades, or imposes a
blockade on Taiwan.
SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY TO EXISTING CONTRACTS.
The President shall have the authority to determine the
extent to which the withdrawal under section 2 of normal
trade relations treatment applies to products imported
pursuant to contracts entered into before the date on which
the withdrawal of such treatment is announced. The President
shall issue regulations to carry out such determination.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising these
issues and I commend her and I commend the Veterans Administration, the
Legion, the VFW and the others that she mentioned for stepping out and
standing up, and we appreciate her leadership on this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith), who has been a great leader on this issue.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say two things.
I think the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) stated it very well when
she pointed out how the VFW and the other veterans groups are very much
opposed to PNTR. I think what came across in our press conference, I
would say to my good friend from Michigan, and he chaired that, was the
intensity factor on the part of the veterans. They were very, very
strong and bold about the security implications of conveying, without
the annual review, permanent normal trading relations and the human
rights issues.
I have had 18 hearings in my Subcommittee on International Operations
and Human Rights. I have been there three times. It does not make me an
expert but I think I have some insights and they are shared by so many
who have done likewise. Torture is commonplace in the PRC. If one is
arrested as a religious believer or a democracy promoter, they get
tortured and we are doing business with their torturers.
I think when we look at every area in human rights they have gone
from bad to worse over the last 10 years, and I think we need to say
enough is enough, and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Bonior), for having this special order.
Mr. BONIOR. I thank my friend for his leadership and his passion and
his courage to take on these human rights issues in his committee as
the Chair. We enjoy working with him and we look forward to continuing
to work on these issues that we share common values and beliefs in.
Mr. Speaker, I yield now to my friend, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Bonior), the distinguished Democratic whip, for yielding and for his
extraordinary leadership on this important issue.
I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), and commend her for her leadership as well.
This next week this House of Representatives will have a vote and
decide how we will honor the pillars of our own foreign policy,
promoting democratic values, stopping the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and growing our own economy by promoting our exports
abroad. A vote for permanent NTR does not advance any of those goals,
and I wish to associate myself with the remarks that have been made in
that regard.
I wanted to emphasize a point made by our colleague, the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) earlier. This weekend in Taiwan, the second
democratically-elected President will be inaugurated. It is cause for
celebration in the heart of every person in the world who cares about
freedom and democracy. At a time when we should all in this body be
celebrating that great triumph of democracy, we are instead rejecting a
very simple amendment, and that is the Berman amendment that the
majority has refused to put in the bill, and that the administration
has refused to accept.
That simple amendment would say that PNTR would be lifted for China
if China invades Taiwan. What could be simpler than associating one's
self with the idea that if a country invades another place then they
would not get special privileges in the United States? Not only have we
ignored China's activity to proliferate weapons of mass destruction
such as chemical, biological and nuclear technology to rogue states,
not only have we ignored that, we have certified that they are not
doing it when we know full well that they are.
If the President wants to make this a national security issue, let us
do that. In terms of national security, instead of appeasing the
Chinese Government every step of the way on their misbehavior
internationally we are missing an opportunity to say to them do not
even think about invading Taiwan. If they do not think China is going
to
[[Page H3472]]
invade, there is no problem here. Right? Clearly, they do not trust the
Chinese, or else they would let this amendment pass.
Again, instead of saluting the democracy in Taiwan, we are rewarding
the unsafe behavior of the Chinese. So I urge all of my colleagues to
sign on to a letter to the Committee on Rules to make this amendment in
order that if China invades Taiwan, we lift PNTR.
Our relationship with every country should make the world safer, the
trade fairer and people freer. Permanent NTR at this time does not do
that. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for his
leadership.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising that very
important security issue and freedom issue and as my friend, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), did, I want to thank the veterans
of this country for coming out in opposition based on basic security
grounds and human rights grounds and encourage them to continue to call
their Members of Congress as we enter this vote at the end of the week,
the American Legion and the VFW and the AMVETS and the many
organizations that we talked about. I thank my colleagues for joining
me today.
____________________