[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 64 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3515-H3518]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          ONE-MAN TRUTH SQUAD

  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, I have taken out this Special Order to lead 
at this point what will be a one-man truth squad to try and respond to 
some of the things that have been said over the past hour about this 
issue. During that time, I am happy to yield to my friend from Oregon 
who refused to, I guess like the Chinese leadership, refused to yield 
to me when I was simply going to ask a question in response to the fact 
that the gentleman from Michigan referred to me.
  So let me just take a few minutes to respond to a couple of those 
points that were made that come to mind and then talk about this 
general issue, and then I should inform my friends that I would love to 
do this over the hour, but because of the fact that my colleagues would 
not yield to me and because of time constraints, I have to be upstairs 
for another commitment in about 12 minutes. There are two television 
programs. I am going to be debating, in

[[Page H3516]]

fact, the minority whip on one of the television programs where he and 
I will discuss this, but it was a previous commitment that my office 
made for me. So I hope my friends will understand. But I will try 
within the 12-minute period that I have to, unlike my friends from the 
other side of the aisle, yield to them for a question or a comment, and 
I will do it just as generously as I possibly can. It will certainly be 
more generous than my democratic colleagues did.
  Let me say this: this vote that we are going to be casting the day 
after tomorrow is the single most important vote that we will cast, 
clearly, in this session of the Congress. I believe that as we look at 
this question, it really transcends simply the issue of job creation 
and economic growth. It has to do with whether the United States of 
America is going to maintain its role as the paramount global leader.
  Why is that so important? It is very important because this building 
in which we are all seated or standing, happens to be the symbol 
throughout the world for freedom, and one of the most important 
freedoms that exists happens to be economic freedom.
  Now, my colleagues were talking about the fact that over the past 2 
decades, we have seen the United States grant Most Favored Nation 
status to the People's Republic of China, and look how bad the 
situation is. Well, Mr. Speaker, they are not going to get an argument 
from me about many of the problems that exist in China today. I am the 
first to admit that we have very serious human rights problems. In 
fact, I will take a back seat to no one in this Congress or anywhere in 
demonstrating concern about human rights. I have adopted Refuseniks, I 
brought wounded Mujahadine in from Afghanistan during that war, I have 
worked for human rights, I marched to the Chinese embassy the week 
after the Tiananmen Square massacre in June of 1989.
  So anyone who tries to claim that those of us who believe 
passionately in economic freedom and want to expand that throughout 
China are somehow placing American business interests above the 
interests of our very precious American values are wrong. They are 
wrong in making that claim. They fail to realize the interdependence of 
political and economic freedom, and they fail to recognize that while 
over the last couple of decades we have dealt with a situation which 
has provided China one-way access to the U.S. consumer market, this is 
a vote that is unlike any in the past. This vote does, in fact, pry 
open that market with 1.3 billion consumers, nearly five times the 
population of the United States. Do they have a standard of living or a 
wage rate that is anything like that of the United States? Absolutely 
not.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Speaker, I want them to. I want them to. I aspire to seeing 
economic strength throughout the world and even for the impoverished 
hundreds of millions in China.
  Now the minority whip talked earlier about some quotes that came from 
Chinese leaders stating that if in the area of insurance, for example, 
they do not like a decision that is made, they will ignore it. They 
talked about the area of agriculture and some leader in China saying if 
they do not like exactly what is taking place in some deal that is put 
together, that they will just null and void it. That is the whole point 
of what it is we are trying to do here, Mr. Speaker.
  We are trying to put into place a structure whereby the People's 
Republic of China, a country that, yes, has violated agreements in the 
past, a country that has not been forthright, a country that has been 
very repressive, they will, under this agreement, be forced to live 
with a rules-based trading system; and, as I said, for the first time 
they will be forced to open up their markets.
  What happens if they decide to thumb their nose at an agreement that 
is made? We have for the first time, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity with 
134 other nations, this international organization known as the WTO, 
and I know many people like to criticize it, but do they know what the 
goal of the WTO going right back to when it was the general agreement 
on tariffs and trade in 1947, established following the Second World 
War, do they know what the goal of it was? To cut taxes; to cut taxes. 
That is the raison d'etre for what was the GATT and now the WTO, 
because, Mr. Speaker, a tariff is a tax. A tax, unfortunately, creates 
a situation whereby we do not allow for the free flow of goods and 
services.
  Let us talk about the issue of automobiles, and I will say that on 
the issue of automobiles we have a situation where we export about 600 
cars a year into China. That tariff is 45 percent. It drops under this 
agreement. I cannot say that every one of the 1.3 billion Chinese will 
be able to buy a sport utility vehicle at $50,000, but I will say this, 
that there will be an opportunity to sell more U.S.-manufactured 
automobiles in China.
  I will say another thing. They keep saying on the other side of the 
aisle that we are trying to do everything that we possibly can to make 
sure that companies have a chance to move to China, set up operations 
there. Well, Mr. Speaker, they can do that today.
  Guess what? They have to do it today because of domestic content 
requirements that exist in China. But under this agreement, those 
domestic content requirements are thrown out. So the incentive that 
many companies have to open up their plants in China today will not be 
as great.
  I do not want to stop any company from making a business decision if 
they want to move to China. I do not think it is my responsibility. I 
do not think it is government's responsibility to block the free flow 
of goods, services, ideas, or businesses, but I do think that anything 
we can do to provide an incentive for a level playing field, whereby 
these companies can stay in the United States and still sell their 
products there, is the right thing for us to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield if there is a question or two 
to my friend from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), if he would like to pose a 
question to me.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. That is 
generous of him, and I regret again that earlier, because of the number 
of Members I had here, I could not yield to him.
  The gentleman seems to be mixing the issue of the WTO and rules and 
enforceability with the permanent normal trade relations accession by 
the United States. There is nothing in the WTO that says that permanent 
normal trade relations status must be granted before a country can 
accede. We can recommend and vote for their accession without giving up 
our right to annually review the actions of the Chinese Government in a 
host of areas, including conformance with trade agreements, which the 
gentleman admits they have violated in the past.
  Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, I will explain this. Let me 
explain the situation as it exists. Last Friday, we saw an agreement 
that was struck between the European Union and the People's Republic of 
China. That agreement will basically seal the deal whereby, as I said, 
the other 134 nations that are members of the WTO will be able to have 
access to the Chinese consumer market, and it is absolutely essential 
that the United States of America, if we as a nation are going to have 
that same access to the Chinese market, that we grant permanent normal 
trade relations.
  Why? Because under the Jackson-Vanik provision that exists, the 
constant review would, in fact, prevent us from having the consistent 
access that all the other countries have into the Chinese market. It 
seems to me that as we look at that, it is very important for us, as 
the world's paramount leader, to be not behind the 8-ball but, in fact, 
we are the ones who should be providing the leadership, and that is 
exactly what we have done to date. We have been encouraging the other 
member nations of the WTO to proceed with their negotiations with the 
People's Republic of China.

  We had, actually, what I thought was a very good arrangement a year 
ago this past April; and unfortunately it was not accepted. But 
negotiations continued and our great U.S. Trade Representative, Ms. 
Barshefsky was able to put together a very good deal last November when 
she sealed that package, and the contingency is that we must grant 
permanent normal trade relations to make that happen.
  Now I believe that we should continue to have some review. We do need

[[Page H3517]]

to do everything that we possibly can to make sure that we raise tough 
questions about human rights policies, about other provisions. That is 
why we have included what is referred to as the Bereuter-Levin 
proposal. That proposal will allow us the opportunity to, through a 
Helsinki-type commission, have 14 representatives, 9 Members of 
Congress and 5 appointees from the executive branch, who will meet and 
make recommendations and observe the human rights policies that exist 
in China.
  So when my friend said that he believes it is important that we 
continue to review it, we are going to have a delegation of Members of 
Congress who will be part of this.
  I see my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) has just arrived, 
and I would be happy to yield to him.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I have yielded to my friend, the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio), and I think it is only fair, since I have to leave in 3 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that issue? I 
have a particular question on that issue.
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman mentioned we needed this agreement for 
regular relations and access to the Chinese market, but has the 
gentleman read the agreement signed in Beijing July 7, 1979 which says, 
and I quote, any advantage, favor, privilege or immunity that either of 
the parties grants to like products originating in or destined for any 
other country or region in all matters regarding shall be granted to 
each of the signers of this agreement?
  We already have an agreement which says they must do that and we must 
do that with them, and they are violating it.
  Mr. DREIER. I agree there have been violations of agreements. That is 
why we have a retaliation mechanism within the WTO. We have not had a 
means by which we could retaliate. That is what the WTO is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I am happy to yield to my friend from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I have to go 
upstairs. I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), and if I can come 
back in just a few minutes I will try to do that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen) will control the time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood) for his assistance in allowing me to precede him.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Record should reflect that the decision 
to yield was also with the acquiescence of the majority leader. The 
gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of extending 
permanent normal trade relations with China and to talk for a few 
minutes about how this agreement will benefit my State, New Jersey and, 
of course, the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, international trade, whether with China or any other 
Nation, means jobs for New Jersians and the continued prosperity for 
our State. That is the bottom line.
  Out of New Jersey's 4.1 million member workforce, about 600,000 
people Statewide from Main Street to Fortune 500 companies are employed 
because of exports, imports, and direct foreign investment. Currently, 
China ranked as New Jersey's ninth largest export destination in 1998, 
an increase from 13 in 1993.
  Our Garden State has exported $668 million in merchandise to China in 
1998, more than double what was exported 5 years earlier.
  Mr. Speaker, for many months now I have been actively spreading the 
positive word about the benefits trade with China will bring to my home 
State of New Jersey. I found many companies that are being just as 
active in educating their own employees, customers, and the public 
about the benefits to their business and to our national economy that 
permanent trade with China brings about. I congratulate these firms, 
particularly American International Group based in Madison, New Jersey.
  In Livingston, New Jersey, AIG, for example, has devoted a public 
policy Web site for AIG employees to learn more about the importance of 
trade with China. They should be commended.
  Mr. Speaker, I have also written many of the large and small 
businesses in my congressional district to get their reaction to the 
need for permanent trading relations with China, and I would like to 
report back on what some of these companies are saying about PNTR and 
why it is important to them.
  Bill Donnelly, President of the Morris County Chamber of Commerce 
said, and I quote, ``This, meaning trade with China, is about more than 
just a transfer of products. It is a transfer of values,'' end of 
quotation.
  Tommy Thomsen, president and CEO of the shipping giant Maersk, based 
in Madison, said, and I quote, ``Our experience is that artificial 
trade barriers hurt all shipping companies, from the largest global 
carrier to the smallest niche player. Our own business and that of the 
U.S. exporters have excelled when companies are allowed unencumbered 
access and are given a chance to compete. American exporters have and 
will respond with ingenuity, with creative ideas and technology to make 
them competitive,'' end of quotations.
  Armand J. Visioli, President of Automatic Switch Company in Florham 
Park, New Jersey, believes, and I quote, ``The failure to provide PNTR 
for China would mean our global competitors would enjoy significant 
advantages in the China market while American companies and farmers 
would see no change to the status quo.'' End of quotations.
  The New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce, quote, ``Recognizes the 
importance of economic engagement with China in order to not only enjoy 
the vastly improved trading relations with an emerging economy but also 
to position itself for continuing input on human rights conditions as 
well.'' End of quotation.
  The New Jersey Farm Bureau said, and I quote, ``Expanding 
agricultural trade opportunities is a solid weapon to combat the low 
commodity prices plaguing farmers and driving down the domestic farm 
economy.'' End of quotation.
  Joe Gonzalez, Jr., President of the New Jersey Business and Industry 
Association, said to me in a letter, ``Annual reviews of China's trade 
status over the past 20 years have had a negative impact on the United 
States-China relations by restricting opportunities for U.S. workers to 
compete in the global market. U.S. exports to China currently support 
hundreds of thousands of jobs and the Chinese market represents the 
most important growth market for American agriculture. U.S. firms need 
to be part of China's development to remain competitive and to 
encourage private market development.'' End of quotations.
  The governor of my State, Christine Todd Whitman, has urged support 
for PNTR and said, ``Because international trade and investments are 
integral to New Jersey's economic vitality, the outcome of debate of 
whether to extend PNTR to China will have unquestionable ramifications 
for New Jersey. We anticipate substantial export growth for both goods 
and services from New Jersey in the Chinese market. Continued export 
growth in the region will lead to increased business for our ports as 
well.'' End of quotations.
  Richard Swift, chairman and president and CEO of the Foster Wheeler 
Corporation in Clinton, New Jersey, said, ``Foster Wheeler Corporation 
is one of the largest exporters of power generation equipment to China. 
One typical Foster Wheeler boiler export adds $10 million to $12 
million to New Jersey's economy each year. These expenditures support 
1,200 jobs at our New Jersey-based suppliers, many of which are small- 
and medium-sized businesses.'' End of quotations.

[[Page H3518]]

  Mr. Speaker, as we are aware, New Jersey is a medicine cabinet of the 
Nation, home to the world's major pharmaceutical companies, providing 
both the medicines and research that save lives around the globe.
  Jack Stafford, chairman, president and CEO of American Home Products 
in Madison, had this to say about the China agreement, and I quote, 
``The United States is the world's leader in pharmaceutical innovation, 
reflecting our long-standing support for a business environment that 
rewards competitive strength and scientific research, medical 
innovation and biotechnology. The United States' pharmaceutical 
industry first entered China 20 years ago. Today there are 19 major 
research-based pharmaceutical companies in China. These leading U.S. 
companies have about $750 million in annual sales and 12 percent of its 
$6.1 billion Chinese market.''

                              {time}  2115

  ``The market is growing nearly 10 percent annually. U.S. research 
pharmaceutical companies have helped introduce innovative world class 
medicines greatly improving the lives of millions of Chinese patients.
  ``American home products investment in the Chinese market is 
significant, and the opportunity for growth for our company and our 
industry is tremendous.
  ``As with all foreign direct investments of U.S.-based multinational 
companies, this creates more jobs in our U.S.-based operations and 
greater resources to invest in research and development for new 
medication for the U.S. market and around the world.''
  Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell in Morristown, New Jersey, who 
has been a true leader through his work at Honeywell and as chairman of 
the U.S.-China Business Council said, ``Beyond the commercial benefits 
that will come from this agreement, China's accession to the World 
Trade Organization constitutes a very positive development in the 
overall U.S.-China bilateral relationship. It will enhance the 
stability of the overall relationship by reinforcing the mutual 
interests and benefits. And, as the World Trade Organization is based 
on rule of law, China's commitment to adopt the terms of this vital 
multilateral organization is a powerful signal of China's desire to 
operate as a full member of the global community.''
  Richard McGinn, chairman and CEO of Lucent Technologies in Murray 
Hill, also wrote me and said the following, ``China represents the 
largest single emerging market opportunity for telecommunications 
products and services'' that we produce ``in the world. Today, less 
than 10 percent of the 1.2 billion people in China have telephone 
service, and one person in 400 has access to the Internet. It is 
estimated that China will account for 20 percent of the global 
telecommunications market by the year 2010.
  ``Lucent's success in China means continued investment in research 
and development, and increased production here in the United States. It 
is very clear that Lucent Technologies, its employees, customers and 
shareholders have a tremendous stake in making sure that our company is 
afforded the same trading rights with China as our foreign competitors. 
The only viable way'', he says, ``to guarantee this is through the 
granting of permanent normal trade relations with China.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this 
agreement and in support of America's continued economic prosperity and 
our Nation's continued democratic influence on global affairs.

                          ____________________