[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3596-H3615]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAL TRADE 
           RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House today and 
rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 
4444.

                              {time}  1636


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4444) to authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment 
(normal trade relations treatment) to the People's Republic of China, 
with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the order of the House today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my fellow Members that this debate today is 
likely the most important debate that we will make, not only in this 
Congress, perhaps in our entire careers.
  I rise in strong and full support of this legislation which grants 
normal trading relations to China and helps to open its borders to the 
enterprising superiority of American workers, American businesses, and 
American farmers.
  This historic legislation serves two critical American interests: 
first, it creates potentially hundreds of thousands of new higher-
paying jobs for American workers; second, it helps our children and our 
grandchildren to live in a more peaceful world and enhance our national 
security.
  Human rights, so important to us Americans, will be helped because we 
know from the testimony of many Chinese dissidents that continuing 
normal trade with China is a plus.
  The environment is important, and this legislation will help improve 
environmental protection. This vote will be the most important vote 
that we as Members of this House will cast, as I said, in this Congress 
and perhaps in our congressional careers.
  While the bill itself may be small, the issue surrounding NTR for 
China is massive. As chairman, I have worked hard to accommodate 
Members on both sides to produce a bill that addresses their concerns 
on issues, such as human rights, prison labor, environment, and anti-
surge protections; and I am pleased that we can include that language 
for consideration by the House.
  This parallel bill, as it is called, is bipartisan; and both the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter) deserve enormous credit for its accomplishment.
  Mr. Chairman, China represents over one-quarter of the world's 
population. Over 1 billion people will not be ignored in the 
international marketplace. Yes, we can agree that China's human rights 
do not measure up to our own standards; we can agree that their 
environmental and labor conditions need to be improved.
  But how does suffering our economic relations with China help us to 
bring about the positive and monumental change which opponents to this 
bill say they want? Mr. Chairman, no opponent has been able to show me 
how we will be better off in accomplishing these goals if we turn down 
normal trading relations with China. If we fail today, it will 
certainly play into the hands of the hardliners in China, and that 
cannot be good for our national interests. I have said that it would be 
unthinkable for the Congress not to approve this historic legislation.
  The American people are with us. By the most recent polling data, 
they

[[Page H3597]]

overwhelmingly support this bill because they know it is good for jobs 
in America and good for human rights and the environment in China.
  Much of this debate has focused on exports, on crops and computers 
and cars and other material goods, and they are important. But the 
greatest American exports to China are those yet to come, the freedom 
of choice and the freedom of opportunity.
  History has shown us that no government can withstand the power of 
individuals who are driven by the taste of freedom and the rewards of 
opportunity. We need to pass this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, trade issues are never easy. They become more difficult 
as globalization has become global. It now includes the largest nation 
in the world. It is destined, according to World Bank estimates, to 
have the second largest national economy in the world in 20 years.
  So China's integration into the world trading system inevitably 
presents both opportunities and challenges both. What we have to do is 
to take advantage of the benefits in the agreement that we negotiated 
with China and also actively address the problems in our relationship.
  Briefly, the benefits, and there will be more discussion of this, the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), chairman of the 
committee, has laid out some of them. Lower tariffs, dramatically lower 
tariffs over time for both agricultural and industrial products. 
Service, a dramatic breakthrough for our service industries. 
Telecommunications, China is exploding in terms of telecommunications. 
So vital barriers that now exist, for example, local content 
requirements, they are out the window under this agreement. 
Restrictions on distribution of our products made in the United States, 
they are gone over time under this agreement. Technology transfers that 
were required by China up to this point would no longer be available to 
the Chinese.
  The point is clear: if we do not grant PNTR to China, it is going 
into the WTO in any event. In any event.

                              {time}  1645

  The U.S. has no veto power over their entry. And if we do not grant 
PNTR, most of the benefits that we negotiated with the Chinese 
Government will not be available to us but they will be to our 
competitors.
  There has been some talk these months about the 1979 agreement 
between the U.S. and China giving us all of the benefits that we have 
since negotiated. I have read the documents many times, and that is 
simply incorrect. But I want to focus right now on the challenges, 
because there are challenges as well as opportunities. One of them is 
the issue of compliance.
  There is weak rule of law today in China. How are we going to make 
sure that China complies with its agreements? The gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I have put together legislation to address 
this challenge as well as others, and there are some meaningful 
compliance provisions in our proposal. One relates to the USTR review, 
an annual review within our own ranks, detailed, meaningful.
  Perhaps it is important granting resources to our agencies China 
specific, China specific, to enforce their agreement. And also there 
is, in essence, an instruction to our USTR that in the protocol 
discussions that will ensue now that the EU has reached agreement with 
China, that she will insist, she will work actively for an annual 
review within the WTO of the agreement by China.
  That is the first aspect in terms of the challenge. The second one 
relates to the potential surges in products from China. It is going to 
compete with us. That is what trade is. It is competition. And there 
could be harmful surges from China into the U.S. that would hurt our 
workers and hurt our producers.
  I will not go into detail now, but I can say, as someone who has 
worked on these issues now for 15 years and fought to keep the 
antidumping provisions in U.S. law in the Uruguay Round, and 
successfully, with the help of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Houghton), this provision, this specific provision as to surges from 
China and handling them, is the strongest anti-surge provision that 
will be in U.S. law.
  Third relates to human rights, including international core labor 
standards in the U.S. law. First of all, in the legislation that the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I have proposed and will be 
before us tomorrow, what we do is to set up a task force, and a 
meaningful one, to pull together the agencies of the U.S. Government to 
work with Customs to make sure that our law on forced and prison labor 
products from China, that that law is implemented.
  And then the commission that we have proposed; high level, at the 
executive-congressional level, full time, fully staffed, patterned 
after the Helsinki Commission, 25 years old. That commission was 
effective in Eastern Europe. This commission that we have put together 
on paper, if we work at it, will be effective in reality. There will be 
nine Members from the House, nine from the Senate, five from the 
executive at the highest levels. We will represent the majority on that 
commission.
  The Helsinki Commission worked and this can work. It will work 
because we will be determined to make it work.
  So, the provisions that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
and others and I have worked on combines PNTR with this framework, with 
this plan of action that is the most promising approach to take 
advantage of the opportunities and to meet the challenges. It allows us 
to both engage China and to confront. It recognizes the internal forces 
for change in China and reinforces them with external pressures by us.
  I want to refer briefly, as I close, to two comments in recent 
articles, one by Dai Qing, who is perhaps China's most prominent 
environmentalist and independent political thinker, and here is what he 
said recently in a report in The Washington Post. In quotes. ``There is 
a battle here between opening to the West and closing to the West. This 
fight is not over. One of the main economic and political problems in 
China today is our monopoly system, a monopoly on power and business 
monopolies. Both elements are mutually reinforcing. The WTO's rules 
would naturally encourage competition and that's bad for both 
monopolies.''
  And then an article just this last Sunday in The New York Times. This 
is a report, not an editorial, and it is entitled ``Chinese See U.S. 
Trade Bill as Vital to Future Reforms.'' And after quoting a large 
number of people in China, including one who recently lost his job as a 
reformer, this is what all of them in this article say. ``Chinese say 
their country is at a tipping point in its history. A yes vote on 
normal trade can propel it forward to greater liberalization and 
engagement with the West. A no vote from Congress will be seen as a 
slap in the face, throwing China back into conservatism and anti-
American hatred.''
  Rejecting PNTR now that it has been combined with the proposals in 
our legislation would likely be a catalyst not for change but for chaos 
in the relationships between the U.S. and China. It would make both 
active engagement and constructive confrontation by the U.S. much more 
difficult.
  There is a better course, colleagues, in this distinguished body at 
this distinguished moment. It is passage of PNTR, now combined with a 
framework, with a plan of action, with a strategy to assess the 
advantages and address the problems.
  I was in China 10 days in January, in Beijing and then Hong Kong. 
After talking to students, after talking to intellectuals, to artists, 
as well as government officials, I came to the conclusion indelibly 
that change in China is irreversible but its direction is not 
inevitable. We must be activists in this process of change. We, the 
United States, cannot isolate China and its 1.2 billion people; and we 
must not isolate ourselves from impacting on China's future direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, every now and then this Congress has the opportunity to

[[Page H3598]]

associate our country with the aspirations of people who sacrifice 
their lives and their livelihood for freedom. The PNTR vote that we are 
debating today gives us that challenge. It challenges the Congress to 
stand with the man before the tank, who courageously, courageously, 
stood his ground for freedom. It challenges us to speak out against the 
brutal occupation of Tibet and against the serious repression in China.
  We have been told over the last decade that human rights in China 
would improve if we had unconditional trade benefits for China. Not so. 
More people are imprisoned for their beliefs in China today than at any 
time since the cultural revolution.
  We were told that unconditional trade benefits for China would stop 
China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to rogue states. 
Again, not so. Not only does China continue to proliferate chemical, 
biological, and nuclear technology, and the delivery systems for them 
to rogue states, they have added Libya as one of their customers, as 
recently as this March 2000.
  But even if we could ignore the serious repression and the dangerous 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, there is serious reason 
to reject this proposal on the basis of trade alone. Mr. Chairman, 
China has never honored any of its trade agreements with the United 
States, including its agreements for market access over the last 20 
years; over and over again agreements on stopping the violation of 
intellectual property, and the piracy continues; and stopping prison 
labor exports from coming into the United States.
  Indeed, the U.S. International Trade Commission said in their own 
analysis, projecting the China deal will result in the loss of 872,000 
American jobs over the next decade. On the basis of trade alone, I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, our economic relationship with Communist China has been 
a disaster for the United States of America, a disaster; and it is in 
the making and we can see it coming, though we have people trying to 
prevent the American people from understanding the significance of what 
has been going on for these last 10 years.
  Economically we have had year after year after year of a massive 
trade surplus with Communist China. What does that mean for the people 
of the United States? We are just going to laugh that off, where they 
have a trade surplus? They allow us to import all of their goods while 
they put restrictions on our goods?
  In terms of our national security, they have used that trade surplus, 
which will be $80 billion this year, to build up their military. And 
who do we think is being threatened by this military buildup of the 
Communist Chinese? They now have the capability of murdering millions 
of Americans with nuclear weapons that they did not have the capability 
for 10 years ago, based on our technology and our money. I consider 
that a disastrous policy.
  And morally, morally, has this worked in our benefit to have this 
relationship, which people now want to make permanent? That is what 
this is about, making a disastrous relationship with Communist China 
permanent. What has it done morally? Today, the Democratic movement in 
China, which used to be healthy, has been smashed. Religious believers 
are being persecuted, even to the point where people who believe in 
meditation and yoga are being thrown into prison by the thousands.
  In Tibet, the genocide goes on. The Communist Chinese could drop an 
atomic bomb on Tibet and murder millions of people, and our business 
community would still be up here saying, well, how are we going to cut 
off progress by trying to confront them with this. No, we have to 
maintain our engagement.
  PNTR basically says that we are going to make permanent the 
relationship that we have had for the last 10 years with Communist 
China. Freeze it. We are going to freeze it. Now, my colleagues may 
say, oh, no, that is wrong; they are going to bring down their unfair 
tariffs that they have had. No, I am afraid not. What will happen is, 
these tariffs, which have been disproportionate, monstrously 
disproportionate, will be brought down a little. They will still have a 
huge tariff disparity between the United States and China.
  In other words, they will continue flooding our market with their 
goods, but what will happen? If we have a dispute with them in the 
future, if we pass PNTR, we have taken all of our bullets out of our 
gun to enforce our decisions. We are giving it to the World Trade 
Organization. Instead of being able to enforce our agreements with 
China, which we have not been able to enforce before, and they have 
broken their agreements with us, we are going to rely on panels and 
commissions of the World Trade Organization.
  We have been told that if we engage with China, that we will 
liberalize China. We will make them more like us. They will become more 
Democratic.

                              {time}  1700

  It has gone the opposite direction. We have been dealing with 
gangsters, and right now we are talking about putting gangsters into 
the chamber of commerce. What makes my colleagues think that dealing 
with a gangster is going to do anything but corrupt their people rather 
than making them any better?
  The debate is not about isolating China. Do not let anybody fool us. 
This is not about isolating China. It is not about severing our 
relations with China. My colleagues will hear that over and over and 
over again in this debate. That is a ruse. It is not true. It is trying 
to get us off what this debate is really about.
  What are we going to achieve by this decision today on permanent 
normal trade relations with China? What we are talking about is 
continuing to allow our big businessmen to massively invest in China 
with government guarantees to the Export-Import Bank and subsidized 
loans and guaranteed loans. That is the bottom line. That is what is 
pushing this.
  We have people closing factories in the United States and opening 
them up to use slave labor in China, and they want the taxpayers to 
guarantee that. They do not care about morality. They do not care about 
human rights. This is a joke.
  Even with the proposal of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), we 
are taking away our ability to enforce any type of human rights 
standards that we have been trying to push on Communist China. And they 
know it. They know that we are taking away our rights even to discuss 
it on the floor of the House every year, which has been one of the only 
things that have held them back. And even with that type of control or, 
at least, influence on them, they have gone in the opposite direction.
  Let me close by saying this: I realize people who believe on the 
other side of this are sincere; they believe they are trying to better 
the prospects for peace in this world and better the prospects for 
freedom, which I think is nonsense. We do not treat tyrants that way. 
But we have tried this before. The world has tried this before.
  We remember Neville Chamberlain as the man who gave away 
Czechoslovakia to Hitler and Munich, but we do not remember what 
Neville Chamberlain did in the years prior to Munich when Hitler had 
taken over Nazi Germany. Neville Chamberlain led up to Munich by 
creating an economic task force designed to invest in Germany so that 
the Germans would have so many economic ties they would never think of 
violating the peace. It reads almost verbatim the argument that we are 
getting today.
  We do not make a liberal by hugging a Nazi. We do not treat gangsters 
as if they are democrats and expect them to be democratic people. No. 
We must stand together with the people in China who long for freedom 
and justice, and we will not do that by kowtowing to these dictators in 
Beijing and giving them what they want.
  Do not give me this, the hardliners do not want us to give them this. 
The hardliners want to continue to have the type of trade surpluses 
that they have had and want us to have to only rely on the WTO if they 
break their word to us.
  This whole idea of permanent normal trade relations with China is 
against the interest of the people of the United

[[Page H3599]]

States, against our moral position, and has undermined our national 
security as we wake up to find that we have built a monster that is 
capable, with the weapons systems and technologies that we have 
provided them, of killing millions of Americans.
  I call on my colleagues to oppose normal trade relations with this 
monstrous regime in Communist China.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the passion that my distinguished colleague, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), has. But I would 
remind him that he should go back to reexamining what his former 
governor, Ronald Reagan, did with regard to our Caribbean neighbors 
when the Caribbean neighbors were subject to the possibility of 
communist expansion and tyranny and Ronald Reagan initiated the 
Caribbean Basin Initiative, which was to make that economic outreach in 
hopes that economic improvement would lead them down the path to 
democratic institutions. It was a marvelous program, and it worked 
superbly well.
  I would remind my distinguished colleague, too, that we have the 
missile capability to kill millions of Chinese people; and we do not 
want that to happen and we do not want China to consider using their 
capabilities against us, either. The best way we move down the path of 
guaranteeing that these things do not happen is establishing those 
better relations.
  I would suggest to my colleague from California, talk to Dr. Billy 
Graham about it. His son has been doing missionary activity over there 
for several years and has distributed literally millions of Bibles in 
mainland China over the past several years, and they are actually 
printing their Bibles in the mainland right now.
  So we have a chance to exert that personal contact and move it in a 
constructive direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ramstad) to elaborate a little further on this issue.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman for yielding me the 
time and for his strong, effective leadership on this historic issue.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a great day in Congress when we can do something 
this positive for the American people. It is a great day in Congress 
when we can work together, both sides of the aisle, Democrats, 
Republicans, and independents alike, in a bipartisan, pragmatic, and 
common sense way on something so important to America's future.
  My governor, Jesse Ventura, is not one to mince words; and he talks 
plain talk. When I invited him to testify before the Committee on Ways 
and Means on this important issue, he put it like this: he said, ``This 
will be one of the most important votes of the century in Congress. And 
by passing permanent normal trade relations with China, Congress will 
be doing more to expand our economy and create jobs than anything else 
we could possibly do.''
  Mr. Chairman, the governor of Minnesota got it right. I just hope we 
get it right.
  Under the terms of the agreement, China's tariffs will fall from an 
average tariff of 25 percent to 9 percent. That is what it means to 
knock down trade barriers so that we can export more goods, expand our 
economy, and create more jobs.
  As cultural tariffs will fall from an average of 32 percent, it is no 
wonder our farmers cannot sell grain to China, fall from an average of 
32 percent to 15 percent by the year 2004.
  Well, what do these tariff reductions mean? They mean that members of 
Minnesota's Medical Alley, America's Medical Alley, from big companies 
like Medtronic to small manufacturers like American Medical Supplies 
can improve and save and better Chinese lives. It means Minnesota's 
companies, America's companies, like Cargill, Pillsbury, General Mills, 
Jennie-O, Hormel, and others can sell more food and other products in 
China.
  That means that efficient Minnesota farmers, America's farmers, corn 
growers, pork producers, soy bean farmers can export more food to the 
growing population in China. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line, it means a 
better quality of life for the Chinese people and a better quality of 
life for the American people.
  What some critics do not understand is that trade is not a zero-sum 
game; it is a win-win for both economies, for both countries. It means 
Minnesota's jobs, America's jobs will continue to grow, our economy can 
expand, good jobs.
  So I urge our colleagues to support this historic, momentous, 
critical issue. Vote ``yes'' on permanent normal trade relations with 
China.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. LaFalce).
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, on January 1, 1979, I was one of the 
representatives of the United States and President Carter at the 
ceremonies in Beijing reestablishing normal relations with China.
  Last week, I chatted with President Carter; and we reminisced about 
what had happened in the 2 decades in between. We share virtually 
identical views.
  Twenty years ago, China was a closed society, virtually no phones, no 
newspapers, no access to the outside world, no private enterprise, no 
relations with citizens of the United States, no hope, and no future. 
And today that has changed, in large part because we have had normal 
relations with China, because we engage China.
  Today, China has gone from virtually no phones to about 130 million 
phones. They talk about freedom of speech. That is what phones, 
especially digital cell phones, help facilitate.
  Today, China has gone from virtually no newspapers whatsoever to 
millions of users of the Internet, the greatest democratizing tool the 
world has every known, for it opens people to news, to ideas from every 
corner of the world. That is progress.
  In fact, President Carter and I shared the thought that China, 
despite all its still existing problems, has probably advanced the 
human condition more in the past 20 years than any other nation in 
history.
  But let us turn to this agreement. It should be a no-brainer. We give 
no tariff reductions or additional market entry whatsoever. They lower 
their tariffs drastically and open their markets. That is a clear 
winner for our exports.
  Last week we negotiated the strongest anti-surge controls ever 
legislated. We can now stop surges of Chinese exports. We could not 
before. That is a winner.
  This is a historic vote. We can draw a circle that either includes 
China or excludes China, almost one quarter of the people of the planet 
Earth. We can maximize our influence or decimate our influence. The 
choice is ours. History demands a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and my 
colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to granting permanent normal trade 
relations to China. We cannot reward China with PNTR while she 
continues to violate the human rights of her people. We are sending the 
wrong message to the rest of the world. The spirit of history is upon 
us, and we must be guided by the spirit of history to do the right 
thing. Granting PNTR allows China to continue the terrible abuses 
without any consequences.
  I ask my colleagues, how much are we prepared to pay? Are we prepared 
to sell our souls? Are we prepared to betray our conscience? Are we 
prepared to deny our shared values of freedom, justice, and democracy?
  Where is the freedom of speech? Where is the freedom of worship? 
Where is the freedom of assembly? Where is the freedom to organize? 
Where is the freedom to protest? Where is the freedom? It is not in 
China.
  Can we forget Tiananmen Square, 11 years ago, June 4, 1989? We cannot 
forget, and we must not forget.
  Some of us have worked too long and too hard for civil rights and 
human rights here at home and other places in the world not to stand up 
for human rights in China.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe in trade, free and fair trade. But I do not 
believe in

[[Page H3600]]

trade at any price. And the price of granting PNTR for China is much 
too high. It is a price we should not be prepared to pay.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose normal trade 
relations for China.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we heard about reference to Ronald 
Reagan and China. I worked with President Reagan on some of the 
speeches that he gave when he went to China; and we should not forget 
that, during Ronald Reagan's time, Ronald Reagan strategized in order 
to develop a democratic movement in China, which, after Ronald Reagan 
left office, was smashed, yes. But during Ronald Reagan's time, when he 
supported expanding our relationship with China, he also supported and 
was very active in making sure that there was a democratic movement.
  That was a force within China. Now that that has been destroyed by 
the Communist Chinese Government, there is no excuse for continuing 
those same strategies.
  When it came to the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan made himself very 
clear; we never provided anything like that. He tried to undermine the 
economic strength of the Soviet Union to bring about peace and 
democratization. That is what worked, because there was not a democracy 
movement in the Soviet Union.
  Let us read history, and let us learn from it. What we have now is we 
are going in the opposite direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, we talk about checks and balances. What kind of checks 
and balances will we have on China if they get permanent trade status?
  We have been reviewing them once a year and, because of that, they 
know that once a year we are going to vote on it and we can withdraw 
that favorable status that they have.

                              {time}  1715

  They have 35 to 40 percent of our market. Thirty-five to 40 percent 
of their exports come to the United States. They are not going to cut 
off their nose to spite their face if we do not go along with them on 
this permanent trade status today. It means too much to them.
  What I want Members to do right now is to look back and see what has 
happened in China just recently and what they have been doing. They 
stole our nuclear secrets. They were involved in espionage at Los 
Alamos and Livermore Laboratories and they now have the ability to kill 
50 million people in this country with one missile on a mobile launch 
vehicle with 10 W-88 warheads. They did not have that before. This just 
happened recently.
  Do my colleagues remember Tiananmen Square? I think the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) cited that very thoroughly and very well. 
There are 10 million people in slave labor camps making tennis shoes 
and other things for nothing but a bowl of gruel a day. And we talk 
about human rights.
  They are taking people who are alive in prisons and if you or I want 
a kidney and we are willing to go to China, for 30 to $35,000 they will 
take that person and they will kill him today, they will extricate 
their kidney, take it out of them, and they will immediately transplant 
it into you if you need it. If you have the money, you can go to China 
and get it. They will make a match, they will check your blood type and 
immediately you will get a kidney out of a live human being, guaranteed 
fresh. That goes on today.
  They have tried to influence our political process. We know that Liu 
Chao Ying met with Johnny Chung in Hong Kong and the head of the 
People's Liberation Army intelligence service, comparable to our CIA or 
DIA, Mr. Ji, came in and said, we like your President, we want to see 
him reelected and he gave $300,000 to them.
  Millions of dollars came in from that part of the world to try to 
influence our elections. Does that sound like they want to work with 
us? They now control or will control both ends of the Panama Canal. Li 
Ka Shing who is tied in with the People's Liberation Army and the 
Communist hierarchy in China now has ports at both ends of the Panama 
Canal and in the not too distant future they will be able to stop us 
from using it.
  Today we just found out the other canal in the world, the Suez Canal 
that is so important to all of us and to transportation of commerce, 
they now have the same organization headed by Li Ka Shing and the 
People's Liberation Army, they are going to have Port Said on the Suez 
Canal. They are moving around the world pieces of influence like chess 
pieces and they are going to checkmate us if we are not very careful 
and we are giving them the money and the influence to do it.
  Their trade surplus with us was $68 billion last year; and I submit 
if we pass this, it is going to be greater. Once American commerce goes 
over there and finds they can get labor for 50 cents an hour or less, 
you think they are going to want to pull out, especially if the human 
rights problems get worse and worse over there or they start trying to 
block our shipping if we do not do what they want? Of course not.
  We are getting pressure today by many business interests. What do you 
think it is going to be like when they start moving their plants over 
there and paying slave wages to people over there to produce goods and 
services? They are going to go along with whatever it takes because it 
means the almighty dollar. They are going to make money. All I can say 
to my colleagues is there are a million reasons not to approve this and 
only one to approve it. I submit that we should not approve it.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to remind my distinguished colleague from Indiana that 
there is nothing about this action we are about to take that is 
irrevocable by any future Congress. Permanent trade relations can be 
granted today and taken away tomorrow. This is an action that Congress 
can take any time that it is so inclined to do so. I would like to 
remind my colleague, too, that he made reference to the fact of the $68 
billion trade deficit we have with China.
  If you lock yourself out of the Chinese market, how do you plan to 
address that? What the existing relationship does is guarantee that we 
do not have access to their market. Permanent normal trade relations 
with China gives us access to their market as they have access to our 
market at this time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, real briefly let me just ask the 
gentleman this. Does he really believe after American industry invests 
plant and equipment and money over there that they are going to allow 
us to withdraw permanent trade status?
  Mr. CRANE. If I can reclaim my time, they have already invested.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. But there will be more.
  Mr. CRANE. I have the headquarters of Motorola in my district. 
Motorola has a plant they have had in Shanghai for some time. I was 
over there. I had the opportunity to visit with the head of the 
Motorola plant in Shanghai. He made reference to the fact that in their 
plant, they provide the employees clean working conditions, they 
provide overtime pay for more than a 40-hour workweek, they provide 
health care benefits to their employees.
  And I said, gee, did you bring that all over from the United States 
and they said, no, those are the guidelines of the Chinese government 
to foreign companies doing business there. I thought about it for a 
moment because there were some grungy Chinese factories in Shanghai 
that I had seen when I was walking around neighborhoods. And I thought 
about it for a moment, that if the gentleman from Indiana is working in 
a grungy Chinese factory and I am working for Motorola and we are 
having our Tsingtaos together at the end of a long workday and the 
gentleman is moaning about the grungy working conditions and no 
overtime pay and no health care benefits, it is only logical that I am 
going to say, hey, why do you work there? Come work for Motorola.
  Ben Franklin made the observation, a good example is the best sermon. 
We provide that good example and the best

[[Page H3601]]

sermon. It is something that has an effect that goes beyond just the 
parochial interests of that company.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Twenty-three years ago I was 19 years old and I was peddling a 
bike around in Taiwan. I was sent there as a missionary for the Mormon 
church. One of my responsibilities was to go around and knock on 
people's doors to try to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.
  It is interesting, this Friday I will be going back to Taiwan a lot 
less humble and lowly than I was 22 years ago. I will be meeting with 
the newly elected President, President Chen Shui-bian, who by the way 
is a strong advocate of permanent normal trade relations between China 
and the United States. I made these comments because I remember in the 
1970s when I lived in Taiwan. We have had some examples of history.
  Let me tell my colleagues about the history of Taiwan. I know. I 
lived there. I speak the language. I know the people. In the 1970s, 
Taiwan was anything but the free democracy we see today. We just saw 
with this recent election, a free and democratic election in Taiwan, 
the second of its kind in 5,000 years. But it was not always that way.
  In fact, Taiwan had a very oppressive governmental regime. There was 
not freedom of speech. There was not freedom of the press. In fact, I 
remember talking with an individual in the park one day, he was being 
critical of the government, we never saw him again; and we were told 
that he went to prison. The fact is Taiwan was not a free society. But 
they engaged with the West, they adopted economic reforms. If we can 
use history, let us use the history of that region.
  The fact is, they adopted market reforms as China has and they moved 
to political reforms which go hand in hand with market reforms. I know 
we want changes now; we want them immediately. Let me tell my 
colleagues about the people, the Chinese employees of American 
companies who were in my office last week and talked about their 
conversion to Christianity and the conversions were made while they 
worked at American companies.
  In talking to their American counterparts who were Christians, they 
got an opportunity to believe. One of the Chinese employees talked to 
me about how she joined a house church 2 years ago, five people in that 
church, now over 200. She told me the fact that in 1994, China allowed 
to be printed 400,000 Bibles into the Chinese language. The number this 
year is 4 million. The fact is there are good changes. No, they are not 
perfect but there are good changes happening. Let us not abandon these 
people. Let us maintain our skeptical nature with the Chinese 
government and the oppressive regime, but let us not abandon the 
American people just to salve our own consciences.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I thank him for his leadership in this issue. The 
world's most important relationship over the next 20 years will be 
between the United States, the world's greatest military power and 
economic power, and China, the world's oldest culture and largest 
population. The change in China since Nixon began diplomatic and 
economic engagement has been nothing short of phenomenal.
  The forces of change and reform will win out sooner if the United 
States is engaged than if we play into the hands and forces of 
repression. Isolation simply does not work. In South Africa, it took 
all of the world's developed powers coalesced against a relatively 
small country to change apartheid.
  The rest of the world does not agree with us on China. We cannot even 
force change in Cuba, a tiny country with an aging dictator and a 
population about the size of Michigan. The United States could 
accelerate change in China, and that will not just have significant 
benefits for our businesses, it will also benefit the environment. But 
that takes modern technology and investment, services that the Chinese 
need that we are good at and that will improve their environment while 
it provides us with economic opportunities.
  Over half a century ago, the Marshall Plan invested not just in our 
devastated allies but in our defeated enemies in Europe. The Russians, 
however, denied us a partnership in Eastern Europe because they knew it 
would hasten the emergence of democracies and free enterprise.
  Today, after having spent trillions of American tax dollars to win 
the Cold War, we have an opportunity to accept an offer from the forces 
of Chinese reform. Approval of normal trade relations will not change 
China overnight. We will have to remain vigilant to make sure we use 
every tool we have to make sure the Chinese adhere to the agreement, 
but it will give us firmer footing in the Chinese economy, it will give 
us beachheads and inroads of the type that so terrified Stalin and 
continue to terrify the Chinese dictators. A vote for permanent normal 
trade relations will hasten human rights, environmental protection and 
a stronger economy in China and the United States.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to granting permanent normal trade relations with China. 
China should not be rewarded for its domestic and international record 
of abuses of workers, religious leaders and democracy activists, nor 
for its repeated abrogations of international treaties.
  An annual review of this Nation's trade status as opposed to 
permanent certification such as this bill would provide is a critical 
means by which China and other nations can be held accountable for 
their actions. We need to do this since as The New York Times noted 
today, China is not known for its strict adherence to trade agreements. 
In fact, it is known for exactly the opposite.
  Granting permanent normal trade relations with China as well as the 
country's accession to the WTO represent another missed opportunity to 
incorporate strong protections for human rights, worker rights, and 
environmental rights in trade agreements. I agree that expanded trade 
under the right terms can raise standards of living for all; but I will 
continue to fight for fair agreements that ensure that standards to 
protect the environment, workers, and human rights are not compromised 
in the process.
  Unfortunately, granting PNTR will only exacerbate the race to the 
bottom where corporations can circle the globe looking for and 
pressuring for the lowest standards, setting up low-wage sweatshops, 
dumping their pollution, and creating unsafe conditions for the public.
  This race to the bottom pus countries with higher standards at a 
disadvantage and makes new environmental and workers protections harder 
to enact.
  Most supporters of PNTR and WTO acceptance for China admit that China 
continues to be a rogue nation.
  Even the Clinton Administration's own briefing book in favor of PNTR 
for China says: ``China denies or curtails basic freedoms, including 
freedom of speech, association, and religion.''
  But proponents argue that economic engagement will ultimately result 
in a more democratic system there. I disagree.
  China's pattern of violating the rights of its own people has 
continued despite the increased economic ties of most favored nation 
status that Congress has granted year after year.
  The State Department's most recent Annual Country Report of Human 
Rights report states that China's human record has ``deteriorated 
markedly throughout the year as the government intensified efforts to 
suppress dissent.''
  The first report of the congressionally chartered United States 
Commission on International Religious Freedom noted that ``Chinese 
government violations of religious freedom increased markedly during 
the past year.'' The Commission recommended against Congress granting 
PNTR until China makes demonstrated and substantial progress in respect 
for religious freedom.
  The National Labor Committee issued a report on May 10 that gives a 
picture of the unacceptable working conditions that flourish inside 
many factories in China making goods for US companies like Wal-Mart, 
Nike and Huffy.

[[Page H3602]]

  The NLC found factories making goods for American companies where 
workers were being held under conditions of indentured servitude, 
forced to work 12 to 14 hours a day, seven days a week, with only one 
day off a month, while earning an average wage of 3 cents an hour.
  Even after months of work, 46 percent of the workers surveyed earned 
nothing at all-in fact they owed money to the company. The workers were 
allowed out of the factory for just an hour and a half a day. And when 
the workers protested being forced to work from 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 
p.m., seven days a week, for literally pennies an hour, 800 workers 
were fired.
  There is no credible reason to believe that conditions like these 
will be improved by giving up our right to review to China's trade 
status. The U.S. bilateral negotiating position with China would be 
crippled if the country were granted PNTR and admitted to the WTO. Our 
large trade deficit with China, expected to be over $60 billion this 
year, potentially gives the U.S. significant bargaining power to 
enforce and strengthen our existing trade laws. But this bargaining 
power would be further limited by the WTO.
  Some have argued that parallel legislation or a side agreement will 
remedy the problems I have discussed. But, we have been down that side 
agreement road before and it is not pretty. It is filled with the raw 
sewage and other environmental destruction that lines the border with 
Mexico under the NAFTA side agreement.
  Finally, China's history of failing to comply with trade agreements 
leads me to view new agreements with a skeptical eye.
  China has broken nearly every agreement--from market access to prison 
labor to intellectual property rights--it has made with the United 
States. For example, in 1992 and 1994, China signed agreements that it 
would not export products made by slave labor to the US and would allow 
visits of US officials to any suspected site.
  But, the State Department's Human Rights Report specifically finds 
that: ``in all cases [of forced labor identified by US customs], the 
[Chinese] Ministry of Justice refused the request, ignored it, or 
simply denied it without further elaboration.
  This is not a record worthy of further trust.
  I believe that China should be held accountable for its widespread 
abuses. Granting China special status as a trading partner is the wrong 
way to accomplish that goal. I urge my Colleagues to join me in 
opposition to PNTR for China.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) who is one of the few Ph.D.s and 
scientists we have with us here in the United States Congress.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, when I came here several years ago, I bought the 
argument that if we engage with China that they would change and so I 
voted for most-favored-nation trading status.
  Well, China did change. They got worse. Our own State Department says 
that their already poor human rights record deteriorated markedly 
throughout the last year as the government intensified efforts to 
suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent. Documented human 
rights abuses include extrajudicial killings, torture and mistreatment 
of prisoners, forced detentions, arbitrary arrest and detention, 
lengthy incommunicado detention and denial of due process.
  They continue to steal our intellectual property rights as they 
ignore copyrights and patents. Slave labor goes on, perhaps 
intensified. I am particularly concerned about the theft of technology. 
They have stolen our missile secrets. They have stolen our bomb 
secrets. Contrary to our Constitution and in violation of our laws, 
they sought to and perhaps were successful in buying the last 
presidential election. They threatened to nuke us if we object to their 
intentions with Taiwan. It is simplistic and naive to believe that 
either the PNTR or membership in WTO will move China toward 
international development, as President Clinton says, in the right 
direction.

                              {time}  1730

  Certainly what they are going to do is what every major power does; 
they are going to do what is in their own best interests, advancing 
their own strategic interests.
  Finally, I am particularly concerned about the effect of this on our 
national security. Last year we had a $68 billion trade deficit. This 
is money which they could and did use to arm themselves. Those arms may 
very well be used against our people.
  For two very good reasons, a no vote is the right vote. First of all, 
we need to send the message that this is unacceptable international 
behavior; secondly, it is really not very bright to arm your enemy.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this evening we are beginning what I believe is a very 
historic debate in this body. I know that is sometimes an overworked 
word; but I think one has to go back to the last century, to the early 
part of the last century, and look at the vote and debate on the League 
of Nations, or the middle of the century to look at the debate on lend-
lease, or towards the end of the century to look at the debate on 
Desert Storm, to find issues and foreign policy that really were 
pivotal to the future of this country.
  I say pivotal to the future of this country, because I believe, as 
important as the issues about trade and human rights and economic 
advantages are, this issue is not really about China, it is about 
America. As we embark on this century and this new millennium, the 
United States has to decide what role it is going to play in the world. 
There is this much discussed ``death of distance'' that we hear about 
today, but it is real. State-of-the-art telecommunications systems have 
brought about a global village. Now people from every corner of the 
planet are only a phone call, a satellite hookup, an e-mail away from 
each other. But in the wrong hands, technology has the potential to do 
great harm. As weapons of mass destruction continue to proliferate, 
every nation now faces the prospect of nuclear, chemical, or biological 
attacks from a rogue state that is just a half world away, or a 
terrorist group that has no fixed location.
  Confusion could reign in a world with such promise and peril. But 
that does not have to be the case, if America maintains its position of 
world leadership. Throughout this last century, we set the example for 
the world. Our vision helped to bring to this planet an unprecedented 
era of peace and prosperity at its end.
  International trade has connected our world's economies as never 
before and has made our people more dependent upon each other. This 
interconnectedness gives every nation a giant incentive to keep the 
peace. It has worked in the past, just look at how far we have come; 
and it will work in the future, if the United States continues to lead.
  Mr. Chairman, America cannot maintain its leadership role by refusing 
to trade with the world's largest economy. PNTR is in our economic 
self-interest, there can be no doubt about that, but it is also vital 
for peace and freedom throughout the world. If we choose to abdicate 
our leadership, the consequences are dire.
  Will America continue to show through the power of its example that 
representative government and free trade lead to stability, peace, and 
prosperity? That is the real issue we are dealing with today.
  I believe America has a mission. It is our duty to show that freedom 
works, and that is why I support PNTR; and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the very distinguished senior 
Member and expert on security issues.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support permanent 
normal trade relations for China. I will vote in favor of it, not only 
because of the benefits that American farmers and businesses stand to 
gain in terms of increased trade, which are substantial, but also 
because of the impact approval of PNTR will have for U.S. national 
security and stability in Asia.
  A solid trade relationship with China with its huge potential markets 
is important to Missouri. In 1998, China was Missouri's sixth most 
important export market, and the United States' fourth largest trading 
partner. From 1991 to 1998, U.S. exports to China more than doubled. 
The agreement that the administration reached with China last November 
concerning China's accession to the World Trade Organization commits 
China to eliminate export

[[Page H3603]]

subsidies and lower tariffs dramatically, reduce its farm supports, and 
play by the same trade rules as we do.
  Further concessions recently gained by the European Union would 
increase the benefits, as the agreement would apply to all parties to 
the World Trade Organization.
  Congressional approval of PNTR also has implications for U.S. 
national security. Early this year, I led a small House Committee on 
Armed Services delegation on a trip to the Asia Pacific region. 
Although we did not visit China, we found in our meetings with 
officials how much they told us the value of America's presence and 
engagement to the region is important.
  The state of U.S.-China relations is critical to the future 
stability, prosperity, and peace in Asia. Encouraging China to 
participate in global economic institutions is in our interests because 
it will bring China under a system of global trade rules and draw it 
into the world community. It is in our long-term interests to develop a 
relationship with China that is stable and predictable. China will 
enter the World Trade Organization based upon the votes of all 135 WTO 
members.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  The President and the Republican leaders and Wall Street say this 
agreement is about jobs. Well, it is about jobs, job gains in China, 
and lost jobs for American workers. We are running a 60 billion trade 
deficit with China, and the President's own analysts, in looking at 
this agreement, the International Trade Commission, say it will reach a 
$120 billion deficit in 10 years under this agreement, if they live up 
to it. That is if they live up to the agreement.
  Does anyone really believe that the Chinese workers at 20 cents an 
hour constitute a huge market for U.S. goods? No. They represent a huge 
pool of cheap, oppressed labor that U.S. firms hope to better exploit 
under this agreement. It is about U.S. capital fleeing to China, 
manufacturing fleeing to China, to exploit cheap labor.
  They say it is about trust, this agreement is about trust. The 
Chinese have broken every trade agreement they have ever signed with 
the United States of America. They are violating them today, the 1979, 
the 1992, the 1994, the 1996.
  They are saying, oh, they are going to lower tariff barriers. Guess 
what? The Chinese do not use tariffs to keep our goods out. They have a 
host of non-tariff barriers that are constantly mutating, unwritten 
rules to keep out U.S. goods, and, guess what? Their leaders have gone 
on the radio and in the press and television and told their people not 
to worry, they can and will maintain those barriers against U.S. 
manufacturers under this agreement. They have given up nothing but 
beautiful words. That is the statement of their own chief negotiator.
  It is about trust. It is about broken trust. They have broken it 
again and again, and now we are saying, ``Oh, we trust them this 
time.''
  It is about the environment. There is not one word, not one word, in 
this agreement about the environment. The Chinese are the greatest 
producers of ozone-depleting chemicals in the world. Not one word. The 
Chinese are the greatest producers of global warming gases. Not one 
word. The Chinese are the greatest violators of the CITES Agreement. 
The last Siberian tiger, the last Asian rhinoceros, will die to go into 
their medicines. Not one word in this agreement.
  No to so-called permanent normal trade relations for a nation that 
does not act normally.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). There has been no stronger voice for human 
rights in this body than this gentleman.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I am a free trader. I voted for NAFTA. I was 
one of the 30 Republicans that voted to bomb Kosovo, so I am kind of 
tired with the argument with regard to isolationists.
  What about the eight Catholic bishops, and now we know from the CIA 
briefing there are more? What about the 50 evangelical house pastors 
that are in jail? What about the over 400 Buddhist monks and nuns that 
have been persecuted and are suffering in that dirty jail in Lasa? What 
about the Muslims that are being persecuted in the northwest portion of 
the country? What about the fact that there are more slave labor camps 
in China today than there were in the Soviet Union when Solzhenitsyn 
wrote the book Gulag Archipelago? What about the 500 women a day in 
China that commit suicide, 56 percent of all the women in the world 
that commit suicide, because of forced abortions and their population 
policies? What about the organ program, where they will kill people to 
sell the organs?
  I ask our side, and our side is forgetting the legacy of Ronald 
Reagan, I ask our side, I wrote our side seven letters, get the CIA 
briefing; go find out who they are selling the weapons to. Only 45 
Members took the time to get the briefing, and yet every major defense 
organization and veterans group came out against this: The VFW, the 
American Legion, the Purple Heart.
  What about the missiles directed against the United States? What 
about the Cruise missiles they just purchased from China? What about 
the assault weapons they put into this country? What about it?
  If this Congress, a Republican Congress, votes to give MFN, we will 
be on the wrong side of the American people, and we will be on the 
wrong side of history, and we, those who vote this way, if this PNTR 
passes, will have the same feelings that Chamberlain had when he 
returned from Nazi Germany and said, ``We have peace in our times, go 
home and get a good sleep,'' and then the bombs began.
  Vote no and give it an opportunity. For the handful of undecideds 
that have not made a decision, how will you feel about this vote 5 and 
10 and 15 years from now? How will you feel about it if after this vote 
takes and they invade Taiwan and American men and women are killed?
  Vote no tomorrow when you are given a chance.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague from Illinois, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, for his leadership on this 
historic moment here as we debate the issue of trade with China.
  Some have stood here in this well, and more will, saying we should 
vote no as a sign of moral superiority over the Chinese. Some will say 
we should vote no because they dislike the political views of the 
Chinese leadership, and some will vote no because they say that we 
should close the door, essentially build a trade wall around China.
  Well, what this is all about is whether or not we as Americans want 
to engage in trade and sell our products to the world's most populous 
nation, a nation of 1.3 billion people. We are going to be casting the 
vote, not whether or not we want to sell our products made in States 
like my home State of Illinois, or other States in our Nation to, 1.3 
billion people. And who gets hurt if we say no? Clearly those involved 
in manufacturing products, those who are involved in creating new 
technologies, as well as those who provide food and fiber.
  I am proud to say that my State of Illinois leads in all three areas 
as a major exporting State. Illinois ranks third in exports in 
technology, Illinois ranks third in exports in agricultural products, 
and Illinois ranks at the top in manufacturing exports. China is a 
tremendous market.
  Think about it. The new economy, technology today, the average wage 
for our technology jobs in Illinois are 77 percent higher than 
traditional business sector jobs. China now has the potential, because 
of its huge population and the desire by the average Chinese to go 
online and have a computer at home, China next year has the potential 
not only to be the second largest PC market for personal computers on 
the globe, but also the second largest market for semiconductors.
  Ronald Reagan won the Cold War and brought down the Berlin Wall and 
brought freedom into the former Soviet Union because of the television 
and the fax machine, and, of course, his leadership. Today we have the 
opportunity, because of the Internet, to expand our values of freedom. 
Let us vote aye on permanent normal trade relations with China.

[[Page H3604]]

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 10 seconds to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here today to begin debate on the most important 
piece of legislation pending before this Congress in this session, and 
probably for many years to come, whether to grant PNTR to China and 
pave the way for their entry into the World Trade Organization.
  I am supportive of PNTR because I believe its passage is crucial to 
our long-term economic prosperity, as well as our strategic and 
national security interests in the 21st century. I also believe in what 
former Secretary of State Cordell Hull was famous for saying, and that 
is, ``When goods and products cross borders, armies do not.''
  But I do not want to stand up here and oversell the merits of PNTR. I 
think the rhetoric on both sides has been overblown on this issue from 
time to time.

                              {time}  1745

  But I do believe that the passage is vitally important to our long-
term relationship with the world's most populated nation. And I also 
believe that we are at the crossroads of our relationship with China. 
We can go one of two directions. We can either continue to isolate and 
demonize and pursue a failed trade policy, a policy that is failing our 
American workers and American farmers today, and even failing the 
people in China themselves; or we could pursue a new policy through 
enhanced trade and, through strategic engagement with China, offer what 
I view is the best hope for peace and prosperity and hopefully greater 
stability in this world for our children.
  But there are more notable and expert people than I on China that 
have weighed in on this. Former President Jimmy Carter made this 
statement in regards to PNTR, ``When I became President, one of the 
greatest challenges that I had to face was whether I should normalize 
diplomatic relations with China. There is no doubt in my mind that a 
negative vote on this issue in Congress will be a serious setback and 
impediment for the further democratization, freedom and human rights in 
China.''
  And perhaps the foremost human rights activist in China today, Martin 
Lee, had this to say in support of PNTR during a discussion that I 
personally had with him: ``in short bring China into the international 
forum and hold her to the agreement rather than exclude her. How can 
human rights improve by keeping China out? You punish the government, 
but you punish the people even more.''
  In fact, Mr. Lee also talked about the power that the Internet 
provides by empowering the people within China with the free flow of 
information and ideas to make the changes that have to be made by them 
to improve human rights, labor conditions and hopefully for a free and 
democratic society.
  Now, those on the other side opposing this, I think, do so for 
legitimate reasons: job security at home, concern about human rights 
and political freedoms abroad. I share these same concerns. I think we 
merely differ over the best strategy on how to achieve these very 
important objectives.
  Mr. Chairman, I will vote yes for PNTR for many of the same reasons I 
vote for most of the issues in this Congress, through the eyes of my 
two little boys, Johnny who is going to be 4 in August and Matthew who 
is going to be 2 this Saturday. They both, God willing, will live 
through and see most if not all of the 21st century. That is why in my 
heart and with my conscience, I support PNTR. I do so because I believe 
this legislation today gives us our best opportunity to provide our 
children for tomorrow the most prosperous, stable, and peaceful world 
in which to live as they embark upon their marvelous journey through 
the 21st century.
  So I urge my colleagues to support passage of PNTR tomorrow, if for 
nothing else, for the sake of the future of our children in the 21st 
century.


                           the wto agreement

  This trade agreement with China is truly historic because it is one-
sided. In October of 1999, the United States and China reached a trade 
agreement that drastically and unilaterally lowers China's trade 
tariffs to our manufactured goods and farm products. The United States 
did not lower a single tariff to Chinese goods. China made this 
agreement in an effort to gain America's support for its admission into 
the World Trade Organization (WTO). Along with our support for China's 
entry into the WTO, we must grant the same trade status as we do all 
other WTO member nations.
  But let me be clear, this trade agreement will not make it any easier 
for China to export more products into our country. This agreement will 
not make it any easier for any company to close a plant here to 
relocate in China. This trade agreement will, however, make it easier 
for U.S. firms to sell products in Chinese markets.


                             American Trade

  The United States is the world's largest exporter, selling over 26% 
more products abroad than our nearest competitor. International trade 
has been crucial in maintaining the longest economic expansion in 
American history. The jobs of millions of American workers and the 
growth of thousands of American businesses, large and small, are tied 
to global trading and the accessibility of worldwide markets.


                            wisconsin trade

  Companies large and small in my home state of Wisconsin benefit from 
international trade. Companies like Accelerated Genetics in Westby, who 
have 215 employees and sell $20 million in annual sales, export over 
45% of their total business. The Turkey Store in Barron County exports 
almost 20% of their turkey products. Ashley Furniture in Arcadia sells 
furniture in 96 different countries around the world. The Trane 
Company, which has gone so far as to merge its domestic and 
international administrative units into one unified worldwide 
operation, exports 30-40% of their total products. Trade is clearly a 
crucial part of these companies' business, and that is only the tip of 
the iceberg.


                           farmers and trade

  The fate of our farmers is also linked to continued exports in world 
markets. American farmers are the most efficient and productive farmers 
in the world. At the same time, the United States has less than 4% of 
the world population, while China has 20%. U.S. agriculture 
productivity is increasing, but domestic demand for its products is 
stagnant. We must be able to export more of our agricultural products 
to relieve the oversupply of products in our nation which is driving 
prices down.
  The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture projects U.S. farm exports will 
increase by $2 billion annually by 2005 with passage of the China trade 
agreement. China has agreed to reduce dairy tariffs from 50% to 12% 
enabling west coast dairy producers to export more of their products. 
Those exports should relieve the supply pressure on our own domestic 
market which is suppressing commodity prices. If Congress fails to pass 
this legislation, U.S. farmers and other workers will lose out on a 
vast new market in an economy that has grown about 10% annually over 
the last 20 years.


                               martin lee

  In my conversation with Martin Lee, he expressed to me his sincere 
belief that, given China's almost certain accession to the WTO, it is 
in the best interest of the Chinese people for Congress to approve 
PNTR. He believes a vote for PNTR will ensure that the United States 
remains a full partner in the world community's engagement with China, 
and will strengthen our position as a leader of reform. The status quo, 
he said, will have no effect on human rights in China, and in fact, may 
result in entrenching hard-line, anti-reform positions. Making it 
easier for U.S. products and services to reach Chinese markets will 
force the Chinese government to strengthen its legal system and respect 
the rule of law, which will only serve to protect the political, labor 
and civil rights of individuals in China. We emphasized that through 
the power of the Internet and the free flow of information and ideas 
that increased trade brings, faster progress can be made on human 
rights, labor conditions and eventually, a free and democratic China.


                             Worker Rights

  Former United Auto Workers president, Leonard Woodcock, is also 
urging Congress to pass PNTR and support China's entry into the WTO. He 
argues that increased access to Chinese markets eventually will improve 
conditions for Chinese workers. ``American labor has a tremendous 
interest in China's trading on fair terms with the United States,'' 
Woodcock said. ``The agreement we signed with China this past November 
marks the largest single step ever taken toward achieving that goal.''


                           importance of vote

  We face an important decision in Congress, a decision that will shape 
our relationship with the world's most populous nation. If you support 
greater economic opportunities here at home, as well as the advancement 
of human rights and labor conditions in China, you

[[Page H3605]]

should support granting permanent normal trade relation status for 
China.
  While I do not want to oversee the merits of this trade agreement. I 
refuse to support the current policy which is failing American workers 
and farmers, and in allowing repressive conditions to continue in 
China. I support passage of the China trade agreement because I believe 
it gives us the best hope for a more prosperous, safe and secure future 
for our children as we embark upon our marvelous journey into the 21st 
century.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, after all is said and done, this debate is all about 
two words, corporate greed. The largest multinational corporations in 
this country are spending tens of millions of dollars on campaign 
contributions, advertising, and lobbying for one major reason, they 
must prefer to hire desperate Chinese workers at 10 cents, 15 cents or 
20 cents an hour than higher American workers at a living wage.
  Why would they want to hire an American when they can employ Chinese 
women at 20 cents an hour and force them to work seven days a week, 12 
hours a day and arrest them when they try to form a union? That is a 
good place for a large multinational corporation to do business.
  Mr. Chairman, American workers today are working longer hours for 
lower wages than they were 25 years ago. We do not need to punish them 
further and by expanding the already huge trade deficit that we have 
with China and costs us hundreds of thousands of more jobs and push 
wages down lower in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, this agreement is opposed by unions representing 
millions of American workers, by environmental organizations concerned 
about the fragility of this planet's environment, by religious groups 
such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who are concerned about 
religious freedom and human rights, by veterans organizations, like the 
American Legion and the VFW who are concerned about the issues of 
national security.
  Mr. Chairman, let us have the guts to stand up to the big money 
interests who are more concerned about their bottom line than the best 
interests of the American people. Let us vote no on this issue.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  (Mr. NEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, this debate could not occur today in China 
without both sides being arrested, and this bill does not make a 
difference to change that. I am for engagement, but this bill engages 
the throats of the American workers. My colleagues talk about farmers 
and the great 9 percent tariff. Well, as soon as this bill passes, the 
currency is going to be manipulated, and it is going to vanish like 
that. It happened in NAFTA; it is going to vanish.
  We want to talk about helping farmers, the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt) has a bill, where is that bill? All of the sudden, we 
have to have sanctions and cannot engage countries. Do my colleagues 
know why the bill of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) is 
not here on the floor? Because Wall Street does not want that bill. 
There is not enough money to be made, but Wall Street wants this bill. 
A few on Wall Street want this bill, not the entire American business 
community, but a few on Wall Street because they want to go over there, 
manufacture the products and sell them back here.
  The U.S. Chamber says we are going to get jobs out of this? That is 
like saying that you are going to send Jesse James to bring in the 
Dalton brothers. We are not going to get a single job out of this. The 
American worker is on a treadmill; they are strangled. They can barely 
make it, and what is going to happen with this agreement is that Wall 
Street is going to take over. And it is not going to be Main Street; it 
is going to be Wall Street.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the undecided Members of this Congress realize 
they have a choice today to stand up for American workers. All we are 
asking for is a level playing field, not an advantage, just a level 
playing field. That is what this is about.
  I hope the undecided Members, Mr. Chairman, realize that this is the 
most critical vote in 50-some years, if we want to support American 
workers, their families and their communities. We are not helping a 
single Chinese individual by this bill. All we are doing is ripping 
down the American work structure. Do not permanentize this. If this is 
forced to be renegotiated, let me tell my colleagues, the American 
worker will win. Vote no.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleagues today, 
whom are we rewarding in China by opening up China to our products and 
services? Clearly, we are awarding American workers and farmers who 
will be able to sell their products in China, but whom in China are we 
rewarding? Some opponents of PNTR seem to think that this arrangement 
would reward the government in Beijing which they believe is unworthy. 
Mr. Chairman, I lived in Hong Kong, and I have traveled extensively and 
repeatedly throughout Southeast Asia, including China; and I think that 
is the fundamentally wrong way to view this deal.
  First of all, it assumes that the Chinese political leadership is a 
unified monolith of some sort. In fact, there are many factions in 
Chinese leadership, many factions in Beijing, tensions between Beijing 
and the provinces and fundamental world view differences between 
reformers in China who have initiated economic and political reform, 
who support engagement with the West, who have introduced the free 
enterprise system to a limited degree, and who encourage following the 
rule of law on the one hand, versus reactionary elements, in particular 
in the military, who would revert to the old ways of Mao Tse-type 
communism.
  If anyone is being rewarded in China with a vote for permanent normal 
trade relations, it is the reformers who have been catalysts for 
change, for progress for the good. What have these reformists 
accomplished so far? I believe they have put China on a voyage in the 
direction towards freedom. There is a long way to go, but there has 
been substantial progress. President Bush himself said that the people 
of China enjoy much greater freedom today than when we lived in China, 
and that is the trend that we can be rewarding.
  In China today, local villages are having democratic elections for 
municipal leaders. Millions of Chinese are practicing religions, 
including Christian religions. Workers can choose where they work for. 
Travel is open, including travel abroad, and almost half of economic 
output in China is now privately owned. Millions of Chinese citizens 
have access to the Internet, and there they have unlimited information 
and ideas, including ideas about personal freedom, political freedom, 
the rule of law, all of the values that we cherish.
  A vote for permanent normal trade relations with China reinforces the 
reformers; it reinforces this trend. China has a long way to go, but I 
urge my colleagues to vote to help further empower the Chinese citizens 
to achieve the freedoms that we take for granted. Help the Chinese 
people on the beginning of this voyage towards freedom. Vote yes for 
permanent normal trade relations.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me tell my colleagues, I rise in strong support of this bill, and 
I want to speak to the opponents of this bill. I think it is important 
that we note that my colleagues' concerns are important, and I do not 
disagree with my colleagues' concerns when it comes to job loss through 
trade, and I do not disagree with the concerns with respect to human 
rights. My colleagues are right about the ailments; but they are wrong 
about the cause, and they are wrong about what prescription they would 
use to try and deal with this.
  We cannot stop the world and get off, and we cannot go back to the 
17th century, we cannot go back to mercantilism, because it does not 
work. We are a Nation of 4 percent of the world's population. We 
consume 20 percent of

[[Page H3606]]

the world's goods and services. The alternative to a bill like this 
that lowers tariffs against U.S. goods and services is to lift tariffs 
against imports coming into this country. That might work in the very 
short run, but it would fail miserably in the long run, and American 
workers would pay dearly for that, as would the American consumer.
  Mr. Chairman, the best thing we can do is to adopt bills that open 
more markets to U.S. goods and services abroad and allow the American 
worker to compete on a level playing field where productivity, which we 
have the most productive workforce in the world, bar none, is the key 
factor. We cannot change the rules of economics in the modern world. 
Anything we try to do on this floor, it will not work.
  Second of all, with respect to the fact that the Chinese have an 
authoritarian dictatorship, we understand that; but if the United 
States is to walk away from that, our trading partners throughout the 
rest of the world, the European Union, the other countries in Asia, are 
only too happy to pick up the slack and trade with them. This is not 
South Africa. This is not apartheid. This is much different than that. 
We do much better by engaging the Chinese than walking away. Not 
passing PNTR will not free one political prisoner, and it will probably 
stall a move towards decentralization of the Chinese economy, market 
liberalization and political liberalization.
  Mr. Chairman, it would be a grave mistake not to pass this. The 
United States will be much better off in the long run, American workers 
and American consumers, and ultimately, the Chinese people as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation granting China 
permanent normal trade relations, or PNTR, as a part of a bilateral 
trade agreement between the United States and China. This agreement 
will allow for China's entry into the World Trade Organization and 
significantly reduce tariffs and other barriers to United States goods 
and services. This agreement is in the best interest of America, 
including our workers and businesses.
  PNTR will accomplish much more for the United States than it will 
cost. The agreement reduces Chinese tariffs on United States exports to 
China, on average, by more than 50 percent. Currently U.S. exports are 
subject to tariffs of 25 percent on industrial products, 13 percent on 
information technology products, and nearly 32 percent on agricultural 
products. These tariffs price our goods out of the market. Conversely, 
since the United States market is virtually wide open, most Chinese 
goods are not subject to tariffs.
  The United States-China Bilateral WTO Agreement lowers tariffs 
against United States exports but not against Chinese imports. Perhaps 
even more significant are the provisions in the agreement which require 
elimination of state subsidies and allow for United States exporters to 
conduct trade and distribution with private parties in China, rather 
than state-owned and controlled trading companies.
  Take, for example, the United States petrochemical industry, which 
employs tens of thousands in Harris County and throughout Texas. The 
petrochemical industry is the most productive in the world, even though 
it pays comparatively higher wages and is subject to strict worker and 
environmental safety laws. While we lead the world in exports of 
petrochemical products, United States market share in China is almost 
nonexistent at $2 billion, or less than 5 percent. The elimination of 
state subsidies for domestic Chinese producers, along with a reduction 
in tariffs against United States exports, will allow United States 
producers to enjoy our comparative advantage and create jobs at home. 
This holds true for the huge Texas agriculture production market and 
oil fields services too.
  This agreement also includes significant safeguards against unfair 
Chinese imports and failure by the Chinese to move toward market 
liberalization. Chinese imports will be subject to  countervailing 
duties, or tariffs, for 12 years after entry into the WTO against 
import surges that threaten to disrupt United States markets, and for 
15 years against imports ``dumped'' on the U.S. market as a result of 
predatory pricing actions. In some cases, this language is tougher than 
current law. And, I want to commend our colleagues, Mr. Levin and Mr. 
Bereuter for their work in putting these provisions into law and 
lessening the discretion in their implementation.

  The agreement also will open up the Chinese consumer market to United 
States telecommunication, automobile and financial services industries 
where we have been locked out. Imagine the power of the Internet to 
promote democracy in China, or the lack of power by the state to 
control free speech, thought and expression through the Internet.
  We currently have a trade deficit with China due in large part to the 
fact our markets are open to their goods and China's markets are 
restricted to ours. Failing to pass PNTR will do nothing to reduce this 
trade deficit, and in fact, may make it worse. Alternatively, raising 
U.S. barriers to trade would fail in a trade war greatly at our own 
expense. A nation such as the United States which represents 4 percent 
of world population, but consumes 20 percent of the world's goods and 
services, cannot long prosper in a closed market. Only gaining greater 
access to other markets can the United States continue to grow and 
create jobs.
  It is true that in some areas, cheap labor puts U.S. manufacturing at 
a disadvantage; but again, whether we pass PNTR or not will not 
alleviate the disadvantage. On balance, however, we know that trade 
creates more jobs than it costs, particularly in those industries where 
the United States is more productive. But we should also be concerned 
about those who lose their jobs due to trade.
  My support for PNTR is conditioned on the establishment of a 
Presidential commission to look at our trade adjustment assistance 
programs and make recommendations to the Congress on how we might 
better provide workers with the tools to make the shift to other high-
paying jobs. Tariffs and other barriers provide only a short-term 
remedy and should be reserved for punitive action, not as a long-term 
solution.
  With respect to whether the United States should enter into such an 
agreement with China given its record on human rights, use of slave and 
child labor, and sometimes belligerent attitudes toward its neighbors 
and the United States, we must consider whether those of us who regret 
such actions can effectively change them through engagement or 
disengagement.
  I believe walking away from China would be a failure which would free 
not a single political prisoner, would not ease tensions with Taiwan, 
and would only strengthen the resolve of those in the Chinese People's 
Liberation Army who oppose this agreement and any economic 
liberalization as well.
  Furthermore, the Levin-Bereuter provision contained in this bill 
ensures that the United States will maintain public pressure on China's 
treatment of its own people and its labor policy. This Helsinki-style 
congressional commission will bring to light abuses, rather than allow 
them to foster in the shadows under disengagement.
  The WTO bans child and slave labor, and the United States and other 
industrialized nations must remain vigilant to enforce sanctions 
against such practices in China and everywhere else in the world.
  Greater economic ties not only benefit the United States, but will 
help bring social and political change in China. Few can deny that 
consumerism has changed the former Soviet bloc, Europe or even America, 
putting greater freedom in the hands of individuals. If the Congress 
fails to adopt PNTR and the United States walks away, change in China 
will happen less quickly and at our expense.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I am at the same podium, but this is a 
terrible deal. We have lost our moral compass. We really have. It is a 
bad deal for the United States, and it is certainly a bad deal for New 
Jersey and my district, the 8th Congressional District.
  We are expected to lose, according to the government's own reports, 
over 22,000 jobs. We have been granting NTR each and every year for the 
past 20 years, and what have we seen? What has happened? Human rights, 
labor rights, environmental rights, national security interests have 
gotten worse year after year; and it has been documented. So with this 
vote, the downward spiral will continue to plummet.
  Mr. Chairman, 875,000 jobs lost, sucked out of the economy. Not only 
has NTR been disastrous, but our increasing trade with China has done 
nothing to foster this so-called reform. Last week, the World Bank, 
over United States objections, agreed to provide $232 million in loans 
to the government of Iran against our wishes.

                              {time}  1800

  The State Department stated that giving support to Iran will, quote, 
send the wrong signal, the State Department said, to their government. 
That government which is regressive, intolerant, non-Democratic, 
aggressive. Does that sound familiar?
  The irony, of course, is that these are the same people in the State 
Department who are spending night and day trying to send the Chinese 
Government the wrong signal about PNTR. We need a no vote for America 
tomorrow.

[[Page H3607]]

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the legislation 
before us today authorizing the extension of nondiscriminatory 
treatment to the People's Republic of China. Congress should not give 
up the leverage we presently have which provides for an annual review 
of normal trade relations with China. We have ongoing significant 
concerns in our relations with China with regard to trade enforcement, 
with regard to violations of human rights, with regard to religious 
freedom, with regard to China's nuclear proliferation and other 
important issues.
  These issues can and must be addressed before we approve the measure 
before us today. Yes, let us consider business with China in the days 
ahead, but first let us take a good, hard look at these violations. 
Extending normal trade relations to China on a permanent basis will 
send a powerful message determining China's role in the global economy 
and in the community of nations for years to come, but it is a message 
we can ill afford to send so long as there is no freedom of speech 
there, no freedom of association, and no freedom of religion in China.
  Mr. Chairman, China's enormous trade deficit with us of some $70 
billion has fueled its military build-up and has emboldened the 
dictators in Beijing to claim areas in the Philippines and other 
Democratic neighbors in the region. China's illegal occupation of Tibet 
and its brutal repression of the Tibetan people continues unabated.
  We are told today by many of our colleagues that by giving permanent 
normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China we will be 
granting significant benefits to American business without giving 
anything away to China. I strongly disagree with that contention. I 
believe that supporting PNTR will give China something it desperately 
needs and wants, relief from the spotlight of its poor human rights 
record.
  Under the current annual review arrangement, we in the Congress are 
able to open a door to fully examine the human rights situation in 
China each and every year.
  I ask my colleagues, are Chinese human rights and labor practices 
important to us? I believe they are. I believe they are the most 
important in the world today. China has the world's largest population, 
one of the fastest growing economies. If China is allowed to trample on 
its individual freedoms, then how can we tell Indonesia or Malaysia or 
Nigeria or Sudan or any other nation that they cannot?
  A recent joint report by the Council on Foreign Relations, the 
National Defense University, and the Institute for Defense Analysis on 
China Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control noted that the U.S. Government 
remains concerned about China's arms control performance, reporting 
that China has not brought its biological warfare activities into 
accord with its international treaty obligations; and its continued 
support to Pakistan's weapons program has been a source of mounting 
concern as well.
  I submit to my colleagues, by granting PNTR to China we will be 
sacrificing much of our ability to affect public scrutiny on China's 
human rights practices.
  I would also note that the recent report of the United States 
Commission on International Religious Freedom included a recommendation 
by all 9 commissioners that the Congress not grant PNTR to China until 
substantial improvements are made in respect for religious freedom in 
that country.
  While the nine voting members of the U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom include strong free trade proponents and who 
represent a wide diversity of opinion and religions, they are unanimous 
that China needs to take concrete steps to release all persons 
imprisoned for their religious beliefs, to ratify the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to take other measures to 
improve respect for religious freedom.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to oppose this 
measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the legislation before us today 
authorizing the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment to the 
People's Republic of China.
  Congress should not give up the leverage we presently have which 
provides for an annual review of normal trade relations with China. We 
have ongoing significant concerns in our relations with China with 
regard to trade enforcement, human rights, religious freedom, nuclear 
proliferation and other important issues. These issues can--and must--
be addressed before we approve the measure before us today.
  Extending ``normal trade relations'' to China on a permanent basis 
will send a powerful message determining China's role in the global 
economy and in the community of nations for years to come. But it is a 
message we can ill afford to send--so long as there is no freedom of 
speech, no freedom of association, and no freedom of religion in China.
  On May 10th, our International Relations Committee held a hearing on 
extending PNTR to China including Representatives Chris Cox and Sander 
Levin who argued for the consideration of so-called parallel 
legislation. It is my understanding that the study group advocated in 
this legislation, including the Congressional-Executive Commission on 
the People's Republic of China, is now contained in the bill before us 
today, H.R. 4444.
  It is my understanding that this Commission has no enforcement 
mechanism and largely duplicates existing human rights monitoring and 
reporting requirements. In a press report from China on May 12th, 
shortly after our hearing, China said it opposed any plans by the U.S. 
to set up a group to monitor human rights as a condition to granting 
permanent normal trade relations. The Spokeswoman of the Chinese 
Foreign Ministry said that such a watchdog body constituted 
interference in China's internal affairs. She noted that ``This is 
something we can by no means accept''.
  In short, there are no indications that this commission can play an 
effective role in promoting human rights inside China. I would note, 
furthermore, that this proposal is in the jurisdiction of the 
International Relations Committee and should receive full and ample 
review by our panel before it is brought to the floor of the House.
  China's enormous trade deficit with us of some $70 billion has fueled 
its military build-up and has emboldened the dictators in Beijing to 
claim areas of the Philippines and other democratic neighbors in the 
region. China's illegal occupation of Tibet and brutal repression of 
the Tibetan people continues unabated.
  We are told today by many of our colleagues that by giving Permanent 
Normal Trade Relations to the People's Republic of China, we will be 
granting significant benefits to American businesses without giving 
away anything to China.
  I strongly disagree with that contention. I believe that 
supporting PNTR will give china something it desperately wants: relief 
from the spotlight on its poor human rights record. Under the current 
annual review arrangement, we in the Congress are able to open a door 
to examine the human rights situation in China each and every year.

  Along with our attention comes the attention of the world. Our 
hearings and debates focus the cameras and tape recorders and word 
processors of the news media. We have the bully pulpit on this issue, 
and I am very concerned that once we give it away, we will never get it 
back.
  I ask my colleagues, are Chinese human rights and labor practices 
important to us? I believe that they are the most important in the 
world today. China has the world's largest population and one of the 
fastest growing economies. If China is allowed to trample on individual 
freedoms, then how can we tell Indonesia or Malaysia or Nigeria or 
Sudan or any other nation that they cannot?
  The Beijing regime has fought a vigorous public relations battle to 
win this philosophical argument. They have manipulated prisoner 
releases, effectively blackmailed dozens of countries and nearly 
corrupted some of very own American corporations with their efforts. We 
cannot shrink from this battle of values. Public opinion polls show 
that many Americans have deep reservations about our policies toward 
China and the proposal to extend normal trade relations to that 
country.
  A recent joint report by the Council on Foreign Relations, the 
National Defense University and the Institute for Defense Analysis on 
China, Nuclear Weapons, and Arms Control noted that the U.S. government 
remains concerned about China's arms control performance. It reports 
that china has not brought its biological warfare activities into 
accord with its treaty obligations. And its continued support to 
Pakistan's weapons programs has been a source of mounting concern as 
well.
  By granting PNTR to China, we will sacrifice much of our ability to 
affect public scrutiny on Chinese human rights practices. I would also 
note that the recent report of the United States Commission on 
International Religious Freedom included a recommendation by all nine

[[Page H3608]]

commissioners that the Congress not grant PNTR to China until 
substantial improvements are made in respect for religious freedom in 
that country.
  While the nine voting members of the U.S. Commission on Intn'l 
Religious Freedom include strong free trade proponents and who 
represent a wide diversity of opinion and religions, they are unanimous 
that China needs to take concrete steps to release all persons 
imprisoned for their religious beliefs, to ratify the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to take other measures to 
improve respect for religious freedom.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to oppose this 
measure.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would remind our distinguished colleague that the 
estimates are that in less than 5 years, 230 million Chinese will be 
classified as middle-income consumers with an annual retail sales rate 
exceeding $90 billion, almost $1 trillion, a year; and I would urge him 
also to try and have an opportunity to speak with Billy Graham's son 
who has been involved in the missionary activities in Mainland China 
for several years.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, one of the advantages of old age is not 
necessarily wisdom but a lot of experience, and I do not pretend to try 
to convince those who are already convinced of their position. I just 
want to say how I feel about this particular issue.
  I am very strongly in favor of permanent normal trading relations 
with China, and I will say why. I have found, in my experience, that 
for every job that goes overseas that there are two jobs that are 
created in this country. One can say 850,000 have left. I do not know 
what the number is, but I bet many fold have come back into this 
country. That has been my experience.
  One does not send a job abroad to make a product primarily to send 
back into the United States. Sometimes that happens, but it is mostly 
to take care of that market.
  Secondly, we are not standing here making a decision in isolation. 
There are other people out there who do not want us to have this 
agreement. They want us to stay absolutely still in the water so their 
businesses, whether it is the South Koreans or the Germans or the 
Japanese, can get in there and take the lead on this, and once one has 
been in business there, in established relationships, it is very 
difficult to get in.
  Lastly, from a very practical standpoint, I have set up about four 
plants in China, and the experience which we have had has been we have 
moved in, we have given people dignity, good paying jobs, benefits. 
They have then gone out into their community and changed the 
democratic, the political, the human rights, the environmental aspects 
of those communities. One does not stand back and say, you fix it and 
then we will come in. You come in and fix it and help them work through 
this, that has been my experience.
  I just wanted to share that.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I was over in the office listening to the 
debate and I know, as anyone here knows that has been listening, that 
the opponents of this legislation feel very strongly about it. We 
understand, those of us who support it, those feelings; and it is 
tough.
  Let me just say this: Number one, nothing around here is permanent. 
If one believes that, we can change the law tomorrow if the Chinese 
misbehave, as some have said.
  More important than that, this is not about China. I hear people 
talking about what is going on in China: China, China, China. This is 
about what is good for us. This is a trade bill for the United States, 
not for China.
  Know what is important in this bill that nobody has thought about it 
and talked about, and I think is very crucial? It is that as good as 
the tariffs coming down so our stuff can go over there and go in that 
is made in this country providing jobs for our citizens, but the second 
thing is that the Chinese, in this agreement, agree to do away with 
their government-owned corporations that limit the amount of exports by 
that mechanism to go in there.
  So what we can have with this agreement for us, not for China, I do 
not much care what happens in terms of China other than how it affects 
the citizens of this country, and what is good for us is we have 
private enterprise in this country doing business with private 
enterprise in China.
  My colleagues say they want to change the status quo in China? That 
is going to change the status quo in China more than any other single 
thing, in my judgment, we could possibly do.
  So I say this is a trade bill not for China but for us. It is good 
for the United States. It is good for our citizens.
  I will say one other thing. China cannot be isolated by voting no. 
Know who is going to be isolated if my colleagues vote no? They are 
going to isolate us, because the EU, the European Union, the South 
Americans, Japan, and the rest of Asia are going to take that market 
and they are going to isolate us, not them, if my colleagues vote no.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kleczka) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that so many observers have gotten it 
wrong. The China trade vote is not about protectionism versus free 
trade. It is not about business versus labor. It is not even about 
China haters versus China apologists.
  No, it is a vision of the world trade worthy of America in the 21st 
century. It is about whether 21st century globalism will have any 
guiding principle or whether it will be an aimless trading frenzy with 
no consideration of workers' rights, of human rights, of religious 
rights, of environmental protection.
  Yes, it is about engagement. This whole debate is about whether to 
bring China into a rule-based trade regime. The great irony of all of 
this is that the proponents of PNTR insist on the need for rule-based 
trade agreements, backed up with sanctions.
  So, I ask, why do we need rule-based trade agreements in trade but we 
do not need rule-based agreements in any other area that we think is 
important?
  Real engagement extends beyond trade. Trade in the 21st century will 
be and must be about more than how many widgets enter and leave a port.
  A no vote is not a retreat. A no vote is a vote for engagement, if we 
have the wisdom to have real engagement.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the book of Genesis tells the sad story 
of Esau, son of Isaac, who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.
  As Americans, our birthright is life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. The tradition of our country has been the unfolding of those 
liberties, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, including 
workers' rights and human rights. This is our birthright.
  The Chinese people do not enjoy these freedoms. They suffer under 
slave labor, prison labor, no workers' rights, no human rights. They 
suffer from religious repression. They do not have, as we do, above 
their center of power, the words, ``In God We Trust.''
  Those words, if we stand by our values, infuse us with powerful moral 
leadership. That is why we need to hold the moral high ground with 
annual review of human rights and labor practices of China. It is 
access to our market which enables us to hold the moral high ground.
  The multinational corporations with their single-minded dedication to 
profit at all costs cannot be expected to defend workers rights 
anywhere, let alone in China. It is our duty to defend workers' rights 
and human rights, and we have no right to abdicate that responsibility 
ever.

                              {time}  1815

  Chinese workers are paid as little as 3 cents an hour. Whose values 
are those? The Chinese government which

[[Page H3609]]

uses slave labor; the global corporations which capitalize on slave 
labor.
  How many hours do Chinese people have to work to account for a $70 
billion trade deficit with the United States? How many American 
manufacturing jobs will go to China's workers who are paid 3 cents an 
hour?
  There is a myth that if one digs a hole deep enough, one will reach 
China. We have dug the hole deep with a $70 billion trade deficit. We 
will learn tomorrow if we have reached China. If in that hole we put 
our jobs, decent wages, workers' rights, and human rights, will we 
cover up that hole and claim victory?
  But, Mr. Chairman, peace and justice is already our birthright. 
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are already our birthright. 
Workers' rights and human rights are already our birthright. Will we, 
like Esau in Genesis, sell our birthright for a mess of pottage which 
multinational corporations offer?
  What is the price of freedom? Do we so little value freedom that we 
are prepared to sacrifice our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor? 
Vote against PNTR.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I am going to bring my colleagues tonight 
a hypothetical bill. This bill has three parts: part one provides 
billions of dollars of aid to Beijing in order to stabilize the regime; 
part two provides support for the Chinese military infrastructure as it 
prepares to attack its neighbors; part three provides direct aid to the 
PLA. Now, that is my hypothetical bill I bring to my colleagues 
tonight. I ask my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, who would vote for this 
bill?
  If we clear away everything else that we have talked about, it does 
boil down to this, because I will tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, I 
was, in fact, one of the Members that went to the CIA briefing. When 
one goes to the CIA briefing and when one asks specific questions about 
these issues, this is what one comes back with; that, in fact, doing 
what we are about to do will provide aid to the regime in order to 
stabilize it. It will provide aid to the military in order to attack 
its neighbors. It will provide direct aid to the PLA, to the People's 
Liberation Army.
  How is this, my colleagues ask? It is simple. The PLA owns the 
business. When the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) talked about 
private businessmen doing private business with other private 
businessmen, Mr. Chairman, the PLA, they own 100 percent of the 
telecommunications business in China. They own most of the significant 
businesses, either surreptitiously or directly. Yet this is the bill I 
bring to my colleagues tonight.
  If my colleagues could just escape all of the other things, erase all 
of the other thing we talk about, and how wonderful it would be to 
improve human rights, how wonderful it would be to improve workers' 
rights, religious freedom, all those things would be great. But what is 
all of our primary responsibility as representatives of the people of 
the United States? Is it to, in fact, insure human rights across the 
world? As laudable as that goal is, no, that is not our prime 
responsibility. Is it to, in fact, insure workers' rights? No, that is 
not our primary responsibility. It is not even our primary 
responsibility to insure religious freedom.
  We have one responsibility, the prime directive: protect and defend 
the people of the United States.
  Vote no on this bill.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  (Mr. ENGLISH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, this debate that we undertake today is 
about better, stronger, fairer trade with China, which in time will 
pave the way for social and political reforms. Some of these reforms 
are already evident today.
  Pennsylvania has exported more than $297 million in goods to China in 
1998. Voting for this agreement forces China to take down tariff 
barriers and nontariff barriers that have prevented even larger 
Pennsylvania exports. Increasing the amount of exports to China will 
only help in creating jobs, not only in Pennsylvania, but also 
throughout our country.
  Last November, the U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Barshefsky 
completed historic negotiations with the People's Republic of China and 
managed to craft an agreement that would provide access to the Chinese 
market while requiring no concessions by the U.S. Let us be clear about 
this. This is no NAFTA. We do not make a single job-killing concession 
in this legislation.
  The bill we consider today would allow the U.S. to benefit from those 
negotiations. The bill will not determine whether or not China enters 
the WTO. China is entering the World Trade Organization with or without 
this legislation.
  I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that I entertained serious concerns when 
this issue was first raised. I was concerned about human rights and 
fair trade, which are critical to building a long-term stable 
relationship with China. Luckily, through the bipartisan leadership of 
my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), many of these issues have 
been addressed convincingly.
  Let us look at the facts. The Levin-Bereuter plan provides better 
oversight for human rights and protections than exist under current 
law. It provides strong and enforceable anti-surge protections, which 
are part of the original agreement with the Chinese Government and will 
now be codified. The Levin-Bereuter provisions, not only ensure that 
Chinese play by the rules in trade; but, more importantly, they 
strengthen U.S. law to provide quick and effective weapons if there is 
a violation. The bill includes language from Levin-Bereuter, urging 
that the WTO approve both the PRC's and Taiwan's accession in the same 
General Council session.
  All of these provisions are major improvements that make this overall 
package a good bill. We are entering into a trade agreement with China 
that will create a more balanced relationship than any initiative to 
date. This debate should be about ensuring that China plays by the 
rules in trade, and that they honor commitments made in this agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, a China disengaged is more likely to be a rogue country 
in the new century. A China engaged is more likely to move down the 
sunlit path of human rights. I challenge every one of my colleagues to 
vote to engage China, a China to which we can export our goods along 
with our values.
  Mr. Chairman, I include two editorials from my district in favor of 
normal trade relations, as follows:

        [Editorial Column--The Erie Morning News, May 21, 2000]

       If we can believe the American business community, 
     windfalls will follow if the Congress goes along with 
     President Clinton and approves permanent normal trade 
     relations with China. American labor--which has never met a 
     free trade measure it liked--sees PNTR as another job-killer. 
     As usual, neither forecast tells the full truth.
       Opening the huge China market by allowing the Communist 
     nation to join the World Trade Organization will undoubtedly 
     be lucrative--in time. No windfalls.
       As with the equally contested North American Free Trade 
     Agreement with Canada and Mexico, some American jobs will 
     vanish with free and open trade with China. But no one will 
     hear giant sucking sounds as American jobs are lost to China, 
     as labor preaches.
       Similar divisions afflict Congress as it prepares to vote 
     on PNTR later this week. The U.S. Senate is expected to back 
     PNTR with little fuss, but war has begun in the always 
     fractious House of Representatives.
       The Republican leadership is guiding PNTR despite loud 
     opposition from some GOP members who seek leverage to force 
     China to end human rights abuses.
       House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt is against PNTR, as 
     is the bulk if the Democratic caucus. So labor still 
     threatens passage.
       We find China's recent behavior offensive. We also realize 
     the 20-year Most Favored Nation Status charade did nothing to 
     moderate Beijing's repeated rights abuses.
       Our support for PNTR is based on simple reality. China is 
     not Cuba. It is the most populous nation in the world, with 
     the globe's fastest growing economy. It is senseless for the 
     United States to treat the Asian colossus as anything else 
     than a superpower likely to emerge later this century.
       With China's markets open, with American goods--and 
     American popular culture--flowing throughout this giant 
     nation, dramatic reforms will eventually follow. The old 
     Communist leadership will be just as powerless to stop these 
     forces as its decreased former

[[Page H3610]]

     Soviet and Eastern block comrades (and as Fidel Castro would 
     be in Cuba if American policy weren't based on Cold War 
     myths).
       We understand these are difficult votes for many in 
     Congress, who despise the Chinese Communists or who fear 
     labor. But then, Congressman didn't seek office merely to 
     vote on popular, easy issues.
       Side legislation creating a commission to monitor China's 
     performance offers political cover for nervous Democrats. 
     Even Erie's 21st District Republican Congressman Phil English 
     ``emphasized the importance of the proposal'' to the Wall 
     Street Journal after voting with the Ways and Means Committee 
     to approve PNTR and send it to the House floor last week.
       English will vote for PNTR because he understands the 
     stakes China has agreed to join the world community and play 
     by its trade rules with entry into the WTO.
       That is where America's influence is, with China as a full 
     trading partner--not some junior member of the world 
     community who must be monitored like a troubled child.
       The United States tried that approach with China and Most 
     Favored Nation Status the last 20 years. It's time to join 
     the real world.
                                  ____


           [Our View--The Herald, Sharon, Pa., May 21, 2000]

  Congress Shouldn't Let Organized Labor Derail U.S.-China Trade Vote

       Approval of the China trade bill Wednesday by two key 
     legislative panels, the House Ways and Means and Senate 
     Finance committees, bodes well for next week when the House 
     is expected to take up the thorny issue of permanent normal 
     trade relations for China.
       Bipartisan support for the historic measure has been 
     building although the final vote, by all accounts, will be 
     close. Most House Democrats, particularly those most closely 
     allied with organized labor in industrial states, are 
     stubbornly resisting pleas for their votes from both 
     Republican leaders and the Clinton Administration.
       Congressmen still opposed or sitting on the fence should 
     vote for the historic measure that rightfully should be seen 
     as having as many benefits for workers as for businesses, 
     manufacturers, farmers, consumers and lovers of personal 
     freedom.
       Passage of the bill into law--it's expected to have an 
     easier time in the Senate--would end the annual exercise of 
     renewing China's trade status and grant the world's most 
     populous nation the same normal trade relations and lower 
     tariffs that the United States extends routinely to nearly 
     every other country. The bill also would assure China's entry 
     into the Geneva-based World Trade Organization which overseas 
     world trade and provides mechanisms to resolve disputes among 
     members.
       Organized labor, desperate to defeat the bill, has 
     trumpeted such already well known criticisms of China as its 
     poor record on human rights and denial of religious freedom 
     as well as its history of economic piracy and disregard for 
     environmental standards.
       However, labor and other opponents should take another look 
     at what the record shows and stop refusing to accept that 
     easier trade--and the growing prosperity it brings--is the 
     most effective cure for the repression and other ills of 
     communism. The higher standard of living increased trade can 
     provide for China's 1.2 billion people is the most powerful 
     tool to promote democracy there and continued prosperity for 
     American working families.
       More trade would add to the 1.3 million new American jobs 
     attributed to growth in imports and exports since 1993. 
     International commerce is responsible for nearly one-fourth 
     of America's gross national product.
       American labor leaders, fearful as they are about the 
     effects of the trade bill, also should recognize that Chinese 
     leaders are just as worried although for different reasons.
       As pointed out in the New York Times by Beijing reporter 
     Elisabeth Rosenthal, private enterprise that has grown in 
     China over the last decade has taught ever greater numbers of 
     Chinese that they can live independent of the government. 
     Nurturing that growing sense of confidence is the Internet, 
     with its promise of unfettered worldwide communication, which 
     carries voices of opposition and democracy in China out to 
     the rest of the world despite the communists' determination 
     to hold onto power. Such steps toward prosperity, confidence 
     and freedom deserve as much support as possible.
       Instead of opposing the China trade bill, labor leaders 
     should see exciting possibilities in the opportunity to 
     compete for the business of 1.2 billion potential buyers for 
     every kind of American product from grain, meat, livestock, 
     fruits and vegetables to computer hardware and software, 
     medicine, machinery and construction equipment and consumer 
     goods of every description.
       Seeking to boost trade with China won't, as labor leaders 
     fear, diminish America's willingness to fight for its 
     interests, as we have seen over and over. The most recent 
     example came Tuesday when the U.S. International Trade 
     Commission levied punitive duties on apple juice concentrate 
     following a determination that China was dumping the product 
     here at prices below the cost of production. There's no 
     reason to think that after normalization of trade with China 
     that American business interests and officials will be any 
     less insistent on fair trade of steel, pipe, machinery or 
     other industrial goods as for agricultural products.
       It's been three decades since Richard Nixon visited Beijing 
     in 1972 and established cordial relations with China. Since 
     then, each succeeding administration has worked toward a 
     closer partnership between the two countries and it's time to 
     take the next big step.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, today our Nation, and I believe this 
Congress, stand at the beginning of a new century; and with it comes 
the new opportunity to export our products to the largest emerging 
market in the world.
  America today is enjoying unparalleled economic successes. We are the 
envy of the world. Economic growth is sustained. Unemployment is low. 
Inflation has been kept at bay. The new economy has brought new wealth 
and new opportunities to our Nation and its workers. I am proud to 
represent a district which is home to Silicon Valley and where the high 
technology industries are the primary contributors to the economic 
engine of our new economy.
  But this issue is larger than any one industry or any one 
congressional district. President Kennedy said, ``Economic isolation 
and political leadership are wholly incompatible. The United States has 
encouraged sweeping changes in free world economic patterns in order to 
strengthen the forces of freedom, but we cannot ourselves stand still. 
We must adapt our own economy to the imperatives of a changing world 
and once more assert our leadership.'' These words hold truth for us 
today.
  This legislation, I believe, is good for the American worker; and it 
opens the greatest market for the products they make to a much greater 
market.
  This House and our Nation, I think, really owe a debt of gratitude to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter). Refusing to turn their backs on history, they, instead, 
chose to make history by writing legislation that brings the framework 
of the famous Helsinki courts to our relationship with China.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I 
believe that we will seize a historic opportunity, not only for our 
country and its workers, but that future generations will say that we 
took an important step, seized the opportunity for our people.
  So I thank my colleagues for this opportunity, and I thank especially 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for the work that he has done.
  Mr. Speaker, today our nation--and this Congress--stand at the 
beginning of a new century and with it comes a new opportunity to 
export our products to the largest emerging market in the world.
  Today America is enjoying unparalleled economic success. We're the 
envy of the world. Economic growth is sustained. Unemployment is low. 
Inflation has been kept at bay. The New Economy has brought new wealth 
and new opportunities to our nation and its workers.
  I'm proud to represent a district which is home to Silicon Valley and 
where the high technology industries are the primary contributors to 
the economic engine of our New Economy.
  But this issue is larger than any one industry or any one 
Congressional District. President Kennedy said,

       Economic isolation and political leadership are wholly 
     incompatible. The United States has encouraged sweeping 
     changes in free world economic patterns in order to 
     strengthen the forces of freedom. But we cannot ourselves 
     stand still. We must adapt our own economy to the imperatives 
     of a changing world and once more assert our leadership.

  These words hold true for us today. This legislation is good for the 
American worker. It opens the greatest market of this new century to 
American products and American values.
  I want to salute our colleagues, Congressional Levin and Bereueter 
for refusing to turn their backs on history and instead choosing to 
make history by writing legislation that brings the framework of the 
famous Helsinki Accords to our relationship with China.
  Mr. Speaker, China's outdated politically-decrept political system 
has shown over fifty years that it can repress its people by keeping 
them closed off from the rest of the world. I doubt they can succeed 
with this economic and political repression in the face of an Internet 
society where millions of computers and wireless telephones will 
connect China to the rest of the world. An Internet society punches a 
thousand holes in the dike of political repression. China not only will 
be exposed to

[[Page H3611]]

American values, but it will become part of the community of nations.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes to extend permanent normal trade 
relations to China and thus seize this historic opportunity.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I believe in free trade. But to me, free 
trade is not just about the products we are trading. It is also about 
the people who make them. If after more than a quarter century of 
engagement, the success of our human rights and democracy efforts in 
China can be measured in forced abortions, arrest of dissidents, 
Tiananmen Square, religious persecution, ethnic cleansing in Tibet, 
child labor, slave labor, aggression against Taiwan, and the arrests of 
the Falun Gong, then our record is not a success at all but a dismal 
failure.
  The victims of this failure are not just the Chinese people. The 
administration and American companies continue to accept displaced 
American workers as inevitable casualties of economic war for which 
there is virtually no assistance. I know I will not.
  Our trade deficit with China continues to grow, from a $6 billion 
deficit a decade ago to an almost $70 billion deficit today, all while 
the Chinese Government continues to break promise after promise, 
agreement after agreement. That $70 billion benefit to China is what 
they have, in essence, been investing in their military budget.
  Free trade exists when two countries open up their doors to compete 
on a level playing field, not when one country, the United States, 
opens its doors wide while the other, China, cracks its door open an 
inch while reserving the right to slam it shut if we ever dare ask for 
what they consider to be too much.
  Have we gotten to the point where we will throw all of our values out 
the window, even protecting children from forced labor, in order to 
maximize corporate profits?
  Our leadership, our international leadership, comes from these 
values, not just our profits. That is the America I believe in. That 
would be the kind of true free trade bill that would be worth fighting 
for. This is a bill that needs to be soundly defeated.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that 
they are here as guests of the House, and that any manifestation of 
approval or disapproval of proceedings or other audible conversation is 
in violation of the rules of the House.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring two new developments to 
the attention of this House, developments that show that we need to 
negotiate a better deal.
  First, the International Trade Commission and the official 
authoritative body of the Federal Government issued a report. It says 
this deal will increase our $70 billion trade deficit and cost America 
872,000 jobs over the next 10 years. That is right. Permanent NTR does 
not just make the trade deficit permanent, it makes it bigger.
  Second, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) presented an amendment to the Committee 
on Rules this afternoon which would simply state that China will lose 
its access to our markets if it invades or blockades Taiwan. This 
amendment is consistent with GATT. But I expect that the Committee on 
Rules will reject it because the administration will reject it because 
China will not accept it.
  Now, who is to blame? China? If it interprets the proceedings of this 
House as a green light to blockade or invade Taiwan, and if this House 
is willing to grant permanent NTR, even if China blockades or invades 
Taiwan, what would the other body do? What would the proponents of 
trade suggest?
  We must insist that the Berman-Weldon language is included in this 
statute. If it is not, then we are being vague when clarity is called 
for. We will be at fault if China is misinterpreting our mood, and we 
will be the precipitators of those in China who say they are free to 
invade Taiwan or blockade Taiwan.
  Keep in mind how easy it is to blockade Taiwan. It just takes a press 
release saying that the next freighter into Taipei or into Taiwanese 
ports will be hit by a Chinese missile, and that economy shuts down. We 
cannot allow misinterpretation. We need the Berman-Weldon language. 
Otherwise, this bill becomes the Taiwan blockade authorization act.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, in trade agreement after trade agreement the 
U.S. negotiators have allowed themselves to be swindled before. Now we 
are dealing with a very different kind of animal. China does not have a 
market economy. It has an economy that has no name. It is a complex 
situation where we are about to be swindled again.
  Without a doubt, the totalitarian government of China has the world's 
largest workforce. China also has the most oppressed and most 
thoroughly manipulated urban workforce on the face of this Earth. In 
the country that promised to be the paradise for the proletariat, there 
are no free unions. Workers cannot organize.
  China's size makes China special. It is a monster that can greatly 
distort the economics of world trade. But more importantly, with 
China's centralized authority, the totalitarian control of both the 
consumers and the workers and the means of production, everything is 
under control, and that also is a danger to world trade.
  No one in this government is willing to give us an honest study and 
an honest assessment of the damage that has already been done by NAFTA 
with its monstrous drain on manufacturing jobs on this country's 
economy. But China has the capacity to do 100 times more damage than 
Mexico did with the NAFTA blunder.
  China's trade is great for our retail establishment. Yes, they like 
to go and purchase items for a few pennies and sell them for many 
dollars at a tremendous profit in our retail stores. China's trade is 
great for our manufacturing concerns, to take their plants and pick 
them up and have products manufactured in China and brought back here 
and sold in a standard in line with our quality of life.
  For the managers, the executives, and the investors profits leap 
upward forever in this China deal. But for ordinary Americans, the 
statistics and the records tell the tragic side of the story. Already 
world trade has cost us a great deal. The gap between workers and the 
people on the top keeps growing. China is a disaster. Vote ``no'' on 
this trade bill.
  Mr. Chairman. I am strongly opposed to granting permanent normal 
trade relations to China and, knowing the strong feelings on both sides 
of the issue, will explain the reasons for my objection.
  Permanent normal trade relations with China will increase America's 
trade deficit, contrary to what many believe. In 1999, America exported 
one-third less of agricultural products to China than in the previous 
year and the resulting deficit affected two-thirds of all agricultural 
commodities exported to China. In fact, America's 1998 cotton export 
surplus to China of $118 million turned to a $12 million trade deficit 
in 1999. From 1995 to 1999, American export of fresh apples to China 
fell by 79 percent, while we imported twice the dollar amount of dried 
apples from China than we exported in fresh apples. While we exported 
no peanuts to China in 1999, we imported peanuts from China for the 
first time in 1998 and exported only $14,000. This was a drop from 
$60,000 worth of peanuts exported to China in 1994.
  How can we believe that simply giving China permanent normal trade 
relations status will reverse this very clear trend? This increase in 
agricultural imports from China to the United States has occurred 
simultaneously while overall United States exports to China has 
steadily decreased. The result is a significant agricultural trade 
deficit for the United States. Granting permanent normal trade 
relations status to China will not automatically recalibrate the 
balance of trade between our two countries. And historically, China has 
failed to honor trade agreements with the United States. What makes 
proponents of permanent normal trade relations believe that it will be 
any different after approval then it is now?

[[Page H3612]]

  But of equal concern to me is the well-known record of China in human 
rights violations. This extends to the workers in China who will be the 
recipients of American jobs exported there under the misguided belief 
that permanent normal trade relations with China will be a positive 
thing. At the current 25 cents an hour in manufacturing wages for the 
average worker in China, the temptation for multinational corporations 
to move business from America to China will only be exacerbated by 
granting it permanent normal trade relations status. Right now, a few 
multinational corporations are draining away assets from Federal, state 
and local coffers and taking their business to other countries that 
have less ethical and stringent standards under which their citizens 
earn a living. Are we to condone and support this trend by making it 
easier for those multinational corporations to export jobs away from 
America?
  This negative trend for American trade will not be helped by granting 
China permanent normal trade relations status. It will simply increase 
our dependency on foreign imports and set in motion a dangerous 
precedent that could see the eventual disappearance of the prosperity 
and productivity that America has built to an incredible degree over 
the last 8 years.
  International concerns that should give proponents of permanent 
normal trade relations with China pause is China's unchanged reputation 
for support of radical factions; like Iran, Iraq, and Libya and for 
bullying Taiwan.
  By granting permanent normal trade relations status to China, we send 
a message to multinational corporations that it is OK to siphon money 
from American communities and move assets abroad with impunity. We say 
to China: ``It is OK to practice human rights violations and aid and 
abet rogue nations in the international arena.
  The proper course of action for the United States Congress is to deny 
permanent normal trade relations to China. We must not allow American 
jobs to disappear and resurface abroad. We must not turn a blind eye to 
China's intransigence on world security issues. Let us not turn back 
the clock on what we have been able to accomplish over the last eight 
years. We must say no to permanent normal trade relations for China. We 
must say no to the betrayal of slave-wage workers in China and to 
workers in America.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the question before the House is permanent normal trade 
relations for China. But the previous question, the larger question, 
the larger issue is fairness for domestic industries and our workers, 
equity for American workers.
  When subsidized goods from foreign sources flood our markets, not 
protection but prompt, vigorous, efficient enforcement of our existing 
trade laws, has not happened in the steel industry in the United 
States. We have lost 350,000 jobs in basic steel and 10,000 jobs in the 
iron ore mining country of my district.
  For the past 4 months, I have asked the administration and backers of 
this legislation to fix two problems with legislation that I have 
prepared on the Trade Act of 1934 and the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Act of 1974 to provide that equity and that fairness that I am asking 
for in international trade. It has not been forthcoming in this 
legislation.
  I have not been uncommitted but very clear about my position. If we 
can fix the problem and help the workers face an uncertain future, I 
would vote for this. But if not, I will vote against it.
  Symptomatic of what lies ahead are the defective issues in the U.S. 
agreement with China that are reflective of the broader pattern of 
international trade where we have failed to enforce existing law. What 
hope do workers in American industry have about the future of a broader 
trade agreement when existing law is not vigorously, effectively 
enforced? We ask only for that. It has not been forthcoming. I see no 
hope that it will. I am voting no.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a human rights advocate who has 
earned that reputation through many years of human rights work in this 
body.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to PNTR, and 
tonight I especially urge the remaining undecided Members to look at 
China's ever-worsening human rights record and look long and hard at 
the compelling threat that PRC poses to Taiwan on both the short and 
intermediate term as they build up with U.S. missile and computer 
technology and Russian ships, and the threat to the U.S. itself. The 
VFW and the American Legion have taken a long look at this issue and 
they have urged a ``no'' vote on PNTR.
  Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen), who takes the view that is contrary to my own, rightly called 
China a dictatorship. Our business partners, Mr. Chairman, in Beijing 
indeed are dictators, and they are directly responsible for heinous 
crimes against humanity, including the systematic use of torture, the 
laogai or slave labor, where hundreds of thousands of people, thousands 
of gulags or laogai are used to make goods that are then exported to 
the United States. And the MOU that we have with them is not even worth 
the paper it is printed on.
  They have given new meaning to the word union busting. Those brave 
Chinese who speak up and try to organize are thrown into jail and they 
too are beaten. As a result of the one child per couple policy, 
brothers and sisters are illegal. Forced abortion, properly construed 
as a crime against humanity by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal are 
going on in China on a massive scale today. There is no toleration of 
dissent in the PRC.
  I have had 18 hearings, Mr. Chairman, in my Subcommittee on 
International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on 
International Relations. We have looked at this at every angle. Another 
commission is nice, but it should not be done in lieu of substantive 
action.
  Let me also point out that I too chair the Helsinki Commission. This 
does not look like the Helsinki Commission. Let me just remind Members 
that the U.S.S.R. and the Warsaw Pact nations all signed the Helsinki 
Final Act in 1975. It was a process. China is not going to be signing 
this pact. Let me also point out that MFN was denied to the U.S.S.R. 
while we had this accord called the Helsinki Final Act.
  And, finally, we have commissions. The U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom has come out unanimously admonishing 
Members of Congress to vote ``no'' on PNTR because of the deteriorating 
situation on religious freedom.
  Let me just conclude, Mr. Chairman. My colleague, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), said nothing is permanent. If they misbehave, 
he said, maybe something could be done. Let me just point out the fact 
is that this dictatorship is misbehaving on a grand scale. It does beg 
the question, is there anything that they can do, any abuse they can 
perpetrate that does not lead to the loss of PNTR? I urge a ``no'' vote 
on this resolution.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Brent Scowcroft, U.S. Air Force lieutenant general, retired, and 
former National Security Adviser, said of this vote, ``Denying 
permanent normal trade relations will remove none of the blemishes that 
China's opponents have identified.''
  Denying PNTR will not fix the problem in China. None of us is here to 
defend the abysmal human rights record of the Chinese, but, frankly, it 
is better today than it was during the cultural revolution. Things are 
improving. Ren Wanding, leader of the 1978 Democracy Wall Movement in 
China said, ``Before the sky was black. Now there is a light. This can 
be a new beginning.''
  I was in China at the beginning of this month with the Secretary of 
Agriculture and several Members of this Congress, two of whom just 
today finally made up their minds to support PNTR after much serious 
discussion. PNTR vote is a vote about what happens here in this country 
as much as it is the hopes of some of us to change that country.
  Today, in my home State of Oregon, they are preparing the first 
shipment of wheat to go to China in 26 years, because until this 
bilateral agreement

[[Page H3613]]

came along, China used one of those nontariff barriers, called TCK 
SMUT, with a zero tolerance to preclude us from ever selling wheat into 
China. And they were successful for 26 years. That changes tomorrow 
when the ships leave Portland, Oregon, with 50,000 metric tons of 
wheat.
  That is important. My farmers are suffering. If there is one thing I 
have heard over and over again as I have gone around my district is 
about bad past trade agreements that left us on the wrong side. This 
one forces China to open its markets, reduce its tariffs, and puts us 
on a better playing field when it comes to trade. And that is so 
important to people who are facing bankruptcy and disruption of their 
markets.
  And, my colleagues, if we do not pass PNTR, we give the European 
Union, who we know subsidizes their farmers and ranchers to an 
extraordinary amount, our bilateral agreement, and we stick it to 
American farmers. And that is wrong, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I 
thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the Chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), for their leadership in bringing this bill to 
the floor.
  I acknowledge the hard work and passion of good friends on both sides 
of the issue; leaders on one side eloquently stating the challenges 
that remain in our relationship with China, others highlighting the 
opportunities this agreement presents for Americans and the China 
people. I believe we share the same goals.
  We all want to expand our economy and to increase opportunities for 
all Americans. And we all want to encourage reform in China, nurturing 
freedom for over 1 billion people, making the world a safer place for 
everyone. This debate has shown that people of good intentions can 
strongly disagree on a means to achieving the same ends.
  I am convinced that passing permanent normal trade relations and 
engaging with China is the best course for our economy, our national 
security, and the Chinese people. I know that increased exports of 
wine, citrus, beef, and other farm products will benefit the families 
of my central coast district in California. And I know the high-tech 
industry, so critical to our economic future, will gain critical access 
to Chinese markets. But I also strongly believe the Chinese people 
will, in the long run, win as well.
  I note the recent statements by the Dalai Lama endorsing China's 
entry into the World Trade Organization and by Taiwan's new president 
in support of PNTR. These are calls for continued engagement with 
China, and they are calls we should heed.
  But passing PNTR is only the first step. The real work now lies 
before us. We must ensure China lives up to its commitments in this 
agreement. We must encourage American companies to uphold the very best 
of our values in China. We should not shrink from this challenge and 
this opportunity by refusing to engage with China. We must continue to 
highlight China's human rights shortages and encourage the voices of 
progressive change in that country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Could the Chairman inform the sides how much time is 
remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) has 7 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 1 
minute remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to granting 
permanent normal trade relations to China.
  Entering into a trade agreement with China, given their current 
record on human rights and workers' rights, to me, is like marrying 
someone we hope to change. After the vows are taken, we then tell that 
person what is not right with the relationship and what needs to be 
done differently. It does not work.
  Today, the U.S. imports 36 percent of all Chinese exports, but 
working conditions remain horrible. They are bad in the factories, 
where the sneakers are made, where the TVs are made. Yet we buy those 
products, and U.S. companies in China and the Chinese manufacturers 
have done nothing to improve workers' rights.
  What is most alarming is that many of these products are made by 
very, very young children, who work more than 12 hours a day for very 
small wages; and they work 7 days a week.

                              {time}  1845

  It is pitiful that the U.S. is ignoring the awful conditions that 
these children face. PNTR with China would be a bad marriage. After the 
honeymoon hype fades away, we would be left with nothing except the 
same old China, where children work in virtual slavery.
  The United States must not say ``I do'' to China until the Chinese 
people have freedom and the American people have responsible trade 
policy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' tomorrow.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this trade agreement. 
When people talk about this, the first thing they say is, we ought to 
have a trade agreement so we can engage with China. Well, if this 
theory is so smart, why do we not try with Cuba first? Because some of 
the same people who have dramatic opposition to engagement with Cuba, 
our neighbor 90 miles away, think that this is the greatest thing since 
sliced bread.
  I have severe questions about this agreement. It seems to me we have 
come to a point in our history where we worship at the altar of new 
markets to the total exclusion of all other foreign policy objectives, 
and I do not think that makes good sense.
  Let us talk about engagement. We have been engaged with China, and 
the report card is abysmal. They have not complied with the provisions 
of GATT, something that is already in place. We annually renew our 
trade relations with China. Let us see the results.
  Human rights violations continue to proliferate. They have not been 
reduced.
  We look at our trade deficit. It is the worst in the history of the 
United States. They outnumber us six to one in terms of our trade 
relationship. They have a distinct advantage in our relationship with 
them; our engagement with them certainly has not helped.
  When we look at piracy of intellectual property and when we look at 
every element of our relationship, we see we have not benefited from 
this so-called engagement.
  I urge rejection of the trade agreement.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are deciding United States trade policy with 
the People's Republic of China. Given the fact that China is a 
communist nation and that it regularly violates the human rights of its 
own citizens, the United States Congress, rightfully, every year 
decides whether to treat China that year with restrictive or normal 
trade relations.
  This year Congress is being asked to give up this annual review. And 
the question is, should we do so?
  While I believe in free trade because it can be in America's national 
security and economic interest, and while China's leaders have made 
some progress from their days as an inward-looking regime, China has 
broken every one of the six trade agreements it has signed with the 
United States since 1992.
  It is clear to me that not enough progress has been made or even 
attempted in the important areas of

[[Page H3614]]

human and worker rights and in protecting the environment in China.
  I hope the time will come when the great nation of China will earn 
the right to permanent normal trade relations with the great Nation of 
the United States. They have not done so yet.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on PNTR for China.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I can understand the trends 
within this country. They are historic towards protectionism and 
isolationism. But they have not prevailed. And we have benefited as a 
result of our confidence in the future, our ability to compete.
  But if we look at who in China is opposed to this treaty, who wants 
us to reject it tomorrow, certainly the military wants us to reject it, 
because they want their people to believe that they should be putting 
their resources into gearing up for a military confrontation with the 
United States. So they want us to reject it.
  The people who run the state-owned enterprises want us to reject this 
treaty because they are afraid of competition with the United States. 
They do not want to have to worry about providing better working 
conditions for their people, worrying about the environment, providing 
the kinds of benefits that we provide in higher standard of living to 
the people who work for American corporations.
  And certainly the Communist Party wants a no vote. They want a no 
vote because they know if they are put under the international rule of 
law and if they have almost unfettered Internet access to their people, 
if they cannot control what their people read and see and believe, 
they, the Communist Party, lose control over their people; the people 
of China will be liberated; the people of China will be able to deal 
with us. That free enterprise will prevail, that democracy will 
prevail, that human rights will prevail.
  All of these hardliners in China want a no vote. But America needs a 
yes vote. This may be the most important thing we can do for our 
children's children, from a military standpoint, from an economic 
standpoint, and from a moral standpoint.
  China needs to be an economically independent ally, not an isolated 
military threat. They need to be an economic opportunity, not someone 
who is closed off. And certainly, the people of China need an 
opportunity to understand that we have it right, that individual 
freedoms is what the human condition is all about.
  Give the Chinese people a chance. Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last couple hours we are told about slave 
labor, child labor, human rights abuses, forced abortion in China. So 
one could ask, well, why are we here giving permanent trade status to 
China? What is this issue all about?
  My colleagues, the issue is all about money. The issue tonight is 
money, corporate profits for our industry and corporate boards. That is 
what it is all about.
  Now, we have heard from the proponents that, gosh, we cannot isolate 
China, we cannot refuse to trade with them, we should not be 
protectionist. And it is all nonsense. Because everyone talking on the 
floor, be they for or against this resolution, know that we are going 
to continue, like today, trading with China.
  So what is the big deal? The big deal is do we give China tomorrow 
permanent trading status with our country? Do we throw open the doors 
to promises of hundreds of thousands of new jobs? Or should we, like we 
have for almost the past 20 years, review this country and their abuses 
on an annual basis and then on this floor make a decision?
  That is the question. It is not protectionism. It is whether or not 
Congress, the elected officials, will continue to review this.
  I was told about the hundreds of thousands of jobs when NAFTA was 
passed, the trading agreement with Mexico. My colleagues, I come from 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. A short time ago, Master Lock, little bicycle 
locks and big locks, small locks, they announced that they were going 
to close the plant, lay off 400 workers in the Milwaukee area, and move 
that to Mexico where the average wage we are told is about 50 cents an 
hour.
  We cannot compete with that. Well, that is not going to happen in 
China. Baloney. The average wage in China is 13 cents. Master Lock 
should have waited for this and then ran to China.
  Well, but we are going to have trade and they are going to buy 
American goods. The per capita income in China is about $750 a year, 
$750 a year. How many Jeep Cherokees can the Chinese buy from us? How 
many refrigerators? How many computers?
  My colleagues, the issue here is money, money, money.
  We were told when we had a hearing before the Committee on Ways and 
Means that, under this agreement, investment in China is going to 
become more secure and more profitable. And that sent up a red flag for 
this fellow because that means American capital is going to go over 
there in droves and instead of shipping products, they are going to be 
made there; and we are going to be shipping machine tools and 
production equipment, only to have the widgets and the tires and the 
auto parts come back here displacing American workers.
  All we are asking today is let us review this and see if China is 
worthy of permanent. Let us look at it year to year. Congress comes 
back every year like the swallows to Capistrano.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the annual review process has been, basically, a 
failure. We need both to gain the benefits from what we negotiated and 
find a better way to impact China.
  The Helsinki Commission worked not because the USSR agreed; but 
because we, the U.S., persevered. If we persevere with the provisions 
in the bill that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I and 
many others have put together, the best interests of our workers and 
our producers will prevail.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, today we have heard many things that do not really 
represent a real analysis of what PNTR is all about. We have been told 
that PNTR means there are no concessions on our part. Give me a break. 
I mean, no concessions? We have frozen into our reality unfair trade 
tariffs from now to forever.
  Let me give my colleagues an example of PNTR. Car tariffs are going 
to be 25 percent. They are going to say, oh, well they are higher now. 
Yeah, they are higher now, but then they are going to bring them down 
and freeze them forever at an unfair level. Car tariffs 25 percent. 
Motorcycles 35 percent. VCRs 30 percent. Color TVs 30 percent. Corn 65 
percent. Rice 65 percent. Sugar 65 percent.
  These are the tariffs that they are going to have on our goods while 
our tariffs are just going to, again, as we have had for these last 10 
years, almost down to nothing. This freezes us into an unfair economic 
relationship with the world's worst human rights abuser.
  The Levin-Bereuter proposal that in some way just eliminates our 
review is going to do some good for the people of China; we are 
eliminating the review that we have. Their only restraint on their 
violations of human rights we are taking away by permanent normal trade 
relations.
  What is this again? As I started out, this whole debate is about 
what? It is about whether or not we are going to continue the subsidies 
of American businessmen through the Export-Import Bank who are making 
their investments in Communist China to take advantage of that slave 
labor at the taxpayers' expense by the taxpayers guaranteeing that 
investment. That is what is fueling this whole debate today. Nobody 
wants to recognize it.
  What we are doing is building the infrastructure, the technological 
and manufacturing infrastructure, of the world's worst human rights 
abuser and the country that poses the greatest threat to us militarily 
in the future.
  We are creating a monster with blood on its hands. The blood on its 
hands is dripping from the hands of this terrible totalitarian regime. 
They have been repressing their religious believers and people who 
believe in democracy. And

[[Page H3615]]

we want to have a permanent normal trade relationship with them to help 
them build up their technological capabilities.
  Such immoral policy-making will come back and hurt the United States. 
This is Neville Chamberlain's strategy with Adolph Hitler, build up his 
economy that he will not dare to commit aggression.
  We will be hurt very badly if we pass this. Oppose PNTR.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a quote of President Chen Shui-
bian, the newly inaugurated President of Taiwan: ``We would welcome the 
normalization of U.S.-China trade relations, just like we hope the 
Cross Strait relations between Taiwan and China can also be normalized. 
We look forward to both the People's Republic of China's and Taiwan's 
accession to the WTO.''
  The next quote is from the EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, who 
said, ``WTO entry has benefits for China, as it has benefits for EU 
companies, and it will enhance EU-China relations and that has just 
been concluded.''
  And finally, ``American businesses and religious leaders need to 
remain engaged in China as an example and as a voice for our values. 
Rejecting the constructive bilateral trade agreements offered by the 
Chinese and denying normal trade relations would mean severing ties 
that would take generations to repair.''
  I would remind colleagues, this may be the most critically important 
vote they will cast in their entire career in the Congress of the 
United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, American business men and women have 
eyed China for years, knowing that the sky is the limit when it comes 
to selling American made goods and services to the world's largest 
market. But Americans have found it difficult to trade with China since 
complete access to this vast market has been restricted.
  In today's global market, we can no longer afford any restrictions on 
trade with the world's largest population. We must engage China, and 
ensure that American companies and American workers have the tools to 
compete with other nations in Chinese markets. Remember, when America 
competes, we win. That's why I voted for a permanent trading 
relationship between the United States and China.
  In fact, over the past year I have taken an active role in promoting 
America's free trade with China. Specifically, in Washington, as a 
member of the House Leadership's China Trade Team, I have worked with 
House Rules Chairman David Dreier and my colleagues in support of 
extending permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, with China.
  Back at home, I have met with hundreds of people in New Jersey's 
business community to encourage them to organize and help spread the 
word about the benefits increased trade with China will bring home to 
the Garden State. In fact, Chairman Dreier and I assembled a group of 
New Jersey's business leaders in April to ``rally the troops,'' so to 
speak. Joined by the CEO of Honeywell, Michael Bonsignore, we 
articulated five main points that are deciding factors in my support of 
trade with China.
  First, extending permanent normal trading relations with China is a 
win for fairness--this agreement forces China to adhere to our rules-
based trading system. Without an agreement, there are no rules, and we 
have no say whatsoever in how China conducts its business with the rest 
of the world.
  Second, it's a win for U.S. workers and businesses--China is an 
incredibly important emerging market with more than a billion 
consumers. America's world class businesses, large and small--
manufacturers, high tech/biotech companies, entertainers, farmers, 
financial institutions--know that being shut out of China, especially 
as China opens its doors to the rest of the world, is a very big 
mistake.
  Third, trade with China is a win for American values inside China--
through free and fair trade, America will not only export many products 
and services, but we will deliver a good old fashioned dose of our 
democratic values and free-market ideas. These ideals are already 
percolating in China --interestingly, today there are more Chinese 
shareholders in private companies in China than there are members of 
the Chinese Communist Party!

  Fourth, international trade, whether with China or any other nation, 
means jobs for New Jerseyans, and continued prosperity for our state. 
That's the bottom line. Out of New Jersey's 4.1 million-member 
workforce, almost 600,000 people statewide--from Main Street to Fortune 
500 companies--are employed because of exports, imports and foreign 
direct investment.
  China ranked as New Jersey's 9th largest export destination in 1998, 
an increase from 13th in 1993. Our Garden State exported $668 million 
in merchandise to China in 1998, more than double what was exported 
five years earlier. With a formal trade agreement in place, imagine the 
potential as access to China's vast market is improved! Enormous 
opportunities exist for New Jersey's telecommunications, environmental 
technology, healthcare, agriculture and food processing industries.
  Fifth and finally, in the interests of world peace, it is absolutely 
a mistake to isolate China, a nation with the world's largest standing 
army, an estimated 2.6 million-member force. America's democratic 
allies in Asia support China's entry into the World Trade Organization 
because they know that a constructive relationship with China in a 
stable Asia offers the best chance for reducing regional tensions along 
the Taiwan Strait, and for avoiding a new arms race elsewhere in Asia.
  I am fully aware of the controversy surrounding my vote. Indeed, 
humanitarian and environmental issues remain important to me in our 
dealings with China. But I refuse to believe that if we walk away from 
China our national interests would be better served. In fact, I am 
positive to do so would deter from our ability, and our credibility, to 
push reform in China and around the globe.
  As General Colin Powell said, ``From every standpoint--from a 
strategic standpoint, from the standpoint of our national interests, 
from the standpoint of our trading interests and our economic 
interests--it serves all of our purposes to grant permanent normal 
trading relations with China.''
  My vote ensures we give American workers the tools to compete with 
the world, and win. Moreover, by extending a permanent trading 
relationship with China, we ensure that China adheres to our rules in 
the global marketplace, and that along with our goods and services, we 
export American values and democratic ideals.

                              {time}  1900

  The CHAIRMAN. All time allotted for general debate has expired.
  Under the order of the House of today, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Burr of North Carolina) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4444) to authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal 
trade relations treatment) to the People's Republic of China, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________