[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 66 (Wednesday, May 24, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3652-H3662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4444, AUTHORIZING EXTENSION 
 OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO 
                       PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 510 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 510

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4444) to authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment 
     (normal trade relations treatment) to the People's Republic 
     of China. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. 
     In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways 
     and Means now printed in the bill, the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) three hours of debate on the bill, as 
     amended, equally divided among and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means, Representative Stark of California or his designee, 
     and Representative Rohrabacher of California or his designee; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very dear friend from South Boston, 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) with whom I spend many long evenings 
upstairs in the Committee on Rules, including last night, to get this 
measure down here, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as is customary for consideration of trade 
legislation, H.Res. 510 is a closed rule providing for consideration of 
H.R. 4444, a bill to authorize extension of normal trade relations to 
the People's Republic of China. The rule provides 3 hours of debate in 
the House equally divided among the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) or their designees.
  The rule provides that in lieu of the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on 
Rules report accompanying the rule shall be considered as adopted. 
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.

[[Page H3653]]

  Mr. Speaker, today's vote on trade with China is probably the most 
important vote that we will face in this session of Congress. Make no 
mistake about it. This vote is a win-win-win for America's workers, 
America's first-class businesses, and the very important goal of 
promoting American values. This will be a win for American workers 
because China will finally be required to play by the rules when they 
trade with America. They are opening their markets to American 
exporters which means good jobs across the United States. This is also 
a major win for world-class American businesses. We are home to the 
world's best high-tech companies, entertainers, farmers, and financial 
institutions.

                              {time}  1030

  These industries are at the heart of my home State of California's 
vibrant growing economy. They dominate global markets, and they will do 
the same in China if we let them.
  However, as good a trade deal as this is, it does not get any more 
one sided in our favor than this. We do not face a choice between 
American pocketbooks and American values.
  The fact is, trade with China is good for the Chinese people. It is 
good for human rights. It is good for democratic reform. It is good for 
national security, and it is good for American values. Yes, high-tech 
industries strongly support this bill. Yes, farmers across America 
strongly support this bill.
  Yes, this bill is key to spreading the Internet across China. That is 
all great. But the real story is that leading human rights activists, 
democratic reformers and religious leaders in China support permanent 
normal trade relations and China entering the World Trade Organization.
  Mr. Speaker, China is in the midst of great and dynamic change; and 
free market reform is the primary engine pushing that change. In fact, 
market reform is the single most powerful force for positive change in 
the 5,000-year history of Chinese civilization.
  Mr. Speaker, if we care about the Chinese people, we cannot ignore 
reality that free market reforms have lifted hundreds of millions of 
Chinese people out of the depths of poverty. They have led to greater 
personal freedom for nearly everyone in China.
  Mr. Speaker, supporters of trade with China, those of us who are 
supporters are not fools. We know that there are huge problems in 
China, and we do not ignore those problems. China is a country of 1.3 
billion people with, as I said, 5,000 years of history dominated by 
both poverty and repression. Freedom and prosperity will not come to 
China overnight, or in a year or two. But if we stand for trade, if we 
stand for trade, we stand with Martin Lee, the leading democracy 
activist in Hong Kong, with Chen Shui-bian, the newly-elected president 
of Taiwan, who, the morning after he was elected, said one of the top 
priorities is China's accession to the World Trade Organization.
  Billy Graham, who has not injected himself into this debate, other 
than to say that he believes that communication with China and openness 
is very important for us. Colin Powell, who just yesterday talked about 
the importance of this with Governor George W. Bush; Alan Greenspan, 
the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board; and, of course, former 
Presidents George Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford; as well as Ren 
Wanding, who is leader of China's 1978 Democracy Wall Movement in 
China; and a host of other Chinese human rights activists. People like 
Wei Jinhsheng, who for 7 years was imprisoned following the Tiananmen 
Square protests, people like this have come forward and said this is a 
very important thing to do.
  So when we vote yes on permanent normal trade relations today, Mr. 
Speaker, we will be standing with winners. We stand with the people 
that will win in today's debate. We stand with the people that will win 
with this very important, but most important, Mr. Speaker, we stand 
with the winning tide of history that is slowly lifting the people of 
China from the depth of poverty and repression into the community of 
nations based on freedom and human dignity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, my dear friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules for yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, every year Congress votes to extend normal trade 
relations with China. Today, the House will vote on whether to make 
that status permanent. Today, the House will decide whether we should 
treat the Chinese Government exactly the same way we treat nearly every 
other government.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the Chinese Government has yet 
earned that privilege. Now, I am not saying we should not trade with 
China. It is the most populous country in the world; and, as such, it 
is a potential gold mine for American business. That is why I vote for 
annual normal trade relations for China.
  But, Mr. Speaker, if we do not reconsider that status every year, we 
are going to lose what little chance we have of effecting any change in 
China. Mr. Speaker, China needs to change.
  According to Mary Robinson, the chief of human rights of United 
Nations, in the last 2 years, human rights in China have gotten worse.
  My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman, 
just said that we are going to stand with these people if we vote for 
China. Here is some of the other people we are going to stand with. 
This is the government that killed its own people with demonstrating in 
Tiananmen Square.
  This is the government that jails hundreds of people who believe in 
the Falun Gong spiritual movements.
  It is the same government that sells missiles and nuclear technology 
to North Korea and Iraq.
  This is the same government that is home to at least 1100 slaved 
labor camps; and this is the same government that devastates its 
environment by building the Three Gorges Dam, ignores workers' rights 
and trades in endangered species.
  Mr. Speaker, if we grant the Chinese Government permanent normal 
trade relations, we will be giving away what little chance we have to 
exert some influence on some of these horrible practices, particularly, 
the abuse of religious freedoms.
  The United States Commission on Internal Religious Freedom reported 
that in China that Roman Catholic and Protestant underground house 
churches suffered increased repression, the crackdown included the 
arrests of bishops, priests, and pastors, one of whom was found dead on 
the street moments after he was arrested.
  Mr. Speaker, since the United States consumes one-third of China's 
exports, we have a great opportunity to change the current practices in 
China, and we should not squander that opportunity for the sake of the 
almighty dollar.
  I am not naive enough to think that the United States should pass up 
all trade with China, but I do think that we should at least reconsider 
that decision each and every year. Each year that Congress reconsiders 
the most favored nation trading status for China, the debate resurfaces 
here in the halls of the Congress, in the newspapers, on television 
screens. Each year we have the debate, attention again is focused again 
on China; and heat is kept on. And if we are to make that status 
permanent, the debate would end and human and workers' rights would be 
completely off the radar screen.
  If we do not reconsider China's trade status every year, we lock 
ourselves into an inescapable trade agreement that hurts workers, hurts 
the environment and does nothing to stop religious persecution, slave 
labor, or the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the lead author of the very important 
legislation which is incorporated in this bill, which I believe will 
play a key role in bringing about its victory today.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I 
want to commend, the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and 
the Committee on Rules for this excellent rule.
  While providing China with permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, it

[[Page H3654]]

is very clearly and overwhelmingly in America's short-term and long-
term national interests; and a convincing case can be made for passing 
PNTR on its merits alone. Legitimate specific concerns in Congress 
about China and Sino-American relations continue. That is why the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and this Member have 
offered a PNTR compatible parallel proposal in order to address those 
concerns which, I emphasize, this rule self-executes into H.R. 4444.
  During the markup in the Committee on Ways and Means of that 
legislation, the important special 12-year import anti-surge 
protections for the U.S. as originally proposed in the Levin-Bereuter 
package were incorporated into the PNTR bill. This is an effective 
deterrent and defense against any huge import surges from China that 
could cause specific American business or agricultural sectors some 
damage. It is a special 12-year anti-surge provision that goes above 
and beyond that which we have with any other of the 135 members of the 
WTO.
  With this rule, the PNTR legislation is expanded to incorporate the 
remainder of the Levin-Bereuter proposal which includes, first, the 
congressional executive commission on the People's Republic of China. 
This commission is based upon the OSCE or Helsinki Commission model and 
would be comprised of Members of this body, the other body, and of the 
executive branch.
  The commission would produce an annual report to the President and 
Congress evaluating human rights in China with, should it deem 
appropriate, recommendations. Within 30 days of the receipt of that 
report, the House Committee on International Relations would be 
required to hold at least one public hearing on the report, and on the 
basis of that recommendation or recommendations in the report, decide, 
in a specified time frame a short period what legislation to report to 
the House floor.
  Secondly, we enhance the monitoring enforcement of China's WTO 
commitments, and that is very important. The U.S. Trade Representative 
is directed to seek the annual review by the WTO of China's compliance 
with its commitments to the WTO and is required to report annually to 
the Congress on China's compliance record.
  Additional staff and resources are authorized for the Departments of 
Commerce, State, and Agriculture and the USTR to monitor and support 
enforcement of China's trade commitments. A trade law technical 
assistance center would be established to assist businesses and workers 
in evaluating the potential remedies to any trade violations by China.
  Third, a task force is created in the executive branch on prison 
labor exports. This would improve the enforcement of our laws 
preventing the importation of prison labor products. It would be 
authorized and the administration will be directed to enter into 
agreements.
  Then, of course, we express the sense of the Congress that Taiwan 
should enter the same General Council meeting of the WTO when China is 
provided WTO membership as provided in an earlier Dunn-Bereuter bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 4444.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to establishing permanent normal 
trade relations with the People's Republic of China. China's record on 
human rights, religious persecution, forced abortions, political 
freedom, and workers safety is bad. It is getting worse.
  A recent study by the Congressional Research Service concluded that 
the annual congressional debate on China trade has, in fact, played a 
prominent role in winning the release of some Chinese political 
prisoners. And by granting China permanent normal trade relations, we 
will lose that opportunity to review China's human rights record.
  There are some benefits to the United States in this trade agreement. 
Some companies in our country, of course, will make a few bucks, but if 
we look at the agreements that we have had with the Chinese Government, 
they have not fully kept the promises that they have made to us so many 
times before.
  There is no reason to believe that it will honor the terms of this 
agreement. I have always been a student of Asia, at least I have tried 
to be. I lived in Asia for a few years, and the one thing that I know 
about Asians is that they respect courage. They respect patience. They 
respect politeness, but they really respect toughness. I think China 
looks at us on issues like this and laughs, and says Americans are 
weak. They give in too quickly on their principles.
  This legislation is a dog, and it smells. It deserves to go down. 
Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Fairfax, Virginia (Mr. Davis), my good friend, one of the great 
champions of globalization and trade.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
and for the resolution. For America, this agreement is a one-way 
street, our markets are already open to the Chinese; if there is going 
to be job loss, we have seen it.
  In terms of some of these low-wage markets that have already been 
moved in the Pacific Rim into China and to these other areas, what this 
does for the first time, and by adopting PNTR, China's markets are now 
going to be more accessible to American companies, American products. 
1.2 billion Chinese, America only has 5 percent of the world's 
consumers. China is the largest, second largest economy in the world, 
100 million Chinese today making $40,000 a year U.S. annually. A middle 
class that is burgeoning and growing, and this is going to increase the 
pressures for democratization inside of China.

                              {time}  1045

  China already joins the WTO regardless of what we do here today. That 
already happens. The question is: Are American products, are American 
corporations, are American workers, going to get the WTO preference by 
our granting PNTR and does America get the benefits of the World Trade 
Organization tribunals for resolving trade issues that we do not get if 
we just go on to an annual basis?
  Under PNTR, the answer is yes, we get those benefits. With only 
annual trade relations agreements the answer is no.
  Look, we all agree that China's human rights record is abysmal; it is 
terrible. But does withholding PNTR bring about any of those changes? 
No. That is why Martin Lee, the great democracy leader in Hong Kong, 
the Dalai Lama and others endorse PNTR.
  The best way to change China and to change their pitiful human rights 
record and their abuses is through trade, by opening up their borders, 
by exporting our values and our goods to China; to the opening of the 
Internet, the opening of their media, opening up to free commerce.
  History teaches that revolutions occur when things are getting 
better, not when things are getting worse. It is a historical law of 
relative deprivation. Things are improving in China; and if the rising 
expectation of those people come forward, we will see this historical 
law move to a huge change in China in their human rights and democratic 
abuses that they have today.
  Economic forces that will be unleashed by free trade and commerce are 
going to overwhelm the current forces fighting to maintain socialism, 
to main totalitarianism and repression in China. Political freedom will 
follow the economic freedom in the opening up of the markets in this 
case. Let us be visionary and understand that the information 
revolution that is taking this planet, the globalization of the 
economy, these are very strong forces which will be enhanced by 
adopting this agreement today, and this will change China forever in a 
way that withholding our support can never get to.
  It changed Taiwan, which just a few years ago was a dictatorship. It 
changed Korea, which was a dictatorship. These forces are overwhelming 
and we are unleashing these forces by adopting this resolution today.

[[Page H3655]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and to vote yes on this 
resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the chief deputy whip of the Democratic Party.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
rule and permanent normal trade relations for China. We must stand up 
for human rights and democracy throughout the world. Where is the 
freedom of speech? Where is the freedom of assembly? Where is the 
freedom to organize? Where is the freedom to protest? Where is the 
freedom to pray? It is not in China. The people of China want to 
practice their own religion. They want to speak their mind. They want 
to live in a free, open, and democratic society. If we stand for civil 
rights and human rights in America and other places around the world, 
we must stand up for human rights in China and speak for those who are 
not able to speak for themselves.
  Today with our vote we have an opportunity to speak for the dignity 
of man and the destiny of democracy. I urge all of my colleagues to 
oppose the rule and PNTR for China. It is not the right thing to do. It 
is not the right way to go. We are sending the wrong message. Let us 
stand up for human rights today.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very 
good friend, the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of 
the House.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am the first one to stipulate that China has problems 
with its people and its government on human rights on labor and the 
environment. But after approving normal trade relations for 20 years, 
have we changed that? Is this about that? This is not a gift to the 
Chinese Government. It may be a gift to America's workers. We already 
have the lowest tariffs in the world, and all this will do will take 
down the tariffs in China and open a market of 1.3 billion people to 
our workers to sell goods and services.
  It may be a gift to the Chinese people because they will have a much 
broader range of consumer products at a much lower price for them to 
buy, to enhance their standard of living.
  Why permanent? The American businessman and woman needs some degree 
of predictability to make commitments over the long haul, and going 
back to the well once a year to ever-increasing votes, but once a year 
to hammer China on human rights to wonder if they are going to have 
open markets again does not give them the ability to make long-range 
plans.
  Let me just close by saying something that Chris Patten wrote. He was 
the last governor of Hong Kong, the British Empire. He wrote in the 
Economist, and he said if a spaceship had come to the planet from Mars 
in the 16th century and landed in the teepee settlements of North 
America to the typhoid-ridden flats of London, to the warring clans in 
Europe, and settled in the 16th century Mandarin Dynasty, he would have 
concluded without a second's thought that China would rule the world 
for centuries. They had invented gun powder, the printing press, the 
compass. They had an armada at sea. They had an efficient government, 
an improved cultural base, the envy of the world.
  Then they withdrew behind the wall and history told a different tale. 
We are breaking down the great wall of China with our travel and our 
access to it. The last wall is tariffs to our products, the products 
that our workers make. We must help them bring that wall down. This 
bill will do it today, and I urge a yes vote.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the first of many on this side 
of the aisle that urge support of this rule to govern debate on 
extending permanent normal trade relations to China. We live in a 
rapidly changing and ever-shrinking world. Globalization has taken 
hold, whether we like it or not. Our challenge is to recognize the 
changes and to do our best to remain competitive and successful while 
we still retain our values, and today we can do both.
  This week China moved closer to finalizing entry into the World Trade 
Organization, a rules-based organization that gives the international 
community tremendous leverage to ensure that China complies with its 
trade agreements and moves to a more open and free society. China's 
recent trade pact with the European community raises the stakes for 
PNTR here in the United States. Our working families and companies 
deserve a level playing field in competing for business in China.
  Mr. Speaker, permanent normal trade relations with China is good for 
our businesses and even better for our working families. Moreover, many 
Chinese dissidents, including the Dalai Lama, have continually said 
that exposing the Chinese people to our way of life is the best way to 
encourage change in that country. I urge my colleagues to strongly 
support this rule and to even more strongly support permanent trade 
relations with China this afternoon.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, for the record, the Dalai Lama has not 
come out for this legislation.
  This rule makes in order a commission to review human rights 
violations in China. Why do we need a commission when we have a 
Congress? We cannot expect corporations to stand up for human rights. 
Congress must stand up for human rights. This Congress has the power in 
an annual review to uphold human rights and worker rights.
  The commission could be called a fig leaf to try to cover up human 
rights and worker rights violations. Will we choose a fig leaf or will 
we use the power of our voting cards annually? Why have a commission 
when we have a Congress? It is upside down to insist that no U.S. trade 
review of human rights violations in China is better than an annual 
review. This Congress must insist that we stand up for America's 
dearest and most cherished values, for freedom, for justice. That is 
the American way; and if we are going to make this world a better 
place, we have to stand for it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of PNTR for China and for this rule. Without question, China has a 
horrible record on a whole series of issues: human rights, labor 
standards, religious freedom. That is not the question before the House 
today. The question before the House today is what path is most likely 
to make it better? And what we have seen, from Presidents Nixon to 
Reagan to Bush to Clinton, is an embracement of the policy of 
engagement, of bringing them into our world with our values to help 
improve the system. Giving China a stake in a different world order 
than the one they subscribe to now will have the best likelihood of 
moving them forward.
  I want to make one critical point. However we vote on this, I do not 
think we should kid ourselves that this is going to solve the problem 
with China one way or the other. The problem of improving China's human 
rights record, their labor standards, their religious freedom, is going 
to take a whole lot of work for decades to come. This one vote is not 
going to cut it down or set it up. We have to keep working on the 
problem.
  As human rights leaders in China, as Taiwan and a lot of people 
recognize, we are not going to make any progress whatsoever if we 
isolated China and cut them off from the rest of the world. Then they 
have nothing to lose by behaving in a way that the rest of the world 
does not like.
  On the annual vote that we are giving up, we hear how great this 
annual vote is. It is kind of interesting in listening to the debate I 
have heard people say the annual vote has made no difference whatsoever 
but we cannot afford to lose it. That is sort of a contradictory 
argument. The bottom line is, whatever we do here in the U.S. has a 
minimum amount of impact on moving China forward. But the question is, 
what is going to move it forward or backwards? We are not going to stop

[[Page H3656]]

talking about China's human rights record just because we do not have 
an annual vote. I mean, who is kidding who on that? We are going to 
continue to talk about it, on a whole series of issues. But by not 
taking this vote, we lose the opportunity to pull China into the WTO, 
to pull them closer to the rest of the world, so that we have some hope 
of moving them forward.
  This is not a guarantee. Anyone who stands up and says voting for 
this is somehow going to make democracy and freedom appear in China is 
kidding us, but it is going to move it in the right direction, and we 
should take this vote.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and against 
the PNTR China agreement. I feel that this is injustice and inequality 
to the environment and human rights and most importantly to the 
workers' rights. The issue is about principle, right and wrong, the 
future of this country. It is about the future of this country and 
protecting American jobs in the global economy. I do not oppose China's 
current trade status. I believe in annual review of China's smart 
policy.
  Bishop Barnes from the San Bernardino diocese came to me to express 
his concern over religious freedom and humanitarian rights to the 
people, not only in this country but throughout the world as well. 
Close to 4 million veterans and 52 percent of Americans believe that 
this agreement would hurt American workers and that it is dangerous to 
American society. Yet some feel that this is best for the American 
people. This country's judicial system is based on what is called 
reasonable doubt. No man is convicted if there is reasonable doubt.
  In this agreement, there is more than reasonable doubt; and yet some 
want to convict this country and its workers and say yes to a country 
that has violated every rule.
  I say ``si se puede.'' Say no to this rule. Say no to the PNTR China 
agreement
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of PNTR, a 
vote that is good for New York and the United States and an important 
step in integrating China with the West. China will enter the WTO 
regardless. This vote opens China to U.S. exports. Our market is 
already open. This is about fairness. I believe that a vote for PNTR is 
also a vote to improve labor rights, human rights, and respect for the 
environment in China. Many opponents of PNTR have taken this floor to 
discuss indefensible violations of basic human rights that are now 
occurring in China. Opponents of PNTR argue that we should not give up 
the leverage of a yearly NTR vote; but for 20 years we have approved 
NTR, and these violations of human rights are still occurring.

                              {time}  1100

  By granting PNTR, we allow for greatly increased interaction between 
China and the West. As one example, the ability to access the Internet 
over U.S. manufactured equipment could have a tremendous impact on the 
free flow of ideas in China.
  The fact is that China is unique. No other country has gone to such 
lengths to isolate itself for so many hundreds of years.
  PNTR presents a unique opportunity for us to get behind China's great 
wall and engage the Chinese people. Over time, PNTR will raise the 
standard of living of the people in China and its trading partners.
  From a national security point of view, a stable China and a forward-
looking U.S.-China relationship is in the interest of the United 
States. Our allies in the region, including Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, 
favor China's entry into the WTO. The Dalai Lama himself, who knows 
quite a bit about Chinese oppression, favors China's entrance into the 
WTO and its integration into the world community.
  Change in China will take many years. I will vote for PNTR because it 
puts us on the right course morally and economically.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last Sunday in Copenhagen, Denmark, the Dalai Lama said 
he supported China's entry into the World Trade Organization.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), a very hard-working Member from the Committee on Rules, my 
friend from the ``Big D.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
giving me 1 minute to express my sincere appreciation, not only to him 
for the hard work he has done in this endeavor, but also for the good 
work that this is going to mean.
  Twenty years we have been working with China, American businesses in 
China. Now is the time to make it permanent. Now is the time to say to 
American companies, please do, go invest in China. I believe that we 
are going to find that American and Chinese workers working together, 
that we are going to find products that flow between America and China 
will be to the advantage of free people.
  That is what this is all about. This is about the ability of people 
in China to, not only have what they want, which is freedom, but also 
American products to enjoy. This will be a great day, not only in 
Beijing, but a great day in Washington.
  I support the rule. I intend to vote for PNTR. I encourage my 
colleagues to do so also.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair please inform the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Dreier), my dear friend, and myself how much 
time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) each have 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to tell my 
chairman that the Dalai Lama did not come out in favor of PNTR. He came 
out in favor of the World Trade Organization.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I just say, what I said, as I stood up, is 
that, in Copenhagen, Denmark last Sunday morning, the Dalai Lama said 
that he supported China's entry into the World Trade Organization.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. That is right, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. DREIER. That is what I said.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. But it did not say anything about the PNTR, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I understand that. But I think that the 
global community recognizes that the U.S. presence in the World Trade 
Organization enabling access to China is very important.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Dalai Lama did not come out in favor of 
PNTR.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I never said he did.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, this letter is from the International 
Committee on Tibet.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Klink).
  (Mr. KLINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me 
this time.
  It is a bit of deja vu as I walk into this well and remember 1993 
when the subject was NAFTA, and the sides were divided somewhat 
similarly. We kept hearing all of the former Presidents are in favor of 
this agreement, all of these industries are in favor of such agreement, 
this is going to do such wonderful things for us.
  The reality is that we went from a $3 billion trade surplus with 
Mexico after the passage of NAFTA to a $17 billion trade deficit. Open 
warfare developed in Chiapas right after NAFTA passed. There was an 
increase in political assassinations in Mexico.
  We find out in my home State of Pennsylvania last month we lost 
22,000 jobs to Mexico after the passage of NAFTA. I would ask those 
that are in

[[Page H3657]]

support of PNTR, what are they willing to sacrifice on the altar of 
free trade. 22,000 Pennsylvania workers sacrificed their jobs. They 
laid their sacrifice on the altar of free trade. How much worse will it 
be when one was asked to make the same kind of sacrifice with a country 
that is so much larger than Mexico, and that is with China?
  The reality is the Mexican workers make 60 cents an hour. Many of the 
Chinese workers make less than a quarter an hour. In fact, many of them 
work in state-owned industries that were really little more than 
slaves.
  What happened to the fact that our forefathers said all men and women 
are created equal? What happened to the fact that the United States 
Congress is supposed to, not only control commerce, but is supposed to 
stand up for human rights and workers' rights and environmental 
conditions across this whole world? We have forgotten that now. We 
yield to corporate profits. We yield to what the next month's profits 
are going to be for these corporations.
  The reality here is that, if somebody is making 25 cents an hour in a 
factory in Chongqing, what are they going to buy that we make in this 
country? Are they going to buy our Boeing airplanes? No. Are they going 
to buy our automobiles our appliances? They are not even going to buy 
our beepers or our phones.
  The reality is that Members should vote against this rule and vote 
against PNTR. It is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have created 20 million jobs and have an unemployment 
rate of less than 4 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous 
Material of the Committee on Commerce, a hard-working member of our 
whip team on this issue.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and this 
legislation.
  Let me relate a story, since I only have a minute. I attended a trip 
to China a few years ago. It was headed up by our former colleague, 
Jack Fields. One of the opportunities that we had was to have a 
luncheon with an American company, in this case AT&T, that was trying 
to penetrate the Chinese market in telephones.
  I was seated beside a young lady, Chinese, in her late 20's who was 
the number one assistant to the executive vice president of AT&T. I 
asked her what her job was, and she related a little bit about her job. 
I said, What is your background? She said, Congressman, I am enjoying 
my lifelong dream. I said, What is that? She said, I was educated at 
Brown University in your country, I returned to China to build a new 
China, and I am working for an American company.
  That really tells us what we need to know about this change that is 
taking place in China. We have to have the courage and we have to have 
the vision, and most of all, we have to have the patience that these 
young people can rise to leadership in China. We can do it by passing 
PNTR.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Committee on Rules rejected 
the Berman-Weldon amendment. That amendment would simply have provided 
that China loses its normal trade relations if it invades or blockades 
Taiwan.
  Now, China will look at this rule and look at the RECORD of this 
House and see a green light to blockade Taiwan. It would keep its trade 
with the United States at the same time.
  Taiwan can be blockaded easily. They merely need to hit one ship with 
a missile and announce that the next freighter will face a similar 
fate.
  If my colleagues vote for this rule, they are endorsing a record that 
tells China blockade Taiwan and your friends in America will keep 
trading with you.
  We have to defeat this rule regardless of what happens to the bill. 
Defeat the rule, demand the Berman-Weldon amendment, demand a chance to 
vote to say that we will send a clear message to China that, if it 
blockades or invades Taiwan, it loses its trade privileges.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Chen Shui-bian the new 
President of Taiwan strongly supports the entry into the World Trade 
Organization without any conditions whatsoever because they know it 
will benefit both Taiwan, China, and the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen), a hard-working member of our whip team.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule 
and extending permanent normal trade relations with China.
  First, extending permanent normal trade relations with China is a win 
for fairness, Mr. Speaker. 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.
  Secondly, it is 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, know that 
being shut out of China, especially as China opens its doors to the 
rest of the world, is a very big mistake.
  Thirdly, 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 will deliver a good old-fashioned dose of our 
democratic values and free market values. These ideals are already 
percolating in China. Interestingly enough, today there are more 
Chinese shareholders in private companies in China than there are 
members of the communist party.
  Fourthly, international trade, whether with China or any other 
nation, means jobs to people in my State and our continued prosperity. 
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 or foreign direct investment.
  Fifth, and finally, in the interest of world peace, it is absolutely 
a mistake to isolate China with the world's largest standing Army. 
America's democratic allies in Asia support China's entry into the 
World Trade Organization because they know that a constructive 
relationship with China means a stable Asia that offers the best chance 
for reducing the regional tensions along the Taiwan Strait and for 
avoiding a new arms race elsewhere in Asia.
  Mr. Speaker, PNTR in China is a win for American workers, farmers, 
and businesses of all sizes. It is a win for spreading American values.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, China's deplorable record on human rights should not be 
rewarded with permanent normal trade status. Normal trade relations 
would indicate that China is living by certain standards or norms, a 
respect for human dignity. However, the record on human rights and 
religious freedom in China is contrary to even the minimal norms of 
human decency.
  In China, many religious believers are detained and imprisoned. Until 
there is general progress on religious freedom and until there is at 
least a measure of respect for human dignity, I cannot in good 
conscience support permanent normal trade relations with China.
  If China wants normal trade relations, let them treat their people 
normally.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Newport Beach, California (Mr. Cox), my very good 
friend, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, who has worked 
long and hard on this issue and is a strong supporter of both the rule 
and PNTR.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, the 
chairman, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for consideration 
of our debate on permanent normal trade relations with the People's 
Republic of China, because it makes in order legislation to correct a 
serious flaw in the

[[Page H3658]]

bill sent up here by the Clinton-Gore administration to establish PNTR.
  That bill did two things. It provided for permanent normal trade 
relations, but it also would have repealed our annual debate on human 
rights here in the Congress.
  I am happy to say that our annual role for Congress will now be 
preserved. In addition to consideration of human rights in the 
commission that will be set up to evaluate China's human rights 
performance each year, there will now be a mandatory procedure in the 
Congress for consideration of these as well on an annual basis.
  The human rights on which we will focus will be expanded from the 
original Jackson-Vanik focused solely on immigration to include 
religious freedom, the plight of political prisoners, protections 
against arbitrary arrest, and that heinous form of punishment exile 
that has been reserved for such democracy activists as Wei Jinhsheng.
  We must not and we will not, as a result of this rule, throw out the 
human rights baby with the trade sanctions bath water.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, none of us have rose-colored glasses when it 
comes to China, but we have to ask this question: What is the more 
powerful force for breaking the strangle cord of the Chinese 
Government. Twenty million Chinese armed with cell phones and Internet 
access and independent businesses or 435 members of the House giving 
sometimes eloquent speeches about China. Chinese freedom will advance 
when the Chinese have an independent basis to break the strangle cord 
of the Chinese Government, and this agreement will advance that cause.
  Three days ago, aerospace machinists, Local 751, representing 44,000 
aerospace workers in the Puget Sound area endorse this treaty. They did 
this for this reason, they recognize the real contest here is this, who 
will have the trade benefits of this agreements, the workers in 
Toulouse, France or the workers in Seattle, Washington.

                              {time}  1115

  I am voting for the workers in Seattle, Washington, to make sure 
those workers have the benefit of this agreement; those workers get 
those trade benefits. I am supporting those workers in this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Palm 
Beach, Florida (Mr. Foley), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his eloquence in the 
debate.
  I am quite shocked at the Democrats not supporting their President 
today or their Vice President in his trade policy. In the twilight of 
his administration, I would think the party would rally behind the 
President and support him.
  As chairman of the House Entertainment Industry Caucus, this is a 
good bill for videos, for movies, and for music sales. As co-chair of 
the Travel and Tourism Caucus, we can expect more travel in both 
directions because of this bill.
  And as a representative of Florida's vital citrus industry, we 
finally have our enjoyable and nutritious product making its way to 
China, and more will be on its way thanks to this bill.
  Relative to the comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania about 
Taiwan, if, in fact, China attacks Taiwan, the President can put in a 
trade sanction against the Chinese. There is protection in law to 
prevent those types of occurrences.
  But, please, I admonish the people on the other side of the aisle to 
support their President in the final months of his administration; 
support the Vice President, as he tries to succeed President Clinton, 
and do what is right for international policy, human rights for the 
Chinese, more business for all in China, and more business for United 
States companies.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let us be clear what this debate is about. There is a reason why the 
largest multinational corporations in this country are spending tens of 
millions of dollars to see this legislation passed, and that reason is 
they like doing business in China where they can pay people 10 cents an 
hour, 15 cents an hour, rather than paying the workers in this country 
a living wage.
  And there is another reason why the environmental community is 
opposed to this agreement, why the veterans community is opposed to 
this agreement, why religious organizations like the National 
Conference of Catholic Bishops are opposed to this agreement, and that 
is this agreement is bad for workers, it is bad for human rights, it is 
bad for the environment, and it is bad for national security.
  I would hope that the Members of this Congress have the courage to 
stand up to the big money interests who are flooding Congress with 
contributions, with lobbying efforts, and with advertising, and do the 
right thing for the vast majority of the American people. Vote against 
this rule; vote against this agreement.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Ewing), another of our hard- working advocacy workers 
here in the House.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in strong support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  This monumental piece of trade legislation will provide tremendous 
benefits for Americans. By prying open the closed door of Communist 
China, Western ideals, freedoms, as well as trade, will be let in.
  Now, corn and soybeans are the heart of the district I represent in 
Illinois, and this legislation is very important to our Nation's 
struggling agricultural economy. Opponents of PNTR say that China gets 
everything it wants, unconditional, unlimited, permanent access for 
Chinese-made goods into the U.S. market. The reality is that China has 
access to U.S. markets right now and will continue to have that access 
regardless of the outcome of this vote. China will be admitted to the 
World Trade Organization with or without our approval. This vote comes 
down to whether the U.S. will have improved access to the Chinese 
market or will we cede that to our European and Asian competitors.
  Opponents of this bill talk about human rights. While it is true the 
Chinese record on human rights is not good, closing the door between 
the U.S. and China will not advance the cause of human rights.
  There are currently 9 million Internet users in China, and that 
figure doubles every 6 months. The Chinese have tried to censor their 
Internet. We would not like that, but they have failed in that attempt. 
The number one item that people in China log on the Internet for is 
news.
  A vote for PNTR is a vote for development of the Internet. This is 
right for America. It is right to do now. Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise today to support granting China permanent normal 
trade relations.
  The growing relationship between the United States and China has 
helped support my home State of North Carolina's economy and its 
leadership in world trade. Even without PNTR, in 1998 alone, my State 
exported over $215 million worth of goods, everything from stone and 
glass to electronics, to this market. This measure will reduce barriers 
to our exports and create more opportunities to support our goals.
  The rapidly growing Triangle area saw their exports jump 86 percent 
in just 5 years. Granting China PNTR will

[[Page H3659]]

also open up their market to our high-quality North Carolina 
agricultural products, from tobacco, to pork, to poultry. Our Nation's 
economic future depends upon our access to new and growing markets and 
investing in our people and our technology to compete and winning in 
these global markets. This is an essential component of that policy.
  While I support the opening of the relationship with China, I, like 
many others today, am concerned about the human rights record. But I 
side with Reverend Billy Graham, who said, ``I believe it is far better 
for us to thoughtfully strengthen positive aspects of our relationship 
with China than to threaten it as an adversary. It is my experience 
nations can respond with friendship just as much as people do,'' and I 
happen to agree with Reverend Graham.
  By exporting our American goods and services and citizenship to the 
Chinese market, we will also export American values, information, 
freedom, democracy and human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, at the dawn of this next century, America is enjoying 
unprecedented opportunity and we should move forward.
  But, Mr. Speaker, if our nation is to continue to prosper, we must 
not slam the door on one fourth of the world's population. From the 
factory to the farm, PNTR is a good deal for American businesses and 
farmers and a good deal for the Chinese people. I urge Members to vote 
in favor of H.R. 4444.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a hard-working member of the Committee on Rules and 
Secretary of the Republican Conference.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of granting 
permanent normal trade relation status to China, and I want to 
congratulate the Chairman of the Committee on Rules (Mr. Dreier), and 
so many others, on their very hard work on this issue.
  We come here together on the eve of a very historical vote that will 
define our vision as a Congress and secure America's place in the world 
community. The evidence of the importance of granting PNTR is clear.
  Just look at my home State of Ohio. Ohio is the Nation's fifth 
largest soybean producer and sixth largest corn producer. Under these 
terms, Chinese tariffs on soybeans will be set at a new low of 3 
percent and 1 percent for grains. This means increased exports for 
Ohio. Increased exports means new business, new jobs, and greater 
prosperity in Ohio.
  If my colleagues question the importance of these economic benefits, 
then they should keep this fact firmly in mind: China will join the WTO 
with our without our support. Therefore, the question that really faces 
us is whether we want to be a part of the process and reap the 
significant economic benefits or whether we want to find ourselves on 
the outside looking in.
  If anyone should remain unpersuaded by irrefutable economic benefits 
for America, then remember that our vote also represents new hope for 
the people of China. I firmly believe the best way to foster change and 
social improvement for China is for the United States to remain 
engaged. Let us shine the light of liberty across the ocean, over the 
Great Wall, and into the heart of China by expanding our trade 
relationship.
  Greater economic freedom is a precursor to political freedom. We must 
decide whether we will extend our hands to assist the pro-reform 
elements in Chinese society or turn our backs and allow the misguided 
militant socialist forces to strengthen their hold. We must take the 
battle of freedom versus tyranny to the Chinese people.
  Change in China will not occur overnight, but change will not occur 
at all if we shut out China from the world market and shut ourselves 
off from the world as well. We cannot turn our backs on the Chinese 
people, and we cannot turn our backs on this opportunity for America. 
We must support PNTR.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my 
colleagues on the Republican side are extolling us Democrats to support 
our President, yet for 7\1/2\ years I would have thought, to hear them, 
that he is the devil himself. For the last few months, however, they 
are saying they agree with him.
  I rise in opposition to permanent normal trade relations with the 
People's Republic of China. Over the last few months, I have felt that 
the progress of China on both the social and economic front have 
evaporated compared to when I was there and what I saw 2 years ago. I 
see a Chinese retrenchment, I see a clamping down more on social and 
religious freedom, continuing threats on Taiwan, and again not opening 
their markets as easily as they should have, until now that we have 
this big treaty. I think we need to look at their record on religious 
and social freedoms and their record on Taiwan.
  Each year I have supported granting normal trade relations with 
China, and even last year, even though Beijing condoned the stoning of 
the U.S. embassy. I think we should be concerned when a superpower is 
willing to reach that level to advance their foreign policy 
initiatives.
  China is a great country. Cultural wonders and discoveries by this 
great nation have benefited mankind for many years, and the people of 
China should continue to express their individual initiative. But we 
cannot overlook the tool of moderation that Congress has been able to 
use by looking at this every year.
  I want our business communities to have every opportunity possible to 
sell their products, but not our industries, to China. However, this 
desire is not strong enough to overlook the continuing problems China 
is experiencing as it tries to transition to a free market economy.
  How will China employ the millions of displaced workers moving from 
their cities in search of jobs? Will they move the production from our 
country to theirs? William Jennings Bryan said that ``American 
principles are above price; American values are not bought and sold.'' 
And what he was really saying is that Americans should value our basic 
freedoms of individual liberty, religious freedom, and freedom of 
speech.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote against this resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan opposed Communism with a 
passion. Reagan once even said about the old Soviet Union that they 
were an evil empire, and the Communist world was stunned. They were 
angered over Reagan's statement.
  But Ronald Reagan never flinched, and Ronald Reagan taught us all a 
lesson we should not forget today. Look at the history. After Reagan's 
pressure, the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Berlin Wall collapsed. 
Communism became an endangered species. The world was safer until 
today.
  Today, the Congress of the United States breathes a second life into 
Communism. I say if Congress joins the White House in granting this 
Communist nation, that has missiles pointed at us, a sweetheart trade 
deal worth $80 billion a year, then Congress, in my opinion, will do 
several things: they will now stabilize Communism around the world. We 
will now finance the resurgence of Communism. We, in fact, reinvent 
Communism today. And, finally, I think we endanger America.
  How soon we forget, my colleagues, Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall, 
Vietnam, North Korea, Ronald Reagan's struggle keeping the pressure on, 
making sure those Communists did not destroy free enterprise, did not 
destroy America.
  I say a Congress that today will prop up Communism is a Congress that 
today endangers every worker, every one of our kids, and every one of 
our grandkids by giving a country $80 billion a year whose missiles are 
pointed at every major American city, and Taiwan, who we have turned 
our backs on.

                              {time}  1130

  I yield back Pearl Harbor. I yield back Ronald Reagan. And I yield 
back the second breath of life that Congress is granting to the 
Communist bloc nations.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss), the very

[[Page H3660]]

distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, and, most important in 
this instance, the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules, for the opportunity to speak and also for his very 
extraordinary leadership in bringing this matter finally to 
culmination.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that, as we go through the debate today, we are 
going to find out that there are many ways to look at this debate, many 
ways to look at the issue. We certainly have already heard some during 
the subject of this very fair rule, very appropriate rule for this 
particular legislation.
  My perspective today is the consequences of this debate on our 
national security. There will be consequences. There is no question 
about that. The status quo can no longer remain once this debate has 
been engaged. And it has been engaged.
  So what we have to look at, from my perspective, is what is best for 
the security of the United States of America, Americans at home and 
abroad, in whatever their pursuit may be.
  I cannot predict with any certainty, and neither can anybody else, 
whether China will be our allies or our opponents or our friends or our 
enemies as we go into the future. But I can say with very sincere 
conviction, from my perspective as the chairman of the House Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence that supporting this legislation is in 
the best national security interest. I firmly believe that.
  I make this assertion after reviewing the materials, after discussing 
with knowledgeable people, and after weighing the pros and cons 
literally on a yellow pad of a China opened up for U.S. trade and 
influence versus a China isolated as a denied area to the powers of the 
free market and the beneficial influences of the United States.
  I also believe that the true reformers in China, and there are some, 
will have their best opportunity for success in a society that is more 
open to new ideas and new products. I know there are some who will be 
disagreeing with that. I know there are some who have said that CIA has 
taken a policy position one way or another on this matter. That is 
simply not true. CIA does not take policy positions. It is not a policy 
agency. It is a capability agency, and it also does provide assessments 
about threats to national security.
  As I said, the status quo is over. We are now into the next century 
and a new type of relationship with China. I think that we need to 
understand there are short-term consequences of getting things wrong 
because things are so tense in the Taiwan Straits and a miscalculation 
could hurt.
  One of the best ways to avoid miscalculation is to have open dialogue 
and open understanding. I think that is yet another reason to move 
forward with this legislation.
  For any Members who feel that my position would like further 
explanation more than time allows now, I would be happy to consult with 
them if they will come and contact me on the floor of the House during 
this debate. I will be happy to share my yellow pad on how I got to 
this conclusion.
  I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for the 
opportunity to state my position.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I believe in the New Economy, but I believe 
in a New Economy with Old Values. I believe in full commerce with 
China, but I believe in commerce with a conscience.
  I rise in opposition to permanent normal trade relations with China. 
We should vote ``yes'' on full trade with China. But Congress should 
keep its ability to check on our relations with a police state. And as 
long as China remains a police state, we must never have relations with 
China which are permanent, which are normal, or which are insulated 
from moral concerns.
  Until China has proven itself a full member of the moral citizenship 
of the world, we should play the moral role of keeping a check upon 
them while having full trade relations.
  Under the 1979 bilateral agreement with China, which they cannot get 
out of, we get most of the benefits of WTO, almost all of them. That is 
really not in dispute. But if we break the link with human rights, with 
forced labor, with religious repression, with nuclear proliferation, we 
will break faith with 200 years of American leadership in the world; we 
will dim the beacon of freedom and diminish America in the eyes of 
those who yearn for the simple right to live without fear of a police 
raid in the night.
  This vote may be about stock values; yes, but it is also about human 
values. That is the role of the United States in this debate.
  We believe in the Internet. I have worked on the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection for 24 years. I 
believe in its power. But in the United States, we hold sacrosanct the 
ability of an American to put full encryption, full privacy protection, 
on their information as they are talking to other citizens in our 
country. The police must get a court order to gain access to that 
information.
  In China, they are prohibiting encryption; they are prohibiting 
privacy. The Internet is the best of wires and it is the worst of wires 
simultaneously. Yes, it will give people the power to communicate; but 
it is also going to give the PLA, the police in China, the ability to 
gain access to any information they want about any individual in their 
country.
  We should condition any deal with China on their keeping out their 
one million semiautomatic assault weapons that they were selling in the 
United States for under a hundred bucks apiece until 1994. This 
agreement makes those weapons legal again.
  We should condition this agreement on the prohibition of them 
reselling nuclear materials into Pakistan or any other country in the 
world. They have been historically the K-Mart of international nuclear 
commerce.
  We should condition this deal yearly--full trade relations with us 
and access to our American market--upon their maintenance of human 
rights, religious dignity, the abolishment of slave labor in their 
country.
  Vote for Commerce with a conscience. Vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote 
``no'' on PNTR.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being elected to the Congress in 
November of 1980, the same day that Ronald Reagan was elected President 
of the United States; and Ronald Reagan said, ``Give people a taste of 
freedom, and they will thirst for more.'' That is exactly what is 
happening today in the People's Republic of China.
  My friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), just said 
that, basically, the genie is out of the bottle and the Internet is 
expanding. There are 9 million Internet users in China today, 70 
million cellular telephones. So the fact is the genie is out of the 
bottle. And guess what? They are getting that taste of freedom, and 
they are thirsting for more.
  Now, we have people who are here making all kinds of arguments with a 
load of acronyms: PNTR, PLA, MFN, MTR, WTO. All of these acronyms are 
being thrown out there. Somebody supports PNTR. Somebody does not 
support PNTR.
  The fact of the matter is the Dalai Lama stands for human rights. The 
Dalai Lama's statement in Copenhagen, Denmark, last Sunday was very 
clear. The Dalai Lama, the great spiritual leader of Tibet, said that 
openness and creating greater economic freedom will, in fact, lead to 
democracy, and he never supported anything that would isolate China.
  A ``no'' vote on this rule and on this vote that we are going to have 
later this afternoon would, in fact, isolate China. It would really 
isolate the United States of America, the great global leader, the 
beacon of hope and opportunity for the rest of the world. It would 
isolate us from China, and it would jeopardize our ability to get our 
American values into China.
  Look at other leaders. I am so proud of what my friend, the gentleman 
from

[[Page H3661]]

Florida (Mr. Goss), just said here. He spent time working on this 
issue. There is no one who is more committed to the security of the 
United States of America than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). I 
believe that any Member who has any question on the issue of national 
security should, in fact, talk with him.
  My friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), sitting in the 
second row here, has anguished over this issue. He has opposed it in 
the past but has come to the conclusion that expanding freedom this way 
is the way to go. And the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
sitting two rows behind him who has worked long and hard in support of 
this and is vigorously pursuing human rights with the Bereuter-Levin 
proposal.
  And when we look at others who want to encourage openness, the 
Reverend Billy Graham is not involving himself in this debate, but he 
is a strong supporter of openness. And openness with China is, 
obviously, going to be promoted through granting permanent normal trade 
relations.
  The former Presidents who stood with President Clinton down at the 
White House just a couple of weeks ago in strong support of this, 
talking about the national security aspect.
  I know this issue of Taiwan is going to be an important part of the 
debate over the next several hours. The morning after the election, 
Chen Shui-bian, the least desirable candidate in the eyes of Beijing, 
who was elected president on Taiwan, that great island with 24 million 
people, said that he believed that China's entry into the World Trade 
Organization was very important because he knows, and it is included in 
the Bereuter-Levin resolution, we call for simultaneity. But, frankly, 
Taiwan will enter the World Trade Organization shortly after China 
does.
  This is the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we need to 
stand with the likes of Colin Powell and those former Presidents and 
all who are pursuing freedom.
  So I urge an ``aye'' vote on the rule and an ``aye'' vote on 
permanent normal trade relations so that we can, in fact, continue to 
be the world's paramount leader.
  Mr. STARK, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the rule on 
H.R. 4444. I cosponsored two amendments to this bill to clarify some of 
the many concerns I have with granting China permanent normal trade 
relations status. Unfortunately the rule blocked these amendments in 
the continued interest of those Members under the influence of big 
business campaign cash, big business, and the administration that have 
been pushing for passage of this legislation.
  The first amendment addressed Taiwan's accession to the World Trade 
Organization. The amendment would have guaranteed Taiwan's accession by 
conditioning permanent normal trade relations [PNTR] status to China on 
Taiwan's entrance to the WTO. Once China enters the WTO it will 
actively spearhead efforts to block Taiwan's entry into the WTO. 
Proponents of permanent NTR claim that this is nothing more than a 
scare tactic on the part of PNTR opponents. However this claim is well 
founded in the truth and the Pelosi-Stark amendment is quite necessary.
  The administration assured me that China has already verbally agreed 
to allow Taiwan to enter the WTO without resistance from China after 
China accedes to the Organization. If China has made a verbal 
agreement, then there should be no problem with legislating such a 
proposal. However, on May 16, 2000, the very same day I offered a 
similar amendment to the Ways and Means Committee markup bill, China 
proved that it will, in fact, try to block Taiwan's entry into the WTO. 
The PRC led the charge against Taiwan's fourth bid for observer status 
in the World Health Organization [WHO]. If China is willing to go to 
great lengths to block Taiwan from the World Health Organization, it is 
certain to lead a full campaign against Taiwan's application for WTO 
membership.
  China has demonstrated time and again that it is not to be trusted. 
China has broken every bilateral agreement it has with the United 
States. If we can't trust China with a signed agreement then this 
Congress is completely foolish to trust them with a verbal agreement. 
China has no intention of allowing Taiwan to enter the WTO without a 
fight. The Pelosi-Stark amendment to condition PNTR on Taiwan's WTO 
accession ensures a smooth accession for that democratic nation.
  I also cosponsored an amendment with Representatives Pelosi and 
Markey that conditions extension of permanent NTR on an additional 
agreement between the United States and China on President Clinton's 
1994 embargo on arms and ammunition imports.
  In 1994, as a condition of granting China annual MFN status, 
President Clinton issued an order than bans the imports of assault 
weapons from China. Under World Trade Organization [WTO] rules, the 
United States is required to treat foreign and domestic goods 
identically. Although the United States bans these imports from China, 
it continues to manufacture and sell assault weapons. Clearly, by 
banning China from selling to the United States market, but allowing 
domestic manufacturers to continue with business as usual, the United 
States does not treat foreign and domestic goods identically.
  This means that once China accedes to the WTO, they will have every 
right as a member to dispute the United States ban. And since the order 
does violate WTO rules, the WTO will most likely find the United States 
in violation treating China's assault weapons differently from those in 
the United States. This would mean that the United States would have to 
lift the import ban on China, or ban the sale and manufacture of its 
own assault weapons as well as the imports from other countries.
  China accounted for 42 percent of all rifles imported into the United 
States civilian market between 1987 and 1994, the year in which 
President Clinton finally blocked the flood of assault weapons from the 
China. The PRC's weapons dumping was so great that it increased the 
overall import of guns into the United States. Chinese rifles and 
handguns accounted for 15 percent of all firearms imported for the 
civilian market in six of the eight years between 1987 and 1994. The 
import of Chinese guns was effectively stopped in 1994 when President 
Clinton imposed a ban as a condition of renewing China's most favored 
nation status.
  Proponents of PNTR will claim that the United States ban will be 
upheld if challenged by China under the WTO dispute settlement process. 
The claim is that the United States can hide behind the clause that 
allows for protection of security interests. However, this clause is 
narrowly defined providing an exception only as a means for self-
defense. No WTO dispute settlement body is going to believe that the 
United States needs to keep Chinese assault weapons off its streets for 
national security reasons.
  If we grant China permanent most favored nation trade status, China, 
not the Members of the 106th Congress, will dictate United States gun 
import policy.
  The issues I have presented today are just two, of a much greater 
list, of the problems I have with granting China permanent NTR status. 
But they clearly highlight two problems with the current negotiated 
bilateral trade agreement between the United States and China. In 
addition, these amendments would serve to demonstrate that granting 
China PNTR is not a win-win situation for the United States. Many 
people will suffer if we grant permanent normal trade relations to 
China without receiving some significant concessions from China first. 
These amendments are two concessions China must make before Congress 
votes to relinquish the only leverage it has with China.
  I urge Members to vote against this rule and send a message to the 
Rules Committee that these concerns must be addressed by the House 
before we sell our country to China lock, stock, and barrel.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 294, 
nays 136, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 225]

                               YEAS--294

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss

[[Page H3662]]


     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--136

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Luther
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Lazio
     Pease
     Scarborough
     Stupak
     Weiner

                              {time}  1205

  Mr. WYNN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________