[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 66 (Wednesday, May 24, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3662-H3711]
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

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 510, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4444) to authorize extension of nondiscriminatory 
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the People's Republic 
of China, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
510, the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 4444 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4444

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE 
                   TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF 
                   CHINA.

       (a) Presidential Determinations and Extension of 
     Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision 
     of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et 
     seq.), the President may--
       (1) determine that such title should no longer apply to the 
     People's Republic of China; and
       (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to the People's Republic of China, proclaim the 
     extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 
     relations treatment) to the products of that country.
       (b) Accession of the People's Republic of China to the 
     World Trade Organization.--Prior to making the determination 
     provided for in subsection (a)(1) and pursuant to the 
     provisions of section 122 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 3532), the President shall transmit a report to 
     Congress certifying that the terms and conditions for the 
     accession of the People's Republic of China to the World 
     Trade Organization are at least equivalent to those agreed 
     between the United States and the People's Republic of China 
     on November 15, 1999.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) Effective Date of Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--The 
     extension of nondiscriminatory treatment pursuant to section 
     1(a)(1) shall be effective no earlier than the effective date 
     of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the 
     World Trade Organization.
       (b) Termination of Applicability of Title IV.--On and after 
     the effective date under subsection (a) of the extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of the People's 
     Republic of China, title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall 
     cease to apply to that country.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in House Report 106-
636 is adopted in lieu of the amendment printed in the bill.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 
House Report 106-626 is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

 DIVISION A--NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS FOR THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

                    TITLE I--NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS

     SEC. 101. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE IV 
                   OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO THE PEOPLE'S 
                   REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       (a) Presidential Determinations and Extension of 
     Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision 
     of chapter 1 of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2431 et seq.), as designated by section 103(a)(2) of this 
     Act, the President may--
       (1) determine that such chapter should no longer apply to 
     the People's Republic of China; and
       (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to the People's Republic of China, proclaim the 
     extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 
     relations treatment) to the products of that country.
       (b) Accession of the People's Republic of China to the 
     World Trade Organization.--

[[Page H3663]]

     Prior to making the determination provided for in subsection 
     (a)(1) and pursuant to the provisions of section 122 of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3532), the President 
     shall transmit a report to Congress certifying that the terms 
     and conditions for the accession of the People's Republic of 
     China to the World Trade Organization are at least equivalent 
     to those agreed between the United States and the People's 
     Republic of China on November 15, 1999.

     SEC. 102. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) Effective Date of Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--The 
     extension of nondiscriminatory treatment pursuant to section 
     101(a) shall be effective no earlier than the effective date 
     of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the 
     World Trade Organization.
       (b) Termination of Applicability of Title IV.--On and after 
     the effective date under subsection (a) of the extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of the People's 
     Republic of China, chapter 1 of title IV of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (as designated by section 103(a)(2) of this Act) shall 
     cease to apply to that country.

     SEC. 103. RELIEF FROM MARKET DISRUPTION.

       (a) In General.--Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2431 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in the title heading, by striking ``CURRENTLY'';
       (2) by inserting before section 401 the following:

       ``CHAPTER 1--TRADE RELATIONS WITH CERTAIN COUNTRIES''; and

       (3) by adding at the end the following new chapter:

``CHAPTER 2--RELIEF FROM MARKET DISRUPTION TO INDUSTRIES AND DIVERSION 
                  OF TRADE TO THE UNITED STATES MARKET

     ``SEC. 421. ACTION TO ADDRESS MARKET DISRUPTION.

       ``(a) Presidential Action.--If a product of the People's 
     Republic of China is being imported into the United States in 
     such increased quantities or under such conditions as to 
     cause or threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic 
     producers of a like or directly competitive product, the 
     President shall, in accordance with the provisions of this 
     section, proclaim increased duties or other import 
     restrictions with respect to such product, to the extent and 
     for such period as the President considers necessary to 
     prevent or remedy the market disruption.
       ``(b) Initiation of an Investigation.--(1) Upon the filing 
     of a petition by an entity described in section 202(a) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252(a)), upon the request of 
     the President or the United States Trade Representative (in 
     this subtitle referred to as the `Trade Representative'), 
     upon resolution of either the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives, or the Committee on Finance of 
     the Senate (in this subtitle referred to as the `Committees') 
     or on its own motion, the United States International Trade 
     Commission (in this subtitle referred to as the `Commission') 
     shall promptly make an investigation to determine whether 
     products of the People's Republic of China are being imported 
     into the United States in such increased quantities or under 
     such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause market 
     disruption to the domestic producers of like or directly 
     competitive products.
       ``(2) The limitations on investigations set forth in 
     section 202(h)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2252(h)(1)) shall apply to investigations conducted under 
     this section.
       ``(3) The provisions of subsections (a)(8) and (i) of 
     section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252(a)(8) 
     and (i)), relating to treatment of confidential business 
     information, shall apply to investigations conducted under 
     this section.
       ``(4) Whenever a petition is filed, or a request or 
     resolution is received, under this subsection, the Commission 
     shall transmit a copy thereof to the President, the Trade 
     Representative, the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives, and the Committee of Finance of the 
     Senate, except that in the case of confidential business 
     information, the copy may include only nonconfidential 
     summaries of such information.
       ``(5) The Commission shall publish notice of the 
     commencement of any proceeding under this subsection in the 
     Federal Register and shall, within a reasonable time 
     thereafter, hold public hearings at which the Commission 
     shall afford interested parties an opportunity to be present, 
     to present evidence, to respond to the presentations of other 
     parties, and otherwise to be heard.
       ``(c) Market Disruption.--(1) For purposes of this section, 
     market disruption exists whenever imports of an article like 
     or directly competitive with an article produced by a 
     domestic industry are increasing rapidly, either absolutely 
     or relatively, so as to be a significant cause of material 
     injury, or threat of material injury, to the domestic 
     industry.
       ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `significant 
     cause' refers to a cause which contributes significantly to 
     the material injury of the domestic industry, but need not be 
     equal to or greater than any other cause.
       ``(d) Factors in Determination.--In determining whether 
     market disruption exists, the Commission shall consider 
     objective factors, including--
       ``(1) the volume of imports of the product which is the 
     subject of the investigation;
       ``(2) the effect of imports of such product on prices in 
     the United States for like or directly competitive articles; 
     and
       ``(3) the effect of imports of such product on the domestic 
     industry producing like or directly competitive articles.

     The presence or absence of any factor under paragraph (1), 
     (2), or (3) is not necessarily dispositive of whether market 
     disruption exists.
       ``(e) Time for Commission Determinations.--The Commission 
     shall make and transmit to the President and the Trade 
     Representative its determination under subsection (b)(1) at 
     the earliest practicable time, but in no case later than 60 
     days (or 90 days in the case of a petition requesting relief 
     under subsection (i)) after the date on which the petition is 
     filed, the request or resolution is received, or the motion 
     is adopted, under subsection (b). If the Commissioners voting 
     are equally divided with respect to its determination, then 
     the determination agreed upon by either group of 
     Commissioners may be considered by the President and the 
     Trade Representative as the determination of the Commission.
       ``(f) Recommendations of Commission on Proposed Remedies.--
     If the Commission makes an affirmative determination under 
     subsection (b), or a determination which the President or the 
     Trade Representative may consider as affirmative under 
     subsection (e), the Commission shall propose the amount of 
     increase in, or imposition of, any duty or other import 
     restrictions necessary to prevent or remedy the market 
     disruption. Only those members of the Commission who agreed 
     to the affirmative determination under subsection (b) are 
     eligible to vote on the proposed action to prevent or remedy 
     market disruption. Members of the Commission who did not 
     agree to the affirmative determination may submit, in the 
     report required under subsection (g), separate views 
     regarding what action, if any, should be taken to prevent or 
     remedy market disruption.
       ``(g) Report by Commission.--(1) Not later than 20 days 
     after a determination under subsection (b) is made, the 
     Commission shall submit a report to the President and the 
     Trade Representative.
       ``(2) The Commission shall include in the report required 
     under paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(A) The determination made under subsection (b) and an 
     explanation of the basis for the determination.
       ``(B) If the determination under subsection (b) is 
     affirmative, or may be considered by the President or the 
     Trade Representative as affirmative under subsection (e), the 
     recommendations of the Commission on proposed remedies under 
     subsection (f) and an explanation of the basis for each 
     recommendation.
       ``(C) Any dissenting or separate views by members of the 
     Commission regarding the determination and any recommendation 
     referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       ``(D) A description of--
       ``(i) the short- and long-term effects that implementation 
     of the action recommended under subsection (f) is likely to 
     have on the petitioning domestic industry, on other domestic 
     industries, and on consumers; and
       ``(ii) the short- and long-term effects of not taking the 
     recommended action on the petitioning domestic industry, its 
     workers, and the communities where production facilities of 
     such industry are located, and on other domestic industries.
       ``(3) The Commission, after submitting a report to the 
     President under paragraph (1), shall promptly make it 
     available to the public (but shall not include confidential 
     business information) and cause a summary thereof to be 
     published in the Federal Register.
       ``(h) Opportunity To Present Views and Evidence on Proposed 
     Measure and Recommendation to the President.--(1) Within 20 
     days after receipt of the Commission's report under 
     subsection (g) (or 15 days in the case of an affirmative 
     preliminary determination under subsection (i)(1)(B)), the 
     Trade Representative shall publish in the Federal Register 
     notice of any measure proposed by the Trade Representative to 
     be taken pursuant to subsection (a) and of the opportunity, 
     including a public hearing, if requested, for importers, 
     exporters, and other interested parties to submit their views 
     and evidence on the appropriateness of the proposed measure 
     and whether it would be in the public interest.
       ``(2) Within 55 days after receipt of the report under 
     subsection (g) (or 35 days in the case of an affirmative 
     preliminary determination under subsection (i)(1)(B)), the 
     Trade Representative, taking into account the views and 
     evidence received under paragraph (1) on the measure proposed 
     by the Trade Representative, shall make a recommendation to 
     the President concerning what action, if any, to take to 
     prevent or remedy the market disruption.
       ``(i) Critical Circumstances.--(1) When a petition filed 
     under subsection (b) alleges that critical circumstances 
     exist and requests that provisional relief be provided under 
     this subsection with respect to the product identified in the 
     petition, the Commission shall, not later than 45 days after 
     the petition containing the request is filed--
       ``(A) determine whether delay in taking action under this 
     section would cause damage to the relevant domestic industry 
     which would be difficult to repair; and
       ``(B) if the determination under subparagraph (A) is 
     affirmative, make a preliminary

[[Page H3664]]

     determination of whether imports of the product which is the 
     subject of the investigation have caused or threatened to 
     cause market disruption.
     If the Commissioners voting are equally divided with respect 
     to either of its determinations, then the determination 
     agreed upon by either group of Commissioners may be 
     considered by the President and the Trade Representative as 
     the determination of the Commission.
       ``(2) On the date on which the Commission completes its 
     determinations under paragraph (1), the Commission shall 
     transmit a report on the determinations to the President and 
     the Trade Representative, including the reasons for its 
     determinations. If the determinations under paragraph (1) are 
     affirmative, or may be considered by the President or the 
     Trade Representative as affirmative under paragraph (1), the 
     Commission shall include in its report its recommendations on 
     proposed provisional measures to be taken to prevent or 
     remedy the market disruption. Only those members of the 
     Commission who agreed to the affirmative determinations under 
     paragraph (1) are eligible to vote on the proposed 
     provisional measures to prevent or remedy market disruption. 
     Members of the Commission who did not agree to the 
     affirmative determinations may submit, in the report, 
     dissenting or separate views regarding the determination and 
     any recommendation of provisional measures referred to in 
     this paragraph.
       ``(3) If the determinations under paragraph (1) are 
     affirmative, or may be considered by the President or the 
     Trade Representative as affirmative under paragraph (1), the 
     Trade Representative shall, within 10 days after receipt of 
     the Commission's report, determine the amount or extent of 
     provisional relief that is necessary to prevent or remedy the 
     market disruption and shall provide a recommendation to the 
     President on what provisional measures, if any, to take.
       ``(4)(A) The President shall determine whether to provide 
     provisional relief and proclaim such relief, if any, within 
     10 days after receipt of the recommendation from the Trade 
     Representative.
       ``(B) Such relief may take the form of--
       ``(i) the imposition of or increase in any duty;
       ``(ii) any modification, or imposition of any quantitative 
     restriction on the importation of an article into the United 
     States; or
       ``(iii) any combination of actions under clauses (i) and 
     (ii).
       ``(C) Any provisional action proclaimed by the President 
     pursuant to a determination of critical circumstances shall 
     remain in effect not more than 200 days.
       ``(D) Provisional relief shall cease to apply upon the 
     effective date of relief proclaimed under subsection (a), 
     upon a decision by the President not to provide such relief, 
     or upon a negative determination by the Commission under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(j) Agreements With the People's Republic of China.--(1) 
     The Trade Representative is authorized to enter into 
     agreements for the People's Republic of China to take such 
     action as necessary to prevent or remedy market disruption, 
     and should seek to conclude such agreements before the 
     expiration of the 60-day consultation period provided for 
     under the product-specific safeguard provision of the 
     Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China to 
     the WTO, which shall commence not later than 5 days after the 
     Trade Representative receives an affirmative determination 
     provided for in subsection (e) or a determination which the 
     Trade Representative considers to be an affirmative 
     determination pursuant to subsection (e).
       ``(2) If no agreement is reached with the People's Republic 
     of China pursuant to consultations under paragraph (1), or if 
     the President determines than an agreement reached pursuant 
     to such consultations is not preventing or remedying the 
     market disruption at issue, the President shall provide 
     import relief in accordance with subsection (a).
       ``(k) Standard for Presidential Action.--(1) Within 15 days 
     after receipt of a recommendation from the Trade 
     Representative under subsection (h) on the appropriate 
     action, if any, to take to prevent or remedy the market 
     disruption, the President shall provide import relief for 
     such industry pursuant to subsection (a), unless the 
     President determines that provision of such relief is not in 
     the national economic interest of the United States or, in 
     extraordinary cases, that the taking of action pursuant to 
     subsection (a) would cause serious harm to the national 
     security of the United States.
       ``(2) The President may determine under paragraph (1) that 
     providing import relief is not in the national economic 
     interest of the United States only if the President finds 
     that the taking of such action would have an adverse impact 
     on the United States economy clearly greater than the 
     benefits of such action.
       ``(l) Publication of Decision and Reports.--(1) The 
     President's decision, including the reasons therefor and the 
     scope and duration of any action taken, shall be published in 
     the Federal Register.
       ``(2) The Commission shall promptly make public any report 
     transmitted under this section, but shall not make public any 
     information which the Commission determines to be 
     confidential, and shall publish notice of such report in the 
     Federal Register.
       ``(m) Effective Date of Relief.--Import relief under this 
     section shall take effect not later than 15 days after the 
     President's determination to provide such relief.
       ``(n) Modifications of Relief.--(1) At any time after the 
     end of the 6-month period beginning on the date on which 
     relief under subsection (m) first takes effect, the President 
     may request that the Commission provide a report on the 
     probable effect of the modification, reduction, or 
     termination of the relief provided on the relevant industry. 
     The Commission shall transmit such report to the President 
     within 60 days of the request.
       ``(2) The President may, after receiving a report from the 
     Commission under paragraph (1), take such action to modify, 
     reduce, or terminate relief that the President determines is 
     necessary to continue to prevent or remedy the market 
     disruption at issue.
       ``(3) Upon the granting of relief under subsection (k), the 
     Commission shall collect such data as is necessary to allow 
     it to respond rapidly to a request by the President under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(o) Extension of Action.--(1) Upon request of the 
     President, or upon petition on behalf of the industry 
     concerned filed with the Commission not earlier than the date 
     which is 9 months, and not later than the date which is 6 
     months, before the date any relief provided under subsection 
     (k) is to terminate, the Commission shall investigate to 
     determine whether action under this section continues to be 
     necessary to prevent or remedy market disruption.
       ``(2) The Commission shall publish notice of the 
     commencement of any proceeding under this subsection in the 
     Federal Register and shall, within a reasonable time 
     thereafter, hold a public hearing at which the Commission 
     shall afford interested parties and consumers an opportunity 
     to be present, to present evidence, and to respond to the 
     presentations of other parties and consumers, and otherwise 
     to be heard.
       ``(3) The Commission shall transmit to the President a 
     report on its investigation and determination under this 
     subsection not later than 60 days before the action under 
     subsection (m) is to terminate.
       ``(4) The President, after receiving an affirmative 
     determination from the Commission under paragraph (3), may 
     extend the effective period of any action under this section 
     if the President determines that the action continues to be 
     necessary to prevent or remedy the market disruption.

     ``SEC. 422. ACTION IN RESPONSE TO TRADE DIVERSION.

       ``(a) Monitoring by Customs Service.--In any case in which 
     a WTO member other than the United States requests 
     consultations with the People's Republic of China under the 
     product-specific safeguard provision of the Protocol of 
     Accession of the People's Republic of China to the World 
     Trade Organization, the Trade Representative shall inform the 
     United States Customs Service, which shall monitor imports 
     into the United States of those products of Chinese origin 
     that are the subject of the consultation request. Data from 
     such monitoring shall promptly be made available to the 
     Commission upon request by the Commission.
       ``(b) Initiation of Investigation.--(1) Upon the filing of 
     a petition by an entity described in section 202(a) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974, upon the request of the President or the 
     Trade Representative, upon resolution of either of the 
     Committees, or on its own motion, the Commission shall 
     promptly make an investigation to determine whether an action 
     described in subsection (c) has caused, or threatens to 
     cause, a significant diversion of trade into the domestic 
     market of the United States.
       ``(2) The Commission shall publish notice of the 
     commencement of any proceeding under this subsection in the 
     Federal Register and shall, within a reasonable time 
     thereafter, hold public hearings at which the Commission 
     shall afford interested parties an opportunity to be present, 
     to present evidence, to respond to the presentations of other 
     parties, and otherwise to be heard.
       ``(3) The provisions of subsections (a)(8) and (i) of 
     section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252(a)(8) 
     and (i)), relating to treatment of confidential business 
     information, shall apply to investigations conducted under 
     this section.
       ``(c) Actions Described.--An action is described in this 
     subsection if it is an action--
       ``(1) by the People's Republic of China to prevent or 
     remedy market disruption in a WTO member other than the 
     United States;
       ``(2) by a WTO member other than the United States to 
     withdraw concessions under the WTO Agreement or otherwise to 
     limit imports to prevent or remedy market disruption;
       ``(3) by a WTO member other than the United States to apply 
     a provisional safeguard within the meaning of the product-
     specific safeguard provision of the Protocol of Accession of 
     the People's Republic of China to the WTO; or
       ``(4) any combination of actions described in paragraphs 
     (1) through (3).
       ``(d) Basis for Determination of Significant Diversion.--
     (1) In determining whether significant diversion or the 
     threat thereof exists for purposes of this section, the 
     Commission shall take into account, to the extent such 
     evidence is reasonably available--
       ``(A) the monitoring conducted under subsection (a);
       ``(B) the actual or imminent increase in United States 
     market share held by such imports from the People's Republic 
     of China;
       ``(C) the actual or imminent increase in volume of such 
     imports into the United States;
       ``(D) the nature and extent of the action taken or proposed 
     by the WTO member concerned;

[[Page H3665]]

       ``(E) the extent of exports from the People's Republic of 
     China to that WTO member and to the United States;
       ``(F) the actual or imminent changes in exports to that WTO 
     member due to the action taken or proposed;
       ``(G) the actual or imminent diversion of exports from the 
     People's Republic of China to countries other than the United 
     States;
       ``(H) cyclical or seasonal trends in import volumes into 
     the United States of the products at issue; and
       ``(I) conditions of demand and supply in the United States 
     market for the products at issue.

     The presence or absence of any factor under any of 
     subparagraphs (A) through (I) is not necessarily dispositive 
     of whether a significant diversion of trade or the threat 
     thereof exists.
       ``(2) For purposes of making its determination, the 
     Commission shall examine changes in imports into the United 
     States from the People's Republic of China since the time 
     that the WTO member commenced the investigation that led to a 
     request for consultations described in subsection (a).
       ``(3) If more than 1 action by a WTO member or WTO members 
     against a particular product is identified in the petition, 
     request, or resolution under subsection (b) or during the 
     investigation, the Commission may cumulatively assess the 
     actual or likely effects of such actions jointly in 
     determining whether a significant diversion of trade or 
     threat thereof exists.
       ``(e) Commission Determination; Agreement Authority.--(1) 
     The Commission shall make and transmit to the President and 
     the Trade Representative its determination under subsection 
     (b) at the earliest practicable time, but in no case later 
     than 45 days after the date on which the petition is filed, 
     the request or resolution is received, or the motion is 
     adopted, under subsection (b). If the Commissioners voting 
     are equally divided with respect to its determination, then 
     the determination agreed upon by either group of 
     Commissioners may be considered by the President and the 
     Trade Representative as the determination of the Commission.
       ``(2) The Trade Representative is authorized to enter into 
     agreements with the People's Republic of China or the other 
     WTO members concerned to take such action as necessary to 
     prevent or remedy significant trade diversion or threat 
     thereof into the domestic market of the United States, and 
     should seek to conclude such agreements before the expiration 
     of the 60-day consultation period provided for under the 
     product-specific safeguard provision of the Protocol of 
     Accession of the People's Republic of China to the WTO, which 
     shall commence not later than 5 days after the Trade 
     Representative receives an affirmative determination provided 
     for in paragraph (1) or a determination which the Trade 
     Representative considers to be an affirmative determination 
     pursuant to paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Report by Commission.--
       ``(A) Not later than 10 days after a determination under 
     subsection (b), is made, the Commission shall transmit a 
     report to the President and the Trade Representative.
       ``(B) The Commission shall include in the report required 
     under subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(i) The determination made under subsection (b) and an 
     explanation of the basis for the determination.
       ``(ii) If the determination under subsection (b) is 
     affirmative, or may be considered by the President or the 
     Trade Representative as affirmative under subsection (e)(1), 
     the recommendations of the Commission on increased tariffs or 
     other import restrictions to be imposed to prevent or remedy 
     the trade diversion or threat thereof, and explanations of 
     the bases for such recommendations. Only those members of the 
     Commission who agreed to the affirmative determination under 
     subsection (b) are eligible to vote on the proposed action to 
     prevent or remedy the trade diversion or threat thereof.
       ``(iii) Any dissenting or separate views by members of the 
     Commission regarding the determination and any recommendation 
     referred to in clauses (i) and (ii).
       ``(iv) A description of--
       ``(I) the short- and long-term effects that implementation 
     of the action recommended under clause (ii) is likely to have 
     on the petitioning domestic industry, on other domestic 
     industries, and on consumers; and
       ``(II) the short- and long-term effects of not taking the 
     recommended action on the petitioning domestic industry, its 
     workers and the communities where production facilities of 
     such industry are located, and on other domestic industries.
       ``(C) The Commission, after submitting a report to the 
     President under subparagraph (A), shall promptly make it 
     available to the public (with the exception of confidential 
     business information) and cause a summary thereof to be 
     published in the Federal Register.
       ``(f) Public Comment.--If consultations fail to lead to an 
     agreement with the People's Republic of China or the WTO 
     member concerned within 60 days, the Trade Representative 
     shall promptly publish notice in the Federal Register of any 
     proposed action to prevent or remedy the trade diversion, and 
     provide an opportunity for interested persons to present 
     views and evidence on whether the proposed action is in the 
     public interest.
       ``(g) Recommendation to the President.--Within 20 days 
     after the end of consultations pursuant to subsection (e), 
     the Trade Representative shall make a recommendation to the 
     President on what action, if any, should be taken to prevent 
     or remedy the trade diversion or threat thereof.
       ``(h) Presidential Action.--Within 20 days after receipt of 
     the recommendation from the Trade Representative, the 
     President shall determine what action to take to prevent or 
     remedy the trade diversion or threat thereof.
       ``(i) Duration of Action.--Action taken under subsection 
     (h) shall be terminated not later than 30 days after 
     expiration of the action taken by the WTO member or members 
     involved against imports from the People's Republic of China.
       ``(j) Review of Circumstances.--(1) The Commission shall 
     review the continued need for action taken under subsection 
     (h) if the WTO member or members involved notify the 
     Committee on Safeguards of the WTO of any modification in the 
     action taken by them against the People's Republic of China 
     pursuant to consultation referred to in subsection (a). The 
     Commission shall, not later than 60 days after such 
     notification, determine whether a significant diversion of 
     trade continues to exist and report its determination to the 
     President. The President shall determine, within 15 days 
     after receiving the Commission's report, whether to modify, 
     withdraw, or keep in place the action taken under subsection 
     (h).

     ``SEC. 423. REGULATIONS; TERMINATION OF PROVISION.

       ``(a) To Carry Out Restrictions and Monitoring.--The 
     President shall by regulation provide for the efficient and 
     fair administration of any restriction proclaimed pursuant to 
     the subtitle and to provide for effective monitoring of 
     imports under section 422(a).
       ``(b) To Carry Out Agreements.--To carry out an agreement 
     concluded pursuant to consultations under section 421(j) or 
     422(e)(2), the President is authorized to prescribe 
     regulations governing the entry or withdrawal from warehouse 
     of articles covered by such agreement.
       ``(c) Termination Date.--This subtitle and any regulations 
     issued under this subtitle shall cease to be effective 12 
     years after the date of entry into force of the Protocol of 
     Accession of the People's Republic of China to the WTO.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table on contents of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 is amended--
       (1) in the item relating to title IV, by striking 
     ``CURRENTLY'';
       (2) by inserting before the item relating to section 401 
     the following:

       ``Chapter 1--Trade Relations With Certain Countries''; and

       (3) by adding after the item relating to section 409 the 
     following:

``Chapter 2--Relief From Market Disruption to Industries and Diversion 
                  of Trade to the United States Market

``Sec. 421. Action to address market disruption.
``Sec. 422. Action in response to trade diversion.
``Sec. 423. Regulations; termination of provision.''.

     SEC. 104. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 123 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974--
                   COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

       Section 123(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2133(a)(1)) is amended by inserting after ``title III'' the 
     following; ``, or under chapter 2 of title IV of the Trade 
     Act of 1974''.

               DIVISION B--UNITED STATES-CHINA RELATIONS

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This division may be cited as the ``U.S.-
     China Relations Act of 2000''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this 
     division is as follows:

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 202. Findings.
Sec. 203. Policy.
Sec. 204. Definitions.

TITLE III--CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC 
                                OF CHINA

Sec. 301. Establishment of Congressional-Executive Commission on the 
              People's Republic of China.
Sec. 302. Functions of the Commission.
Sec. 303. Membership of the Commission.
Sec. 304. Votes of the Commission.
Sec. 305. Expenditure of appropriations.
Sec. 306. Testimony of witnesses, production of evidence; issuance of 
              subpoenas; administration of oaths.
Sec. 307. Appropriations for the Commission.
Sec. 308. Staff of the Commission.
Sec. 309. Printing and binding costs.

   TITLE IV--MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF 
                        CHINA'S WTO COMMITMENTS

 Subtitle A--Review of Membership of the People's Republic of China in 
                                the WTO

Sec. 401. Review within the WTO.

 Subtitle B--Authorization To Promote Compliance With Trade Agreements

Sec. 411. Findings.
Sec. 412. Purpose.
Sec. 413. Authorization of appropriations.

Subtitle C--Report on Compliance by the People's Republic of China With 
                            WTO Obligations

Sec. 421. Report on compliance.

[[Page H3666]]

TITLE V--TRADE AND RULE OF LAW ISSUES IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  Subtitle A--Task Force on Prohibition of Importation of Products of 
       Forced or Prison Labor From the People's Republic of China

Sec. 501. Establishment of Task Force.
Sec. 502. Functions of Task Force.
Sec. 503. Composition of Task Force.
Sec. 504. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 505. Reports to Congress.

   Subtitle B--Assistance To Develop Commercial and Labor Rule of Law

Sec. 511. Establishment of technical assistance and rule of law 
              programs.
Sec. 512. Administrative authorities.
Sec. 513. Prohibition relating to human rights abuses.
Sec. 514. Authorization of appropriations.

                TITLE VI--ACCESSION OF TAIWAN TO THE WTO

Sec. 601. Accession of Taiwan to the WTO.

                       TITLE VII--RELATED ISSUES

Sec. 701. Authorizations of appropriations for broadcasting capital 
              improvements and international broadcasting operations.

     SEC. 202. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) In 1980, the United States opened trade relations with 
     the People's Republic of China by entering into a bilateral 
     trade agreement, which was approved by joint resolution 
     enacted pursuant to section 405(c) of the Trade Act of 1974.
       (2) Since 1980, the President has consistently extended 
     nondiscriminatory treatment to products of the People's 
     Republic of China, pursuant to his authority under section 
     404 of the Trade Act of 1974.
       (3) Since 1980, the United States has entered into several 
     additional trade-related agreements with the People's 
     Republic of China, including a memorandum of understanding on 
     market access in 1992, 2 agreements on intellectual property 
     rights protection in 1992 and 1995, and an agreement on 
     agricultural cooperation in 1999.
       (4) Trade in goods between the People's Republic of China 
     and the United States totaled almost $95,000,000,000 in 1999, 
     compared with approximately $18,000,000,000 in 1989, 
     representing growth of approximately 428 percent over 10 
     years.
       (5) The United States merchandise trade deficit with the 
     People's Republic of China has grown from approximately 
     $6,000,000,000 in 1989 to over $68,000,000,000 in 1999, a 
     growth of over 1,000 percent.
       (6) The People's Republic of China currently restricts 
     imports through relatively high tariffs and nontariff 
     barriers, including import licensing, technology transfer, 
     and local content requirements.
       (7) United States businesses attempting to sell goods to 
     markets in the People's Republic of China have complained of 
     uneven application of tariffs, customs procedures, and other 
     laws, rules, and administrative measures affecting their 
     ability to sell their products in the Chinese market.
       (8) On November 15, 1999, the United States and the 
     People's Republic of China concluded a bilateral agreement 
     concerning terms of the People's Republic of China's eventual 
     accession to the World Trade Organization.
       (9) The commitments that the People's Republic of China 
     made in its November 15, 1999, agreement with the United 
     States promise to eliminate or greatly reduce the principal 
     barriers to trade with and investment in the People's 
     Republic of China, if those commitments are effectively 
     complied with and enforced.
       (10) The record of the People's Republic of China in 
     implementing trade-related commitments has been mixed. While 
     the People's Republic of China has generally met the 
     requirements of the 1992 market access memorandum of 
     understanding and the 1992 and 1995 agreements on 
     intellectual property rights protection, other measures 
     remain in place or have been put into place which tend to 
     diminish the benefit to United States businesses, farmers, 
     and workers from the People's Republic of China's 
     implementation of those earlier commitments. Notably, 
     administration of tariff-rate quotas and other trade-related 
     laws remains opaque, new local content requirements have 
     proliferated, restrictions on importation of animal and plant 
     products are not always supported by sound science, and 
     licensing requirements for importation and distribution of 
     goods remain common. Finally, the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China has failed to cooperate with the United 
     States Customs Service in implementing a 1992 memorandum of 
     understanding prohibiting trade in products made by prison 
     labor.
       (11) The human rights record of the People's Republic of 
     China is a matter of very serious concern to the Congress. 
     The Congress notes that the Department of State's 1999 
     Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for the People's 
     Republic of China finds that ``[t]he Government's poor human 
     rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year, as 
     the Government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, 
     particularly organized dissent.''.
       (12) The Congress deplores violations by the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China of human rights, religious 
     freedoms, and worker rights that are referred to in the 
     Department of State's 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights 
     Practices for the People's Republic of China, including the 
     banning of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, denial in many 
     cases, particularly politically sensitive ones, of effective 
     representation by counsel and public trials, extrajudicial 
     killings and torture, forced abortion and sterilization, 
     restriction of access to Tibet and Xinjiang, perpetuation of 
     ``reeducation through labor'', denial of the right of workers 
     to organize labor unions or bargain collectively with their 
     employers, and failure to implement a 1992 memorandum of 
     understanding prohibiting trade in products made by prison 
     labor.

     SEC. 203. POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States--
       (1) to develop trade relations that broaden the benefits of 
     trade, and lead to a leveling up, rather than a leveling 
     down, of labor, environmental, commercial rule of law, market 
     access, anticorruption, and other standards across national 
     borders;
       (2) to pursue effective enforcement of trade-related and 
     other international commitments by foreign governments 
     through enforcement mechanisms of international organizations 
     and through the application of United States law as 
     appropriate;
       (3) to encourage foreign governments to conduct both 
     commercial and noncommercial affairs according to the rule of 
     law developed through democratic processes;
       (4) to encourage the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China to afford its workers internationally recognized worker 
     rights;
       (5) to encourage the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China to protect the human rights of people within the 
     territory of the People's Republic of China, and to take 
     steps toward protecting such rights, including, but not 
     limited to--
       (A) ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and 
     Political Rights;
       (B) protecting the right to liberty of movement and freedom 
     to choose a residence within the People's Republic of China 
     and the right to leave from and return to the People's 
     Republic of China; and
       (C) affording a criminal defendant--
       (i) the right to be tried in his or her presence, and to 
     defend himself or herself in person or through legal 
     assistance of his or her own choosing;
       (ii) the right to be informed, if he or she does not have 
     legal assistance, of the right set forth in clause (i);
       (iii) the right to have legal assistance assigned to him or 
     her in any case in which the interests of justice so require 
     and without payment by him or her in any such case if he or 
     she does not have sufficient means to pay for it;
       (iv) the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, 
     independent, and impartial tribunal established by the law;
       (v) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty 
     according to law; and
       (vi) the right to be tried without undue delay; and
       (6) to highlight in the United Nations Human Rights 
     Commission and in other appropriate fora violations of human 
     rights by foreign governments and to seek the support of 
     other governments in urging improvements in human rights 
     practices.

     SEC. 204. DEFINITIONS.

       In this division:
       (1) Dispute settlement understanding.--The term ``Dispute 
     Settlement Understanding'' means the Understanding on Rules 
     and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes referred 
     to in section 101(d)(16) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 3511(16)).
       (2) Government of the people's republic of china.--The term 
     ``Government of the People's Republic of China'' means the 
     central Government of the People's Republic of China and any 
     other governmental entity, including any provincial, 
     prefectural, or local entity and any enterprise that is 
     controlled by the central Government or any such governmental 
     entity or as to which the central Government or any such 
     governmental entity is entitled to receive a majority of the 
     profits.
       (3) Internationally recognized worker rights.--The term 
     ``internationally recognized worker rights'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 507(4) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2467(4)) and includes the right to the elimination 
     of the ``worst forms of child labor'', as defined in section 
     507(6) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2467(6)).
       (4) Trade representative.--The term ``Trade 
     Representative'' means the United States Trade 
     Representative.
       (5) WTO; world trade organization.--The terms ``WTO'' and 
     ``World Trade Organization'' mean the organization 
     established pursuant to the WTO Agreement.
       (6) WTO agreement.--The term ``WTO Agreement'' means the 
     Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization entered 
     into on April 15, 1994.
       (7) WTO member.--The term ``WTO member'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 2(10) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(10)).

TITLE III--CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC 
                                OF CHINA

     SEC. 301. ESTABLISHMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION 
                   ON THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       There is established a Congressional-Executive Commission 
     on the People's Republic of China (in this title referred to 
     as the ``Commission'').

[[Page H3667]]

     SEC. 302. FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Monitoring Compliance With Human Rights.--The 
     Commission shall monitor the acts of the People's Republic of 
     China which reflect compliance with or violation of human 
     rights, in particular, those contained in the International 
     Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights, including, but not limited to, 
     effectively affording--
       (1) the right to engage in free expression without fear of 
     any prior restraints;
       (2) the right to peaceful assembly without restrictions, in 
     accordance with international law;
       (3) religious freedom, including the right to worship free 
     of involvement of and interference by the government;
       (4) the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose 
     a residence within the People's Republic of China and the 
     right to leave from and return to the People's Republic of 
     China;
       (5) the right of a criminal defendant--
       (A) to be tried in his or her presence, and to defend 
     himself or herself in person or through legal assistance of 
     his or her own choosing;
       (B) to be informed, if he or she does not have legal 
     assistance, of the right set forth in subparagraph (A);
       (C) to have legal assistance assigned to him or her in any 
     case in which the interests of justice so require and without 
     payment by him or her in any such case if he or she does not 
     have sufficient means to pay for it;
       (D) to a fair and public hearing by a competent, 
     independent, and impartial tribunal established by the law;
       (E) to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according 
     to law; and
       (F) to be tried without undue delay;
       (6) the right to be free from torture and other forms of 
     cruel or unusual punishment;
       (7) protection of internationally recognized worker rights;
       (8) freedom from incarceration as punishment for political 
     opposition to the government;
       (9) freedom from incarceration as punishment for exercising 
     or advocating human rights (including those described in this 
     section);
       (10) freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile;
       (11) the right to fair and public hearings by an 
     independent tribunal for the determination of a citizen's 
     rights and obligations; and
       (12) free choice of employment.
       (b) Victims Lists.--The Commission shall compile and 
     maintain lists of persons believed to be imprisoned, 
     detained, or placed under house arrest, tortured, or 
     otherwise persecuted by the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China due to their pursuit of the rights 
     described in subsection (a). In compiling such lists, the 
     Commission shall exercise appropriate discretion, including 
     concerns regarding the safety and security of, and benefit 
     to, the persons who may be included on the lists and their 
     families.
       (c) Monitoring Development of Rule of Law.--The Commission 
     shall monitor the development of the rule of law in the 
     People's Republic of China, including, but not limited to--
       (1) progress toward the development of institutions of 
     democratic governance;
       (2) processes by which statutes, regulations, rules, and 
     other legal acts of the Government of the People's Republic 
     of China are developed and become binding within the People's 
     Republic of China;
       (3) the extent to which statutes, regulations, rules, 
     administrative and judicial decisions, and other legal acts 
     of the Government of the People's Republic of China are 
     published and are made accessible to the public;
       (4) the extent to which administrative and judicial 
     decisions are supported by statements of reasons that are 
     based upon written statutes, regulations, rules and other 
     legal acts of the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China;
       (5) the extent to which individuals are treated equally 
     under the laws of the of the People's Republic of China 
     without regard to citizenship;
       (6) the extent to which administrative and judicial 
     decisions are independent of political pressure or 
     governmental interference and are reviewed by entities of 
     appellate jurisdiction; and
       (7) the extent to which laws in the People's Republic of 
     China are written and administered in ways that are 
     consistent with international human rights standards, 
     including the requirements of the International Covenant on 
     Civil and Political Rights.
       (d) Bilateral Cooperation.--The Commission shall monitor 
     and encourage the development of programs and activities of 
     the United States Government and private organizations with a 
     view toward increasing the interchange of people and ideas 
     between the United States and the People's Republic of China 
     and expanding cooperation in areas that include, but are not 
     limited to--
       (1) increasing enforcement of human rights described in 
     subsection (a); and
       (2) developing the rule of law in the People's Republic of 
     China.
       (e) Contacts With Nongovernmental Organizations.--In 
     performing the functions described in subsections (a) through 
     (d), the Commission shall, as appropriate, seek out and 
     maintain contacts with nongovernmental organizations, 
     including receiving reports and updates from such 
     organizations and evaluating such reports.
       (f) Cooperation With Special Coordinator.--In performing 
     the functions described in subsections (a) through (d), the 
     Commission shall cooperate with the Special Coordinator for 
     Tibetan Issues in the Department of State.
       (g) Annual Reports.--The Commission shall issue a report to 
     the President and the Congress not later than 12 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, and not later than the 
     end of each 12-month period thereafter, setting forth the 
     findings of the Commission during the preceding 12-month 
     period, in carrying out subsections (a) through (c). The 
     Commission's report may contain recommendations for 
     legislative or executive action.
       (h) Specific Information in Annual Reports.--The 
     Commission's report under subsection (g) shall include 
     specific information as to the nature and implementation of 
     laws or policies concerning the rights set forth in 
     paragraphs (1) through (12) of subsection (a), and as to 
     restrictions applied to or discrimination against persons 
     exercising any of the rights set forth in such paragraphs.
       (i) Congressional Hearings on Annual Reports.--(1) The 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives shall, not later than 30 days after the 
     receipt by the Congress of the report referred to in 
     subsection (g), hold hearings on the contents of the report, 
     including any recommendations contained therein, for the 
     purpose of receiving testimony from Members of Congress, and 
     such appropriate representatives of Federal departments and 
     agencies, and interested persons and groups, as the committee 
     deems advisable, with a view to reporting to the House of 
     Representatives any appropriate legislation in furtherance of 
     such recommendations. If any such legislation is considered 
     by the Committee on International Relations within 45 days 
     after receipt by the Congress of the report referred to in 
     subsection (g), it shall be reported by the committee not 
     later than 60 days after receipt by the Congress of such 
     report.
       (2) The provisions of paragraph (1) are enacted by the 
     Congress--
       (A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives, and as such are deemed a part of the rules 
     of the House, and they supersede other rules only to the 
     extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of the House) at any time, in the same manner and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the 
     House.
       (j) Supplemental Reports.--The Commission may submit to the 
     President and the Congress reports that supplement the 
     reports described in subsection (g), as appropriate, in 
     carrying out subsections (a) through (c).

     SEC. 303. MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Selection and Appointment of Members.--The Commission 
     shall be composed of 23 members as follows:
       (1) Nine Members of the House of Representatives appointed 
     by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Five members 
     shall be selected from the majority party and four members 
     shall be selected, after consultation with the minority 
     leader of the House, from the minority party.
       (2) Nine Members of the Senate appointed by the President 
     of the Senate. Five members shall be selected, after 
     consultation with the majority leader of the Senate, from the 
     majority party, and four members shall be selected, after 
     consultation with the minority leader of the Senate, from the 
     minority party.
       (3) One representative of the Department of State, 
     appointed by the President of the United States from among 
     officers and employees of that Department.
       (4) One representative of the Department of Commerce, 
     appointed by the President of the United States from among 
     officers and employees of that Department.
       (5) One representative of the Department of Labor, 
     appointed by the President of the United States from among 
     officers and employees of that Department.
       (6) Two at-large representatives, appointed by the 
     President of the United States, from among the officers and 
     employees of the executive branch.
       (b) Chairman and Cochairman.--
       (1) Designation of chairman.--At the beginning of each odd-
     numbered Congress, the President of the Senate, on the 
     recommendation of the majority leader, shall designate one of 
     the members of the Commission from the Senate as Chairman of 
     the Commission. At the beginning of each even-numbered 
     Congress, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall 
     designate one of the members of the Commission from the House 
     as Chairman of the Commission.
       (2) Designation of cochairman.--At the beginning of each 
     odd-numbered Congress, the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives shall designate one of the members of the 
     Commission from the House as Cochairman of the Commission. At 
     the beginning of each even-numbered Congress, the President 
     of the Senate, on the recommendation of the majority leader, 
     shall designate one of the members of the Commission from the 
     Senate as Cochairman of the Commission.

     SEC. 304. VOTES OF THE COMMISSION.

       Decisions of the Commission, including adoption of reports 
     and recommendations to the executive branch or to the 
     Congress,

[[Page H3668]]

     shall be made by a majority vote of the members of the 
     Commission present and voting. Two-thirds of the Members of 
     the Commission shall constitute a quorum for purposes of 
     conducting business.

     SEC. 305. EXPENDITURE OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       For each fiscal year for which an appropriation is made to 
     the Commission, the Commission shall issue a report to the 
     Congress on its expenditures under that appropriation.

     SEC. 306. TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE; 
                   ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS; ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS.

       In carrying out this title, the Commission may require, by 
     subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such 
     witnesses and the production of such books, records, 
     correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and 
     electronically recorded data as it considers necessary. 
     Subpoenas may be issued only pursuant to a two-thirds vote of 
     members of the Commission present and voting. Subpoenas may 
     be issued over the signature of the Chairman of the 
     Commission or any member designated by the Chairman, and may 
     be served by any person designated by the Chairman or such 
     member. The Chairman of the Commission, or any member 
     designated by the Chairman, may administer oaths to any 
     witness.

     SEC. 307. APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Authorization; Disbursements.--
       (1) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Commission for fiscal year 2001, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, such sums as may be necessary to enable it to 
     carry out its functions. Appropriations to the Commission are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.
       (2) Disbursements.--Appropriations to the Commission shall 
     be disbursed on vouchers approved--
       (A) jointly by the Chairman and the Cochairman; or
       (B) by a majority of the members of the personnel and 
     administration committee established pursuant to section 308.
       (b) Foreign Travel for Official Purposes.--Foreign travel 
     for official purposes by members and staff of the Commission 
     may be authorized by either the Chairman or the Cochairman.

     SEC. 308. STAFF OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Personnel and Administration Committee.--The Commission 
     shall have a personnel and administration committee composed 
     of the Chairman, the Cochairman, the senior member of the 
     Commission from the minority party of the House of 
     Representatives, and the senior member of the Commission from 
     the minority party of the Senate.
       (b) Committee Functions.--All decisions pertaining to the 
     hiring, firing, and fixing of pay of personnel of the 
     Commission shall be by a majority vote of the personnel and 
     administration committee, except that--
       (1) the Chairman shall be entitled to appoint and fix the 
     pay of the staff director, and the Cochairman shall be 
     entitled to appoint and fix the pay of the Cochairman's 
     senior staff member; and
       (2) the Chairman and Cochairman shall each have the 
     authority to appoint, with the approval of the personnel and 
     administration committee, at least 4 professional staff 
     members who shall be responsible to the Chairman or the 
     Cochairman (as the case may be) who appointed them.

     Subject to subsection (d), the personnel and administration 
     committee may appoint and fix the pay of such other personnel 
     as it considers desirable.
       (c) Staff Appointments.--All staff appointments shall be 
     made without regard to the provisions of title 5, United 
     States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 
     and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to 
     classification and general schedule pay rates.
       (d) Qualifications of Professional Staff.--The personnel 
     and administration committee shall ensure that the 
     professional staff of the Commission consists of persons with 
     expertise in areas including human rights, internationally 
     recognized worker rights, international economics, law 
     (including international law), rule of law and other foreign 
     assistance programming, Chinese politics, economy and 
     culture, and the Chinese language.
       (e) Commission Employees as Congressional Employees.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of pay and other employment 
     benefits, rights, and privileges, and for all other purposes, 
     any employee of the Commission shall be considered to be a 
     congressional employee as defined in section 2107 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (2) Competitive status.--For purposes of section 3304(c)(1) 
     of title 5, United States Code, employees of the Commission 
     shall be considered as if they are in positions in which they 
     are paid by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the 
     House of Representatives.

     SEC. 309. PRINTING AND BINDING COSTS.

       For purposes of costs relating to printing and binding, 
     including the costs of personnel detailed from the Government 
     Printing Office, the Commission shall be deemed to be a 
     committee of the Congress.

   TITLE IV--MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF 
                        CHINA'S WTO COMMITMENTS

 Subtitle A--Review of Membership of the People's Republic of China in 
                                the WTO

     SEC. 401. REVIEW WITHIN THE WTO.

       It shall be the objective of the United States to obtain as 
     part of the Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of 
     China to the WTO, an annual review within the WTO of the 
     compliance by the People's Republic of China with its terms 
     of accession to the WTO.

 Subtitle B--Authorization To Promote Compliance With Trade Agreements

     SEC. 411. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) The opening of world markets through the elimination of 
     tariff and nontariff barriers has contributed to a 56-percent 
     increase in exports of United States goods and services since 
     1992.
       (2) Such export expansion, along with an increase in trade 
     generally, has helped fuel the longest economic expansion in 
     United States history.
       (3) The United States Government must continue to be 
     vigilant in monitoring and enforcing the compliance by our 
     trading partners with trade agreements in order for United 
     States businesses, workers, and farmers to continue to 
     benefit from the opportunities created by market-opening 
     trade agreements.
       (4) The People's Republic of China, as part of its 
     accession to the World Trade Organization, has committed to 
     eliminating significant trade barriers in the agricultural, 
     services, and manufacturing sectors that, if realized, would 
     provide considerable opportunities for United States farmers, 
     businesses, and workers.
       (5) For these opportunities to be fully realized, the 
     United States Government must effectively monitor and enforce 
     its rights under the agreements on the accession of the 
     People's Republic of China to the WTO.

     SEC. 412. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this subtitle is to authorize additional 
     resources for the agencies and departments engaged in 
     monitoring and enforcement of United States trade agreements 
     and trade laws with respect to the People's Republic of 
     China.

     SEC. 413. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Department of Commerce.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Department of Commerce, in addition to 
     amounts otherwise available for such purposes, such sums as 
     may be necessary for fiscal year 2001, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, for additional staff for--
       (1) monitoring compliance by the People's Republic of China 
     with its commitments under the WTO, assisting United States 
     negotiators with ongoing negotiations in the WTO, and 
     defending United States antidumping and countervailing duty 
     measures with respect to products of the People's Republic of 
     China;
       (2) enforcement of United States trade laws with respect to 
     products of the People's Republic of China; and
       (3) a Trade Law Technical Assistance Center to assist 
     small- and medium-sized businesses, workers, and unions in 
     evaluating potential remedies available under the trade laws 
     of the United States with respect to trade involving the 
     People's Republic of China.
       (b) Overseas Compliance Program.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriation.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Commerce and the 
     Department of State, in addition to amounts otherwise 
     available, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     2001, and each fiscal year thereafter, to provide staff for 
     monitoring in the People's Republic of China that country's 
     compliance with its international trade obligations and to 
     support the enforcement of the trade laws of the United 
     States, as part of an Overseas Compliance Program which 
     monitors abroad compliance with international trade 
     obligations and supports the enforcement of United States 
     trade laws.
       (2) Reporting.--The annual report on compliance by the 
     People's Republic of China submitted to the Congress under 
     section 421 of this Act shall include the findings of the 
     Overseas Compliance Program with respect to the People's 
     Republic of China.
       (c) USTR.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Office of the United States Trade Representative, in addition 
     to amounts otherwise available for such purposes, such sums 
     as may be necessary for fiscal year 2001, and each fiscal 
     year thereafter, for additional staff in--
       (1) the Office of the General Counsel, the Monitoring and 
     Enforcement Unit, and the Office of the Deputy United States 
     Trade Representative in Geneva, Switzerland, to investigate, 
     prosecute, and defend cases before the WTO, and to administer 
     United States trade laws, including title III of the Trade 
     Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411, et seq.) and other trade laws 
     relating to intellectual property, government procurement, 
     and telecommunications, with respect to the People's Republic 
     of China;
       (2) the Office of Economic Affairs, to analyze the impact 
     on the economy of the United States, including United States 
     exports, of acts of the Government of the People's Republic 
     of China affecting access to markets in the People's Republic 
     of China and to support the Office of the General Counsel in 
     presenting cases to the WTO involving the People's Republic 
     of China;
       (3) the geographic office for the People's Republic of 
     China; and
       (4) offices relating to the WTO and to different sectors of 
     the economy, including agriculture, industry, services, and 
     intellectual

[[Page H3669]]

     property rights protection, to monitor and enforce the trade 
     agreement obligations of the People's Republic of China in 
     those sectors.
       (d) Department of Agriculture.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Department of Agriculture, in addition to 
     amounts otherwise available for such purposes, such sums as 
     may be necessary for fiscal year 2001, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, for additional staff to increase legal and 
     technical expertise in areas covered by trade agreements and 
     United States trade law, including food safety and 
     biotechnology, for purposes of monitoring compliance by the 
     People's Republic of China with its trade agreement 
     obligations.

Subtitle C--Report on Compliance by the People's Republic of China With 
                            WTO Obligations

     SEC. 421. REPORT ON COMPLIANCE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the entry into 
     force of the Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic 
     of China to the WTO, and annually thereafter, the Trade 
     Representative shall submit a report to Congress on 
     compliance by the People's Republic of China with commitments 
     made in connection with its accession to the World Trade 
     Organization, including both multilateral commitments and any 
     bilateral commitments made to the United States.
       (b) Public Participation.--In preparing the report 
     described in subsection (a), the Trade Representative shall 
     seek public participation by publishing a notice in the 
     Federal Register and holding a public hearing.

TITLE V--TRADE AND RULE OF LAW ISSUES IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  Subtitle A--Task Force on Prohibition of Importation of Products of 
       Forced or Prison Labor From the People's Republic of China

     SEC. 501. ESTABLISHMENT OF TASK FORCE.

       There is hereby established a task force on prohibition of 
     importation of products of forced or prison labor from the 
     People's Republic of China (hereafter in this subtitle 
     referred to as the ``Task Force'').

     SEC. 502. FUNCTIONS OF TASK FORCE.

       The Task Force shall monitor and promote effective 
     enforcement of and compliance with section 307 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307) by performing the following 
     functions:
       (1) Coordinate closely with the United States Customs 
     Service to promote maximum effectiveness in the enforcement 
     by the Customs Service of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 
     1930 with respect to the products of the People's Republic of 
     China. In order to assure such coordination, the Customs 
     Service shall keep the Task Force informed, on a regular 
     basis, of the progress of its investigations of allegations 
     that goods are being entered into the United States, or that 
     such entry is being attempted, in violation of the 
     prohibition in section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on entry 
     into the United States of goods mined, produced, or 
     manufactured wholly or in part in the People's Republic of 
     China by convict labor, forced labor, or indentured labor 
     under penal sanctions. Such investigations may include visits 
     to foreign sites where goods allegedly are being mined, 
     produced, or manufactured in a manner that would lead to 
     prohibition of their importation into the United States under 
     section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
       (2) Make recommendations to the Customs Service on seeking 
     new agreements with the People's Republic of China to allow 
     Customs Service officials to visit sites where goods may be 
     mined, produced, or manufactured by convict labor, forced 
     labor, or indentured labor under penal sanctions.
       (3) Work with the Customs Service to assist the People's 
     Republic of China and other foreign governments in monitoring 
     the sale of goods mined, produced, or manufactured by convict 
     labor, forced labor, or indentured labor under penal 
     sanctions to ensure that such goods are not exported to the 
     United States.
       (4) Coordinate closely with the Customs Service to promote 
     maximum effectiveness in the enforcement by the Customs 
     Service of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect 
     to the products of the People's Republic of China. In order 
     to assure such coordination, the Customs Service shall keep 
     the Task Force informed, on a regular basis, of the progress 
     of its monitoring of ports of the United States to ensure 
     that goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part 
     in the People's Republic of China by convict labor, forced 
     labor, or indentured labor under penal sanctions are not 
     imported into the United States.
       (5) Advise the Customs Service in performing such other 
     functions, consistent with existing authority, to ensure the 
     effective enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 
     1930.
       (6) Provide to the Customs Service all information obtained 
     by the departments represented on the Task Force relating to 
     the use of convict labor, forced labor, or/and indentured 
     labor under penal sanctions in the mining, production, or 
     manufacture of goods which may be imported into the United 
     States.

     SEC. 503. COMPOSITION OF TASK FORCE.

       The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, 
     the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of State, the 
     Commissioner of Customs, and the heads of other executive 
     branch agencies, as appropriate, acting through their 
     respective designees at or above the level of Deputy 
     Assistant Secretary, or in the case of the Customs Service, 
     at or above the level of Assistant Commissioner, shall 
     compose the Task Force. The designee of the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall chair the Task Force.

     SEC. 504. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     2001, and each fiscal year thereafter, such sums as may be 
     necessary for the Task Force to carry out the functions 
     described in section 502.

     SEC. 505. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Frequency of Reports.--Not later than the date that is 
     one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and not 
     later than the end of each 1-year period thereafter, the Task 
     Force shall submit to the Congress a report on the work of 
     the Task Force during the preceding 1-year period.
       (b) Contents of Reports.--Each report under subsection (a) 
     shall set forth, at a minimum--
       (1) the number of allegations of violations of section 307 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to products of the 
     Peoples' Republic of China that were investigated during the 
     preceding 1-year period;
       (2) the number of actual violations of section 307 of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to the products of the 
     People's Republic of China that were discovered during the 
     preceding 1-year period;
       (3) in the case of each attempted entry of products of the 
     People's Republic of China in violation of such section 307 
     discovered during the preceding 1-year period--
       (A) the identity of the exporter of the goods;
       (B) the identity of the person or persons who attempted to 
     sell the goods for export; and
       (C) the identity of all parties involved in transshipment 
     of the goods; and
       (4) such other information as the Task Force considers 
     useful in monitoring and enforcing compliance with section 
     307 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

   Subtitle B--Assistance To Develop Commercial and Labor Rule of Law

     SEC. 511. ESTABLISHMENT OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND RULE OF 
                   LAW PROGRAMS.

       (a) Commerce Rule of Law Program.--The Secretary of 
     Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is 
     authorized to establish a program to conduct rule of law 
     training and technical assistance related to commercial 
     activities in the People's Republic of China.
       (b) Labor Rule of Law Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, is authorized to establish a 
     program to conduct rule of law training and technical 
     assistance related to the protection of internationally 
     recognized worker rights in the People's Republic of China.
       (2) Use of amounts.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary of Labor shall focus on activities including, but 
     not limited to--
       (A) developing, laws, regulations, and other measures to 
     implement internationally recognized worker rights;
       (B) establishing national mechanisms for the enforcement of 
     national labor laws and regulations;
       (C) training government officials concerned with 
     implementation and enforcement of national labor laws and 
     regulations; and
       (D) developing an educational infrastructure to educate 
     workers about their legal rights and protections under 
     national labor laws and regulations.
       (3) Limitation.--The Secretary of Labor may not provide 
     assistance under the program established under this 
     subsection to the All-China Federation of Trade Unions.
       (c) Legal System and Civil Society Rule of Law Program.--
     The Secretary of State is authorized to establish a program 
     to conduct rule of law training and technical assistance 
     related to development of the legal system and civil society 
     generally in the People's Republic of China.
       (d) Conduct of Programs.--The programs authorized by this 
     section may be used to conduct activities such as seminars 
     and workshops, drafting of commercial and labor codes, legal 
     training, publications, financing the operating costs for 
     nongovernmental organizations working in this area, and 
     funding the travel of individuals to the United States and to 
     the People's Republic of China to provide and receive 
     training.

     SEC. 512. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES.

       In carrying out the programs authorized by section 511, the 
     Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor (in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State) may utilize any of 
     the authorities contained in the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 and the Foreign Service Act of 1980.

     SEC. 513. PROHIBITION RELATING TO HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.

       Amounts made available to carry out this subtitle may not 
     be provided to a component of a ministry or other 
     administrative unit of the national, provincial, or other 
     local governments of the People's Republic of China, to a 
     nongovernmental organization, or to an official of such 
     governments or organizations, if the President has credible 
     evidence that such component, administrative unit, 
     organization or official has been materially responsible for 
     the commission of human rights violations.

[[Page H3670]]

     SEC. 514. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Commercial Law Program.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce to carry out the 
     program described in section 511(a) such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal year 2001, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.
       (b) Labor Law Program.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Labor to carry out the 
     program described in section 511(b) such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal year 2001, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.
       (c) Legal System and Civil Society Rule of Law Program.--
     There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     State to carry out the program described in section 511(c) 
     such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2001, and each 
     fiscal year thereafter.
       (d) Construction With Other Laws.--Except as provided in 
     this division, funds may be made available to carry out the 
     purposes of this subtitle notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law.

                TITLE VI--ACCESSION OF TAIWAN TO THE WTO

     SEC. 601. ACCESSION OF TAIWAN TO THE WTO.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) immediately upon approval by the General Council of the 
     WTO of the terms and conditions of the accession of the 
     People's Republic of China to the WTO, the United States 
     representative to the WTO should request that the General 
     Council of the WTO consider Taiwan's accession to the WTO as 
     the next order of business of the Council during the same 
     session; and
       (2) the United States should be prepared to aggressively 
     counter any effort by any WTO member, upon the approval of 
     the General Council of the WTO of the terms and conditions of 
     the accession of the People's Republic of China to the WTO, 
     to block the accession of Taiwan to the WTO.

                       TITLE VII--RELATED ISSUES

     SEC. 701. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BROADCASTING 
                   CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL 
                   BROADCASTING OPERATIONS.

       (a) Broadcasting Capital Improvements.--In addition to such 
     sums as may otherwise be authorized to be appropriated, there 
     are authorized to be appropriated for ``Department of State 
     and Related Agency, Related Agency, Broadcasting Board of 
     Governors, Broadcasting Capital Improvements'' $65,000,000 
     for the fiscal year 2001.
       (b) International Broadcasting Operations.--
       (1) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to such 
     sums as are otherwise authorized to be appropriated, there 
     are authorized to be appropriated $34,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 2001 and 2002 for ``Department of State and 
     Related Agency, Related Agency, Broadcasting Board of 
     Governors, International Broadcasting Operations'' for the 
     purposes under paragraph (2).
       (2) Uses of Funds.--In addition to other authorized 
     purposes, funds appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall 
     be used for the following:
       (A) To increase personnel for the program development 
     office to enhance marketing programming in the People's 
     Republic of China and neighboring countries.
       (B) To enable Radio Free Asia's expansion of news research, 
     production, call-in show capability, and web site/Internet 
     enhancement for the People's Republic of China and 
     neighboring countries.
       (C) VOA enhancements, including the opening of new news 
     bureaus in Taipei and Shanghai, enhancement of TV Mandarin, 
     and an increase of stringer presence abroad.
         Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to authorize 
     extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 
     relations treatment) to the People's Republic of China, and 
     to establish a framework for relations between the United 
     States and the People's Republic of China.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) each 
will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4444.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at this historic moment in this debate today, all 
Members should keep an open mind to objectively make the right 
decision, without pressure from outside groups, as to what is in the 
best interests of the United States, its people and its values. This 
vote will be the most important vote that we cast in our congressional 
careers. Why? Because it will affect America for generations to come.
  International trade has meant a greater standard of living for our 
families here at home. Yes, nearly $3,000 more in purchasing power a 
year, employment for over 12 million American workers, and wages that 
are up to 20 percent higher than those for the domestic market, that is 
what trade has meant to Americans.
  But passage of this historic legislation will mean more than just 
American jobs created here at home. It will mean the expansion of 
American ideals, principles, and values throughout the world, as well 
as the Orient.
  We have already started to see that sort of change occur, as China 
has opened up since Nixon's memorable visit. Today, most Americans do 
not know that over 90 percent of China's 930,000 villages now hold 
democratic elections for their local leaders, and that means nearly 1 
billion rural Chinese have started to experience the freedom that 
democratic elections produce.
  The bill's opponents raise concerns about China's human rights 
standards and environmental and labor conditions; and, yes, they need 
to be greatly improved. But how would severing our relations with China 
help to achieve this change which opponents say they want? It does not.
  How will failure to pass this accomplish anything the opponents say 
they want? It will not. How does cutting off U.S. workers, farmers and 
businesses to a market of 1.3 billion customers, a market the Europeans 
and Japanese will have ready access to, help our cause? It will not.

                              {time}  1215

  Voting against this bill will help the Japanese, it will help the 
Europeans, but it will hurt America, and it will hurt the very people 
who want human rights and religious freedom in China to have a better 
chance to ultimately reach that goal.
  How will denying American culture and American products and services 
to the Chinese help? How will it help to close off more of America 
within China? It will not. How does strengthening the hand of hard-
liners in Beijing improve our national security? It will not. That is 
why we cannot afford to fail here today.
  One of the best ways to open the minds of the Chinese is through open 
markets, and engagement with China does not mean endorsement of their 
human rights record. Congress, in the past has, and will continue, to 
monitor China's human rights record, and thanks to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), 
this bill provides a way to do that. But we deny the unchangeable tides 
of history if we think we can force China to alter its behavior by 
simply turning our backs on them.
  Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues hear from no one else today before they 
vote on this historic issue, they should listen to the American people. 
The American people want America to get the benefit of the Chinese 
concessions which opens their markets to our product. They have said 
this overwhelmingly in all of the polling data in the last week. The 
American people, not Wall Street, not Main Street, not special 
interests, but American family interests. The overwhelming majority of 
Americans say that expanded trade with China will not only boost U.S. 
jobs, but it will improve China's human rights, improve the 
environment, and bring about the type of change and freedoms with which 
we stand here today and so jealously cherish. 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.
  So I say to my colleagues, let us make history today and pass this 
legislation for American values that we all hold so dear.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me take this opportunity to thank the leadership on both sides of 
the aisle for the level of the debate which we will have. Truly, this 
is a very contentious issue. Members have deep-seated feelings. I do 
not remember anything being lobbied so hard by the administration, by 
the private sector, the Chamber of Commerce and unions, and certainly 
our constituents. But we have to appreciate the fact that no

[[Page H3671]]

matter how Members vote, even though I rise in strong support of PNTR, 
that we have to respect the Members for believing what they are doing 
is in the best interests of their districts, as well as the country, 
and remember that we do our best work when we work in a bipartisan way. 
So at the end of the day, I do hope that we are able to say that 
regardless of the outcome of the vote, it was one of the finest hours 
of this honorable body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the dean of our Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that this is probably going to be the most 
important national security foreign policy vote that we will be taking 
in a number of years. I have to say that there are two most important 
relationships from a foreign policy point of view that the United 
States will have in the next 20 years. One is obviously the U.S.-
Russian relationship, and the other is the U.S.-China relationship.
  China is 22 percent of the world population. One out of every five 
people on this Earth is Chinese. China will soon have a capacity in 
terms of its growth that will be second only to the United States. 
China will never be our friend, but this vote will determine whether or 
not we will be able to coexist with China, or whether China will become 
an enemy of the United States, so that we can have for the next 40 or 
50 years another Cold War.
  What surprises me are the two issues that have been raised by the 
opponents. One is the economic issue, and the other is the human rights 
issue. I would like to address those.
  In terms of the economic issues, we are by far the most powerful 
economy in this world. We are second to none. We have the best educated 
workforce, we have the most talented workforce, we have the best R&D, 
we have the best higher education system, second to none. We should not 
fear anybody. We have an unemployment rate of under 4 percent, the 
lowest in decades, and as my colleagues know, we have a growth rate for 
the last 10 years, over 120 months that would be the envy of all other 
trading partners of the United States.
  Yet, many people are opposed to this. At the same time, believe it or 
not, the United States, under this agreement, under this bill, gives up 
nothing. Our tariffs do not go down to the Chinese products; we do not 
give them larger distribution markets. So why are they opposed to this, 
particularly when China's tariffs will go from 25 percent down to 9 
percent for all U.S. goods; automobiles, 100 percent today, if we 
export into China will go down to 20 percent, but the UAW is opposed. 
The Teamsters Union would have hundreds and thousands of more jobs 
because more packages will go to China from U.S. products, but they are 
opposed as well.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an agreement in the interest of the American 
worker, and this is an agreement that will create more jobs, more 
growth, and more prosperity for America.
  Now, let me also talk about the issue of human rights. China's human 
rights record is terrible. We understand that. We, obviously, should 
put the focus on them, and we believe that the Levin-Bereuter bill, 
will, in fact, do that. But what is really interesting is that many of 
the Chinese dissidents that have the luxury of living in the United 
States are opposed to this. But those that live in China, the Chinese 
Democracy Movement, they want us to pass this, because they want to 
engage the United States. They think if they gain economic power, they 
will be able to opposes the central government of China. So we need to 
vote yes on this legislation for the future of our country and 
certainly, for prosperity and peace throughout the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on this bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in vehement opposition to granting the 
People's Republic of China (PRC) permanent and unconditional trade 
relations status. Although proponents of this measure call it permanent 
normal trade relations, or PNTR, there is nothing normal about this 
relationship. The PRC makes promises to the U.S., the U.S. engages 
Beijing and Beijing breaks those promises. But China has absolutely no 
reason to keep their promises. The U.S. grants China most favored 
nation (MFN) trading status year after year while ignoring China's 
myriad of trade, labor, human rights, and nonproliferation violations. 
Now, the Administration wants Congress to hand over our only form of 
leverage to Beijing. I oppose extending permanent normal trade 
relations (PNTR) to China because the agreement signed last November is 
bad for U.S. as well as Chinese workers, and because the legislation 
before us cannot deliver what its backers promise.


                            i. the agreement

  We don't really know what the agreement between the U.S. and China 
will bear because China breaks its current agreements on 
nonproliferation, intellectual property rights, human rights and forced 
labor. Chinese officials have been telling the U.S. that they're 
opening their markets and telling their own business leaders that once 
they've entered the WTO, they'll protect certain markets--such as 
telecom, electronics and autos. Unfair competition is an integral part 
of Beijing's economic system. China restricts imports of U.S. goods 
through various formal and informal trade barriers. The 1992 memorandum 
of understanding agreement China signed on market access and 
intellectual property has been and continues to be violated. China 
cannot be trusted.
  Factory workers in China earn as little as thirteen cents per hour. 
The average individual income in China is $108. This hardly sounds like 
a burgeoning middle class. But the Administration keeps telling us--as 
they did with NAFTA and Mexico--that if we don't capitalize on this 
market, Europe will. All I know is that a Chinese factory worker, or a 
rural peasant, making $108 per year isn't able to afford goods made in 
the U.S. when they can't even afford goods made in their own country. I 
do know that this agreement encourages U.S. businesses to set-up shop 
in China and ensures them access to exploit China's cheap labor. This 
is a bad deal for the U.S. workers and a bad deal for the Chinese 
worker.


                     ii. the legislation before us

  Many Members feel that they are able to vote for today's bill because 
it offers assurances that workers and human rights will be protected 
while promoting the rule of law in China. This is a tall order when we 
have yet to get China to keep any of its commitments made to the U.S.
  The bill before us sets up another commission to monitor human 
rights. On May 18, 1998, 375 Members of the 105th Congress voted to 
establish the United States Commission on International Religious 
Freedom. When the Commission brought its findings on China's egregious 
religious violations, the 106th Congress looked the other way. The 
Commission recommended that we not give PNTR to China at this time. If 
this body is going to ignore the recommendations of the Commission that 
we established, why would we want to set-up another one? No Commission 
will be effective if Congress is going to ignore the fact that China 
abuses its people for practicing Falun Gong or any other religion not 
endorsed by the barbaric regime. The human rights provision in this 
legislation is hollow. The provisions set forth by the Levin-Bereuter 
proposal do not guarantee enforcement of China's harsh practices.


                            iii. conclusion

  I'm not suggesting we end trade with China. I'm not even asking that 
we reform our trading practices with China. I merely want China to 
abide by the promises it has already made.
  I urge my colleagues to look closely at China's record. I urge my 
colleagues to scrutinize China's current practices and ask yourselves 
if you believe China will keep its word. I don't! Oppose Congress 
giving up its only tool to enforce China's promises. Oppose PNTR for 
China.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader, a gentleman 
who recognizes that the trade deal with China gives away our leverage 
to protect the lives of environmental, human, and religious activists 
in China; who recognizes that the Religious Freedom Commission set up 
by Congress in 1998 recommended Congress not give PNTR to China; who 
recognizes that the Levin-Bereuter provisions are hollow and do not 
provide for human rights violation enforcement; and recognizes that 
this agreement does not provide enforcement of China's promises.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for a wonderful 
institution.

[[Page H3672]]

This is the room where all of the feelings and emotions of the American 
people on this very important issue get channeled and espoused and 
spoken as we make a collective decision on what is a very, very 
important issue for our country, for China, and for the world.
  I believe and fully expect this debate to be in the tradition of John 
Quincy Adams and James Madison and Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, and 
other great voices that have been heard in this building through the 
years.
  As I begin the debate, I would like to commend the leaders on both 
sides of the aisle who have worked to carry on this debate in the 
highest tradition of the House. I commend the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Bonior) who has led the opposition on our side. There is not a 
greater proponent of human rights that I know.
  I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) who have worked so hard to espouse 
their viewpoint. I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who 
is one of the finest people I have ever known in the Congress, who does 
everything from his heart to do what is right. I honor the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi). There is not a greater fighter for human 
rights in our Congress than she is and a more staunch advocate for her 
views.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak on this issue. This debate is 
testament to what makes the United States the greatest country that has 
ever existed in the history of the world, based on the ideals of 
freedom; freedom of expression and freedom and liberty of religion and 
political speech.
  These ideals are what cause me to finally be against this bill. This 
debate would not happen in China. This freedom of expression that we 
are exercising on this floor and outside this building and in rooms all 
over this country in the last days would not happen in a country like 
China. In fact, if one insisted on speaking against the policy of the 
government in China, one would be arrested.
  America began with a simple revolutionary statement: We hold these 
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 
are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that 
among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And 
remember that when these rights were proclaimed 100 years later, 
Abraham Lincoln made it clear that the rights that were set out in the 
declaration were not just for the American people, but applied to 
everyone. Abraham Lincoln said this, the Declaration of Independence 
gave liberty not alone to the people of this country, but hope to all 
the world for future time.
  These ideals guided us through all kinds of conflicts and 
difficulties, World War II, the Cold War, bringing down the Berlin 
Wall, Soviet communism, the civil rights movement in our own country, 
apartheid in South Africa. I remember standing on this floor with many 
of my colleagues against the wind of public opinion, here and in the 
world, saying that the only way we will bring change in South Africa is 
by standing for these ideals, even though the rest of the world would 
not.
  Some would argue that this is just about trade. I would remind them 
that our greatest export is not our products and our services, our 
greatest exports are our ideals and our values. Getting acceptance of 
these ideals is also vital for trade. A country that fails to respect 
basic rights of people will not respect the rule of law, and without 
the rule of law in China, the rights of our businesses will not be 
accepted.
  China has not obeyed the agreements that they have made with us on 
trade. We have been promised access; we have not gotten it. We have 
been promised protection of intellectual property; we have not gotten 
it. Our trade deficit is now $85 billion with China, the highest as a 
percent of total trade of any country in the world. We export more now 
to Singapore, a nation of 3.5 million people, than we export to China, 
a country of 1.3 billion people. The track record is poor on compliance 
with treaties. Let us not reward them before we get them to comply. 
China's leaders show contempt for the rule of law.

                              {time}  1230

  People are persecuted for their religious beliefs. People are in 
prison and tortured for speaking out politically. They are cooperating 
in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They threaten 
Taiwan even up to and including the latest election in Taiwan.
  The issue today is not trade. The issue today is whether or not to 
take away the annual leverage that comes with our voted-on review of 
progress on human rights in China. China will be in the WTO. We trade 
with China now. As I said, we have a deficit of $85 billion a year. The 
issue is, will we take away the review, the leverage? Advocates of 
doing this say the annual review is meaningless. If it is so 
meaningless, why does the Chinese Government insist, as a price of 
giving us access to their market, that we take it away?
  I will say why they ask for it so vociferously because they do not 
want the pressure. They do not want the annual debate on this floor. 
They do not want the light of the world to come in and see how they are 
performing, and this real pressure, I submit, will bring change. If we 
do not lead, who will? I ask, if we give this up, is anyone else in the 
world going to ask for this kind of review? I think not.
  When we debated apartheid in South Africa, everybody in the world 
said lay off of South Africa. Trade will change them. Do we really 
believe that we would have an end to apartheid in South Africa if we 
had not stood alone, leading the world, to say this must not stand?
  Supporters say that trade alone will solve the problem. There is some 
truth in that argument. I give them credit because I agree in part with 
that agreement. I want more trade with China. I want the Internet in 
China. I want the people to use computers in China. I think it will 
have an impact, but the evidence that we have to deal with is that as 
trade has expanded, repression of rights has also expanded.
  Our own U.S. State Department has said in its last three reviews of 
human rights that there has been bad deterioration each and every year. 
Last week, I met with Wei Jingsheng, a hero of mine. He lives here, in 
forced exile without his family and friends who are still in China. He 
was jailed for 17 years for writing on the Democracy Wall thoughts 
about political freedom and liberty in China.
  He told me in my office that when we press for human rights, things 
get better in China, and when we lay off on human rights things get 
worse. He said this, in 1979 President Carter normalized relations in 
China. He was in prison soon thereafter. He said in 1989 President Bush 
guaranteed MFN, even though there were problems in China, and soon 
thereafter the guns blazed in Tiananmen Square. He said in 1994, 
President Clinton delinked MFN and trade with other kinds of questions 
in China on human rights. He said he was immediately arrested. In 1997, 
after intense pressure from President Clinton and many in this room, he 
was finally released, under duress, to come to the United States. When 
we stand up, things get better in China for human rights. When we stand 
down, things get worse; and that is what this debate and that is what 
this question is all about.
  These have been good days in America. This debate has been healthy 
for America. I am pleased that so many people have participated in this 
debate. I am pleased there has been so much conversation and 
communication between our citizens and our representatives. I am 
pleased and proud to stand with labor activists and environmentalists 
and human rights activists and religious leaders. I am also proud that 
our business leaders have come here and argued from their heart about 
what they believe is right.
  The lobbying and the conversation is about to end. We are about to 
have to vote. All I ask is that as we vote, we keep in our heart and 
our mind two quotes: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 
all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with 
certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness'', and that this Declaration of Independence 
``gave liberty not alone to the people of this country but hope to all 
the world for future time.''
  This country is an ideal and now in 2000, on this question, I hope we 
will stand for those ideals.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will remind all 
persons in the gallery that they are

[[Page H3673]]

here as guests of the House and that any manifestation of approval or 
disapproval of proceedings or other audible conversations are in 
violation of the rules of the House.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today both sides agree on the importance of today's 
vote. This is not a vote about severing ties with China or isolating 
China, which is absurd. This is not even about trade with China, 
frankly, just free trade anyway. It is about a specific trade policy 
and policies of the United States Government in dealing with one of the 
world's most powerful dictatorships.
  The debate today, and in this debate, we will hear about jobs and the 
selling of American products; and when we hear people talk about that, 
I hope that the people who are listening will remind themselves that 
these people are not talking about the sale of U.S. consumer items. 
What they are talking about, when they talk about this commercial tie 
with China, is not the sale of commercial items but the transfer of 
factories and technology, this transfer to Communist China of American 
factories. Almost none of this trade deals with consumer items.
  Yesterday, of course, we heard from the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo) that once there, our business leaders who set up these 
factories in China end up in partnership, if not controlled by, the 
People's Liberation Army. We are setting the People's Liberation Army 
up in business with normal trade relations, and this makes it permanent 
normal trade relations.
  The driving force behind this debate, which the other side dutifully 
refuses to acknowledge, is that with PNTR, as they have set it up, the 
American corporate interests will continue to be eligible for American-
taxpayer subsidized loans and taxpayer-guaranteed loans through the 
Export-Import Bank and other financial institutions. Without NTR, those 
corporate interests building factories in China will not get the loan 
subsidies and the guarantees supported by the American taxpayer. So 
much for free trade.
  That is the primary issue here and yet the other side continually 
refuses to address that issue of subsidized transfer of technology and 
manufacturing to Communist China.
  This vote is about confirming government policies that have created a 
perverse incentive for American businessmen to close manufacturing 
facilities in the United States, where they have no loan guarantees, 
and set them up in Communist China. Over the last 10 years, American 
investment backed by the U.S. taxpayer has built the manufacturing and 
technological infrastructure of the world's worst human rights abuser, 
Communist China, a major competitor of the United States and a country 
that is America's number one potential enemy in the years ahead.
  Nixon, on his death bed, told writer William Safire that his China 
strategy may have created a Frankenstein.
  Our policy of most favored nation status, or normal trade relations, 
has created a monster that uses slave labor to compete with the 
American worker and is in the process of building a high-tech military 
force capable of defeating our military if there is a confrontation and 
incinerating millions of Americans, if necessary.
  The over-$500 billion in trade surplus that we have had under this 
normal trade relations that people want to now make permanent, what 
have they done with this $500 billion in trade surplus over these last 
10 years? Well, that is about the same amount of money they pumped into 
modernizing their military, building their missiles and rockets, 
building their airplanes and ships; and often, of course, these things 
are being built in factories supplied to them by American investors.
  Today we are voting whether or not to freeze NTR in place and to make 
it permanent. We are voting today to take away Congress' annual review 
of the heinous human rights abuses that have gotten worse under NTR, 
and we are voting to muzzle those in Congress who fear the 
technological transfer and the building of manufacturing plants in 
Communist China.
  The last thing we should do is make this system permanent and to 
limit congressional oversight and debate and to turn all enforcement 
mechanisms for disputes over to Third World-dominated World Trade 
Organization panels and commissions.
  Let us champion liberty and justice. Let us not finance our 
competitors and our potential enemies. Let us defeat making permanent 
normal trading status that has worked against our country's security 
and against the economic interests of the American people. If we do not 
champion liberty and justice, who will? If we do not champion liberty 
and justice, we will not only be betraying our Founding Fathers but we 
will be demoralizing those people all over the world who look to 
America for hope. We will be betraying the vision of America as a 
shining city on a hill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard some very intense rhetoric thus far in 
this discussion of granting permanent normal trade relations for China, 
and I think it is important for folks to recognize that the permanent 
normal trade relations with China opens China's market to the United 
States, which has not been opened heretofore. If we were to continue 
the annual renewal of normal trade relations with China, 134 countries 
on the face of this earth will have access to that huge market, the 
biggest market on the face of this earth. They will have accessed that 
market, and we will be the only country that has not accessed that 
market.
  We have let them, since 1980, access our market and that has produced 
indeed a rather sizable trade deficit; and it has produced a sizable 
trade deficit because we have not enjoyed reciprocity. What we are 
accomplishing here with China's accession into the World Trade 
Organization is reciprocity.
  I would like to include one more comment here and it is by Clyde 
Prestowitz, and it was in the Wall Street Journal and he points out, 
``There is a final, most important reason to grant China PNTR.'' And 
keep in mind he was a trade negotiator for the Reagan administration, 
and he is currently president of the Economic Strategy Institute, a 
Washington-based think tank. He says, ``For 30 years the U.S. has 
worked to bring China more fully into the community of nations, and to 
promote both economic development and a more liberal society. The 
policy has been working. Anyone who saw China in the early 1980s and 
compares it with today must be amazed. Bicycles and drab Mao suits have 
morphed into traffic jams and bright fashions; the freedom and the 
range of individual choices available to the average person has 
expanded exponentially. After years of estrangement, China is asking to 
join the international community. To turn it down at the very moment it 
is moving in the direction we have desired would be a tragic and 
historic mistake.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Dunn), our distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about another facet of this 
great debate about opening up trade with China. For decades our foreign 
policy needed to rely on strong international leadership that was 
backed by scientific ingenuity embodied in the tip of ballistic 
missiles. It was our unwavering commitment to freedom and confidence in 
our ideals that helped to seal the victory over Communism. Although our 
ideals and our commitment are the same today, clearly the tools of 
freedom and democracy are changing.

                              {time}  1245

  In the next century, it will be the diplomacy of trade, and the 
growth of the Internet that ensure continued United States leadership 
throughout the globe.
  The power of the Internet will define the way we communicate in our 
personal relationships, our business dealings, and in our political 
advocacy throughout this new century. And once again, the United States 
is leading the revolution. In fact, some of the most powerful and 
innovative high-tech companies in the world are based in the United 
States.
  These companies employ the most highly-paid, highly-skilled workforce 
in the world and are helping to raise the standard of living for 
millions of Americans. So what does it mean that

[[Page H3674]]

the new bilateral trade agreement signed between the United States and 
China commits China to living under the information technology 
agreement?
  Mr. Speaker, it means that tariffs on United States computer 
equipment will phase down to zero in China and the growing middle class 
in China will begin to have access to low-cost tools with which to link 
themselves to the world.
  Despite attempts by the Beijing government to control content on the 
Web, the unleashing of the Internet by foreign-owned companies can only 
mean less control from Beijing and greater independence and control for 
the Chinese people to experience economic freedom. The Internet is a 
liberating force for Chinese citizenry who are anxious to engage in the 
world.
  If we do not normalize trade relations with China, however, we will 
cede our international leadership to our trading partners, such as the 
European Union, which just finalized a trade agreement with China last 
week.
  Equally as important, if we do not clear the way for China's 
accession to the World Trade Organization, the strong democratic 
government which continues to flourish on the island of Taiwan will 
never be admitted to this international body of trading nations. That 
is why Chen Shui-bian, the newly-elected President of Taiwan, supports 
normalizing the trade between China and the United States.
  Clearly, the United States and every other WTO member country will 
benefit by having Taiwan as an official member of the WTO. Yet it is 
the policy of the WTO that Taiwan will not accede to the body and enjoy 
the benefits of its membership until China itself accedes.
  Earlier this year, I introduced a resolution to express a sense of 
Congress that Taiwan should accede to the WTO as the next order of 
business at the same general council meeting at which China accedes.
  I am very pleased that my colleagues, the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) have agreed 
to include this language in their proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States has proven to be on the right side of 
history time and time again, because we do not deny the fundamental 
need of the human spirit, individual liberty.
  As the promise of free and fair trade spreads this message, we should 
neither fear this opportunity nor apologize for the advancement of 
American ideals. Engaging China as a willing trade partner and taking 
our message to her people will prove time and time again to be the 
right course.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this effort.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
sovereign State of Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, up until the vote in the 
Committee on Ways and Means last week, I had truly been undecided by 
this issue. I believe in the benefits of free trade, but that does not 
mean that one signs up for a bad deal; that is why I voted against 
NAFTA. But as a supporter of annual renewal of normal trade relations 
with China, I found it hard to be adamantly opposed to doing in one 
vote what I was prepared to do on a year-by-year basis, especially 
considering the benefits of the agreement to the United States.
  I take human rights, labor rights, religious freedom and 
environmental protection seriously, and no Member of this House has had 
a stronger labor voting record over the last 12 years. But I find it 
hard to accept the notion that the failure to move China sufficiently 
on these issues meant that we had to continue the same old strategy.
  I took seriously the argument that China has never lived up to its 
trade agreements in the past, and it certainly bothers me, and I think 
it will be a long-term struggle to get China to fully implement this 
agreement, a job with a greater chance of success if we work within the 
world community, rather going our own way.
  I believe the Levin-Bereuter proposal to be crucial to this vote and 
want to commend both gentlemen for their outstanding efforts. While 
opponents of China PNTR must oppose and downplay the proposal at this 
time, I think a commission which functions daily to promote the cause 
of human rights and labor rights in China is far more valuable than an 
annual debate that threatens nobody.
  And I found great comfort in my talk with former President Jimmy 
Carter about advancing human and labor rights in China. Who, in the 
annals of American political life, has more impeccable credentials 
about human rights than Jimmy Carter?
  Finally, I do worry about the national security implications of 
rejection of China by the United States. I fail to see how this helps 
Taiwan or how it helps make China a more responsible actor in the Asia-
Pacific region. It would not be fair to say that China would be 
isolated if we deny them PNTR, because they will still be part of the 
WTO, no matter what we do. It would be fair to say, however, they would 
be more isolated from us.
  It is a tough call, Mr. Speaker, but in the last analysis, granting 
China PNTR is far better for the United States than denying it.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit).
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. I rise in 
opposition to granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Let 
me be very clear, I am not opposed to an open trade policy and I am not 
an isolationist. But, I also do not believe in trade at any price. Our 
experiences in this body and on this floor with so-called ``free 
trade'' agreements show they have all come with fairly high price tags. 
They end up being neither free nor fair.
  Since 1992, we have entered into four bilateral trade agreements with 
China. In these agreements, China agreed to open their markets, end 
exporting products made in forced labor camps, limit quotas on Chinese 
textiles exports and pledged to protect US patents, trademarks and 
copyrights for intellectual piracy.
  Yet, according to annual reports of the United States Trade 
Representative and the U.S. State Department, China has violated each 
of these agreements. Is it any wonder our trade deficit with China has 
grown from $6 billion in 1989 to $70 billion in 1999?
  In terms of trade alone, there is more than enough reason to merit a 
``no'' vote. Yet there are many other reasons which stack together in 
building a no vote.
  I am particularly disturbed when I hear how this bill is somehow 
American agriculture's new best friend. Under last year's agreement for 
China's accession to the World Trade Organization, China agreed to 
import ``all types of U.S. wheat from all regions of the U.S. to all 
ports in China.'' Yet, it is very interesting to note China's chief WTO 
negotiator said earlier this year that his government agreed only 
theoretically.
  ``. . . It is a complete misunderstanding to expect this grain to 
enter the country . . . Beijing only conceded a theoretical opportunity 
for the export of grain,'' he was quoted as saying in the South China 
Morning Post.
  As far as beef is concerned, the Administration said it expects China 
to lift the ban on all U.S. meat and poultry exports, yet this same 
Chinese official said: ``In terms of meat imports, we have not actually 
made any material concessions.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues why are we so willing to jump on the 
agriculture bandwagon? Growers in my district are already placed on an 
uneven slope because of the phase out of Methyl Bromide. With entry 
into the WTO--which incidentally recognizes China as a `developing' 
nation the same as Mexico and Chile--Chinese farmers will be allowed to 
use Methyl Bromide until 2015 while our producers adhere to the 
Montreal Protocol and phase out the fumigant.
  Though we have extended our unilateral phase out until 2005, where is 
there a guarantee the WTO will not continue to define China as a 
developing country allowing even further unfavorable treatment?
  In regards to our relationship with Taiwan--who happens to be one of 
our largest trading partners--I am very disappointed that we didn't 
allow the amendment of my good friend, the gentleman from California, 
to ensure that should we adopt this agreement if China should attack or 
blockade Taiwan, PNTR would be revoked. I think that is a very 
reasonable and balanced approach.
  It also leads to a bigger problem--that of U.S. national security 
interests. China is one of the world's largest exporters of missile 
technology and weapons of mass destruction. Their clientele reads like 
America's Most Wanted list: Libya, Iran, North Korea. China has 
repeatedly sold components and missiles

[[Page H3675]]

capable of carrying nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to rogue 
nations. Should we dismiss the Cox Report and its findings that China 
has stolen information on our latest nuclear weapons placing us at 
jeopardy?
  In it's findings, the Cox Report wrote, ``. . . a PRC (People's 
Republic of China) deployment of mobile thermonuclear weapons, or 
neutron bombs, based on stolen U.S. design information, could have 
significant effect on the regional balance of power, particularly with 
respect to Taiwan. PRC deployments of advanced nuclear weapons based on 
stolen U.S. design information would pose greater risks to U.S. troops 
and interests in Asia and the Pacific.''
  In terms of human rights and religious persecution, the Chinese 
record is simply abysmal. I have never been one to insist our trading 
partners or even our allies to be just like us in the way they conduct 
their lives. I fully support self determination but the Chinese record 
in this area is horrible. I reject the notion that somehow China will 
mystically transform itself into a Western-style democracy in the areas 
of free speech, worker's rights, political dissent, religious 
persecution and protecting the environment with this agreement.
  What this comes down to is big business is looking to become even 
bigger. Sometimes, however, the price of doing business is just too 
steep to pay.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown) who realizes that, like NAFTA, PNTR will promote global 
business and undermine environmental protections, undermine labor 
standards and undermine human rights.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, here in Congress we pride ourselves in our commitment 
toward the spread of democratic ideals and the improvement of human 
rights around the globe, but something in our China policy is amiss.
  During the weeks approaching this vote, America's most prominent CEOs 
walked the halls of Congress and told us they want access to the 1.2 
billion Chinese customers, what they do not say is that their real 
interest is in access to 1.2 billion Chinese workers, workers whom they 
pay 20 cents, 30 cents, 40 cents an hour.
  These CEOs will tell us that increasing trade with China will allow 
human rights to improve. They will tell us that democracy will flourish 
with increased trade. But as these CEOs speak democratic ideals, their 
companies systematically violate the most fundamental of human and 
worker rights. Engagement with China, 10 years of engagement has not 
worked because investors in China have not wanted change.
  In the last 5 years, Western investment in developing countries has 
shifted from countries like India, a democracy, to countries like 
China, where workers are paid only a few cents an hour, from countries 
like Taiwan, a democracy, to countries like Indonesia with 
authoritarian regimes.
  The share of developing country exports to the U.S. for democratic 
nations fell from 53 percent to 34 percent. In manufacturing goods, 
developing democracies saw their share of developing country exports 
fall 21 points from 56 percent to 35 percent. The money went from 
developing democracies to developing authoritarian countries.
  Western corporations want to invest in countries that have below-
poverty wages, poor environmental standards, no worker benefits, no 
opportunity to bargain collectively. As developing countries make 
progress towards democracies, as they increase worker rights and create 
laws to protect the environment, the American business community 
punishes them by pulling its trade and investment in favor of a 
totalitarian government.
  Decisions, Mr. Speaker, about the Chinese economy are made by three 
groups, the Chinese Communist party, the People's Liberation Army, and 
Western investors. Which one of these three want Chinese society to 
change? Does the Chinese Communist party want the Chinese people to 
enjoy increased human rights? I do not think so. Does the People's 
Liberation Army want to close the labor camps in China? I do not think 
so. Do Western investors want Chinese workers to bargain collectively 
and pay higher wages? I do not think so.
  Mr. Speaker, passing PNTR will lock in the status quo: More slave 
labor, more child labor, more human rights violations, more threats 
against Taiwan, more crackdowns on religious freedoms.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues vote ``no'' on PNTR.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Crane) has 33 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) has 38\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) has 37 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) has 39\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have heard today that there is 
reciprocity in PNTR. Anyone who talks about reciprocity in PNTR 
probably has not read this. Let me just say that, at the end of 5 
years, there are still going to be 25 percent tariffs; on cars, 45 
percent; on motorcycles, 30 percent; these are all tariffs on American 
goods while our tariff has virtually been eliminated.
  There is no reciprocity with PNTR. They may bring down their 
outrageously immoral and anti-American tariffs, this unfair situation 
we have now, but they then still keep the tariffs way above anything in 
the United States. We eliminate ours. They freeze their high tariffs 
against their products in permanently. That is not reciprocity.
  Plus there are still requirements that American companies going there 
will have to partner in many cases, for example, 51 percent of all 
telecommunications investment has to be owned and controlled by 
Chinese. We are providing them technology, manufacturing, investment. 
What are they providing us? They are flooding our markets with cheap 
goods and putting our people out of work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues come to the floor and 
vote, there are three questions that we must consider. First, will 
China comply with the agreements under PNTR better than they have done 
in the past? Two, will China continue to use its trade surplus with the 
U.S. to expand its military complex? Three, will democracy increase in 
China because of this agreement?
  Let us look at this first chart. I would like to point out that China 
has lowered its tariffs as part of its prior agreement. In fact, in 
1995, they lowered it from 42 percent to 17 percent. But as my 
colleagues can see, the deficit increased dramatically. In fact, last 
year, it was $70 billion. So based on history, I questioned the real 
benefits of China's lowering its tariffs.
  I would also like to point out that while some agricultural products 
received very favorable treatment, others did not. So I submit that not 
everyone will benefit from this agreement.
  Remember, there are 700 million farmers in China, and we have about 2 
million. In this chart, my colleagues will see that China consistently 
overproduces its agriculture commodities and actually exports some 
citrus products up to 300 times what it imports.
  Finally, can China be trusted? China, as we know, has violated both 
the letter and the spirit of past agreements, ranging from intellectual 
property rights to weapon proliferation.
  Furthermore, China's defense spending has grown roughly at the same 
rate as its economy. We can expect the trend to continue as China takes 
in more U.S. dollars.
  On a final note, our last chart, in 1989, students erected this 
statue in Tiananmen Square, the Goddess of Democracy, a model of the 
Statue of Liberty because the symbol of democracy was a movement in 
China at that time, that point.
  I ask my colleagues, in conclusion, is China closer to freedom than 
it was in 1989? Are they continuing to get more belligerent? The real 
question is, would it not be wiser to grant incremental agreements with 
China and then trust but verify periodically? Those are the questions 
you must answer honestly before you vote ``yes'' for PNTR.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H3676]]

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to some of the points 
brought up by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  First of all, some of the agricultural and other export subsidies are 
eliminated by the agreement or substantially reduced and that will 
affect the trade statistics be offered now and in the future. 
Additionally, of course, in the PNTR agreement that the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and I offered, we have strong compliance and 
enforcement resources made available to our executive branch to better 
assure that China does keep its promise and promote the rule of law.
  China does have a mixed trade record on compliance. But I would 
remind the gentleman, that just very recently, kept their promise to 
buy citrus products from the gentleman's State. However, I say most 
importantly, China's entry into the WTO subjects them to the WTO 
dispute settlement mechanism. That is the big advancement to require 
compliance with the trade promises in its accession agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, extending my remarks this member reminds his colleague 
that today this body will cast one of its most significant votes 
affecting American national security and economic prosperity when it 
determines the fate of permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status 
for China. Despite the supercharged and misleading claims by opponents 
that this is a vote about rewarding China, it is not that at all, but 
instead a vote for our own national interests. And, PNTR is, indeed, in 
America's short- and long-term national interest for three crucial 
reasons.
  First, PNTR benefits American economic prosperity. Regardless of how 
this body votes on PNTR, China will join the WTO and be required to 
take major actions to open up its vast market of 1.2 billion consumers. 
As part of China's WTO accession process, the U.S. negotiated an 
outstanding market access agreement which significantly lowers China's 
high import tariffs and allows for direct marketing and distributing in 
China. For example, the tariff on beef will fall from 45 percent to 
just 12 percent. Quantitative restrictions on oilseeds and soybean 
imports are abolished. Indeed, it is projected that by 2003, China 
could account for 37 percent of future growth in U.S. agricultural 
exports. Given that America's markets are already open at WTO standards 
to Chinese exports, the U.S. has effectively given up nothing; all the 
concessions have been made by China. Prior to the agreement, China 
frequently required manufacturing offsets--most products sold in China 
had to be made in China. This export-oriented agreement abolishes that 
unfair offset and eliminates currently required industrial technology 
transfers allowing products made in America to be sold in China. 
Approval of PNTR makes it less likely that American companies need to 
open foreign factories and thereby export jobs.
  To access all of these benefits, WTO rules require the U.S. to 
provide China with permanent Normal Trade Relations status, something 
that is granted to all the other 135 members of the WTO and have 
provided to China on an annual basis for over 20 years. The failure to 
provide PNTR to China will remove the legal obligation for China to 
provide any of these hard-sought benefits to the United States even as 
China is required to open up its market to our foreign competitors and 
all other WTO members. Without PNTR, America is unilaterally giving 
away the Chinese marketplace to our Japanese, European and other 
international competitors at the disastrous expense of U.S. exports and 
the jobs they create at home.
  Second, PNTR supports the U.S. national security objective of 
maintaining peace and stability in East Asia. Sino-American relations 
are increasingly problematic and uncertain. In the wake of our 
accidental bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade and China's confusion 
about U.S. continuing support for Taiwan, rejection of PNTR could 
result in a resurgence of resentful nationalism as hard-liners in 
Beijing characterize a negative PNTR vote as an American attempt to 
weaken and contain China. Resources China currently devotes to economic 
reform could easily be reallocated to military expansion with adverse 
consequences for Taiwan and our allies in Korea and Japan, and a 
destabilized region. Confronting China in this scenario will require 
much more than the 100,000 strong force we presently have in the 
Pacific. China is not a strategic partner; it is increasingly as 
economic competitor that is growing as a regional power. However, it is 
not an adversary. If the United States is astute and firm--if America 
increases our engagement with China and helps integrate it into the 
international community--it is certainly still possible to encourage 
China along the path to a complementary relationship with America 
instead of an incredible level of conflict.

  Third, China is emerging from years of isolation and the future 
direction of China remains in flux--more than any major country. WTO 
accession and PNTR are critical for the success of China's economic 
reform process and Chinese leaders, like Premier Zhu Ronghi, who 
support it. These reforms, being pursued over the formidable opposition 
of old-style Communist hardliners, will eventually provide the 
foundation for a more open economy there, a process that, in the long 
term, should facilitate political liberalization and improved human 
rights. In the near term, China will be required more and more to 
govern civil society on the basis of the rule of law, clearly a 
positive development we should be encouraging.
  China's accession to the WTO with PNTR status does not guarantee that 
China will always take a responsible, constructive course. That is why 
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and this Member 
proposed an initiative that incorporates special import anti-surge 
protections for the U.S. and other trade enforcement resources for our 
government to ensure China's compliance with WTO rules. This initiative 
also proposes a new Congressional-Executive Commission on Chinese Human 
Rights that will report to the Congress annually on human rights 
concerns, including recommendations for timely legislative action.
  When it is time to cast the vote, Congress must ask, ``is PNTR in 
America's long and short term national interest?'' On all accounts, the 
answer is clearly, ``yes.''


                      The levin-bereuter proposal

  Mr. Speaker, following the signing of the ``Agreement on market 
Access Between the People's Republic China and the United States of 
America'' on November 15, 1999, it became apparent to this Member that 
the House would finally consider providing China with Permanent Normal 
Trade Relations (PNTR) in the context of China's accession to the World 
Trade Organization (WTO) sometime during this Congress. However, the 
concerns in Congress about Sino-American relations continue to multiply 
in scope and seriousness. These concerns are strong enough with enough 
of our colleagues so as to make the passage of a simple, clean PNTR 
bill uncertain. Something else would be needed to help address these 
concerns in a meaningful way and replace what has become an annual 
debate on China resulting from the annual NTR renewal process. This 
Member concluded that there would be a need for PNTR-compatible 
parallel legislation. The distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) was of the same mind-frame and working on his won parallel 
proposal. About a month ago we combined our efforts and have worked 
closely together in a very cooperative and bipartisan manner to produce 
the China-specific Levin-Bereuter proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, the special 12-year important anti-surge protections in 
our original package were incorporated into H.R. 4444 by the Ways and 
Means Committee during its mark-up of the bill. The remainder of the 
Levin-Bereuter proposal was incorporated into H.R. 4444 by the Rules 
Committee.
  This includes:
  1. The Congressional-Executive Commission on the people's Republic of 
China. This Commission is based on the OSCE Commission model and would 
be comprised of nine Members of the House, nine Senators and five 
appointees from 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 this report, the House International Relations 
Committee would be required to hold at least one public hearing on the 
report, and on the basis of recommendations in the report, decide, in a 
timely manner, what legislation to report for House action.
  2. Monitoring and Enforcement of China's WTO Commitments. Included in 
this section of the legislative proposal is a direction to the U.S. 
Trade Representative to seek an annual review by the WTO of China's 
compliance and commitments to the WTO. We authorize additional staff 
and resources to the Department of Commerce, State, and Agriculture and 
to the USTR to monitor and support the enforcement of China's trade 
commitments. The establishment of a Trade Law Technical Assistance 
Center to assist businesses and workers in evaluating the potential 
remedies to any trade violations by China is also authorized. We also 
require an annual report by the USTR to the Congress evaluating China's 
compliance with its WTO commitments.
  3. Task Force on Prison Labor Exports. The Levin-Bereuter proposal 
establishes a new inter-agency task forced to improve the enforcement 
of our own laws preventing the importation of prison labor products. It 
also directs the U.S. to enter into new agreements with China to 
improve the ability to investigate prison-labor export concerns.
  4. Trade and Rule of Law Programs. The proposal authorizes new 
commercial, labor, legal and civil society rule of law programs for 
China.

[[Page H3677]]

  5. Taiwan and the WTO. Incorporating the language of H. Con. Res. 
262, the Dunn-Bereuter resolution, we call for the accession of Taiwan 
to the WTO as the next order of business at the same general counsel 
meeting after China's accession--in other words, the near simultaneity 
of accession by Taiwan.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member believes that these additional provisions, 
particularly the Commission on Chinese Human Rights with the guaranteed 
review of its findings and recommendations by the appropriate standing 
committee in the House, do, indeed, address the multi-faceted concerns 
of our colleagues. The Levin-Bereuter initiative assures that China's 
compliance with their commitments and their human rights record will 
certainly not be ignored by the Congress or the Executive Branch after 
China receives PNTR. The Commission will be a far more effective way to 
address human rights issues than the noisy but ineffective annual 
debate on extending NTR.

  Now, to respond to some of the points that have been raised in this 
debate, this Member will offer the following rebuttals:


                  on granting pntr versus granting ntr

  China has been provided with Normal Trade Relations (previously known 
as Most Favored Nation) status since 1979--for over 20 years. During 
the first 10 of those years, no one objected even though the economic 
and human rights situation in China was worse than today. Since the 
U.S. gives up nothing and China makes all the concessions with the new 
bilateral WTO accession agreement, what is the real difference between 
providing NTR and PNTR for China? The removal of what has become a 
noisy but ineffective debate on China. Indeed, with PNTR, we will 
replace this one-day debate with a Congressional-Executive Commission 
on Chinese Human Rights that will concentrate on China every day--365 
days a year, will report annually to Congress and whose report and 
recommendations are guaranteed to be considered in the Congress 
annually.


                 on the transfer of u.s. jobs to china

  Since, in the U.S.-China bilateral trade agreement the U.S. gives up 
nothing, who benefits most from PNTR? U.S. exporters.
  Since the bilateral agreement requires China to halt its current 
practice of requiring technology transfer and manufacturing offsets, 
who benefits most from PNTR? American workers. This provision makes it 
much less likely that U.S. companies build factories in China. With 
PNTR, American products can be exported, distributed and marketed 
directly in China. That means jobs STAY in America.
  Opponents reference to an International Trade Commission (ITC) study 
purportedly stating PNTR will result in job losses is wrong. Here in 
writing is a letter from the ITC itself verifying that it did not 
generate any forecasts regarding jobs. The ITC itself says that its 
study has been misrepresented and its methodology misunderstood by the 
special-interest supported Economic Policy Institute reported opponents 
are quoting.


           on the concern that pntr only benefits communists

  The claim is made that PNTR only rewards the Communists in China. 
That is inaccurate. Up 40% of the Chinese economy, according to the 
State Department, is now privatized and corporatized and this sector of 
the Chinese economy is growing every day. These are private 
enterprises, non-communist entrepreneurs and American investors. This 
is the economic sector that will IMPORT American products, services and 
ideas. In contrast, the Communist hardliners are opposed to PNTR and 
China's WTO accession because they accurately see PNTR and WTO 
accession as foundations for building a strong private sector--the 
nemesis of Communist control!


   on the concern that china has never complied with trade agreements

  China's record is admittedly mixed. Failure to provide PNTR 
guarantees that America's Japanese, European and other foreign 
competitors have access to China's market at the disastrous expense of 
U.S. exports. Even a deal honored in a patchy manner would help 
American business more than no deal at all. Allowing Airbus rather than 
Boeing to export to China hurts American workers. That's why Boeing's 
40,000-strong machinists union endorses PNTR.
  The Levin-Bereuter addition to PNTR has important China trade 
compliance monitoring and enforcement resources.
  Access to the WTO dispute settlement process, availably only with 
PNTR, gives us a significant multi-lateral trade agreement enforcement 
mechanism.
  China HAS complied with trade agreements--note the recent Bilateral 
Agricultural agreement. China has already purchased wheat from the 
Northwest, Citrus from Florida, California and Arizona and hogs from 
Nebraska.


                    on the u.s.-china trade deficit

  Opponents are taking the ITC study way out of context. The ITC does 
not take U.S. services or distribution into account. Services now 
represent \2/3\ of the U.S. economy. The ITC only examines \1/3\ of the 
U.S. economy.
  While the ITC report stated that the U.S. bilateral trade deficit 
with China would likely increase at first with China's accession to the 
WTO, it also continued stating that ``at the same time the U.S. global 
trade deficit would decrease as a result of larger exports to other 
East Asian countries.'' Overall, we benefit and our deficit decreases.
  China will join the WTO regardless of our vote today. Failure to 
provide PNTR unilaterally gives away the Chinese market to our 
Japanese, European and other foreign competitors at the expense of 
American exports--our outstanding and hard-sought agreement with China 
is export-oriented allowing products made in America to be sold and 
distributed in china. Restricting U.S. exports, which denial of PNTR 
would do, would increase our deficit with China. Giving American 
exports a fair chance to compete in china will help lower the deficit.


              on concerns with regard to religious freedom

  Religious freedom is repressed in China. Promoting economic reform 
and rule of law in China, which PNTR and engagement does, is superior 
to isolating China and turning our back on religious followers. voting 
NO on PNTR only bolsters the position of the hard-liners in Beijing--
the very element repressing religion. That is why religious leaders, 
including the Dalai Lama, and especially those in the underground in 
China support China's accession to the WTO and reliable U.S. 
engagement.
  The Helsinki-type Human Rights Commission in the PNTR legislation is 
required to monitor and report on ``religious freedom, including the 
right to worship free of involvement of and interference by the 
government''. Voting no on PNTR is a rejection of this Commission.
  When asked whether the new Commission on Chinese Human Rights truly 
addresses the concerns raised by the current Religious Freedom 
Commission, Commissioner Elliot Abrams responded, ``I think it does 
address the kind of concerns that we've raised. We're looking for some 
kind of mechanism for constant monitoring, and it does address that.'' 
(Ways and Means Committee testimony, 5/3/00)


                           on taiwan and wto

  President Chen of Taiwan has endorsed PNTR for China (LA Times 
Interview, 3/22/00). It appears a little self-presumptuous for us to 
claim to know and care more about Taiwan's position than Taiwan's own 
democratically-elected President.
  The Levin-Bereuter addition to the PNTR legislation calls for the 
near simultaneity of WTO accession by Taiwan-as the next order of 
business at the same general council meeting after China's accession.
  Given Taiwan's significant investment in China, it is in China's own 
self-interest to allow Taiwan's accession.
  If China threatens or attacks Taiwan, the President of the United 
States already has the authority under the International Emergency 
Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to suspend PNTR benefits. He can even go 
much further and restrict imports from or even embargo China! IEEPA is 
fully consistent with Article 21 of the WTO. Remember, Iran, Iraq and 
Libya all have PNTR and Cuba is a member of the WTO, yet we have WTO-
consistent embargoes against all of them!
  Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges adoption passage of H.R. 
4444.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) from Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I do want to compliment everyone involved in 
this process. When the democratically-elected representative 
legislative system functions, it is a wonder to behold, and we are in 
the process of doing that today.

                              {time}  1300

  I do hear these concerns. I am not going to talk about trade, 
although I am on the Subcommittee on Trade. Just go back and read the 
history on Smoot-Hawley. No one should argue that this is not going to 
benefit all concerned, especially the United States.
  I do want to address my colleagues who are concerned about the 
progress that has been made in China with this Communist regime that 
has been in for about 50 years. We inherited a lot of concepts of 
Western Civilization. Probably the most important, coming from the 
Greeks, is the inherent worth of the individual, the concept that one 
is worth something simply because one is alive. We have institutions 
structured

[[Page H3678]]

on that basis. The institutions are here to further the individual, not 
the other way around.
  But if we go back to 1776 when we declared our independence and we 
said all men are created equal, it was 12 years later, in 1788, that we 
wrote the Constitution. There was not religious freedom as we know it 
in the first amendment in 1788. It was not until 1791, when the Bill of 
Rights was ratified. And as a matter of fact, the Bill of Rights was 
not ratified in Massachusetts, Georgia, or Connecticut until 1939.
  Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence, the 13th 
Amendment ended slavery; 144 years after the Declaration of 
Independence, women were given the right to vote; 178 years after the 
Declaration of Independence, we said separate but equal is inherently 
unequal; and it was 186 years after the Declaration of Independence 
that we said one person, one vote. The purest statement of all men are 
created equal.
  So when people are upset over a 10- or a 20- or a 30-year period of 
the failure of China to take a foreign concept, the inherent worth of 
the individual, and fundamentally restructure their society, I would 
say, take a look at our history.
  And lastly, let me say this, for those of my colleagues who are going 
to vote ``no.'' We do know what that ``no'' vote means. It does not 
mean that we will keep China out of the WTO. It does mean that the 
hard-liners, the people who are looking for excuses inside China to 
continue to foment real concern about our national security, will have 
a card that they can play at any time. And probably, most importantly, 
one of the reasons I am so pleased we have come together today is that 
it will be reported that my colleagues voting ``no'' are on the wrong 
side of history.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of our committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, my first concern in evaluating this 
agreement has been deciding what course would be most supportive of the 
interests of central Texas families. I believe that more trade will 
mean more good, high-wage, technology jobs not only for central Texas 
but for all of America.
  A vote against normal trade with China will only deny American firms 
the access to Chinese markets that will now be open to all of our 
competitors around the world. This would likely disrupt commerce 
without resolving any of our human rights, worker rights or 
environmental concerns.
  I applaud the successful effort of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) to amend this 
bill to create a commission to monitor human rights and trade policy in 
China. To be sure, this is an imperfect answer, but so is the way we 
have conducted our annual review process for the last 20 years. That 
unusual existing process does not appear to have been particularly 
effective over in the last two decades in securing improvement in these 
areas either. I believe that this Commission represents a better 
alternative. We will not gain leverage over the Chinese by voting 
against continuing our commercial relationship. Rather, engagement and 
continual annual reminders through this commission of the need to have 
a more open Chinese society are more likely to produce that result.
  I also appreciate the willingness of the administration to provide 
both more meaningful environmental review of our trade agreements and 
the first genuine participation by the environmental and public health 
communities in shaping trade policy. Our trade policy must be 
significantly improved to take into consideration the environmental and 
public health consequences of our decisions. Recognizing its many 
shortcomings, and recognizing the need for significant reforms to open 
it up to meaningful public participation, the World Trade Organization 
will at least be one more form of international rule with which the 
Chinese must comply.
  Both sides of this debate have advanced some meritorious arguments, 
and some overstatements. I believe a vote to continue normal trade 
relations with China, a country containing one-fifth of the people of 
the world, will neither guarantee a new China nor the catastrophical 
end of old jobs in America. On balance, an affirmative vote is the best 
overall choice for the security of American families.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Clement), who recognizes that a trade deal with China 
gives away our leverage to protect the lives and human beings and 
slaves in China.
  (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today as a strong supporter of fair trade and free 
trade, but as one who is convinced that relinquishing the leveraging 
tool the annual vote on normal trade relations provides is a grave 
mistake.
  Let me be clear. I am not here to call for an end to our trade 
relationship with China. I know the importance of trade to our current 
economic prosperity, and I support economic engagement. I supported 
NAFTA, GATT, Fast Track, and the African trade bill we just recently 
passed. But what I cannot support is relinquishing our annual review of 
China's progress towards free market reform and a democratic society. I 
cannot, in good conscience, award China PNTR when there are serious 
national security concerns; when China's records of compliance with 
past agreements leaves much to be desired; and when China's progress on 
economic power and technological development has overlooked progress on 
human rights and religious freedom.
  I was one of the authors of the International Religious Freedom Act, 
which established an independent commission led by Ambassador-at-Large 
Bob Seiple. This commission released earlier this month a report which 
notes a marked deterioration in China's religious freedom during the 
last year. This is unconscionable.
  If America stands for anything, it stands for personal freedom and 
inalienable rights for all people. Granting PNTR today sends China the 
message that we approve of their political system as it stands today, 
and that is clearly not the case.
  While I was home last weekend, I talked to a number of farmers and 
small businessmen who expressed their concern that they felt like they 
were not getting a fair shake, and I could not agree more. Our farmers 
and small business people are facing tremendous challenges these days. 
But I am convinced that replacing annual normal trade relations with 
permanent normal trade relations is not the answer.
  I am not sure this switch will solve our problem. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I did want to say, with respect to the 
gentleman from Tennessee, that first of all the commission established 
by the initiative of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and this 
member gives Congress this annual report and recommendations not just 
annually but on any occasion during the year. And the House 
International Relations Committee would be required upon receipt of an 
annual report of findings and recommendations to hold at least one 
public hearing, within 30 days, to make a decision within 45 days 
whether to advance legislation to the floor and to have such resolution 
available for House action within 60 days from the receipt of the 
annual report.
  This OSCE-type commission is a far more effective mechanism than the 
annual ineffective harangue during the NTR extension vote that goes on 
here once a year.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member would also say that action on the 
recommendation of the OSCE-type Commission, the China Human Rights 
Commission, takes only the action of this Congress, unlike the Helsinki 
Commission, which effectively requires the action of over 50 nation 
members.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Metcalf) and would just note that I disagree totally 
with what was just said.
  (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, in February this year, China's army 
threatened long-distance missile strikes against the U.S. Later that 
month, its defense minister threatened to attack U.S. aircraft carriers 
if they came near

[[Page H3679]]

the Taiwan Strait. In April, the Chinese military review threatened 
neutron bomb attacks against both U.S. carriers and against the U.S. 
mainland. America was threatened with heavy casualties.
  The leading reformer that we are asked to support, the Chinese 
premier, has pledged to end the democratic independence of Taiwan, a 
critical U.S. ally. The outrageous threats of Chinese militarists 
during the lead-up to this PNTR vote have been beyond the pale.
  Let us engage China, yes. Let us trade with China. But at this time 
let us continue to review the relationship on an annual basis. Reject 
permanent PNTR.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. ENGLISH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I will enter quotations from Chinese human 
rights' activists at the appropriate place in the Congressional Record 
who all agree that the best way to open minds is through open markets.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I in Congress remain deeply concerned 
about human rights' violations in China, but one of the best ways to 
instill American ideals of individual freedom and liberty is through 
opening China's borders to American goods and services. That is what 
this agreement does, and that is why I support this agreement. China's 
old hard-line regime would like nothing more than for these American 
values and ideas to be denied access to their country. China's 
membership in the WTO will force China to play by the rules, protecting 
human rights.
  May I suggest that engaging China is the best possible way that 
Americans can influence Chinese behavior, enhance human rights, 
strengthen labor standards, and improve the environment. And as we can 
see, a number of human rights' activists in China agree that opening 
the markets would open the door for improving human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, China's involvement in the international trading 
community has already improved human rights. We know that the most 
repressive periods of China's history occurred at times of 
international isolation. Exposure to the outside world has increased 
openness, social mobility, and personal liberties for the Chinese 
people. I think people need to recognize that engagement does not mean 
endorsement. Congress will continue to monitor China's human rights' 
record. Nothing prevents Congress from legally sanctioning China and 
invoking its penalties should Congress feel China has violated the 
spirit and the rule of law with respect to human rights, even if we 
pass this agreement.
  Annual human rights reviews will continue. Future administrations 
will continue to conduct annual reviews of China's human rights' 
record. Nothing in this legislation changes that. Rather, we have 
enhanced it under this legislation thanks to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  I would ask everyone to keep in mind that this legislation is not 
only about exporting American goods to China; it is also about 
exporting American values.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the quotes I referred to 
earlier:
       Human Rights Activists Agree that open markets mean open 
     minds.
       The participation of China in the WTO would not only have 
     economic and political benefits, but would serve to bolster 
     those in China who understand that the country must embrace 
     the rule of law, which of course is a key principle 
     underlying active membership in global trade organizations . 
     . . For those of us who have long pressed for vigorous 
     adherence to the rule of law in China, it is encouraging that 
     so many Chinese officials support the nation's entry into 
     groups such as the WTO.''--Martin Lee, Chairman of the 
     Democratic Party of Hong Kong.
       ``An isolated China will resist change at home and be 
     likely to behave more aggressively towards its regional 
     neighbors. None of that serves American interests. Admitting 
     China into the WTO may not cause it to shed dictatorship for 
     democracy. But it's the right step toward realizing that 
     goal.''--Randy Tate, Co-Chair of Working Families for Free 
     Trade, and Former Executive Director of the Christian 
     Coalition.
       ``All of the fights--for a better environment, labor rights 
     and human rights--these fights we will fight in China 
     tomorrow. But first we must break the monopoly of the state. 
     To do that, we need a freer market and the competition 
     mandated by the WTO.''--Dai Qing, prominent Chinese 
     environmentalist.
       ``It is obvious this is a good thing for China . . .  I 
     appreciate the efforts of friends and colleagues to help our 
     human rights situation but it doesn't make sense to use trade 
     as a lever. It just doesn't work.''--Bao Tong, prominent 
     Chinese dissident.
       ``For so many years of China's reform and opening, these 
     areas couldn't be opened up and remained state monopolies. 
     But if economic monopolies can be broken, controls in other 
     areas can have breakthroughs as well. These breakthroughs 
     won't necessarily happen soon. But in the final analysis, in 
     the minds of ordinary people, it will show that breakthroughs 
     that were impossible in the past are indeed possible.''--Li 
     Ke, Former Chinese Editor of the Democratic Journal Fangfa.

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I think anyone listening to this debate 
would agree that we are all interested in changing the behavior of the 
Chinese Government towards its people and human rights and all the 
rest. We differ merely on how best to do it.
  I am not going to talk about trade either, much, except to say that 
this should not be called the China PNTR bill; it ought to be the 
America PNTR bill. We give up no leverage. We can change tomorrow what 
we have done today. There is nothing permanent around here.
  But let me just say why I think it is America's trade bill. The 
problem is we do not have any closed markets to China. They have got 
their stuff here. If my colleagues do not believe me, go to Wal-Mart. 
The problem is, we cannot get our stuff there. And that is why this is 
a good deal for America's workers.
  One cannot, by voting no, isolate China. One, by voting no, can 
isolate us. Do my colleagues not understand that the EU, the South 
Americans, Japan, and the rest of Asia are going to move into that 
market while we sit here and watch job loss occur in our country 
because we are the ones isolated?

                              {time}  1315

  Now, let me say something about that. If one reads history, every 
great civilization that has fallen has in one way or another practiced 
some form of isolationism. They have tried to erect barriers against 
the outside world. China is now and has been paying a terrible price. 
China used to be traders years ago, centuries ago. They went into an 
isolation mode, and now we see the remnants of what was once a great 
free civilization in the throes of this communist dictatorship.
  This is about America in the next century. As I believe the last 
century was about the United States and the Soviet Union and the 
military powers that existed then, the Cold War, this new century is 
about trade and about our relationship with China, leading the world 
toward human rights through openness and engagement.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), someone who realizes that slave labor is not 
the American way to get cheap T-shirts at Wal-Mart.
  (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not reward a totalitarian regime that is run 
by a Communist party, a dictatorship, with little regard for human 
dignity and common decency. We should not reward a nation that has, 
through its actions and deeds, done so much evil.
  Mr. Speaker, we are free Americans, nurtured on the Declaration of 
Independence. We are the land of Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson, 
Americans who believe in justice and the dignity of man.
  So let us not abandon our patriotic morals in favor of corporate 
profits. Let me run that by my colleagues once again. Let us not 
abandon our patriotic morals in favor of corporate profits. Let us not 
forget the democratic ideals that formed the foundation of this Nation.

[[Page H3680]]

  I urge my colleagues to remember the lessons from our idealistic 
youth of right and wrong and do what is right and vote ``no'' on PNTR 
from China.
  Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the world lies an ancient nation 
with over 1.2 billion people living on a land mass covering 3.7 million 
miles. It is a 3,500-year-old civilization that has been at times a 
friend, at times an enemy, and at times a stranger. It is a nation of 
contradictions: clinging to its 3,500-year-old traditions yet reaching 
to embrace the 21st century; governing by a communist ideology yet 
striving for capitalist riches. With more than a hint of elitism and 
without the self-effacing humility Confucius taught, the Chinese 
referred to their nation as the Middle Kingdom for hundreds of years 
until the mid-19th century when Britain and Western powers fought, won 
and carved up China like freshly killed fame.
  For the Chinese, one of the worst things to suffer from is the loss 
of respect or ``to lose face'', and in the years following the first 
Opium Wars, that is exactly what happened to China. It was not just one 
Chinese person who ``lost face'', it was an entire nation. Therein lies 
the psyche of the Chinese civilization and of many of the Chinese 
people. Wounds still fresh from its harried humiliation by the Western 
powers--150 years is merely a catnap for a nation so old--China yearns 
to be a global superpower. For much of the 20th century, China has been 
playing catch up with the West. An inordinate amount of time and energy 
went toward improving China's economy, military and diplomacy to 
achieve the most elusive yet important goal for the Chinese people as a 
collective whole--to regain what had been lost--respect. It is the 
motivational undercurrent in China's actions. That is the important 
lesson to be learned for the international community, and the United 
States in particular. The lesson is that China is willing to do 
whatever it takes, regardless of ruling ideology, to become a global 
superpower.
  The dangers of such a motivating factor are readily apparent. China, 
despite its official pronouncements, has acted in some instances no 
different than a rogue nation, such as Libya, North Korea, or Iraq. 
Military spending has shot up over 40 percent in the 1990's, and 
research and development of high-tech weapons of warfare and mass 
destruction have been prioritized. China has illegally sold nuclear 
technology to Pakistan, smuggled AK-47s into San Francisco, and 
collaborates with terrorist nations such as Iran to improve their 
missile and weapons technology. The leaders in Beijing also shot 
missiles at Taiwan when that democratic island of 22 million people 
held its first democratic elections. This year, the Chinese leaders in 
Beijing boldly trumpeted the threat of force to retake Taiwan if 
reunification talks do not begin.
  In addition, China's utter contempt for human rights is well 
documented. In fact, this year the Clinton administration's own State 
Department came out with a report detailing China's deteriorating human 
rights record. On November 29, 1999, Chinese police summarily arrested 
and beat Fu Sheng, a member of the illegal China Democracy Party. Since 
last July, more than 35,000 people associated with the Falun Gong 
spiritual movement have been detained. No one is safe. Even Christians 
are imprisoned and thrown in forced labor camps strictly on the basis 
of their religious beliefs. As recently as February of this year, the 
80-year-old head of China's underground Roman Catholic Church who was 
previously imprisoned for nearly for 30 years for refusing to denounce 
the Pope.

  China, despite its communist roots and totalitarian regime, realizes 
that in the modern world it not only takes military strength to become 
a superpower, it also takes economic strength. By borrowing pages from 
the success stories of Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong, China 
turned toward and embraced a managed market economy driven by export 
growth as one of the primary engines for economic growth.
  As part of the plan to raise China's stature in the international 
community, China has been involved in long and protracted negotiations 
to join GATT, and now, WTO. The 13-year long effort finally came to a 
head on November 15, 1999 when the administration signed an agreement 
with China to provide for her accession to the WTO.
  China is widely viewed as having made a number of major concessions 
in the agreement, but can we really trust China? Chinese leaders say 
one thing and do another. China has historically agreed to many things 
and has implemented relatively few of them. For example, after 
threatened with major trade sanctions by the United States, China 
agreed to a sweeping 1992 market access agreement to remove major 
market barriers to United States products. The agreement was supposed 
to have been fully implemented by the end of 1997. We're still waiting.
  Mr. Speaker, growing up in post-World War II Chicago was a learning 
experience for me. In school, in church, and in the ballfields, we 
learned the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, friends 
and enemies.
  When we played 16-inch softball, we knew the rules, and we played by 
them. We played with honor. It was wrong to cheat, and cheaters were 
punished. In school, we learned about our Nation's history and how to 
be good citizens and proud patriots. In the schoolyards, we learned who 
were our friends and who weren't. In church, we learned about morality, 
God's teachings on good and evil, and right and wrong. Those lessons 
remain with me to this day.
  These things don't change and, unfortunately, neither has the 
People's Republic of China. Despite all their words, despite all their 
promises, their actions speak louder. They continue to imprison and 
torture Chinese dissidents, set up slave labor camps, practice forced 
abortions, shoot missiles at democratic Taiwan, sell weapons technology 
to Libya, and break trade agreements. They pretend to be our friends, 
yet through their actions, reveal themselves as anything but.
  We should not reward a totalitarian regime that is run by a Communist 
party--a dictatorship with little regard for human dignity and common 
decency. We should not reward a nation that has, through its actions 
and deeds, done so much that is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, we are free Americans nurtured on the Declaration of 
Independence. We are the land of Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson--
Americans who believe in justice and the dignity of man.
  So, let us not abandon our patriotic morals in favor of corporate 
profits. Let us not forget the democratic ideals that form the 
foundation of this nation.
  I urge my colleagues to remember the lessons from their youth--of 
right and wrong--and do what is right.
  Vote ``no'' to PNTR for China.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was rated in the top five free traders in the 105th 
Congress; and yet, I reluctantly oppose PNTR for China, for a couple of 
different reasons.
  First of all, we have a mechanical problem. And that is, if my 
colleagues look at WTO, it is a rule-based system. And yet, look at the 
dispute over hormone beef. Look at the dispute over bananas with EU. 
And what we see is another culture that has democratic governance, that 
has intellectual property rights, that has a rule of law, that has 
property rights, has basically said, we are just going to ignore the 
rules of WTO, we are going to ignore our agreement with America because 
we want to.
  And if we have that kind of disagreement within a culture that is 
very similar to our own, can my colleagues imagine the disagreement 
that we will find in a culture that is very different.
  In fact, history suggests that that inclination is right, because the 
1998 USTR's Foreign Trade Barriers Report said that fully 400 of 1,200, 
one-third, of all products that were in the 1992 agreement between 
China and America were still subject to nontariff barriers.
  So what we are doing here is we are dropping a 400-pound gorilla in 
the swimming pool, and it will have implications for WTO itself.
  Also, we have a problem in that any time with the Cox report that we 
have a country engaged in espionage to steal our nuclear secrets, I do 
not know that that deserves award. That does not make common sense to 
me.
  And three, and most disturbing to me, is that, if we look in the 
South China Sea, I think we see a trend toward if not expansionism, 
certainly bullying. If we look at Mischief Reef, if we look at Spratly 
Islands, if we look at how in 1997 China moved an oil drilling rig into 
what was clearly territorial water of Vietnam, if my colleagues look at 
their behavior toward Taiwan, if we look at their taking of the Paracel 
Islands in the 1970s from Vietnam, we see a trend that is disturbing.
  So I will admit that is a very blunt instrument, but is the only 
instrument that I have to use as a legislator in signaling displeasure 
toward China's behavior.
  We also need to look at OPEC and other arrangements that help 
companies to go to China and displace them.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  (Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

[[Page H3681]]

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues who are wavering on 
China PNTR to cast a ``yes'' vote for U.S. world leadership, U.S. jobs, 
and the continued prosperity of the U.S. economy.
  The ``yes'' vote that we cast today is not a vote for China. It is a 
vote for the United States. It is not a vote to allow China into our 
market. China is already in our market. Rather, it is a vote to allow 
our workers, our farmers, our investors, ideals and ingenuity to 
compete successfully in the world market.
  This is not a vote to maintain the status quo. Rejecting this 
resolution today will not force the world economy into a fixed and 
stationary condition, with the U.S. as leader in its own smug, self-
satisfied isolation.
  Denying China PNTR will not deny the Chinese access to the WTO, nor 
will it deny them access to European service providers, Asian 
technology, or Latin American grains. Denying China PNTR denies only 
the United States.
  If there is one thing we have learned in these early moments of the 
21st century, it is this: The new economy allows nothing to remain 
static, no one to remain unaffected, and no single player to hold all 
the cards.
  So before my colleagues waver toward a ``no'' vote today, imagine for 
a moment the world we create by denying PNTR for China. Do not just 
imagine the morning after the vote when financial markets register the 
most immediate and negative response to our action. Imagine further 
into the future as European and Asian competitors lock out our workers, 
investors, and farmers from the largest market in the world. Imagine 5 
years into the future, then 10, then 20 when the full and awful truth 
of our action is evident in the remains of a once great world economic 
power. Make no mistake, denying China PNTR denies our own future.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, Franklin Roosevelt once said, ``The only 
thing we have to fear is fear itself.''
  While some of our trade policy today causes very genuine and 
legitimate concern and hesitation on the part of our working people, we 
must be guided by hope and opportunity, not fear and trepidation.
  Right now our policy with China does not work, the status quo is not 
good. We have too many big trade deficits, too many human rights 
violations. So we have negotiated a new one for our new economy with 
our old enduring values.
  What does China get from this agreement? They have to cut tariffs, 
open up their markets. Our goods penetrate their markets across the 
board, telecommunications, agriculture, you name it.
  What do we give? Nothing. We just accept this agreement. This 
benefits America.
  Secondly, on human rights, I want to applaud the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). We 
talk about MFN being annual review of human rights. With this new human 
rights institution, a committee, we will monitor human rights daily by 
the hour, with staff, with Members, not yearly with MFN.
  Finally, on human rights, a human rights leader in China, Ran Wan 
Ding said this: Before the sky was black. Now there is light. This can 
be a new beginning. With our new economy, let's open up one of the 
oldest cultures in world history to American optimism, to American 
products, and to American values.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) who realizes that to honor China and punish Cuba 
is the height of hypocrisy.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a firm believer in self-determination for China. 
Now China is a Communist country whether we agree with it or not. 
However, countries, regardless of their political or economic system, 
should not be rewarded when they are allowed to round up and intimidate 
and arrest people, put people in slave labor camps with no due process.
  Why would the United States enact a trade policy that rewards this 
behavior, as well as environmental degradation and religious 
persecution and violation of women's rights? This is wrong.
  Annual review, at the very least, provides a tool to help ensure 
China's respect for human rights and nuclear nonproliferation.
  With regard to our own country, the Economic Policy Institute 
estimates over 870,000 United States jobs will be lost over the next 
decade, with the loss of over 84,000 jobs in my own State of 
California. This is really scary.
  We do not want to cut off our relationship with China. I support fair 
and free trade. We simply believe that human rights and fairness for 
American and Chinese workers should be the bottom line.
  This vote defines who we are as a people and as a Nation. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose PNTR for China.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Long Beach, California (Mr. Horn).
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, since becoming a Member of Congress in 1993, I 
have opposed normal trade relations with China as a matter of 
conscience. I see no change in the human rights situation in China.
  The level of trade between our two countries began to grow two 
decades ago, but the daily lot of the average Chinese worker is dismal. 
There is no excuse for American companies in China to pay workers as 
little as 22 cents an hour for 12- and 15-hour shifts.
  Trade has increased wealth in China, and some people enjoy limited 
freedom in their personal lives. Mostly, they are in the Party. But the 
Chinese Communist Party still oversees a system that jails, tortures, 
and kills those it deems to be a threat to the Party's arbitrary rule. 
China's own constitution states that Chinese citizens are entitled to 
the rights of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religious belief.
  Really?
  Ask tens of thousands of Tibetans, Christians, Falun Gong 
practitioners, or human rights and labor activists. It is hard to hear 
their voices. They are imprisoned, and worse, for exercising those 
basic rights.
  Today we can send a strong message: human rights cannot be separated 
from our other policy interests in China. This debate is as much about 
how we define ourselves and what this Nation stands for. It is not just 
about China's conduct.
  Some Members of Congress hope we can address this fundamental issue 
by creating a commission to monitor human rights failures in China. 
Unfortunately, this commission would be powerless to sanction Chinese 
misbehavior. The real questions in the debate are very clear: Why would 
we think that a country that does not respect the most basic rights of 
its own people will now respect the rights of its foreign trade 
partners? How do we expect to enforce fair trade rules when they have 
been unable to enforce them in the past? Having witnessed China's 
threats against Taiwan and the United States, what will it take to 
condemn China's actions in the future?
  In 1981, 15 university presidents met with students in 25 
universities, technical institutes, and specialized colleges. When we 
talked to students--out of the eyes and ears of Chinese intelligence 
agents--those students wanted ``freedom.''
  To open up our markets involves mutual trust and respect.
  This Congress should not send a signal that we honor a country that 
has little regard for America or the values in which Americans believe 
most strongly--dignity, fairness, and individual freedom.
  This Congress should vote ``no.''
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Hill).
  (Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, listening to this debate, one would, I think, come to 
the conclusion that this is a complex issue. But it

[[Page H3682]]

really is not. There are three basic questions I think we have to 
answer.
  One, is it going to help or hurt our economy if China gets PNTR and 
joins the World Trade Organization? Second, can we best advance the 
cause of human rights and religious freedom in China by isolating them 
or engaging them in further trade. And third, are our security 
interests in that region going to be hurt or helped by China's 
membership into the WTO?
  Now, how we answer that question is really how we look at the world 
and, to a greater extent, how we look at the United States.
  Pessimists would look at this issue and they would see only the 
risks. I choose to look at this issue and see opportunities. I believe 
that more trade is more good than bad. I believe that more markets for 
agricultural products and for manufactured goods is more good than bad. 
And I believe that our economy, our workers, our farmers, our 
entrepreneurs can compete with the people in China. So I choose to be 
an optimist.
  This is really a one-sided agreement. China gives up everything. They 
give up access to their markets. They tear down the barriers and 
tariffs. And we get more access and opportunity in the process.

                              {time}  1330

  But this is also going to unleash another form of competition and 
that is the competition of values. Do Members believe that their values 
or our values are going to prevail in that competition? Because after 
this occurs, China will no longer be able to lock our values out of 
their society. There are more people in China who speak English than 
there are in the United States. There is a hunger for our values and 
our system there. I believe our values will prevail.
  How about our security interest? All the past Secretaries of Defense 
and current ones support this agreement, but let us look at what our 
allies say. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, all say that China's membership 
in WTO and permanent normal trade relations will make our security 
interest more secure in that region.
  So I choose to be an optimist. I choose to believe in America, in our 
values. I urge my colleagues to support PNTR, to support China's 
membership in the WTO, and to vote for this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we should vote for PNTR today. At the 
beginning of the millennium, we should not regress and isolate China. 
We should help engage China in the world community. In truth, we had a 
Cold War. Communism lost, capitalism won. Now our economic and 
political system will help deliver freedom, peace and prosperity 
throughout the world because free markets cannot prosper in 
authoritarian regimes. In a global economy, authoritarian regimes 
cannot long survive the impact of freedom and free markets. Engaging 
China and exposing China to the sunlight of free market economies and 
democratic values is the best way to bring about evolution towards 
freedom in China. We here in Congress all agree upon our goals: a 
strong, free, prosperous America in a world that is free, peaceful, and 
prosperous. But like a family, we in Congress and people in our great 
country can disagree on the best way to achieve that goal. It is my 
strong belief that helping to engage China in the world community will 
advance the cause of freedom.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) who recognizes to open our border to cheap 
Chinese assault weapons will cause the deaths of thousands of American 
children.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I look at this bill and I ask myself, why 
did I come here? I came here to defend the rights of Americans and the 
rights of people all around the world.
  I look at China, I see no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, 
no freedom of association, no freedom to do anything unless the 
government says so. That alone is enough to vote against this bill.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and recognize that he represents many people 
in the Armed Forces who will suffer by the things that are produced in 
those factories that we are building for the Communist Chinese.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to extending PNTR for China. I want to start by quoting Bill Safire who 
wrote in his column on May 18 in The New York Times:

       I confess to writing speeches for Richard Nixon assuring 
     conservatives that trade with China would lead to the 
     evolution of democratic principles in Beijing.

  I further quote Mr. Safire:

       But we've been trading for 30 years now, financing its 
     military-industrial base, enabling it to buy M-11 missiles 
     from the Russians and advanced computer technology from us.

  Mr. Speaker, the United States has tried for more than three decades 
to build a relationship with China and to foster democratic values in 
the communist nation. In 1995, we extended most favored nation status 
to China if China would agree to stop its abusive human rights 
practices and stop exporting nuclear technology. The very next year, 
the CIA reported that China was the greatest supplier of weapons-of-
mass-destruction-related goods and technology to foreign countries. 
Despite repeated promises that trade would make China more free, it has 
failed to end its long and established history of human rights abuses 
like forced abortion and sterilization.
  Years of maintaining the lax policy of constructive engagement with 
China have proven dangerous. As the Rumsfield Commission found in 1998, 
China's proliferation of ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass 
destruction threatens the security of the United States. When China 
steals technology and sells it to our enemies, steals our nuclear 
secrets and tries to influence our election process, how can we grant 
PNTR for China? Extending normal trade relations status to China 
impacts more than the economy, Mr. Speaker. It takes away our economic 
leverage with a Communist country, and it stands to affect the security 
of each and every American citizen.
  I close by repeating William Safire:

       We've been trading for 30 years now, financing its 
     military-industrial base, enabling it to buy M-11 missiles 
     from the Russians and advanced computer technology from us.

  Mr. Speaker, until China can prove to the people of America that it 
can be trusted, we should not pass PNTR for China.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
permanent normal trade relations with China. The economic benefits are 
undeniable for our country and are particularly favorable for my region 
and my State. North Carolina has much to gain from opening and 
expanding markets in China, currently our 13th largest export market 
and the consumer of over $300 million in North Carolina goods and 
services annually. The commodities of goods involved range from pork 
and poultry and soybeans to furniture, communications equipment, 
software and computers--very broad economic benefits indeed.
  But this debate, Mr. Speaker, is not just about trade. I have not 
heard any proponent suggest that we should turn a blind eye to human 
rights and political problems in China in the name of commerce. Nor is 
this legislation a blessing of China's past and current behavior, no 
matter how often the opponents of the bill might repeat it.
  On the contrary, the point is to bring China within a framework that 
will provide powerful incentives and constraints to play by the rules, 
both in the realm of trade and beyond. As China moves further into the 
world economy, we need to be clear-eyed about our future with China. We 
must continue to press on human rights and religious freedom and the 
self-determination of Taiwan, the freedom of Tibet, nuclear 
proliferation, and espionage. Isolating China economically will do more 
harm than good in all of these areas.
  Martin Lee, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong and a 
human rights leader has said: ``The participation of China in the WTO 
would not only have economic and political benefits but would serve to 
bolster those in China who understand that the country must embrace the 
rule of law.''

[[Page H3683]]

  Trade is no panacea. But to refuse trade, to isolate China 
economically, would risk empowering the most rigid, hard-line anti-
democratic elements of China, those who want to pull their country away 
from the democratic world. This is not a prospect America or the 
Chinese people can afford.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of opening opportunities for American 
workers, farmers, and businesses, and I stand with those committed to 
improving our national security, economic freedom in China, and the 
quality of life for the Chinese people. I rise in support of Permanent 
Normal Trade Relations with China.
  As my colleagues know, in November the United States and China signed 
a bilateral agreement to bring China into the World Trade Organization 
(WTO). The agreement would open Chinese markets to our goods and 
services and reduce Chinese tariffs and quotas on our products. What 
does the United States give up? Nothing. All we have to do is grant 
PNTR to benefit from this decidedly one-way deal.
  The economic benefits are undeniable for our country and are 
particularly favorable for my region and state. It is clear that North 
Carolina has much to gain from opening and expanding markets in China, 
currently our 13th largest export market and consumer of over $300 
million in North Carolina goods and services.
  The Chinese will be compelled to open their markets to services like 
telecommunications, banking, software, computer, and environmental 
services. Tariffs will be eliminated on computers, telecommunications 
equipment, semiconductors, and furniture. North Carolina companies will 
benefit from major tariff reductions on optical fibers, chemicals, pulp 
and paper, wood products, agriculture equipment, medical equipment, and 
environmental technology equipment. In agriculture, our farmers will no 
longer have to compete with export subsidies on China's agriculture 
products and will benefit from tariff cuts on poultry, pork, tobacco, 
soybeans, and other commodities. For the first time, our companies will 
be able to sell and distribute products in China made by workers here 
in America, without being forced to relocate manufacturing to China, 
sell through the Chinese government or transfer valuable technology.
  Now that the European Union has signed an agreement with China, 
clearing the last remaining hurdle to China's accession to the WTO, a 
vote against PNTR could cost America jobs, as our competitors in 
Europe, Asia and elsewhere capture Chinese markets that we otherwise 
would have served. To benefit from the agreement that opens Chinese 
markets to American products and investment, this Congress must first 
grant permanent normal trading status--the same arrangement we have 
given all other countries in the WTO.
  Much has been said about what we lose if we give up an annual review 
of our trade status with China. I would just suggest that our annual 
vote has not been particularly effective. Even after Tiananmen Square, 
this body did not revoke ``most favored nation'' status. I do not 
suggest turning a blind eye to the human rights and political situation 
in China in the name of commerce, nor do I view this agreement as a 
blessing of China's past and current behavior. On the contrary, the 
point is to bring China within a framework that will provide powerful 
incentives and constraints to play by the rules, both in the realm of 
trade and beyond.
  As China moves further into the world economy, we need to be clear-
eyed abut the future of our relationship and must continue to press on 
issues such as human rights, religious freedom, the self-determination 
of Taiwan, the freedom of Tibet, nuclear proliferation, and espionage. 
I believe isolating China economically would do more harm than good in 
these areas.
  Martin Lee, chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong and a 
leader of the human rights movement, wrote: ``The participation of 
China in the WTO would not only have economic and political benefits, 
but would serve to bolster those in China who understand that the 
country must embrace the rule of law.'' To him, the agreement 
``represents the best long-term hope for China to become a member of 
good standing in the international community. We fear that should 
ratification fail, any hope for political and legal reform process 
would also recede.''
  A recent New York Times article (``Chinese See U.S. Bill as Vital to 
Future Reforms,'' May 21) noted that a ``broad array of educated 
Chinese--top government officials, publishers, bankers, artists, 
lawyers and pro-democracy advocates--have come together in 
extraordinary agreement on the issue, investing their hope for progress 
in China'' in this vote. ``Chinese government leaders and economists 
hope the normalization of trade with America will help close 
inefficient state enterprises. Authors and artists here are convinced 
it will reduce censorship. Lawyers suggest it will force China's 
mercurial judges to follow the law.''
  Zhou Daichun, a commercial lawyer in Beijing said, ``What's important 
is not how this vote will affect this or that industry. What's 
important is that this is an opportunity to push for reform and 
reorganization in China and without that impetus, many reforms are 
impossible.''
  Taiwan supports China's entry into the WTO. And the Dalai Lama, the 
spiritual leader of Tibet, has said, ``Joining the WTO, I think, is one 
way (for China) to change in the right direction . . . I have always 
stressed that China should not be isolated. China must be brought into 
the mainstream of the world community . . . Forces of democracy in 
China get more encouragement through that way.''
  As we all know, Chinese actions demand our attention. Mr. Levin and 
Mr. Bereuter have crafted provisions included in this legislation that 
help us maintain our sharp focus on the issues of human rights, 
religious freedom, and economic fair play. Under the Levin-Bereuter 
provisions, the U.S. will create a Congressional-Executive Commission 
on China, modeled after the Helsinki Commission, to evaluate human 
rights in China. The Commission will submit an annual report of its 
findings to the President and Congress, including WTO-consistent 
recommendations for action. This bill puts into law China-specific 
anti-surge safeguards to guard American businesses and workers from 
inport surges from China. We strengthen monitoring and enforcement of 
China's commitment to WTO obligations with an annual review of China 
within the WTO.
  Mr. Speaker, only through a comprehensive system of relationships can 
the United States hope to influence the internal policies of the 
Chinese government. This vote is a significant opportunity for us to 
encourage positive change in China. We must pull China in the right 
direction, not turn our backs. Trade is no panacea. But to refuse 
trade, to isolate China economically, would risk empowering the most 
rigid, hard-line, anti-democratic elements of China, those who want to 
pull their country away from the democratic world. This is not a 
prospect America or the Chinese people can afford.
  In light of this strategy of engagement and our nation's interest, 
not only in selling to China, but also in bringing China into 
conformity with accepted rules of international conduct, I urge my 
colleagues to support PNTR.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu) who understands that the slogan ``We Bring Good Things 
to Life'' will not help murdered female children in China.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, that I can address you from this well today is a 
tribute to the courage, the perseverance and the sacrifice of my 
parents. My father left for America when I was 4 months old, and I did 
not see him again until I was 7. I could only recognize him from 
photographs. My parents endured 7 years of separation so that they 
could bring our family to this place of freedom and of opportunity. 
People have said to me, ``You're a trade lawyer. You've got to like 
this agreement. You represent a trade-dependent district. You have to 
support this agreement. If you have to vote your conscience, just vote 
and walk away.''
  I refuse to do that because I will refuse to turn my back on the 
sacrifice of my parents and countless other Americans who have stood 
and fought in the cause of freedom. This is a bad trade agreement. This 
is bad policy, and this is counter to fundamental American values.
  It is a bad agreement because the basic concept is wrong. Let us take 
the WTO proponents' arguments at their face value. America is a market 
economy. China is not. America has an exchangeable currency. China does 
not. If we both dropped our tariffs to absolute zero, we would lose 
control over our imports and China would not. Through their command and 
control economy they can still determine how much to buy and exactly 
from whom to buy.
  This is a flawed agreement. This is bad policy because the day after 
we vote to give China permanent most favored nation trading status, 
hard-liners in Beijing will say, We thumbed our noses at the Americans 
with respect to nuclear weapons, we thumbed our noses at the Americans 
with respect to missile proliferation, we thumbed our noses at the 
Americans with respect to human rights, we thumbed our noses at the 
Americans with respect to saber rattling in the Taiwan Strait, we 
thumbed our noses at the Americans with respect to all these things and 
yet they still gave us the central goal of our foreign policy for the 
last 12 years. Why should we ever listen to what the Americans have to 
say?

[[Page H3684]]

  But the most important reason for voting no is to keep our commitment 
to American values and the sacrifices of countless families like mine 
and every other American family today.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, when the students in Tiananmen Square looked to America, 
they saw the Statue of Liberty. When we look to China, we see dollar 
signs. I think their vision is better than ours. I have heard some 
statements by proponents that I disagree with.
  China gives up everything in this deal? Not true. They become 
enriched. This regime becomes more powerful, flush with cash.
  If you have capitalism and Communists existing in China, it is the 
political death warrant of the Chinese Communist regime? I disagree. 
When people take to the streets, they will bring out tanks bought with 
this money.
  The ultimate question was, is this about being friend or foe with 
China? One of the first speakers said this will determine whether or 
not we are friends or foes. The Communist Chinese will never be our 
friends. How can somebody be your friend when the government punishes 
somebody for having one child too many they say is enough, three times 
your annual salary if you have more than one child? You can never be 
America's friends when you murder people under government authority. 
You can never be America's friends when you cheat on agreements signed. 
For the last 20 years, they have cheated on every textile agreement 
signed with the United States.
  These people are not our friends. They are the enemy of every 
freedom-loving person in the world.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of granting normal 
trade relations to China. First and close to my heart, Michigan farm 
families, employers and working men and women win with this. Passage of 
today's legislation will mean that Michigan farmers will no longer have 
to compete with high tariff barriers on U.S. agricultural products. 
Restrictions on the importation of meat and poultry will be eliminated 
and products like fruit and vegetables will see tariffs cut in the 
range of 65 to 75 percent. Tariffs on auto parts will be reduced by 57 
percent. And motor vehicles, cut by 70 percent. I do not need to tell 
Members that these things mean a lot to the people of Michigan and 
America.
  There are some people who claim that we cannot grant normal trade 
relations with China because of their human rights record. We can all 
agree that China's people are mistreated, but I will not agree that 
isolating China is an improvement.
  I would like to illustrate some of the changes that our trade with 
China has resulted in. In 1990, 400,000 Bibles were sent to China. This 
year, we will deliver 4 million Bibles to China. Human rights activists 
who have been involved in China for years have voiced their support for 
this agreement, including the Reverend Billy Graham and Leonard 
Woodcock, the former President of the United Autoworkers and former 
Ambassador to China.
  I would like to address one other issue that is very important to me. 
I have worked hard to advance the issue of international adoption. 
China's cruel policy of limited family size has left thousands of 
orphans living in deplorable conditions. However, since opening 
relations with China, adoption agencies have been able to go into China 
and develop a network to allow these children to come to the United 
States. In 1989, 200 Chinese children were adopted. In 1998 over 4,000 
Chinese orphans were adopted by loving American families.
  I urge a yes vote on normal trade status for China.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner).

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, if we deny PNTR to China, businesses, 
workers, farmers and ranchers in my district in East Texas and across 
the Nation will lose the benefits of a trade agreement that, on its 
face, is very favorable to the United States. Unlike the NAFTA 
agreement in which the United States had to eliminate its own trade 
barriers, China will reduce its tariffs on American goods, while we 
make no similar concessions. Rejecting PNTR means the benefits of trade 
and job growth will go to other nations who open the door to trade, 
while we slam it shut.
  As a Member of the Committee on Armed Services, I believe granting 
PNTR to China is in America's national security interests. While 
dealing with China as a rising economic and military power will not be 
easy, we should not make the road more difficult than it has to be. If 
we reject PNTR, we will be sending a powerful signal to China and the 
entire world that we are walking away from a constructive relationship 
with China.
  On the other hand, engagement will further our nuclear 
nonproliferation efforts, encourage the Chinese to embrace democracy 
and the rule of law, and further the expansion of human rights and 
freedom for the Chinese people. Progress in these areas will not be 
uninterrupted, but history and common sense and human relationships 
teach us that engagement is the best hope for world peace for our 
children and grandchildren.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 45 
seconds to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), who understands 
that the 600,000 jobs lost because of the $70 billion trade deficit to 
China has affected many of the footwear manufacturers in the 
northeastern part of this country.
  (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot give up my vote and I cannot give up the voice 
of the people I represent on an annual basis, to hand that over to the 
World Trade Organization in the hope that the farmers and the fishermen 
and the people who are working in forestry and small business and 
family business are going to have their interests looked out for. I 
cannot turn that over on a permanent basis to the World Trade 
Organization.
  I tried to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) to 
fashion serious and substantive parallel legislation that would allow 
this Congress and each one of us to have a vote and a voice, a 
guarantee that we would have a vote and voice, and that it would be 
tied to bilateral trade and economic sanctions which would be in 
compliance, which we could do and still retain our authority. This 
legislation does not do it, the leadership did not allow it, and as a 
result of those concerns, I am going to be voting against this 
legislation.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, noting that the other side still 
ignores the charges that PNTR freezes in the taxpayer subsidies for 
businesses closing here and setting up shop in China, I would yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have not talked much about our national security. The 
Chinese have a $68 billion trade surplus; and after this agreement is 
signed, if it passes today and passes the Senate and is signed by the 
President, they are going to have more of a surplus, and that is more 
money with which to buy rope to hang us with.
  Let us look at what the Chinese have done and what they are doing. 
They stole our nuclear secrets. They are now capable, with our secrets 
they stole from the Los Alamos and Livermore Laboratories, they are 
able to build a mobile launch missile carrier, a rocket that can fire 
halfway around the world and can split into 10 parts with our W-88 
warhead and hit 10 cities and kill over 50 million people, and we have 
no defense for it. We have been cutting our defense budget.
  They now have access to both ends of the Panama Canal, one of the 
things that is most important to our commerce. They are going to 
control the Panama Canal. Just yesterday we found out they are going to 
control part of the Suez Canal and probably all of it. They signed a 
30-year agreement

[[Page H3685]]

with Egypt to have Port Said controlled by them, in effect, because 
they are going to control the shipping port there.
  They are building the largest army in the world. They have the 
largest standing army in the world, and it is going to get bigger, and 
we are going to pay for it. We are going to pay for it, and all the 
while our defenses are being lowered and lowered.
  They threatened Los Angeles when we talked about coming to the aid of 
our ally, Taiwan. So they have threatened the United States in the not 
too distant pass. Yet we continue to say, Don't worry about that.
  They are stealing from us. They are stealing our secrets. They are an 
enemy of the free world. They threatened Taiwan, as well as the rest of 
that part of the world, and I think they are a threat to the entire 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, what are we doing about it? Instead of facing up to it 
and building our defenses to be prepared, we are doing exactly what 
happened prior to World War II. We unilaterally disarmed prior to World 
War II, and Winston Churchill warned about the future and the Nazis, 
and nobody paid any attention. What did they do? They gave more 
commerce to Germany, while Hitler built up his military. What are we 
doing? We are doing the same thing with China; and we ought to think 
about that. Long-term, what does it mean for America and our security?
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a respected Member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of PNTR for China for three reasons.
  First, it does not just enable America's goods and services to flow 
into the fastest-growing market in the world by cutting China's 
tariffs. It also eliminates state-mandated middlemen and China's 
prohibition on our distributing and servicing our own products. It 
eliminates quotas and special licensing requirements, and prohibits 
conditioning investment on local content requirements, offsets, 
research in China or technology transfer.
  Secondly, it will help us enforce our trade agreements with China 
because we will not be solo at the enforcement table. All 136 nation 
members of the WTO will be on the enforcement team. Further, this is a 
unique, remarkably enforceable agreement because the obligations it 
imposes are concrete and specific, with clear time tables for 
implementation and firm end dates for full compliance. In addition, for 
the first time the agreement involves surge protections, unique 
provisions that will enable us to moderate any surge of imports to 
protect American producers and give them the time they need to become 
competitive.
  Finally, this agreement is the best way to change China's policy 
toward human rights. As a Chinese evangelist Christian clergyman 
testified, ``The WTO agreement obligates China to play by the rules. In 
the process, China will need to strengthen its legal institutions, 
train more legal professionals, learn to follow international legal 
procedures, and educate its people about the concept of rights, law, 
and international norms. This process alone is a breakthrough with 
important philosophical implications for China as a nation. When a 
Chinese realizes that he has rights as an investor that government 
should not violate, then more likely he will also realize that he has 
other rights as a human being.''
  Support PNTR for China. It is good for the United States, it is good 
for reform in China, and it will move us toward a more prosperous and 
peaceful world.
  This week, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a bill that 
would do more to strengthen our economy and provide job security for 
American workers than any vote this year. The bill would simply open 
China's market to American-made products. Home to more than one billion 
potential consumers, China presently blocks American goods with high 
tariffs, arbitrary requirements, and wholesale prohibitions on direct 
business dealings with the Chinese people, while exporting freely to 
U.S. shores.
  All this will change if Congress passes legislation granting china 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR), the same status China has 
enjoyed for 20 years and the same status as our other trading partners. 
President Clinton and former Presidents Carter and Ford support this 
measure, as do Senators Dodd and Lieberman.
  The reason is simple: under the new trade agreement the United States 
recently negotiated, China will tear down the walls that keep our goods 
and services out of their markets and nearly every American industry 
will benefit. The agreement reduces or eliminates manufacturing and 
farming tariffs. It eliminates state-mandated middlemen so we can sell 
directly to Chinese consumers. It permits American-owned distribution 
and customer support operations so we can service the products we sell. 
It protects intellectual property rights for software, movies, music 
and high-tech designs. And it prohibits conditioning investment on 
offsets, local content, or technology transfer requirements.
  This is good for working families in Connecticut because it means 
we'll sell more Connecticut made jet engines, elevators, construction 
equipment, medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, environmental 
technology, and insurance products in China. This will benefit hundreds 
of small shops supplying exporters and create more high wage jobs as on 
average export related jobs pay up to 20 percent more than non-export 
related jobs.
  By granting PNTR, we will be the beneficiaries of these across-the-
board concessions that will bring down the curtain on Chinese 
protectionism. And what is the price for all these benefits? They are 
free--ours for the taking. The United States doesn't have high tariffs 
nor barriers to trade from China, so we are not forced to give up 
anything in exchange for Chinese concessions. All Congress must do is 
approve PNTR--make permanent the trading status that we have approved 
every year for 20 years and for essentially every other country in the 
world. It is the bargain of the century.
  China has every reason to make such concessions: they are trying to 
reform their economy. After decades of economic dead ends, Chinese 
leaders have concluded that the most efficient way to grow their 
economy is by entering the international market and accepting its 
international rules. While this will cause some problems, China has 
changed enough in the last decade to understand that entering the 
international market and abiding by international rules is their only 
hope of prosperity.
  This dramatic decision by China has three consequences for us: first, 
if we don't pass PNTR, we won't receive any of the benefits of the 
agreement we negotiated with China, while Europe, Japan, and other 
trading nations will. With their products 10 percent to 50 percent 
cheaper, we will lose significant export trade so critical to our 
economic health.
  Second, instead of working alone to enforce trade agreements with 
China as we have in the past, we will have the help of all 136 members 
of the World Trade Organization. If China fails to deliver, the WTO 
lays out clear and decisive steps to hold China accountable. 
Furthermore, this agreement is unique. It has very precise timetables 
for very specific actions, making enforcement far easier. In addition, 
it includes new protections no trade agreement has ever provided. Its 
``surge'' protections allow a timely response to slow down any big 
increase in imports. From my work on voluntary restraint agreements in 
the past, I know this approach works and enables U.S. competitors to 
succeed.
  Third, it is the best way to reduce abuses of human rights in China. 
As a Chinese Christian clergyman testified ``The WTO agreement 
obligates China to play by the rules. In the process, China will need 
to strengthen its legal institutions, train more legal professionals, 
learn to follow international legal procedures and educate its people 
about the concept of rights, law and international norms. This process 
alone is a breakthrough with important philosophical implications for 
China as a nation. When a Chinese realizes that he has rights as an 
investor that government should not violate, then more likely he will 
also realize that he has other rights as a human being.''
  Free trade is a potent catalyst for change because it works from the 
inside out. under PNTR, we get to post the best advertisement in the 
world for democracy in the heart of China itself. Signing a free trade 
agreement with China, opening its markets to our goods and values, 
bringing china into the rule based international trading community, is 
not only good for Connecticut jobs, but it is good for reform in China 
and will move us toward a more prosperous world community. Congress 
should pass PNTR.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, this vote is about choosing an alternative 
to a policy of annual review which has failed to open China's markets 
and its people to the United States. To be sure, this is a vote about 
trade and export of American goods and services, but it is

[[Page H3686]]

also about trade and export of American ideals and principles.
  We can make a difference in China when it comes to human rights, when 
it comes to religious freedom and workers' rights. Today's vote will 
determine whether we will make a difference in China. I urge everyone 
to vote yes for permanent normal trade relations with China.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who recognizes that forced 
child labor is not stylish, even at the Gap.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose PNTR for 
China, such as gross violations of human rights and the lack of fair 
labor standards in China. These reasons have all been expressed 
eloquently by other speakers.
  What concerns me most is our Nation's selective trade policies and 
the policies of the WTO itself. Why China and not Cuba? Cuba is only 90 
miles from our shores. I am especially concerned about our Nation's 
policy toward Cuba. The people of Cuba would like to buy food and 
medicine and agricultural products from the United States, yet the 
United States continues to maintain an embargo against Cuba.
  It makes no sense to expand trade benefits for China while 
prohibiting all trade with Cuba. What is good for the goose is good for 
the gander.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, we hear time and again that greater trade will somehow 
make China freer. I suggest that greater trade as it is structured 
through PNTR will enhance the dictatorship in China.
  People in China themselves do not need to be convinced that they want 
the tyrant's boot off of their face. This idea that if we trade more we 
are going to reach more people with the Internet, telephones, et 
cetera, it is ridiculous. Those people know they do not want to live in 
tyranny.
  But what we are doing by giving this PNTR, we are giving the 
Communist Chinese regime their number one primary objective. We will 
embolden them. They think we are suckers, they think we are saps, they 
think we are cowards, unable to watch out for our own interests or to 
champion the cause of liberty and justice.
  Why should we be setting up factories? Again, the opposition refuses 
to address that the fact that taxpayers under this proposal will pay 
subsidies to businessmen who set up factories over there and close them 
in the United States. That is a central point here.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I will have to leave this debate at this 
point. I am chairing a hearing today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
control it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have wondered long and hard what one might say in the 
very few minutes that I have to convince my colleagues that this is not 
the thing to do. It is hard to determine what few important words might 
get us to realize that giving China permanent trade relations with 
America is wrong today. I feel very, very passionately about that. But 
I also want to say that there are good friends and others in this room 
who feel passionately that we should, and that is the beauty and the 
wonder of this debate. It has brought together such a mismatched group 
of people in Congress to come together and oppose and be for this 
particular amendment. That is the beauty of this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear, we are not debating an end to 
normal trade relations with China. We are not isolating China. Now, I 
support normal trade with China, with congressional review. I simply 
oppose making this permanent, in light of China's present conduct.
  China has normal trade relations with us today, right now; and they 
are going to continue to have normal trade relations under the same 
terms, whether the President's bill passes or does not. Both China and 
the United States will be able to trade with each other under the WTO 
rules, whether this bill passes or not. This is the one issue in my few 
minutes I hope Members will listen to.
  The United States will not lose any advantage to international 
competition or competitors by not approving this bill. This has been a 
real, honest to goodness fear for many of our Members, so please listen 
to this very carefully. I quote, ``The United States and China agree to 
accord firms, companies, corporations and trading organizations of the 
other party treatment no less favorable than is afforded to any third 
country or region.'' Where did that come from? That is Article 3(A) of 
the 1979 Bilateral Trade Agreement, our current agreement.
  If China joins the WTO, they have to give the United States the same 
trade privileges they grant any WTO member nation, regardless of 
whether we approve or disapprove permanent relations.
  So why are so many people adamant about passing PNTR? What does the 
bill really do? The answer is that it restricts the practical ability 
of this Congress to monitor China's progress in fair trade, in human 
rights and in military threats.
  So for my colleagues who were thinking of voting yes in order to not 
shut down trade with China, please reevaluate that. Under our current 
agreement, China trade will continue, and likely expand, whether this 
measure passes or not.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
simply to respond very quickly to my friend from Georgia.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from Georgia has not read the entire agreement 
or read the 1979 agreement between the Chinese and the U.S., obviously, 
because what he said is not valid. There are many things in this 
agreement which are not included in the 1979 agreement, and we will 
lose the benefit of those if we do not approve this bill today.

                              {time}  1400

  That happens to be a fact and a reality. Unfortunately, the 1979 
agreement the Chinese made with us is not as broad, not as 
comprehensive, will not include all of the concessions that will be 
available to us if we approve this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me this time, to rise in support of permanent normal trade 
relations with China.
  Passage of this agreement helps us, not them. They have agreed to 
lower tariffs on agricultural produce by over 50 percent, industrial 
tariffs from 24.6 percent a couple of years ago down to 9.4 percent, 
and most importantly, provide access to telecommunications, insurance, 
banking, and information technology markets. Although I do recognize 
the benefits of U.S. engagement with China, I also understand our 
concerns about labor conditions, human rights and national security. 
After all, I serve on the Committee on Intelligence.
  But if the goal is to promote constructive change in China, we had 
best be at the table. Because if we do not pass normal trade relations 
with China and they do join the WTO, these decisions about making long-
term changes internally in China will go to the Pacific Rim countries 
like Japan and Korea and to the Europeans.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good, sound policy, not only for the issues of 
democracy, human rights, but it is also good for trade and for the 
economy of our Nation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the eloquent gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I come from a city that in many ways 
exemplifies this transition to a global economy, for Memphis is the 
distribution capital of the United States. Every conceivable product 
from soybeans to microprocessors lands in our airports, docks at our 
harbors, or travels our highways. Markets and trade directly affect how 
people in my district live.
  This agreement, as it has been said over and over again, only opens 
their markets to ensure that cotton and wheat and soybeans, jet 
engines, insurance, automobiles, and even Internet

[[Page H3687]]

services can be sold to our new friends in China. At a time when family 
farmers are struggling, it seems to me to be only right that we open up 
a market where 1.2 billion people live.
  But our vote today should not be interpreted as a blank check for the 
deplorable abuses taking place in China. As a matter of fact, trade 
should not be interpreted as acceptance, but as really a challenge. For 
trade builds wealth, wealth spreads freedom, and freedom defeats 
tyranny. In cities across the world our values are followed, our 
products are imitated, and our culture is envied. Give those in China 
the opportunity to envy us here in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support normalizing permanent 
trade relations with China.
  Mr. Speaker, today America has a straight-forward choice to make: 
whether we want to benefit from a historic opportunity to open China's 
market to American goods, agricultural products, and services--or 
whether we want to isolate the 1.2 billion people of China, and in 
turn, punish America and the American worker.
  I have scrutinized this legislation to see if it will truly promote 
American interests and values. Like some who may oppose this 
legislation, I have long been concerned with human rights in China. I 
want freedom and democracy to flourish just as much as anyone else. And 
I have scrutinized this bill's impact on workers here at home. I have 
listened to those arguments. And I have concluded that normalizing 
trade relations with China is right for America. It is right for 
ensuring American engagement as a world leader and safeguarding our 
national security interests; it is right for promoting American 
competitiveness abroad; and it is right for the ideals of human rights 
and democracy.
  Guaranteeing America's National Security Interests. America has 
fought three wars in Asia in the last 50 years. I don't want to see us 
fight another. Cordell Hull, a great Tennessean--who hailed from 
Carthage and who held the seat that Vice President Gore held and that 
his father held before him--had a favorite saying: ``When goods don't 
cross borders, armies do.'' Integrating China into the global trading 
system will do more for the cause of national security than a fleet of 
warships could ever do. One must only look at what happen in the recent 
elections in Taiwan. The power of inclusion in the WTO counseled 
against any belligerence that the Chinese may have contemplated in the 
aftermath of the Taiwanese election. China held back, and the cause of 
peaceful reconciliation was advanced--in no small measure, because 
China knew that its trading partners were watching. America has genuine 
strategic interests in Asia, and as Secretary Cohen, Secretary 
Albright, the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Colin Powell and many others have 
said, normalizing trade relations with China will greatly advance the 
cause of peace and security.
  Ensuring American Competitiveness. China will come into the World 
Trade Organization and the international economic system whether we 
like it or not. We cannot stop this process, even if we wanted to. The 
only question before us is: should we lead and promote our values of 
competition and fairness or should we sit on the sidelines while other 
countries profit from selling to the Chinese? Ask the small business 
owner or farmer in my state, and the answer will be clear: of course, 
we want to benefit from this deal. For the first time, China is 
slashing tariffs and barriers to America's superior goods, services, 
and farm products. Our trade negotiators made absolutely no concessions 
to China; it is, as the President has said, ``one-way'' deal. We will 
be able to sell them everything from wheat to jet engines to insurance 
to Internet services. If we turn our back on that opportunity, we will 
only be punishing ourselves. And I simply cannot go home to the 
hardworking people of my state and say that I kicked away a once-in-a-
lifetime chance to help them lead, compete, and win.
  Promoting Human Rights and Democracy. The Chinese people, like all of 
God's children, deserve the basic dignities and rights that accompany 
freedom. By making China play by the rules, and by exposing the Chinese 
people to American values and American know-how, I submit that freedom 
will inevitably follow. This won't be easy, and it won't happen 
overnight, and I am a clear-eyed realist. But I also know that no 
political change can happen overnight. We have to have a toe-hold 
there, and we have to expand it and build bridges between our two 
countries. We don't have to approve of everything they do, and we 
won't. But if we isolate China, we will embolden the hard-liners and 
the rejectionists. When American companies go to China, they'll pay a 
better wage, and they'll give workers more freedom. And when the 
Chinese people click onto the Internet, there will be no stopping the 
flow of ideas, and we all know that great political transformations 
have their seeds in the spread of powerful ideas. If we are truly 
concerned about the cause of human rights and democracy, we must engage 
China, not isolate it.
  Mr. Speaker, today in the People's House we have an opportunity to 
grant PNTR not for China, but for America. This legislation helps 
American businesses, American farmers, and American workers, and it 
will help spread the irresistible American forces of freedom, 
democracy, peace and stability. To those who would rather hold on to a 
symbolic annual vote, my response is simple: I cannot in good 
conscience sacrifice American leadership and American businesses, 
farmers, and workers on the alter of symbolism. We have the power to 
make the future more profitable and more secure for all of God's 
children--and history will not forgive us if we fail to do what's 
right.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans), who recognizes that China sells weapons to 
terrorists which may very well be turned on American civilians.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues have received a copy of the 
report, Made in China. This report outlines why corporations like Wal-
Mart and Nike have become identified with child labor, forced labor, 
and hazardous working conditions. These are not the values we want to 
bring to other countries.
  By granting PNTR, we give up any hope of influencing China's policy 
on workers and human rights. We are inviting U.S. companies to leave 
the U.S. to produce goods in a country which does not support the 
minimum wage, basic safety regulations, or the right of association.
  Mr. Speaker, let us export our values, not our jobs. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this legislation.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, we have been told wonderful things will 
flow from expanded trade with China. Workers' rights will be respected, 
religious freedom will be enhanced, and probably Jeffersonian study 
groups will be popping up all over China before long.
  Well, let us look at the historical facts which, in reality, is all 
we have in order to determine future actions on the part of the 
Communist Chinese.
  In fact, from the last 10 years since Tiananmen Square, China has 
been engaged. For the past 10 years, investments in China have grown 
exponentially, factories have been built employing Chinese workers, 
creating enormous expansion of Chinese GNP. These things are 
indisputable facts.
  Mr. Speaker, here are some more facts. Over the last 10 years, 
according to the State Department and the newly created United States 
Commission on International Religious Freedom, there has been a steady 
deterioration, I say deterioration, of human rights, workers' rights, 
religious liberty.
  I just came from the Committee on International Relations where this 
report was given to us by the Commission. Here it is. The Report of the 
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The 
Commission members are from all sides of the political spectrum. Rabbi 
David Saperstein, the Chair, told us that every single part of the 
spectrum was represented on this commission, and here is what they 
reported. Quote: ``A grant of PNTR at this juncture could be seen by 
the Chinese people struggling for religious freedom as an abandonment 
of their cause at a moment of great difficulty. The Commission, 
therefore, believes that Congress should not approve PNTR for China 
until China makes substantial improvements in respect for religious 
freedom as measured by the following standards,'' and then it lists 
them out.
  This is the Commission report. We are waiting for the Bereuter 
Commission; we have a Commission report right before us today. It was 
established by this Congress. The report was issued on May 1. It is in 
front of us. Read it. Anybody who is going to be influenced by the 
Bereuter Commission in the future, Members have it before them.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger), our distinguished colleague.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of giving American

[[Page H3688]]

farmers, producers, and exporters a level playing field in China 
bypassing permanent normal trade relations.
  While there have been compelling arguments made on both sides of this 
difficult issue, I believe that approving PNTR is clearly in America's 
best interests. This opportunity is especially important to our 
Nation's farmers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 
farm exports to China could grow by $2 billion annually as a result of 
PNTR. But normalizing trade with China would do far more than just 
increase American exports. It will also expand democratic influence in 
China as American businesses bring our democratic ideals directly to 
the Chinese people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support PNTR.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), who recognizes that the 500,000 Bibles 
printed in Chinese in China is not even enough to provide one to each 
political or religious prisoner, much less leave any in the motel 
rooms.
  (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to PNTR for China.
  Granting permanent normal trade relations to China would send the 
wrong message to the Chinese government and to the American people. 
China's workers earn pitifully low wages and work without even minimal 
safety standards in their factories. The factories in China are not 
subject to environmental standards common in other countries around the 
world. Some claim that by trading with China, workers' rights and 
environmental standards will improve. In China, however, labor leaders 
are routinely arrested and detained for long periods under harsh 
conditions.
  The Chinese government has shown over and over again that it will not 
tolerate the formation of labor unions. It is unlikely that foreign or 
Chinese factory owners will push to change this policy. Manufacturing 
firms in China are also not likely to demand environmental standards.
  Ending the United States' right to review the terms of trade with 
China yearly will only slow the pace of reform and remove a powerful 
deterrent to the most flagrant, visible abuses of human rights in 
China. I encourage my colleagues to vote against PNTR until the Chinese 
government makes visible progress on these issues.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the leader in human rights in this Congress.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, a man does not live by bread alone, and if one 
listens to the debate, one would begin to wonder.
  It was 55 years ago last month that Dietrich Bonhoffer was marched 
from his prison cell in Flossenburg Prison in Nazi Germany and hung 
because he stood on behalf of human rights and speaking out. There are 
modern Dietrich Bonhoffers in prison today in China, and this Congress 
and this administration ignores it.
  We talk about the Berlin Wall falling; to my side, the Berlin Wall 
did not fall. Ronald Reagan pushed it down. He pushed it down with the 
help of the Pope and the AFL-CIO who helped Lech Walesa and Natan 
Sharansky and Andrei Sakharov and others.
  We say that we are changing the tactics that work to defeat 
communism. Can anyone imagine a Member getting up in this body in the 
1980s saying, let us help give more money to Russia, that way we will 
defeat them.
  We say we are a pro-family Congress and a pro-family party. Mr. 
Speaker, 500 women a day in China commit suicide and endure forced 
abortion and forced sterilization.
  We say we are for a strong defense, and if Members got the CIA 
briefing and unfortunately, not many did, they see the threat to this 
country, and they see that every major veterans' group supports defeat 
of this.
  In closing, Ronald Reagan said on December 4, 1992, ``Do not forget 
those who suffer under tyranny and violence. Do not abandon them to the 
evils of totalitarian rule or democratic neglect. For the freedom we 
celebrate is not the freedom to starve, the freedom to languish in a 
long, starless night of the soul. This, at least, is something that 
should be beyond debate.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge and pray that the Members who are undecided, 
particularly on our side, which has been a party that has been against 
communism, for human rights, for religious freedom and for defense, 
will vote this down.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we have heard a lot said, I am not 
going to go over the statistics here, I am just going to say that not 
only for New Jersey, but for the Nation, the bottom line here is that 
this is a jobs bill. It is a jobs bill for all of us throughout the 
country.
  I must say to my colleagues that all reliable and objective 
economists and business analysts agree and assert these truths. We 
would not have all of the governors and all of the business groups and 
all of the groups across the country with a strong endorsement here, 
including defense groups supporting this, if these truths were not 
self-evident.
  Mr. Speaker, I must also tell my colleagues that it is an American 
jobs bill because it is estimated that a quarter of a trillion dollars 
in infrastructure over the next 10 years will have to be spent in 
China, and that means American energy, gas, construction, telecom, and 
engineering companies will compete for the vast majority of these 
dollars. By the way, it should be stressed, there is no doubt but that 
the European Union and Japan is waiting to take over these markets if 
we fail in this opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of granting Permanent Normal 
Trade Relations with China. This will be one of the most significant 
votes in years. The stakes are high. This is a defining moment for 
American workers and American businesses. When the House votes on 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for China we will be deciding 
whether the United States will continue to lead in the global economy.


                         an american jobs bill

  Mr. Speaker, this legislation can not just be considered a trade 
bill. Today we will vote on an American jobs bill. The benefits of 
trade with China effect every state in the nation. Direct exports from 
my state of New Jersey to China totaled over $373 million in 1998. 
Approximately 25% of all goods produced in New Jersey are exported. New 
Jersey ports and their workers handled $9.4 billion in imports from 
China in that same year. It is also estimated that 1 out of every 8 New 
Jersey jobs are connected to producing goods for export. The bottom 
line is that trade with China creates millions of good jobs at good 
wages in New Jersey and all across the nation.
  This is an American jobs bill because it is estimated that China will 
need to spend almost a quarter of a trillion dollars on infrastructure 
alone over the next ten years. American energy, gas, construction, 
telecom, and engineering companies will compete for a majority of these 
dollars. A recent study by Goldman Sachs estimates that increased 
access to China's markets from PNTR would be worth an additional $13 
billion annually to U.S. workers, farmers and companies by 2005.
  In the expanding global economy, we cannot ignore that China 
represents a dynamic, expanding market for our exports. Once Congress 
votes for PNTR and China enters the World Trade Organization (WTO), 
American businesses, manufacturers, and farmers will have unprecedented 
direct access to China's 1.3 billion people. This will open the door 
for them to do what they do best--compete and win by offering the best 
product or service.
  It is the American economy that stands to win from approval of PNTR. 
Denial of PNTR status to China will damage our own economy and only 
serve the interests of our international trade competitors. The 
Europeans have already negotiated a trade deal with China and are just 
waiting for us to turn our back on potential Chinese customers so they 
can step into the breach. Japan is also waiting for these trade 
advantages.


                          concerns about china

  I understand the concerns raised by those who oppose PNTR for China. 
I, too, continue to be deeply concerned about some of the actions of 
China's government. Clearly, there exists much room for improvement. 
But with this vote, the question is not whether we approve or 
disapprove of China's record on human rights or their international 
posturing. The question is what is the best way to approach China to 
influence their future behavior?

[[Page H3689]]

  I believe the answer is for Congress to grant PNTR. In fact former 
Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford, Governor Bush and Vice President 
Gore, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Reverend Billy 
Graham, nine former Secretaries of the Treasury, six former Secretaries 
of State, eight former Secretaries of Agriculture, 40 Governors, and 
leading Chinese activists all believe the answer is for Congress to 
grant PNTR for China.
  If Congress votes in favor of PNTR, China will not change overnight. 
It will take time for the old monolith to fall away in favor of a 
dynamic new society. But just look at the difference American business 
is making in China. The best and brightest of Chinese workers are 
flocking away from the old state owned enterprises in favor of working 
for foreign owned businesses. American businesses offer the Chinese not 
only better pay and benefits but also allows them the opportunity to 
excel and move up the economic and social ladder. I submit that the 
momentum behind these changes once unleashed will be impossible to 
slow.
  Clearly, trade relations will strengthen the rule of law. And an 
historical truth is that economic ties open borders and expand human 
rights, bringing them closer to the world community.


                               conclusion

  Yes, it will take time for China to change. But their participation 
in the WTO will pull them closer into the family of nations and enforce 
the rule of law. Our engagement with China will create jobs here at 
home and will breathe the entrepreneurial spirit and freedom throughout 
their land.
  In summary: (1) this landmark agreement will mean more American jobs 
at good wages here at home.
  (2) This will strengthen rule of law and expand human rights by 
bringing them into the world community.
  (3) And significantly, if we reject PNTR it will further open the 
European countries and Japan to take over these profitable markets. I 
urge support for PNTR.
  I urge my colleagues to support PNTR for China.


        support for permanent normal trade relations with china

  American Leaders and Veterans: Presidents Bush and Ford, both World 
War II veterans; General Colin Powell; Joint Chiefs of Staff; Secretary 
of Defense William Cohen; Former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney; Six 
former Secretaries of State; Forty seven Governors including George W. 
Bush; and Senator John McCain.
  Business Groups: New Jersey Chamber of Commerce; New Jersey Business 
and Industry Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and National 
Association of Manufacturers.
  Agriculture: New Jersey Farm Bureau; and Northeast Farmer Cooperative 
(representing New Jersey Dairy Farmers).
  Religious Leaders: The Reverend Billy Graham, and Pat Robertson.
  All believe the answer is for Congress to grant PNTR for China.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), one of the outstanding members of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  During the last several months, it has become clear to me that the 
action we are taking today is not just the annual review of whether 
China should be given normal trade relations, but a major policy 
initiative by the Clinton administration.
  I am concerned that the rejection of this agreement could have 
serious national security ramifications. However, that does not mean 
that this body should just automatically approve permanent normal trade 
relations with China.
  It was important to me, and I think to many Members of this body, 
that in order for us to support this change, there needed to be an 
adequate package of related issues incorporated in the vote. That has 
happened.
  First, we have incorporated the provisions concerning human rights. I 
do not think any of us believe that we would now reject the annual 
review of normal trade relations with China. That has been an 
ineffective way to review human rights progress within China. The new 
mechanism which institutionalizes that review will be a more effective 
way to review human rights.

                              {time}  1415

  Second, the provisions provide for enforcement of our trade laws 
against China.
  Third, we have codified the new surge provisions which provide a more 
liberal standard to be able to take action against China for illegally 
imported products.
  Fourth, the President has made it clear that environment and labor 
will be our priorities in the new rounds of WTO discussions.
  Lastly, let me say that I applaud the administration in its 
commitment to use all the resources of its office to enforce our 
existing trade laws. It is important that we not only protect U.S. 
industries against illegally imported products from China, but from all 
of our trading partners.
  I believe that if we look at the total package, plus the statements 
that have been made by the administration, we now have a package that 
is worth supporting.
  Mr. Speaker, if the sole issue before us today is whether Congress 
will approve the administration's initiative to normalize trade with 
China, subject China to the standards of the rule of law within WTO, 
based upon the package that is being presented and the commitments of 
the administration, I believe it is in our national interests to 
approve this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, and urge the House 
to adopt this important measure.
  I am pleased that the Rules Committee has incorporated the bipartisan 
Levin-Bereuter provisions into the underlying bill which authorizes the 
accession of China into the WTO. My support for this legislation was 
and is contingent on the Levin-Bereuter provisions on human rights, 
workers' rights, and anti-surge safeguards. In addition, I am pleased 
that the legislation provides for strict monitoring and enforcement of 
China's compliance with its WTO obligations by the United States.
  During the past several months, I have received a great deal of 
information from the opponents and proponents of PNTR. The information 
that I have received has been very helpful in my consideration of this 
difficult issue.
  It has been increasingly clear that this vote on PNTR is not just 
another trade vote, but a major foreign policy initiative by our 
government. Traditionally Congress has delegated this responsibility to 
the President. Regardless of how one feels about trade with China, I am 
convinced that the rejection of this agreement by Congress will have 
serious ramifications for the natural security interests of the United 
States and our friends in Asia. The failure of this legislation will 
strengthen the hand of the hard-liners in Beijing who want to keep 
China out of the community of nations.
  With respect to the economic issues that underlie this agreement, we 
must recognize that China already has access to our markets. The 
bilateral agreement concluded between the United States and China as 
part of China's accession to the WTO will only help US manufacturers, 
producers and farmers gain access to the China market.
  With respect to human rights, I have always believed that trade could 
be an effective tool in achieving human rights goals. Human rights 
considerations have led me to consistently oppose the annual extension 
of most favored nation for China. Yet I acknowledge that the annual 
review of NTR has not been effective in advancing human rights in 
China. Most human rights advocates have now concluded that it is 
unrealistic to expect that the US would ever revoke NTR for China.
  Mr. Speaker, let me briefly review the important provisions of the 
legislation that have led me to my decision to support this proposal. 
The key provisions address my concerns regarding human rights, 
oversight and enforcement of China's WTO obligations, workers' rights, 
and anti-surge provisions. They impose conditions that are much 
stronger than have ever been presented during the consideration of the 
annual extension of trade with China.
  Most important, the legislation would establish a Congressional-
Executive Commission on China. This Commission is modeled on the 
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), of which I am 
proud to serve as a member and a Commissioner. The China Commission 
will: 1) monitor human rights and religious freedom in China; (2) 
monitor overall aspects of labor market issues in China; and (3) 
monitor and encourage the development of rule-of-law and democracy-
building in China.
  The Commission will submit annual reports to Congress and the 
President, including appropriate WTO-consistent recommendations for 
legislative and/or executive action. It will maintain a list of victims 
of human rights abuses in China, and it will provide Members of 
Congress with information on the issues within its purview.
  I expect that the Commission will institutionalize Congressional 
examination of measures by the Chinese Government that affect US 
interests. It will serve to identify needed

[[Page H3690]]

reforms in China's policies and call attention to any troubling 
activities of the Chinese government. Nobody supposes that passage of 
PNTR will bring an immediate end to the abusive practices of the 
Chinese government. PNTR will, however, bring the pressure of 
international economic activity to bear on the repressive practices of 
the Chinese.
  At the same time, the Commission will provide an important conduit 
between Chinese citizens, on the one hand, and the U.S. Government and 
public, on the other hand. I firmly believe that increased exposure to 
U.S. values will accelerate progress in China on human rights and 
economic freedom. Finally, the Commission will be a strong, effective, 
an unique point of contact on China issues between Congress and the 
Administration.
  The legislation also requires the U.S. Trade Representative to issue 
an annual report on China's compliance with WTO obligations. The report 
will cover compliance by China with commitments made in connection with 
its accession to the WTO, including both multilateral commitments and 
any bilateral commitments made to the U.S. The report will be a guide 
to where and how to commit the enforcement resources of the US 
Government.
  The Administration has also agreed to press for a mechanism for 
reviewing China's compliance with WTO obligations on an annual basis. 
Such a mechanism will be especially valuable as we proceed through the 
early stages of development of a free market and the rule of law in 
China.
  The legislation also calls for additional resources to be allocated 
to the U.S. Trade Representative as well as other Cabinet agencies to 
strengthen the ability of the United States to monitor and enforce 
Chinese compliance with trade agreements.
  We are all aware that China has engaged in abusive and horrendous 
practices of employing forced and prison labor in the production of 
goods. Our efforts to highlight these practices and pressure the 
Chinese to end them have had little success to this point. This 
legislation instructs the President to establish an interagency task 
force to monitor and promote effective enforcement of the prohibition 
on the importation of goods made by forced or prison labor into the 
United States.

  The legislation before us also calls for the allocation of resources 
to the Departments of Commerce, State, and Labor to provide training 
and technical assistance in China for purposes of developing the rule 
of law with respect to commercial and labor market standards. The 
departments will establish programs to assist China in bringing its 
laws into compliance with international requirements, including WTO 
rules, and in developing processes to enforce the rule of law.
  One of the strongest features of the bilateral agreement negotiated 
by the Clinton Administration is product-specific safeguard which will 
be included in China's protocol of accession to the WTO. This special 
anti-surge safeguard will apply to China for a period of 12 years 
following China's accession to the WTO. These provisions are more 
reasonable, and more favorable for U.S. industry and workers, than the 
comparable provisions that apply in general U.S. trade law to our other 
trading partners. The China safeguard contains lower causation and 
injury standards than ordinarily would apply between WTO members under 
section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. The codification of this 
provision by the Levin-Bereuter package is a vital feature of today's 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I also believe that we should amend our trade laws to 
apply the China standards on dumping to all countries. Such 
Congressional action would be consistent with our WTO obligations. I 
have prepared and offered such a bipartisan amendment, with my 
colleague Mr. English of Pennsylvania, in both the Ways & Means 
Committee and in the Rules Committee. The amendment contains several 
provisions from HR 1505, the bipartisan Fair Trade Law Enhancement Act 
of 1999, introduced by Representative English and myself in the first 
session of this Congress.
  In 1999, we witnessed a surge of subsidized imported steel into the 
U.S. While some of that import surge came from China, it also came from 
Russia, Japan, Brazil, and South Korea. Our existing anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty laws and relief under Section 201 of the Trade Act 
of 1974 were not able to help U.S. industries from these illegal 
imports. The new surge provisions negotiated with China will help in 
regards to future China imports. However, they will do nothing to help 
in regards to our other trading partners. Under WTO, we should use the 
more realistic China causation standards for all countries rather than 
using the causation standards included, for example, currently in 
Section 201. My amendment would have corrected this inconsistency.
  Unfortunately, my amendment was not made in order for consideration 
by the full House. I am hopeful that, after we act today to codify the 
trade laws applying to China, the next logical step will be to extend 
these standards to all of our trading partners. In addition, the 
Administration has given me assurances that it will vigorously use the 
full resources of its authority to enforce existing trade laws and that 
the Administration will not tolerate any illegal dumping. The Commerce 
Department is currently preparing a detailed report and analysis on 
last year's steel dumping. I plan to work closely with the 
Administration and concerned members from both sides of the aisle and 
workers and management in affected industries to make sure that we 
adopt measures to prevent future occurrences similar to what happened 
in 1999.
  There has been much discussion as to how to advance international 
standards for labor and environment in our trade negotiations. Progress 
in that regard has been made in the China agreement.
  It is also important to note that President Clinton made it clear to 
our trading partners in Seattle that any future trade rounds under the 
World Trade Organization must include the discussion of international 
labor and environmental standards. I wholeheartedly support the 
President in insisting that international labor and environmental 
standards be included among our nation's priorities in negotiations 
with our trading partners.
  The sole issue before us today is whether Congress will approve the 
Administration's initiative to normalize trade with China and subject 
China to the standards and rule of law within the World Trade 
Organization. We all understand that China is far from a model citizen 
in the world community of nations. The question is how to move the 
world's largest country, a country which, in our lifetimes, will become 
the world's largest economy, in the direction of democracy, openness, 
and economic freedom. Based on the full package that is being presented 
and the steps taken by the Administration to enforce our existing trade 
laws, I believe that Congress's ratification of the President's 
ratification of the President's initiative is in the best interest of 
our country.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley), who understands that China will soon surpass the 
United States to become the leading emitter of greenhouse gases and 
that will not abate.
  (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, although I am for free and fair trade, as 
well as engagement with China, now is not the time for permanent normal 
trade relations. China has simply not matured enough politically or 
economically to have permanent normal trade relations with the U.S.
  China still poses a danger to our national security, has a record of 
gross human rights violations, including the use of prison labor, and a 
lack of religious freedom. China also has a terrible record on the 
environment and has some of the most polluted cities in the entire 
world.
  I think it is dangerous to give up the most important leverage we 
have in order to get China to comply with the agreements, the annual 
review process, and the carrot of permanent relations. You do not give 
away the carrot before you get the results that you want.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose granting 
permanent normal trade relations to China.
  Although I am for free and fair trade, as well as engagement with 
China, now is not the time for Permanent NTR.
  China, has simply not matured enough politically or economically to 
have permanent normal trade relations with the United States. China 
still poses a danger to our national security, has a record of gross 
human rights violations, including the use of prison labor and a lack 
of religious freedom. China also has a terrible record on the 
environment and has some of the most polluted cities in the world.
  Additionally, China has violated every agreement it has made with the 
Untied States. Even the Administration doesn't trust them in this 
respect, which is why they've proposed a rapid response team to monitor 
China's compliance with this deal.
  I think it is dangerous to give up the most important leverage we 
have in getting China to comply with its agreements, the annual review 
process and the carrot of permanent relations. You don't give away the 
carrot before you get the result you want.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to oppose granting China 
Permanent NTR until they have proven they can abide by their 
international obligations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) The Chair announces that the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)

[[Page H3691]]

has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark) has 27\1/2\ remaining.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, our decision to give permanent normal trade relations to 
China should not be based on what is profitable for our country today 
at the expense of our future.
  Arguments that trade with China would lead to the evolution of 
democratic principles which will spread to the people hold no weight. 
The truth is, we have been engaged in trade with China for 30 years; 
yet they remain the most repressive government in the world. Has our 
strengthening of China's regime through trade brought political 
freedom? Absolutely not.
  I cannot close my eyes to the human rights abuses, to the political 
oppression of religious intolerance of the Chinese Government. I cannot 
turn a deaf ear to the workers on both sides of the ocean who clamor 
for better working conditions and fairer wages.
  I refuse to turn my back on the nuclear and security threat that 
China poses to our great Nation and its neighbors like Taiwan. And it 
is unbelievable to me that we are on the brink of giving the Chinese 
all of our electronic and computer capability to help them guide their 
missiles to our cities.
  As the dragon stands knocking at our door, knocking ever so loudly, 
do we permanently give it free access inside, when in the past it is 
broken its promises, stolen our technology, compromised our security? 
Do we allow the Chinese Government to prosper when it treats its 
citizens, the very people it should be protecting so poorly, so 
unjustly?
  China has been promising economic concessions to buy its way into the 
WTO. But it has shown no willingness to change its political dogma. 
Abolishing our yearly review of trade relations gives carte blanche to 
the Chinese Government. We should not permanently reward and appease 
its intransigence.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against PNTR for China.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  (Mr. OSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Permanent Trade relations 
with China.
  My district encompasses the Sacramento Valley in California. 
Agriculture is the dominant industry in the region. One of the reasons 
I support free trade is that it's good for my farmers.
  We've all heard about how PNTR with China will increase Ag. exports 
and boost the rural economy. We've also heard about how PNTR with China 
will increase exports in manufacturing, high tech, and services. All 
these things are true.
  In fact, during the debate over PNTR with China, the proponents have 
consistently highlighted the tremendous export possibilities of trade 
with China.
  But free trade benefits all Americans, not just companies that 
export. Lets review some of the benefits of free trade to the American 
people.
  1. Comparative Advantage.--In the theory of Comparative Advantage, 
Americans will produce products that we are best at producing and other 
nations will produce products that they are best at producing.
  With free trade, we don't have to waste time and labor on producing 
low quality products. By importing certain goods, American workers are 
freed to produce higher quality items that bring higher wages.
  2. Increase Competitiveness.--Open trade forces American companies to 
compete with foreign companies. This competitiveness causes U.S. 
businesses to continually try to improve their products and lower their 
prices.
  Does anyone in this Congress believe that the U.S. auto industry 
would be as healthy, or that U.S. cars would be of such high quality, 
if not for the competition from Japan?
  As a result of that competition, our auto industry is competitive 
around the world and American consumers can buy world class American/
made automobiles.
  3. Keeps Inflation in Check.--Trade also helps keep inflation in 
check by acting as a safety valve when the economy heats up. The recent 
period of robust economic growth, low unemployment, and low inflation 
is unprecedented in our history. A significant portion of this success 
is attributed the fact that our markets are open.
  As we consider this vote today, let us keep one thing in mind. 
Tariffs are really taxes on consumers. When we reduce barriers to 
trade, consumers win. In fact, American families save thousands of 
dollars a year because of trade, freeing up money that can be spent on 
a home, or education or health care.
  As we vote today, I urge my colleagues to consider all the ways the 
American people benefit from trade.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in appreciation of the deliberations that have 
occurred on this very important vote. I also rise to say that this 
morning I saw the story of a young Chinese woman coming off the bus in 
China from a village with her 5-year-old child loaded down with her 
bags, looking for a better qualify of life. As I watched her seeking a 
greater place in the sun for that little boy, I knew that this vote 
today had to be more than efforts on behalf of trade between the United 
States of America and China. It had to be a vote with backbone.
  This vote to support PNTR has to be a vote to trade with China and 
exchange democracy, to trade and exchange the products of the United 
States made by American workers and made in America; to create 
opportunities for intellectual and academic change; to create the 
opportunity to export technology to China and to close the digital 
divide in places like the 18th Congressional District; and by greater 
trade in opportunities for American businessmen. I hope to see an 
increase in the opportunities for capital investment in rural and urban 
America.
  Trade is, of course, the engine of the 21st century. The PNTR is not 
closing the door; it is opening the door of democracy to China.
  I rise to support this legislation, and I would ask that we do it 
with a backbone on behalf of the American people of the United States 
of America, so that our exports include both our goods and commodities 
as well as our values of democracy, peace, and a better quality of 
life.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of granting Permanent Normal 
Trade Relations for China. I have come to this conclusion after 
intensely listening to arguments for some period of time from many 
supporters and opponents of the PNTR, and weighing the pros and cons of 
this extremely important trade bill.
  I want to thank Chairman Archer and Ranking Member Rangel for their 
important work on this legislation. They should be commended for their 
hard work.
  It is my hope that every one's views on this bill will be respected 
on this vote, and that we will find a constructive way to unify after 
this vote for the good of all Americans. This is truly a vote of 
conscience that each and every member has wrestled with.
  For several years, I have recognized that trade with China has value 
for Americans and the people of China, yet I have reservations. My 
record on trade measures since coming to Congress demonstrates my 
willingness to evaluate each vote on its own merits. Each year that I 
have voted for most-favored-nation status for China, I have likewise 
raised my voice against the ``undemocratic'' ways of that nation.
  It is imperative that we recognize that American companies must 
reinvest in rural and urban America as a result of PNTR. Unlike during 
the Cold War, we have unparalled opportunities to bring the people of 
China and America much closer together. America has a responsibility to 
invest and to establish a rapid response for companies that are 
affected as a result of job loss.
  I have been working very closely with the Administration to secure a 
commitment to designate the Department of Labor to study job losses and 
to provide added relief to American workers adversely affected by the 
PNTR agreement.
  I have also worked to establish a Task Force on small businesses from 
a range of agencies within the United States government to facilitate 
and negotiate doing business in China. This Task Force would be 
responsible for specifically encouraging trade between United States 
small businesses and these newly established small business in China.
  We are not here to discuss whether China will gain access to the WTO. 
We recognize it will do so and that the unconditional most-favored 
nation (MFN) principle requires that trade concessions be granted 
``immediately and unconditionally'' to all 135 WTO Members. More 
importantly, the World Trade Organization is not nor should it be a 
human rights policy toward China. Nothing about this vote

[[Page H3692]]

should reflect our Nation's views about current or past human rights 
practices in China. This is about how to bring about change over the 
long-term.
  The World Trade Organization would strengthen against surges in 
imports from China and open Chinese markets to more U.S. exports. The 
November 1999 Agreement between the United States and China contains a 
product-specific safeguard, which will be included in China's protocol 
of accession to the WTO. A provision was recently added to this 
legislation that spells out procedures for effectively invoking that 
safeguard.
  H.R. 4444 presently before the House enables the United States to 
grant PNTR to China once it has completed its accession, provided that 
it is on terms at least as good as those in our 1999 bilateral 
agreement. By granting permanent trade relations to China, it will open 
its markets to an unprecedented degree, while in return the United 
States simply maintains its current market access policies. The 
enhanced trade and services for American and Chinese companies could be 
dramatic for Texans and Americans as a whole.
  Texas alone has export sales to China of more than $580 million in 
1998--nearly 50 percent above its sales in 1993. Shipments through the 
Port of Houston with China including Hong Kong totaled $444 million in 
1998. In 1999, air cargo trade between Houston and China, including 
Hong Kong totaled $1.5 million kilograms and was valued at $56 million. 
In short, China has come a long way since we established relations in 
1971, and develop further relations through PNTR.
  Through the PNTR deal, we gain even more significant concessions 
regarding PNTR. U.S. companies would be able to take advantage of 
several provisions of the U.S.-China Trade deal after China accedes to 
the WTO, but only if Congress permanently normalizes China's trade 
status. For example, tarrifs on industrial products on coming into 
China would fall to an average of 9.4 percent by 2005 from 24 percent. 
Agricultural tariffs will fall to 17.5 percent from 31 percent.
  In addition, the technology industry in my district would benefit 
from PNTR. For example, foreign companies would be able to own up to 
49% of Chinese telecommunications ventures upon China's entry into the 
WTO, and up to 50% in the second year. And China will import some 40 
foreign films in the first year of the agreement, up from 10, and allow 
foreign films and musical companies to share in distribution revenues 
on 20 of these firms. The benefits are clearly advantageous to our 
industries as we support democratization in China.
  PNTR is more than a matter of economics for so many of us--including 
those that have worked on the promotion of democracy and the rule of 
law around the world. I happen to have been one who with great 
trepidation voted for the MFN status, based upon the many strong 
arguments that have been made that if you continue to expose a nation 
to opportunity, to democracy, to the respect of human rights, would see 
gradually those parts of the world. I am hoping and would hope most of 
us would like to believe that we have that kind of trend moving forward 
in China.
  I have had discussions with Former President Jimmy Carter, who 
strongly voiced his support for granting PNTR to China. Clearly, 
religious oppression is a continuous concern as a general matter in 
China. Nevertheless, President Carter eloquently emphasized that 
villages outside large cities in China are having free elections and 
that the freedom to practice one's religion has been growing. This is a 
very positive development. The Chinese people must be counted on to 
relish these rights and to fight for opportunities at the table of 
democracy.

  Former President Jimmy Carter has worked relentlessly since leaving 
the oval office to press for open, free, and fair elections all over 
the world. He has been advocating a powerful human rights agenda within 
our foreign policy and I salute him for his efforts.
  PNTR could help many of these villagers find ways to improve their 
economic and social well being. For example, some companies are simply 
showing the Chinese how to improve fertilizers to improve agricultural 
growth. The people of China certainly should be empowered with the 
ability to feed their people. That should be a basic right.
  At the same time, Americans should understand that granting PNTR 
should not remove the responsibility from Congress, this 
Administration, or any future Administration in assessing and 
responding to any drastic negative impact on Americans as a result of 
this legislation. For this reason, I expect to develop specific 
proposals with the Administration that will help small businesses under 
the PNTR. This is vital to small businesses, especially minority and 
women-owned entities.
  In the 18th Congressional District in Houston Texas, which has a per 
capita income of $11,091, many of my constituents have not prospered as 
much as others throughout the Nation. PNTR will spur capital 
investments, and investment opportunities that would come from 
international trade.
  There will be more appropriate opportunities for expressing 
dissatisfaction with China's human rights record. I strongly share the 
view that we must keep pressure on China. A congressional-executive 
commission within this legislation would help monitor human rights and 
labor rights while placing safeguards against import surges could play 
a pivotal role regarding our concerns in China. By addressing human 
rights matters when they arise, the United States can continue to play 
a crucial role in demanding that the Chinese leadership live up to WTO 
commitments.
  We must also recognize that the United States has held a vote on 
renewal of PNTR status for China every year since 1990, never once 
actually withdrawing NTR status. Unfortunately, the annual NTR vote has 
been less than effective in promoting the protection of human rights 
standards in China.
  Some argue that granting PNTR means the United States loses leverage 
over China by surrendering annual reviews. I have considered the 
gravity of this question for some time. In my work in Congress on 
numerous rights matters, whether domestic or internationally oriented, 
I have focused much of my attention as a Representative of the 18th 
Congressional District on the promotion of economic, civil, and 
political rights. I have never hesitated to expressly address basic 
human rights violations wherever they may occur and specifically in the 
context of the annual review process for normal trade relations (NTR) 
with China.
  Under the proposed legislation, U.S. industries or workers claiming 
injury due to import surges from China would have legal recourse to the 
International Trade Commission and in other venues. This would protect 
our workers or U.S. industries that suffer job losses from as a result 
of the agreement with China.
  The vote on PNTR provides a unique opportunity to support the 
democratization of China. We should be honest that it will not happen 
overnight. It will only happen over time.
  Mr. Speaker, a ``no'' vote would damage our Sino-American relations--
both economic and strategic--for years to come. By denying permanent 
normal trade relations status, we would irreparably damage our 
relationship with China, a country of 1.2 billion. I do not think we 
can afford to follow such a perilous course.
  As I review our options today, I am simply unconvinced that 
constraining China in our trade relations within the WTO will help 
advance human rights in China. To the contrary, I have become 
increasingly convinced that changes resulting from the deal, including 
greater foreign investment and trade, will benefit ordinary Chinese 
workers and businessmen with the outside world.
  Finally, I have deliberated very carefully about the magnitude of 
this decision. I recognize that trade with China and trade generally is 
good for our economy and the American people. At the same time, I look 
forward to opportunities through the WTO to enhance the protection of 
human rights as I and other lawmakers have advocated.
  Mr. Speaker, a vote for PNTR should not leave any American workers 
behind. We must export democracy to China and not ignore this momentous 
opportunity. For these reasons, I will vote to give opportunities to 
the American worker, I will vote to give opportunities to American 
businesses, and I will vote to give opportunities to the people of 
China.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who recognizes that women in China are only 
allowed to have one child if they are married, and unmarried women are 
forced to have abortions.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, one of the more compelling arguments for 
PNTR is that it will improve the life of Chinese workers and that U.S. 
companies will export higher wages and better working conditions, but 
this factual and shocking report says exactly the opposite, that, in 
fact, U.S. companies are instead taking advantage of the nearest slave 
labor conditions and wages, that persist in Chinese factories. But we 
should not be surprised that companies like Wal-Mart, half of whose 
U.S. workers qualify for food stamps, have workers in China, nearly 
half of which owe the factory money after working for a month, 12 to 14 
hours a day, making Kathie Lee handbags. Opponents of this proposal 
dismiss as isolationists and antiprogress, but we favor establishing 
rules that protect workers and establish our ideals.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose

[[Page H3693]]

this measure of permanent normal trade relations for the People's 
Republic of China. It does not represent a fair trade agreement for our 
Nation's textile workers. For the tens of thousands of textile 
employees in North Carolina's 8th Congressional District, this 
agreement continues down the road of trading away their jobs to cheap 
products. The end result of NAFTA, Africa/CBI, and now PNTR has been 
the continued erosion of one of our Nation's oldest industries.
  I believe in opening new markets for our products and I am supportive 
of encouraging a fair trade agreement with China. However, we cannot 
continue to benefit foreign industries at the expense of our textile 
workers. I am fully aware of the potential benefits of trade with 
China. However, it is wrong to ask the workers of the 8th District of 
North Carolina and across the country to make sacrifices for those 
abroad when so many are struggling to make ends meet right here at 
home. I invite my colleagues who believe PNTR is great for America to 
come to my district and see the real effects of so-called free trade.
  Mr. Speaker, oppose this measure.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of PNTR. I have to say I have 
listened to a lot of the debate and many of the arguments that are made 
against PNTR I think simply are not focused on what we are voting on 
today. They are not relevant to the vote today.
  What we are voting on today is whether the United States is going to 
be able to take advantage of a one-sided trade agreement that only 
benefits us with the Chinese by normalizing trade relations with China. 
Yes, putting China in the same category as emerging countries in 
Eastern Europe like Romania, countries in Africa like Kenya or Egypt, 
rather than putting China in the category of enemy countries like Libya 
or Iraq or Cuba, that is all this is about.
  Why can we not take advantage of this one-sided trade agreement that 
only benefits us unless we do this today? Because then they will not 
have the ability in WTO to give us the benefits they have just 
negotiated with us.
  This is about jobs. It is about exports from my district and other 
districts. The most important export is going to be the export of U.S. 
ideas and U.S. values, to bring China into the mainstream.
  With all due respect, so many of the arguments being made about human 
rights, about the environments, about national security, they are not 
relevant to the vote we are making today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of continued Normal Trade 
Relations between the United States and China.
  Trade with China has been a significant factor in the economic 
expansion we've been able to enjoy during the 1990s. In my own 
district, Greater Cincinnati companies exports to China have almost 
doubled in this decade alone. That means more jobs for my constituents, 
more prosperity for the families and businesses in Southwest Ohio, and 
a healthier economy for the area I represent, for the state of Ohio as 
a whole and, indeed, for the entire nation.
  For those of my colleagues who are undecided on this subject, I'd 
urge you to take a close look at this PNTR agreement, because it makes 
so much sense. This is a totally one-sided agreement. Because we 
already have an essentially open market, we've given away nothing to 
get this deal, but we've received unprecedented concessions from the 
Chinese.
  Mr. Speaker, China has a long way to go on improving labor standards, 
human rights and environmental protection. That's why I believe our 
most important export to China won't be out products and services. Our 
most important export is our ideas and our beliefs about freedom and 
democracy.
  As the United States and China develop closer ties--as individuals 
from both countries begin to interact more often with each other--it's 
going to be impossible for the Chinese government to prevent our values 
and ideas from spreading. You can already see it happening with the 
spread of the internet in China, despite the best efforts of their 
government to slow it down.
  Mr. Speaker, we can choose to get rid of normal trade relations with 
China, and stand on the sidelines when our European and Asian 
competitors take our place. Or we can build a strong bilateral 
relationship through engagement--opening their country to our products 
and ideas.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rational approach--and to support 
normal trade relations with China.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of PNTR. I would like to begin by 
thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui); and, 
of course, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer) for their leadership in this particular 
measure.
  I would also like to thank the Committee on Rules for putting forward 
the Levin-Bereuter parallel language that will ensure that we have 
mechanisms to monitor China and to try to get us closer to freer and 
fairer trade.
  I do not disagree with those who say that human rights is a problem, 
that worker conditions are a problem, environmental conditions are a 
problem in China. They are. One cannot pick up a newspaper without 
reading about the persecution of the Falun Gong. Worker rights, they 
still do not exist in China, and certainly we know that China has not 
been the best in enforcing the agreements it has signed.
  The question is not so much that China has not done the best it 
could. The question is, how do we get it to perform better? Is it 
better to try to engage it and bring it along so it can join the 
community of nations? Or is it better to shove it off to the corner, 
put on a dunce cap and say they cannot come out of the corner until 
they act better?
  Isolation has been proven over the centuries to not work. Engagement, 
while it may work slowly, works. I would rather tell China, join us and 
do it the right way than tell them sit in that corner until we think 
they are doing the right thing.
  It is time for us to understand that we cannot close our eyes to 
China. China has problems. It will have problems for a long time; but 
it is up to us, as the leader in this world, to bring China, as we have 
done with other countries, forward so it can act among the community of 
nations the way we would like to see it act.
  I have the very basic concerns that many of my colleagues who are 
going to vote no have as well, but I cannot close my eyes to the fact 
that China is big, it is here, and it is not going away.
  Let us learn from our experiences. Let us move forward, and let us 
use the power of the greatest democracy in the world to show the rest 
of the world that China, too, can join us as neighbor and partner and 
be part of that community of nations that will make us proud to trade 
with them freely and fairly.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when I suggested to the gentleman that I heard William 
Clay Ford, Jr., say that the Ford Motor Company delivers excellent 
products and strives to make the world a better place, this gentleman 
recognized that Ford was going to have to change that and say they 
would deliver excellent products and strive to make the world a better 
place for polluters, slavery, intolerance, and repression.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on human rights, China has 
failed with over 1,000 executions of dissenters since 1998. On 
religious rights, China has created an atmosphere of dread and torture 
and arrest which are commonplace, and on military aggression China's 
policies are still of great concern.
  This weekend we celebrate Memorial Day and are reminded that freedom 
is not free. Our veterans laid down their lives fighting such 
dictatorships such as China. What is our generation going to do, lay 
down and let them make the deal just because we have a buck to save? Do 
we not care about what this country was founded on? Do we not

[[Page H3694]]

care about human rights? This is a travesty. This Congress passed 
sanctions against South Africa when Nelson Mandela was tortured and 
jailed in South Africa. What would we do today if this was an 
apartheid? I guess what we would do is do even more deals with P.W. 
Botha, because that is just what this Congress is going to do when it 
does PNTR for China, is lay down with dictators like P.W. Botha and 
China.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, it is now a great pleasure for me to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a true leader 
in human rights in this Congress.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood) very much for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 1992 presidential campaign, Mr. Clinton accused 
his opponent of coddling the dictator of China and promised that, if he 
was elected, he would deny MFN to China ``as long as they keep locking 
people up.'' Today China is locking people up and torturing them big 
time.
  Faced, in the spring of 1993, with a vote that was likely to strip 
China of MFN, President Clinton preempted congressional action with the 
issuance of an Executive Order that gave the PRC one more year to 
reform. For MFN to continue, significant progress in human rights was 
established. The President said in May 28, 1993, ``Starting today, the 
U.S. will speak with one voice on China policy.''
  We are here today because the American people continue to harbor 
profound concerns about a range of practices by China's Communist 
leaders. The President went on. He said that ``the core of the policy 
will be a resolute insistence upon significant progress on human rights 
in China.''
  ``Whether I extend MFN next year'', the President went on, ``will 
depend on whether China makes significant progress in improving its 
human rights record.''
  I had nothing but praise for the President, Mr. Speaker. I did not 
realize at the time that we had been had.
  As the probationary year progressed, profound doubt concerning the 
President's commitment to his own policy emerged. So midway through 
that probationary period in January of 1994, I led a human rights 
mission to China and was shocked and dismayed to be told by high 
Chinese officials with whom I met that the Clinton administration would 
continue MFN without conditions, and that his human rights linkage was 
pure fiction meaningless and political. It turns out the President was 
bluffing. The fix was in, and the Chinese dictatorship knew it. A 
terrible setback for human rights, democracy, the environment, and 
security issues.
  Let me just point out, Mr. Speaker, once that delinking took place, 
the hard-liners knew for sure that as long as the Clinton 
administration was in place, there would never be a change. This 
administration and some in Congress will fight hard to protect 
intellectual property rights and copyright infringement.
  Sanctions for the protection of CDs are wise public policy but are 
deemed impermissible to employ in the effort to protect Chinese men, 
women and children from government abuse.
  Torture, forced abortion, all kinds of human rights abuses, all of 
them taken together warrants no sanctions whatsoever. Steal some of our 
CDs, and we will bring the full brunt of those sanctions against you. 
Sometimes I think we got our priorities wrong.
  Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the United States Commission on 
International Religious Freedom testified before the Committee on 
International Relations and made it very clear that there has been a 
marked deterioration in religious freedom in China and admonished 
Congress not to confer PNTR on the PRC. I ask Members to read the 77-
page State Department Woman Rights report replete with human rights 
abuses.
  Mr. Speaker, to date there has yet to be any serious credible linkage 
of trade and human rights. Yet today we are being asked to forgo any 
possibility of linkage in the future.
  Deny China PNTR today--require them to make progress in the direction 
of reform and protection of human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 1992 Presidential Campaign, Mr. Clinton accused 
his opponent of coddling the dictators of China and promised that he, 
if elected, would deny MFN to China ``as long as they keep locking 
people up.'' Today Clinton is locking people up--and torturing them--
big time.
  Faced in the spring of 1993 with a vote that was likely to strip 
China of MFN, President Clinton pre-empted Congressional action with 
the issuance of an executive order that gave the PRC one more year of 
MFN. For MFN to continue, ``Significant Progress'' in human rights was 
established as the new standard. The president said in a speech on May 
28, 1993:

       Starting today, the United States will speak with one voice 
     on China policy. We no longer have an Executive Branch policy 
     and a Congressional policy. We have an American policy.
       We are here today because the American people continue to 
     harbor profound concerns about a range of practices by 
     China's communist leaders. We are concerned that many 
     activists and pro-democracy leaders, including some from 
     Tiananmen Square, continue to languish behind prison bars in 
     China for no crime other than exercising their consciences. 
     We are concerned by the Dalai Lama's reports of Chinese 
     abuses against the people and culture of Tibet . . .
       The core of this policy will be a resolute insistence upon 
     significant progress on human rights in China. To implement 
     this policy, I am signing today an Executive Order that will 
     have the effect of extending Most Favored Nation status for 
     China for 12 months. Whether I extend MFN next year, however, 
     will depend upon whether China makes significant progress in 
     improving its human rights record.

  I had nothing but praise for the president. I didn't realize at the 
time that we had been had. As the ``probationary year'' progressed, 
profound doubt concerning the President's commitment to his own policy 
emerged.
  So, midway through the ``probationary period,'' in Jan. of 1994, I 
led a human rights mission to China and was shocked and dismayed to be 
told by high Chinese government officials with whom I met, that 
President Clinton would continue MFN without conditions and that his 
brand of human rights linkage was pure fiction, meaningless and 
political.
  Turns out the President was indeed bluffing, the fix was in, and the 
Chinese dictatorship knew it. A terrible setback for human rights, 
democracy, the environment and security issues.
  In a breathtaking capitulation, the Administration officially de-
linked human rights and trade in the Spring of 1994--and the Chinese 
hardliners then knew for absolute certain that for this Administration 
profits trump respect for human life and that sanctions were to be 
reserved exclusively for commercial concerns, such as intellectual 
property rights, copyright infringement, and the pirating of CDs and 
video cassettes. Then, and only then, would this Administration mount 
up on its hind legs to fight and employ the credible threat of 
sanctions to ameliorate Beijing's behavior.
  In an article in the Washington Post in June 9, 1998, we get this 
insight, ``A few months after President Clinton de-linked MFN from 
progress on human rights, there was a meeting at the White House to 
assess the effects of the Administration's new China policy. At the 
meeting, president Clinton announced, ``I hate our China policy. I wish 
I was running against our China policy. I mean, we give them MFN and 
change our commercial policy and what has changed?'' So reports the 
Washington Post.
  As Chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights 
Subcommittee, I have chaired 18 hearings and markups on human rights 
abuses in China. Not only has nothing changed for the better with our 
defacto de-linking policy, human rights abuses have changed for the 
worse. The delinkage policy experiment which will be made permanent 
today if this legislation passes--will worsen the situation.
  Human rights abuses have gotten progressively worse in virtually 
every category. At a hearing this morning with the U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom, Rabbi Saperstein and two commissioners 
testified that there was a ``. . . sharp deterioration in freedom of 
religion in China during the last year. The Commission believes that an 
unconditional grant of PNTR at this moment may be taken as a signal of 
American indifference to religious freedom. The government of China 
attaches great symbolic importance to steps such as the grant of PNTR, 
and presents them to the Chinese people as proof of international 
acceptance and approval.'' Rabbi Saperstein admonished Congress to vote 
``No'' on PNTR.

  I urge members to read the 77 page State Department report, which 
details pervasive torture, forced abortion, and new, frightening 
crackdowns on dissidents and religious believers. The U.S. State 
Department Report states:

       Abuses included instances of extra judicial killings, 
     torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, 
     arbitrary arrest and detention, lengthy incommunicado 
     detention, and denial of due process. Prison

[[Page H3695]]

     conditions at most facilities remained harsh. In many cases, 
     particularly in sensitive political cases, the judicial 
     system denies criminal defendants basic legal safeguards and 
     due process because authorities attach higher priority to 
     maintaining public order and suppressing political opposition 
     that to enforcing legal norms. The Government infringed on 
     citizens' privacy rights. The Government tightened 
     restrictions on freedom of speech and of the press, and 
     increased controls on the Internet; self-censorship by 
     journalists also increased. The Government severely 
     restricted freedom of assembly, and continued to restrict 
     freedom of association. The government continued to restrict 
     freedom of religion, and intensified controls on some 
     unregistered churches. The Government continued to restrict 
     freedom of movement. The Government does not permit 
     independent domestic nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to 
     monitor publicly human rights conditions. Violence against 
     women, including coercive family planning practices--which 
     sometimes include forced abortions and forced sterilization; 
     prostitution; discrimination against women; trafficking in 
     women and children; abuse of children; and discrimination 
     against the disabled and minorities are all problems. The 
     Government continued to restrict tightly worker rights, and 
     forced labor in prison facilities remains a serious problem. 
     Child labor persists. Particularly serious human rights 
     abuses persisted in some minority areas, especially in Tibet 
     and Xinjiang, where restrictions on religion and other 
     fundamental freedoms intensified . . .
       . . . Police and other elements of the security apparatus 
     employed torture and degrading treatment in dealing with 
     detainees and prisoners. Former detainees and the press 
     reported credibly that officials used electric shocks, 
     prolonged periods of solitary confinement, incommunicado 
     detention, beatings, shackles, and other forms of abuse 
     against detained men and women . . .

  The Chinese dictators--our business partners--excel in the torture 
chamber business and even the internet in China is used against its 
users. The State Department points out that:

       The Government increased monitoring of the Internet during 
     the year, and placed restrictions on information available on 
     the Internet. The Government has special Internet police 
     units to monitor and increase control of Internet content and 
     access . . . Web pages run by Falun Gong followers were 
     targeted specifically by the government as part of its 
     crackdown against the group that began in July.

  The repression of human rights in general and the barbaric forced 
abortion policy is having a devastating impact on women's lives. The 
State Department Human Rights Report says that 500 Chinese women commit 
suicide each and every day.
  Mr. Speaker to date there has yet to be any serious, credible linkage 
of trade and human rights, yet we are being asked today to forgo any 
possible linkage in the future. This is a real vote--the dictatorship 
will actually lose something they want. Deny China's PNTR today--
require them to move in the direction of reform and the protection of 
human rights.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, people are split on both sides of this, 
but I would like to relay a story. Hall Rogers and some of my Democrat 
colleagues went to Hanoi. We spoke to the Communist Chinese Prime 
Minister. I asked him, Mr. Prime Minister, why do you not get involved 
in trade?
  In perfect English, he said, Congressman, we are Communists. He said, 
If we get involved in trade, people out there will have, in his term, 
things, private property and property, and we as, Communists, will be 
out of business. At that point, I said, Trade is good.
  If we take a look at where China was 20 years ago, I was there, and 
where they are now, no, they will lie, cheat, steal. They are a 
national security risk. But I think the question is where do we want 
China to be 20 years from now. I think we have an ability to open those 
markets and move them to the right instead of going back to the left. I 
think it is in the best interest for national security and human rights 
to let them move in that direction.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
favor of this language of this treaty. I truly believe that the failure 
to enact PNTR will deprive the United States of meaningful market 
access. China has access to our markets. We need access to their 
markets.
  This agreement will provide a landmark set of rules in protecting 
patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual 
property protection. This system protects Americans' research, 
innovation, and creates incentives for further investment of 
technological services.
  We need this treaty today. There is no way that we can be the leader 
of the world. Our chair at the table of the world is empty. No 
agreement ever before has contained stronger language to strengthen the 
guarantees of fair trade and to address practices that distort trade 
and investment.
  It will help American workers by eliminating practices that can cost 
American jobs and force unfair transfer of technology to China. For the 
first time, Americans will have the means to combat many of these 
practices.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with 
China (H.R. 4444).
  The potential of Permanent Normal Trade Relations is far from being 
realized by many Americans, in fact, it is far from being realized by 
many of my colleagues. I am here to express the reason I support this 
measure. What we are doing should not be looked at as a favor for 
China, but as an act that is in the best interest of America and 
Americans. And certainly, my district, my state, our country, our 
American workers. Without PNTR, American workers, American farmers, and 
American business will be left behind.
  While groups, such as Asian, Latin American, Canadian and European 
competitors reap the benefits of PNTR, American workers, American 
farmers, and American businesses will miss out on opportunities that 
may possibly raise their economic standards. To compete effectively, 
American workers, American farmers, and American businesses, need the 
access provided by granting PNTR--the ability to export and distribute 
goods in China. This access will allow our businesses to export to 
China from here at home and to have their own distribution networks in 
China. This is more convenient than being forced to set up factories in 
China to sell products through Chinese partners. This will provide the 
opportunity for our firms to attain the access they need to China's 
fastgrowing services market in sectors like telecommunications. This 
agreement truly strengthens our ability to ensure fair trade and 
protect U.S. agricultural and manufacturing bases from unwanted import 
surges, unfair pricing, and unwarranted abusive investment practices.
  I truly believe that failure to enact PNTR will deprive the United 
States of meaningful market access for goods--key elements that are 
necessary to safeguard American workers from unfair import surges from 
China. This agreement will also provide a landmark set of rules for 
protecting patents, copyrights, trademarks and other forms of 
intellectual property. This system protects Americans' research and 
innovation and creates incentives for further investment and 
technological progress worldwide.
  Our firms also need access to China's fastgrowing services market in 
sectors like telecommunications. Just think, this access will allow, 
for the first time, our companies the ability to sell and distribute 
products in China made by workers here at home without being forced to 
transfer our technology to China. This ability to work at home also 
sets the stage for increased trade, which will play a part in raising 
the living standards here in America.
  The U.S., the world's largest exporter, will gain the most from a 
strong, open, multilateral trading system. This trading system will 
help raise living standards for American working families that depend 
on export-related jobs. It is a fact that jobs supported by goods 
exports pay 13-16% more than the national average. Denying China PNTR 
will cost American exports and the jobs they support as well as higher 
paying jobs. We must not allow our competitors in Europe, Asia, and 
elsewhere to capture Chinese markets.
  Simply stated, if Congress enacts PNTR there will be more exports to 
China of products made in the United States by American workers and 
products grown by our farmers. If Congress does not grant PNTR, our 
competitors will enjoy the full market access and enforcement rights in 
China that we will be denied. No agreement ever on WTO accession has 
ever contained stronger measures to strengthen guarantees of fair trade 
and to address practices that distort trade and investment. Mainly, it 
will help American workers by eliminating practices that can cost 
American jobs and force the unfair transfer of U.S. technology to 
China. For the first time, Americans will have the means to combat 
measures such as forced technology transfer, frequent mandated offsets, 
frivolous local content requirements, and other unfair practices that 
drain jobs and technology away from the U.S. Passage of PNTR will open 
China to American values and practices also. U.S. companies are more 
committed than their Asian competitors to progressive labor management 
practices and protecting the safety of their workers. It is clear, our 
decision could fundamentally

[[Page H3696]]

change not only our relationship with China, but China itself.
  Since I am a representative of Dallas, Texas, let me expound on how 
PNTR will help Texas and my district. The U.S.-China Bilateral 
Agreement on China's accession to the WTO opens an important market to 
Texas' exports, by benefiting key industries, busily creating export, 
and blossoming employment opportunities. Texas' exports to China are 
broadly diversified with almost every major product category 
registering exports to the Chinese market in 1998. Texas' merchandise 
exports sales to China totaled over $583 million in 1998--a 46% 
increase from the $399 million sold to China in 1993. Included in 
Texas' exports to China are sales from key metropolitan areas. For 
example, my district, Dallas, grossed $92 million in sales. The 
agreement will open the market for a wide range of services, including 
telecommunications, banking, insurance, financial services, 
professional, hotel, restaurant, tourism, motion pictures, video 
distribution, software, business, computer, environmental, and 
distribution and related services. This will occur not only in Texas, 
but also throughout America.
  It's simple, granting PNTR will not erase the horrific acts of the 
Chinese Government, but it will enable self-protection and allow 
opportunities for American workers. Opportunities that we should not 
allow to pass us by due to past actions of the Chinese Government.
  Let me end by acknowledging the work that all of my colleagues have 
and continue to do in order to ensure America's leadership position in 
the world. As Members of Congress and leaders, we must realize that now 
is the time to encourage China to evolve. We can advance America's 
economic system without diluting the goals we stand for and the goals 
that allow democracy to prevail.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that so many observers have gotten it 
wrong. The China trade vote is not about protectionism versus free 
trade; it's not about business versus labor; it's not even about China 
haters versus China apologists. No, it is about a vision of 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.
  Proponents of Permanent Normal Trade Relations say that the deal 
reached with China will give China unprecedented access to American 
business, that American traders have given up nothing in the deal to 
gain concessions for China, that China will enter the World Trade 
Organization regardless of Congress' decision on PNTR, and that 
American industry must not let other countries gain advantages in a 
market of 1.3 billion potential customers. Proponents concede that 
China does have a poor record of abiding by trade agreements as well as 
a poor record with respect to worker's rights, human rights, and 
environmental protection, and then they say the situation can be 
rectified through the rule-based trade agreement and constructive 
engagement derived from that trade. They argue that trade has a 
liberalizing influence on society. The most frequent argument is that 
the internet will irrevocably open China. Engagement, they say, is 
preferable to isolationism. There are a few grains of truth in their 
arguments, but this agreement falls far short of what we need and so, 
this is not the right thing to do.
  I too am for engagement, real engagement. Proponents of PNTR say that 
the presence of thousands of American traders carrying checkbooks and 
adhering to American factory standards will unleash the altruistic 
intentions of a billion Chinese. Of course, that has not happened 
anywhere else in the world. Business in America did not by itself 
produce the social progress we extol. It did not happen in American 
factories; it did not happen in civil rights; it did not happen in 
environmental protection. In every case we had to re-enforce economic 
activity with rules of social behavior--in insuring collective 
bargaining, in opening public accommodations through civil rights 
legislation, and in outlawing pollution. Unfettered business did not do 
these things. We needed a system of rules. Even trade requires a system 
of rules. This whole debate is about whether to bring China into a 
rule-based trade regime. The great irony of all this is that proponents 
of PNTR insist on the need for rule-based trade agreements, backed up 
with sanctions, trade actions intended to induce good behavior on all 
sides. So, why do we need rule-based agreements in trade, but not in 
any other area we think is important?
  Real engagement extends beyond just trade, and it extends beyond 
China. Of course, trade is good, We in the United States are a more 
prosperous country because goods, services, and people can move freely 
among Oregon, Texas, New Jersey and the other states. Each state does 
not try to be self-sufficient. But such free trade works because it is 
fair trade. Although there is some competition between states, everyone 
can be confident that each state plays by nearly equal rules with 
regard to environment, workers' conditions, and product safety. Open 
trade requires expectations of fair standards of behavior. Trade in the 
21st century will be, and must be, about more than how many widgets 
enter and leave a port.
  We do not want to insult an independent and proud sovereign nation. 
In order to accomplish the goals of our negotiations we should not 
alienate the other parties. But we must not give up on values. Some say 
workers rights are irrelevant, or human rights, or religious rights, or 
environmental protection. They are not irrelevant. The citizens in my 
district tell me these concerns are not irrelevant. To them the 
proponents say, these may be important, but trade will take care of 
them. This trickle-down is specious. It has not worked that way in the 
past. It has not worked that way elsewhere in the world.
  I cannot support this legislation to grant permanent normal trade 
relations because it fails to consider anything but trade. This is not 
ready for a vote. The administration should first put in place 
mechanisms to deal with these other things--in the trade agreement, in 
the WTO, in the ILO, in the World Bank. Worker's rights, environmental 
protection, and human rights are not irrelevant concerns. I do not 
expect full, immediate accomplishment of our goals in these difficult 
areas, but silence on these issues will not lead to progress.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill before us today. I also 
emphasize to them and to the administration that after today's vote, 
whatever the outcome, we have much work to do to make sure we address 
these concerns.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  This is not a vote to trade or not to trade--the issue is yearly 
oversight or no oversight. Given China's record of violating virtually 
every international agreement it enters into, the leverage of oversight 
is critical.
  Trade and Oversight are not mutually exclusive. We can have both. 
Even U.S. Trade Representatives Charlene Barshefsky, during recent 
testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, acknowledged that 
the U.S. could obtain all of the tariff cuts China would be required to 
make upon entry into the WTO even if Congress did not grant PNTR.
  The same arguments for PNTR were put forth by proponents of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The result of NAFTA has been 
500,000 lost jobs for American workers and a ballooning trade deficit 
with Mexico of $22 billion.
  Why will no one talk about the impact of this agreement on our trade 
deficit? There is considerable foreign capital in our stock market 
which will leave the US if a better deal arises. Our overall trade 
deficit has already surpassed $331 billion, a figure that is beginning 
to sound alarms for many financial analysts concerned about the long-
term stability of the U.S. dollar. The Secretary of the Treasury told 
me Monday and this problem must be addressed.
  Moreover, the $2 billion in goods the U.S. exports to China are not 
purchased by the Chinese. They are merely supplies for the U.S. plants 
that are operating there. Compare that to the fact that the Chinese 
sell $80 billion in goods to the US annually. If the Chinese continue 
their practice of not buying US goods, this will not be a home run for 
American
  China continues to threaten Taiwan, a country our nation has pledged 
to protect. Granting PNTR would send the wrong signal to Bejing that 
military action against Taiwan would be tolerated.
  Finally, large companies have lobbied hard for Congress to pass PNTR 
for China. Corporations must be concerned about their bottom line. But 
the 570,000 persons I represent have other issues. There has been no 
ground swell for this trade deal from our community. I have even 
received some letters from workers who say they've been asked to write 
in favor of PNTR but they fear if it passes, it will mean the loss of 
their jobs. Chinese laborers earn only one twentieth what American 
workers do.
  Trade will go on. Wouldn't it be nice if it were fair trade.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article from yesterday's New 
York Times, as follows:

[[Page H3697]]

                [From the New York Times, May 23, 2000]

   Joining the Club: Like Others, China Will Try to Protect Its Own 
                               Industries

                          (By Craig S. Smith)

       Shanghai, May 22--Sun Guomin, a poor farmer in a village 
     west of here, represents an example of why American business 
     executives and government officials may be disappointed once 
     China enters the World Trade Organization.
       While American businesses have been dreaming of the vast 
     potential markets for their goods and services in China, the 
     government is unlikely to allow the West the kind of access 
     those dreams are made of. For if Beijing immediately did 
     everything the trade organization requires, Mr. Sun and 
     millions like him could be driven out of business.
       And with droves of laid-off workers already mounting 
     sporadic protests across the country, giving foreign 
     competition a hand in wiping out whole industries could 
     amount to political suicide for China's governing Communist 
     Party.
       Agriculture is one of the most vulnerable areas.
       Mr. Sun, 68, is struggling to get by on his six and a half 
     acres of land in the village of Nansong, west of Shanghai, 
     where he lives in a mud house on a dirt path with his wife, 
     Chen Baonan.
       He has already stopped growing barely, once a major crop in 
     this part of the flat Yangtze River delta, because it does 
     not pay. He and his neighbors still grow rapeseeed, 
     the source of canola oil, and the plant's brilliant yellow 
     flowers carpet the delta with color each spring.
       But the price the government pays for rapeseed has fallen 
     so low, Mr. Sun says, that he is better off pressing the 
     seeds himself and using the cooking oil at home. He would 
     gladly lease his field to a factory, but the government will 
     not let him, citing a need to preserve farmland. He and his 
     wife have opened a small store in the front of their house, 
     where they make about five cents a day selling cigarettes and 
     beer.
       Joining the W.T.O. threatens to make China's agricultural 
     economics even worse.
       Last year China imported record quantities of rapeseed and 
     soybeans, because foreign oilseed production is cheaper and 
     the quality often higher than that of domestically grown 
     crops. But to enter the trade group, China has agreed to lift 
     quotas that it now uses to restrict the import of edible 
     oils. A surge in imports would further dampen demand for 
     seeds from people like Mr. Sun.
       The problem exists pretty much across the board.
       The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a top government 
     research institute in Beijing, recently estimated that prices 
     for Chinese grain and other agricultural products would 
     continue to exceed those of the global market for the next 20 
     years.
       Thanks to huge mechanized farms, the American cost of 
     production is often lower than that in China, where farming 
     employs as many as 600 million people, fields are fragmented 
     and transportation is slow.
       And many other labor-intensive industries are in the same 
     boat.
       Many of the country's 100-plus automobile assembly plants 
     face extinction if imports surge as tariffs fall, and 
     chemical plants could be crippled by foreign competition. The 
     Chinese government wants to reform the economy, but it favors 
     a cautious, go-slow approach rather than risk widespread 
     unrest that could undermine its rule.
       ``It's important to think about stability,'' said Zhou 
     Hanming, a lawyer who advises the government about the W.T.O.
       Mr. Zhou says that the two to five years in which the 
     organization requires members to put most of its mandated 
     measures into effect is too short a time, and that China will 
     do what it must to shelter industries until they are ready to 
     face global competition.
       ``We're working very hard on a large number of new laws and 
     regulations that will offer protection of national 
     industries, vulnerable industries, infant industries,'' he 
     said.
       Mr. Zhou, one of dozens of experts Beijing has enlisted to 
     prepare the country to defend its industries, is studying 
     ways to use anti-dumping rules. Under China's trade deal with 
     the United States, Washington insisted that it be allowed to 
     levy punitive duties against imports that it deems to be sold 
     below cost. Washington wanted the clause to protect the 
     American textile industry from cheap Chinese imports, but 
     China has seized on the provision to protect its own 
     threatened industries.
       ``We're going to learn how to use the same weapon,'' Mr. 
     Zhou said.
       The country will also use other means to give threatened 
     industries an edge, including preferential bank loans and tax 
     breaks. And Beijing may end longstanding tax breaks for 
     foreign companies that were intended to encourage investment.
       But China does hope to use its membership in the trade 
     group as a lever to move moribund state industries toward 
     real reform.
       Take the pharmaceutical industry, which still relies 
     largely on copies, often illegal, of Western compounds. China 
     will come under pressure from the group to enforce the 
     intellectual property rights of foreign drug makers. To 
     survive, Chinese pharmaceutical firms will have to invest in 
     research and development and begin producing original drugs.
       ``The pressure will help force us to depend on ourselves,'' 
     said Wang Li, general manager of the Shanghai Joy Biopharm 
     Company, a state-owned drug laboratory started five years ago 
     to develop commercially viable pharmaceuticals for the 
     domestic industry.
       And China hopes that membership in the group will spur 
     foreign investment, which fell last year for the first time 
     since investors withdrew after the crackdown on pro-democracy 
     protesters at Tianamen Square in June 1989.
       Multinational corporations have already begun signaling 
     their willingness to pump more money into China after it 
     joins. Nonetheless, protection is high on Beijing's agenda.
       China is not known for its strict adherence to trade 
     agreements. In 1995, Trade Minister Wu Yi signed a deal with 
     the United States trade representative, Charlene Barshefsky, 
     that promised to protect American intellectual property 
     rights. But counterfeiting of computer software and movies on 
     compact disks is now more common than ever. Street hawkers 
     sell the latest Hollywood blockbusters in most Chinese 
     cities, and the police ignore the activity.
       Nor has China proven a progressive member of another trade 
     club. As a member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 
     forum, it has resisted moves to speed the liberalization of 
     financial services.

                           *   *   *   *   *


  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this permanent status and in support of annual status.
  ``Dear Representative Farr/Sam, . . . [it is] the very strong 
sentiment of the Labor Council delegates that the agreement negotiated 
with China . . . is a bad deal for working people in this country. . . 
. It should not be ratified by Congress. We urge you to vote against 
it.''--Amy Newell, Business Agent, Santa Cruz Central Labor Committee, 
AFL-CIO, in a letter dated March 20, 2000.
  ``Dear Congressman Farr/Sam, I am writing to you today to let you 
know how important Congressional approval of the Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations for China (PNTR) is for Monterey County growers! . . . Both 
California and Monterey County stand to gain jobs and business growth 
from your approval of PNTR. . . . I urge you to look carefully at the 
PNTR China issue and lend your immediate support to this extremely 
important matter!''--Sharan Lanini, Executive Director, Monterey County 
Farm Bureau, in a letter dated March 24, 2000.
  How could two views on the same issue coming out of roughly the same 
regional community be so incredibly disparate? Yet, this is the issue I 
am faced with as a U.S. Congressman as the vote on China and WTO 
approaches.
  The issue at hand is whether the United States will grant China 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR). The U.S. already provides 
China with NTR--Normal Trade Relations--status, a trade arrangement 
that is currently renewed or denied on an annual basis. China has been 
granted NTR (previously referred to as ``MFN''--Most Favored Nation 
status) for 19 years in a row. I have supported annual NTR for China in 
the past.
  The difference this year is not just whether to make permanent the 
annual NTR debate for China. The difference this year is that American 
approval of PNTR will provide the United States the same access to 
Chinese markets as other World Trade Organization (WTO) members. 
Without PNTR, the U.S. will continue to trade with China on a bilateral 
basis and under conditions separate and different from the rest of the 
world. PNTR would establish new rules between the two countries equal 
to the rest of the world and new grounds for settling trade disputes.
  Most people know that I am a strong believer in trade. My votes on 
NAFTA, GATT and WTO are no secret. I regularly defend the Market Access 
Program (MAP) which provides federal funds to advertise American 
products overseas as a way to increase demand in foreign markets for 
U.S.-made items. The fastest growing market for products coming out of 
the Central Coast--particularly agriculture--is in Asia. In fact, Asian 
markets accounted for over 285 million pounds of export products from 
Monterey County alone in 1998. This figure could easily grow 
exponentially if full and fair access to the China market were made 
available to our growers. According to statistics the Department of 
Commerce released last month, the Santa Cruz-Watsonville area saw an 
839 percent increase in exports to China over 1993-98. Salinas saw a 
743 percent increase in its exports to China over the same period.
  I want to see that kind of economic opportunity available to all 
California communities and all communities across the country. I want 
to see China open up to Central Coast agriculture. I want to see 
America finally get a break at marketing its goods to the potential

[[Page H3698]]

billion Chinese patrons. Ultimately, that means more business for local 
growers, more jobs for local workers, increased shipping operations for 
local truckers, and better economic conditions all around.
  But in negotiating a trade deal with China (or any entity on any 
issue) we should look for the best deal that advances all of the United 
States' interests. Economics is not the only issue at stake here; there 
are others, including the non-tangible issues of human rights and 
personal freedoms. There is wide disagreement on whether PNTR helps or 
hinders these causes within China.
  If human rights and environmental stewardship are important interests 
to the United States, then it is right of us to try to find ways to 
advance these issues world wide. If China is a concern of ours, then we 
ought to try to sway Chinese leadership to move toward accommodation in 
these areas. The best way to do that is to require that China return to 
Congress each year to make its case that it deserves special trade 
status because it has made efforts to correct environmental and human 
rights deficiencies. PNTR eliminates that tool and robs us of the 
chance to hold China accountable.
  So, I will vote ``no'' on PNTR for China. I do so fully supportive of 
open and fair trade, but also mindful of using American influence to 
keep China on track to being a better citizen of the world.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
  (Mr. KANJORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposition.


                          a difficult decision

  Mr. Speaker, over the last three months, I have conducted a thorough 
analysis of extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status to 
China, thereby putting U.S. trade relations with China on the same 
plane as our relations with virtually every other country in the World 
Trade Organization. During this time, I have remained undecided on this 
issue. I have listened to every possible argument in this debate and 
comprehensively examined the legislation's potential effects so that I 
could learn more about the quality of jobs that expanded trade can 
bring and the potential effects of trade on human rights. I also wanted 
to study the impact of trade on not only our workers, but also the 
international labor standards for other workers around the world. First 
and foremost among my considerations during my deliberations, however, 
was determining the consequences of this legislation for the people 
working, the families living, and the businesses operating in 
Northeastern and Central Pennsylvania.
  This has been an extremely difficult decision for me. In the long 
term, I believe that international trade benefits the United States 
when conducted fairly. Our nation cannot repeat the mistakes of 1930 
when Congress enacted the Smoot-Hawley bill, which helped to 
precipitate the Great Depression. Freer trade among nations increases 
wealth for all and improves relations with our allies, similar to the 
1960s when we reduced a number of trade barriers.


                             nafta and pntr

  But international trade has not always helped everyone. In the short 
term, absent the creation of an effective economic safety net, 
increased international trade will produce winners and losers in our 
economy. In 1993, I voted against the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA), primarily because there were insufficient 
protections in place to preserve the economic security of average, 
working Americans and lower-income workers in labor-intensive 
industries. Over time, my doubts were proven correct. After NAFTA, some 
sectors of our economy grew, while others did not. Additionally, 
workers in some regions of our country have flourished under NAFTA, 
while workers in other regions have experienced wage stagnation or lost 
their jobs outright.
  Six-and-a-half years after the NAFTA vote, our country has another 
opportunity to consider the issue of increased global trade. The debate 
on PNTR, however, differs significantly from our deliberations over 
NAFTA. Under NAFTA, we created the world's largest free trade area with 
two other countries, Mexico and Canada. NAFTA not only eliminated 
tariffs between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, but it also 
required us to enter into an expansive range of commitments and 
agreements to integrate the economies of the three nations.
  Through PNTR we are only seeking to place U.S. trade relations with 
China on the same footing as our relations with virtually every other 
country in the world, including nations like Argentina, Bulgaria, 
Cyprus, Greece, and Switzerland. In other words, the economic 
integration required by PNTR is significantly less than that required 
by NAFTA. Under PNTR, we will not eliminate or even lower our tariffs 
for the goods we import from China. Thus, a product produced in the 
United States, Mexico, and Canada, which is not subject to a tariff, 
will often still remain cheaper than the same item manufactured in 
China, which will still be subject to the tariffs that we apply not 
only to China, but also to Germany, France, Brazil, Japan, and Great 
Britain. Moreover, as a result of this agreement China will 
significantly lower trade barriers for U.S. products to enter the 
Chinese marketplace.


                          competing viewpoints

  In order to educate myself more fully about the reasons to support 
and oppose PNTR status for China, I have met with hundreds of 
individuals in recent weeks and months and have heard from thousands 
more. On one side of this debate, the business community maintains that 
the United States stands to gain tens of thousands of high-tech jobs as 
a result of PNTR. In the short term, however, our economy will likely 
face job losses in low-tech, labor-intensive industries. Additionally, 
I fear that in the short term only selected communities in our 
country--like those within the Silicon Valley of California, in the 
high-tech corridor of Northern Virginia, and along Wall Street in New 
York--will benefit from extending PNTR.
  Supporters of the agreement further contend that denial of PNTR would 
hurt American families who would pay more for consumer goods. They 
estimate these higher prices could cost more than $10 billion each 
year. Additionally, supporters of PNTR insist that the best way to 
improve China's record on human rights, religious freedom, and free 
speech is to engage and not isolate the Chinese people in the world 
economy. Finally, PNTR's supporters note that because the Europeans 
have recently entered into an agreement with the Chinese government, 
China is all the more likely to join the World Trade Organization this 
year. Consequently, we need PNTR so that U.S. workers, farmers, and 
businesses can remain competitive with our trading partners in Europe, 
the Americas, and Asia.
  On the other side of this debate, I have heard many reasons to oppose 
PNTR. Some interest groups have estimated that our nation will lose 
tens of thousands of jobs as a result of PNTR. Just as I doubt the 
number of projected jobs that supporters believe will be created by 
this decision, I also am skeptical of the anticipated jobs that 
opponents believe will be lost because of this legislation. In reality, 
the net change in jobs probably lies between these two estimates.
  Others opposed to this legislation feel that by granting PNTR to 
China we will condone that nation's record of human rights abuses. But 
using trade as leverage against the Chinese government is not only 
unenforceable, I believe it is also likely to bring change to the most 
oppressed Chinese people. There is a great danger in the arguments that 
some have put forth in attempting to demonize the Chinese government. 
If we care about improving our relations with China and improving the 
qualify of life for the Chinese people, we must remain engaged. As Dai 
Qing, perhaps China's most prominent environmentalist and independent 
political thinker, states, ``All of the fights--for a better 
environment, labor rights, and human rights--these fights we will fight 
in China tomorrow. But first we must break the monopoly of the state. 
To do that, we need a freer market and the competition mandated by the 
World Trade Organization.''


                              a third way

  During this debate over Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China, I 
fear that we may have unfortunately again neglected to address an issue 
that we should have considered during our deliberations over NAFTA. In 
this country, a paradox arises because the two diverging viewpoints on 
extending trade to other nations fail to join together to advance the 
real interests of all Americans. If we defeat PNTR today, our low-tech, 
labor-intensive jobs will still continue to be lost by trade that 
already exists with China and our other leading trading partners around 
the world under current trade agreements. Additionally, the U.S. stands 
to lose our opportunity to create new, high-tech jobs for workers in 
our Nation because we will have failed to open the Chinese market.
  It is also a false hope that the defeat of PNTR will provide job 
security for those jobs already lost or about to be lost to global 
trade. According to the Congressional Research Service, which provides 
Congress with non-partisan analysis, Pennsylvania has already lost 
18,663 jobs to Canada and Mexico since passage of NAFTA. This trend 
will likely continue in the future, even if we do not pass PNTR today.
  With or without PNTR, our economy will certainly change in positive 
and negative ways because of increased worldwide competition in the 
years ahead. I have, therefore, asked myself what can be done now in 
the United States to help those regions of the country and those 
sectors of our economy that need assistance in order to ensure that all 
American workers and businesses can benefit tomorrow from increased 
global trade. By providing short-term support for these communities,

[[Page H3699]]

businesses, and workers, we can ultimately ensure that everyone in our 
economy profits from international trade.
  We are fortunate that our economy continues to grow and prosper. 
President Clinton has led the Nation to the strongest economy the world 
has ever seen. He has created the most economic opportunities for 
working families in the last 30 years, and I know that he shares my 
concerns for those Americans who have not fully participated in the 
economic expansion of the last eight years. His leadership in reducing 
the budget deficit, lowering taxes for lower- and middle-income 
Americans, and supporting workers' rights has strengthened our economic 
outlook for the 21st century.
  Of primary importance to me in this debate is how we will overcome 
the negative consequences of increased trade, especially for those 
older workers who may lose their jobs. From my perspective, workers and 
families displaced by greater global competition must ultimately retain 
at least the same quality of life as they would have obtained under 
their old jobs. Our government can accomplish this objective through a 
number of mechanisms. We could, for example, enact legislation to:
  Promote investment in economically distressed areas. Through 
President Clinton's New Markets initiative, we can increase investments 
in the untapped potential of our Nation's underserved markets and 
create long-term partnerships that will lead to lasting economic change 
in distressed communities. One component of the New Markets Initiative 
is the America's Private Investment Companies (APIC) bill, and I have 
been an ardent supporter of this legislation. APICs would make large-
scale investments in businesses operating in distressed urban centers, 
mid-sized cities, small towns, and rural areas, to stimulate job growth 
and economic development. Because we recently reached a bipartisan 
agreement between President Clinton and Speaker Hastert on this 
economic development package, I am hopeful that will pass this 
legislation later this year. I do, however, regret that this package is 
not before us today.
  Enhance job training and trade adjustment programs. We must 
additionally give workers the tools they need to succeed in the global 
economy through reforms of our nation's trade adjustment and economic 
development assistance programs. We can accomplish this goal by 
extending trade adjustment assistance eligibility to those who lose 
their jobs due to shifts in production and strengthening the linkage 
between income support and early enrollment in retraining. We should 
also create an Office of Community Economic Adjustment within the 
Economic Development Administration in order to ensure that 
economically distressed regions of our country receive access to all 
available federal resources in times of need. Again, we are 
unfortunately not voting on such legislation today.
  Safety net tools, like promoting investments in distressed areas and 
enhancing job training and trade adjustment programs, will not only 
mitigate the negative effects flowing from increased trade, but also 
lift up displaced workers and communities traditionally hurt by greater 
global trade. The business community and labor organizations should 
recognize the benefits of taking these proactive steps to help all 
Americans participate in the prosperity of trade. In the future when we 
consider other trade measures in Congress, I hope that we will expand 
the debate to include these quality of life protections.


                         oppose the legislation

  Mr. Speaker, in the past the American public has demonstrated good 
judgment in determining how we should conduct trade with other nations. 
In reaching my final decision to oppose this legislation, I have asked 
myself the same four basic questions used by many Americans when 
debating trade issues. Those questions are:
  Who benefits from the PNTR package in the United States?
  What are the advantages of the PNTR package for American workers?
  What regions of the country will benefit or lose under the PNTR 
package?
  Who benefits in China from the PNTR package?
  As I noted earlier, while PNTR's supporters state that thousands of 
jobs will be created as the result of the agreement, I worry that many 
workers and businesses in Northeastern and Central Pennsylvania will 
not reap those benefits in the short term and possibly not even the 
long term. Moreover, the PNTR agreement fails to mitigate the potential 
damages caused by increased competition in the global marketplace for 
our communities at home. Workers that lose their jobs because of 
increased trade will further lose from a poorly constructed economic 
safety net. This outcome will lead to a further widening in the gap 
between the income of wealthy individuals and average, hard-working 
Americans in this country, a far more worrisome problem because of its 
potential future effects on our society.
  Admittedly, some workers in some sectors of our economy will 
undoubtedly win under this PNTR package. We cannot, however, overlook 
the fact that some workers will not only lose their economic security, 
but they could also potentially experience changes in the structure of 
their families and their respect for their government as a result of 
this legislation. I cannot support this legislation, because it fails 
to mitigate these and other losses that workers, families, and 
businesses may face from increased trade.
  Finally, during this PNTR debate I have often heard from my 
constituents that China ``cannot be trusted.'' In reality, they are 
saying that the Chinese government cannot be trusted. Efforts to 
include provisions in this PNTR package that establish a commission to 
monitor human rights, labor standards, and religious freedom in China 
are a step in the right direction, as is requiring the Administration 
to report annually to Congress on China's compliance with international 
standards. I commend my colleagues Congressmen Sandy Levin and Doug 
Bereuter for their bipartisan and hard work on this issue. Although it 
may be the best we can ask from the Chinese government at this time, we 
need to really know whether we can trust the Chinese government in the 
future before moving ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, an agreement such as this one is a contract. As I recall 
from my days as an attorney, people generally enter into contracts only 
if all parties to the agreement believe that they will win under the 
arrangement. China may feel they have a winning deal with the United 
States on this PNTR package. From the perspective of the United States, 
however, this PNTR agreement fails to strengthen the short- and long-
term economic security for all regions of our country and all American 
workers. Rejecting this legislation is not rejecting trade with China. 
It merely means that we will continue to have the opportunity to review 
on an annual basis our current trade policy with China and examine 
changes in that nation's trade record and human rights performance. 
Regretfully, I must oppose this bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 30 
seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) who understands 
that the Dalai Lama never said he supports PNTR and understands that 
there is a difference between China acceding to WTO and Congress 
passing PNTR.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, has the Chinese Government earned 
our trust? No. China has violated the term of four previous agreements 
we signed with them.
  Has the WTO earned our trust? No. The WTO repeatedly rules in favor 
of the multinational companies, and ignores the workers, their human 
rights and the environment.
  Look at the banana issue. When the WTO ruled in favor of one company, 
Chiquita International; they ignored all Caribbean nations whose main 
exports are bananas. Now thousands of farmers are without work. We 
cannot trust the WTO to look out for the people. We cannot trust China 
to look out for the people. Who can we trust?
  I urge my colleagues to consider their responsibility and vote ``no'' 
on this bill.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4444. I absolutely do not believe 
that it is in our country's best interest to grant Permanent Normal 
Trade Relations to China. I have listened carefully to both sides of 
the debate and I know that each side has valid concerns. But in the 
end, I think there is too much at stake for Congress to give up 
oversight on this issue.
  Taking away our ability to impose unilateral trade sanctions against 
a country like China is simply not acceptable. Without this option, the 
U.S. will lose its leverage to influence China towards improving 
environmental standards, as well as human rights and labor rights 
violations. Under the WTO rules, we would lose our ability to 
unilaterally punish a nation or a company for these types of 
violations. China has simply not been a trustworthy trading partner, 
and has violated the terms of all four bilateral trade agreements it 
has previously signed with the U.S.
  In addition, I am more than concerned about China's human rights 
record. Along with the poor treatment of the work force, the Chinese 
Communist party's human rights record only seems to be getting worse, 
not better, even in the midst of economic opening. Government 
restrictions on free speech and the press, as well as forced 
imprisonment for expressing one's political or religious beliefs, have 
deterred political opening.
  On the economic front, the U.S. balance of payments last year shows 
that our trade deficit with China is growing rapidly. In the end, I 
believe that extending PNRT will result in a net loss of jobs for 
Americans, not gains.
  Finally, I am very concerned about the discovery last year of Chinese 
espionage. I do not believe that a country that steals our military 
secrets should be granted trade benefits!
  When I weigh the gravity of these factors, I believe it is in our 
best interests to oppose

[[Page H3700]]

Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China, and I encourage my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4444.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair announces that the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 21\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The Chair intends at the conclusion, as we wrap up, to begin with the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), then the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) to follow, then the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) to follow, and to finish with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of normalizing trade in 
China.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  (Mr. NEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood) and all the Members that are fighting so diligently to bring 
the side of the American workers to the floor here of the House.
  Let me just re-stress, and I made these statements last night, this 
is from the Ohio Department of Commerce, Director Gary Suhadolnik, and 
this documents where baby chickens were fed arsenic in the water. They 
were killed. They contained 18 percent arsenic in their systems, and 
they were put into the Easter baskets of American children. Luckily, we 
caught 350 of the baskets before the rest could come over the market.
  There are other examples in here of hideous examples of dangers to 
American children because these products come in. China does have 
respect for our American children. They do not have respect for what 
comes over from China. If this agreement passes, we are going to have 
more of this. We are going to have our markets flooded.
  On the other end, we have been so comfortable. We wear engagement 
here like a coat. It gets a little bit hot, one takes it off, the word 
engagement.
  We talk about the farmers, once again the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt) has a bill that unleashes all the sanctions around the 
world. But all of a sudden, we cannot talk about engagement when we 
talk about the Nethercutt bill, which if my colleagues really want to 
help the farmers, they would pass it.
  If my colleagues want to pass this bill to help the farmers like my 
colleagues say, that 9 percent tariff reduction is going to vanish. It 
is going to vanish instantly when they manipulate their currency in 
China like it happened in Mexico, and my colleagues know it.
  We have got to stand up for American workers. Despite all the 
lucrative predictions that the China WTO deal will open up new 
opportunities for American farmers and businesses, I remain convinced 
that this trade deal represents a bad deal for the United States.
  The International Trade Commission analyzed a similar trade deal that 
was on the table in April and concluded that it would lead to an 
increase in the U.S. trade deficit.
  Then people say, well, this is not permanent. You bet your life if my 
colleagues vote for this, the undecided Members of Congress, Mr. 
Speaker, if they hear this message, if they vote for this, it is going 
to be permanent. It will not be undone.
  Stand up for American workers for a change.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, a bill to grant 
permanent normal trade relations status to China. The central tenet of 
America's trade policy should be threefold: opening markets for goods 
produced by American workers, improving our nations economy, and 
promoting American values and ideals abroad. In this sense, I believe 
that our trade policy should encourage reform, while demanding a level 
playing field for international commerce. This has already yielded many 
benefits for America in rural and urban areas alike. Indeed, within my 
congressional district in southwest Virginia, approximately one in 
every four jobs is tied to exports. The expansion in free trade in 
recent years has allowed Lynchburg and Roanoke to become two of the 25 
fastest growing export regions in the U.S.
  However, we have yet to include one of the world's largest emerging 
markets in this process. China, a nation of over 1 billion people, has 
been hamstrung over the years with outmoded laws and trading practices 
put in place by the Communist regime. Even with these barriers in 
place, China is becoming a thriving market for U.S. products and 
services, and is already our 5th largest trading partner. If we can 
bring China into a rules-based trading system and dismantle the 
barriers put in place by it's failed economic philosophy, we can open 
up a massive new market to American goods and services.
  Some have argued that opening the U.S. market to Chinese-made goods 
will have a detrimental effect on U.S. workers. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. The United States already has an open market 
for most goods originating in China and the rest of the world. It is 
China whose market is closed to the products designed by U.S. 
engineers, manufactured by U.S. workers and exported by U.S. companies. 
If we open this market to U.S. goods and services, American workers 
stand to gain a tremendous benefit from the additional demand generated 
by China's huge population.
  At the same time, I do share the concerns many have raised regarding 
our national security and China. Specifically, I am concerned with the 
findings of the Cox Commission that indicates that China is engaged in 
a concerted campaign to steal militarily sensitive equipment. These 
efforts by the Chinese government combined with the provocative stance 
towards the democratic republic of Taiwan, are a cause for serious 
concern.
  I am also deeply concerned with the pattern of human rights abuses by 
the Chinese government. Human rights in China is imperative and the 
United States must continue to press China in that direction. As a 
nation dedicated to freedom and the rights of the individual, we have a 
responsibility to speak out when those rights are violated, whether at 
home or abroad.
  The most effective way to influence change in China is to engage the 
Chinese government in ways that emphasize open trade and democratic 
reform. If we attempt to isolate China, the reality is that we will 
lose jobs to other nations that will not cut off trade, but rather take 
advantage of the situation. With PNTR the United States can use the WTO 
to eliminate unfair Chinese trade barriers that exclude American 
products. Failing to pass PNTR simply gives the lion's share of trade 
benefits away to other nations, while doing nothing to help U.S. 
workers and consumers.
  It is critical that we adopt the approach of opening China up through 
increased westernization of the Chinese people. Trade and contact is 
building greater desire for western ways, including democracy. The 
Chinese people have a long history and change will be slow. The way to 
fight for progressive reform in China is not by abandoning the playing 
field, but through continued exposure to democratic ideas such as free 
markets and free speech.
  The Internet revolution has eliminated economic and political 
barriers throughout the world. Free markets and free speech go hand in 
hand. With 8.9 million Internet users and over 15,000 web sites already 
based within China, the Internet has the potential to offer a dramatic 
improvement in the quality of life for millions of Chinese citizens as 
well.
  By offering China the opportunity to enter the community of rule-
abiding nations, we have a chance to create real and lasting change in 
China. At the same time, we must continue to work aggressively to 
ensure that China follows the rules of the international trading 
community.
  Trade and commerce will lead directly to progress and freedom. We 
must continue fighting for a level playing field for trade--one on 
which our nation, our American workers and American consumers alike can 
win.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  Mr. SALMON. (The gentleman from Arizona delivered the following 
speech in Chinese.)
  In the world today the single most important bilateral relationship 
is the relationship between the U.S. and China. Passage of PNTR not 
only benefits the economies of both countries,

[[Page H3701]]

but it also advances the cause of freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, I just spoke to the Chinese people in their native 
tongue.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Salmon) that those remarks may not be a part of the official 
Record unless the gentleman supplies a translation.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, it will probably be hard to translate.
  Mr. Speaker, I just spoke to the Chinese people in their native 
tongue about the benefits of PNTR to both our countries and how it will 
advance the cause of freedom.
  Unfortunately, to the majority of the Americans, this debate has been 
framed as a stark choice between free trade and human rights. In truth, 
increased trade with China is both.
  Many Americans understand the economic benefit of PNTR to the United 
States. First is the dramatic reduction of trade barriers imposed on 
U.S. exports of goods and services. Whether it is a car battery or a 
semiconductor, U.S. companies will enjoy the lowest tariffs on their 
products in the history of U.S. trade with China.
  But free trade will also improve the human rights situation. Even His 
Holiness the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader who has 
suffered oppression at the hands of the Chinese Government, understands 
the importance of engaging China. In a recent interview, he said, I 
have always stressed that China should not be isolated. China must be 
brought into the mainstream of the world community.
  By saying no to isolationism and embracing engagement, we can spread 
the gospel of free trade, democracy, human rights, and religious 
freedom one worker, one village, one city, and one province at a time.
  Let us all know and take note the most important export that we have 
is our American values and democracy. Let us not be afraid. Let us have 
conviction in our ideals and know that they will move China.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I 
do so with no illusions about China's records on human rights, worker 
rights, and environmental protection. I will not pretend that China is 
where it should be on any of these fronts.
  In terms of economics, this is a one-way deal. We get significant 
reductions in barriers that stand in the way of the sale of American 
products in China. We give no greater access to America's markets for 
Chinese products than were provided for years and years.
  Economic benefits for the United States are not the only reality that 
confronts us today. Another reality is that isolating China will do not 
a thing to bring about a more just economic or political order there.
  The answer is not turning our back on China. The answer is pushing 
our democratic values upon China through commerce and communication 
with its citizens. This engagement will steer forces of individual 
inspiration and aspiration and initiative in China that will, in the 
long run, no authoritarian government can ever contain.
  There is a claim here that we have to choose between American 
prosperity and Chinese human rights. I say choose both. Vote ``yes.''

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose this bill. It 
is a difficult bill. There is merit on both sides, but I want to tell 
my colleagues that I oppose passing this trade agreement before we get 
our fundamental values in place.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most difficult votes I will take, but 
I must rise in opposition to permanent normal trade relations for 
China. There are strong arguments on both sides of this issue. For 
some, PNTR will be a benefit. But, for many, too many, PNTR will be a 
burden. Clearly, certain sectors of the service industry will win by 
having access to China's 1.3 billion consumers. And, though not 
certain, I hope agriculture will win by selling our commodities. We 
have made some progress on the Blue Mold issue affecting North Carolina 
tobacco, but more progress needs to be made. In my congressional 
district, however, there will be too many losers.
  Indeed, the results of the administration's own analysis have led 
some to project losses of more than 800,000 U.S. jobs with the granting 
of PNTR. Notwithstanding this vote, the United States and China will 
continue to be trading partners. But, there can be no free trade 
without freedom. More importantly, there can be no free trade without 
fair trade.
  Before establishing a permanent arrangement with China, one that is 
not subject to annual review, we must insist on some fundamental 
conditions. We must end our trade imbalance; urge the Chinese to end 
its labor, human rights and religious abuses; force China to respect 
the environment and ensure that those at the bottom of America's 
economy benefit from the agreement comparable to those at the top. Vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who realizes that we cannot negotiate with 
people who randomly kill prisoners to harvest human organs for sale.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I support a trade regime that advances the 
living standards of Americans and that creates hope for the Chinese 
people; and that is why I oppose permanent normal trade relations with 
China. Because it says one more time that we are pushing ahead with 
trade agreements without any regard for environmental and labor 
standards, and without any regard for religious and political freedoms.
  We never proceed on a trade agreement without protection for 
intellectual property. All would concede the consequences for companies 
here and the rule of law there. I want to see trade bring new openness 
to China, new economic opportunities and the rise of freedom. But what 
has the experience of the past decade taught us? Look at their record. 
China has engaged in unfair trade practices, pirated intellectual 
property, participated in weapons proliferation, suppressed democracy, 
and acted with belligerence towards Taiwan; all this while Congress has 
provided most favored nation status.
  Do we truly believe that by granting China permanent MFN and 
foregoing the yearly review that these abuses will somehow improve? Let 
us vote against this effort. Let us impose on China the opportunity for 
freedom, and if they cannot do that, they should forfeit the benefits 
that other nations enjoy.
  Without granting permanent MFN to China, and without their membership 
in the World Trade Organization, our trade deficit with China has 
soared from $2.8 billion in 1987 to $68.7 billion in 1999. This is what 
happens when we are completely indifferent to standards abroad. This 
imbalance costs jobs in Connecticut and across the country. It hurts 
employers. I have listened to arguments that trade with China will 
bring change--that once China is open to American goods, they will also 
be open to American ideals of freedom. I want to see trade bring a new 
openess to China, new economic opportunities, and a rise of freedom. 
That's why I supported MFN for China during my first years in Congress. 
I believed that argument. But what has the experience of the past 
decade taught us. Let's look at China's record.
  But, China has engaged in unfair trade practices, pirated 
intellectual property, participated in weapons proliferation, 
suppressed democracy, and acted with belligerence toward Taiwan. There 
is no evidence that China is responding and that it deserves a new 
trade regime with the United States. And all the while, this Congress 
has granted China Most Favored Nation Trading Status. Do we truly 
believe that by granting China permanent MFN, and forgoing a yearly 
review, that this record or abuses will somehow improve?
  Right now, on labor standards and Democratic rights, China is 
surrounded by a Great Wall. It is holding back its people's hopes for 
democratic freedoms. It threatens to bring down economic standards 
here. This Congress should say to China clearly and unequivocally that 
China must break down this wall, truly open its markets, raise labor 
standards, and freedom, or China should forfeit their rights to the 
benefits that all nations enjoy.
  Only by voting ``no'' will this great body ever again debate what 
standards should matter in our trade relations with China. Oppose 
permanent most favored nation status for China.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, if we want to send a message to the Chinese 
people, we might as well try to mail it in a letter because they will 
not hear it in the

[[Page H3702]]

sweatshops and the prisons. And the text of this bill does not do 
anything for them.
  So if we want to send a message to the Chinese people, we should vote 
``no,'' and then we can really try to help them out.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
  (Mr. CALVERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of granting 
permanent normal trade relations, H.R. 4444, for the People's Republic 
of China.
  I have long subscribed to Ronald Reagan's philosophy on dealing with 
adversaries: contain them militarily, engage them diplomatically and 
flood them with western goods and influences. I believe a similar 
combination will work on China.
  Many Americans are rightly concerned about human rights; and 
religious and political freedom in China. However, rejecting normal 
trading practices with China will not improve freedom in China. In 
fact, it will plunge China further into isolation and reduce freedom.
  Pat Robertson, with the Christian Broadcasting Network, and Rev. 
Richard Cizik, with the National Association of Evangelicals agree that 
engagement with China has and will continue to improve human rights in 
China.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to help our American economy improve human rights in 
China. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4444.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of extending permanent 
normal trade relations status to China.
  I have heard two arguments recently against granting China this trade 
status which I think deserve examination.
  1. Critics say we should not grant PNTR status to China because we 
will lose leverage on all future trade agreements. This allegation 
represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the vast benefits this 
agreement offers America. PNTR status will allow the United States to 
establish reciprocal access to Chinese markets, for the first time. 
Passage of this bill will allow the United States to take advantage of 
the enormously favorable bilateral trade agreement negotiated with 
China for entry into the World Trade Organization. It should be noted 
that this is a one-way arrangement--China will dramatically reduce 
industrial and agricultural tariffs on American products while we 
change nothing about our trade laws. China will enter the World Trade 
Organization with or without Congressional approval of PNTR--but if we 
don't pass this legislation the consequences for American exporters 
will be devastating. 134 other countries will have access to the 
Chinese market on the very favorable terms that the United States 
negotiated, while we will be locked out. This is not a position of 
leverage--this is a position of extreme weakness. Opposing PNTR 
effectively isolates the United States from this market.
  2. Critics say this represents a benefit from shadowy special 
interests, but is not in overall American interests. Opponents who 
believe that we should turn our backs on one of the world's largest 
export markets do a disservice to export dependent jobs across the 
nation. International trade, considering all imports and exports, now 
constitutes 29 percent of the gross domestic product, up from 7 percent 
in 1950. In Washington State, our economy is even more dependent on 
trade, with foreign exports alone accounting for nearly 25 percent of 
the gross state product. Export-related jobs represented 31 percent of 
the total increase in jobs in the state over the last 30 years and 
these jobs pay 46 percent more than the overall state average. Who are 
these supposed shadowy special interests then? How about the 
semiconductor, computer and telecommunications industries, the backbone 
of the New American economy--their tariff rates will fall to zero--the 
workers in these sectors represent a valuable special interest. Pacific 
Northwest wheat farmers have not been able to sell to China for more 
than 20 years--the bilateral agreement will open this vast market for 
the first time. Tariffs on Washington apples will fall from 30 percent 
to 10 percent, making their products much more competitive--these 
farmers are a valuable special interest.
  This is a good agreement, and is in the interests of all Americans 
and all trade interests.
  Aside from its importance to the agricultural community of eastern 
Washington, this measure is critically important to the enormous number 
of aerospace workers throughout our state. Over the last few months, I 
have been in contact with the presidents of union locals who asked my 
support for PNTR because it would help U.S. aerospace workers. Last 
week, I was visited by a delegation of union presidents who represent a 
national coalition of unions who are supporting this measure. They are 
committed to human rights and environmental protection but they are 
also committed to expanding the rank and file membership in their 
unions through expanded trade with China.
  I believe Members should recognize this diversity of opinion within 
the labor movement. While some AFL-CIO unions are offering serious 
opposition to PNTR, the largest locals in my State have endorsed PNTR. 
The International Association of Machinists, and the Society of 
Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, both AFL-CIO 
affiliates, have endorsed this legislation. I would hope that Members 
of this body would hear the pleas of local unions that are trying to 
preserve their jobs and not lose access to future markets.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins).
  (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, 13 years ago I delivered the commencement 
address at my alma mater, Oklahoma State University. I entitled that 
speech ``International Trade: Opportunity or Destruction. Which Way 
America?''
  As I stand before my colleagues today, we are going to answer that 
question. We build economic opportunities for our children and 
grandchildren; and provide opportunities to export American values for 
freedom of religion, speech, and human rights to China. I want to 
emphasize five facts: One, we are in a global competitive world, and we 
are not going back. Two, 134 countries of the WTO have already approved 
permanent trading relationships with China. We are the only country 
that is lingering behind. Three, China can already enter the United 
States markets. That is why we have an $80 billion trade imbalance. 
Four, this agreement will allow us--the USA--to enter China's market of 
1.3 billion people and will let us have the opportunity also to market 
the values that we believe in: freedom of religion, freedom of 
assembly, freedom of speech, and, yes, human rights. Fact five: I am a 
grandfather. I could step back and say, ``Why should I care? This is 
not going to affect me.'' But, my colleagues, are we going to give our 
children and our grandchildren the tools of opportunity to compete in 
this global economy or place them in an unfair position to maintain 
America's leadership in the world. I stand in support of this 
legislation. We must give our children and grandchildren the tools to 
compete in this world.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention some of 
the points today about which I think there is not nearly as much 
disagreement as we have had on others.
  The first is I think it is perfectly clear that we have to engage 
China in commerce. These are the ties that bind. This is a country with 
a population in excess of 1.2 billion people and growing.
  I think it is terribly important to point out that the Taiwanese, who 
have been under as much risk as anyone in the world with China's 
behavior, strongly support the adoption of this bill and view it as a 
very important step towards achieving a more peaceful resolution of 
their differences over the next decade.
  I think it is fair to say that there is no question that the 
concessions the United States has extracted to further access to China 
are very, very strong. In Florida, my home State, there will be 
significant reductions in tariffs on orange juice, grapefruit 
concentrate, and fertilizer. And the fertilizer industry will begin to 
privatize over time in China.
  Who will benefit under this agreement? In 1997, 82 percent of the 
exporters to China were small and medium-sized businesses. In my State, 
Florida, in 1997, 52 percent of the exporters to China were small 
businesses, businesses with 100 employees or less.
  We are bringing China into the rule of law. One of the things that 
separates those that oppose this bill from those that support it is how 
quickly can we do that. It will take time to change attitudes, to 
change systems. And make no mistake about it, we will have to fight 
like the dickens to enforce these rules.
  Finally, in closing, we need to respect and address the concerns that 
have been raised in opposition to this

[[Page H3703]]

 bill, and I believe the Bereuter-Levin proposal will do that and would 
strongly urge its adoption.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to granting 
of a permanent normal trade relationship with China.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the story of two workers: one in Liaoyang 
in Northeast China and one in the 7th District in Chicago, Illinois.
  They have never met. They probably never will meet.
  But their fates are tied together as if they were family members . . 
. and their fates meet here, today on the floor of the House.
  The workers at the Liaoyang Ferro-alloy Factory, the fourth largest 
in the city, employing 5,000 workers began huge demonstrations on May 
18.
  Even though the workers only earn what would be considered here 
starvation wages, they had not been paid in two years. The union had 
done nothing for them.
  Because the world was watching and this vote was pending local 
officials could not crush the demonstrations as they did with 20,000 
Yanjiazhan mine workers in a nearby city earlier this year.
  As a result the factory agreed to pay back wages.
  In the 7th District of Illinois on Chicago's Westside there is a mini 
renaissance of manufacturing. Some of it is the result of the Chicago 
Manufacturing Center which has offices in the same building as my 
district office. They are struggling to bring manufacturing back to the 
inner city . . . such as a plant to make awnings.
  These struggling new small businesses, the engine of job creation 
today, and their workers are about to be thrown into unfair competition 
with factories in China like the one I just spoke of.
  According to the U.S. Trade Representative's own model, over the next 
ten years, this bill wll create 276,221 jobs, but it will result in the 
loss of 1,148,313 jobs.
  A net loss of 872,091 desperately needed U.S. jobs.
  Those job losses will occur in every state and in every sector of the 
economy including agriculture. That's with, the job losses will occur 
in my state and they will occur in every state of this great union.
  If all you care about is making our economy grow then you must vote 
against PNTR for China. Don't throw these working families into the 
unemployment line.
  Despite the ``dot Com'' hype, it is the consumer spending of working 
families which is sustaining our economy.
  If you care at all about real people, if the quality of life of our 
people, and the people of China matter at all to you. Then you must 
also vote against PNTR for China.
  More than 2000 years ago the ancient Greeks taught us the fate of 
those who were seduced by the alluring voices and false promises of the 
Sirens.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not be seduced by the Sirens of the 21st century, 
who sing of globalism as an end in itself, and who abandon our people 
for sweet promises.
  Let us steer for our North Star, our goal of a fair economy, a level 
playing field . . . that's the road to global prosperity. Vote ``no'' 
on Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel), who understands that granting PNTR would allow China 
to continue to regularly threaten the Democratic Nation of Taiwan and 
the U.S. with military attack.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, this vote defines what kind of a Nation we 
want to be. There is no doubt that business will make a lot of money if 
this bill passes; but are we only for the almighty dollar, or are we 
for morality and doing what is right? The almighty dollar or human 
rights? The almighty dollar or American jobs? The almighty dollar or 
environmental concerns?
  Why can we not continue our annual review of China instead of giving 
them a permanent blank check? It is the only leverage we have. Is it 
only the almighty dollar that counts? Shame on us if it is true. Vote 
``no.''
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, over the past several years, 
I have supported Most Favored Nation status for China. I have expressed 
my concerns about human rights in trips to China, in speeches before 
the National Defense University of the PLA, and at Fudan University in 
Shanghai. I have talked about my concerns about Taiwan. But I do 
believe that engagement is more productive than isolation.
  This year I have been undecided up until this very moment. I have 
been undecided, Mr. Speaker, because of our national security, and I 
want to talk to that issue for a few moments.
  I was a member of the Cox committee. For 7 months, I sat behind 
closed doors and looked at the evidence that the FBI and the CIA had 
relative to the acquiring of technology from America, some of our most 
sensitive technology. The fact that China acquired over 500 HPCs, high 
performance computers, when in 1995 they had none and in 3 years they 
had over 500. I have looked at the transfer of missile technology, 
which has not just helped the Chinese but also been transferred to 
North Korea. I looked at the fact that China was able to use our 
weapons design for our nuclear warheads, which has now benefited their 
nuclear warhead program. The access to telecommunications technology, 
satellite launching technology which can also be used from Irving 
nuclear missiles. And I looked at China acquiring encryption.
  But, Mr. Speaker, through it all, when all was said and done, I 
looked at the fact that China was a willing buyer, but up until 5 years 
ago we were not a willing seller. It was not China stealing America's 
technology; it was a wholesale auctioning of our most sensitive 
technology by this White House. In every single case, the evidence 
points to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where this President 
and this Vice President auctioned off America's national security. And 
we cannot use this debate to blame the Chinese people. We should not 
use this debate to say China stole our technology.
  In spite of President Clinton, I will vote for MFN, and hope that a 
new administration will take a different tact in terms of America's 
national security.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley), who worked so hard on this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
passage of PNTR and also rise to commend President Clinton and the 
administration for their terrific effort to negotiate an agreement that 
is good for U.S. workers, that is good for U.S. businesses, and that is 
good for U.S. farmers.
  It is such a wonderful deal because this is one of the few agreements 
that we have ever had the chance to vote on where the United States 
gave up nothing. We did not reduce a tariff, we did not reduce a quota, 
and in return we got significant across-the-board reductions in tariffs 
and increased market access, which is going to increase the influence 
that the United States has on the internal affairs of China.
  That is important, because many of us are very concerned about the 
progress on human rights and religious freedoms in China. But it is 
inconceivable that we are going to have more influence in seeing 
progress in those areas by adopting a policy which further isolates the 
United States from the affairs in China. We are going to do more to 
empower the Chinese citizens to make progress in their efforts to 
advance democracy, in their efforts to advance greater personal 
freedoms by extending the hand of economic cooperation.
  This policy of economic engagement is one which is going to ensure 
that China becomes a part of the body of nations that do comply with 
the rules of law. It is going to also be an instrument that is going to 
ensure that with additional U.S. investment and additional U.S. trade 
that we will see an accelerated enhancement of the per capita GDP and 
the standard of living in China that will also result in greater 
benefits and progress on human rights as well as labor and 
environmental conditions.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who understands that ADM may have to change its 
slogan to ``Supermarket to a More Polluted World'' if in fact this 
awful resolution passes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to permanent 
trade privileges for China.

[[Page H3704]]

  Trade does not bring freedom. Only enforceable laws in democratic 
republics bring freedom. Trade does not bring peace. Before World War 
II, the largest trading relationship in the world was not Nazi 
Germany's with England. Did that stop totalitarianism's rise? Trade 
does not build a middle class. Only laws governing workers' rights to 
organize undergird the rise of a strong middle class with good wages 
and benefits.
  This is not a fight about expanding America's export markets. This is 
a fight about China becoming a vast export platform 12 times the size 
of Mexico's, taking our markets in Asia's rim and sending a glut of 
sweatshop and agricultural commodities back here to our shores.
  This is a heroic fight for democratic values in the harsh countryside 
and in the industrial sweatshops in China, in places most Americans, 
including this Congress, will never visit. Will we side with the 
chauffeured limousine class, advertisers, retailers, and global 
companies that soothingly tell us ``everything will be all right,'' or 
will we stand with the freedom fighters in China and throughout the 
world?
  For those fighting permanent privileges for China on the basis of 
democratic values. I say, hurray.

                              {time}  1500

  For those courageous people in Taiwan standing tall for sovereignty 
and self-determination, indeed for nationhood, I say, keep the flame of 
liberty burning. For those fighting permanent privileges for China on 
the basis of religious freedom, I say, God bless you. For those 
fighting for one-half billion working women and girls in China be 
afforded dignity and respect, I say, if not with this vote, then when?
  For those fighting permanent trade privileges for China on the basis 
of freedom of assembly, whether it is for the Falun Gong or for the 
murdered freedom fighters in Tiananmen Square, I say, keep standing 
tall in liberty's cause. Happy Memorial Day. Vote ``no'' on permanent 
trade relations with China.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this most important 
trade agreement. Failure by this Congress to extend PNTR would squander 
a decade and a half of negotiations, invite the unraveling of China's 
extensive WTO commitments, and punish American businesses and farmers 
by shutting them out of the world's biggest emerging market for the 
foreseeable future.
  The best way to encourage the type of behavior we desire is through 
policies that promote the rule of law, free trade, economic reform, and 
democratization. For these are the seeds from which democracy can grow.
  Therefore, I believe we should continue to pursue our historic and 
longstanding policy of engagement rather than containment. Vote for 
this legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would actually like to take my time here to have a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  I think that one of the things that strengthens this proposal over 
any of the other trade agreements that we have really has come through 
the work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). And so I would like to enter into a 
colloquy for the purposes of showing the American people and our 
friends in labor that there are some real strengths in this that are 
necessary for this debate to move on.
  Mr. Speaker, what I would like to ask the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) is what tools will the Commission have at its disposal to 
press for better enforcement of human rights and worker rights in 
China?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for asking about this 
commission that is now part of this legislation.
  This is a unique commission, high level, executive, and 
congressional. There will be 18 Members of Congress. There will be five 
members, high level from the executive. So it will be monitoring human 
rights, the rule of law, full-time staff, every day, every month, not 
just one time a year. It is going to be required to report to us every 
year.
  This commission will be empowered to make recommendations to this 
Congress, recommendations for action by the Congress or by the 
President. Its recommendations could include actions by the United 
States Representative to IMF or to the World Bank or legislation and 
recommendations regarding legislation that controls the sensitive 
exports.
  Let me also say this commission is modeled after the Helsinki 
Commission. It was successful. A number of us worked with it when it 
was impacting rights in the Soviet Union. It was a constant pressure 
point, as this commission will be. It will add external pressure to the 
internal pressures.
  There have been reports in recent days in the paper of dissidents in 
China, and here is what they say: A broad array of dissidents, 
environmentalists, and labor activists in China appear united in their 
support of Congressional passage of the permanent normal trade 
relations act with this commission and that this combines external 
pressure with internal.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I say to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) quickly because I would also like the 
gentleman to talk a little bit about the antisurge provision because I 
think this is, too, stemming from the NAFTA. I would also like the 
gentleman to talk a little bit about the staff in China.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
quickly, the permanent staff can be stationed here. It can be stationed 
in China.
  Let me say a word about the surge provision, the toughest antisurge 
provision in American law. If there is an inflow of products from China 
that would hurt American workers and producers, workers and producers 
can file a complaint, swift action with the standard of causation, 
which will allow us to act if there is this surge.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) 
understands that the average Chinese worker earns 108 bucks a year, 
hardly enough if they spent every nickel they earned every year in the 
United States to make a dent in our $80 billion trade deficit with 
China.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, even as we talk on the floor, the Chinese 
are planning not to comply with any of this. They say already that they 
have a cautious, go-slow approach, otherwise they will risk widespread 
unrest that could undermine their rule. They are not going to comply 
with WTO's 5-year rule. They say they will do everything they can to 
shelter their industries, and that is no surprise to us.
  Yesterday, on the floor, a colleague told me about a General Motors 
plant closing down in his district in Flint, and the last act that 
those workers had to do was to undo that piece of machinery and crate 
it up to be shipped over to its new homes and its new workers; and then 
General Motors had the effrontery to classify that as an export.
  Do we want to see that happen to all the jobs in this country? We 
want to trade with China, and we will trade with China. But would it 
not be wonderful if, for one chance in our life, that this would be 
absolutely fair trade?
  We are not going to be selling any goods over there. Everything is 
going to be manufactured there, as other colleagues have said before, 
and brought right back here at one-twentieth of the cost manufactured 
here, but it will be sold here at the maximum they could get.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that Members understand that

[[Page H3705]]

there is a profound difference between the Helsinki Commission, which I 
chair, which was formed back in 1976 to implement the Helsinki Final 
Act to which the USSR and the Warsaw Pact nations and others were a 
party to. They signed on the dotted line.
  The commission that is contemplated in this legislation is a watchdog 
commission. It is like any other commission that might be formed, but 
there is no participation by China or any of the other countries in 
Asia, so there is a major difference. So I would hope we would no 
longer somehow compare it to the Helsinki Commission. There is no real 
comparison between the two.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think at this time it might help to share 
with us the remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood) has 9\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) has 21 minutes remaining.
  Let me just repeat that we intend in the closing part of the debate 
to begin with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), then to go to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), then to go to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel), and then finish up with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  Mr. RANGEL. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that that order will 
be after a quorum call?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. RANGEL. So that it could very well be that we will have to have 
some speakers that have large amounts of time before that quorum call 
to call on several of their speakers?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Correct.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to recognize the 
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), 
and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), for their leadership on this matter.
  I rise in support of permanent normal trade relations with China. If 
Congress does not grant permanent normal trade relations to China, it 
will be the worst economic mistake this country has made since the 
Great Depression.
  Without a doubt, this agreement is good from an economic standpoint, 
from a human rights standpoint, from a national security standpoint. 
Nearly every industry in the United States will see a direct benefit 
from tariff reductions on American goods going into China.
  Agriculture, financial services, insurance, telecommunications, 
information and technology, and a host of other industries will 
directly benefit from this agreement. Jobs will also be created to meet 
the growing demand for products in China.
  American agriculture will benefit as much as anyone. More rice, 
wheat, cotton, soybeans, poultry, pork, beef and a host of other 
products will be sent to China directly from Arkansas and other States.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), who 
lives next to the area where a civil action was written, understands 
that passage of PNTR will lead the U.S. corporations doing business in 
China simply to be able to continue to avoid stringent environmental 
regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Tierney).
  (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, a vote for permanent normal trade relations 
with China gives up favorable United States Trade Agreement enforcement 
rights, it relinquishes forever any ability to use as leverage our 
existing periodic review process to, at least, try to effect 
universally acknowledged violations of human rights, including worker 
rights, religious intolerance, the spreading of technological and other 
information for dangerous weaponry, environmental degradation, and a 
long history of noncompliance with virtually every bilateral agreement 
negotiated between the United States and China in recent generations.
  It does so despite the fact that it will have an adverse effect on 
the jobs of many who are the least prepared to deal with such a loss, 
and that is mostly because we have failed in advance of expanding ever-
open market initiatives, to put in place effective transition 
assistance and worker training and re-training and health care for 
those who are unable to afford it through the unexpected job loss. And 
all of this is done unnecessarily.
  Contrary to those who misinform us with claims that granting PNTR to 
China benefits the United States, that is inaccurate. And it is not 
accurate, as inferred and misstated, that in failing to give PNTR to 
China, we would give a benefit to the European Union that we would not 
get in the United States. Legal analysis shows otherwise
  In fact, if China, in acceding to the WTO, grants market-opening 
concessions to WTO members other than the United States, then existing 
bilateral trade agreements between China and the United States require 
that China grant those same concessions to the United States, even if 
Congress does not grant PNTR to China.
  Sound legal analysis of the controlling bilateral trade documents 
since 1979 show this to be true. Further, the bilateral agreements 
between China and the United States have far superior mechanisms for 
enforcing trade agreement violations than has the so far grossly slow 
and relatively ineffectual WTO Claims process. The need to retain our 
advantage of enforcement and to forego being constrained only to the 
WTO process is extremely important given China's history of 
noncompliance. In fact, it was the United States' ability to use the 
so-called 301 Sanctions, as allowed in the bilateral agreements between 
the countries that finally forced China's compliance with the 1992 
Trade Agreements on Intellectual Property.
  There is reason to be concerned that Chinese officials are already 
backing away from the 1999 U.S.-China Bilateral Agreement, which is the 
basis for the request for PNTR. Consider just two of several statements 
by Chinese negotiators and/or authoritative sources:
  On wheat, where the Administration Summary of the United States-China 
WTO Agreement, February 15, 2000, says ``China will import all types of 
U.S. wheat from all regions of the United States to all ports in China 
. . .,'' China's chief WTO negotiator was quoted in the South China 
Morning Post on January 7, 2000, as saying: ``It is a complete 
misunderstanding to expect this grain to enter the country . . . 
Beijing only conceded a theoretical opportunity for the export of 
grain.''
  The USTR fact sheet states: ``China will allow 49% foreign investment 
in all services, it will allow 50% foreign ownership for value-added in 
two years and paging services in three years. In contradiction, AFX-
ASIA, November 22, 1999, asserts: ``. . . foreign companies will be 
allowed to acquire the 25% stakes in operators of local commerce, long 
distance and international calls, and the maximum permitted foreign 
stake in telecom operators will be raised to 49% six years after WTO 
entry, the official in the ministry's [China's Ministry of Information 
Industry] policy and regulation department said.''
  The list goes on and on, but it should be noted that the United 
States Trade Representative has publicly stated that major differences 
remain on the ``commitments on a wide range of WTO rules including 
subsidies, technical standards, a mechanism to review implementation 
and many other issues.''
  This is not an argument over trade or no trade. Despite attempts by 
some to paint those who would vote ``no'' on PNTR as isolationists, I--
and most other objecting parties--support trade, and support trade with 
China. We have $80 billion of trade with China now as well as a trade 
imbalance (in China's favor and not in our interests) of $70 billion 
per year. No one proposes ending trade with China. What is opposed is 
the expansion of trade privileges to China without retaining the 
ability to enforce effective compliance with those trade agreements. 
Furthermore, there is opposition to surrendering what appears to be a 
final opportunity to inject into multi-lateral trade agreements 
protection for workers, for the environment, for human rights and 
against religious intolerance. It is a chance to retain some leverage 
against China's long standing conduct of making weapons of mass 
destruction or related technology and/or information available to 
nations such as Pakistan and Iran, all very much against our national 
security.
  That other countries in the WTO have poor records in some of these 
areas also, is not

[[Page H3706]]

sufficient reason to forego the annual opportunity to raise these 
issues with China. The WTO is itself flawed by the absence of 
mechanisms to review individual members' compliance with reasonable 
international standards in these areas. While no one contends that 
every country must meet the exact standards set by the United States or 
any other nation, there certainly are recognizable thresholds of 
conduct (child labor, the right to associate, the right to believe in 
one's religion) that should and could be negotiated and incorporated in 
trade agreements.
  We would be remiss to add a country as large as China, with such an 
atrocious record, without first seeking to correct deficiencies in the 
WTO. At the very least, if such a country is to be allowed to join WTO, 
some review of its conduct in complying with international norms or 
evidence of improvement in these areas over time, should be required.

  My colleagues David Obey and Barney Frank have made several good 
points in recent presentations on the issue. ``As trade between highly 
developed, high wage countries, and under developed low wage countries 
has become a larger and larger share of the mix, negative side effects 
have appeared in high wage countries like ours. A downward pressure on 
wages because of that expanded trade between very unlike economies has 
reinforced other economic trends and policy actions, producing an ever 
widening income gap between those that invest and those that work. A 
rising tide no longer lifts all boats. In fact, the ability of those 
with large amounts of capital to pay any price necessary for what they 
want has, in the global economy and local neighborhood alike, driven 
some costs far above what can be afforded by those whose boats are 
anchored to low wages. That has happened with the price of housing. It 
has happened with the price of education--especially at private 
institutions. It has happened with the price of medical care.''
  ``Downward pressure on wages in economies like our own have been 
accompanied by greater incentives to minimize environmental costs that 
go into any product because we are told these products are in 
competition with products produced in countries with much less concern 
for either well-paid workers or well-protected environments. This has 
made it more difficult to protect gains that industrial countries have 
made in raising workers' living standards or cleaning up the 
environments in which they live.
  There is no question that in macro economic terms, totally open trade 
can produce more goods at lower costs worldwide. And normally that 
would be a blessing.
  But when that becomes the only goal, or at times the only result, it 
carries a high price for those who do not possess large amounts of 
capital because their wages cease to rise. And the communities they 
live in come under pressure to allow corporations to do less and less 
to clean up pollution, all in the name of remaining globally 
competitive in a world where there are almost no restraints on the 
movement of the power of capital and ever increasing restraints in the 
power of everything and everyone else--governments, consumers, and 
labor.''
  No one expects equal income for all people. The need for society to 
have risk takers who can amass wealth for investment to produce 
economic growth for everyone is bound to produce inequality. ``But as 
Pope John Paul once observed, there are certain ``norms of decency'' 
that must be respected in order to produce economic justice and the 
social cohesion that is necessary for any economic system to 
function.'' The last decades have produced just the opposite--the 
widest gap between the wealthiest one percent of our people and the 
least wealthy twenty percent--at any time since the birth of the 
twentieth century.
  Since new globalized trading realities have helped produce the 
problem, they must also be part of the effort to fix it. Trade 
agreements are an appropriate place to address such issues. While Alan 
Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, asserts that we must 
not allow our ``inability'' to help workers who are being injured to 
reduce our support for open trade, I believe Barney Frank has it more 
accurate when he says, ``The problem we face is not inability, but 
unwillingness to do so.''
  It is appropriate to set new trading rules, new sets of power 
relationships, and wider representation of interest at the negotiating 
table. Congress should have a commitment, as should society, to greater 
educational opportunity and training opportunities for workers and 
children in working class families. It should have a greater commitment 
to health care for every person regardless of financial circumstances, 
especially those of families of workers whose corporate employers are 
being squeezed by the pressures of globalization to shrink the safety 
net businesses used to provide.
  In essence, this vote is about doing all the right things before and 
not after we give away our leverage to obtain them.
  The real shame of this debate is that few people understand that we 
can, in effect, retain our leverage to enforce the values in which we 
believe and continue to trade. A more honest debate with less 
demagoging and less misinformation--as well as a willingness by those 
who stand to gain a tremendous amount economically to acknowledge and 
not dismiss the concerns of others--could have resulted in 
Congressional action that would have protected all Americans.
  The American public will not be pleased when analysis shows that 
Congress has unnecessarily voted to surrender the U.S. capacity to best 
enforce its interests. It will be all the more unhappy when it hears 
that Congress did so while also giving away our only leverage to 
protect fundamental individual rights of autonomy and association, and 
to safe guard distributive justice and social well being of a sort that 
cannot be measured by maximization of corporate shareholders returns or 
aggregate monetary wealth.
  I ask for a vote against this, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of the time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there may be a 
motion to recommit that involves what would happen if there was armed 
conflict between China and Taiwan.
  In my judgment, if this motion were approved, language would be 
attached to the bill requiring the United States to withdraw PNTR from 
China in the event of a Chinese attack on or blockade of Taiwan. This 
language is in direct violation of GATT Article I which requires that 
all WTO members grant each other ``any advantage, favor, privilege, or 
immunity'' provided to other countries ``immediately and 
unconditionally.'' And this would, in fact, be a condition.
  A condition like the one included in the motion to recommit is 
discriminatory and disadvantageous, violating this fundamental WTO 
principle. If it is adopted, we will lose the full benefits to 
America's farmers and workers of the strong rules-based and enforceable 
market opening agreement we negotiated in November.
  Let me assure my colleagues that even without the approval of the 
motion to recommit, the United States and the Congress retain the 
authority to take whatever actions we deem appropriate to address our 
national security concerns in the event of a blockade or attack on 
Taiwan.
  Article 21 of the GATT agreement states that nothing in the agreement 
``shall be construed . . . to prevent any contracting party from taking 
any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its 
essential security interests . . . taken in time of war or other 
emergency in international relations.''
  This provision has enabled the United States to conduct embargoes 
against Czechoslovakia in 1949, Nicaragua in 1985, and the embargo we 
have maintained against Cuba since 1962. All of these nations were WTO 
members at the time, and in each case the United States's position was 
upheld.
  Though this motion seeks to protect Taiwan, I would argue that it 
will do just the opposite. Approving this motion will send a dire 
message to the Chinese that no longer is the United States interested 
in working with China openly, no longer do we seek to change China by 
bringing it into the greater community of nations and exposing it to 
the rule of law. Rather, we will be starting down the road of isolating 
China from the world and encouraging mistrust and conflict. If this 
latter course of action is taken, I firmly believe that Taiwan will be 
put at risk.
  Indeed, the Taiwanese Government is the first to point out these 
points in its support of Chinese accession to the WTO and its support 
of our extension of PNTR for China.
  If my colleagues are truly concerned about the welfare of Taiwan, I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and to vote for the 
bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as one who has consistently

[[Page H3707]]

voted against normal trading relations for the People's Republic of 
China. Today, however, I will vote for PNTR because I believe the facts 
have dramatically changed. Our deep disagreement today is not on the 
ends that American policy seeks to achieve, adherence to human rights 
and worker rights by all nations. Our difference is on the means to 
achieve those ends.
  Contrary to what critics say, PNTR provides no blank check for China. 
In fact, China has agreed to make historic trade concessions that it 
has never agreed to before, opening its markets, slashing its tariffs, 
and agreeing to abide by the global trading system based on the rule of 
law. If they renege, so can we. In contrast, our annual votes never 
required China to make any concessions whatsoever. Still, China has 
received NTR status year after year after year. At best, our annual 
votes on NTR had a minimal effect in mitigating repression and human 
rights in China. As the current ranking member and for a decade 
chairman of the Helsinki Commission which monitors and advocates human 
rights, I believe that the Levin-Bereuter proposal is an important 
contribution to this bill. The bipartisan proposal would establish a 
congressional executive commission on China. As our experience with the 
Helsinki Commission indicates, a China commission will be a more 
effective mechanism for maintaining pressure on China on human rights, 
worker rights, and rule of law issues than our brief annual reviews.
  Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by noting that this vote also is 
critical, in my opinion, for our core national security interests, 
which include the stability of China and Asia in general, and the 
peaceful resolution of differences between the PRC and Taiwan. That is 
why our allies in the region support PNTR and China's accession to the 
WTO. Engaging China through trade and the WTO enhances, in my opinion, 
the possibility for dialogue on other security interests from the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to global climate change.
  Mr. Speaker, as the most powerful Nation on Earth, we have a 
responsibility to engage China, the most populous nation on Earth and 
move it, if we can, toward democratic reform, market economics, the 
rule of law, and respect for basic human rights. As President Kennedy 
stated in 1962, ``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.'' These words still ring true today. Let us seize this 
opportunity for a more stable and safer 21st century.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the permanent normal 
trade relations with China. Today's Detroit News quotes a business 
executive's position on China, and I quote: ``We're not interested in 
China per se but free trade.'' This executive said it all. Proponents 
are not interested in fair trade but free trade, where the United 
States once again freely negotiates away our markets, our jobs, our 
values, our ideals and our beliefs.
  In 1993, I raised the issue that these free trade agreements would 
jeopardize the natural resources of our country and of our Great Lakes 
water. I was ridiculed. But now we know that I was correct. Under these 
free trade agreements, despite assurances and side agreements, our 
sovereignty over our own natural resources are at risk. The Nova 
Group's proposal to ship Lake Superior water demonstrates the economic 
feasibility to ship Great Lakes water to China. This is the first drop 
in a flood of attacks that will come on our Nation's natural resources 
and our own sovereignty, all in the name of free trade.
  As a country, as elected representatives, as Americans, we stand for 
principles, values and beliefs that are not free but fair. Do not 
freely give away our natural resources, our sovereignty and our 
American beliefs and ideals. Vote no on permanent normal trade 
relations with China.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Permanent Normal Trade Relations 
with China.
  Today's Detroit News quotes a business executive's position on China, 
and I quote: ``We're not interested in China per se, but free trade.'' 
This executive said it all! Proponents are not interested in fair 
trade, but free trade, where the United States once again freely 
negotiates away our markets, our jobs, our values, our ideals, and our 
beliefs.
  A year ago, over 200 Members of this House joined to stop the illegal 
steel dumping by China and others in our market. China freely dumped 
steel while negotiating this deal. Miners in my district and 
steelworkers all across this nation were laid off because of illegal 
dumping of steel by China.
  In the 90's, the U.S. negotiated four major trade agreements with 
China, from beef to auto parts, each violated with impunity--no remedy 
and no sanctions. More ``free'' trade.
  Is it no wonder our trade deficit continues to soar each month? China 
is now the second largest contributor to our trade deficit which now 
stands at $70 billion per year. This year China will surpass Japan as 
our largest trade deficit partner. More ``free'' give away trade!
  In 1993, I raised the issue that these ``free'' trade agreements 
would jeopardize our natural resources such as Great Lakes water. I was 
ridiculed, but now we know I was correct. Under these ``free'' trade 
agreements, despite assurances and side agreements, our sovereignty 
over our own natural resources are at risk. The Nova Group's proposal 
to ship Lake Superior water demonstrates the economic feasibility to 
ship Great Lakes water to China, and this is the first drop in a flood 
of attacks that will come at our nation's natural resources and our own 
sovereignty, all in the name of free trade. As the business executive 
said, ``We're not interested in China per se--but free trade.''
  We, as Members of this House, must be interested in China, its 
people, our people, our constituents, our American ideas, and our 
American values and we should only freely export ideals, principles, 
and our American values such as: families should be allowed to freely 
have children--not forced abortions and sterilizations; products and 
goods produced should be produced with pride and ingenuity--not by 
prisoner and child labor; freedom to assemble, organize and question 
your government--not crushing ideals of freedom, hope, justice, and 
religious freedom with tanks in Tiananmen Square.
  As a country, as elected representatives, as Americans, we stand for 
principles, values, and beliefs that are not free but fair. Do not 
freely give away our natural resources, our sovereignty, our American 
beliefs and ideals. Vote ``no'' on Permanent Normal Relations with 
China.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Jones).
  (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act and CBI because those regions of the world had never 
had an opportunity to have a trade agreement with our country. But 
today I rise in opposition to permanent normalization of trade with 
China. I have said that PNTR should stand for perpetrating a notion of 
trade reform. Perpetrating a notion that China will change, 
perpetrating a notion that environmental conditions will improve, 
perpetrating a notion that we will be more secure, and perpetrating a 
notion that human rights will improve.
  Let us trade with China, but let us not fool ourselves. Let us not 
reward China for noncompliance. I tell my son Mervyn, who is 17, You do 
right, I will help you. You do wrong, you will get nothing from me. 
That is what we should tell China: You do right, we will trade with 
you. You do not, we will not.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the average American in 1998 made a nickel less in real 
terms for 1 hour's worth of labor than they made 18 years before that 
in 1980. What we are engaged in today is a race to the bottom, a race 
to pay the lowest wage, a race to give the least benefits, a race to 
not have a safe workplace, a race to not have to worry about the 
environment. The Chinese Government said that we will reform. My 
position in opposition to this bill is they should reform, and then we 
should revisit the issue. We owe this generation and the next 
generation of American workers hope in their economic future. We do not 
give that to them today.

[[Page H3708]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise first to express my strong opposition to granting 
China Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Until China reforms its worker 
rights and establishes environmental standards, approval of their 
status is simply another stop in the race to the bottom of the economic 
barrel. Secondly, as I listen to my colleagues rise in support of this 
bill or, conversely, to voice their opposition, I cannot help but think 
that we must focus our attention on the broader trade policy goals of 
the United States.
  This week's vote on PNTR deals with only one of the two pillars that 
the world trading system is built upon--open markets. While this is a 
very important objective, we must place equal value on the second 
pillar--rules against unfair trade. We all know what happens if we 
continue to strengthen just one half of any foundation, while ignoring 
the other half. Eventually the entire structure will come crashing to 
the ground. The international trading system is no different. As we 
talk this week about opening up the world's largest market, let us not 
forget about the importance of enforcing the rules of fair trade.
  The United States and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are not 
committed to free trade. However, free trade must also be fair trade. 
That is why there are internationally established rules, and U.S. laws 
consistent with these rules, which serve to protect domestic industries 
from being wiped out by unfair foreign trade practices. Unfortunately, 
these rules against unfair trade are only as good as the bodies that 
enforce them, and our own International Trade Commission (USITC), in 
particular, has decidedly chosen to ignore its mandate to uphold the 
laws.
  In recent cases, the USITC has denied relief to American industries 
injured by unfairly traded goods. In fact, the current USITC 
Commissioners individually have voted in favor of U.S. industries less 
than half the time in investigations and contested sunset reviews, even 
after the U.S. Department of Commerce has found that U.S. industries 
have been victimized by massive foreign dumping.
  Understanding that these industries that are losing before the USITC 
are not merely crying wolf. Because of the enormous industry-wide 
commitment that is required to bring an antidumping or countervailing 
duty case, only the most dire cases ever come before the ITC. These are 
industries that have been bloodied and battered by lengthy assaults 
from foreign industries, and have turned to the U.S. government and its 
supposed policy of zero tolerance for unfair trade as their last 
resort. Until the USITC reverses its record, or its responsibilities 
are assumed by another agency, I believe its policy toward American 
trade laws should be made known.
  Although the American steel industry is not the only industry that 
has been victimized by decisions handed down by the ITC, it is one that 
I can speak of personally because it is such a vital industry to the 
people of my district. At the height of the recent steel crisis, the 
American steel industry and its workers filed several cold-rolled steel 
cases. The facts were simple: thousands of workers lost their jobs; 
five steel companies went bankrupt; operating profits turned to 
operating losses; and the U.S. Department of Commerce eventually found 
that twelve countries were dumping at substantial margins. Yet somehow 
the USITC determined that the domestic industry was not injured by this 
illegal dumping. Perhaps, it is time for the USITC to reevaluate its 
understanding of the world ``injury,'' because there are thousands of 
American steelworkers who have an entirely different understanding.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to make an economic 
decision, but we are also making a moral decision. I believe that being 
an American means something. The thousands of men and women who have 
sacrificed their lives for this country did so out of reverence for its 
values, individual liberty, personal dignity, self-determination. When 
we encourage unrestricted trade with a nation like China, which 
disregards these values, we dishonor America's heroes. China uses child 
labor, slave labor, and allows abhorrent working conditions to 
flourish. It persecutes Christians, Buddhists and other religious 
people, threatening them with fines, imprisonment and even death. I 
believe our national honor depends on us standing with the persecuted 
in China, our own workers and against this trade deal for multinational 
corporations.
  Mr. Speaker, granting China permanent normal trade relations is a 
mistake for our workers, our businesses and our democratic values.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, as I tried to make my case earlier that this 
trade agreement is just not in fundamental American interests, I would 
like to restate that argument very briefly. If we both, America and 
China, dropped our trade quotas, dropped our tariffs to zero, we would 
lose control over imports and China would not. China has a 
nonconvertible currency. They have a second level of control, because 
you cannot get the foreign currency to buy goods and bring it here.
  We have heard many, many arguments today also about the salutary 
effect of business. When I was young, I believed in the Tooth Fairy, I 
believed in Santa Claus, and I believed that all these good things just 
came sort of naturally. Later on I figured out that my parents made 
deep, deep sacrifices and worked hard to put things on the table so 
that we could have things in our family. The problem here is that we 
would like to believe that trade will automatically change everything, 
that it has this wonderful transformative effect.
  But the truth is that generations before us made deep, deep 
sacrifices. They knew that it was more than about business, that the 
business of America must be more than business alone. They made broad 
sacrifices. They did not see their business as business alone. They saw 
the business of America as pressing hard on a broad set of human 
values, of human rights, of civil liberties, of the rule of law. We 
must stand in that tradition today.
  About 2,500 years ago, in a space not much larger than this, 300 
Spartans stood tall against 100,000 Persians. With typical candor, our 
Republican friends have said that this vote would not be called a 
moment before there were 218 votes. We do not need 300 Spartans today 
to keep the forces of darkness back. We only need 217 others to stand 
in this space.
  History is focused upon this Chamber. As Abraham Lincoln said in 
sending the Emancipation Proclamation forth, ``Let our actions be 
judged by beneficent history and a just God.'' And if each and every 
one of you can say that you are willing to be judged by history and by 
God based on your actions today, then I will be comfortable with your 
actions. Do what is right. Do what is right today in this Chamber.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard today from many of our colleagues who say 
they recognize that human rights in China are deplorable. They 
recognize that the environment is damaged by China wantonly without 
regard to what it will do to future generations. We recognize that 
political prisoners are imprisoned every day and that human rights and 
religion are trod upon. Everybody says that that is going on in China. 
There is no disagreement. Some people have said, Let's have a 
commission. Well, if you have been like me and served on a children's 
commission and a Medicare commission and a Social Security commission, 
you know that in this town to create a commission is to prevent 
anything from happening. I dismiss the idea of the Levin-Bereuter 
commission as a fig leaf which will do nothing to change China's 
behavior.
  But I would also like to suggest that the harm done to America may 
not be very great if the people who want most favored nation prevail; 
it is just who you are going to hurt and who you are going to help. 
Arguably those people pushing for most favored nation are trying to 
help General Electric and the huge corporations that are already the 
richest in history. And so if this passes, those corporations will all 
make two bits, 50 cents a share more in earnings. And that will help 
millions of Americans a few bucks here and a few bucks there, and it 
will probably help the CEOs of those corporations get another million 
or two in stock options.
  Who is it going to hurt? I will tell you who it is going to hurt. It 
is going to hurt probably a couple of hundred thousand Americans real 
bad. It is going to hurt those people who are going to lose their jobs 
overnight. They are going to get hurt 30 or 40,000 bucks because they 
are going to be out of work. They may lose their homes; they may lose a 
chance for their children to go to college. But I do not suppose 
anybody cares about them because the truth is those people may lose 
their jobs in 10 years, anyway, through the growth of technology 
because they do not have the training to keep up.

[[Page H3709]]

                              {time}  1530

  They are the people who still work with their hands in factories, 
they still have minimum skills, they do heavy lifting in warehouses. 
They are the people that we are running higgeldy-piggeldy to eliminate 
from the workforce because they belong to unions and cost us a lot in 
benefits.
  So when you think about how you are going to vote, you can think 
about those families who may be looking for Hamburger Helper on the 
dinner table because Dad lost his job as a result of this, or you can 
think about the people who are already making millions of dollars in 
stock options and the people whose pensions are a little higher. If you 
are a Federal employee and in the C fund, your retirement is going to 
do a little better.
  That is it. It is as simple as all that. The big corporations get 
helped big time, and a few of our middle-class Americans have their 
lives destroyed if you vote for this terrible, terrible giveaway of our 
leverage to make China do the right thing.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, in March of 1941 our former colleague, Carl Anderson, a 
Representative from Minnesota, warned us about the danger of arming 
potential adversaries. He said then that the chances of war with Japan 
were 50-50, and, that if our fleet had to meet the Japanese fleet, we 
would meet a fleet which was built with American steel and fueled with 
American petroleum.
  A few months later at Pearl Harbor, 21 American ships were destroyed, 
300 planes were destroyed, and 5,000 Americans were killed and wounded 
by a Japanese fleet that was built with American steel and fueled with 
American petroleum.
  Well, whichever side of this debate one is on, everyone here has to 
concede American dollars are arming Communist China today. Let us look 
at what they have done with the $350 billion that they have amassed in 
trade surplus over the last 8 years. The Sovrenny class missile 
destroyers, straight from the Russians, designed for one purpose, to 
kill American aircraft carriers, were purchased with American trade 
dollars. The SU-27 fighter aircraft, high performance aircraft, capable 
of effective warfare against America's top line fighters, were 
purchased with American trade dollars. On top of that, kilo class 
submarines, AWACS aircraft, air-to-air refueling capability, 
sophisticated communications equipment, all purchased with American 
trade dollars, and compounding the danger, China's own sales to nations 
like Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea of components for weapons 
of mass destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, we have just left the bloodiest century in the history 
of the world. In a way it is a century of triumph for America. The 
story of the 20th century is the story of a great Democrat President, 
FDR, who stood with Winston Churchill against Germany's Hitler. It is 
the story of a great Republican President, Ronald Reagan, who faced 
down the Soviet empire and disassembled Soviet Union.
  But it is also a story of tragedy, because 617,000 Americans lie in 
cemeteries across this country and in the oceans of the world and the 
battlefields of the world as people who were killed in action saving 
the world for freedom in this last century.
  Many of them fought in wars for which we were unprepared; that is a 
tragedy of the 20th century. But the greater tragedy, which could be 
the tragedy of the 21st century, could happen if this country, having 
fought and bled and sacrificed to dissolve the Soviet empire, through a 
massive infusion of cash produces, by our own hand, another military 
superpower, and if the cemeteries of this country one day hold the 
bodies of Americans in uniform killed with weapons purchased by 
American trade dollars. That will be the greatest tragedy of this new 
21st century.
  Mr. Speaker, let us avoid that tragedy. Vote no on PNTR.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation.
  We have hammered out an agreement that safeguards the legitimate 
interests and concerns of Alabama's coke industry and assures the long 
term viability of that industry. This is not only a victory for the 
coke industry and its employees, but also for Alabama's coal industry 
which supplies the basic raw materials for the production of coke.
  I was skeptical of this agreement at first because of my concerns 
about our national security and China's human rights violations. 
However, I am now persuaded by the support for this agreement by the 
Taiwanese government, dissidents within China, and reformers within 
their government that it is not only in our best interests, but will 
also encourage the likelihood of positive reform of their poor record 
on human rights and religious persecution.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who has played so vitally 
important a role in this effort.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 decades we have observed 
incredible changes, the cause of freedom, both economic and political 
freedom, sweep across our globe. I recall very well 10 years ago this 
last October as the Berlin Wall was getting ready to come down, we 
heard a speech from the first elected leader of South Korea, one of 
those countries which we maintained an economic tie with and brought 
about economic reform and political reform in. He said in his speech 
here, ``The forces of freedom and liberty are eroding the foundations 
of closed societies. The efficiency of the market economy and the 
benefits of an open society have become undeniable. Now these universal 
ideals, symbolized by the United States of America, have begun to 
undermine the fortresses of repression.''
  I was struck with that speech that he gave a decade ago right here in 
this Chamber; and, Mr. Speaker, if we stand with the likes of Colin 
Powell, the Dalai Lama, Billy Graham, the former Presidents, and a wide 
range of leaders in China and dissidents who understand the power of 
opening this up, we will one day see the first elected leader from the 
People's Republic of China stand right here in this Chamber delivering 
a familiar, similar speech.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on what 
many have described as the most important vote of our careers.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means and a gentleman that has contributed so much to this debate.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my brother, for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle and especially, if I might, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter).
  I want to comment briefly on some of the arguments here, for example, 
the job loss, the reference to 800,000, based, it is said, on an ITC 
report. But here is what the ITC says, that that briefing paper in 
several ways misrepresents the work and the findings of the ITC.
  But China will become increasingly a competitor, and that is why we 
have an anti-surge provision, the strongest in American law.
  It is also said China never has abided by a trade agreement. That is 
not true. They have abided in part in some. But it is going to be a 
special challenge to implement compliance by China, and that is why we 
have in our proposal additional resources and a provision for an annual 
review within the WTO sought by the U.S.
  Human rights, the annual review has not been an effective mechanism. 
It was not used after Tianenman, and there is no strategy for its 
effective use in the future. We can do better. We can do better. The 
Helsinki Commission-type will help us. It will be up to us to make sure 
it will do better than that. That commission worked despite, not 
because of, the Soviet Union.
  We should not isolate China, nor should we in the U.S. isolate 
ourselves

[[Page H3710]]

from pressing China to move in the right direction.
  Passing PNTR will allow us to actively engage China and 
constructively confront it. Rejecting PNTR would likely lead to chaos 
in our relationship with China, making both active engagement and 
constructive confrontation far more difficult.
  This debate is about difficult judgments about a huge country far 
away, and about immense pressures much closer to home. Democracy is 
about resolving competing and conflicting pressures. Taking these 
pressures fully into account, there are important occasions when we 
must rise above them. With leadership, a democracy can be more than the 
sum of particular pressures. Today the challenge before us in this 
House is to exercise such leadership. Today the challenge is before us. 
Let us meet that challenge.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman for his 
work on the commission.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, greed has rolled in like a bulldozer over all 
of the numerous logical reasons supporting the denial of a permanent 
trade agreement with China. The mega-profits to be realized by the 
corporate elite are so overwhelming that this juggernaut cannot be 
halted. What an irony it is that the larger part of the evil empire is 
now going to be a recipient of large-scale investments from the leader 
of capitalism in the free world.
  This act will have tornado-like devastation on the employment of 
hundreds of thousands of ordinary men and women in this Nation. Workers 
on both sides of the world will be the victims of this agreement. 
Chinese laborers paid 25 cents per hour or less will fill the bank 
accounts of multinational corporations. American workers will be forced 
to struggle harder and work more hours as industrial and manufacturing 
jobs are moved to China. Only lower-paying service jobs or high-tech 
positions requiring a college education will be left on our shores.
  Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible to consider trade legislation like 
this without considering the consequences. We need to right now begin 
to prepare for all those workers that are going to be thrown out of 
work. I urge a no vote on this legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to yield 5 minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who has 
been a leader for human rights, for dignity, and for fair trade with 
China for many years.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time so 
generously.
  Mr. Speaker, today Congress is poised to take a vote which will 
define us as a Nation. We will decide whether we will uphold the 
principles upon which our great country was founded. We will decide if 
we will support the pillars of our foreign policy, promoting democratic 
values, stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, 
growing our economy by promoting our exports abroad, or if we will 
squander our leverage to please some in the business community who do 
not share our responsibility to the public interest.
  In the public interest, I am pleased to join in opposition to this 
PNTR resolution. I am pleased to join the American Legion, the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars, the National Catholic Conference of Bishops, the 
International Campaign for Tibet, the China Democratic Party, the 
Sierra Club, and many other organizations committed to promoting human 
rights, fair trade, and protecting our environment.
  In the course of the debate preceding today's vote, some have said 
that the annual review of China's trade status has not been useful. 
They failed to mention that conditioning MFN on improvements in China's 
trade, human rights and proliferation behavior has never become law. It 
is the Bush-Clinton policy which has prevailed every year and produced 
record deficits. This year it will be over $85 billion in trade deficit 
with China, more people in prison for their political and religious 
beliefs than at any time since the cultural revolution, and an 
expansion in China's proliferation activities, from Pakistan, making 
South Asia a more dangerous place, to Iran, making the Persian Gulf a 
more dangerous place, to Libya, threatening stability in the Middle 
East, as well as threatening the security of Taiwan.

                              {time}  1545

  Most recently, this Libyan sale was in March of the year 2000; this 
is current and ongoing. And despite the failure of this policy of 
turning back or conditioning MFN, now called NTR, on improvement in 
these areas, despite the Bush/Clinton failure, they are asking us to 
make it permanent. On top of all of that, there is little reason to 
believe that the Chinese will comply with this trade agreement.
  They have violated every bilateral agreement with the U.S. that they 
have signed on trade. We must not let the Beijing regime dictate the 
terms of surrender of our annual review of the U.S./China relationship.
  Mr. Speaker, China's trade surplus of $85 billion for this year 
enables the Chinese Government to buy products, to buy political 
support and to buy silence from countries throughout the world. But we 
must not be silent, we must speak out for freedom, because it is in our 
national security interests to do so.
  Democratic countries do not invade their neighbors. Democratic 
countries respect the rule of law, facilitating, for one thing, trade. 
We must speak out for freedom, because it is the right thing to do and 
honors the sacrifice of our country's founders.
  Before I close, I want to say, I think that this has been a very 
constructive debate. The Members have been very courteous to listen and 
to exchange ideas in a very, shall we say, spirited way. And I want to 
thank all of my colleagues for listening and to those who have 
listened, as we ponder our vote today, I want my colleagues to think of 
two questions. First of all, what credibility do we have as a country 
that is the leader of the free world to speak about freedom?
  Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to ponder two questions; what 
credibility do we have as the leader of the free world to speak out 
against human rights abuses anywhere in the world if we will put deals 
ahead of ideals in China?
  Finally, what does it profit a country if it gains the whole world 
and suffers the loss of its soul? I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair announces that the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 7 minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to commend 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are supportive of this 
effort that we are initiating here with Mainland China, one-fifth of 
the world's population. And I want to congratulate them for the support 
they gave us just 2 weeks ago, when 309 Members on a bipartisan basis 
supported my Africa bill and the Caribbean Basin bill, and we made an 
outreach to underdeveloped portions of the world in sub-Saharan Africa. 
And it is because of our belief that, based upon experience with the 48 
countries there and the 700 million population, that kind of an 
outreach has a positive effect and it does raise the standards, the 
human rights issues are addressed when we have this kind of contact.
  While we have more ways to go with some of the other sub-Saharan 
African countries, and we do with China, too, this is a positive 
initiative working in the right direction, and I think everyone who 
supports it should be commended.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  (Mr. DeMINT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H3711]]

  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                          ____________________