[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 18, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H6399-H6424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, 
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 103) disapproving the 
extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the 
Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic of China, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of H.J. Res. 103 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 103

       Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     Congress does not approve the extension of the authority 
     contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     recommended by the President to Congress on June 2, 2000, 
     with respect to the People's Republic of China.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Monday, July 17, 2000, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and a 
Member in support of the joint resolution each will control 1 hour.
  Is there a Member in support of the joint resolution?
  Mr. BROWN of OHIO. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) will 
control 1 hour of time.
  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.J.Res. 103.
  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, a little less than 2 months ago, the American people and 
this House spoke out overwhelmingly in favor of expanded trade with 
China. With broad bipartisan support, we passed a measure granting 
American workers, farmers, and businesses unprecedented access to 
China's once-forbidden markets.
  Agriculture exports alone are expected to triple with this increased 
trade, and tariffs on American-made goods will be slashed or eliminated 
entirely in virtually every sector.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times before, this clearly is a win 
for the U.S. and her people. It is particularly important that we stay 
engaged with China so we can see the blessings of individual freedom, 
democracy, and move forward toward a free enterprise society.
  Mr. Speaker, given that, it is disappointing that we must vote on 
this issue yet again. Nevertheless, support for continued normal trade 
with China is stronger than it has ever been, and I urge Members to 
keep this process on track by opposing H.J. Res. 103.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here in Congress, we stand together in a commitment 
toward the spread of democratic ideals and the improvement of human 
rights. But as we have helped encourage the growth of democracy, many 
American corporations promote practices that work against all that 
Congress fosters throughout the world.
  During the weeks approaching the vote for permanent NTR for the 
People's Republic of China, corporate CEOs flocked to the Hill to lobby 
for increased trade with China.
  They talked about access to 1.2 billion consumers in China. What they 
did not say was that their real interest is in 1.2 billion Chinese 
workers, workers whom they pay wages on the level of slave labor.
  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 free trade. But as the CEOs speak, their companies 
systematically violate the most fundamental of human and worker rights.
  Companies such as Huffy and Nike and WalMart are contracting Chinese 
sweatshops to export to the United States, often with the assistance of 
repressive and corporate Chinese local government authorities.
  Mr. Speaker, 1,800 Huffy bicycle workers in the U.S. lost their jobs 
as Huffy in Ohio shut down its last three remaining plants in the U.S. 
In July of 1988, Huffy fired 800 workers from its Celina, Ohio, plant 
where workers earned $17 an hour.
  Huffy now outsources all of its production to developing nations, 
such as China, where laborers are forced to work up to 15 hours a day, 
7 days a week and earn an average wage of 33 cents an hour. This is 
less than 2 percent of what bicycle workers made in Ohio.
  The Qin Shi Handbag in China makes Kathie Lee Gifford-line handbags 
for WalMart. There are about a thousand workers at the factory where 
they put in 14-hour shifts, 7 days a week, often 30 days a month. The 
average wage at the factory is 3 cents an hour.
  Many workers live in a factory dormitory where they are housed 16 to 
a room. Their ID documents have been confiscated, and they are allowed 
to

[[Page H6400]]

leave the factory for an hour and a half a day. For half of all factory 
workers, rent for the dormitory exceeds their wages.
  The workers earn, in fact, nothing at all. In fact, they owe the 
company money. These people are indentured servants for WalMart or, 
most of us would say, slave labor.
  Developing democratic nations such as India are losing out to more 
totalitarian nations such as China, where people are not free and the 
workers do as they are told. Developing democratic nations such as 
Taiwan lose out to authoritarian developing nations, such as Indonesia, 
because the workforce is stable and docile and does as their told.
  In the post-Cold War decade, the share of developing countries' 
exports to the United States for democratic nations fell from 53 
percent in 1989 to 35 percent last year.
  Corporate America wants to do business with countries with docile 
workforces that earn below-poverty wages and are not allowed to 
organize to bargain collectively.
  In manufacturing goods, developing democracies' share of developing 
country exports fell 20 percentage points. Corporations are relocating 
their manufacturing base from democratic developing nations to 
authoritarian regimes where the workers do not talk back for fear of 
being punished.
  Western corporations want to invest in countries that have below-
poverty wages; that have poor environmental standards; that have no 
worker benefits; that have no opportunities to bargain collectively. As 
developing nations make progress toward democracy, as they increase 
worker rights and create regulations to protect the environment, what 
we do in the developed democratic world, the American business 
community punishes those democratic developing countries by pulling 
their trade and their investment in favor of totalitarian countries.
  They like China a lot more than they like democratic India. Corporate 
America likes Indonesia much more than they like Taiwan.
  Decisions about the Chinese economy are made by three groups: the 
Chinese Communist Party, the People's Liberation Army, and wealthy 
Western investors. All of them control a significant amount of the 
business that exports to the U.S. and Western investors.
  Mr. Speaker, which one of these three, the People's Liberation Army, 
the Chinese Communist Party, Western investors, which one of these 
three want to empower workers? 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 slave labor camps? 
I do not think so. Do Western investors want Chinese workers to bargain 
collectively to get a little bigger piece of the pie? I do not think 
so.
  None of these groups, Mr. Speaker, none of these groups, the People's 
Liberation Army, the Chinese Communist Party, and Western investors, 
none of these groups have any interests in changing the current 
situation in China. If they did, they would choose democratic India and 
democratic Taiwan.
  None of these groups have any interest in changing the current 
situation in China. All three, Western investors, the Communist Party 
of China, the People's Liberation Army, all three profit too much from 
the status quo to want to see human rights and labor rights improve in 
China.
  Congress should not tolerate the working conditions that exist in 
Chinese factories. Congress should care about how American corporations 
are behaving outside of our borders.
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to reject MFN and vote for the 
Rohrabacher resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair announces that 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) will be managing the time for 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of my time, for purposes 
of control, to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), my 
distinguished colleague.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) will control 30 minutes of the time of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWN of OHIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 30 
minutes of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) 
and that he may then yield time as he sees fit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) will control 30 minutes of the time for 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we had a very thorough and informed 
debate in the House just a few months ago on these very issues. The 
spotlight is now on the Senate. There is a clear majority there for 
passage of permanent NTR, and I express the hope of many of us that 
there can be full debate on the Senate side and action there 
expeditiously, which I think should mean within the next few weeks.
  I want to dwell on the major challenges ahead, because clearly the 
U.S.-China economic relationships are at the beginning of a new phase; 
they are far from their final form. So I believe there is a need to 
focus on these challenges, and we cannot simply put our economic 
relationships and our broader relationships with China on automatic 
pilot.
  As we know, there were major provisions in the legislation that 
passed the House that attempt to address these very critical 
challenges, and we need to focus on their effective implementation. The 
legislation set up a high-level executive congressional commission to 
be a continuing watchdog and a creative force in the area of human 
rights, including worker rights.
  We need to be sure during this session that that legislation is 
adequately funded. We need to be sure that the appointees to this vital 
high-level commission have the interest and the determination to make 
that commission work, as the Helsinki Commission has worked, and, if I 
might express the hope, even more so.

                              {time}  1315

  We need to be sure that this commission gets off to a strong start. I 
hope whatever the point of view may be in terms of PNTR that all of us 
will join together on both sides of the aisle and within each caucus 
and conference to make sure that happens.
  The legislation also calls for strong monitoring and enforcement of 
Chinese trade-related commitments and, as the chairman of the committee 
indicated, there are numerous, indeed essentially innumerable 
commitments. There also in the legislation is a strong anti-surge 
mechanism to make sure that there is a safeguard against major loss of 
American jobs in any specific sector. We need to be sure that the 
requests for adequate funding that have come on behalf of the Commerce 
Department and USTR to carry out these critical monitoring enforcement 
duties are fully funded in the appropriation processes.
  Those processes are far from complete when it comes to these aspects.
  We also need to be sure that the ongoing discussions in Geneva, in 
the working group on China, that in these discussions in Geneva the 
administration continues to press for a regular annual review within 
the WTO of these commitments by China.
  I see that we have been joined by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter), with whom I have had the chance to work on these very 
provisions, as well as the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking 
member of the full committee and the chairman of the full committee. I 
think all of us join in indicating the importance of the implementation 
process of these provisions.
  In a word, we need now to focus on the future. We are far closer to 
the beginning than to the end of the challenges that we face in our 
economic relationships with China. China, as it grows, is already 
1,200,000,000 people and is projected to become the second largest 
national economy within 20 years. We need to focus on these challenges 
as China emerges from 50 years as a state-controlled economy and with 
state abuses of human rights and individual freedoms. So today I urge 
my colleagues to vote no on this resolution and to join together to 
continue on

[[Page H6401]]

this important and difficult road of confronting the challenges ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The Chair would remind Members 
that it is not in order to urge certain Senate action, as recorded on 
page 181 of the House Rules Manual.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have introduced H.J. Res. 103 to disapprove the 
President's annual certification of the so-called normal trade 
relations with China, and I have no allusions that this bill will 
overturn the House vote on permanent normal trade relations. But I have 
introduced this bill because we need to pay attention as to what has 
happened in China and throughout the world since we voted for permanent 
normal trade relations with China.
  I believe the American public has the right to hear about events and 
the events in China that followed the mega million dollar propaganda 
campaign that was waged by U.S. corporations in order to acquire the 
approval of Congress for PNTR.
  PNTR, let us remember, is a taxpayer subsidy for corporations; 
includes, and that is the most important provision for these companies, 
a taxpayer subsidy in the form of loan guarantees and actual interest 
guarantees and loan guarantees to companies that are closing their 
factories in the United States and opening them in China.
  What we are talking about is American workers being taxed in order to 
support the transfer of thousands of jobs to low-paying labor mills in 
China. That is what PNTR was all about, and it was sold to us as 
something totally different. It told to us that there would be many 
benefits of PNTR.
  Well, the day after the PNTR vote, the media began reporting what the 
real story behind the corporate lobbying campaign was all about, even 
though during the debate for PNTR we heard that it was all about 
selling American products which, of course, is not the case. But after 
the vote, the truth began to emerge. A May 25 Wall Street Journal 
article put it very bluntly. Quote, ``even before the first vote was 
cast by Congress and while the debate in Washington focused on U.S. 
exports, the multinationals had something very different in mind.'' 
Quote, ``this is about investment in China, not about exports,'' said 
an economist for a major U.S. financial firm.
  So I am including several articles for the Record, Mr. Speaker.

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 25, 2000]

 Opening Doors: Congress's Vote Primes U.S. Firms to Boost Investments 
                                in China


 debate focused on exports, but for many companies, going local is the 
                  goal: ``Looking for predictability''

                   (By Helene Cooper and Ian Johnson)

       The China investment rush is on.
       Even before the first vote was cast yesterday in Congress's 
     decision to permanently normalize U.S. trade with China, 
     Corporate America was making plans to revolutionize the way 
     it does business on the mainland. And while the debate in 
     Washington focused mainly on the probable lift for U.S. 
     exports to China, many U.S. multinationals have something 
     different in mind.
       ``This deal is about investment, not exports,'' says Joseph 
     Quinlan, an economist with Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 
     ``U.S. foreign investment is about to overtake U.S. exports 
     as the primary means by which U.S. companies deliver goods to 
     China.''
       Michael T. Byrnes, chief representative of Rockwell 
     International Corp.'s China division, seconds that: ``In 
     China, that's the direction we're going.''
       Yesterday, by a vote of 237-197, the U.S. House of 
     Representatives gave its approval for the world's largest 
     communist nation to become a card-carrying member of the 
     ultimate capitalist club, the World Trade Organization.
       The hotly contested House vote was portrayed by proponents 
     as a historical watershed. It was ``the most important vote 
     we [have] cast in our congressional careers,'' said Rep. Bill 
     Archer, House Ways and Means chairman.
       The vote perfectly punctuates the end of the 20th-century 
     struggle between communism and capitalism for dominance of 
     the world economy. Capitalism won. With China's entry into 
     the WTO, free markets and free trade have emerged as the 
     unchallenged global standard for business.
       The vote also cements a legacy for Bill Clinton. He will 
     now be viewed by history as a president who firmly opposed 
     protectionist forces within his own party, winning approval 
     for the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, the WTO 
     in 1994 and, finally, permanent normalization of trade with 
     China. After yesterday's vote, Mr. Clinton said: ``This is a 
     good day for America. Ten years from now we'll look back on 
     this day and be glad we did this.''
       For business, which spent millions of dollars on 
     advertising and lobbied vigorously for this outcome, the 
     consequences are more practical, but no less far-reaching. In 
     the tense weeks leading up to last night's vote, business 
     lobbyists emphasized the beneficial effect the agreement 
     would have on U.S. exports to China. They played down its 
     likely impact on investment, leery of sounding supportive of 
     labor union arguments that the deal would prompt companies to 
     move U.S. production to China.
       But many businessmen concede that investment in china is 
     the prize. Consider Mr. Byrnes's company, Rockwell, a 
     Milwaukee-based maker of automation and aviation equipment. 
     In 1987, Rockwell invested in a small cable factory in the 
     southern city of Xiamen that produces about $3 million worth 
     of equipment a year for the China market.
       Like many foreign companies in the 1980s, Rockwell was 
     allowed to invest only if it entered a joint venture, a messy 
     arrangement that required Rockwell to cooperate with four 
     local partners, all of them state-owned. The experience so 
     frustrated Rockwell that it never invested in another factory 
     in China, preferring instead to export as much as $200 
     million worth of products each year to China from the U.S. 
     and other countries.
       Now, Rockwell says that's likely to change. The WTO 
     agreement, Rockwell hopes, will encourage China to abide by 
     international rules, such as publishing regulatory changes 
     and making transparent the workings of its 
     bureaucracy. ``We're looking for predictability, 
     rehability,'' Mr. Byrnes says. With that, Rockwell expects 
     to set up more factories. ``My advice back to the 
     headquarters,'' Mr. Byrnes says, ``is WTO makes things 
     more predictable for investing.''
       Technically, yesterday's vote in the House has no direct 
     bearing on China's entry into the World Trade Organization. 
     That was all but assured last week when the European Union 
     completed negotiation of a broad trade agreement with China, 
     following a similar agreement with the U.S. last year. But 
     under WTO rules, China still couldn't enter the group until 
     Congress provided permanent normal trading relations with 
     China--rescinding the law under which China's trade status 
     came up for a vote each year.
       If the measure hadn't passed, China would have had the 
     right to deny U.S. companies the access to its markets that 
     it is extending to other WTO members.
       Now that that hurdle is cleared, the agreements to let 
     China into the WTO will probably boost exports to the country 
     by lowering its tariffs on a host of products. The U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture estimates that American farm 
     exports to China will rise by $2 billion within five years. 
     U.S. and foreign moviemakers also expect to do more business 
     in China, where their combined annual quota will rise to 40 
     releases from 10.
       Equipment manufacturer Caterpillar Inc., exports about $200 
     million of tractors and other construction equipment to China 
     a year, a figure that has roughly tripled in the past few 
     years as China has pushed an ambitious infrastructure 
     program, says Dick Kahler, president of Caterpillar China Co. 
     WTO entry will cut tariffs to 10% from 20%, making 
     Caterpillar's products even more affordable to Chinese 
     customers. ``We don't see why we can't continue to see that 
     kind of growth,'' Mr. Kahler says.
       Indeed, the fear among many in China is that local 
     businesses will be swamped by foreign goods. A play that 
     premiered in Beijing yesterday titled ``Made in China'' tells 
     the story of a beleaguered Chinese cosmetics maker fighting a 
     flood of foreign imports. ``Chinese factory managers are 
     terrified about the low tariffs,'' says the play's director, 
     Wang Shaoying.
       Still, if the strategic plans of American companies are 
     anything to go by, U.S. exports aren't the big trade story 
     here. ``U.S. exports will increase, over time,'' says Greg 
     Mastel, director of global economic policy at the New America 
     Foundation, a Washington think tank. ``But not at the rate of 
     investment, and the corporate community has been quiet 
     about that. They've been able to avoid telling that 
     story.''
       That story reflects a simple business fundamental: 
     Companies need to be closer to their customers. And China has 
     1.2 billion potential customers.
       Direct foreign investment in China already has burgeoned. 
     It totaled $45 billion in 1998, according to a January study 
     by A.T. Kearney Inc., the Chicago management consulting firm. 
     Last year, after the onset of the Asian financial crisis and 
     a slowdown in the Chinese economy, the total shrank to $40 
     billion. Now, many economists expect investment in China will 
     resume rising, by as much as 15% to 20% a year.
       With WTO membership, China agrees to allow foreign-owned 
     dealership and distribution services, a big boost for auto 
     makers and heavy-equipment manufacturers. U.S. banks, too, 
     will get a crack at a market totaling 1.1 trillion yuan 
     ($132.88 billion), in terms of loans outstanding. U.S. 
     lenders ultimately will have unlimited access for the first 
     time to manage the deposits of Chinese citizens and to lend 
     to individuals and corporations. And foreign asset managers 
     will be allowed to establish joint-venture fund-management 
     firms.

[[Page H6402]]

       Consider Motorola Inc.'s China plans. Motorola has just 
     developed a $600 combination computer and wireless phone, 
     called Accompli, which it makes entirely in China. ``It has 
     really clever Chinese features, all done based on market 
     research in China,'' says Motorola Chairman Chris Galvin. 
     Already, Motorola has China sales of about $3 billion each 
     year.
       When it officially joins the WTO later this year, China 
     will allow foreign companies 49% ownership of 
     telecommunications carriers, and 50% two years later--
     compared with nothing today. Mr. Galvin believes that will be 
     a huge opportunity for Motorola as its Chinese customer base 
     expands. Motorola also plans to invest in Chinese Internet 
     ventures, he says.
       In Shanghai, General Motors Corp.'s Buick Regal is in the 
     second year of production at a factory that cost more than $1 
     billion to build. About 60% of the car is made locally, says 
     Larry Zahner, president of GM China Group. Much of the rest, 
     about $250 million a year, is imported from North America, 
     mostly from Michigan. But even with China in the WTO--which 
     should eliminate Chinese rules requiring local content--the 
     Detroit company expects to raise the local content of its 
     cars manufactured in Shanghai to 80% or 90%, Mr. Zahner says.
       Eastman Kodak Co. is well into plans to invest $1 billion 
     on manufacturing plants in China. Kodak expects China will 
     leapfrog the U.S. as Kodak's biggest market by 2025. To that 
     end, Kodak has been boosting its manufacturing capacity 
     there, as well as encouraging smaller investors to open Kodak 
     Express processing stores.
       European and Japanese multinationals have been drawing up 
     their plans as well. Germany's Volkswagen AG and Japan's 
     Toyota Motor Corp. have big Chinese investment plans on the 
     drawing board. In an era when new models are rolled out 
     with increasing frequency, factories can't wait months for 
     parts to be shipped around the world. As a rule of thumb, 
     auto companies want their suppliers to locate within 250 
     miles of the final assembly plant.
       Many of the biggest trade concessions China made in return 
     for its acceptance into the WTO are in banking, insurance and 
     other services. New York Life Insurance Co. is one insurer 
     already planning to set up a joint-venture with a Chinese 
     partner, though it hasn't made public the amount it wants to 
     invest. Just after the vote yesterday, New York Life 
     International's chief executive, Gary Benanav, was preparing 
     to hop on a flight to China. ``As quickly as possible, we are 
     going to apply for a license to enter the life-insurance 
     market,'' he said.
       American International Group already has pumped hundreds of 
     millions of dollars into China, mostly to set up offices, 
     train Chinese insurance agents and to ingratiate itself with 
     local regulators by plowing collected premiums back into 
     Chinese infrastructure projects. It also is expected to be 
     among the first to set up a fund-management joint venture.
       Even agriculture companies are getting in on the act. 
     Poultry giant Perdue Farms Inc. is ratcheting up its 
     investment in China with a joint venture for a processing 
     plant and hatchery near Shanghai.
       Beijing is well aware that entry into the WTO will bring a 
     rush of foreign investment. Indeed, that's a big reason why, 
     after years of dragging its feet, China has in the past two 
     years aggressively pursued WTO entry--to bring in the money 
     needed to keep the economy growing and modernizing.
                                  ____


          China Warns ``No More Concessions'' to Get Into WTO

       Geneva (Reuters)--A senior Chinese official declared Friday 
     that his country could make no more concessions on opening up 
     markets for goods and services in its bid to join the World 
     Trade Organization (WTO).
       China's lead WTO negotiator, vice-minister for foreign 
     trade Long Yongtu, issued his warning at a formal meeting of 
     diplomats from most of the body's 137 member states who are 
     working to wrap up the terms of Beijing's entry.
       Some countries, said Long, ``have raised some unreasonable 
     requests, either requiring China to undertake obligations 
     exceeding the WTO rules, or insisting that China cannot enjoy 
     its rights under the rules . . .
       ``We will never accept further requests that China should 
     undertake obligations exceeding those for ordinary WTO 
     members, and nor will we allow ourselves to have the rights 
     that we should have to be impaired or even taken away,'' he 
     added.
       Long's trenchant statement came as Beijing's 14-year effort 
     to become a formal part of the global trading community 
     appeared moving into its final lap.
       Diplomats said his remarks were largely aimed at developing 
     countries--including India and several Latin American 
     states--who are seeking to come fully under the umbrella of 
     china's bilateral accords with the United States and the 
     European Union.
       Many of these countries are bidding to win the same right 
     to impose so-called safeguard restrictions as were written 
     into the U.S.-China pact on surges of Chinese imports of 
     textile goods that might threaten the survival domestic 
     producers.


                        SUBSIDIES ALSO AN ISSUE

       But diplomats said there were other areas--like how 
     subsidies were assessed and balance-of-payments measures 
     treated--where the language of both U.S. and EU accords with 
     China was drafted to be a specific to bilateral trading 
     relations. Many emerging economies want the terms of these 
     accords to be fully ``multilateralized'''--or written into 
     the final documents setting out the terms of china's entry 
     and therefore applicable to all WTO members.
       Speaking at a news conference, Long said his government was 
     ``determined and prepared'' to honor all its agreements on 
     WTO entry, but could not accept overall terms that went 
     beyond the current rules of the organization.
       Envoys said the row, which was unlikely to become a major 
     obstacle to Chinese entry by the end of this year, was a 
     reflection of the negotiations were now in the end-game.
       ``Many countries are upping the ante to try to win 
     something extra at the last moment,'' said one negotiator. 
     ``Everyone realizes that Chinese entry will bring momentous 
     changes for the organization.''


                       ENTRY TALKS SEEN POSITIVE

       Despite the controversy, both Long and Pierre-Louis Girard, 
     Swiss chairman of the WTO Working Party on Chinese accession, 
     said the atmosphere during the past week of formal and 
     informal talks had been positive.
       ``Everybody seems pretty serious about getting this done so 
     China can come in by the end of the year,'' a senior U.S. 
     official who attended the session told reporters.
       In a sign of advance, China Friday wrapped up a bilateral 
     accord with Costa Rica--which had been seeking wider access 
     for its tropical fruit and coffee exports--and appeared close 
     to a final accord with Switzerland. Other agreements remain 
     to be completed with Mexico, Guatemala and ?
       Diplomats said the Working party would meet with Long and 
     his team again in Geneva in the last two weeks of July and 
     that the aim then would be to complete the major admission 
     documents--a Protocol of Accession and a Working Party 
     Report.
                                  ____


              [From the Wall Street Journal, June 5, 2000]

            China Unicom Scraps Plan Linked to Qualcomm Deal

                            (By Matt Forney)

       Beijing--China's No. 2 phone company has confirmed it won't 
     use a mobile-phone technology designed by Qualcomm Corp., of 
     the U.S. for at least three years--a decision that could 
     reverberate from Silicon Valley to Washington.
       China's promise to open its markets to Qualcomm's current 
     generation of cell-phone technology was key to it earning 
     U.S. support to join the World Trade Organization, the 
     Geneva-based group that sets global trade rules.
       Last year, Premier Zhu Rongji personally assured U.S. 
     Commerce Secretary William Daley that China would open its 
     markets to San Diego-based Qualcomm's code-division multiple 
     access, or CDMA, technology, according to people in the room 
     at the time, a decision that was supposed to result in 
     millions of Chinese subscribers using Qualcomm technology by 
     the end of this year.
       But after China's entry into WTO was stalled by the U.S. 
     last year--and the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia was bombed--
     China's enthusiasm for Qualcomm's technology likewise faded. 
     As China's WTO bid picked up steam last autumn and was 
     endorsed by the U.S. last November, Qualcomm's fortunes in 
     China rose, culminating in it signing a ``framework'' 
     agreement with Unicom in February. But Qualcomm then ran into 
     problems with China over the amount of its technology that 
     would be produced locally.
       The delays meant Qualcomm was starting to make little 
     economic sense to China--analysts said it would be wasteful 
     for China to pour billions into a technology that would 
     become dated in a few years when companies start rolling out 
     next-generation mobile-phone technology.
       ``The company has planned to provide CDMA services this 
     summer,'' said a representative for China United 
     Telecommunications Corp., or Unicom, who was quoted in the 
     state-run Xinhua news agency Sunday. Unicom canceled the 
     project because ``the timing of constructing a narrow-band 
     CDMA system has become unfavorable,'' he said.
       ``Narrow band'' refers to Qualcomm's currently available 
     CDMA technology. The spokesman said he expected Unicom to use 
     Qualcomm's next-generation, or ``wide-band,'' CDMA technology 
     in around 2003. But the spokesman also said that the February 
     agreement, in which Unicom agreed to license some form of 
     CDMA equipment from Qualcomm, ``could be canceled.''
       Over the past week, Unicom sent mixed messages on whether 
     it would use Qualcomm's technology, causing a sell-off of the 
     company's stock, which had risen more than 20-fold last year 
     but has sunk 60% from its January high.
                                  ____


                    China Wary of its Private Sector

                          (By Charles Hutzler)

       Beijing--President Jiang Zemin, worried about the Communist 
     Party's slipping hold on a fast-changing China, has ordered 
     the party to set up cells in the country's thriving private 
     sector, state media reported yesterday.
       Mr. Jiang's speech to party officials Sunday underscored 
     the leadership's growing anxieties about the challenges 
     global economic change is bringing to its monopoly rule. As 
     more Chinese find work outside the government and decrepit 
     state industries, free markets, not fiats from Beijing, hold 
     sway.

[[Page H6403]]

       Mr. Jiang, who heads the 61 million-member Communist Party, 
     said the organization must improve its leadership and 
     ``strengthen its combat capabilities . . . so that the party 
     can direct China's modernization drive and secure the 
     country's power in the midst of fierce international 
     competition.''
       He noted the private sector's importance in China's 
     economy. Private companies need party organizations ``to 
     guarantee the healthy development of the sector,'' Mr. Jiang 
     said in remarks carried by the official Xinhua News Agency.
       Those cells ``should work hard to unite and educate 
     entrepreneurs to advocate various policies of the party, run 
     businesses according to law and protect the employees' 
     interests,'' Mr. Jiang said.
       It was not clear how the party would put Mr. Jiang's order 
     into effect. But if realized, the plan could bring a marked 
     change to the freewheeling private sector. State firms have 
     always had party representatives, and despite 20 years of 
     free-market reforms, they often wield more power than 
     enterprise managers.
       Businesses outside state control now account for 60 percent 
     of China's $990 billion economy. That portion is projected to 
     grow after China's expected entry into the World Trade 
     Organization later this year opens many long-protected 
     Chinese markets.
       Foreign businesses are likely to increase investment in 
     China.
                                  ____


                          China Pop De-Fizzed


    Why things go better for Coke without Ah-mei on its billboards.

                           (By Charles Lane)

       In a time of tension between China and Taiwan, Zhang Huimei 
     brought people together. The diminutive Taiwanese pop singer, 
     who goes by the stage name Ah-mei, sells millions of CD's on 
     both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Last year 45,000 screaming 
     fans caught her Madonna-like act in a government authorized 
     Beijing concert.
       American business, too, recognized her star power. Coca-
     Cola, seeking to harness her popularity to sell its products 
     in the mainland Chinese market, spent millions on TV, radio 
     and billboard ads for Sprite, featuring Ah-mei.
       But Ah-mei's career in the People's Republic came to a 
     screeching halt when she agreed to sing Taiwan's national 
     anthem at the May 20 inauguration of Taiwan's newly elected 
     president, Chen Shui-bian, whom Beijing considers excessively 
     interested in independence for the island nation. Her videos 
     and music were immediately banned on state-controlled media 
     in China.
       And Chinese authorities notified Coke that its Ah-mei ads 
     would also henceforth be verboten. Beijing tried to portray 
     this as a response to public outrage at Ah-mei's performance 
     in Taipei. But there's been public outrage over the massacre 
     at Tienanmen Square, and the Communist government hasn't 
     deferred to that. The banning of Ah-mei was clearly linked to 
     Beijing's broader attempt to enforce its increasingly hard 
     line against Taiwan.
       This blatant censorship was a frontal attack on Coca-Cola's 
     freedom of expression, and Ah-mei's, and that of her fans, 
     too. It was also an attack on Coke's bottom line. After the 
     first six weeks of Ah-mei Sprite TV ads in 1999, Coke claimed 
     that consumer awareness of the brand had doubled, and sales 
     had grown substantially.
       So how did this most American of multinationals fight back? 
     A lawsuit? A plea for help from the U.S. government? 
     Actually, Coke rolled over, without a peep of protest. The 
     company was ``unhappy'' about the ban, says Robert Baskin, 
     the company's director of media relations, but ``as a local 
     business, we will respect the authority of local regulators 
     and we will abide by their decisions.''
       Trade and investment with the People's Republic has 
     sometimes been sold as a kind of universal political solvent: 
     The more U.S. firms get involved in the Chinese economy, the 
     theory goes, the better the chances that American political 
     values will, over time, penetrate the Communist-run society 
     as well. We heard a lot of this during the recent debate over 
     permanent normal trading status for China. The case of Coke's 
     Ah-mei ads provides a rough test of how well this argument 
     stands up in the here and now.
       To be sure, you could argue that the fact that China felt 
     constrained to justify its ban on the big U.S. firm's ads 
     represents a kind of progress. Coke's presence in China is, 
     of course, not hurting the Chinese people. Insofar as it 
     provides jobs, income and tasty carbonated beverages, it 
     makes life better and, in economic terms, freer. Coke runs a 
     scholarship program that supports some 700 low-income Chinese 
     university students.
       Nor is Coke the first American firm to alter its 
     advertising in China for political reasons. Two years ago 
     Apple Computer actually censored itself, voluntarily removing 
     images of the Dalai Lama--living symbol of Tibetan resistance 
     to Chinese domination--from its ``Think Different'' ads in 
     Hong Kong. A spokesperson for the company said at the time 
     that ``where there are political sensitivities, we did not 
     want to offend anyone''--i.e., Apple didn't want to incur the 
     wrath of Beijing by even seeming to urge Chinese citizens to 
     think different about Tibet. (Coke will continue to use its 
     Ah-mei ads in Hong Kong and Taiwan.)
       The point is that in the struggle over what values 
     ultimately reign in China, the Chinese state is hardly 
     helpless against the impact of American commerce. When 
     pushed, firms such as Coke will be flexible about freedom of 
     speech--and even, it seems, sacrifice some short-term 
     profits--if they deem it necessary to preserve the long-term 
     market access conferred by a prickly authoritarian 
     government. And who can blame them? Coke and other 
     multinationals are fundamentally economic, not political, 
     institutions. They have to answer to their shareholders.
       The Chinese regime's priorities are equally clear: it wants 
     economic development; it wants foreign investment; it wants 
     Sprite; it even tolerates entertainment imported from the 
     renegade province across the Taiwan Strait. But what it 
     really wants more than any of those things is ideological 
     purity on such vital issues as Taiwan's political status. If 
     your company won't accommodate itself to that hierarchy of 
     values, Beijing will find a competitor who will. The Chinese 
     Communist Party is a political institution. And it answers to 
     no one.
       Thus is a mighty Atlanta-based multinational with $20 
     billion in annual global sales reduced to an obedient ``local 
     business.''
                                  ____


                      PLA-Firms Plan ``Completed''


                                xiao yu

       Beijing says it has completed its programme of removing 
     thousands of firms from ownership by the military and 
     judicial departments, in an effort to cut corruption.
       Figures now made available, although incomplete, show that 
     the PLA and departments of the judiciary used to own 37,670 
     businesses. By April 19, 459--52 percent--had been disbanded. 
     Of these, 3,928 belonged to the PLA and 15,531 to judicial 
     bodies.
       In the past two years, local authorities have taken over 
     2,956 companies and firms from the PLA and 3,536 from 
     judicial bodies. The PLA has kept 1,346 business enterprises 
     under its wings and judicial bodies have retained 4,757 
     ventures. The PLA includes not just the military but also the 
     armed police forces. Similarly, judicial bodies cover the 
     police, prosecutors and courts.
       President Jiang Zemin made the decision for the PLA and 
     judiciary to spin off their business interests in 1998. It 
     was seen as a major move to curb rampant corruption and 
     smuggling.
       First announcing completion of the programme in May, Vice 
     President Hu Jintao reiterated Beijing's determination to 
     stop the ``serious harm'' of military-backed business 
     ventures.
       ``These companies take advantage of their special 
     connection and enjoy all kinds of perks. Some even make use 
     of the army, armed police and judicial organs to run 
     monopolies, compete for profits against private business and 
     threaten fair trade,'' he said.
       Mr. Hu said army and judicial bodies must be run with 
     government funding and he urged all levels of government to 
     guarantee their budgets.
                                  ____


       Travelers Insurance, Safeco Lose China Operating Licenses

       (12 June 2000) The Beijing representative offices of three 
     foreign insurance companies in China have had their licenses 
     revoked by the China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC), 
     Zhongguo Xinwen She (China News Service) reported on June 12.
       These include two U.S.-based firms--Travelers Insurance (a 
     member of Citigroup) and Safeco (US) Co.--and the Hong Kong-
     based Gui-Jiang Insurance Agency Co.
       As stated in the article, the CIRC claims these firms 
     ``have violated the relevant insurance rules and regulations 
     of China.''
       These regulations include: changing an operations' address 
     without approval; failing to submit annual work reports to 
     regulatory authorities regarding the work of the 
     representative office; and failing to submit annual reports 
     to regulatory authorities of the companies represented.
       According to China News Service, CIRC officials believe the 
     foreign rep offices ``seriously violated the `Administrative 
     Rules Regarding Representative Offices of Foreign Insurance 
     Companies in China.' ''
       The official also said that some representative offices of 
     foreign insurance companies continue to violate relevant 
     rules.
       Last year, the CIRC designated the ``Administrative Rules'' 
     as the primary guide to regulating foreign insurance 
     companies.
       By the end of last year, there were 113 foreign-invested 
     insurance institutions from 17 economies working in China 
     through nearly 200 representative offices in 14 cities.

  China's $70 billion annual trade surplus with the United States will 
continue to grow; and since the PNTR vote, Beijing is continuing its 
massive buildup in its military arena. There are new reports of the 
transfer of Chinese weapons of mass destruction and other types of 
deadly technologies to rogue nations. At the same time, this regime is 
attempting to galvanize international opposition to the United States 
in our efforts to build a missile defense system.
  Since the vote on PNTR, the Chinese military has continued its 
missile buildup and has continued to call for the democratic government 
in Taiwan to surrender and become subject to Beijing. In addition, 
Beijing is now attempting to buy more naval destroyers from Russia, 
armed with the deadly

[[Page H6404]]

Sunburn nuclear-capable anti-ship missiles that were developed in 
Russia for one reason, to destroy American aircraft carriers.
  Since the PNTR vote, the Communist regime in Beijing has contracted 
for two more of these deadly naval weapons systems. Since the PNTR 
vote, there has been no move toward democratic reform or credible rule 
of law in China.
  Now, these are all things we were told was going to happen, all the 
good things that would happen if Congress just showed our goodwill by 
voting for permanent normal trade relations. Instead, things have gone 
in the opposite direction. Jiang Zemin and his party have intensified 
the crackdowns on religion and on the media and within the academic 
community. The regime's quasi-Maoist anti-rightist campaign has spread 
throughout China since our vote on PNTR. Since our vote on PNTR, the 
State-run media has called the Dalai Lama a rapist and a cannibal, end 
of quote. This, of course, while the Communist regime in Beijing 
continues to commit its genocide in Tibet.
  Ominously, after our PNTR vote the regime issued a decree ordering 
Communist political cells to be formed in all private corporations.
  Now we have been sold this bill of goods. We have been sold a bill of 
goods: Vote for permanent normal trade relations and things are going 
to go in the opposite direction. However, since our vote on PNTR, 
things have been going in the wrong direction. They continue to 
escalate going in precisely the opposite direction than we were told 
would happen if we simply would show a sign of good faith by giving 
permanent normal trade relations, which means subsidies to American 
corporations to invest and create factories in China; if we just do 
that, things will get better and there will be improvements along these 
other lines.
  We have heard repeatedly that U.S. information technology in China is 
key to promoting democracy and free speech. However, since the PNTR 
vote, the Chinese Communist security services have stepped up their use 
of advanced western technology to do what? To crack down on Internet 
users. Sadly, during the past month, U.S. companies in China have 
ignored pleas for human rights and have ignored requests for them to 
speak out for people who were arrested or in some way under attack for 
some policy agreement with the Communist Chinese regime.
  U.S. corporations have been compliant, thus, with Communist 
censorship. Who is having an effect on whom here? Is our engagement 
with them making them more democratic or are they corrupting our 
process and undermining America's commitment to freedom and democracy?
  For example, after the PNTR vote, the music of one of the most 
popular female singers in China, who happens to be from Taiwan, was 
banned because she sang at the inauguration of Taiwan's democratically 
elected President. Subsequently, the Coca Cola Company was ordered by 
Beijing to destroy all advertising that featured her image at a cost of 
millions of dollars. Did Coca Cola put up resistance in the name of 
free trade or free expression? Was this the kind of engagement that 
would certainly point to Beijing and say, look, this is what we really 
believe in freedom and that is what they should not do if they believe 
in freedom?
  No, they did not do that at all. What they did was comply with the 
demand of the Beijing dictatorship. Engagement is not helping them 
become more democratic. It is corrupting the United States of America 
and it is undermining America's commitment to democracy and freedom, as 
well as, I might add, adding subsidies to people who want to close 
factories here and open factories there. All of these things are sinful 
and all of these things have been even worse since our vote for 
permanent normal trade relations.
  Increasingly, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with an unreformed China what 
is happening is it is ending up with a betrayal of fundamental American 
values for which our children will some day pay a heavy price and the 
working men and women of America are paying the price today with their 
factories being shut and these companies going with tax subsidies to 
Mainland China to create jobs.
  I ask for support of my resolution, H.J. Res. 103.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley), our distinguished colleague.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, first my congratulations to the chairman on a 
good discussion here today, and particularly the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) from the Democratic side who has taken a lot of 
extra efforts to make certain that this is a balanced approach to 
trade. He has taken some significant pressure back home from 
constituents. He understands some of the concerns raised by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and wants to make certain 
human rights are protected, religious expressions allowed.
  I have visited China twice and can say from a personal observation 
that there is an emerging thought in China amongst the young people, 
amongst the average citizens, that suggests that they may in fact be 
able to change the way Mainland China thinks; they may be able to 
influence their leaders in the future. But the one thing became 
apparent to me, having visited there, is that we have to be there in 
order to facilitate that dialogue.
  I think clearly the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has been 
very, very admirable in listening to all sides of the debate and taking 
into consideration the concerns the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) has raised. I know he does not just make these 
characterizations without some background and some deep thought. I know 
he cares deeply about this debate and about the people of Taiwan and 
the Dalai Lama and others, and I do not criticize that strong voice 
that he brings to the floor today, but my various points of view that I 
have been able to study and look at suggest that there is progress on 
some of those fronts, maybe not as much as we would all like and, yes, 
there are some threats to average citizens, but I sense that if the 
American country, the people of our country, our corporate participants 
that provide jobs and provide opportunity, are not engaged in China, 
then we will not be able to impact or change the dynamic of the 
Communist government; we will not be able to provide incentives for 
young people that recognize that entrepreneurial nationalism as it is 
in America is something to strive for; freedom of expression is 
something to be proud of.
  It takes time to change people's ways of thinking. So I again urge a 
negative vote on the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) but urge that we continue to have this kind of spirited 
debate so we can resolve some of the underlying issues we bring to the 
floor today.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been involved in fighting for 
worker rights in this country and around the world.
  (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of the resolution. Many of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle would like to keep this debate low key, below the 
radar screen this afternoon. They would like for this issue to go away. 
In the land of freedom, this may be the last time we debate the issue 
on the floor of the Congress, the Congress of the people, the House of 
the people; this may be the last time we debate the issue of trade with 
China. Sadly, this could be the last debate. We will never have the 
ability to voice our concerns about an authoritarian government whose 
regime this House has recently voted to coddle, to patronize. Free 
trade with China is an oxymoron. Check the record. Check the record.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this time to talk about an even 
bigger picture. In his book, the Lexus in the Olive Tree, New York 
Times columnist Tom Friedman lays out what he calls globalization. We 
have addressed that issue not only with trade, but in foreign policy 
and a lot of other things,

[[Page H6405]]

the subject of globalization. Friedman's contention is that no longer 
will there be Democrats and Republicans, one will either be a free 
trader, or not; one will be a globalizer, or not. Globalization means 
the spread of free market capitalism to virtually every country in the 
world. He talks about how these trade agreements we are talking about 
are the wave of the future. Get with it, I say to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher). Get with it, I say to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown), my friend. You are not with it.
  The proponents of PNTR won their battle by arguing that we, the 
opponents, were against trade and globalization. It was clever. I 
cannot stress this point enough. We are not against trade, and we are 
not against a global economy. Mr. Speaker, I am against deals that 
cause my State, the State of New Jersey, to lose 22,000 jobs. Yes, I am 
against that. I am against deals that see our textile industry exported 
overseas in the name of economic progress. Yes, I am against that.
  While Mr. Friedman talks of globalization and the interconnection of 
economies, which is something that we cannot question, which will be 
good for big business, our constituents will see their technical and 
manufacturing jobs exported overseas. This sort of global economy will 
see jobs that were someone's career. Our grandparents who came here had 
these entry-level jobs, and we continue to export these manufacturing 
jobs against the very people who used them. Out of one side of our 
mouth we talk about the immigrants coming to America, but the very jobs 
that we work at will no longer be here.
  Mr. Speaker, we have no longer a war on turf in America or in the 
world. We are not going to be fighting over boundaries, I say to my 
good friend from New York. I know that. But to think that the boundary 
lines are going to be the competitive forces playing out on Wall Street 
and on the Internet is to bury our heads in the sand. It is absolutely 
unforgivable what we have done in the last 3 months on the subject of 
trade with an enemy. Our enemy is not the Chinese people, it is the 
authoritarian government; and it goes long before 50 years that that 
government was authoritarian.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), my distinguished colleague and friend.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution of the gentleman 
from California and essentially do so for two reasons: the first is, we 
have, I think, an opportunity to provide an incentive for the Chinese 
to engage in fair international competition. I think we have an 
opportunity to provide an incentive for the Chinese to improve their 
labor standards, human rights standards. I think we have an opportunity 
to provide an incentive for the Chinese to improve their environmental 
standards.
  However, I think if we continually on an analyzed basis and 
potentially on a permanent basis grant most favored nations status to 
the country of China, we have removed that last incentive to do these 
things. I think it is incumbent upon all of us that believe those 
changes are necessary is to say if you are going to do them, show us 
that you will.
  Secondly, I do think that we have to change the focus of the debate 
and recognize that we have a choice to make today and every day, and 
that is whether we are going to fight and negotiate to raise 
environmental standards, raise international labor standards; or are we 
simply going to engage in a race to the bottom because that is the way 
the world is today as we find it; that is the way we will accept the 
world as we find it, and we will accommodate ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, for 50 years we have spent the Treasury of the United 
States, and tens of thousands of young Americans have given their lives 
to secure our freedom, to win the Cold War, and to provide an 
opportunity for democracy to spread across the world. I think we have 
to make the same commitment to have our economic form of government 
also spread across the globe and not race to the bottom, but work every 
day to improve those international standards. We are not doing that if 
we do not support the gentleman's resolution.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on International Relations, who knows full well that in 
this bill there are subsidies to American corporations to close their 
doors here and open up factories in the dictatorship in China to use 
their slave labor.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
legislation by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) that is 
before us today disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory 
treatment to the People's Republic of China.
  On May 24, when the House considered a measure providing permanent 
normal trade relations to China, I cited then a number of significant 
concerns in our relations with China regarding the enforcement of trade 
agreements, the documentation of human rights abuses, and the continued 
evidence of China's nuclear proliferation.
  Over the past several months, additional evidence has emerged that 
China continues to play a key role in supplying sensitive nuclear 
missile and chemical weapons technology to a number of states of 
concern around the world. In particular, nonproliferation experts in 
and out of our government believe that China has provided critical 
assistance to the Pakistani nuclear weapons program.
  To meet this growing threat to international peace and stability in 
Asia and around the world, I joined with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), my friend and colleague, in introducing on 
July 13 the China Nonproliferation Act, a companion measure to S. 2645 
introduced by Senators Thompson and Torricelli.
  In short, our concerns about irresponsible Chinese policies regarding 
the export of dangerous weapons of mass destruction are of even greater 
concern today than they were several months ago during the debate on 
granting PNTR status for China. Approving this resolution, Mr. Speaker, 
of disapproval would send the right signal to Beijing that business as 
usual in Chinese weapons and technology exports is undermining our 
friends and allies throughout Asia and the Middle East.
  China's continuing military buildup has only emboldened that nation 
to claim islands and territories belonging to the Philippines and its 
other neighbors in the region. Its illegal occupation of Tibet and its 
brutal repression of the Tibetan people continues unabated.
  Under the current annual review arrangement, we in the Congress are 
able to fully examine and to debate the current human rights situation 
in China and its observance of religious freedoms. I ask my colleagues 
that if China is allowed to trample on the basic freedoms of its own 
citizens, how can we tell other nations in Asia and in Africa and 
elsewhere that they must not violate those freedoms?
  I would also note that a recent report of our U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom was unanimous in its conclusions that 
China needs to take concrete steps to release all persons imprisoned 
for their religious beliefs and to take concrete measures to improve 
their respect for religious freedom.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support this 
resolution, disapproving the extension of the nondiscriminatory 
treatment of the People's Republic of China.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), our distinguished colleague.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asian 
and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations, this 
Member rises in opposition to House Joint Resolution 103. Despite the 
recent supercharged and misleading claims by opponents to NTR that this 
vote is about rewarding China, it is not that at all, but instead, a 
vote for our national interests, just as was the case with the 
successful passage on May 24 of legislation to provide permanent normal

[[Page H6406]]

trade relations for China and the context of its accession to the World 
Trade Organization.
  This Member strongly supports the continuation of normal trade 
relations, NTR, status for China because it is unmistakably in 
America's short-term and long-term national interests.
  First, the continuation of NTR directly benefits American economic 
prosperity, just as it has done for the past 20 consecutive years. 
Regardless of what this body does, China will join the WTO and be 
required to take major actions to open up its vast markets of 1.2 
billion consumers. However, if this body recklessly disrupts current 
trade by failing to continue China's current NTR status during this 
interim period, we certainly jeopardize our ability to take advantage 
of the benefits of China's WTO accession and give an unfair advantage 
to our international competitors.
  Second, continued NTR supports the U.S. national security objective 
of maintaining peace and stability in East Asia. Expanding trade with 
China and supporting further economic liberalization, and eventual 
political reform in China provides a means of giving China a stake in 
the peaceful, stable economically dynamic Asia Pacific region. If 
China, on the other hand, concludes that we have concluded it as our 
adversary, resources China currently devotes to economic reform could 
easily be reallocated to military expansion and modernization with 
adverse consequences for Taiwan and for our allies in Korea and Japan, 
and a destabilized region. A rejection of NTR could well trigger such a 
reaction from Beijing. Confronting China in this scenario will require 
much more than the 100,000-person military force we presently have in 
the Pacific area.
  Mr. Speaker, this particular annual debate, triggered again this year 
by H.J. Res. 103, has become highly counterproductive. It is very 
damaging to Sino-American relations, and importantly, with little or no 
positive results in China on human rights or freedom, or any positive 
impact on our relationship with that country and its people.

                              {time}  1345

  Given the strong support and 40-vote margin this body provided in 
passing PNTR on May 24, denying the continuation of NTR during this 
interim period is self-evidently neither in our short- nor long-term 
national interest, and therefore, this Member strongly urges his 
colleagues to join him opposing House Joint Resolution 103.
  This Member, in contrast to what the gentleman from New Jersey says, 
does not intend that this have a low-key atmosphere. If Members are 
convinced of the rightness of their position in opposition to the 
resolution, let it have full public scrutiny.
  The gentleman from Michigan and I have established, by our action, in 
the House, at least, and we expect that the other body will consider it 
soon, an opportunity for a full review of what China does in human 
rights by the creation of an executive-legislative branch Helsinki-type 
Commission. We in the Congress are going to have plenty of opportunity 
to scrutinize what they do with respect to their people. That is a 
better mechanism than we have now. It is a better mechanism than this 
annual debate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Rohrabacher resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, as this Member mentioned, this body passed H.R. 4444, 
legislation granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to China 
in the context of China's accession to the World Trade Organization 
(WTO) by a strong margin of 40 votes: 237-197. As the other body has 
not yet acted on this important legislation and China is still 
negotiating its WTO accession protocols, the continuation of normal 
trade with China during this interim requires another annual 
Presidential waiver as contained in the Trade Act of 1974. 
Unfortunately, despite the support in the House for Normal Trade 
Relations with China, as reflected by the successful passage of PNTR, 
the introduction of H.J. Res. 103 requires the House to vote on 
extending Normal Trade Relations status for China yet again.
  There is perhaps no more important set of related foreign policy 
issues for the 21st century than the challenges and opportunities posed 
by the emergence of a powerful and fast-growing China. However, today 
we are not having a debate focused on those important challenges. 
Instead, as we have in the past, we are debating whether to impose 
1930s Great Depression-era Smoot-Hawley trade tariffs on China that the 
rest of the world and China know for our own American interests we 
realistically will never impose.
  This Member again points out that this particular annual debate has 
become highly counterproductive as it unnecessarily wastes our precious 
foreign policy leverage and seriously damages our Government's 
credibility with the leadership of China and with our allies. It 
hinders or ability to coax the Chinese into the international system of 
world trade rules, non-proliferation norms, and human rights standards. 
Moreover, Beijing knows the United States cannot deny NTR without 
severely harming American workers, farmers, consumers or businesses, or 
do it without devastating the economies of Hong Kong and Taiwan.
  It is true, as NRT opponents argue, that ending normal trade 
relations with China would deliver a very serious blow to the Chinese 
economy, but the draconian action of raising the average weighted 
tariff on Chinese imports to 44 percent instead of the current average 
of 4 to 5 percent would severely harm the United States economy as 
well. China is already the 13th largest market abroad for American 
goods and the 4th largest market for American agricultural exports. If 
NTR is denied to China, Beijing will certainly retaliate against the 
over $14 billion in U.S. exports to China. As a result, many of the 
approximately 200,000 high-paying export jobs related to United States-
China trade would disappear while the European Union, Canada, Japan, 
Australia, Brazil, and other major trading nations would rush to fill 
the void.
  Regardless of how this body votes on NTR, China will soon 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 export-oriented, 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. 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. This 
agreement makes it less likely that American companies need to open 
foreign factories and thereby export jobs. Given that America's markets 
are already open at WTO standards to Chinese exports, the U.S. has 
effectively given up nothing with the new agreement; all the 
concessions have been made by China.
  However, during this interim period as China continues to take the 
steps necessary to join the WTO, it is necessary to provide continued, 
uninterrupted NTR status to China on an annual basis to help ensure 
that American commercial interests remain engaged in China in 
preparation for the opening of China required when China joins the WTO. 
For the past 20 years, the U.S. has provided China with NTR status on 
an annual basis. It appears to make no sense to this Member to revoke 
China's NTR status now and only for an interim period thereby 
significantly jeopardizing the ability of the U.S. to take advantage of 
the benefits of China's forthcoming accession to the WTO.
  To elaborate on our own national security interests, the continuation 
of NTR for China, indeed, 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 NTR, 
if only for an interim period, could result in a resurgence of 
resentful nationalism as hard-liners in Beijing characterize a negative 
NTR 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.
  China is emerging from years of isolation and the future direction of 
China remains in flux--more than any major country. WTO accession and 
continued--and hopefully soon to be permanent--NTR are critical for the 
success of China's economic reform process and

[[Page H6407]]

those Chinese leaders, like Premier Zhu Rongji, 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. Rejection of this standard annual renewal of NTR prior to 
providing China with PNTR would, indeed, jeopardize the pace and scope 
of these reforms in China.
  Continuing to provide China with NTR and China's accession to the WTO 
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 which was 
attached to the recently-passed legislation providing PNTR 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.
  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. The 
Commission will be a far more effective way to address human rights 
issues than the noisy but ineffective annual debate on extending NTR.
  Some have advocated the revocation of NTR status for China in order 
to punish Beijing for weapons proliferation and its espionage 
operations against the United States. As one of the nine members of the 
bipartisan Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/
Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China which 
investigated and reported on Chinese espionage, and as a former 
counter-intelligence officer in our military, this Member adamantly 
rejects such linkage. The United States has been and will continue to 
be the target of foreign, including Chinese, espionage. We should have 
expected China to spy on us, just as we should know that others, 
including our allies, spy on us. While our outrage at China for spying 
is understandable, that anger and energy ought to be directed on 
correcting the severe and inexcusable problems in our own government. 
Our losses are ultimately the result of our own government's lax 
security, indifference, naivete and incompetence, especially in our 
Department of Energy weapons laboratories, the National Security 
Council and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The scope and quality 
of our own counter-intelligence operations, especially those associated 
with the Department of Energy's weapons labs, are completely unrelated 
to whether or not a country like China has NTR status. Indeed, revoking 
NTR status for China does absolutely nothing to improve the security of 
our weapons labs or protect militarily sensitive technologies. However, 
this feel-good symbolic act of punishment would inflict severe harm on 
American business and the 200,000 American jobs that exports to China 
provide. It makes no sense to punish American farmers and workers for 
the gross security lapses by our own government of which the Chinese--
and undoubtedly other nations--took advantage.
  Similarly, revoking NTR status during this interim period before 
China's accession to the WTO for proliferation reasons will have 
minimal, if any, impact in halting Chinese proliferation. On the 
contrary, China's likely reaction would be refuse any cooperation on 
this issue to the detriment of U.S. national security interests around 
the globe.
  The United States has convinced nearly every other country in the 
region that the best way to avoid conflict is to engage each other in 
trade and closer economic ties. Abandoning this basic tenet of our 
foreign policy with China--as H.J. Res. 103 would certainly do--would 
be a serious shock and would be an extraordinary setback from much of 
what our nation has been trying to achieve in the entire Asia-Pacific 
region. It would send many countries scrambling to choose between China 
or the United States.
  We should first do no harm to our own nation and America's citizens. 
Rejecting annual NTR status for China is self-evidently neither in our 
short term nor our long term national interest. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, 
this Member is strongly opposed to H.J. Res. 103 and again urgently 
urges its rejection.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Cleveland, Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who has opposed our government's 
policy of subsidizing industry's practice of shutting down U.S. plants 
and moving them to China.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the fact that today's vote on annual 
renewal of MFN with China occurs after the House's previous close vote 
granting China permanent MFN gives us a chance to re-evaluate the 
wisdom of our action.
  Since that vote in May, we have learned that several of our 
assumptions about the meaning of the vote and of China's role in the 
world have proven false. Consider this. The Wall Street Journal ran an 
article that I want to quote from. The headline was, ``House Vote 
Primes U.S. to Boost Investments in China.''
  The article says that the China deal with the U.S. on trade has less 
to do with U.S. workers making and exporting goods to the Chinese and 
more about Chinese workers working in U.S.-owned factories in China for 
import to the U.S.
  The Journal quotes a Wall Street economist saying, ``This deal is 
about investments, not exports.'' Indeed, the same article quotes a 
Washington-based analyst who said: ``U.S. exports will increase, but 
not at the rate of investment, and the corporate community has been 
quiet about that. They've been able to avoid telling that story.''
  I want to read that quote again. This is a Washington-based analyst: 
``U.S. exports will increase, but not at the rate of investment, and 
the corporate community has been quiet about that. They've been able to 
avoid telling that story.''
  We are going to tell the story here. Since the vote for permanent MFN 
with China, a company in the Cleveland area which provides jobs for my 
constituents said it will close in the U.S. in favor of a new factory 
in China.
  Mr. Speaker, as a director of the UAW in the Cleveland region wrote 
to his Senators last week, ``The first casualty of normal trade 
relations has occurred. . . . It is obvious that Rubbermaid's 
cancellation of the Nestaway contract is not about world competition, 
it is about naked greed. Nestaway's story is about only one of the 
thousands of small American companies which are confronted with an 
economic squeeze brought about by unfair trade laws. PNTR for China 
will be the death knell for many small companies.''
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the center core argument of this debate today is never 
addressed. People always try to ignore it. I would just like to draw 
the attention of those people reading the Congressional Record or 
listening to this debate to this, that over and over again we have 
stated that this is not about free trade. This is not a debate about 
free trade, or even engaging in China. People have a right to do 
business in China.
  The reason why the American corporate community is insisting on 
normal trade relations status, which is a specific status, is so that 
those corporations can receive taxpayer subsidies and loan guarantees 
so they can close up their factories in the United States and open up 
factories in China to exploit a near slave labor, where people are not 
permitted to join unions, and do so at the taxpayers' risk, U.S. 
taxpayers' risk.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a sin against the American people. It is not 
leading to more freedom. They are laughing at us because we are 
subsidizing their $70 billion surplus which they are using to build 
weapons systems to kill the American military personnel that some day 
may have to confront their belligerency.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 
103, which would terminate normal trade relations with China 60 days 
after enactment.
  By raising tariffs to the prohibitive levels that applied before 
1980, and thereby prompting mirror retaliation on the part of the 
Chinese against $14 billion in U.S. exports, this bill would 
effectively extinguish trade relations between our two countries.
  House Joint Resolution 103 is an annual resolution of disapproval of 
the President's recommendation to extend

[[Page H6408]]

normal trade relations status to China under the Jackson-Vanik 
amendment to the Trade Act of 1974.
  In light of our action earlier this year on H.R. 4444, rejecting 
House Joint Resolution 103 should be pro forma.
  On May 24, after a vigorous debate which considered the opportunities 
that will be possible for the United States and the Chinese people when 
China accedes to the World Trade Organization, the House voted 237 to 
197 to eliminate this annual review of China's NTR status upon China's 
accession to the WTO.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 4444 is still pending in the other body, and I 
hope that H.R. 4444 will go as quickly as possible to the President 
without amendment. As the historic debate and the strong vote on H.R. 
4444 documents, there is overwhelming support in this body for bringing 
China into the rules-based trading system of the WTO. It is the right 
thing to do for Americans and for the Chinese people.
  Under the WTO deal, in exchange for applying tariffs on Chinese 
imports identical to those in effect now, United States exporters will 
have unprecedented access to 1.2 billion consumers in China. Tariffs on 
our exports to China will be steeply reduced, and the Chinese trade 
regime subject to the whole scale of reforms.
  For example, under the agreement, average tariffs on agricultural 
goods would drop from 40 percent to 17 percent, Chinese tariffs on 
American-made automobiles would fall 75 percent, while quotas on U.S. 
auto exports to China would be eliminated entirely.
  The opportunity we have to impose an enforceable system of fair trade 
rules on a nation of 1.2 billion people, as it emerges from the iron 
grip of communism and state planning, is one that cannot be lost. In my 
estimation, the revolutionary change WTO rules will bring to China 
dwarfs any other avenue of influence available to the United States.
  Maintaining normal trade relations supports the continued presence of 
Americans throughout Chinese society, whether they be entrepreneurs, 
teachers, religious leaders, or missionaries. It is these individual 
contacts that are bringing our ideals of freedom to the Chinese people. 
These contacts would be lost if we revoked NTR.
  The Reverend Pat Robertson has urged Congress ``to keep the door to 
the message of freedom and God's love'' open, not shut. ``Leaving a 
billion people in spiritual darkness punishes not the Chinese 
government but the Chinese people,'' he wrote. ``The only way to pursue 
morality is to engage China fully and openly as a friend.''
  Motorola, my corporate constituent, directly promotes the exchange of 
ideas through its activities in China. For example, Motorola sends 
hundreds of Chinese employees to its United States facilities each year 
to attend technology, engineering, and management seminars. In a 
country where only 10 to 15 percent of the people have access to a 
college education, this is precious training that allows for eye-
opening exposure to the American way of life.
  H.R. 4444 has the active bipartisan support of more former presidents 
and cabinet officials, more distinguished Americans, more small 
businessmen and farmers, more Governors, more religious and human 
rights leaders, both here and in China, more of our allies, such as 
Taiwan and Great Britain, than any foreign policy or trade legislation 
in recent memory. H.R. 4444 even has the support of a past president of 
the United Auto Workers, Leonard Woodcock.
  Denying normal trade relations with China means severing ties that 
would take years to repair. For the interests of all Americans and for 
the Chinese people, I urge a no vote on House Joint Resolution 103.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), who understands this debate is about 
China, not about its 1 billion consumers but about 1 billion workers, 
many of whom work as slave labor.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), has it right, and I am pleased to support his bill. It is 
the only moral position to take.
  It is amazing how far backwards this Congress will bend for big 
business. This Congress should stand for small people, for human need, 
and not corporate greed. Why else would a young woman work 70 hours a 
week for pennies an hour and end up owing the company? Two hundred 
years ago they called that sharecropping, and it was black people, but 
they never called it freedom. Yet, Kathi Lee Gifford handbags and Huffy 
bicycles and Timberland shoes and of course Nike, operate factories 
where the standard is to do just that.
  We will hear folks talk about China trade bringing democratic values 
to the people. I think the people of China already have democratic 
values, and these corporations work with the repressive Chinese 
government to deny the Chinese people the democracy that they want.
  Besides, U.S. corporations are running away from developing 
democracies as if they have the plague, and are instead investing in 
the world's worst authoritarian regimes. They have a history of doing 
that. That is why the slave trade flourished; so, too, trade with the 
Nazis.
  By definition, what is happening in China, especially to women, is 
slavery. If it was bad for America and it is bad for Sudan, then it is 
bad for China. We should not be supporting it.
  I know American corporations can do better than that. That is why I 
have introduced the Corporate Code of Conduct. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Corporate Code of Conduct and to support this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of this body's greatest spokesmen for 
human rights, who knows that we should not be subsidizing American 
corporations to close factories here and open them up in China.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for yielding me this time and for his kind 
remarks. I have the highest respect for Mr. Rohrabacher,--a true 
champion of human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1994, President Clinton decided to conduct an 
experiment. He decided to delink most favored nation status for China 
with human rights on the theory that more trade and investment with the 
United States would be the quickest way to persuade the government of 
China to treat its own people as human beings. At the same time, the 
Clinton administration gave up its power to use even the threat of the 
loss of MFN as a lever against Beijing's military aggression against 
Taiwan and other neighboring countries, and its military threats 
against the United States as well.
  Mr. Speaker, we are now 6 years into these two risky experiments with 
the lives of 1.2 billion people who are unfortunate enough to live 
under a cruel dictatorship and with the national security of the U.S. 
and the whole free world hanging in the balance. Nobody can seriously 
argue that either experiment has been a success. Instead, it has 
brought the people of China 6 more years of torture, forced labor, 
forced abortion, and sterilization, the crushing of the free trade 
unions, the denial of fundamental rights of freedom of religion, of 
expression of assembly, and of the press.
  The Chinese Communist regime is not only threatening to invade 
Taiwan, its senior military leaders have also threatened to attack the 
United States of America. These are our great business partners.
  Mr. Speaker, here is what Wei Jingsheng, the father of the Chinese 
democracy movement and long-time prisoner of conscience said in 1999 
about the practical effects of MFN on the everyday lives of political 
and religious prisoners in China:
  ``The attitude of prison authorities toward political prisoners is 
directly related to the amount of pressure being exerted by the 
international community. When international pressure was high, the 
number of dissidents sent to prison declined drastically and prison 
conditions for political prisoners somewhat improved. In 1998, 
condemnation of China's position was abandoned entirely. The direct 
consequence of this easing of pressure was that, not only

[[Page H6409]]

did the government crack down on activists attempting to organize an 
opposition party, but they also cruelly suppressed nonviolent 
demonstrations by ordinary people.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is not me talking, that is Wei Jingsheng. When the 
U.S. turns up the economic pressure of Beijing, the beatings and the 
torture are less severe and are imposed on fewer people. When the 
pressure lets up, the repression gets worse.
  But, Mr. Speaker, Members do not have to take Wei's word for the fact 
that Beijing responds to strength rather than weakness. All we have to 
do is watch what happens when Beijing does something that the Clinton 
administration and big business really hate, such as tolerating 
software piracy.
  When that happens, Mr. Speaker, do the constructive engagers follow 
their own advice? Do they decide to just grin and bear it, go on 
trading and investing in China in the hope that eventually the Chinese 
Government will see the light? No, they do not. Instead, they threaten 
to impose trade sanctions, the very sanctions they say are 
inappropriate or ineffective when it comes to stopping torture and 
other human rights abuses. Talk about misplaced priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, the threat to withhold trade privileges works to 
persuade Beijing to respect international copyrights because the 
Chinese dictatorship values the U.S. as a market for their expanding 
economy. So when we threaten their access to our market, they respond 
by respecting international copyrights. Why should that not also work 
when it comes to stopping or at least mitigating torture of religious 
prisoners and political prisoners?
  Maybe there is a reason, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the Chinese Government is 
more attached to torture than they are to software piracy, but maybe 
not.
  Let us try and do an experiment, a more promising one than the failed 
experiment of delinkage. Let us hold out the hand of friendship to 
Beijing, as Ronald Reagan did to Gorbachev, but make it clear that 
American friendship and American largesse are conditional on Beijing's 
observing certain minimum standards of human decency. Let us convince 
them that good things will flow to them from the United States if and 
only if they stop threatening to invade Taiwan and to shoot missiles at 
Los Angeles.
  Mr. Speaker, the constructive engagers continually want us to give up 
our power and try any strategy except their own 6-year-old experiment 
which is looking more and more like a miserable failure. Since our May 
vote on PNTR, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom 
has reported that the Beijing regime has intensified its repression of 
Uighur Muslims, the Tibetan Buddhists. It has intensified its crackdown 
on Falun Gong as well as to Catholic and Protestant leaders.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on the measure offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, for his very 
important leadership on this issue.
  We all have gone through this discussion very vigorously over the 
past several months. We know that this, as many people have said, was 
the most important vote that we would face, some reported in a 
generation, in their entire careers, whether we would grant permanent 
normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China.
  Because we have not seen the completion of China's accession in the 
World Trade Organization, we are here today dealing with this annual 
renewal question. As we look at this issue, I have to say that, having 
listened to my friends with whom I disagree on this issue, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), I just listened to the statements of the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), no one is arguing about the 
problems that exist in China. We all know that they are there.
  I think it is important for our colleagues who oppose us on this who 
support what really is a policy of trying to disengage, to end normal 
trade relations with China, we have to recognize that we do share the 
same goal of trying to ensure the recognition of human rights, to make 
sure that we maintain stability, the stability in the region, that we 
diminish the threat to Taiwan, that we do everything that we possibly 
can to recognize the rights of the people in Tibet. All of these 
questions, technology transfer, all of these are very high priorities 
for all of us.
  The question is, how do we most effectively deal with them? Well, I 
argue that it is very clear that a policy of trying to encourage the 
spread of our Western values is the most effective way to deal with it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that we have an instance which has 
shown dramatic success, and that instance to which I am pleased to 
point to took place just 2 weeks ago. I am talking about the election 
in Mexico.
  Now the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) suspected that I 
might want to hit him hard on this. I am not going to hit him, I am 
going to praise and congratulate him, because he stood in this well in 
1993 when we, on a regular, on regular occasions would engage in debate 
with the gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and I were on the 
same side going against the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) when we 
were arguing in behalf of the North American Free Trade Agreement. We 
realized as we were arguing for that that we were going to do 
everything that we could to enhance the economy of Mexico, to improve 
the standard of living.
  At the time that we were debating the NAFTA, working hard with the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) my friend in the back of the Chamber 
here, and others, we argued that economic reform which began under 
President Salinas in 1988 was a very positive force. We saw 
privatization, decentralization. We saw President Salinas close down 
the largest oil refinery in Mexico City. We saw very bold moves towards 
free markets in Mexico.
  When we were debating the NAFTA, one of the criticisms leveled by 
opponents to the NAFTA was the critical corruption that existed in 
Mexico, the fact that they did not have free and fair elections. We did 
not argue with that. But we said that there is an interdependence 
between economic and political freedom. Maintaining strong economic 
ties is the best way to bring about the kind of political change and 
reform that we all want to see take place.
  So what is it that took place? We saw the implementation of the 
NAFTA. We have seen great benefits, dramatic improvement in economic 
relations, a great increase in exports from the United States to 
Mexico, from Mexico into the United States, a dramatic improvement in 
the standard of living to the point where Mexico's middle-class 
population is today larger than the entire Canadian population.
  Yes, we still have problems. We all recognize that. But we did see 
for the first time free and fair elections. In 71 years of one-party 
rule, we had so many problems developed. President Zedillo, to his 
credit, said that he wanted self-determination in Mexico. Having 
followed economic reform, they brought about free and fair elections.
  I was pleased, along with the former Secretary of State James Baker 
and the Mayor of San Diego Susan Golding to have led a delegation of 44 
members observing that election. It was terrific. To see the enthusiasm 
the people of Mexico had for participating in an election where their 
votes actually count was very reassuring.
  Mr. Speaker, the same thing is going to happen in the People's 
Republic of China, not tomorrow, not next week, not next year, maybe 
not for 5 years or 10 years, but clearly based on the evidence that we 
have seen in Mexico, in South Korea, in Taiwan, that clearly is the 
wave of the future.
  So expanding our values into China is the best way that we can deal 
with repression. Rejecting this resolution of disapproval, realizing 
that Taiwan is very supportive of maintaining our ties with China, 
those sorts of things will benefit us, they will benefit the people of 
China and help maintain world peace.

[[Page H6410]]

  Vote no on this resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Mascara) who recognizes that countries like 
Mexico and Taiwan are democracies and do not have slave labor camps 
like the People's Republic of China.
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of workers who do not have to 
toil in sweatshop conditions, workers who are not denied the right to 
organize, workers who are not confined to slave labor factories.
  I rise in support of American workers, workers at Wheeling Pittsburgh 
Steel in my district, workers at Weirton Steel, in the textile mills of 
North Carolina and the auto factories of Michigan.
  These are the people who have seen first hand the effects of 
unbalanced trade with China. These are real people who have seen their 
jobs moved overseas and their communities decimated.
  I should mention from the start that I am a strong supporter of free 
trade. Our country has profited greatly from exports, and we are poised 
to take great strides as global leaders of the high-tech industry.
  But free trade must be fair trade. We have suffered through many 
trade disputes with China without satisfactory resolution. Illegal 
dumping and subsidies have hurt scores of American companies and cost 
many workers their jobs.
  We have been told that we must pass normal trade relations so that 
China can be admitted into the WTO. We are told that China's entry into 
the WTO will hold them accountable to international standards and lead 
them to respect the rule of law.
  But the People's Republic of China have had a dismal record in 
previous trade agreements with our country. Moreover, the WTO itself 
has proven inconsistent in resolving trade disputes. Our country 
recently won two prominent WTO cases against the European Union, which 
has subsequently failed to honor both of these rulings.
  If Europe can ignore WTO, what message does that send to China? What 
assurances should we have that our accession agreements are meaningful?
  If we look for trade to change China, we are looking in the wrong 
direction. If we expect increased commerce to bring more freedom to the 
Chinese, we are being misled. The only thing we can be sure of is that 
our country's workers will be asked to risk their jobs in the hope that 
social and political conditions in China will improve.
  I am unwilling to ask my constituents to make this sacrifice. I am 
not about to risk my neighbors' well-being for anybody, including 
China. I support the resolution to deny China most-favored-nation's 
status.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) for yielding me this time, and I thank him once again for his 
hard work on permanent normal trade relations and his successful 
legislative efforts to help us in a bipartisan way establish, not just 
a yearly way of monitoring human rights, not just a monthly way of 
monitoring human rights, but a daily way of us trying to monitor and 
improve the human rights condition in China, something we are all very 
concerned about.
  Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United 
States said that he sought ``an empire for liberty''. He was not 
content merely to say that the 13 original colonies were what we should 
improve our great Republic's emphasis on human rights and expanding 
liberties. He sought in 1803 to purchase the Louisiana territories or 
the Louisiana Purchase, as it was later called, and expand the United 
States. He also sought with the Lewis and Clark Expeditions in 1803 
through 1806 to also look for a greater expansion of the United States.
  As we debated permanent normal trade for China, many of us came to 
the conclusion that the status quo between the United States and China 
simply was not good enough for human rights, for the environment, and 
for trade, and that we wanted to change that. We wanted to penetrate 
the Chinese markets with products, not exporting our jobs. We wanted to 
see the Chinese improve on their human rights condition. It was not 
good enough.

                              {time}  1415

  Therefore, we sought an engagement strategy of confrontation, an 
engagement strategy of challenging the Chinese Government, an 
engagement strategy of penetrating their markets and opening up their 
markets to American products.
  We are having a similar debate today. None of us are happy with the 
status quo. None of us think the Chinese have made enough progress on 
human rights. None of us feel that they have gone far enough in terms 
of emphasizing freedom and liberty, as Jefferson talked about. None of 
us feel like our workers are being fairly treated, at this point, with 
fair trade opportunities. So we came to a 13-year agreement to try to 
find ways to cut their barriers to trade, to cut their surplus on our 
trade, and try to find new ways for workers and farmers to get into 
their markets.
  I would hope that we would continue, in the tradition of the 
permanent normal trade debate that we had, to find new ways to engage 
the Chinese to try to insist that the United States make trade policy 
national security policy, because our workers and our jobs depend upon 
it. So we have to get better fair trade policies. We have to get 
agreements that allow the Chinese to take down their barriers and 
quotas and tariffs to trade, and that is what we are trying to do with 
the permanent normal trade agreement.
  So I would hope in a bipartisan way, Members of the Democratic and 
Republican parties would continue to try to come together and not only 
support, as we have, permanent normal trade, but fair trade policies. 
Not free trade but fair trade policies that penetrate the Chinese 
market, penetrate new markets; that do not sell our jobs overseas, but 
get our products into new markets.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 13 minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns) and that he be allowed to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and let me say to all my colleagues who have been engaged in this 
debate that I think it has been a high-level debate.
  I think the theme that my colleague and good friend, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), just made was a central theme that has 
been advanced by the side in favor of most favored nation trading 
status for China. It is a theme that has resonated throughout this 
debate. The theme is essentially that when the United States moves 
trade dollars abroad and we engage in liberal trade practices with a 
nation, good things happen; and, therefore, we can expect good things 
to happen with China.
  I am reminded that in 1941, Carl Anderson, one of our former 
colleagues, the gentleman from Minnesota, warned his colleagues, and 
this was about 6 months before Pearl Harbor, that there was a chance 
that the American fleet might at some point be engaged with the 
Japanese fleet in combat. And he said at that time that when that 
engagement occurred we would be fighting a Japanese fleet that was 
built with American steel and fueled with American petroleum. Six 
months later, at Pearl Harbor, a lot of ships were sunk, a lot of 
planes destroyed, and 5,000 Americans killed and wounded by a Japanese 
fleet that was built with American steel and fueled with American 
petroleum.
  That attempt at engagement with Japan's coprosperity sphere for 
Southeast Asia did not work. In fact, the

[[Page H6411]]

 fruits of American trade came back to kill Americans on the 
battlefields in the South Pacific. Similarly, the United States was one 
of the biggest investors in Nazi Germany, and I think we can all 
conclude that that massive transfer of funds did not work. It did not 
bring about good things.
  Now, let us examine what China is doing with the trade dollars we are 
sending them. The second of the Sovremenny-class missile destroyers has 
now been delivered to China. This is the missile destroyer type built 
by the Russians for the sole purpose of killing American aircraft 
carriers. It is armed with the high speed Sunburn anti-ship missiles, 
which are very difficult to defend against. And that transfer is 
accompanied by the transfer of SU27 fighter aircraft, very high 
performance aircraft, also air-to-air refueling capability, which is 
now being purchased by the Chinese with American trade dollars. 
American trade dollars are also going to help construct the components 
of weapons of mass destruction and rocketry that is also being diffused 
around the world to such nations as Iraq and Syria.
  So we are helping to build with American trade dollars a military 
machine, a war machine, in China. And I think it is a tragedy. Because 
in the century we have just left, where 619,000 Americans were killed 
in the bloodiest century in the history of the world, we left the 
century in a position of dominance, of absolute military dominance, 
having disassembled the Soviet empire.
  Now, with our own hand, with $70 billion a year in this trade 
imbalance with China, $70 billion in American cash, we are helping to 
raise up with our own hand another superpower, which one day, either in 
proxy or by direct conflict, may engage American forces on battlefields 
and may kill American soldiers and sailors with technology and 
equipment that has been purchased with American trade dollars. That is 
the tragedy of this MFN for China.
  I realize it is a fait accompli, but I hope my colleagues will 
reflect on the military machine that we are constructing in this new 
century.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong opposition to what I regard to be a 
shortsighted and, I believe, a very misguided attempt to undermine 
continued progress in the U.S.-Chinese relationship.
  Just a few months ago, a bipartisan majority of the House voted to 
extend permanent normal trade relations to China. Now, this is not a 
vote that occurred in a vacuum. It followed 10 years of annual review 
of China's human rights policies under the Jackson-Vanik procedures 
that is now the law pertaining to trade with China. Under these 
procedures, we spent the last decade in committee hearings and in 
debates here on the floor. We spent the last decade analyzing and 
reanalyzing virtually every aspect of the relationship that we have 
with China.
  During that time I think two central tenets emerged. First, none of 
us are satisfied with the current political environment that exists in 
China. Second, all of us would like to see greater and more profound 
changes occur in China. On that we all agree. But then we diverge. We 
diverge on how we are going to bring that about.
  There is a group in the House, a minority in the House, that believes 
the best way to effectuate change in China is by isolating them. I 
respect that point of view; I disagree with it. They would have us cut 
off economic and political ties to the most populous nation on earth by 
voting first against permanent normal trade relations and now, today, 
against the annual renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver.
  A majority of the House, and the administration, rejects this view. 
They believe, as I do, that change in China is going to occur only if 
the United States continues to help nurture those elements within 
Chinese society that promote change; namely, the expanding free market 
system, a new civil society that is emerging, and reform of the 
political party system. And we can only nurture these elements if we 
are engaged.
  This year, after a long national debate that preceded it, the House 
was faced with a stark choice between these competing views. The 
majority rejected isolationism in favor of engagement. We rejected the 
flawed annual Jackson-Vanik procedures in favor of a more thoughtful, 
long-term approach to U.S.-China relations. We believe the Senate will 
follow shortly and that a new and more productive era in U.S.-China 
relations will begin.
  There are some in the U.S. Congress who want us to change course with 
today's vote. They urge that we return to unproductive policies of the 
past by voting against renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver this year. 
That would be a mistake, Mr. Speaker. This historic opportunity awaits 
us as we venture into the 21st century, an opportunity to help redefine 
our relationships with China, an opportunity to help bring greater 
security to Asia, and an opportunity to bring forth real change in 
China through the magic of the free enterprise.
  A ``yes'' vote today would be a vote for the past. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the failed policies of the past and for a 
more enlightened future. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who fights for justice so workers can 
share in the wealth that they create.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue, as well 
as the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher); and I rise to 
express my strong support for this resolution to disapprove most 
favored nation status for China.
  Why? Due to China's growing arrogance and record of transgressions, 
even in the wake of this body's unfortunate vote to grant unconditional 
permanent normal trade relations with China just a few weeks ago, by 
only a handful of votes I might add. So, what has happened? Three days 
after that vote, the Jiang regime clenched its fists even tighter on 
religious freedom in China when a Chinese court sentenced a Catholic 
priest to jail for 6 years. Why? For printing Bibles.
  And then 10 days after the vote here in the House, Communist China 
repressed free speech again when Chinese officials arrested Huang Qi, a 
Chinese Web site operator, for posting articles about government 
corruption and human rights violations in China, including the 1989 
massacre of pro-democracy students in Tiananmen Square. At 5:15 on June 
3, with the Chinese police at his door, Huang posted his last message 
on his Web site. It said, ``Thanks to all who make an effort on behalf 
of democracy in China.'' He wrote, ``They have come. Goodbye.''
  Huang now faces a prison sentence of 10 years or more because the 
State says he is trying to subvert state power.
  And then 2 weeks after the vote here in this House, Communist China 
proved its unworthiness again when China broke its promise to open its 
markets to California-based Qualcomm Corporation's cellular phone 
technology, a deal that was key to China's earning U.S. support to join 
the World Trade Organization. And that was after the premier of China 
had personally assured Secretary Daley over at the Commerce Department 
that China would open its markets to Qualcomm, and they even signed a 
deal to that effect.
  Based on this abysmal continuing record of oppression and human 
rights abuses, no one should support permanent extension. Today, we 
have a chance to cast a vote; and it should be for disapproving most 
favored nation relations with China.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  My colleagues, I would like to ask how many people here believe that 
governments in general will do purposely, decisively things that are 
not in their national interest? Do we really believe that governments 
in the world, especially the Chinese Government, are so stupid, so 
unclear about who they are and what they want that they are going to do 
something that they believe would lead to their own demise?
  Everything we have heard here today, and everything we heard during

[[Page H6412]]

the debate on PNTR, suggests that we all have one goal, and that is to 
make sure that China changes itself from the totalitarian system that 
now exists, from the system that we have just heard described that 
takes away freedom from their own people, that enslaves people, that 
acts as an aggressor nation, that threatens its neighbors. We all want 
to change that; right? Everybody here has said that is their goal.

                              {time}  1430

  Well, do my colleagues really believe that the Chinese Government 
thinks that PNTR will in fact create that same metamorphosis inside of 
them? Of course not. Do my colleagues think it is at all odd that the 
Chinese Government wants PNTR? If they agreed with any Member on the 
floor here about the ramifications of PNTR, do my colleagues think they 
would be saying, yes, please let us have more trade so that we can 
become a gentler nation and a nicer, kinder, gentler nation so that we 
can actually dissolve ourselves into some sort of Jeffersonian 
democracy? Of course not.
  What the Chinese Government knows and understands perfectly well is 
that what this trade does is in fact embolden them. It supports the 
regime. The Chinese people and the Chinese Government have a social 
compact they have entered into, and it is this. This is the agreement 
they have reached that the Government says, we will do more for you in 
terms of your economic welfare; and you, in turn, will keep us in 
power. That is the agreement.
  What PNTR does and what normal trade relations does with China is to 
stabilize an aggressive regime. They know it. That is why they support 
it.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), who has fought for workers' rights all over 
the globe and especially in the United States and Latin America and 
China.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us know this House has debated and resolved the 
question of China's trade status. But the concerns raised during that 
debate, the abuse of human rights, the destruction of the environment, 
the denial of religious freedom, China's failure to live up to trade 
agreements, we have not begun to even respond to those.
  And the situation has only grown worse, as we just heard from the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has by example illustrated to 
us what was promised and what was not fulfilled and what was broken 
soon after a vote we had.
  In just the time since we voted on the permanent trade deal, China 
has only continued to back away from its commitments it made to the 
WTO. Of course, we may never know the extent to which China is 
violating its agreement since not all the funds that were promised to 
monitor that made it into the budget. Meanwhile, China remains an 
autocratic police state.
  Did voting for permanent trade help Wang Changhuai? Wang was an auto 
worker at the Changsha engine factory. After the crackdown in 1989, 
Wang was tried and he was convicted of subversion. And what was his act 
of subversion? He helped organize a free trade union. For that crime he 
was sentenced to 13 years in prison.
  Mr. Speaker, Bernard Malamud once wrote ``the purpose of freedom is 
to create it for others.'' While trade with China may generate wealth 
for a few investors, it will not free brave men like Wang. Nor will it 
provide economic security to workers and their families right here at 
home.
  We can undo today the mistakes of the past. I urge my colleagues to 
think about this issue more fully, and I hope we will not repeat the 
mistakes that we have made in the past in the future.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, can the Chair be kind enough to tell us the 
time remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida has 
6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 10 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 18\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  The order of closing is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a vigorous debate on the House floor. There are 
not a lot of Members here, but it is important. Again, China's 
Government seems to me making things more difficult for itself. It 
admits recent reports of missile technology aid to Pakistan and using 
the Commerce Department's less-than-secure measure of granting defense 
and computer companies permission to hire Chinese technicians to work 
on sensitive export control technologies.
  Again, earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the U.S. 
intelligence agencies have told the Clinton administration and Congress 
that China has continued to aid Pakistan in its efforts to build long-
range missiles that could carry nuclear weapons. And just yesterday, 
The Washington Times reported that the Clinton administration has 
allowed the hiring of hundreds of Chinese technicians to work on 
military-related or dual use technologies.
  China is stepping up its espionage presence in the U.S. through all 
means possible and continues to expand its military complex with U.S. 
trade dollars.
  As said before, some see China as a strategic partner. My colleagues, 
I see China as a potential adversary.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
close briefly and then I will let others refute if they want to.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not going to be the last time that we debate our 
economic and trade relations with China. I hope not at all.
  Indeed, China PNTR as it passed the House has been molded so that we 
will be assured of continuing surveillance, continuing oversight, 
continuing pressure, and continuing debate.
  The whole purpose of that effort as we shaped and reshaped it was to 
make sure that we both engaged China and confronted it in terms of our 
economic and trade relations. As a result, as we have discussed, and I 
do not want to go into this in detail, we set up a commission that has 
major responsibilities, that is created at the highest level and that 
has jurisdiction in terms of human rights, including worker rights.
  That commission is going to report back to this Congress with 
provisions written in to assure that we will be discussing and debating 
it. Indeed, I see these mechanisms, these instrumentalities as ways to 
assure our greater involvement, not our lessened involvement, our 
deeper engagement on a regular basis rather than the once-a-year 
consideration.
  We also have provided that there shall be major enhanced oversight in 
monitoring responsibilities by the executive, including Commerce and 
USTR and, as I expressed earlier, the hope that there will be full 
appropriations for these purposes.
  Also, we created within the legislation the strongest anti-surge 
provision that has ever been introduced and eventually, I trust, 
enacted into American law, a safeguard provision to make sure that if 
there is a major deleterious effect of this growing, complex 
relationship on American jobs in any particular sector there will be a 
prompt answer from the United States of America.
  It is an effort to both expand trade but to do so shaping it. It is 
an effort that globalization will continue, in my judgment, there is no 
way to slam the door on it, but to shape it, to wrestle with these 
issues.
  So I do think it is now important that we look to the future, that 
all of us join together in realizing that the challenges are mainly the 
challenges of the future and not of the past.
  This is going to be a changing and difficult relationship. It is 
going to have a lot of edges to it, including rough edges. We are going 
to smooth them in an effective and constructive way, not by insulating 
ourselves or isolating China. Neither is going to work.
  What will work is an activist, internationalist kind of approach to 
these problems that looks after the needs of American workers and 
businesses in a world that is indeed changing.

[[Page H6413]]

  So I urge strongly that we vote no on this resolution. I take it that 
a no vote is indeed a yes vote to an activist effort to make sure that 
as China and the U.S. evolves into a fuller relationship that it will 
be one with our eyes open and one with our hands strong to make sure 
that American workers land on their feet and that American businesses 
as they work overseas conduct themselves in a way that we will be proud 
of.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last Saturday I went to Nicaragua with the National 
Labor Committee and visited workers in a neighborhood called Tipitapa. 
These workers work in a Taiwanese-owned company, Chentex. They sew blue 
jeans. They make 21 cents for every pair of blue jeans that is sold for 
$24 in Wal-Mart, in Kohl's, in K-Mart in the United States.
  These workers asked for a 13-cents-per-pair-of-jeans raise. 
Summarily, the union leaders and the workers were fired by this 
company. These workers work about 60 or 70 hours a week and are paid 
about $30 or $40 a week for their work. They do not share in the wealth 
they create for their employer. They cannot buy the clothes, the 
products that they make.
  General Motors workers in Mexico cannot buy the automobiles they make 
because they are not paid enough. Disney workers in Haiti cannot buy 
the toys they make because they are not paid enough. Nike workers in 
Indonesia cannot buy the shoes they make because they are not paid 
enough. The textile workers in Nicaragua cannot buy the jeans they make 
because they are not paid enough. And Nike workers in China cannot buy 
any of the Nikes that they make, they cannot buy the shoes, because 
they are not paid enough.
  When I was in Nicaragua, I met a young woman named Kristina. She and 
her husband live in a very run-down shack papered with boxes. Her 
house, basically, is made out of shipping material, shipping crates 
that she got from the factory where she works. Kristina leaves every 
day at 6 o'clock in the morning, rides two city buses to get to work, 
takes her 2-year-old to her mother's house, arrives at work at 7 
o'clock, works until 7 o'clock at night, goes and picks her 2-year-old 
daughter up, comes home, gets home about 9 o'clock. She leaves home at 
6 she gets home at about 9 o'clock at night.

                              {time}  1445

  Her husband has an even longer schedule. She does that 6 days a week. 
She lives in substandard housing. Her daughter is suffering from 
malnutrition. You can look at the ends of her hair and see the protein 
deficiency that shows up in the discolored hair. She has no 
opportunities in life. They are not sharing in the wealth they create. 
They cannot buy the products they make.
  Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of the global economy, the tragedy of how we 
have let the global economy develop, is that in democratic developing 
countries, investments leaving democratic developing countries like 
India and go to authoritarian developing countries like China. American 
business would prefer the workers in Indonesia because they cannot form 
unions, they do not talk back, they do not pay them any kind of real 
wages, they do not have worker safety laws, they do not have 
environmental laws. American companies would rather invest in Indonesia 
than democratic Taiwan. They would rather invest in China where they 
can pay slave labor. Kathie Lee/Walmart pays as little as 3 and 5 and 
10 cents an hour. They would rather invest in China where they can pay 
slave labor wages instead of investing in democratic India.
  Mr. Speaker, if we believe in this country, as we say we do, we 
believe in free enterprise, we do, it creates dynamism, it creates a 
dynamic, wealthy economy, we also believe in rules. We believe in 
environmental laws, in food safety laws, in worker protection laws, in 
minimum-wage laws. We believe in free enterprise. We believe in rules.
  Mr. Speaker, in the global economy, we believe in trade, we believe 
in openness, we believe in capitalism, but we need the same kind of 
rules.
  Vote ``yes'' on the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) who has been such a leader in this movement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from California 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his great leadership on this issue.
  I listened intently to the debate as we have had this debate over and 
over again; and I come to the floor in a little bit of a different 
approach and, that is, the Congress has spoken, the House has spoken on 
this issue. The House has placed the ball in China's court to comply 
with our bilateral agreement. The House has spoken to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska's (Mr. 
Bereuter) commission as the way to go to sort of calibrate the 
relationship between trade and human rights. So I think what choice do 
I have but to see this as an opportunity.
  For 10 years many of us, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for some of that and others, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), have fought this fight about how 
do we improve trade, improve human rights and stop the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction by China. Again, the PNTR vote has been 
taken and a choice has been made. So in my optimistic spirit, I think 
that maybe putting that aside now, we can really focus on the human 
rights, proliferation and some of the trade issues in a way that does 
not menace, for some, the passage of PNTR. So with the air cleared and 
that decision made, hopefully we will all join together when we hear of 
some of the things that are happening in China that are not in 
furtherance of our national security, that is, promoting democratic 
values, stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, 
growing our economy by promoting exports abroad.
  The reason, Mr. Speaker, we are having this vote today is because 
when we took the PNTR vote, and I am sure this was explained earlier, 
but I think it bears repeating, when we took the PNTR vote earlier in 
the year, it was to be effective when China became a member of the WTO. 
China has not met all of the requirements, and indeed today there is a 
wire story that says that China's bid for admission to WTO still faces 
major hurdles and more time is needed before it gets the green light. 
They said compilation of key documents essential to the process were 
running into problems, with the United States and the European Union 
sensing that China was trying to water down parts of the agreement it 
has made with them.
  At the same time, some developing countries, including India, were 
insisting despite China's objections that their domestic interests 
should have the same protection against floods of China's imports, 
especially textiles, as the big powers had won. It is far from over 
yet, said one key official. There is a lot more work still to do and a 
lot of problems to resolve.
  Let us hope they do resolve them. Then they would get PNTR, but only 
then would they get PNTR. And some of the concerns that many of us had 
on the vote, we were not saying they should not get it, we were saying 
if and when they meet the criteria that is established, the standards 
in our bilateral, then we should give them PNTR. Let us give them a 
chance to take the initial steps. Well, they have not yet, but again 
the Congress has spoken.
  I just want to make a couple of points. Since our vote, China, in 
terms of human rights, the day after the congressional vote on PNTR, 
China continued to persecute individuals for their religious beliefs. 
Reuters reported that a Chinese court sentenced a Roman Catholic priest 
to 6 years in jail only for printing Bibles. The arrests are part of a 
nationwide repression campaign on authorized religious activities.
  Then on June 8, Chinese authorities arrested an operator of an 
Internet Web site because it posted news about dissidents and the 
government's 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protest in Tiananmen 
Square. The Web site is a U.S.-based Internet service provider. In 
response to this, many people in the Internet world, which I come from,

[[Page H6414]]

have said, well, wait until the Internet democratizes China. When this 
happened, they said, what can we say? If we say something, we will only 
endanger these people further.
  The gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Levin) commission is going to be 
very important in addressing some of these issues. Then on June 13, the 
Chinese police arrested members of the China Democracy Party which they 
have outlawed who were sentenced to 3 years in a labor camp for only 
asking for the release of a fellow dissident. Imagine that. Sentenced 
to 3 years for requesting the release of a fellow dissident. Many 
members of the China Democracy Party already serving long terms in 
labor camps throughout China. Yesterday China's middle school teachers 
were beaten and seriously injured by police for protesting a plan to 
force them to resign and take tests to get their jobs back.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has spoken but our work is not done. Hopefully 
we can work together to improve human rights, trade and to stop the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, there will be no real human rights monitoring 
in China. The Russians were signatories of the Helsinki Final Accords 
and Helsinki worked. The Chinese will never sign or participate in the 
monitoring.
  If every Member would go back and search your files, how many letters 
have you all sent to China on behalf of the Catholic bishops, the 14 
Catholic bishops that are in jail? How many of you have sent a letter 
since we have passed PNTR?
  I do not know why we are having a debate, but we are having it, and I 
think the gentlewoman from California made the case, your side won. But 
now have you done anything about the human rights concerns raised? Have 
you done anything about the fact that the Dalai Lama cannot return to 
Tibet and Tibet is still being plundered? Search your files. Have you 
done anything with regard to Tibet? Or have you done anything, as the 
gentlewoman talked about, to help house church leaders who have been 
arrested since we passed PNTR? Have you done anything with regard to 
them? Do you think Boeing has done anything with regard to the Catholic 
priests? Do you think Boeing, the head of Boeing, has done anything 
with regard to the evangelical house church leaders that have been 
arrested? Do you think Boeing has done anything with regard to the 
Catholic priest who went to jail for publishing the Bible? You all 
probably know that Boeing has not done anything.
  Secondly, I think we are in the same mood as we were during the 1930s 
with regard to Winston Churchill and Nazi Germany. I think when I watch 
what is taking place in the other body, Senator Thompson is trying to 
do something and Members are urging him not to do anything because he 
may upset this. In closing, your side won. I wish their commission 
works. But in the meantime, not only those of us who have been against 
PNTR but those of you who have been for PNTR have an obligation, have a 
burden that every time you get a Dear Colleague letter from a Member 
asking that something be done to help a Catholic priest in China, you 
sign the letter. When there is something to be done with regard to a 
Catholic bishop, you sign the letter. When there is something to do 
with regard to Tibet and the Dalai Lama, you sign the letter. When 
there is something to be done to stop the persecution of the Moslems in 
the northwest portion of the country, you sign the letter. When we 
raise concerns with regard to nuclear proliferation in China, you sign 
the letter. If we can come together with regard to these issues of 
human rights and religious persecution, perhaps we can make some 
changes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution disapproving 
the extension of normal trade relations with China for another year.
  Just two months ago we were on this floor debating the issue of 
granting permanent normal trade relations with China. At that time I 
and many of our colleagues provided evidence which showed that China 
has done nothing to deserve permanent access to U.S. markets. The 
evidence was strong in the areas of national security and human rights 
showing that the Chinese government is a brutal regime which poses a 
serious national security threat to the United States and which 
continues to commit human rights abuses and persecutes its own people 
for their religious beliefs.
  In the past two months since the PNTR debate, the fears which many 
expressed about China's behavior have become reality and have been 
reported on by some of the major newspapers and leading news sources on 
China.
  Immediately after the PNTR vote, the Washington Post published a 
lengthy article on the core planning document for the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. This document reportedly says that there should be a new focus 
on Asia, in part because of the risk of a hostile relationship with 
China.
  The article, stated: ``Cautiously but steadily, the Pentagon is 
looking at Asia as the most likely arena for future military conflict . 
. .'' The article reports that a Pentagon official estimates that ``. . 
. about two-thirds of the forward looking games staged by the Pentagon 
over the last eight years have taken place partly or wholly in Asia.'' 
Aaron L. Friedberg, political scientist at Princeton University is 
quoted on this subject, saying ``. . . however reluctantly, we are 
beginning to face up to the fact that we are likely over the next few 
years to be engaged in an ongoing military competition with China . . . 
Indeed in certain respects, we already are.'' I submit this article for 
the record.
  China has exported weapons of mass destruction and missiles in 
violation of treaty commitments. The director of the CIA has said that 
China remains a ``key supplier'' of these weapons to Pakistan, Iran, 
and North Korea. Other reports indicate China has passed on similar 
weapons and technology to Libya and Syria. If one of these countries is 
involved in a conflict, it is very possible that our men and women in 
uniform could be called into harm's way. These weapons of mass 
destruction could then be targeted against American troops.
  I am concerned about the alliance that seems to be forming between 
China and Russia against the U.S. China is purchasing as many weapons 
from Russia as it can. I am concerned with recent reports in the Taiwan 
press that Russia will dispatch its Pacific Fleet to check the route of 
the U.S. Seventh Fleet if the U.S. makes any movement toward Taiwan 
during a China-Taiwan conflict. I also submit this article for the 
record. Also, reports indicate that China has purchased advanced naval 
vessels and top of the line anti-ship missiles from the Russians that 
specifically are meant to be used against U.S. aircraft carriers.
  The Chinese government has continued to persecute people because of 
their faith. Compass Direct, a news service that covers global 
religious freedom, reports that the government has cracked down on the 
House Church in Anhui province with new restrictions entailing all new 
house churches that are unregistered with the government are outlawed; 
all unregistered meetings and Bible training classes are labeled as 
illegal activities; and well over one hundred House church believers 
have been arrested in the past few months.
  Compass Direct also reports that:
  Ten house church leaders were arrested in May in Guangdong province.
  Two Beijing House church leaders have reportedly received 1\1/2\ year 
sentences in prison labor camps for organizing ``illegal religious 
meetings''.
  An underground Catholic priest near Wenzhou Province, Father Jiang 
Sunian, was reportedly given a six-year jail sentence on May 25 for 
printing Bibles and other religious literature without official 
permission.
  The head of China's Religious Affairs Bureau, recently said that the 
Communist Party will increase the Party's control of religious affairs 
and ``redirect the religions toward the adaptation of the socialist 
society.''
  The U.S. Committee on International Religious Freedom has recently 
stated that the Chinese government has increased its persecution of the 
Muslim Uighurs in Northwest China. I submit the Commission's statement 
for the record.
  Tibetan Buddhists continue to be persecuted and imprisoned by the 
Chinese communist government.
  In the PNTR debate, we said China's military engages in organ 
trafficking. On June 15 the International Herald Tribune published an 
article on the Chinese government's role in the organ trafficking of 
prisoners. I submit this article for the record. The article says:
  ``The day before convicts are executed--usually in batches--a group 
of patients in the hospital are told to expect the operation the next 
day . . . The night before their execution, 18 convicts were shown on a 
Chinese television program, their crimes announced to the public. 
Wilson Yeo saw the broadcast from his hospital bed in China and knew 
that one of

[[Page H6415]]

the men scheduled to die would provide him with the kidney he so badly 
needed.''
  ``China's preferred method of capital punishment, a bullet to the 
back of the head, is conducive to transplants because it does not 
contaminate the prisoner's organs with poisonous chemicals, as lethal 
injections do, or directly effect the circulatory system, as would a 
bullet through the heart.
  ``. . .  kidneys are essentially handed out to the highest bidders . 
. .''
  A Chinese official from the Health Ministry was quoted saying that 
the trafficking of executed prisoner's organs ``. . . is put under 
stringent state control and must go through standard procedures.''
  In closing, since PNTR has passed, there is even more evidence about 
China's gross human rights violations, religious persecution, and 
information regarding the national security threat that China poses to 
the U.S.
  As I said in my statement for the record during the PNTR debate, the 
U.S. is at a crossroads in its relationship with China. Wishful 
thinking and ignoring all of the evidence about China's human rights 
violations, religious persecution, and national security threat do not 
change the reality of the regime in China.
  We need to learn what history teaches us about leadership. Leadership 
is not about seeing what we wish to see. Leadership is not about 
closing our eyes to the threats before us. Leadership is about clearly, 
lucidly, and forcefully addressing facts and truth and taking 
appropriate action.
  The American way of life, our freedom can only be preserved by 
vigilance. Vigilance requires us to look at the situation in China 
today and conclude that the Chinese regime should not have received 
permanent trade relations with the U.S. until the questions of national 
security were adequately addressed and until there was a significant 
improvement in China's human rights record.
  The same applies to this debate on extending approval of normal trade 
relations with China. Giving China PNTR was the wrong thing to do and 
for the same reasons, which are buttressed by even more evidence today, 
the U.S. should disapprove extension of China normal trade relations.

                [From the Washington Post, May 26, 2000]

                 For Pentagon, Asia Moving to Forefront

                          (By Thomas E. Ricks)

       When Pentagon officials first sat down last year to update 
     the core planning document of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they 
     listed China as a potential future adversary, a momentous 
     change from the last decade of the Cold War.
       But when the final version of the document, titled ``Joint 
     Vision 2020,'' is released next week, it will be far more 
     discreet. Rather than explicitly pointing at China, it simply 
     will warn of the possible rise of an unidentified ``peer 
     competitor.''
       The Joint Chiefs' wrestling with how to think about China--
     and how open to be about that effort--captures in a nutshell 
     the U.S. military's quiet shift away from its traditional 
     focus on Europe. Cautiously but steadily, the Pentagon is 
     looking at Asia as the most likely arena for future military 
     conflict, or at least competition.
       This new orientation is reflected in many small but 
     significant changes: more attack submarines assigned to the 
     Pacific, more war games and strategic studies centered on 
     Asia, more diplomacy aimed at reconfiguring the U.S. military 
     presence in the area.
       It is a trend that carries huge implications for the shape 
     of the armed services. It also carries huge stakes for U.S. 
     foreign policy. Some specialists warn that as the United 
     States thinks about a rising China, it ought to remember the 
     mistakes Britain made in dealing with Germany in the years 
     before World War I.
       The new U.S. military interest in Asia also reverses a Cold 
     War trend under which the Pentagon once planned by the year 
     2000 to have just ``a minimal military presence'' in Japan, 
     recalls retired Army Gen. Robert W. RisCassi, a former U.S. 
     commander in South Korea.
       Two possibilities are driving this new focus. The first is 
     a chance of peace in Korea; the second is the risk of a 
     hostile relationship with China.
       Although much of the current discussion in Washington is 
     about a possible military threat from North Korea, for 
     military planners the real question lies further ahead: What 
     to do after a Korean rapprochement? In this view, South Korea 
     already has won its economic and ideological struggle with 
     North Korea, and all that really remains is to negotiate 
     terms for peace.
       According to one Defense Department official, William S. 
     Cohen's fist question to policy officials when he became 
     defense secretary in 1997 was: How can we change the 
     assumption that U.S. troops will be withdrawn after peace 
     comes to the Korean peninsula? Next month's first-ever summit 
     between the leaders of North and South Korea puts a sharper 
     edge on this issue.
       In the longer run, many American policymakers expect China 
     to emerge sooner or later as a great power with significant 
     influence over the rest of Asia. That, along with a spate of 
     belligerent statements about Taiwan from Chinese officials 
     this spring, has helped focus the attention of top 
     policymakers on China's possible military ambitions. ``The 
     Chinese saber-rattling has gotten people's attention, there's 
     no question of that,'' said Abram Shulsky, a China expert at 
     the Rand Corp.


                         the buzzword is china

       Between tensions over Taiwan and this week's House vote to 
     normalize trade relations with China, ``China is the new 
     Beltway buzzword,'' observed Dov S. Zakheim, a former 
     Pentagon official who is an adviser on defense policy to 
     Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush.
       To be sure, large parts of the U.S. military remain 
     ``Eurocentric,'' especially much of the Army. The shift is 
     being felt most among policymakers and military planners--
     that is, officials charged with thinking about the future--
     and least among front-line units. Nor is it a change that the 
     Pentagon is proclaiming from the rooftops. Defense Department 
     officials see little value in being explicit about the shift 
     in U.S. attention, which could worry old allies in Europe and 
     antagonize China.
       Even so, military experts point to changes on a variety of 
     fronts. For example, over the last several years, there has 
     been an unannounced shift in the Navy's deployment of attack 
     submarines, which in the post-Cold War world have been used 
     as intelligence assets--to intercept communications, monitor 
     ship movements and clandestinely insert commandos--and also 
     as front-line platforms for launching Tomahawk cruise 
     missiles against Iraq, Serbia and other targets. Just a few 
     years ago, the Navy kept 60 percent of its attack boats in 
     the Atlantic. Now, says a senior Navy submariner, it 
     has shifted to a 5-50 split between the Atlantic and 
     Pacific fleets, and before long the Pacific may get the 
     majority.
       But so far the focus on Asia is mostly conceptual, not 
     physical. It is now a common assumption among national 
     security thinkers that the area from Baghdad to Tokyo will be 
     the main location of U.S. military competition for the next 
     several decades. ``The focus of great power competition is 
     likely to shift from Europe to Asia,'' said Andrew 
     Krepinevich, director of the Center for Strategic and 
     Budgetary Assessments, a small but influential Washington 
     think tank. James Bodner, the principal deputy undersecretary 
     of defense for policy, added that, ``The center of gravity of 
     the world economy has shifted to Asia, and U.S. interests 
     flow with that.''
       When Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, one of the most thoughtful 
     senior officers in the military, met with the Army Science 
     Board earlier this spring, he commented off-handedly that 
     America's ``long-standing Europe-centric focus'' probably 
     would shift in coming decades as policymakers ``pay more 
     attention to the Pacific Rim, and especially to China.'' This 
     is partly because of trade and economics, he indicated, and 
     partly because of the changing ethnic makeup of the U.S. 
     population. (California is enormously important in U.S. 
     domestic politics, explains one Asia expert at the Pentagon, 
     and Asian Americans are increasingly influential in that 
     state's elections, which can make or break presidential 
     candidates.)
       Just 10 years ago, said Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales, Jr., 
     commandant of the Army War College, roughly 90 percent of 
     U.S. military thinking about future warfare centered on head-
     on clashes of armies in Europe. ``Today,'' he said, ``it's 
     probably 50-50, or even more'' tilted toward warfare using 
     characteristic Asian tactics, such as deception and 
     indirection.


                               war gaming

       The U.S. military's favorite way of testing its assumptions 
     and ideas is to run a war game. Increasingly, the major games 
     played by the Pentagon--except for the Army--take place in 
     Asia, on an arc from Teheran to Tokyo. The games are used to 
     ask how the U.S. military might respond to some of the 
     biggest questions it faces: Will Iran go nuclear--or become 
     more aggressive with an array of hard-to-stop cruise 
     missiles? Will Pakistan and India engage in nuclear war--or, 
     perhaps even worse, will Pakistan break up, with its nuclear 
     weapons falling into the hands of Afghan mujaheddin? Will 
     Indonesia fall apart? Will North Korea collapse peacefully? 
     And what may be the biggest question of all: Will the United 
     States and China avoid military confrontation? All in all, 
     estimates one Pentagon official, about two-thirds of the 
     forward-looking games staged by the Pentagon over the last 
     eight years have taken place partly or wholly in Asia.
       Last year, the Air Force's biggest annual war game looked 
     at the Mideast and Korea. This summer's game, ``Global 
     Engagement 5,'' to be played over more than a week at Maxwell 
     Air Force Base in Alabama, will posit ``a rising large East 
     Asian nation'' that is attempting to wrest control of 
     Siberia, with all its oil and other natural resources, from a 
     weak Russia. At one point, the United States winds up basing 
     warplanes in Siberia to defend Russian interests.
       Because of the sensitivity of talking about fighting China, 
     ``What everybody's trying to do is come up with games that 
     are kind of China, but not china by name,'' said an Air Force 
     strategist.
       ``I think that, however reluctantly, we are beginning to 
     face up to the fact that we are likely over the next few 
     years to be engaged in an ongoing military competition with 
     China,'' noted Princeton political scientist Aaron L. 
     Friedberg. ``Indeed, in certain respects, we already are.''

[[Page H6416]]

                              twin efforts

       The new attention to Asia also is reflected in two long-
     running, military-diplomatic efforts.
       The first is a drive to renegotiate the U.S. military 
     presence in northeast Asia. This is aimed mainly at ensuring 
     that American forces still will be welcome in South Korea and 
     Japan if the North Korean threat disappears. To that end, the 
     U.S. military will be instructed to act less like post-World 
     War II occupation forces and more like guests or partners.
       Pentagon experts on Japan and Korea say they expect that 
     ``status of forces agreements'' gradually will be diluted, so 
     that local authorities will gain more jurisdiction over U.S. 
     military personnel in criminal cases. In addition, they 
     predict that U.S. bases in Japan and South Korea will be 
     jointly operated in the future by American and local forces, 
     perhaps even with a local officer in command.
       At Kadena Air Force Base on the southern Japanese island of 
     Okinawa, for example, the U.S. military has started a 
     program, called ``Base Without Fences,'' under which the 
     governor has been invited to speak on the post, local 
     residents are taken on bus tours of the base that include a 
     stop  at a memorial to Japan's World War II military, and 
     local reporters have been given far more access to U.S. 
     military officials.
       ``We don't have to stay in our foxhole,'' said Air Force 
     Brig. Gen. James B. Smith, who devised the more open 
     approach. ``To guarantee a lasting presence, there needs to 
     be a private and public acknowledgment of the mutual benefit 
     of our presence.''
       Behind all this lies a quiet recognition that Japan may no 
     longer unquestioningly follow the U.S. lead in the region. A 
     recent classified national intelligence estimate concluded 
     that Japan has several strategic options available, among 
     them seeking a separate accommodation with China, Pentagon 
     officials disclosed. ``Japan isn't Richard Gere in `An 
     Officer and a Gentleman,' '' one official said. ``That is, 
     unlike him, it does have somewhere else to go.''
       In the long term, this official added, a key goal of U.S. 
     politico-military policy is to ensure that when Japan 
     reemerges as a great power, it behaves itself in Asia, unlike 
     the last time around, in the 1930s, when it launched a 
     campaign of vicious military conquest.


                          southeast asia redux

       The second major diplomatic move is the negotiation of the 
     U.S. military's reentry in Southeast Asia, 25 years after the 
     end of the Vietnam War and almost 10 years after the United 
     States withdrew from its bases in the Philippines. After 
     settling on a Visiting Forces Agreement last year, the United 
     States and the Philippines recently staged their first joint 
     military exercise in years, ``Balikatan 2000.''
       The revamped U.S. military relationship with the 
     Philippines, argues one general, may be a model for the 
     region. Instead of building ``Little America'' bases with 
     bowling alleys and Burger Kings that are off-limits to the 
     locals, U.S. forces will conduct frequent joint exercises to 
     train Americans and Filipinos to operate together in 
     everything from disaster relief to full-scale combat. The 
     key, he said, isn't permanent bases but occasional access to 
     facilities and the ability to work with local troops.
       Likewise, the United States has broadened its military 
     contacts with Australia, putting 10,0000 troops into the 
     Queensland region a year ago for joint exercises. And this 
     year, for the first time, Singapore's military is 
     participating in ``Cobra Gold,'' the annual U.S.-Thai 
     exercise. Singapore also is building a new pier specifically 
     to meet the docking requirements of a nuclear-powered U.S. 
     aircraft carrier. The U.S. military even has dipped a 
     cautious toe back into Vietnam, with Cohen this spring 
     becoming the first defense secretary since Melvin R. Laird to 
     visit that nation.
       The implications of this change already are stirring 
     concern in Europe. In the March issue of Proceedings, the 
     professional journal of the U.S. Navy, Cmdr. Michele 
     Consentino, an Italian navy officer, fretted about the 
     American focus on the Far East and about ``dangerous gaps'' 
     emerging in the U.S. military presence in the Mediterranean.


                         where the generals are

       If the U.S. military firmly concludes that its major 
     missions are likely to take place in Asia, it may have to 
     overhaul the way it is organized, equipped and even led. 
     ``Most U.S. military assets are in Europe, where there are no 
     foreseeable conflicts threatening vital U.S. interests,'' 
     said ``Asia 2025,'' a Pentagon study conducted last summer. 
     ``The threats are in Asia,'' it warned.
       This study, recently read by Cohen, pointedly noted that 
     U.S. military planning remains ``heavily focused on Europe,'' 
     that there are four times as many generals and admirals 
     assigned to Europe as to Asia, and that about 85 percent of 
     military officers studying foreign languages are still 
     learning European tongues.
       ``Since I've been here, we've tried to put more emphasis on 
     our position in the Pacific,'' Cohen said in an interview as 
     he flew home from his most recent trip to Asia. This isn't, 
     he added, ``a zero-sum game, to ignore Europe, but 
     recognizing that the [economic] potential in Asia is 
     enormous''--especially, he said, if the United States is 
     willing to help maintain stability in the region.


                          tyranny of distance

       Talk to a U.S. military planner about the Pacific theater, 
     and invariably the phrase ``the tyranny of distance'' pops 
     up. Hawaii may seem to many Americans to be well out in the 
     Pacific, but it is another 5,000 miles from there to 
     Shanghai. All told, it is about twice as far from San Diego 
     to China as it is from New York to Europe. Cohen noted that 
     the military's new focus on Asia means, ``We're going to 
     want more C-17s'' (military cargo planes) as well as 
     ``more strategic airlift'' and ``more strategic sealift.''
       Other experts say that barely scratches the surface of the 
     revamping that Asian operations might require. The Air Force, 
     they say, would need more long-range bombers and refuelers--
     and probably fewer short-range fighters such as the hot new 
     F-22, designed during the Cold War for dogfights in the 
     relatively narrow confines of Central Europe. ``We are still 
     thinking about aircraft design as if it were for the border 
     of Germany,'' argues James G. Roche, head of Northrop Grumman 
     Corp.'s electronic sensors unit and a participant in last 
     year's Pentagon study of Asia's future. ``Asia is a much 
     bigger area than Europe, so planes need longer `legs.' ''
       Similarly, the Navy would need more ships that could 
     operate at long distances. It might even need different types 
     of warships. For example, the Pentagon study noted, today's 
     ships aren't ``stealthy''--built to evade radar--and may 
     become increasingly vulnerable as more nations acquire 
     precision-guided missiles.
       Also, the Navy may be called on to execute missions in 
     places where it has not operated for half a century. If the 
     multi-island nation of Indonesia falls apart, the Pentagon 
     study suggested, then the Navy may be called upon to keep 
     open the crucial Strait of Malacca, through which passes much 
     of the oil and gas from the Persian Gulf to Japan and the 
     rest of East Asia.
       The big loser among the armed forces likely would be the 
     Army, whose strategic relevancy already is being questioned 
     as it struggles to deploy its forces more quickly. ``At its 
     most basic level, the rise of Asia means a rise of emphasis 
     on naval, air and space power at the expense of ground 
     forces,'' said Eliot Cohen, a professor of strategic studies 
     at Johns Hopkins University.
       In a few years, Pentagon insiders predict, the chairman of 
     the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be from the Navy or Air Force, 
     following 12 years in which Army officers--Generals Colin L. 
     Powell, John Shalikashvili and Henry H. Shelton--have been 
     the top officers in the military. Perhaps even more 
     significantly, they foresee the Air Force taking away from 
     the Navy at least temporarily the position of ``CINCPAC,'' 
     the commander in chief of U.S. forces in the Pacific. There 
     already is talk within the Air Force of basing parts of an 
     ``Air Expeditionary Force'' in Guam, where B-2 stealth 
     bombers have been sent in the past in response to tensions 
     with North Korea.


                           parallel with past

       If the implications for the U.S. military of a new focus on 
     Asia are huge, so too are the risks. Some academics and 
     Pentagon intellectuals see a parallel between the U.S. effort 
     to manage the rise of China as a great power and the British 
     failure to accommodate or divert the ambitions of a newly 
     unified Germany in the late 19th century. That effort ended 
     in World War I, which slaughtered a generation of British 
     youth and marked the beginning of British imperial decline.
       If Sino-American antagonism grows, some strategists warn, 
     national missile defense may play the role that Britain's 
     development of the battleship Dreadnought played a century 
     ago--a superweapon that upset the balance by making Germany's 
     arsenal strategically irrelevant. Chinese officials have said 
     they believe the U.S. plan for missile defense is aimed at 
     negating their relatively small force of about 20 
     intercontinental ballistic missiles.
       If the United States actually builds a workable antimissile 
     system, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski 
     predicts, ``the effect of that would be immediately felt by 
     the Chinese nuclear forces and [would] presumably precipitate 
     a buildup.'' That in turn could provoke India to beef up its 
     own nuclear forces, a move that would threaten Pakistan. A 
     Chinese buildup also could make Japan feel that it needed to 
     build up its own military.
       Indian officials already are quietly telling Pentagon 
     officials that the rise of China will make the United States 
     and India natural allies. India also is feeling its oats 
     militarily. The Hindustan Times recently reported that the 
     Indian navy plans to reach far eastward this year to hold 
     submarine and aircraft exercises in the South China Sea, a 
     move sure to tweak Beijing.
       Some analysts believe that the hidden agenda of the U.S. 
     military is to use the rise of Asia as a way to shore up the 
     Pentagon budget, which now consumes about 3 percent of the 
     gross domestic product, compared to 5.6 percent at the end of 
     the Cold War in 1989. ``If the military grabs onto this in 
     order to get more money, that's scary,'' said retired Air 
     Force Col. Sam Gardiner, who frequently conducts war games 
     for the military.
       Indeed, Cohen is already making the point that operating in 
     Asia is expensive. He said it is clear that America will have 
     to maintain ``forward'' forces in Asia. And that, he argued, 
     will require a bigger defense budget.
       ``There's a price to pay for what we're doing,'' Cohen 
     concluded. ``The question we're going to have to face in the 
     coming years is, are we willing to pay up?''

[[Page H6417]]

                             An Eye on Asia

       U.S. forces dedicated to the Pacific region: U.S. Army 
     Pacific 60,000 soldiers and civilians (two divisions and one 
     brigade); U.S. Pacific Fleet 130,000 sailors and civilians 
     (170 ships); Pacific Air Forces 40,000 airmen and civilians 
     (380 aircraft in nine wings); Marine Forces Pacific 70,000 
     Marines and civilians (two expeditionary forces).


                           On Foreign Shores

       Major U.S. deployments in Asia include:
       U.S. Forces Japan: 47,000 personnel ashore and 12,000 
     afloat at 90 locations.
       U.S. Forces Korea: 37,500 personnel at 85 installations.


                            training Grounds

       The Pacific Command participates in dozens of joint 
     exercises with allied countries each year, including:
       1. Cobra Gold: The U.S.-Thai exercise is expanding to 
     include Singapore.
       2. Foal Eagle: Brings together U.S. and South Korean troops 
     on the Korean peninsula.
       3. Crocodile: A training exercise with Australia at 
     Shoalwater Bay.
       4. Rim of the Pacific: Participants include the U.S., 
     Australia, Japan and South Korea (pictured above).
                                  ____


            [From Hong Kong Sing Tao Jih Pao, July 8, 2000]

  Russian Navy Reportedly Instructed To Stop US Involvement in Taiwan 
                                 Strait

                       (By Reporter Li Nien-ting)

       Taiwan's media have reported that after the Sino-Russian 
     summit a few days ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave 
     a special instruction to the Russian military that in case 
     the Taiwan situation deteriorates and the US military 
     attempts to become involved in the situation, Russia will 
     dispatch its Pacific Fleet to check the route of the Seventh 
     Fleet of the US Navy, to keep the latter far away from the 
     Taiwan Strait. This will be the embryonic form of Sino-
     Russian military cooperation in defense.
       Jiang Zemin and Putin, the heads of state of China and 
     Russia, had an in-depth exchange of views before the five-
     nation summit a few days ago. The two countries reached a 
     consensus on jointly opposing the US global missile defense 
     system (TMD) [as published; acronym given in English] and 
     made commitments on Sino-Russian military cooperation in 
     defense.
       Relevant analysis held that military cooperation and 
     antagonism seems to have become the hottest topic for 
     discussion in the post-Cold-War period. Following the US 
     attempt to develop the national missile defense system and 
     TMD, China has found the US move to join hands with the weak 
     to deal with the strong a knotty problem. Having failed to 
     obtain any result through severe denunciation the Beijing 
     authorities have decided to work with Russia to contend with 
     the United States. Since Putin was elected Russian president, 
     the cooperation between the two countries has tended to be 
     further strengthened. Their military cooperation has caused 
     the two countries to be on the same front against the United 
     States.


           A Military Cooperation Plan Involving $20 Billion

       Taiwan media have quoted information from a mainland 
     official source as saying: In order to strengthen Russia's 
     strategic cooperative partnership with China, Russian 
     President Putin gave a special instruction to the high-level 
     officers of the Russian military a few days ago that in case 
     the US military involves itself in the Taiwan Strait 
     situation, Russia will dispatch its Pacific Fleet to cut off 
     the route of the US fleet in order to keep the latter far 
     away from the Taiwan Strait.
       Regarding the military alliance between China and Russia, 
     the media of the West have commented that the strategic 
     cooperative partnership between China and Russia has entirely 
     been established on the basis of the fundamental interests of 
     the national security of the two countries. Therefore, on the 
     issues of Chechnya and Taiwan, China and Russia not only 
     should fully support each other's sovereignty, territorial 
     integrity, and unity, but also should join hands in solving 
     the other side's conflicts over sovereignty and territorial 
     integrity.
       It has been disclosed that there is a 2000-2004 military 
     cooperation plan between China and Russia that involves as 
     much as $20 billion. China will purchase from Russia high-
     tech equipment for the navy and the air force, or cooperate 
     with Russia to develop and produce such equipment. It is 
     believed that the plan is being implemented.
                                  ____


                [From Hong Kong Ta Kung Pao, July 6, 00]

    [Special Article on Cooperation Among PRC, Russia, Kazakhstan, 
                        Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan]

                             (By Mao Chieh)

       ``That historical issues left over in the past several 
     hundred years have been mostly solved over the past five 
     years represents a great achievement of the ``Shanghai Five'' 
     meeting. Taking a step back and assuming crisis in the Taiwan 
     Strait will further escalate, the mainland will be able to 
     concentrate all its efforts to handle the cross-strait issue 
     since its worries about its backyard have been greatly 
     reduced.''
       The heads of state of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Hyrgystan, 
     and Tajikistan gather today (6 July) in Dushanbe, capital of 
     Tajikistan, to attend the fifth meeting of the ``Shanghai 
     Five.'' Due to the presence of the new Russian President 
     Putin and to the first attendance of Uzbekistan as an 
     observer, the Dushanbe summit meeting has attracted 
     particular attention.
       ``Of the 20-point Dushanbe Statement signed today by the 
     five countries' heads of state, the main points of the 
     meeting can be summed up in four,'' remarked Pan Guang, 
     director of Shanghai Research Center on international issues, 
     when interviewed by this paper's reporter.
                                  ____


  Chinese Persecution of Uighur Muslims May Be Increasing, Commission 
                                  Says

       The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom 
     today issued a statement deploring what appears to be 
     increasing persecution of Uighur Muslims in China's Xinjiang 
     region and called for the U.S. government to raise the issue 
     directly with China and in international organizations. 
     Following is the text of the statement:
       ``In the Commission's May 1 Annual Report to the 
     Administration and Congress, and in testimony before 
     Congress, since that date, we have called attention to the 
     serious deterioration of religious freedom in China during 
     the past year.
       ``Since last summer, the authorities have launched a 
     nationwide crackdown on the Falun Gong spiritual movement, 
     sentencing leaders to long prison terms and detaining more 
     than 35,000 practitioners, a few of whom have been sent to 
     mental institutions, have been beaten to death, or have died 
     suddenly while in police custody. Catholic and Protestant 
     underground ``house churches'' are suffering increased 
     repression, including the arrests of priests and pastors, one 
     of whom was found dead in the street soon afterwards. The 
     repression of Tibetan Buddhists has expanded, with a top 
     religious leader, the Karmapa Lama, recently fleeing to India 
     in January.
       ``The increase in religious persecution has touched another 
     group, less known in the West--the 8 million Muslim Uighurs, 
     a Turkic people living in western China's Xinjiang Uighur 
     Autonomous Region. In the face of Han Chinese mass migration 
     into traditionally Uighur areas, Islamic institutions have 
     become an important medium through which Uighurs attempt to 
     preserve their history and culture.
       ``Verifiable information from the region is hard to come 
     by, largely because foreign diplomats, journalists, and human 
     rights monitors are generally barred from traveling there. 
     But in recent years tensions in Xinjiang and reports of 
     sporadic violence against the government have increased. 
     While the government blames ``small numbers'' of 
     ``separatists'' for the violence, Islamic institutions and 
     prominent individuals in the Muslim community have become the 
     target of repressive, often brutal measures by Chinese 
     authorities unwilling or unable to differentiate between 
     religious exercise or ethnic identify and ``separatist'' 
     aspirations. Thousands have been detained, including many 
     religious leaders. Convictions and executions of so-called 
     ``splittists'' are common, often reportedly on little 
     evidence and with no regard for due process of law. Indeed, 
     residents of Xinjiang region are the only Chinese citizens 
     who are subject to capital punishment for political crimes.
       ``Last August, the Chinese authorities stepped up their 
     crackdown with the arrest of a prominent Uighur 
     businesswoman, Rebiya Kadeer. Ms. Kadeer was arrested last 
     Aug. 11 as she was on her way to a private dinner in Urumqi 
     with two staff members from the U.S. Congressional Research 
     Service. She was last convicted in a show trial for ``harming 
     national security'' and sentenced to 8 years in prison. The 
     evidence consisted of a number of Chinese newspaper articles 
     she had passed on to her husband in the U.S., who commented 
     on them over Radio Free Asia. Kadeer is reported to be in 
     poor health and in need of medical help as a result of brutal 
     treatment meted out to her in prison.
       ``In recent days a major Xinjiang newspaper announced the 
     July 6 execution of three accused Uighur separatists by 
     firing squad immediately after their public sentencing on 
     charges of ``splitting the country.'' This follows upon 
     similar executions of five Uighurs immediately after 
     sentencing in a June trial, with two others sentenced to life 
     in prison and the others receiving jail terms ranging from 17 
     to 20 years.
       ``Several weeks ago, the House voted to grant China 
     Permanent Normal Trade Relations status (PNTR). During the 
     debate, PNTR supporters argued that the fruits of engagement 
     with China would be increased respect for the rule of law and 
     international norms of behavior with regard to human rights. 
     As Beijing's violations of religious freedom continue 
     unabated, if not at a stepped up pace, PNTR supporters have a 
     moral obligation to speak out and let the Chinese government 
     know that these abuses are unacceptable. ``No one expected 
     improvement overnight, but certainly things shouldn't have 
     deteriorated overnight,'' said Commission Chairman Elliott 
     Abrams.
       ``The Commission reiterates its recommendation of May 1 
     that the U.S. government raise the profile of conditions in 
     Xinjiang by addressing religious-freedom and human rights 
     concerns in bilateral talks, by increasing the number of 
     education exchange opportunities available to Uighurs, and by 
     increasing radio broadcasts in the Uighur language into 
     Xinjiang. The Commission further recommends that the U.S. 
     move immediately to take up the issue in all appropriate 
     international organizations. The

[[Page H6418]]

     State Department should demand both the humanitarian release 
     of Rebiya Kadeer from prison, an immediate end to summary 
     executions of Uighur ``separatists,'' and free access to 
     Xinjiang for foreign journalist and human rights monitors. 
     Finally, the Commission urges the U.S. Senate to consider the 
     plight of the Uighurs and the state of religious freedom in 
     China as it considers whether to grant Beijing PNTR status.''
                                  ____


         [From the International Herald Tribune, June 15, 2000]

                       An Execution for a Kidney


             China Supplies Convicts' Organs to Malaysians

                           (By Thomas Fuller)

       Malacca, Malaysia.--The night before their execution, 18 
     convicts were shown on a Chinese television program, their 
     crimes announced to the public. Wilson Yeo saw the broadcast 
     from his hospital bed in China and knew that one of the men 
     scheduled to die would provide him with the kidney he so 
     badly needed.
       Mr. Yeo, 40, a Malaysian who manages the local branch of a 
     lottery company here, says he never learned the name of the 
     prisoner whose kidney is now implanted on his right side. He 
     knows only what the surgeon told him: The executed man was 19 
     years old and sentenced to die for drug trafficking.
       ``I knew that I would be getting a young kidney,'' Mr. Yeo 
     says now, one year after his successful transplant. ``That 
     was very important for me.''
       Over the past few years at least a dozen residents of this 
     small Malaysian city have traveled to a provincial hospital 
     in Chongqing, China, where they paid for what they could not 
     get in Malaysia: functioning kidneys to prolong their lives.
       They went to China, a place most of them barely knew, with 
     at least $10,000 in cash. They encountered a medical culture 
     where kidneys were given to those with money and a doctor 
     could stop treatment if a patient didn't pay up. Surgeons 
     advised them to wait until a major holiday, when authorities 
     traditionally execute the most prisoners.
       China's preferred method of capital punishment, a bullet to 
     the back of the head, is conducive to transplants because it 
     does not contaminate the prisoners' organs with poisonous 
     chemicals, as lethal injections do, or directly affect the 
     circulatory system, as would a bullet through the heart.
       More than 1,000 Malaysians have had kidney transplants in 
     China, according to an estimate by Dr. S.Y. Tan, one of 
     Malaysia's leading kidney specialists. Many patients go after 
     giving up hope of finding an organ donor in Malaysia, where 
     the average waiting period for a transplant is 16 years.
       Interviews with patients who underwent the operation in 
     China reveal how the market for Chinese kidneys has blossomed 
     here--to the point where patients from Malacca negotiated a 
     special price with Chinese doctors.
       In 1998, two doctors from the Third Affiliated Hospital, a 
     military-run complex in Chongqing, came to Malacca and spoke 
     at the local chapter of the Lions Club about their 
     procedures. Kidney patients worked out a deal with the 
     doctors: Residents of Malacca would be charged $10,000 for 
     the procedure instead of the $12,000 paid by other 
     foreigners.
       It goes without saying that the kidney transplants these 
     doctors perform are highly controversial. The Transportation 
     Society, a leading international medical forum based in 
     Montreal, has banned the use of organs from convicted 
     criminals. Human rights groups call the practice barbaric.
       But patients here who have undergone the operation in China 
     say they were too desperate at the time to consider the 
     ethical consequences.
       Today they are simply happy to be alive. The trip to 
     Chongqing offered them an escape from the dialysis machines, 
     blood transfusions, dizziness and frequent bouts of vomiting. 
     And why, they ask, should healthy organs be put to waste if 
     they can save lives?
       ``Ethics are only a game for those people who are not 
     sick,'' says Tan Dau Chin, a paramedic who has spent his 
     career working with dialysis patients in Malacca. ``Let me 
     put it this way: What if this happened to you?''
       Simon Leong, 35, a Malaccan who underwent a successful 
     operation two years ago in Chongqing, says the principle of 
     buying an organ is ``wrong.''
       ``But I was thinking, I have two sons. Who's going to 
     provide for them?''
       Corrine Yong, 54, who returned from Chongqing two months 
     ago after a successful operation, was told that if she did 
     not receive a transplant she would probably not live much 
     longer.
       ``I didn't have a choice,'' she says of her decision to go 
     to China.
       For kidney patients in Malaysia the chances of obtaining a 
     transplant from a local donor are slim. Despite an extremely 
     high death rate on Malaysian roads--in a country of 22 
     million people, an average of 16 people are killed every day 
     in traffic accidents--the organ donation system is 
     woefully undeveloped.
       Kidneys were transplanted from just eight donors last year. 
     Thousands of people are on the official waiting list.
       Dr. Tan, the Malaysian kidney specialist, says the small 
     number of donors in Malaysia is partly due to religious and 
     cultural taboos.
       Malaysian Muslim families in particular are reluctant to 
     allow organs to be removed before burial, although this is 
     not the case in some other Muslim countries, such as Saudi 
     Arabia, which has a relatively high number of donors.
       Organ donation has always been an uncomfortable issue. The 
     terminology is euphemistic and macabre: Doctors speak of 
     ``harvesting'' organs from patients who are brain-dead, but 
     whose hearts are still beating.
       And when the issue of executed prisoners comes into play, 
     transplants become politically explosive.
       ``It is well known that the death penalty is often meted 
     out in China for things that most people in Western countries 
     would not regard as capital crimes,'' said Roy Calne, a 
     professor of surgery at both Cambridge University and the 
     National University of Singapore.
       Using organs from executed prisoners is not only ethically 
     wrong, he says, but discourages potential donors to step 
     forward in China: ``If the perception of the public in China 
     is that there's no shortage of organs you're not likely to 
     get any enthusiasm for a donation program.''
       It is impossible to know exactly how many Asians travel to 
     China for organ transplants. But data informally collected 
     from doctors in at least three countries suggest the numbers 
     are in the hundreds every year.
       Also impossible to confirm is whether all parties in China 
     receive organs from executed prisoners and not other donors.
       But patients interviewed for this article say doctors in 
     China make no secret of where the organ comes from. The day 
     before convicts are executed--usually in batches--a group of 
     patients in the hospital are told to expect the operation the 
     next day.
       Melvin Teh, 40, a Malacca businessman who received a kidney 
     transplant from a hospital in Guangzhou two years ago, says 
     doctors did not offer the names of the prisoners. ``They just 
     tell you it was a convict,'' he said. ``They don't tell you 
     what he did.''
       Mrs. Yong says doctors told her that the donors were all 
     ``young men'' who had committed ``serious, violent'' crimes.
       Chinese officials have admitted that organs are 
     occasionally taken from convicts, but deny that the practice 
     is widespread.
       ``It is rare in China to use the bodies of executed 
     convicts or organs from an executed convict,'' an official 
     from the Health Ministry was quoted as saying in the China 
     Daily in 1998. ``If it is done, it is put under stringent 
     state control and must go through standard procedures.''
       That view does not jibe with the stories that patients from 
     Malacca tell, where kidneys are essentially handed out to the 
     highest bidders, often foreigners.
       Mr. Leong, the Chongqing patient, and his wife, Karen Soh, 
     who accompanied him to China, say money was paramount for the 
     surgeons involved in the operation. They recounted how 
     another Malaysian kidney transplant patient who suffered 
     complications while in Chongqing had run out of cash.
       ``They stopped the medication for one day,'' Mrs. Soh said, 
     referring to the anti-rejection drugs. The patient was 
     already very sick and eventually died of infection upon her 
     return to Malaysis, according to Mrs. Soh.
       Patients say they are advised by friends who have already 
     undergone a transplant to bring the surgeons gifts. Mrs. 
     Young brought a pewter teapot and picture frame. Ms. Soh and 
     her husband brought a bottle of Martell cognac, a carton of 
     555 brand cigarettes and a bottle of perfume for the chief 
     surgeon's wife.
       ``They call it `starting off on the right foot' '' Mrs. Soh 
     said.
       After the operation was complete, the couple gave two of 
     the doctors ``red packets'' filled with cash: 3,000 yuan 
     ($360) for the chief surgeon, and 2,000 yuan for his 
     assistant. Other patients also ``tipped,'' although the 
     amounts varied.
       It might be tempting to see the market for Chinese organs 
     as part of the more general links that overseas Chinese have 
     with the mainland.
       Many of the patients are indeed ethnically Chinese and come 
     from countries--Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand--with either links 
     to the mainland or large ethnic Chinese populations.
       Yet if the experience of Malaysian patients in any 
     indication, the trip to China provides a severe culture 
     shock. Patients recalled unsanitary conditions, and for those 
     who did not speak Mandarin the experience was harrowing.
       Mr. Leong, who speaks little Mandarin, was helped by his 
     wife who wrote out a list of phrases for her husband to 
     memorize. The list included: ``I'm feeling pain!'' ``I'm 
     thirsty.'' ``Can you turn me over?'' Mr. Leong would simply 
     say the number that corresponded to his complaint and the 
     nurse would check the list.
       But more difficult than communicating is paying for the 
     transplant. For the Leongs it involved pooling savings from 
     family members and appealing for funds through Chinese-
     language newspapers. The cost of an operation amounts to 
     several years' salary for many Malaysians.
       Yet despite financial problems and cultural shock, all four 
     patients interviewed for this article said they had no 
     regrets.
       Mr. Yeo enjoys a life of relative normalcy, maintaining a 
     regular work schedule and jogging almost every day.
       He says he was so weak before his transplant that he had 
     trouble crossing the street and climbing stairs. Four-hour 
     sessions three times a week on dialysis machines were 
     ``living hell.''

[[Page H6419]]

       Does it disturb him that an executed man's kidney is in his 
     abdomen?
       ``I pray for the guy and say, `Hopefully your afterlife is 
     better,' '' Mr. Yeo said.
       And has he ever wondered whether the prisoner might have 
     been innocent?
       Mr. Yeo pauses and stares straight ahead. ``I haven't gone 
     through that part--the moral part,'' he said.
       ``I don't know. I can't question it too much. I have to 
     live.''
                                  ____


                 [From The New Republic, July 24, 2000]

  Sierra Leone, The Last Clinton Betrayal--Where Angels Fear To Tread

                            (By Ryan Lizza)

       Even for the Clinton administration, it was an 
     extraordinary lie. ``The United States did not pressure 
     anybody to sign this agreement,'' State Department spokesman 
     Philip Reeker proclaimed at a press briefing in early June. 
     ``We neither brokered the Lome peace agreement nor leaned on 
     [Sierra Leonean] President Kabbah to open talks with the 
     insurgents. . . . It was not an agreement of ours.'' 
     Observers were stunned. The dishonesty, said one Capitol Hill 
     Africa specialist, was ``positively Orwellian.''
       Orwellian because the peace agreement signed in Lome, 
     Togo--an agreement that forced the democratic president of 
     Sierra Leone to hand over much of his government and most of 
     his country's wealth to one of the greatest monsters of the 
     late twentieth century--was conceived and implemented by the 
     United States. It was Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton's special 
     envoy to Africa, who in late 1998 pressed President Ahmad 
     Tejan Kabbah to ``reach out'' to Foday Sankoh--a man who 
     built his Revolutionary United Front (RUF) by systematically 
     kidnapping children and forcing them to murder their parents. 
     In May 1999, the United States, led by Jackson, brokered and 
     signed a cease-fire agreement between the government and the 
     RUF. In June, U.S. officials drafted entire sections of the 
     accord that gave Sankoh Sierra Leone's vice presidency and 
     control over its diamond mines, the country's major source of 
     wealth. U.S. Ambassador to Sierra Leone Joseph Melrose even 
     shuttled back and forth between Lome and Sierra Leone's 
     capital, Freetown, to cajole the reluctant Kabbah. In March 
     2000, after the accord was signed, American officials hosted 
     repeated meetings at the U.S. embassy to carry it out.
       Barely any of this made the American press. And then this 
     May, when the RUF took hostage 500 of the U.N. peace-keepers 
     meant to supervise Lome's implementation--simultaneously 
     detonating the agreement and catapulting it onto the front 
     page--the United States washed its hands of the whole thing. 
     Said Reeker on June 5, ``We were not part of that 
     agreement.''
       The Clinton administration's Africa policy will probably go 
     down as the strangest of the postcolonial age; it may also go 
     down as the most grotesque. In dealing with Africa, previous 
     U.S. administrations were largely unsentimental. Africa was 
     too poor to affect the U.S. economy, too alien to command a 
     powerful domestic lobby, too weak to threaten American 
     security. As a result, past presidents spoke about Africa 
     modestly and not very often.
       Not Bill Clinton. He has proclaimed frequently and 
     passionately that Africa matters. He has insisted that black 
     suffering has as great a claim on the American conscience as 
     white suffering. He has vowed that the United States will no 
     longer be indifferent. These words have borne no relation 
     whatsoever to the reality of his administration's policy. 
     Indeed, confronted with several stark moral challenges, the 
     Clinton administration has abandoned Africa every time: it 
     fled from Somalia, it watched American stepchild Liberia 
     descend into chaos, it blocked intervention in Rwanda. But 
     Clinton's soaring rhetoric has posed a problem that his 
     predecessors did not face--the problem of rank hypocrisy. And 
     so, time and again, the imperative guiding his 
     administration's Africa policy has been the imperative to 
     appear to care. Unwilling to commit American blood and 
     treasure to save African lives, and unwilling to admit that 
     they refuse to do so, the Clintonites have developed a policy 
     of coercive dishonesty. In Rwanda, afraid that evidence of 
     the unfolding genocide would expose their inaction, they 
     systematically suppressed it. And in Sierra Leone, unwilling 
     to take on a rebel group that was maiming and slaughtering 
     civilians by the thousands, the Clintonites insisted that all 
     the rebels truly wanted was peace and a seat at the 
     negotiating table.
       Abandoning Africans is nothing new. But the Clinton 
     administration has gone further. It has tried to deny them 
     the reality of their own experience, to bludgeon them into 
     pretending that the horrors around them do not truly exist--
     so that they won't embarrass the American officials who 
     proclaim so eloquently that their fates are inextricably 
     linked to our own.
       Sierra Leone, a former British colony whose capital was 
     founded in the late eighteenth century by freed slaves, was a 
     pretty nasty place even before the birth of the Revolutionary 
     United Front. After an initial bout with democracy upon 
     gaining independence in 1961, it slid into dictatorship and 
     kleptocracy and stayed there through the 1970s and '80s--
     consistently near the bottom in world rankings of infant 
     mortality, per capita income, and life expectancy.
       So the outside world barely noticed when, in 1991, a group 
     of about 100 guerrillas launched a campaign to take over the 
     country. But the RUF--backed by Charles Taylor, a warlord in 
     neighboring Liberia--quickly established itself as a rather 
     unusual rebel group. For one thing, it had no discernible 
     political philosophy or agenda. For another, it was almost 
     unimaginably brutal. Typically, RUF troops would enter a 
     village and round up its children. Girls as young as ten 
     would be raped. Boys would be forced to execute village 
     elders and sometimes even their own parents, thus cutting 
     themselves off from their past lives and beginning their 
     absorption into their new rebel ``family.'' Once children 
     were conscripted, their loyalty was maintained through 
     drugs--they were injected with speed, which numbed their 
     sensitivity to violence and rendered them dependent on their 
     adult suppliers--and violence. When conscripts tried to 
     escape, RUF leaders amputated their limbs. Refugees even 
     accused the RUF of cannibalism.
       For several years after its initial invasion, the group 
     terrorized the Sierra Leonean countryside, periodically 
     closing in on Freetown and being pushed back by a succession 
     of military dictators. And then in 1996, something remarkable 
     happened--a burgeoning civil-society movement, backed by the 
     United States and led largely by women's groups, rose up 
     against Sierra Leone's military overlords and cleared the way 
     for the country's first presidential elections since 1967. 
     The RUF did its best to keep people from the polls--chopping 
     off the hands of would-be voters--but almost two-thirds of 
     the electorate cast ballots nonetheless, electing as 
     president Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, a longtime U.N. official. After 
     the election, hundreds of Sierra Leoneans danced outside the 
     U.S. embassy in Freetown in gratitude for America's support.
       The euphoria did not last long. In May 1997, 14 months 
     after Kabbah's election, disgruntled government soldiers--
     known as ``sobels'' because of their collaboration with the 
     rebels--staged a coup, forcing Kabbah into exile in Guinea. 
     The coup leaders invited the RUF into their junta, suspended 
     Sierra Leone's constitution, emptied Freetown's prison of its 
     worst criminals, and literally held the city's residents 
     hostage, placing artillery in the hills around the capital 
     and threatening to bombard the civilians below if removed 
     from power.
       No one expected the United States to send troops to restore 
     democracy; this was, after all, Africa. But it didn't need 
     to. Nigeria, a country that long fancied itself the region's 
     hegemon, already had its own intervention force in Sierra 
     Leone under the auspices of an organization called ECOMOG, 
     the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring 
     Group.
       While Nigeria, a country in perpetual economic crisis, 
     spent some $1 million per day battling the criminal regime in 
     Freetown, several mid-level State Department Africa hands 
     began lobbying their superiors to request funds from Congress 
     to bolster ECOMOG's work. But the administration refused, 
     saying such a request was pointless because Congress would 
     say no. And, while the Clintonites were right that the 
     Republican Congress wasn't usually enamored of foreign aid, 
     the struggle for Sierra Leone might have offered the 
     administration an opportunity to put its vaunted commitment 
     to Africa into action. Indeed, several sympathetic members of 
     Congress--Republicans and Democrats--even urged the State 
     Department to challenge Congress to rise to the occasion. But 
     the challenge never came. ``It was totally bizarre,'' says 
     one person with knowledge of the internal squabbling. ``A 
     decision was made that the State Department was just not 
     going to ask for it.''
       In fact, not only did the Bureau of African Affairs not 
     request additional money from Congress, it didn't even spend 
     the money Congress had already given it. For months, $3.9 
     million sat unspent in the bureau's budget for voluntary 
     peacekeeping operations. In February 1998, ECOMOG liberated 
     Freetown and restored Kabbah to power--proving that the RUF's 
     child soldiers were no match for a bona fide adult military. 
     As the rebels streamed back into the countryside, The 
     Nigerians saw an opportunity to finish them off for good. But 
     ECOMOG lacked the resources to take the war into the Sierra 
     Leonean hinterland, and still no money came from the Clinton 
     administration. ``The only way they [ECOMOG soldiers] could 
     eat is because the people of Sierra Leone gave them food and 
     places to sleep,'' says one U.S. official. By spring, the 
     window of opportunity had closed. The RUF, freshly resupplied 
     by Liberia, was back on the offensive with a campaign of 
     systematic killing, mutilating, and raping called Operation 
     No Living Thing. In late May, long after it could have made a 
     real difference, the administration finally allocated the 
     $3.9 million to ECOMOG.
       Nigeria, visibly tiring of its proxy war, began to look for 
     a way out, and the United States faced an even starker 
     version of the same dilemma it had confronted all along. It 
     could make a major financial and political commitment, in 
     conjunction with the Nigerians or others, to save a fledgling 
     democratic government too weak to save itself. Or it could 
     abandon that government, leaving Sierra Leone to Sankoh and 
     his child butchers--because, after all, Sierra Leone did not 
     remotely affect America's vital national interest. The 
     Clintonites, typically, did neither. Against all the evidence 
     that Sierra Leone could be saved from the RUF only through 
     war, the Clinton administration set out to make peace. In 
     early spring 1998, a group of U.S. policymakers gathered on 
     the sixth floor of the State Department to plot

[[Page H6420]]

     strategy. One senior official summarized their goal: ``We 
     need to appear to be doing something.''
       To make peace with Foday Sankoh and the RUF, the 
     Clintonites had to go through Sankoh's political godfather, 
     Liberian dictator Charles Taylor. Taylor and Sankoh attended 
     the same school--a Libyan secret-service camp known as al-
     Mathabh al-Thauriya al-Alamiya (World Revolutionary 
     Headquarters), a sort of university for revolutionary 
     guerrillas from all over Africa. When they met, Taylor had 
     recently returned from the United States, where he had 
     escaped from a prison in Plymouth, Massachusetts, while 
     awaiting extradition back to Liberia on charges of 
     embezzlement. Sankoh, imprisoned in the '70s for his role in 
     plotting a coup, had been working as an itinerant 
     photographer in the Sierra Leonean countryside. Each man 
     dreamed of overthrowing his native government, and they 
     pledged to help each other do so.
       Taylor got his chance first, on Christmas Eve 1989, when he 
     launched a civil war that would become a model for Sankoh's a 
     year and a half later. One of Taylor's first military 
     innovations was his creation of the Small Boys Unit, a 
     battalion of intensely loyal child soldiers who were fed 
     crack cocaine and referred to Taylor as ``our father.'' Soon, 
     refugees from the Liberian countryside began recounting 
     stories of horrific cruelty. Taylor's soldiers were seeking 
     out pregnant women and placing bets on the sex of their 
     unborn children. Then they would rip open the woman's wombs 
     and tear out the babies to see who was right. Evidence of 
     cannibalism also began to trickle out. One soldier told 
     Reuters, ``We rip the hearts from their living bodies and put 
     them on the fire, then eat them.'' A Liberian human rights 
     organization claimed cannibalism in Taylor-controlled 
     territory was so widespread that ``there is fear of 
     persecution based on one's fitness for consumption.'' 
     Taylor's own defense minister accused him of taking part in 
     the practice himself.
       By 1991, Liberia looked a lot like Sierra Leone would look 
     seven years later. Troops from ECOMOG defended a weak 
     government in the capital, Monrovia, while Taylor controlled 
     the other 90 percent of the country. Taylor developed a vast 
     warlord economy, selling off Liberia's minerals and raw 
     materials, trafficking in hashish, and reportedly reaping an 
     annual income of about $250 million. But he wanted to expand 
     his lucrative empire even further--to include the diamond 
     mines just across the border in Sierra Leone. What's more, he 
     wanted revenge against Sierra Leone, which had served as a 
     base for the ECOMOG troops that were preventing his total 
     victory in Liberia.
       So he kept his deal with Sankoh. In March 1991, a number of 
     Taylor's fiercest fighters accompanied Sankoh and the 
     fledgling RUF into Sierra Leone, where they headed straight 
     for the diamond mines. Taylor appointed Sankoh ``governor of 
     Sierra Leone,'' and his soldiers jokingly referred to Sierra 
     Leone as their Kuwait. Sankoh frequently visited Taylor at 
     his headquarters in the Liberian town of Gbarnga.
       And then in 1996, with Liberia in ashes and 13 failed peace 
     agreements--``[Taylor] reneged on all of them,'' says a 
     former senior State Department official--Taylor offered his 
     Sierra Leonean protege the ultimate lesson in the politics of 
     terror: he took power. Taylor agreed to stand for election. 
     He had the largest army and the most money, and he made it 
     clear that if he did not win, he would resume the killing. A 
     country exhausted by war elected him president. During the 
     run-up to the vote, Taylor's child soldiers took to the 
     streets, chanting what became his unofficial campaign slogan: 
     ``He killed my pa. He killed my ma. I'll vote for him.''
       To bring ``peace'' to Sierra Leone, the Clinton 
     administration first had to show that Sankoh and Taylor were 
     men with whom one could legitimately do business. ``Their 
     whole policy was to `mainstream' them--that was the word used 
     by someone at State,'' explains an aide to the House 
     International Relations Committee. ``If you treat Sankoh like 
     a statesman, he'll be one'. . . . [A State Department 
     official] used the term to explain what they had done with 
     Taylor and what they were trying to do with Foday Sankoh.'' 
     In Jesse Jackson, appointed, ``Special Envoy for the 
     President and Secretary of State for the Promotion of 
     Democracy in Africa'' in October 1997, Washington had the 
     ideal man for the job.
       Jackson first met the Liberian dictator on an official trip 
     to West Africa in February 1998. Taylor, worried that 
     Jackson, like prior American diplomats, would hector him 
     about human rights, invited an old Liberian friend of 
     Jackson's named Romeo Horton to brief him on America's new 
     envoy. Horton says Jackson and Taylor's meeting went 
     extremely well. ``Instead of meeting an adversary,'' says 
     Horton, Taylor ``met a friend.'' The following month, when 
     Clinton toured Africa, Jackson arranged a 30-minute phone 
     call between the two leaders from Air Force One. Upon 
     returning home, Jackson organized a conference on 
     ``reconciliation'' for Liberians at his PUSH headquarters in 
     Chicago. According to Harry Greaves Jr., co-founder of a 
     Liberian opposition party, who attended the Chicago 
     conference, ``The message was, `[Taylor's] been elected, and 
     let's give him a chance.' It's all about p.r., and Jackson is 
     part of that campaign.'' As Leslie Cole, an old friend of 
     Taylor's, wrote to the new president soon after Jackson's 
     conference, ``Getting Jesse on the bandwagon was a good and 
     smart idea.''
       So it's not surprising that by the time Jackson began the 
     diplomatic push that would lead to Lome, he and Taylor were 
     giving the same advice to the democratic government of Sierra 
     Leone: Cut a deal with the RUF. In November 1998, Jackson 
     traveled to West Africa again, meeting with Taylor and Kabbah 
     in Guinea and then, in Freetown, with Kabbah alone. During 
     his five-hour stop in Sierra Leone, Jackson, who arrived just 
     days after fresh reports that the RUF was beheading children 
     and disemboweling pregnant women, urged Kabbah to make 
     concessions to the rebels. ``The government must reach out to 
     these RUF in the bush battlefield,'' Jackson told Sierra 
     Leonean leaders. Much of Freetown believed otherwise. ``Think 
     again, Jackson, the RUF is not a civilized body to be 
     trusted,'' implored one prominent newspaper. A local 
     journalist asked Jackson why he was telling Sierra Leoneans 
     to negotiate with the RUF when the public was against it. ``I 
     remember very clearly what he said,'' says Zainab Bangura, a 
     prominent member of Freetown's democracy movement. `` `That 
     is what leadership is about: to mold public opinion, not to 
     follow public opinion.' '' Sierra Leone's current ambassador 
     to the United States, John Leigh, remembers Jackson's trip 
     well. ``When he went to Sierra Leone in 1998,'' Leigh says, 
     ``what he was doing was pushing Charles Taylor's position.''
       Seven weeks after Jackson departed, as Bangura put it 
     recently, ``All hell broke loose.'' The ``hell'' was the 
     January 1999 RUF assault on Freetown, which, hard as it is to 
     believe, set a new standard for rebel atrocities. 
     Capitalizing on ECOMOG's weariness, the RUF marched into the 
     capital surrounded by a human shield of civilians that 
     prevented the Nigerians from launching an effective 
     counterattack. Divided into squads with names like ``Burn 
     House Unit,'' ``Cut Hands Commandos,'' and ``Kill Man No 
     Blood Unit'' (the last group specialized in beating people to 
     death without spilling blood), the RUF burned down houses 
     with their occupants still inside, hacked off limbs, gouged 
     out eyes with knives, raped children, and gunned down scores 
     of people in the streets. In three weeks, the RUF killed some 
     6,000 people, mostly civilians. When the rebels were finally 
     forced from the city by an ECOMOG counterattack, they burned 
     down while blocks as they left and abducted thousands of 
     children, boys and girls who would become either soldiers or 
     sex slaves.
       Incredibly, the Clintonites didn't abandon their efforts to 
     ``mainstream'' the RUF in the weeks following the attack; 
     they intensified them. In February, just weeks after the 
     assault, the State Department hosted the RUF's ``legal 
     representative,'' Omrie Golley, for talks in Washington. 
     While Golley was at the State Department, Deputy Assistant 
     Secretary of State for African Affairs Howard Jeter organized 
     a phone call between him and Kabbah, establishing the first 
     formal contact between the government and the rebels. Golley 
     remembers the experience fondly. In contrast to the British, 
     who he says treated his group with disdain, Golley gushes 
     that he ``was always very impressed with the American 
     approach to the whole conflict.''
       Golley also met with New Jersey Representative Donald 
     Payne, probably the most important member of Congress on 
     Africa policy. Within the Congressional Black Caucus, it is 
     common knowledge that members take their cues on Africa from 
     Payne. And, given the overriding importance of domestic 
     politics--particularly domestic racial politics--on the 
     Clinton administration's Africa policy, Payne wields 
     substantial influence.
       Among Capitol Hill Africa specialists, Payne's sympathy for 
     Taylor and Sankoh is the stuff of legend. In February 1999, 
     for instance, after his meeting with Golley, Payne wrote to 
     Kabbah imploring him to pursue negotiations with Sankoh, who 
     had been temporarily captured by the government and was 
     actually awaiting execution for treason, even while the RUF 
     continued the war. ``[S]uccessful negotiations must be 
     without precondition and include the permanent release of Mr. 
     Foday Sankoh,'' Payne wrote. ``That letter is exactly what 
     Charles Taylor was saying at the same time in Liberia. He was 
     saying Sankoh should be freed,'' says Ambassador Leigh. 
     ``That letter that Payne wrote to President Kabbah is exactly 
     the type of agreement that the State Department pressed 
     Kabbah to accept.'' And, indeed, Sankoh was released as part 
     of the run-up to Lome.
       On the House Africa Subcommittee, where Payne is the 
     ranking Democrat, both Republican and Democratic staff 
     members say he has bashed ecomog and questioned whether 
     Taylor was really aiding the RUF. In May of last year, Payne 
     fought to remove from a resolution language accusing Liberia 
     and other countries of supporting the rebels, even after the 
     State Department formally acknowledged that Taylor 
     ``continues to actively support the rebels in Sierra Leone, 
     including the provision of arms and ammunition.'' Says one 
     Democratic aide, ``Whenever there is talk of sanctioning 
     Taylor or of threatening Liberia . . . Mr. Payne is always 
     the first one to jump to their defense.'' Former Liberian 
     Ambassador to the United States Rachel Diggs says Taylor 
     ``had free access to Don Payne and Jesse Jackson . . . 
     whenever there was a problem, these were the people whose ear 
     Taylor had in the U.S. and who had his ear in Liberia.''
       Indeed, Payne's relationship with Taylor goes back to the 
     early '80s, when Taylor was in jail in Massachusetts and 
     Payne, then a member of the Newark municipal council,

[[Page H6421]]

     spoke out against his extradition to Liberia. Payne says he 
     was simply helping Taylor at the behest of a friend and 
     didn't actually meet the Liberian until 1997, when he 
     attended Taylor's presidential inauguration in Monrovia. But 
     since then the two men have clearly become friends. One 
     visitor to Payne's office tells of watching the congressman 
     hang up the phone with Taylor and remark that the Liberian 
     president had just told him he was tired of dealing with 
     Jeter, the U.S. envoy for Liberia. (Taylor is known to 
     dislike Jeter, once referring to him as a ``burnt-out'' 
     diplomat.) Taylor suggested that Payne become the U.S. envoy 
     instead. ``What surprised me was that Payne didn't say 
     anything,'' says the visitor. ``He seemed flattered.'' Payne 
     says he does not remember any such conversation. At one 
     point, according to an associate of Payne's, the New Jersey 
     congressman jokingly complained that he was getting so many 
     calls from Taylor that he was tired of talking to him. Payne 
     insists he has talked on the phone to Taylor no more than 
     half a dozen times.
       Within three months of Golley's February 1999 visit to the 
     State Department and the congressional offices of Donald 
     Payne, the phone call initiated by Howard Jeter had led to a 
     government/RUF cease-fire. With striking unanimity, Sierra 
     Leonean intellectuals believe that Kabbah, a rather weak 
     president, agreed to the cease-fire under pressure from 
     Jackson and against the advice of some of his ministers and 
     prominent members of civil society. Days before the 
     ceasefire, Jackson and Kabbah met up in Ghana, where both 
     were attending a conference. From Ghana, Jackson abruptly 
     flew Kabbah to the talks in Lome, Togo, where the cease-fire 
     agreement was signed. One Freetown newspaper even reported 
     that Kabbah was ``kidnapped'' by Jackson. ``The story was,'' 
     explains Zainab Bangura, ``that he was kidnapped, because 
     [Kabbah] went [to the conference in Ghana] with his finance 
     minister and information minister''--at the time both men 
     were thought to be against signing the agreement--``and they 
     all went to the airport to go to fly to Lome, and Jesse 
     Jackson said there were no seats for them. So they didn't 
     go.''
       The cease-fire paved the way for the Lome peace talks 
     themselves. And, once again, the United States took the lead. 
     U.S. Ambassador to Sierra Leone Joseph Melrose was a constant 
     presence at the negotiating table. ``They oversaw the whole 
     peace talks,'' says Abu Brima, who attended as the leader of 
     a delegation representing Sierra Leonean civil society. 
     ``Melrose was very, very active and literally kind of led it, 
     I would say.'' Bangura adds: ``Every time the talks were 
     about to fall apart, Melrose would fly over to Freetown to 
     pressure the president.'' According to Leigh, Melrose's ``job 
     was to soften the Sierra Leonean delegation to accept the 
     agreement.'' The Clinton administration even sent a technical 
     team, led by a USAID official named Sylvia Fletcher, that 
     actually drafted parts of the accord.
       The final agreement at Lome, signed on July 7, 1999, 
     awarded the RUF four ministerial posts, made Sankoh vice 
     president, placed him in charge of a new commission to 
     oversee Sierra Leone's diamonds, and granted the RUF blanket 
     amnesty for all crimes. After the agreement was signed, 
     Fletcher and Melrose held meetings establishing the diamond 
     commission--which included Sankoh, members of Kabbah's 
     government, and representatives from De Beers and other 
     diamond companies--at the U.S. embassy. As one U.S. 
     government official put it, ``The message we sent with Lome 
     is that you can terrorize your way to power.''
       For close to a year, the Lome agreement did what the 
     Clinton administration hoped it would do. With articles on 
     pages A17 and A6, respectively, The Washington Post and The 
     New York Times announced the accord and ushered Sierra Leone 
     off their pages--another peace process successfully brokered 
     by an administration committed to the well-being of Africa. 
     As Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan 
     Rice bragged last September, ``the U.S. role in Sierra Leone 
     . . . has been instrumental. With hands-on efforts by the 
     president's special envoy Jesse Jackson, Ambassador Joe 
     Melrose, and many others, the United States brokered the 
     cease-fire and helped steer Sierra Leone's rebels, the Kabbah 
     government, and regional leaders to the negotiating table.''
       It probably wouldn't even have mattered that Sankoh refused 
     to disarm--of the estimated 10,000 children fighting for the 
     RUF, only about 1,700 were turned over to demobilization 
     camps, as required--or that he continued the illicit diamond-
     trading that Lome was meant to stop. If Lome had simply 
     unraveled quietly--even if Sankoh had followed his mentor in 
     Liberia and grabbed complete power himself--it is unlikely 
     that Sierra Leone would have made the American front pages. 
     The Clinton administration would still have accomplished much 
     of what it set out to do at that meeting on the sixth floor 
     of the State Department in spring 1998.
       But this May, in an ironic twist of fate, Sierra Leone 
     leapt from the shadows into the world spotlight. Lome had 
     achieved one of the RUF's central goals--the exit of the 
     stubborn Nigerians. The U.N. peacekeepers who took their 
     place--sent from countries like India, Jordan, Kenya, and 
     Ghana--were ill-equipped and bound by the timid U.N. rules of 
     engagement. And, as soon as they ventured into the RUF's 
     diamond heartland, the rebels stole their weapons and 
     vehicles and held them hostage for several weeks. The 
     humiliating standoff brought Lome crashing down in full 
     public view. And U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's 
     desperate appeals for Western countries to send troops to 
     reinforce his peacekeepers called global attention to the 
     very point the Clinton administration had worked so hard to 
     conceal: Its unwillingness to sacrifice anything real on 
     behalf of the people of Sierra Leone. Instead of soldiers, 
     the United States once again sent Jesse Jackson. But, by this 
     time, Jackson was so bitterly despised in Freetown that the 
     Sierra Leonean government told him it could not guarantee his 
     safety. One group of prominent Sierra Leonean democracy 
     activists warned Jackson, ``Our people will greet your 
     presence in the country with contempt, and we'll encourage 
     them to mount massive demonstrations in protest.'' During a 
     conference call with Freetown leaders in which he tried to 
     explain himself, Jackson was openly attacked as a RUF 
     ``collaborator.'' His trip to Sierra Leone was canceled.
       Today, a year after Lome, the U.N. hostages have finally 
     been freed. Foday Sankoh has even been captured and will 
     likely be tried as a war criminal. President Kabbah's 
     government is defended by a shaky coalition of citizen 
     militias, government soldiers, former RUF collaborators, U.N. 
     troops, and, most importantly, military advisers from Great 
     Britain--the only Western power to heed Annan's call. 
     Sankoh's apparent replacement has been given sanctuary in 
     Liberia by Taylor, who continues to arm the RUF. The rebels 
     still control much of the Sierra Leonean countryside, and 
     there are widespread rumors of an imminent RUF attack on 
     Freetown. If the British leave, an attack is all but certain.
       At the National Summit on Africa in February, President 
     Clinton said, ``We can no longer choose not to know. We can 
     only choose not to act, or to act. In this world, we can be 
     indifferent, or we can make a difference. America must 
     choose, when it comes to Africa, to make a difference.'' 
     Sophisticated people understand what this kind of talk, 
     coming from this administration, means. And the people of 
     Sierra Leone, who now count prostheses as one of their 
     country's chief imports, have become sophisticated. In fact, 
     in recent months Sierra Leonean exiles in Washington have 
     increasingly allied themselves with Republicans like New 
     Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg. It's a remarkable turn of 
     events, given that Gregg and his ilk are isolationists--men 
     who say forthrightly that America has no important interests 
     in Africa, can't successfully export its method of government 
     there, and shouldn't waste blood or money trying. After eight 
     years of the Clinton administration, it seems, the people of 
     Sierra Leone no longer expect very much from the United 
     States. They're willing to settle for truth.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has 
2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has the 
right to close.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say to my colleagues before the vote here, this is a motion to 
disapprove of the President's waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to 
the U.S. Trade Relations Act. Right now, all of us can trade with 
China. There is no problem there. You or I could go out to trade with 
them. All corporations can trade with them. But under this motion, we 
are saying yes to disapprove of the President's waiver. What he wants 
to do is continue this waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment so that 
basically when businesses go into China, they are subsidized by U.S. 
taxpayers, agricultural subsidies, Ex-Import Bank subsidies and a 
myriad of these subsidies that helps businesses when they go in. But 
when the taxpayer goes into business for himself, does he get support 
and subsidies from the government? No.
  So all we are saying today, vote yes on this motion to prohibit this 
waiver by the President of the Jackson-Vanik amendment and let these 
businesses continue to go in and continue to do business but not at the 
taxpayers' expense. I think we have heard plenty of arguments to show 
during this vigorous debate that there are human rights issues, that 
there are espionage issues, that there is the hiring of these Chinese 
technicians in this country to work on related military dual use 
technologies issues. Our relationship is moving along and in some ways 
it is bad and in some ways it is good, but I do not think the American 
taxpayers should be forced to subsidize businesses that go in. I ask 
for a ``yes'' on the motion to disapprove of the President's waiver of 
the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) is 
recognized for up to 10 minutes.

[[Page H6422]]

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard expressions here on the floor 
today as we have heard in the past during our debates on this issue of 
persecution of Christians, Muslims and other groups in China which is a 
legitimate and serious concern. However, the U.S. can be most effective 
in advancing religious freedom by expanding our engagement with the 
Chinese people and by continuing to press Beijing to respect the rights 
of Chinese believers.
  World religious leaders, including the Reverend Billy Graham, the 
Reverend Pat Robertson, the Dalai Lama, the American Friends Committee, 
Father Robert Drinan, the National Council of Churches, Rabbi Arthur 
Schneier and Reverend Don Argue with the National Association of 
Evangelicals see continued U.S. engagement with China as key to 
promoting religious freedom. Two years ago, the Chinese Service 
Coordinating Committee, an umbrella group for U.S. religious agencies 
working in China, said ``a public Christian stance against MFN status 
for China is not in the interest of the church in China, and will 
seriously hamper the efforts of Christians from outside China who have 
spent years seeking to establish an effective Christian witness among 
the Chinese people.''
  Religious activity of all types is flourishing as ordinary Chinese 
reach out for new forms of belief. Unofficially, it is estimated that 
there are now 30 to 60 million Chinese Protestants, 6 million 
Catholics, 17 million Muslims, and 100 million Buddhists.
  The present situation stands in stark contrast to the post-Communist 
revolution China of the 1950s when religious activity was harshly 
suppressed. The situation worsened even further during the Cultural 
Revolution when many churches were closed and church properties were 
seized.
  Engagement with China has made it possible to disseminate Bibles and 
religious literature to Chinese citizens. World Pulse, a publication of 
the Billy Graham Center, has 250,000 readers in China. East Gates 
International, a Christian organization, publishes and distributes 
religious materials in China and reports that ``expanding U.S. economic 
ties with China and especially China's admittance to the World Trade 
Organization will continue to benefit religious organizations working 
in China.''

                              {time}  1500

  While some, indeed, believe the annual Normal Trade Relation votes 
can be used as leverage, U.S. religious groups who are actively engaged 
in evangelical work in China believe such threats are highly 
counterproductive.
  Threatening U.S. economic sanctions in the name of religion creates 
an impression that religion is being used as a tool of U.S. foreign 
policy and undermines their work in China. Recently pastors of key 
house churches in China, many of whom have served time in prison for 
their beliefs, urged Congress to approve Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations.
  We in the House have already taken that action as everyone knows, and 
it is the absence of completion of that work still that causes us to go 
through this annual renewal procedure, but the annual renewal procedure 
is consistent with what we did recently when the House overwhelmingly 
supported granting mainland China Permanent Normal Trade Relations, and 
we should.
  In this instance, on today's resolution, all vote no to reject it 
overwhelmingly and be insistent with what we have done thus far.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution to 
disapprove annual normal trade relations (NTR) with China. 
Unfortunately, we should have debated the one year extension in May, 
instead of the harmful bill that will give permanent normal trade 
relations (PNTR) trade status to China's barbaric regime, and will 
ensure that multinational corporations have the investment protection 
they need to exploit China's cheap labor. China doesn't deserve annual 
normal trade relations status and it definitely doesn't deserve the 
permanent normal trade relations status the House approved in May. 
Regardless of how the House voted on PNTR, I will take this opportunity 
to tell my colleagues and the American people why the People's Republic 
of China (PRC) does not deserve normal trade privileges with the United 
States--for the next year or permanently.
  Just one month after the House voted to give China PNTR, the New York 
Times reported that China continues to aid Pakistan in its efforts to 
build long-range missiles that could carry nuclear weapons. China plays 
by its own rules and doesn't adhere to the rules of the international 
community. The United States wouldn't need to monitor the regional 
tension between India and Pakistan if China worked toward a mutual goal 
of nonproliferation. Instead, China provokes Pakistan with transfers of 
nuclear technology and exacerbates tensions between the two countries.
  Senator Thompson is trying to force a vote on his bill to monitor 
China's nuclear proliferation activities with greater scrutiny and 
applies sanctions if China is found proliferating weapons of mass 
destruction. Unfortunately, Senator Thompson is finding resistance from 
his own party that does not link PNTR with a nonproliferation bill.
  We saw what happened when the Administration decided to de-link trade 
and human rights for China. Human rights abuses in China worsened yet 
China has been allowed to export their cheap sneakers to the United 
States.
  Tens of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained, 
tortured and now are being committed to Chinese mental institutions for 
the mere expression of their faith. The Chinese government claims that 
Falun Gong is a religious cult not approved by the state. The state 
does not approve peaceful meditation, but it does approve torture and 
forced abortions. The Chinese government does not approve Roman 
Catholicism, but the sale of executed prisoner's kidneys is perfectly 
acceptable to the PRC. The United States cannot allow this barbaric 
government to harm its own people without facing some sort of 
punishment. Withholding annual normal trade relations should be that 
punishment.
  China is the biggest producer of ozone layer-destroying 
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and will soon surpass the United States as 
the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. The United States suffers from 
China's earth-destroying practices. The United States spends $3 billion 
annually on cataract operations and billions more on treating skin 
cancer cases due to the destruction of the earth's protective ozone 
layer. China's irreverence for environmental standards is reflective of 
its irreverence for human life. This is unacceptable in the 21st 
Century. China must be held accountable for its actions--human rights 
violations, labor rights violations, trade violations, weapons 
proliferation and environmental violations must be scrutinized and the 
annual NTR debate is the forum for scrutiny.
  Withholding annual NTR will send a clear signal to Beijing that the 
United States does not condone its inhumane actions. Opposing the 
annual NTR extensions will tell China that the United States is willing 
to hold the PRC accountable. China must pay a price for its actions, 
and that price should be United States trade. I urge my colleagues to 
support disapproval of extending NTR status to China yet again.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, again I come to the floor to debate the 
issue of trade with China. In no way should the United States' 
continued engagement with China be seen as a reward for its horrendous 
human rights violations. As co-chairman of the Congressional Human 
Rights Caucus, I am all too familiar with the human rights violations 
which the government of China practices everyday against so many of its 
own citizens. From the Falun Gong to the Catholic Bishops, to the 
Tibetan Buddhist and the Uighur Muslims, this past year has seen 
China's continued persecution of its minorities.
  I strongly believe that for change to come about and for democracy to 
take hold in China, the citizens of China must be exposed to democratic 
ideals and other Western values. Today, these very ideals are taking 
root throughout China. They are taking place because of our current 
policy of engagement, one on one, business to business, client to 
customer. Information is also being spread by important U.S. programs, 
such as Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America. Slowly, attitudes and 
actions are changing. The Chinese people want freedoms: freedom of 
religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. We know these ideals 
are slowly taking hold. This is evident though radio Free Asia's call-
in listen program which is overburdened every day with thousands of 
citizens risking their lives to express their views, which is currently 
prohibited by the Chinese government. If the United States wants to see 
true change in China, see freedoms enjoyed by all throughout the 
country, programs such as Radio Free Asia must continue to exist and 
must be expanded so they can reach a greater audience.
  If we hope to bring stability and democracy to Asia, we must not turn 
our backs on the largest country in the world. We must continue to work 
with the Administration in pressuring the Chinese government to release 
all political prisoners including Rebiya Kadeer, a Uighur businesswomen 
jailed earlier this year, and to allow the Dali Lama to return to 
Tibet. We

[[Page H6423]]

must also continue to support worthwhile, effective endeavors current 
in place, including Radio Fred Asia. I hold out hope that greater 
involvement in the world community will one day bring out respect for 
human rights and the rule of law in China.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the passage of 
H.J. Res. 103 and deny the extension of Normal Trade Relations with 
China.
  I believe that we are all shaped by our life experiences. We are all 
influenced by the lessons from our youth.
  For me, post-World War II Chicago was a unique place and time to grow 
up. At home, in school, in church, and in the ballfields, we learned 
the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, friends and 
enemies.
  Our parents taught us the value of hard work and discipline. When we 
played 16-inch softball, we knew the rules, and we played by them. It 
was wrong to cheat, and cheaters were punished. In school, we learned 
about our nation's history. In the schoolyards, we learned who were our 
friends and who weren't. In church, we learned about God, morality, and 
right and wrong. When I grew up, we learned to love and honor this 
nation and all that it stands for.
  I value those simple lessons from my youth that remain with me to 
this day, which is why I opposed NTR for China.
  The Communist leaders in Beijing do not play by our rules. They do 
not act as friends. They do not act in the interest of peace and 
prosperity for all.
  Instead, they point missiles at the democratic island of Taiwan and 
U.S. military bases on Japan, break trade agreements with the U.S., 
sell nuclear and other dangerous weapon technologies to the highest 
bidder, practice forced abortions, throw democratic activists into 
jail, ignore human rights, and set up concentration camps.
  We do not trade with other totalitarian regimes.
  Do we have NTR with North Korea?
  Do we have NTR with Serbia?
  Do we have NTR with Cuba?
  No, no, and no.
  Then why should China get it?
  That is the question I pose to my colleagues today. Think about the 
lessons from our youth. Think about the logic of trading with China. 
Think about what it means for this nation and our ideals.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not someone who seeks out confrontation and 
conflict with anyone. I do not believe that the U.S. should carelessly 
start needless fights in this world. But we must protect our interests. 
We must protect our ideals. We must protect our principles.
  I can see a day in the future where we can freely and fairly trade 
with a friendly and democratic China. I can see a day in the future 
where China acts as our friend in promoting peace and prosperity.
  I want to see such a day happen, but until the day that China becomes 
a democracy that is for the people and by the people, until China stops 
pointing missiles at the U.S. and Taiwan, until China honors its trade 
agreements, until China starts to respect basic human rights, I will 
continue to fight against giving a blank NTR check to China.
  Vote for this resolution and against NTR for China.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, July 17, 2000, the 
joint resolution is considered read for amendment and the previous 
question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and the third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 147, 
nays 281, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 405]

                               YEAS--147

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton
     Capuano
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Evans
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Mascara
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Ney
     Norwood
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pombo
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sisisky
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--281

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boswell
     Campbell
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Smith (WA)
     Vento

                              {time}  1525

  Messrs. NUSSLE, ARMEY, DeLAY, CUNNINGHAM, MALONEY of Connecticut, 
GONZALEZ, GARY MILLER

[[Page H6424]]

of California, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Ms. NAPOLITANO, Mrs. BIGGERT, Ms. 
SLAUGHTER and Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. CAPUANO, FRANK of Massachusetts, LIPINSKI, GUTIERREZ, BARTON 
of Texas, QUINN, Ms. LEE and Mrs. MEEK of Florida changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________