[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17806-17813]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



NO FAVORED NATION TRADE AGREEMENT FOR CHINA UNTIL CERTAIN PROMISES ARE 
                                  KEPT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sherwood). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago last month, China's 
Communist dictatorship sent its tanks and armored carriers crashing 
through the pro-democracy protest in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. 
Hundreds of innocent protesters were crushed to death, hundreds more 
were mowed down by machine gun fire, hundreds more were arrested and 
executed. The men and women who gave their lives for freedom in 
Tiananmen Square in Beijing and those who are still languishing in 
Chinese prisons are in many ways the heirs to the legacy of our 
Founding Fathers. In the days leading up to their slaughter, they 
quoted Jefferson not Mao. Their source of inspiration was not Mao's 
Little Red Book, but our Statue of Liberty.
  We all witnessed the lone man blocking those oncoming tanks. For that 
individual at that time, freedom and democracy were ideals that were 
absolutely worth dying for.
  Tonight we stand here in remembrance of that man who stood in front 
of the tank and the countless other Chinese people who chose Thomas 
Jefferson over Mao Tse-Tung. We stand here in consolation with their 
bereaved mothers and fathers who still cannot find their daughters and 
sons, whether they disappeared in Tiananmen Square or whether they 
disappeared in Tibet. But most of all, we stand in defiance to those 
who would continue to sacrifice the freedom and democracy for the 
Chinese people on the alter of free trade.
  Wei Jingshang, a democracy activist that spent nearly two decades in 
Chinese prison for his political beliefs once told me that American 
corporate executives, not Chinese spies, not Mao Tse-Tung, not the 
thugs who run the slave labor camps, but that American corporate 
executives are the vanguard of the Chinese Communist Party revolution 
in the United States. He is right. There is no issue before Congress 
that has lobbied more heavily than giving the People's Republic of 
China continued trading privileges, and while virtually every Nation, 
other Nation in the world retains Washington lobbyists to do their 
bidding, China relies on the business community to do its heavy lifting 
in this city.
  Every year, when we debate most favored nation status for China, 
every year when we debate this issue, American CEO's stream into Ronald 
Reagan

[[Page 17807]]

Airport seeking special favors for the world's worst abuser of human 
rights. They are helped by former government officials, high-ranking 
American former government officials that know how the machinery of our 
government operates including former Secretary of State Henry 
Kissinger, former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills, and former 
U.S. Commerce Secretary Mickey Cantor.
  For those who do not agree with my assessment, I recommend you 
contact the editors of Fortune Magazine who, this fall, are sponsoring 
a 3-day business trip to Shanghai. This trip including dinner with 
President Jiang Zemin and a luncheon with Henry Kissinger will outline 
and thank these American business corporations, these American 
corporate executives, for their work in China. After the conclusion of 
their gala in Shanghai, many of these corporate CEO's plan the next 
day, October 1 of this year, to go to Beijing and celebrate with 
Communist party leadership the 50th anniversary of the founding of the 
People's Republic of China, the 50th anniversary of the victory of 
communism in China.
  Just think about that. American corporate leaders, some of the 
wealthiest, most successful, most well-paid corporate leaders in the 
United States will travel to Beijing and stand and sit at Tiananmen 
Square with leaders of the Communist Party revolution celebrating 50 
years of communist rule in China and celebrating frankly, maybe 
implicitly, but frankly celebrating the deaths of those hundreds and 
hundreds, maybe thousands of demonstrators for democracy that were 
following Thomas Jefferson, not Mao Tse-Tung.
  But much of the equipment on display as they sit in Beijing and watch 
this parade in Tiananmen Square, that much of the equipment on display 
on October 1 of this year they know has been financed by China's 
enormous bilateral trade surplus and incorporated stolen U.S. 
technology. Apparently, that is of little concern to America's most 
prosperous and well-paid CEOs.
  After all, these CEOs and their Wall Street allies do not seem to 
care much if the shelves at the Lorain, Ohio, K-mart are lined with 
goods manufactured by Chinese prison labor. Their lawyers in Washington 
do not care much if Chinese workers are imprisoned for trying to form 
unions. And these well-paid CEO's do not seem to care much that some of 
these companies that they contract with in China are paying Chinese 
workers 12 cents an hour, those that are being paid at all, not to 
mention those that are in Chinese slave labor camps and working for 
these American companies.
  But it should bother all of us that after 10 years, that 10 years 
after the slaughter at Tiananmen Square, American citizens, some of our 
wealthiest corporate leaders that benefit from living in a free and 
open society, will be actively celebrating communism in China and, at 
the same time, actively celebrating the demise of democracy in China, 
the harsh realities at the ongoing genocide in Tibet, the continued 
arrest and torture of democracy activists, the proliferation of nuclear 
technology in North Korea, the forced abortions conducted by Chinese 
Communist leaders, the persecution of Christians and Buddhists and all 
religions in China; none of this seems much to matter to the leaders of 
our corporate community in this country.
  To this I say the most effective way to toughen our relationship with 
China is to deny it special trading privileges. Every year, many of us 
have prodded the Republican leadership in this body to force China to 
improve its behavior before giving it preferential trade status. China 
buys, we buy from China approximately $75 billion worth of goods from 
that country every year.
  China buys from us about $12 billion worth of goods. We sell more to 
Belgium with 1/120 of the population of China, we sell more to Belgium 
in a year than we sell to China. We have a $65 billion trade deficit. 
We sell $75 billion, we buy $75 billion worth of goods from them. They 
buy $12 billion worth of goods from us. These trade benefits give 
Chinese Communist dictators the billions of dollars. Last year, it was 
nearly 60 billion, the billions of dollars and the commercial 
technology needed to modernize the People's Liberation Army.
  Yet each year, many of the same Members of Congress who are the 
loudest in their criticism of the Clinton administration's China policy 
vote to give Beijing preferential trade status. Mark my words. After 
the vote on Tuesday on MFN, after this Congress will again support the 
morally bankrupt position of the Clinton administration and the 
Republican leaders in Congress, many of those Members on the other side 
of the aisle after voting to give preferential trade status to China 
will be yelling and screaming about the President's wrong position 
admittedly, but wrong position on his whole China policy.
  Yet when it comes time to step up to the plate tomorrow and vote on 
most favored nation status, I hope they would come over and join those 
of us on both sides of the aisle that realize how corrupt this whole 
process is.
  Mr. Speaker, what we need to do before granting China special trade 
privileges is condition their behavior on something other than a whole 
series of broken promises. I am weary of continued Chinese Communist 
promises that they will behave, that they will play fair, that they 
will stop the human rights abuses, that they will stop the forced 
abortions, that they will stop the child labor, that they will stop the 
slave labor.

                              {time}  2200

  I would like to quote his mentor, Soviet leader Lenin when he said: 
``Promises are like pie crust, they are made to be broken.''
  Mr. Speaker, I asked the administration, I asked the Republican 
leadership in this body, I asked the American business community, so 
strongly supportive of MFN for China and so strongly supportive of 
World Trade Organization entry for China immediately, I asked them to 
step back and let us see if China can behave for 1 year, just only 1 
year. We should demand to see if China can stop its human rights abuses 
for only 1 year. We should demand to see if China can stop using slave 
labor for only 1 year. We should demand to see if China can stop child 
labor if only for 1 year, and we should demand that China stop 
threatening Taiwan before receiving another dollar from U.S. consumers, 
for only 1 year. We must not give China special trading privileges 
until we see proof that its Communist rulers are capable of abiding by 
the rule of law. That is all we ask, Mr. Speaker.
  Let us wait a year. Let us not give China Most Favored Nation status. 
Let us not give China these trading privileges until they can prove to 
the American people and to their workers and to their citizens and 
their country that only for 1 year they can act like most of the rest 
of the world that is integrated into this world economy and the World 
Trade Organization and throughout the world economy. Just ask for 1 
year, if China could behave itself, if China could join the League of 
Nations, to join the community of nations and act like the rest of us, 
who treat workers decently, who do not engage in human rights 
violations the way that China does.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) from the neighboring county, Cuyahoga County, who has been an 
active participant and leader in this fight against Most Favored Nation 
status for China.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is 
a pleasure to serve with the gentleman in this Congress and to call him 
neighbor.
  These economic issues which the gentleman speaks of are issues which 
affect both of our constituencies, constituencies which in many cases 
share the same economic concern, the same jobs, the same factories, the 
same concerns about their family survival. I think it is fair at this 
moment to ask, why are we renewing Most Favored Nation trading status 
to China when our trade deficit is so large that it is costing jobs in 
the United States?
  Why would we continue to allow Chinese exports to flood the American 
market when American exports to China are puny in comparison? Why

[[Page 17808]]

does this Congress vote on bills to make trade free when, by far, the 
most important part of the economy does not even involve foreign trade 
at all, but domestic product and consumption?
  A great disservice is done to the American people when so much time 
and effort is spent by the Congress making trade free for the 
corporations because it is at the expense of American residents, 
American workers, and American consumers.
  Now, contrary to what one might think by listening to those who 
support MFN for China, a global free trade agreement, international 
trade is a drag on the American economy. Most Favored Nation status or 
``normal trade relations,'' as it is being called today, means that the 
U.S. gives to China the same exact trade status that it would give to a 
tiny country or ally. But MFN with China costs more jobs than it 
creates. Moreover, foreign trade is such a small part of the economy, 
that to make policy on the basis of what promotes foreign trade is to 
make the tail wag the dog.
  Now, how many of my colleagues know that U.S. exports to foreign 
countries in 1998 accounted for only 11 percent of the gross domestic 
product? Imports account for slightly more than that. What that means 
is that 76 percent of the gross domestic product is made in the United 
States and consumed in the United States.
  To make our economy healthy, we have to promote the health of the 
domestic economy. We have to promote higher wages and a monetary policy 
that promotes full employment. But MFN for China undermines the 
domestic economy. By far, the largest component in our trade with China 
is imports. By 1998 we imported $71 billion of goods from China. That 
was $57 billion more than the exports we sent to China.
  The U.S. pays China $6, Mr. Speaker, for every $1 it earns in exports 
to China. Trade with China puts a drag on the U.S. economy, and that 
leads to lower employment and lower wages for Americans. Indeed, 
American exports to China represent only a tiny fraction of all 
American exports to the rest of the world, about 3.6 percent. But 
imports from China represent a much larger proportion of everything 
America imports from the world, around 13 percent. Imports from China 
do about 4 times more harm to the U.S. economy than exports to China do 
good for the U.S. economy.
  Furthermore, America imports more from China than any other single 
country. We consume about one-third of their exports. That should give 
the U.S. powerful leverage over China. That is because China would know 
that when the U.S. demands more democracy in China, more respect for 
human rights, better environmental protections, that the biggest 
customers continued business rise in achieving those goals. Is that 
what the U.S. does? No.
  The policy of this administration and the Congress has been to give 
up the economic leverage the U.S. has. The imbalance is so obvious we 
should ask the obvious question: If MFN for China by far benefits China 
at the expense of the United States of America, why are we giving MFN 
to China at all? Because large multinational global corporations lobby 
for it. Those corporations are seeking to promote their own business 
and profits. They see China as a good place to do business.
  When multinational corporations talk, many in Congress listen. When 
they talk about MFN for China, they are lobbying for the Chinese 
Government. The Chinese have not given up their leverage, and they use 
access to the Chinese market to influence the corporations to lobby the 
Congress for MFN for China, and here we are.
  Soon Congress will debate on this floor disallowing Most Favored 
Nation trade status for China. Giving the status is bad for the U.S. 
economy. It is bad for American workers. It is bad for American 
consumers. But it is good for Chinese manufacturers and a handful of 
U.S.-based multinational corporations.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be here when that debate comes to the floor to 
urge my colleagues to vote for the American economy and not for 
essential interests. Our steel, our automotive, our aerospace 
industries which form the pillars of our strategic industrial base are 
being threatened by this avalanche of imports from China. How are we 
going to protect the America of the future if we do not take a stand 
and demand once and for all that this country insists on having a 
strong trading policy which protects American jobs and protects the 
American economy?
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown) for this opportunity to address the Congress, and it is an honor 
to work with him on this issue, to work with such fine representatives 
as the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) 
and others who are so dedicated to protecting the future of the 
American economy. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) very much for his leadership on this issue and recognize that 
several other Members will be joining us, and I thank my colleagues for 
their involvement.
  On one point that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) said that is 
especially noteworthy is that the rules we set for China are the same 
rules, if we give them Most Favored Nation status, as it unfortunately 
is always the case, the same rules we set for a tiny country. They are 
also the same rules we set for free countries, and if we look at what 
makes China so attractive to western investors, the subsidies given by 
the government, the slave labor that the Chinese use, the child labor 
that the Chinese use, their ban on the right to freely associate, that 
workers can bargain collectively, their restriction of movement of 
workers so that workers are unhappy and cannot move somewhere else; all 
of these features that are attractive for American western investment 
in China is what should disqualify them from Most Favored Nation 
status.
  The fact is, when China pays 12 cents an hour to workers, when they 
do not follow any environmental rules, when they do not treat their 
workers well, when they do all of the kinds of things that violate 
international labor standards, they are not competitive with the rest 
of the world; no one can compete when workers are treated that way. 
That is one reason that steel workers in the United States are at a 
disadvantage and auto workers and all the people that the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I represent in northeast Ohio and so many 
others in this institution represent, when the Chinese do not play by 
the same rules as everyone else, whether it is slave labor or child 
labor or 12 cents an hour wages, not to mention forced abortions and 
religious persecution and all kinds of human rights violations, when 
they do not play by those rules, clearly, there is no reason we should 
give them trade advantages so that they can continue to take advantage 
of other countries around the world.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, if I may make this point for a moment, and 
I know we have other colleagues waiting to speak here, and I certainly 
want to yield to them, but the point that arises here is that China has 
an industrial policy, and its industrial policy is providing China with 
a kind of national cohesion, so that they can have sustained economic 
growth.
  Now, a lesser concern of China is political freedom. Think about 
that. Think about what that means. So as multinational global 
corporations make China a place to do business, China cares less about 
political freedom, they flood the United States with all of these 
imports, creating this huge deficit, so we are exporting jobs from a 
free Nation to a nation that does not have a democracy, and they are 
sending back imports here, displacing jobs of people who work in a 
democracy, thereby helping to create a condition where we are actually 
paying for the destruction of our own democracy. They are targeting 
what are our central industries in this country: electronics, 
machinery, petrochemicals, automobile manufacturing, steel, aerospace, 
construction. So I say to the gentleman his point is well taken.

[[Page 17809]]

  We have a joint concern here when it comes to looking at what this 
trade policy does. But we have two points here, and one is that the 
United States trade policy is wrong, but we need an industrial policy 
which will help to focus a trade policy which is fair; and right now, 
it is unfair and Most Favored Nation status for China would compound 
the unfairness. I yield back, and I am grateful for this chance to join 
my colleagues.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to 
Congress's foremost leader on this issue, who has a greater 
understanding of U.S.-China policy than any other Member of this body, 
and who has led the charge against Most Favored Nation status in large 
part because of her belief in fair play and human rights, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
calling this Special Order tonight. I am pleased to join my colleagues, 
the gentlemen from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and 
others I know who want to participate to talk about the issue of Normal 
Trade Relations with China, formerly known as Most Favored Nation 
status with China.

                              {time}  2215

  I guess I will start off with that point. The name has been changed, 
and not to protect the innocent.
  This policy, our U.S.-China policy has had more names. It has been 
called constructive engagement, strategic partnership, and now, most 
recently, principled purposeful engagement with our eyes wide open. Can 
Members imagine, that is what the administration calls its policy 
towards China.
  It has to remove all doubt that our eyes are wide open on this 
policy, lest someone think that we must be turning a blind eye to what 
China is doing in terms of trade, proliferation, and human rights, 
because indeed, only by turning a blind eye could one formulate this 
purposeful, so-called principled engagement with eyes wide open, 
because the policy has been a complete failure.
  There are three areas of concern, as my colleagues have pointed out: 
Human rights, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by 
China, and the trade issue.
  My distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) very 
eloquently opened his remarks by talking about the young man before the 
tank. He talked about the young people who echoed the words of our 
Founding Fathers. Many of those, indeed, hundreds of them, are still in 
prison for speaking out freely for democratic reform 10 years ago, at 
the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Thousands of people are in 
prison in China for practicing their religion. Hundreds of thousands 
are in reform through labor camps for reeducation by the Chinese.
  Mr. Speaker, just this past week over 10,000 people were arrested by 
the Chinese for practicing Falun Gong, their belief system, and whether 
we agree with it or not, it is not up to us to decide on someone else's 
religion or their spirituality, but it is inappropriate, it is wrong, 
and we as a country should be speaking out when any country detains 
10,000 people for wanting to freely associate and believe in something.
  I will go into that a little more if I have time, but having touched 
on the human rights issue, and I will talk about the proliferation 
issue in a moment, I want to talk now about the trade issue.
  What has distinguished this coalition that we have to oppose MFN for 
China, or now called normal trade relations with China, again a name 
change, is the fact that each year the President must request a special 
waiver in order for China to get whatever we want to call this special 
trade treatment that it receives. It is special for them because they 
do not have a market economy, and therefore, the President must request 
a special waiver.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has a resolution to 
deny the waiver, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes. Let me tell them 
why. Just on the basis of trade alone, how can we think about giving 
China normal trade relations when China does not give us any such 
thing?
  We have heard the statistics that in 1998, the trade deficit was 
about $58 billion with China. It is higher this year. Over $1 billion a 
week, over $1 billion a week, is lost because of China's unfair trade 
practices.
  I wanted to call to my colleagues' attention, when the business 
community comes around, and indeed they do, to tell us how trade with 
China has grown, I want to show my colleagues just how it has grown. It 
has not grown so much in terms of exports to China. In fact, our 
exports to China are practically stagnating, the increase is so 
minuscule. However, on the imports from China, the increase is so 
staggering as to to be overwhelming, as be beyond explanation.
  When we started this debate around the time of Tiananmen Square, the 
trade deficit for that year was going to be $6 billion. For this year, 
it will be over $67 billion. What is missing in this picture? Who are 
the mad geniuses who have said that if we give MFN to China year in and 
year out, our trade will increase? Yes, indeed, it has, our imports 
from China, not our exports to China.
  Our exports to China are important. As I said earlier, this is an odd 
coalition that we have going here, people who have not agreed on other 
points. By and large, I represent a city built on trade. I have voted 
for fast track under President Bush and NAFTA under President Clinton 
and the rest. But something is very wrong about a policy that allows a 
country to do this. Let me read what is considered to be normal by 
those advocates for the Chinese regime.
  They think it is normal, and do Members think it is normal, when the 
U.S. trade deficit is surging every year, again, as I said, over $67 
billion in 1999, is it normal that China continues to maintain barriers 
to U.S. goods and services entering the Chinese market, including high 
tariffs, pervasive non-tariff barriers and non-transparent barriers, 
non-transparent trade rules and regulations, restrictions on trading 
and distribution rights, restrictive government procurement practices, 
and restrictions on investment?
  I enumerate those because every possible way that we could gain 
something in trading with China is restricted to us.
  Is it normal that China continues to pirate U.S. intellectual 
property to the tune of about $2.5 billion in lost sales in 1998? That 
is not from me, that is from the International Intellectual Property 
Alliance. And China continues to utilize forced labor for production of 
exports to the United States, in violation of U.S. law.
  Is it normal that China demands technology transfer? And therein lies 
the biggest danger to our own economy's future. China demands a 
technology transfer. That is our intellectual property, too, our know-
how. That is what we tell the American worker is our economic 
competitive advantage in the international markets. Yet, China is 
demanding that that technology be transferred to China.
  So if we want to sell products in China, we must produce them there, 
okay? So that is production transfer. That is one thing. But technology 
transfer says, and besides, you have to give us all of your designs on 
what you are making. Now we are your major competitor for our own 
market. You can produce in China, but that, Mr. Chairman, will have to 
be to export to another country. We are saving the Chinese market for 
the Chinese manufacturers.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say, to compare this trade relationship, 
which is unfair in every respect, let us see what the trade deficit 
would be in a free marketplace, but do not restrict U.S. products going 
into China having high barriers, and then say that this is going to 
lead to human rights in China, it is going to lead to all these good 
things, when it is not even leading to a decent balance of payments for 
the United States.
  I just wanted to point out to my colleague another point. That is, 
all of this hoop-de-doo about all of the trade with China, just let us 
talk about the

[[Page 17810]]

exports, again. China has 1.2 billion people. Now, many, many of them 
are poor, and I always support assistance for basic human needs for 
poor people in China. So this is not about the Chinese people, it is 
about the Chinese regime.
  The Chinese regime, which controls many of the industries in China, 
to China we export 2.8 percent of our exports. Now, look over here. 
Belgium has 10 million people, 10 million people. We export 3.3 percent 
of our exports to Belgium. It is 3.3 to Belgium, 10 million people, and 
2.8 to China, 1.2 billion people.
  Let us look at Taiwan. They have 20 million people. We export 4.1 
percent of our exports to Taiwan. Get it? It is not about free trade, 
it is about barriers to products made in America going into China.
  Opponents, those who oppose our efforts tomorrow will say that we 
want to isolate China, and to vote for the Rohrabacher amendment is to 
isolate China. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, those 
who say that, and some of them in the highest places in our government, 
do a grave disservice to the issue by trying to caricaturize it that 
way.
  We certainly do not want to isolate China. Especially we do not want 
to isolate the Chinese people. The answer to every problem practically 
in our relationship with China is that the situation would be better if 
China were more democratic, if the people of China were able to choose 
their form of government, their form of worship, their form of 
assembly, their freedom of speech.
  The issue of Taiwan certainly would be better if China were more 
democratic. The issue of doing business in China would be better if 
China had rule of law. The issue of proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction to rogue states I think would be improved, too. On that 
point I will close my remarks.
  The administration and others who rationalize their support for a 
purposeful principled engagement with our eyes wide open will tell us 
that China is helping us on some very strategic issues worldwide. For 
instance, they will say that China is helping to stabilize South Asia. 
Oh, really? China is not trying to stabilize South Asia, China has 
mobilized Pakistan. Without the cooperation of the Chinese, the 
Pakistanis would not have the missile and other dangerous technologies 
that they have, and they continue to assist them, the Pakistanis. There 
is absolutely no question about that.
  So that has added to the instability in South Asia. Every time they 
agreed to stop doing it, they said they did not do it, they would stop 
doing it, would not do it anymore, and continued to do it. That started 
in the Bush years and continued in the Clinton years.
  Now we have them saying, those who support this policy, saying they 
are helping us with North Korea, to stop their missile development 
program. Either they are not trying very hard or they have failed to 
intercede, or they are not very effective. But in any case, North Korea 
is proceeding apace with its missile program, and not only that, they 
are selling to Pakistan technologies that they have received from 
China.
  So this is not about how they are helping us in North Korea. If they 
were helping in North Korea, it would be in their own interest, anyway. 
We do not have to bribe them by ignoring their human rights abuses in 
order for them to do what is right as far as North Korea is concerned, 
if they are a responsible so-called strategic partner.
  They still continue to make the Persian Gulf area a very dangerous 
neighborhood. We all know that we have a national interest in the 
Persian Gulf because of oil. We went to war because of that. Our young 
people are still in the Persian Gulf. When they are, they are looking 
right at missile technology, C-801 and C-802, sold to the Iranians by 
the Chinese, and other dangerous technology as well.
  So I think that our policy with any country should be to make the 
trade fairer, to make the people freer, and to make the world safer. On 
all three of these scores this policy has failed.
  So what we are asking our colleagues to do is, we know most-favored-
nation status, so-called normal trade relations, is not going to be 
revoked. The President would never allow that to happen. But what we 
can do tomorrow is to send a message to Beijing that the people in 
prison have not been forgotten, that we are not stupid when it comes to 
our own trade relationships. Even though the exporting elites run the 
show around here, there are some people who can add.
  Then, in terms of proliferation, our national security is at stake, 
and that we know what they are saying is not true, and they can blame 
it on whomever they want, but their government is either responsible 
for the proliferation, or else they are not capable of signing an 
agreement about proliferation. But somehow or other, they must be 
responsible or unaccountable, but they cannot be both at one time.
  That is why I was so pleased that my colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown) extended the invitation to speak about this issue a 
little more at length that we will have on the floor tomorrow. Let us 
remove all doubt, this is not about isolating China, it is about pro 
engagement with the people of China; that we do not accept the premise 
that increased trade will lead to more personal freedoms, more 
democratic freedoms in China. For 10 years they have been singing that 
song, and it has not worked. And in any event we do not subscribe to a 
principle of trickle-down liberty, anyway.
  What we want is a brilliant future with China economically, 
politically, diplomatically, culturally, in every way. That can only 
happen when China treats its people with the respect that they deserve, 
and then we will have an engagement that is sustainable of our national 
values, sustainable of our own economy, and sustainable of 
international security.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman from California. As she 
has pointed out in the past, other years leading up to the vote on what 
was called before MFN, most-favored-nation status, the Chinese have 
done a few nice things. They might help us a little bit on foreign 
policy.

                              {time}  2230

  They might release some prisoners, some political prisoners. But this 
year, interestingly, as time has approached for the most favored nation 
status, the Chinese Communists are so arrogantly confident that they 
are going to win this vote in this Congress, that they have not 
released any prisoners. They have actually arrested at least 10,000 
religious people simply practicing their religion. They put more people 
in camps. They have gone the opposite direction.
  That is why it is so important, as the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi) says, that our colleagues send messages to the Chinese 
Communists that we do not like what they are doing.
  Now, we know that we are not going to win this vote tomorrow. But if 
we lose this vote overwhelmingly, we know we are not going to get most 
favored nation status put aside, but we know if we lose overwhelmingly, 
it simply says to the Chinese, keep doing what you are doing because 
nobody in this country cares. That is why it is so important.
  One more point the gentlewoman from California made is she suggested 
so much of this whole policy with China is shrouded in myths. The 
gentlewoman had mentioned that the Chinese Government supposedly is 
helping us stabilize South Asia, and that is clearly a myth that she 
exploded. The gentlewoman has said that the opponents accuse us of 
wanting to isolate China from us and from the rest of the world. That 
clearly is not true.
  Another myth is that the Chinese have been there to help us in North 
Korea in a very destabilizing or unstable situation. The gentlewoman 
exploded that myth.
  The other myth that we hear over and over, and I have heard the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) talk about so many times, 
is how, if we engage with China, that democracy will come to that 
country, the more business development, the more

[[Page 17811]]

economic interaction, the more trade between the two countries, that 
China will become a freer country.
  Yet, when we look at the last 10 years since Tiananmen Square, when 
we look at everything from the trade deficits to the forced abortions 
to the selling of weapons to Pakistan, nuclear ring technology to 
Pakistan, to smuggling AK-47s into the harbor in the city of the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), to all the kinds of 
persecution of religious minorities, to what they have done in Tibet, 
all of those things beg that question, are things getting better? Is 
China getting more democratic because we are engaging with them?
  There is clearly no evidence that China has gotten more democratic as 
we engage with them. In fact, what we really are doing is strengthening 
the People's Liberation Army and strengthening the Communist party 
leaders in China.
  Why are we so naive when we look at history with Nazi Germany as they 
grew and got more developed and economically better off and got to be a 
stronger wealthier country. They used that economic power and that 
technology and that wealth to kill more Jews, to kill more gypsies, to 
declare war on more countries, to engage in the kind of militarist kind 
of expansionism that they were so well known for.
  The same issue goes on with the Chinese. Just simply looking at it in 
the simplest way, why should the Chinese change the way they do things 
when they get most favored nation station and they get these economic 
benefits from the United States? That is what the Chinese Communist 
leaders, they like the system this way. Clearly, they have benefited 
from this system. The PLA, the People's Liberation Army, they benefit 
from the system this way. They do not want democracy. The American 
corporate leaders, the investors in the major corporations, they 
benefit from Chinese policy this way.
  So the people that are really running this policy, the U.S. corporate 
executives, the People's Liberation Army, and the Chinese Communist 
leaders, they like the system the way it is. They do not want 
democracy. The People's Liberation Army does not want democracy.
  The corporate leaders in the United States that invest in China do 
not want labor unions to form in China. They do not want free movement 
of workers at their choice, moving around at the workers' choice. They 
do not want the kind of things that we believe in this country and the 
American values that we hold so dearly.
  So why should more prosperity for the leaders in China, the top 
government officials, the top leaders and the generals and the colonels 
in the People's Liberation Army and the U.S. company executives, why 
should more money there make them want democracy more? They like the 
system the way it works.
  I think the proof of that is, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) and I have talked many times, is if one looks back in February 
of 1989, the U.S. State Department issues a report every year about 
human rights around the world. If one looks, I was leafing through this 
report, it is a pretty long report, it is country by country. It is 
called the Country Reports on Human Rights. The State Department uses 
language talking about Serbia and Kosovo, the treatment of the Kosovars 
by the Serbs, by the Yugoslav government.
  They also, if we flip a few pages forward, and we look at the 
language we describe, the Chinese Government's treatment of Tibetans, 
and the language is almost identical paragraph by paragraph.
  We declared and bombed Serbia because of their treatment of Kosovo 
and their treatment of people in Kosovo, yet we give trade advantages 
to China when they are treating their Tibetan minorities almost exactly 
the same way.
  What kind of coherent government policy is that when we bomb one 
country and we give trade advantages to another for almost the exact 
same behavior as interpreted by our government. This is not some whacko 
group. This is the U.S. Government State Department saying we are 
treating people, and that the Serbs treat people in Kosovo the same way 
that Beijing government treats people in Tibet. It is morally bankrupt 
and absolutely incredible.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, picking up on what the gentleman from Ohio 
said, he reminded me that we were willing to raise an Army to redress 
human rights violations in Yugoslavia, and now we will not, they do not 
want us to raise a tariff to protect human rights in China, and indeed 
criticize us for raising our voices against China.
  The fact is that the policy has failed. They have to blame it on 
someone, so they say we keep bringing this up so we are demonizing 
China. No, we are not. In the words of Harry Truman, ``I am not giving 
them hell. I am just describing it, and it seems like hell.'' We are 
not demonizing them. We are just telling it the way it is. If that 
sounds bad, that is not our fault. That is what is going on there.
  I did want to call to the attention of our colleagues the letter from 
the Department of Social Development and World Peace of the U.S. 
Catholic Conference of Bishops, which was sent to all Members asking 
for them to vote against the special waiver and in favor of the 
resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) tomorrow.
  I also wanted to call to the attention of our colleagues just in 
terms of expression of religion that the Falung Gong, imagine any other 
country in the world, if 10,000 people were arrested in the week, what 
the clamor would be on the floor of Congress and what the White House 
would be saying about our values and the rest of that, but it is 
practically ignored. Because money speaks so loudly, it is so deafening 
that people cannot hear these cries.
  But we want the government in Beijing, we want them to get the 
message that this action has been noticed, that these people will not 
be forgotten. Many of the messages that we are receiving are that the 
Falung Gong members had no food, no drink, no medical attention for 5 
days. They are in a very difficult situation.
  I received this letter from my district, the Bay area Chinese 
newspaper today in the San Francisco Bay area reported that China has 
arrested 1,200 party officials and is forcing them to read the 
guidelines of the party and to abandon the Falung Gong practice. They 
are sending them to these reeducation schools, all of them in the same 
place, to reindoctrinate them.
  So it is they who are so cowardly because they are so frightened. The 
regime is so frightened because they have no legitimacy. Their power 
springs from the barrel of a gun, and that is where it is.
  So the peaceful evolution that the gentleman from Ohio described of 
economic reform leading to political reform can only happen, and 
sometimes does happen, if it is allowed to happen. But if it is 
perceived as an evil, as it is in China, and it is prevented from 
happening, then the consequences to those who want to speak out more 
democratically will obviously be repressed, as they have been a couple 
of hundred of pro-democracy people wanting to form other democratic 
parties in China have been arrested at the same time as this Falung 
Gong arrests have been taking place.
  So the situation that the gentleman from Ohio describes in the 
country report of the State Department, China, Yugoslavia, Tibet, 
Kosovo is so similar. Now I do not want anybody declaring war on 
anybody. I mean, violence to me should be obsolete.
  But the fact is, if we are going to have any respect for our moral 
authority, any respect for our values, we have to have some level of 
consistency and at least on how we speak out and how we use our 
leverage, our incredible over $60 billion leverage this year to promote 
democratic themes which will benefit, not only the people of China, but 
the people of the world.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if we think about what the 
gentlewoman from California just said, the message

[[Page 17812]]

that this country and the NATO forces sent to Slobodan Milosevic was, 
do not do what you are doing in Kosovo. No ethnic cleansing, no waging 
war against your people, no throwing people into prison, no violence, 
no more of that kind of activity.
  The message that we are sending to Chinese Communist leaders for what 
they do to the Tibetans and what they do in slave labor camps is, it is 
okay. We do not care. In fact, we might even reward it by giving you 
trade advantages and letting you into the World of Nations.
  I ask the gentlewoman from California to tell us, she in the past has 
been so involved in this issue for her entire 13 years as a Member of 
this body, I think it is so important to send a message to our 
colleagues. But the gentlewoman has recounted in other years, prior to 
the vote, the Chinese Government has released a few prisoners here and 
there. This year, it is the exact opposite. I ask the gentlewoman from 
California to recount that if she would to our colleagues who need to 
understand how important it is to send that message that the Chinese 
Communist party behavior is absolutely unacceptable.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
reminding me of his other question that he expressed earlier.
  The leverage that we have in this debate, and that is why we bring it 
up every year, is that of course we are always hopeful that, as people 
open their eyes, they will open them up further and see that the policy 
is not working.
  But one of the benefits of bringing it to the floor has always been 
that, when most favored nation status was in doubt, when Democrats, 
before we had a Democratic President, were voting against most favored 
nation status for China, and when it was in doubt, each year, the 
Chinese Government would release prisoners leading up to the time of 
the debate.
  Chinese prisoners have said to us that their conditions improved 
markedly at a time when they thought the most favored nation status was 
in doubt. The very minute that MFN was delinked and then the vote 
became less, shall we say, of a message to Beijing and the Clinton 
administration, then the Chinese knew that they could proceed with 
impunity, and they no longer have to make any concessions to anyone, 
because they have known what Members of Congress have told me in this 
body. It does not matter what China does, we will never support 
sanctions on China. How can that be? But it is.
  So that is what is lost in all of this is the prospect for a change 
in policy, always improve the conditions for the prisoners, lead to the 
release of some prisoners.
  But that idea that MFN or NTR, whatever my colleagues want to call 
it, is in doubt, that is gone. So the Chinese now say to the moderates 
among them, we do not have to do anything. And they do not. That is the 
tragedy.
  I used to say of President Bush, he never missed an opportunity to 
miss an opportunity to send a message to the Chinese about what our 
policy should be and what our values were in terms of human rights, in 
terms of our own economy, and in terms of our interest in national 
security. President Clinton has followed that path, although we were 
hopeful that he might not. So that is what is lost on this.
  If I may say if, God willing it will not happen, but if this body 
ever entertains the notion of permanent MFN for China, we would be 
surrendering all leverage in terms of trade, proliferation, and human 
rights. Indeed, the biggest tool that the trade representative has in 
the negotiations on the World Trade Organization is permanent MFN. 
Certainly that should never happen until the situation is very changed 
in China.
  But all of these notions about trade, increasing this, this, and this 
will only happen if the regime will allow it. What is happening, 
instead, is that the regime is emboldened and enriched by a $60 billion 
per year in the trade surplus. I might say, in the Clinton years alone, 
over $300 billion of surplus by the end of this year to the Chinese 
regime. There must be a better way. There must be a better way.
  But we are squandering all of our leverage in order to meet the 
lobbying efforts of the exporting elites in whose interest it is.
  I went back and got this book because it is a resource book from the 
Chamber of Commerce. What is interesting to me is they talk about all 
the good things that will spring from normal trade relations with 
China.

                              {time}  2245

  They have been singing this tune for 10 years that I know of at 
least, and it is all will, will, will, will. It is not about have or is 
benefiting U.S. So they have been squandering our leverage on the come, 
on what they hope will come sometime down the road in this great 
mirage, without a great deal to show for it in the present.
  Here is the book, and it says, on page after page, will trade with 
China, will build a brighter future for America, will power the future 
of America's high-tech industry, will drive America's automobile 
industry, will help raise U.S. exports, will help beef up American 
exports. And it goes on and on like that, and I keep thinking when is 
it ever going to occur to them that they have been singing this song 
too long. What fascinates me even more is that people buy it. But I 
guess hope springs eternal.
  In any event, let us give this policy a chance that says, of course 
we want to have engagement with China, but with our eyes open, truly, 
and not some new name that will change tomorrow on a policy that has 
not been successful and has been bipartisan in its failure.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. What is so ironic during this process is that 
China wants to be a member of the World Trade Organization, to be 
accepted in the community of nations permanently. Yet during this last 
3 or 4 or 5 years that they have been wooing the United States and 
other countries into admission or accession into the WTO, look at their 
behavior, everything from the nuclear ring technology to Pakistan, to 
slave labor, to child labor, to the closing of the markets, to the 
forced abortions, to the persecution of Christians, and the human 
rights violations. That is their behavior when they have been wooing 
us, when they want admission into this organization, when they want WTO 
accession. Once they are in, and I hope they are never in the World 
Trade Organization, then we will have no leverage with them.
  That is another debate for another day, but that is so important to 
understand, that their behavior has been so outrageous and so outside 
the mainstream of world values and world opinions and world behavior 
that it is just remarkable that this body wants to include them in any 
of these organizations.
  Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will yield on that point. I just want to 
add this further point, and that is that the trade representative 
herself has said if a country does not want to comply with the World 
Trade Organization regulations, there is really not much we can do 
about it.
  And China has really received the message from the world that nobody 
is going to step up to the plate, because the too-big-to-fail doctrine 
is in effect. All the countries want their piece of the trade. Of 
course they are buying. China is buying from them; they are selling to 
us. They take the money they make on our trade, go buy stuff in other 
countries, win their political support in all the other world bodies, 
diminishing anything we could possibly do in a multilateral body in 
terms of human rights or other issues.
  So the World Trade Organization only will work if the members coming 
in are of good faith. An economy as big as China's coming into the WTO, 
which refuses to play by the rules, if that country refuses to play by 
the rules, can wreck the WTO and wreck some of the western democratic 
economies as well, and that is really serious.
  But we are in this immediate gratification stage for certain 
businesses in America. There is nothing long term about values, our 
economy or international security.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I 
simply want to close with an exhortation to our Members to vote in 
support of the

[[Page 17813]]

Rohrabacher resolution tomorrow which will deny Most Favored Nation 
status to China.
  The importance of a ``yes'' vote tomorrow in support of the 
Rohrabacher resolution is to send a message to the Chinese that the 
kind of behavior from persecution of people practicing their religion, 
to closing of their markets, to human rights violations, to 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the only way to get the 
message that this body is unhappy and does not tolerate that kind of 
behavior is a ``yes'' vote tomorrow on the Rohrabacher resolution.

                          ____________________