[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8630-8638]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    MOST FAVORED NATION TRADE STATUS FOR PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for delaying the Chair, and I 
thank the Chair for its patience.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take to the floor this afternoon to 
continue our discussion on most favored nation trade status with the 
People's Republic of China.
  As I have said before, the problem that we are faced with, the 
challenges and the choices that confront us here, are support for our 
basic cherished values; the right to practice one's religion; the right 
to assemble and organize and collectively bargain for a decent wage and 
benefits and health care, and all the things that many of our citizens 
enjoy; the right to form political organizations so that ideas, such as 
good wages, decent working conditions, health care, good educational 
opportunities, can flow from political participation. All of these 
rights are kind of central to this debate on China, because in China 
today they do not enjoy what we enjoy here, and that is the ability to 
do these things.
  China is a brutal, authoritarian police state. If the government is 
disagreed with, if one tries to form a political organization, if an 
individual tries to form a religious organization, if someone tries to 
form a trade union, they will end up in jail. And that is where, my 
colleagues, literally tens of thousands of Chinese dissidents, freedom 
fighters, people who care about democracy are languishing today in 
prison, because they dared to try to speak out to better their human 
condition in these areas.
  Why is it so important for us to stand with them and not with the 
government of China and their partners in this trade deal, the 
multinational corporations, most of whom are American? Why is it 
important to stand with these heroes? It is important to stand with 
them because those values that we cherish, those first principles of 
our government, the right to be able to express ourselves in the God 
that we believe in, in the political organization that we want to 
affiliate with, in the worker organization that we want to band with in 
order to improve our economic lives, these are central tenets of what 
democracy is all about.
  The State Department's Country Report on Human Rights, in their last 
report, said that China's poor human rights record deteriorated 
markedly throughout the year as the government intensified efforts to 
suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent; the government 
continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses 
in violation of internationally accepted norms.
  Permanent Favored Nation Trading Status supporters can claim that the 
Internet and technology will help unshackle the Chinese people, but the 
evidence shows the opposite is happening. According to the State 
Department, and I quote,

       Authorities have blocked, at various times, politically 
     sensitive Web sites, including those of dissident groups and 
     some major foreign news organizations, such as Voice of 
     America, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the 
     British Broadcasting system.

  Just yesterday, outside these chambers on the lawn of the Capitol, we 
had approximately 100 dissidents from China who are now in exile, many 
of whom have spent 3, 4, 5, 10, 13 years in jail. They were here with 
us, and we formed a line with a linked chain

[[Page 8631]]

threading us as we marched around the Capitol grounds. And then we had 
them come and speak to people who were interested in hearing what they 
had to say, and they all spoke about the need not to reward China with 
this Most Favored Nation status by taking away an annual attempt to 
review their human rights record, their dismal record on human rights.
  They asked us not to do it, because every time that we continue to 
have this debate, every time that we raise these issues, the Chinese 
are placed in a very hard, difficult position, a position they cannot 
defend, and we make progress each time we have this debate.
  Wei Jingsheng, the great dissident and leader at Tiananmen Square and 
other activities in China, who is here now in exile in the United 
States, who spent years and years and years in prison, said do not 
grant permanent trade status to China right now. He said to continue to 
trade, continue to engage, continue to dialogue, but do not give them 
most favored trade status permanently; have the annual review. Because 
he knows how important it is for those who are still in the gulags, 
still in the prisons, still fighting for justice and freedom and 
liberty in China today.
  So I would say to my colleagues, the news is always not good for 
workers in China. The government continued to tightly restrict workers' 
rights, and forced labor in prison facilities remains a very serious 
problem, according to the State Department, and they give us some 
examples in the State Department report.
  For instance, there is the case of Guo Yunqiao. He led a protest 
march of 10,000 workers to local government offices following the 1989 
massacre. He is currently serving a life term in prison for doing that 
on charges of hooliganism. Imagine that: Protesting on behalf of 10,000 
workers of local government offices following the massacre at Tiananmen 
Square, and this man is facing a life in prison.
  In the case of Guo Qiqing, who was detained in Shayang County on 
charges of disrupting public order, he has organized a sit-in to demand 
money owed to the workforce.
  Or the case of Hu Shigen, an activist with the Federation Labor Union 
of China, in prison in Beijing No. 2 prison, and has 12 years remaining 
on his sentence. He is seriously ill. He has been charged with 
counterrevolutionary activities.
  And the cases go on and on and on.
  Despite the considerable leverage that we have, with 40 percent of 
China's exports coming to the United States, our negotiators did not 
lift a finger to help on human rights or labor rights or religious 
freedoms. We can do much better than what we have done.

                              {time}  1345

  I would say on the religious front, there is widespread religious 
persecution in China today against Buddhists, against Christians, 
against Muslims, against people who want to practice their faith.
  If you do, if they indeed do, you cannot belong to the military, you 
cannot belong as a worker in the government, you cannot belong to the 
ruling party if you practice your religion in China; and to practice it 
in an organized way will often get you a long jail prison sentence.
  Recently two Catholic bishops and archbishops have spent over 30 
years in prison because of their leadership in our church.
  Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on and the repression goes 
on and on and on.
  The distinguished gentleman from Northern Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a 
friend and colleague of ours, was successful, very successful, in 
getting a commission established. It is called the U.S. Commission on 
Religious Freedoms. And it was established in order to look 
specifically at the issue of whether people can practice their faith in 
China.
  Seven of the nine people who were appointed to that commission were 
appointed by people who share the view that we should have unfettered 
free trade, most favored nation trade status with the Chinese. So the 
people on the Commission, for the most part, came there with the 
blessing of these kinds of leaders, the President, the leaders of the 
respective bodies in the House and the Senate.
  So it was a surprise when the last couple weeks ago the U.S. 
Commission on Religious Freedom issued its annual report. The 
Commission, as I said, is independent. Seven of its nine members were 
appointed by supporters of permanent MFN. The Commission opposes 
permanent most favored nation trade status for China without 
substantial human rights improvements. They came out opposed to this 
deal because they understand the political and religious repressions 
that are ongoing at this very minute in China today.
  Their leader, Rabbi David Saperstein, a highly respected religious 
leader, is chairman of the Commission. Excerpts from the Commission's 
findings and recommendations read as follows: ``The Chinese 
Government's violations of religious freedom increased markedly during 
the past year.''
  Another quote: ``Roman Catholic and Protestant underground house 
churches suffered increased repression. The crackdown included the 
arrest of bishops, priests, and pastors, one of whom was found dead in 
the street soon afterward. Several Catholic bishops were ordained by 
the Government without the Vatican's participation or approval.''
  Another quote in the report: ``The repression of the Tibetan 
Buddhists expanded. The Government authorities in Tibet, in defiance of 
the Dalai Lama, Reting Lama, another important religious leader, 
Karmapa Lama, he had to flee to India.'' And it goes on and on and on. 
And it says at the end of the report, ``While many of the commissioners 
support free trade, the Commission believes that the U.S. Congress 
should grant China permanent normal trade relation status only after 
China makes substantial improvements in respect for religious 
freedom.''
  Michael Young, Dean of the George Washington University Law School, 
who describes himself as a passionate believer in free trade, said, 
``The extraordinary deterioration of religious freedoms in China is 
close to unprecedented since the days of Mao.'' Mr. Young cited cases 
of women beaten to death by police for trying to practice their 
religion.
  The conditions the Commission laid out are reasonable, and they 
include the following: Requiring China to provide unhindered access to 
religious leaders including those in prison detained or are under house 
arrest in China. Secondly, release from prison all religious prisoners 
in China. And third, requiring China to ratify the International 
Convention of Civil and Political Rights.
  So you have the State Department's Country Report on Human Rights 
Practices, which I outlined, which is very, very critical of China. You 
have the Religious Commission which says, do not do what we will be 
voting on this next week, giving them permanent trade status, because 
they have not respected religious freedoms and liberties. And now 
because the votes are not there and this issue is in jeopardy, we 
perhaps will have grafted onto the China deal a concept or an idea to 
create another commission.
  We do not need another commission, Mr. Speaker. We have enough 
commissions. We have enough reports. And the reports are the quite 
clear. This is a brutal, suppressive dictatorship that says to its 
people, you organize, you actively engage in religious freedom, 
political freedom, human rights issues, you challenge us on the 
environment and you can very easily expect that you will end up in 
prison.
  You cannot maintain free markets, unfettered free markets, without 
free trade, without free people. You can have unfettered markets and 
you have can free trade. But unless you have free people, you will not 
be able to maintain that which you seek to do. Because at some point in 
your society things will come apart, as they did in Chile when they had 
so-called economic reforms under Pinochet, as they did in Nazi Germany 
under Hitler, as they did with Mussolini, as they did with Suharto in 
Indonesia recently.
  Governments that are corrupt, that are repressive, and who just take 
advantage of their people in terms of

[[Page 8632]]

slave labor in the end have immense problems and difficulties and 
eventually fall.
  My friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) who has been most 
eloquent and passionate on these issues has joined us. I will yield to 
him for a remark. Then I want to talk about, if I could, we can share 
some thoughts on the economic piece of this and the sweatshops where 
the Chinese people work.
  Because the other part of the freedom piece of this trade deal, as he 
well knows, is that there are people working in shoe factories, in 
textile mills, you name it, by the millions in China today who are 
making anywhere between 3 and 20 cents an hour, working 6 days, 7 days 
a week, 12 hours a day, putting together $135 pairs of Nike shoes with 
toxic glue without wearing anything to cover their hands.
  It is a repressive type of atmosphere outlined in this very well put 
together book ``Made in China'' by Charlie Kernigan of the National 
Labor Committee, which I encourage everyone to pick up and read. These 
people are really indentured servants in many ways. They work for a 
whole month for wages that are not adequate for them to even buy one of 
the pair of shoes that they make.
  So it seems to me that when you have a situation economically 
internationally where corporations here in America can go over abroad, 
whether it is Mexico or China, to manufacture products that were made 
here, whether they are shoes or bicycles, Huffy is a good example that 
used to make bikes in the State of Ohio and now is in China and Mexico. 
When they move their facilities to these different countries, they do 
it for a reason. They do it because they do not have to deal with 
benefits, they do not have to deal with laws protecting workers, they 
do not have to pay decent wages.
  And, of course, they cannot sell these products in China or in Mexico 
because the workers there, as I have just mentioned, do not make enough 
to purchase that which they make. So Mexico and China then become what 
are known as export platforms and these products are shipped right back 
here for sale. And, of course, we lose good-paying manufacturing jobs 
in this country and the multinationals make out and workers on both 
sides of the border do not.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, before we talk about the ``Made in 
China'' report and the literally slave labor conditions under which 
literally millions of young women in China, almost all young and mostly 
women, I want to follow up on some things that the Democratic Whip 
talked about in terms of human rights.
  We have, for 10 years, been engaging with China. We have traded with 
China. We have opened our markets to China. During that entire 10-year 
period, the Bush administration, even the Reagan administration before 
the Bush administration, the Clinton administration have told us over 
and over that China would be freer, that engaging with China would 
really help.
  You can look in these last 10 years and see how things are growing 
worse, they are continuing to go downhill. The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Bonior) mentioned the State Department's Country Report outlining 
the conditions in China actually were worse this past year. As China 
has tried to woo us to get into the World Trade Organization, 
conditions were worse last year than the year before.
  In fact, if we look at last year's Country Reports, the language that 
describes China's behavior towards Tibet and towards other outlying 
areas from the central government and towards minorities, in the 
language that the Country Reports describes Serbia's treatment of 
Kosovo, the language was almost identical. We bomb Kosovo, yet we give 
trade advantages to China.
  The National Religious Commission that the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Bonior) mentioned talked about religious persecution in China. The 
animosity and the hostility of the central government of China towards 
religion in China is worse than at any time since the cultural 
revolution in the mid 1960s. The United Nations Commission on Human 
Rights the Chinese continue to ignore.
  So some in this body want to put faith in this congressional 
commission that has been suggested as some way to deal with problems of 
labor rights and human rights.
  The Chinese do not pay attention to our official Department of State 
Country Reports. The Chinese has not paid any attention to the Religion 
Commission. The Chinese have not paid any attention to the United 
Nations Commission on Human Rights. Why would they pay any attention to 
a congressional task force that this body might pass in tandem with 
permanent most favored nation status trading privileges for China?
  As William Saffire, a generally conservative columnist in the New 
York Times, said in the paper yesterday after conversing, 
interestingly, with Richard Nixon, who told him that this engagement 
and trade and probably right before Nixon died had probably gone too 
far, Nixon said, I think we may have created a Frankenstein, talking 
about human rights abuses, talking about all the child labor and all of 
that in these countries. Safire said that we in this country have 
continued to feed the military machine in China.
  That is really what we are doing with engagement. We are feeding the 
suppressive regime, not just their military, but their police state, 
feeding of the police statement machine, too. And that is why the 
crackdown on religion, the crackdown on human rights, the oppression of 
workers, all of that have continued to get worse in China because the 
state apparatus is getting wealthier and wealthier, has better and 
better technology as they continue to get technology from American 
business and western business in China, as they continue to upgrade 
their oppressive regime and that regime is fed by all the investment 
and all the dollars that we send to China through our business 
investments.
  One more point I would like to make. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior) mentioned the ``Made in China'' report that really does outline 
the behavior of several U.S. businesses: The Kathie Lee, Wal-Mart, 
Alpine, Huffy, which permanently laid off 850 Ohio workers making $17 
an hour about a year ago, replacing them with Chinese workers, all 
young, almost all female, all under 25, many of them 16 and 17, making 
literally less than 2 percent of what they were making in China.

                              {time}  1400

  But this report underscores one other thing about why engagement with 
China is not working, and, that is, that investors from the West, 
investors from the United States and other western nations have begun 
to shift in the last 5 years, have massively shifted their investments 
in the developing world from democracies to authoritarian countries. 
They are less interested in India, a democracy, and more interested in 
China, an authoritarian government. They are less interested in Taiwan, 
a democracy, and more interested in Indonesia, a police state. Investor 
dollars from the West have been attracted to these kind of regimes 
because they can hire people at 20 and 30 and 40 cents an hour. Any 
time these workers have even complained about working conditions, they 
are fined or penalized or jailed in some cases and sometimes even 
worse. This workforce in China is young, it is female, it is 
inexperienced, it is docile, it does not talk back, and it does not 
fight back. That is the kind of workforce that investment dollars from 
the United States seems to be attracted to.
  That is why passing permanent most-favored-nation status trading 
privileges for China will lock in that oppressive regime, will cost 
American jobs, will hurt the Chinese, will lock into this life-style, 
this slave labor life-style that too many Chinese workers already are 
subjected to and will make things worse.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could add one more point. One other thing that 
seems to be happening is that the United States, Federal law from the 
1931 Trade Act and from the 1992 agreement with China says that in this 
country we are

[[Page 8633]]

not allowed to accept into the country products produced by slave 
labor. When we have documented that workers are making between three 
and 35 cents an hour and in many cases those workers are charged for 
their room and their board and their clothing from that three to 35 
cents an hour, it is pretty clear that an awful lot of these products, 
Kathy Lee handbags at Wal-Mart, shoes from Nike and Keds, all kinds of 
other products at Wal-Mart, bicycles from Huffy, that these products 
are made by slave labor when somebody is making only cents an hour and 
much of that is taken back from them by charging them for the clothes 
and the food they eat, the clothes they wear and the beds they sleep 
in. When that is happening, our government should say we are not going 
to accept those products made by slave labor. That has only happened 
once in the last 10 years, in 1991, did our government say you cannot 
let a product into the country that was made by slave labor. But we are 
aware as Harry Wu, a very courageous Chinese man that lives now in the 
United States who spent 20 years in prisons went back to China and 
documented case after case after case of products that were made under 
slave labor conditions and sold into the United States, our 
administration, the Republican leadership in this Congress and the 
administration should say, we are not going to vote on Chinese most-
favored-nation status trading privileges until we investigate whether 
these slave labor products are being brought into the United States. It 
is illegal, and we ought to get to the bottom of it. We have no 
business voting on this until we really do find out if these are slave 
labor products.
  Mr. BONIOR. I think the gentleman is right on target and absolutely 
correct in his assessment. I want to thank him for his eloquence and 
for his passion and for coming to the floor night after night to 
express his concerns on the questions of basic human rights and 
political and religious freedoms. They are very important parts of our 
international trade debate. They need to be a part of that debate. 
People tend to forget often in our country as the gentleman from Ohio 
well knows that the market by itself will not bring about these 
political, religious and labor reforms that are needed for workers and 
families. What brings that about is the ability of people to come 
together, to form civic organizations, and to fight these repressive 
laws and practices. It is what happened in the United States of America 
100 years ago during the progressive era in our country. The free 
market did not provide the benefits that we often take for granted 
today. What provided the good wages, the health care, the pensions, the 
safe working conditions, the right to vote, the right to form political 
organizations, the right to freely practice your religion, the right to 
speak out like I am speaking out now and you can speak out when you 
walk out of this building, what made all of that happen were courageous 
people like Wei Jingsheng and Harry Wu who are now trying to bring that 
about for the people of China. People in this country had to fight 
corporate conglomerates, trusts and power in order for workers to have 
the benefits we enjoy today. It did not just happen. People protested, 
they marched, they picketed, they were beaten, they went to jail and 
some, yes, even died in order that we could enjoy today many of the 
things that we have. Those same struggles are happening in China and 
other parts of the developing world.
  A central question in this debate, certainly one of the central 
questions is whose side are we on? Are we on the side of those people 
who are trying to organize in China for a better life for the Chinese 
people? Are we on the side of the multinational corporations who 
promise us that this will help our economy and create jobs when the 
reality is it does just the opposite?
  Let me demonstrate that point, if I could. This is a confusing 
looking chart, and I will try if I can to simplify it. The chart says 
U.S. goods trade balance with China, tariff cuts, agreements, 20 years 
of most favored trade status and accelerating collapse. What this chart 
shows is that our trade deficit, our trade account with China, has 
mushroomed, has exploded over the past 20 years. We now have a trade 
imbalance with China, they send us much more than we send them, of 
about $70 billion. Just this morning, the March trade figures came out 
and showed that we were running a $5.1 billion trade deficit. Last 
March we were running a $4.1 billion trade deficit. That is just for 1 
month. So it has increased by $1 billion just over a year ago for the 
month of March. Much of that is with China. Not quite but almost 40 
percent of the goods that are made in China are shipped to the United 
States of America. Two percent of our goods manufactured here go to 
China. So they are sending much more to us than we are sending to them. 
As a result, we have this trade deficit with the Chinese.
  You might say, why is that? There are many reasons for that. One 
reason that we cannot get into the Chinese markets is because they do 
not live up to any of their trade agreements. On this chart, this is 
the deficit, swelling from almost zero out this far to $70 billion. 
What is written in here are the agreements that were done over the last 
20 years to try to get us into their market, allow us to sell textiles 
and space materials and all other types of agreements dealing with 
intellectual property and software, you name it, a whole series of 
agreements worked out with the Chinese. You would think after each 
agreement we would have more access to their market and this number 
would diminish. Just the opposite. It has expanded. It has increased. 
The reason is they do not live up to their word. They have no 
compliance or no enforcement mechanisms in China to implement their 
agreements. And so we have this ballooning $70 billion deficit.
  The people who are promoting this trade deal say, ``Well, this is 
another trade piece. This is one of many agreements. This one is really 
going to work because it is going to reduce our tariffs, so we will be 
able to send more into China and it will cost less and people will buy 
it there.''
  If you look at this chart, you can see that we had two tariff 
reduction agreements with the Chinese. China lowers its average import 
tariffs from 42 percent to 23 percent. What happened? The deficit 
continued to grow, even after they lowered the tariff. Then they 
lowered it to 17 percent from 23, and it continued to grow even more. 
The reason is, they just do not let our stuff into their country. They 
find a way to keep it out. In this latest agreement, Ms. Barshefsky, 
our trade representative, went there and did a deal on wheat. Now, the 
first thing people should understand is China is awash in food. They 
have a lot of food, a lot of food goods. They have a lot of food in 
storage. Keep that in the back of your mind when you are told that you 
will be able to ship fruits and vegetables and grains and meats and all 
these other agricultural products. Right after she did the wheat deal, 
one of the top Chinese people in the government who deals with 
agriculture and wheat said the deal that would allow X amount of 
imported grain, wheat in this case into China, is a deal ``in theory 
only.'' Those were his words. In theory only. So already they are 
backing away from that opportunity.
  In the area of intellectual property, and by that I mean software, 
digitalware, tapes and those kinds of things, 95 percent of all 
intellectual property sold in China today is pirated material, in other 
words, copied and pirated. We get very little benefit as a result of 
that. In fact, it is so egregious that the ministries that are supposed 
to write the laws against pirating materials use pirated software. I 
could go on and on and on. It is quite tragic and it is quite sad.
  The other part of this trade agreement that I think people need to be 
cognizant of is the proponents of it will say, yes, but it will open up 
their markets, it will allow us to sell more goods to China. What it 
will do is require our multinational corporations to establish their 
facilities in China. It will take our jobs and export them to China. 
Those facilities will be built, people will be hired for three cents to 
35 cents an hour, slave wages, indentured servitude, products will be 
put together

[[Page 8634]]

and they will be shipped back here to the tune of about 40 percent of 
all of China's exports and sold here to the best market in the world, 
certainly China's best market, the United States of America. So what we 
get out of this is compliance, and compliance is not the right word but 
working together with the Chinese to undermine these basic fundamental 
human rights, what we get out of this as well is our manufacturing 
capabilities moving offshore to China, China becomes an export platform 
because people making three to 35 cents an hour cannot buy the Nike 
shoes that they are making or the Motorola cell phones that they are 
making or the television sets that they are making because they do not 
make enough money, so they are put together and they are shipped right 
back here and sold to our people.
  Yes, our people get other jobs. They lose their good manufacturing 
jobs here, and they get other jobs, but they get jobs that pay a half 
to two-thirds of the amount that they were making before. As a result 
of that, people end up often working two jobs, sometimes three jobs, 
and you have got America on this treadmill. We are doing very well 
economically but people's lives have changed radically. They do not 
have enough time for their families or for themselves. I saw this 
figure recently, and I am loath to quote it because I am not quite 
sure, but over the last generation or maybe generation and a half, 
Americans are working I think something like 31 days longer a year, 
something like that, if you add up all the extra hours.

                              {time}  1415

  So there is no time or no adequate time for family often, and then 
what happens when that occurs is the parents are not home for their 
children when they get home from school, and then you have all the 
maladies that flow from that, with alcohol, teen pregnancy and drugs, 
and we get ourselves into a vicious cycle and a breakdown in the whole 
social structure of our country.
  I have come a long way in winding this down to our own problems, but 
it is all related, and it all comes back to treating people decently 
and with some sense of civility, and paying them a good wage, allowing 
them to organize, allowing them to worship freely, allowing them to 
express themselves politically.
  When you do not do that, you shut people out from the really basic 
first principles of democratization. As I said earlier, you can have 
free trade and free markets, but they are not going to work very well 
unless you have free people. Without free people, they will explode, 
they will implode, and your society will come apart at the seams, as it 
did in Chile, as it did in Europe, as it did in Indonesia, as it 
undoubtedly will in China at some point.
  You cannot repress and hold in the basic instincts of mankind, which 
is a yearning to be free, a yearning to be able to express yourself at 
those various fundamental levels of religion, politics and the 
worksite.
  So I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a terribly, terribly 
important debate that we are engaged in, and I want to congratulate all 
of the courageous people in China and the dissidents who have been 
exiled for standing with us. I want to congratulate the working men and 
women of this country. Seventy-nine percent of the American people 
think Congress should not give China more access to our products until 
it improves its human rights; 79 percent. Yet we are on the precipice, 
we are right there, of going ahead next week with a vote on this most 
critical issue, without addressing in a fundamentally strong way the 
issues of human rights and labor rights and civil rights and political 
rights.
  These are universal rights we are talking about. We are not talking 
about American rights, we are talking about rights that have been 
adopted not only in the United States of America, but since our crusade 
in this area, in Latin America, our brothers and sisters in Europe, and 
the revolution on human rights and civil rights and political rights is 
spreading abroad and around the world in other areas as well.
  This is a very important issue for this country. It is a very 
important issue in terms of the choices we make as a society. Is the 
market piece of this so overwhelming? Is the promise of gold at the end 
of the rainbow of this market of 1.2 billion people in China so 
enticing, so captivating, so tempting that it will blind us to the real 
nature of who we are as a people, what we stand for as a people, what 
we have been the beacon of light for people around the world? Will we 
just give that up in order to provide a few multinationals the 
opportunity to set up shop and export back to this country, and abuse, 
as they have constantly abused, the workers in China?
  I do not think anything could be more fundamental. That is why these 
debates, whether they were on NAFTA or fast track or now China, are so 
vigorously fought, so heartfelt, so passionate and so encompassing.
  Seattle was not an aberration. Seattle happened because the rules of 
the game in a global world are now changing. What the proponents of 
China most-favored-nation trade status are about, it seems to me, is 
masquerading the past as the future. They have not been able to make 
the transition to the realization that we live in a global society, 
and, as a result of that, we affect each other more fundamentally, more 
immediately, and, as a result of that, the rules have to change.
  Let me, for example, take the environmental issue. You could say 
well, why does the environment have anything to do with trade? It has 
to do with trade because it is a lever on conducting trade in a clean, 
green way.
  China is one of the most, if not the most, polluted places on the 
face of the Earth. Five of the ten most polluted cities in the world 
are in China. Two million people die in China each year from air and 
water diseases. Eighty percent of the rivers in China have no fish 
because of pollutants and toxics.
  China produces more fluorocarbons than any other nation on Earth, 
which eats away at the ozone layer and causes the problems that we are 
all familiar with, including skin cancer. So that is important, because 
the ozone layer does not just affect the spot above China, the rivers 
that are polluted do not only run through China. The waters and lakes 
and oceans that are polluted affect people in other countries, so we 
are all interconnected here in a way we have never been before.
  So that is why we argue that we need to discuss these issues in the 
context of our broader international agreements.
  I am joined today by really one of the great champions of human 
rights and worker rights and trade, my friend and dear colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has just been 
magnificent in her effort to wage an understanding of this issue for 
the American people. I yield to her now for any comments she might want 
to share with us.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our 
great leader from the State of Michigan, our Wolverine State, a few 
moments to talk about our proposal for permanent normal trade relations 
for China. One certainly could not say anything about our trade 
relations with China being ``normal.'' In fact, they are very abnormal, 
with more exports coming into our market from China for over 12 years 
now than our exports being able to get in there, even when tariffs have 
been lowered.
  I wanted to say to the gentleman that I think that his fortitude on 
this as the days go on is magnificent. I just wish every American could 
see the hours and hours that the gentleman has put into this personally 
and all the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle enjoy 
working with the gentleman so very much.
  I wanted to make sure to come down here during this time as we 
attempt to inform the American people and our colleagues about this 
upcoming vote next week on extending permanent trade relations with 
China, that every major veterans organization in this country has come 
out in opposition to granting permanent normal trade relations with 
China.
  I wanted to say a word about that, because I know many of our Post 
Commanders, our State Commanders, our

[[Page 8635]]

Auxiliary Leaders across this Nation, are phoning their Members of 
Congress. They have been doing it this week, they are going to continue 
over the weekend and into next week, and I thought I would read into 
the Record and provide for the Record some of what these organizations 
have said, starting with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, an organization 
of 1.9 million Members.
  I have been on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of this Congress 
for my entire tenure here, and I was just so elated to see their letter 
this week, which said that we should not approve permanent relations 
with China. They asked that the current situation where we have an 
annual review here in this Congress be maintained until such time as 
China changes its policies and demonstrates that it is ready to treat 
its own people according to basic human rights standards of other 
modern industrialized nations.
  They oppose China's proliferation of missile technology and weapons 
of mass destruction. They oppose their threats against this country and 
other countries in the Pacific, including the democratic Nation of 
Taiwan. The VFW basically says passage of the China trade bill 
essentially rewards China for mistreating its citizens.
  I want to thank all of the members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
all the Post Commanders, all the Ladies Auxiliary Presidents and 
members, for engaging in this issue and letting their voices be heard 
from coast to coast, especially where it matters most, and that is back 
at home, in the home district with the home Member of Congress.
  Also the American Legion, 2.8 million members strong, this week came 
out against permanent trade relations with China. In its formal letter 
they say that they want to force China to meet four preconditions 
before any permanent trade relations with China are extended or for any 
entry into the WTO by China. Those four conditions are recognition of 
the Taiwanese right to self-determination; full cooperation on the 
accounting of American servicemen missing from the Korean War and the 
Cold War; abandonment of policies aimed at military dominance in Asia; 
and encouragement and promotion of human rights and religious freedom 
among the Chinese people themselves.
  The National Commander of the American Legion Al Lance said in his 
letter, ``China should embrace Democratic values before it benefits 
from unfettered American investment.''
  The Military Order of the Purple Heart, again, calling their Members 
of Congress around the country, I wish to extend the appreciation of 
this Member of Congress for their activism on this. Over 30,000 members 
of the Military Order of the Purple Heart and 600,000 living recipients 
of the Purple Heart. In their letter they say ``China as an 
international actor continues to behave in a manner that is threatening 
to international stability and U.S. security interests.'' They say this 
Congress should delay the granting of permanent normal trade status to 
China at this time because it would remove China from the review and 
the openness that occurs here on this floor of Congress, which does not 
even happen inside China itself. They are very worried about the 
proliferation of weapons from China to other places, and certainly 
their dismal human rights record.
  Then the Military Order of Purple Heart goes on to say, ``Today China 
represents the most dangerous of the emerging threats to U.S. national 
security. Her designs on Western Pacific dominance, her extreme 
belligerence toward Taiwan and her persistent espionage and theft of 
U.S. advanced technologies are behaviors that must be checked before 
any reasonable consideration of permanent normal trade status can be 
undertaken.''
  It says, ``Many of America's combat wounded veterans sacrificed life 
and blood to repel Chinese aggression during the Korean conflict, and 
now, 50 years after that war, China remains an unabashedly communistic 
regime. It is time for China to change if she wishes to be a truly 
welcome participant on the world stage.''
  Mr. Leader, I know that I want to yield back most of the remaining 
time, but I would want to place on the record the official letter from 
the Fleet Reserve Association, representing 151,000 members, all career 
and retired Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen of the United States 
opposing permanent normal trade relations with China.
  In addition to that, the Warrant Officers Association, representing 
nearly 20,000 warrant officers of active Army, Army Guard and the Army 
Reserve, in their letter saying ``China shows few of the peaceful 
democratic traits evidenced by our Nation's other major trading 
partners.'' ``In this instance,'' they say, ``trade and economic 
considerations cannot take precedence over the safety of our Nation and 
that of our allies and friends.''
  A letter from the Reserve Officers Association, which we will place 
on the record, representing over 80,000 officers in all uniformed 
services, indicating opposition to permanent normal trade relations 
with China. They want the annual review here. They are very concerned 
about China's military threats against Taiwan, and threatened military 
action against the United States if we defend Taiwan.
  Finally, from AMVETS, 200,000 veterans opposed in this organization 
to permanent normal trade relations with China, saying the security 
issues take precedence over trade relations with foreign nations.
  I would just say, finally, and again to thank all the veterans 
Commanders, the Ladies Auxiliaries, the Post leaders, the membership in 
all these organizations across the country that are weighing in, 
phoning their Members of Congress, I know we have gotten many calls in 
our community and that is happening across the country, to thank them 
for their activism, to encourage them this weekend and the coming week.
  I want to place in the Record finally the request made by one of our 
valued colleagues from the State of California (Mr. Berman), who tried 
to get a provision as we voted on this agreement that would provide 
that in the event that this permanent normal trade status would be 
granted, that in the event that China would attack, invade, or blockade 
Taiwan, that permanent normal trade relations would be revoked.

                              {time}  1430

  The administration was not willing to include that in the measure 
that they have sent up to this Congress.


                                                       AMVETS,

                                         Lanham, MD, May 16, 2000.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Cannon House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Wolf: AMVETS, the nation's fourth 
     largest organization, represents more than 200,000 veterans 
     who honorably served in the Armed Forces of the United 
     States, and opposes Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) 
     for China.
       While the U.S. relationship with China is important, AMVETS 
     believes that national security issues take precedence over 
     the trade relations with foreign countries. We concur in your 
     belief that our nation cannot afford to give leverage to the 
     Republic of China--which exports weapons of mass destruction 
     and missiles, maintains spy presence in the U.S. and 
     continues to threaten Taiwan with military force.
       When Congress votes in the House during the week of May 22, 
     let it be known that AMVETS says ``no'' to the Permanent 
     Trade Relations with China.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles L. Taylor,
     National Commander, 1999-2000, AMVETS.
                                  ____

                                   Reserve Officers Association of


                                            the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, April 27, 2000.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: The Reserve Officers Association 
     (``ROA''), representing 80,000 officers in all seven 
     Uniformed Services, is concerned about the proposal to grant 
     Permanent Normal Trade Relations (``PNTR'') to China.
       ROA acknowledges the importance of our relationship with 
     China, including our growing economic ties to China. 
     Nevertheless, ROA believes that it would be a mistake to 
     grant PNTR to China at this time. The annual process of 
     reviewing trade relations with China provides Congress with 
     leverage over Chinese behavior on national security and human 
     rights matters. Granting PNTR would deprive Congress of the 
     opportunity to influence China to improve its human rights 
     record and behave as a more responsible actor on the national 
     security stage.

[[Page 8636]]

       Just within the past few weeks, China has made military 
     threats against Taiwan and threatened military action against 
     the United States if we defend Taiwan. Just four years ago, 
     China fired several live missiles in the Taiwan Strait, 
     necessitating a deployment of two American carrier battle 
     groups to the area.
       A report issued last month by the CIA and FBI indicates 
     that Beijing has increased its military spying against the 
     United States. Less than a year ago the Cox Committee 
     reported that China stole classified information regarding 
     advanced American thermonuclear weapons.
       Additionally, Beijing has exported weapons of mass 
     destruction to Iran and north Korea, in violation of treaty 
     commitments. Finally, China's record of human rights abuses 
     is well documented.
       A recent Harris Poll revealed that fully 79% of the 
     American people oppose giving China permanent access to U.S. 
     markets until China meets human rights and labor standards. 
     On this issue, Congress should respect the wisdom of the 
     American people. Now is not the time to grant Permanent 
     Normal Trade Relations to China.
           Sincerely,
                                                Jayson L. Spiegel,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                United States Army


                                 Warrant Officers Association,

                                          Hemdon, VA, May 9, 2000.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Wolf. On behalf of the membership of 
     this Association I write to express support and appreciation 
     of your actions, and that of several of your colleagues, in 
     opposing Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
       The USAWOA represents nearly 20,000 warrant officers of the 
     Active Army, the Army Guard, and the Army Reserve. These 
     highly-skilled men and women serve as helicopter pilots, 
     special forces team leaders, intelligence analysts, command 
     and control computer and communications managers, armament 
     and equipment repair technicians, and in other technical 
     fields critical to success of the modern battlefield. Daily, 
     many of them are in harm's way.
       From our perspective, it appears that China has done little 
     to deserve such consideration. Of more concern is the fact 
     that China shows few of the peaceful, democratic traits 
     evidenced by our Nation's other major trading partners. 
     Indeed, China appears to striving to achieve not only 
     economic dominance of the Pacific Rim but also a significant 
     military advantage over her neighbors, and quite possibly, 
     the United States.
       In this instance, trade and economic considerations cannot 
     take precedence over the safety of our Nation and that of our 
     allies and friends. Until fundamental, lasting changes take 
     place in China, normalization of trade relations should not 
     take place.
           Respectively,
                                                   Raymond A Bell,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                    Fleet Reserve Association,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 21, 2000.
     Hon. Christopher H. Smith,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Smith: Please be advised that the Fleet 
     Reserve Association (FRA), representing its 151,000 members, 
     all career and retired Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen 
     of the United States Armed Forces, joins you and your 
     colleagues in opposing Permanent Normal Trade Relations 
     (PNTR) for China.
       FRA shares your concern that weapons of mass destruction 
     exported by that country can be used against U.S. military 
     personnel, and also our Nation's citizens. Further, China 
     already has obtained considerable knowledge of our Nation's 
     weapons technology without normal trade relations. Should the 
     United States open its doors to normal trade relations, it is 
     worrisome that China will discover even more of that 
     sensitive information.
       One of the most important goals of this Association is to 
     protect its members as well as every active duty and reserve 
     uniformed member of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. 
     To fulfill that commitment, FRA must do all that it can to 
     oppose any move that could possibly send those brave men and 
     women into harms way without `rhyme or reason.' With the 
     possibility that the future will hang dark shadows over open 
     trading with a yet unproven China, FRA is sensitive to the 
     harm that country may inflict upon our Nation.
           Loyalty, Protection, and Service,
                                               Charles L. Calkins,
     National Executive Secretary.
                                  ____



                           Military Order of the Purple Heart,

                                                     May 15, 2000.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: The Military Order of the Purple 
     Heart (MOPH), representing the patriotic interests of its 
     30,000 members and the 600,000 living recipients of the 
     Purple Heart, is seriously concerned with the 
     Administration's proposal to grant Permanent Normal Trade 
     Relations (PNTR) status to the Peoples Republic of China.
       The MOPH is familiar with the current series of U.S. 
     Government reports concerning China to include: the Cox 
     Committee Report, the Rumsfield Commission Report, the 1999 
     Intelligence Community Report on Arms Proliferation, and 
     Chairman Spence's May 2000 HASC National Security Report on 
     China. These and other similar security assessments clearly 
     indicate that China, as an international actor, continues to 
     behave in a manner that is threatening to international 
     stability and U.S. national security interests.
       Given the broad consensus that has formed about this issue, 
     to include the recent Harris Poll indicating 79% of all 
     Americans are against granting PNTR status to China, the MOPH 
     believes it both prudent and reasonable to delay the granting 
     of PNTR status to China at this time. Speaking as patriots 
     and combat wounded veterans, we believe that granting PNTR 
     status to China would relieve them from the current pressure 
     caused by annual Congressional review of their trade status. 
     Clearly, Congressional review has caused China to improve its 
     dismal human rights record and to modify to some extent its 
     proliferation of dangerous arms on the world market. Yet 
     these modifications must be seen as the beginning not the 
     end.
       Today, China represents the most dangerous of the emerging 
     threats to U.S. national security. Her designs on Western 
     Pacific dominance, her extreme belligerence towards Taiwan, 
     and her persistent espionage and theft of U.S. advanced 
     technologies are behaviors that must be checked before any 
     reasonable consideration of PNTR status can be undertaken.
       Many of America's combat wounded veterans sacrificed life 
     and blood to repel Chinese aggression during the Korean 
     Conflict. Fifty years after that war China remains an 
     unabashedly communistic regime. It is time for China to 
     change if she wishes to be a truly welcomed participant on 
     the world's stage. It is also time for Congress and the 
     Administration to reflect upon the sacrifices of its combat 
     wounded veterans and ensure that China will not once again 
     become our enemy. In the view of the MOPH this objective must 
     be reached before PNTR status should be granted to China.
           Yours in Patriotism,
                                          Frank G. Wickersham III,
     National Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                          The American Legion,

                                                   Washington, DC.

                         For immediate release

               China Trade Opposed by The American Legion

       Indianapolis (Wednesday, May 10, 2000).--Taking into 
     account nuclear espionage charges, human rights abuses, saber 
     rattling against Taiwan, and influence-peddling indictments, 
     the 2.8-million member American Legion today demanded the 
     U.S. government withhold Permanent Normalized Trade Relations 
     with the People's Republic of China and oppose its entry into 
     the World Trade Organization.
       The American Legion's board of directors, during its annual 
     spring meeting here recommended Congress and the Clinton 
     administration force China to meet four preconditions both 
     for entry into the WTO and for ending the annual 
     congressional review of its trade status:
       Recognition of the Taiwan's right to self-determination;
       Full cooperation on the accounting of American servicemen 
     missing from the Korean War and the Cold War;
       Abandonment of policies aimed at military dominance in 
     Asia; and
       Encouragement and promotion of human rights and religious 
     freedom among the Chinese people.
       ``China should embrace democratic values before it benefits 
     from unfettered American investment,'' American Legion 
     National Commander Al Lance said: ``The American Legion sets 
     forth the prerequisites for peace and stability, without 
     which Communist China will become economically and militarily 
     more formidable even as it embarks on policies pursuant to 
     regional instability. A something-for-nothing trade 
     arrangement with China--one that severs trade from national 
     security and human rights--threatens stability, rewards 
     antagonism, and strengthens a potential foe of American sons 
     and daughters in the U.S. armed forces.''
       Founded in 1919, The American Legion is the nation's 
     largest veterans organization.
                                  ____


                [Veterans of Foreign Wars News Release]

   VFW Urges Congress to Reject Permanent Trade Relations With China

       Washington, D.C., May 17.--The Veterans of Foreign Wars of 
     the United States today urged Congress not to grant Permanent 
     Normal Trade Relations with China.
       Citing the need for a change in China's human rights 
     standards, the 1.9-million member VFW said. ``The United 
     States should maintain its current annual congressional 
     review of China's trade status until such time as China 
     changes it's policy and demonstrates that it is ready to 
     treat its people according to the basic human rights

[[Page 8637]]

     standards of other modern industrial nations.''
       In a letter to all members of Congress, VFW Commander in 
     Chief John W. Smart said, ``A vote against Permanent Normal 
     Trade Relations with China will send a clear message that the 
     United States does not tolerate China's persistent human 
     rights violations, and will not agree with it's proliferation 
     of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction, it's 
     military threats against the United States and other 
     countries in the Pacific region including repeated threats 
     made against Taiwan.
       ``Passage of the China Trade Bill, essentially rewards 
     China for mistreating its citizens, violating its current 
     trade agreements, threatening its neighbors and the United 
     States with military action, proliferating weapons of mass 
     destruction, stealing nuclear, military and industrial 
     secrets from the United States, increasing espionage against 
     the U.S., and practicing religious oppression. We believe 
     this bill sends the wrong message to China and the rest of 
     the world,'' Smart said.
       The VFW was founded in 1899. As an organization of former 
     servicemen and women, the VFW remains committed to a strong 
     national security and the well being of those serving on 
     active duty, in the National Guard and the Reserves.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 2000.

  VFW, AMVETS, and Purple Heart Veterans Join the Ranks of Veterans' 
             Organizations in Opposition to PNTR for China

       Dear Colleague: VFW, the second largest veterans' 
     organization, AMVETS, the fourth largest veterans 
     organization, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart, 
     have added their forceful voices in opposition to Permanent 
     Normal Trade Relations for China. Veterans groups 
     representing over 5.1 million members have now voiced their 
     objection to this critical trade legislation.
       VFW, representing 1.9 million members, states: ``Passage of 
     the China Trade Bill, essentially rewards China for 
     mistreating its citizens, violating current trade agreements, 
     threatening its neighbors and the United States with military 
     action, proliferating weapons of mass destruction, stealing 
     nuclear, military and industrial secrets from the United 
     States, increasing espionage against the U.S., and practicing 
     religious oppression. We believe this bill sends the wrong 
     message to China and the rest of the world.''
       AMVETS, representing more than 200,000 veterans, states: 
     ``We concur in your belief that our nation cannot afford to 
     give leverage to the Republic of China--which exports weapons 
     of mass destruction and missiles, maintains spy presence in 
     the U.S. and continues to threaten Taiwan with military 
     force. When Congress votes in the House during the week of 
     May 22, let it be known that AMVETS say `no' to the Permanent 
     Normal Trade Relations for China.''
       Military Order of the Purple Heart, chartered by Congress, 
     and representing 30,000 members and the 600,000 living 
     recipients of the Purple Heart, states: ``Today, China 
     represents the most dangerous of the emerging threats to U.S. 
     national security . . . Many of America's combat wounded 
     veterans sacrificed life and blood to repel Chinese 
     aggression during the Korea Conflict. Fifty years after that 
     war China remains an unabashedly communist regime. It is time 
     for China to change if she wishes to be a truly welcomed 
     participant on the world's stage. It is also time for 
     Congress and the Administration to reflect upon the 
     sacrifices of its combat wounded veterans and ensure that 
     China will not once again become our enemy.''
       National Commander Al Lance of the American Legion, 
     representing 2.8 million, states: ``China should embrace 
     democratic values before it benefits from unfettered American 
     investment. The American Legion sets forth the prerequisites 
     for peace and stability, without which Communist China will 
     become economically and militarily more formidable even as it 
     embarks on policies pursuant to regional instability. A 
     something-for-nothing trade arrangement with China--one that 
     severs trade from national security and human rights--
     threatens stability, rewards antagonism, and strengthens a 
     potential foe of American sons and daughters in the U.S. 
     armed forces.''
       The Fleet Reserve Officers Association, representing 
     151,000 members, career and retired Sailors, Marines, and 
     Coast Guardsmen, states: ``One of the most important goals of 
     this Association is to protect its members as well as every 
     active duty and reserve uniformed member of the Navy, Marine 
     Corps, and Coast Guard. The Fleet Reserve opposes Permanent 
     Normal Trade Relations for China.''
       The Naval Reserve Association, representing 37,000 officers 
     and enlisted members from the Naval Reserve Services, states: 
     ``China is aggressively building its military. The PRC's 
     ambitions include reunification by force with Taiwan, and 
     territorial claim over the energy resources in the 
     international waters of the South China Sea.'' They conclude 
     by stressing, ``Now is not the time to offer Permanent Normal 
     Trade Relationships (PNTR) for China.''
       The Warrant Officers Association, representing nearly 
     20,000 warrant officers of the Active Army, the Army Guard, 
     and the Army Reserve, states: ``In this instance, trade and 
     economic considerations cannot take precedence over the 
     safety of our Nation and that of our allies and friends. 
     Until fundamental, lasting changes take place in China, 
     normalization of trade relations should not take place.''
       The Reserve Officers Association, representing 80,000 
     officers in all seven uniformed services, states, ``Just 
     within the past few weeks, China has made military threats 
     against Taiwan and threatened military action against the 
     U.S. if we defend Taiwan. Now is not the time to grant 
     Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China.''
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
                                               Member of Congress.
                                                      Chris Smith,
                                               Member of Congress.
                                                     David Bonior,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                           House of Representatives, May 17, 2000.

Vote With America's Veterans on Memorial Day--Vote No on PNTR for China

       Dear Colleague: This week the VFW, the Military Order of 
     the Purple Hearts and AMVETS, joined the American Legion and 
     several other veterans organizations in opposition to PNTR 
     for China.
       VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, United States Army Warrant 
     Officers Association, Reserve Officers Association, The 
     American Legion, Naval Reserve, Military Order of the Purple 
     Heart, Fleet Reserve.
       This vote is scheduled just a few days before Memorial Day, 
     a day which honors our armed forces personnel who have given 
     their lives for our freedom. We should heed the voices of our 
     men and women in uniform and America's veterans who are 
     asking us to vote no on PNTR for China.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Frank Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 2000.

If Congress Passes PNTR, China Can Export Cheap, Semi-automatic Weapons 
                              to the U.S.

       Dear Colleague: Upon approving the annual Most Favored 
     Nation status for China in 1994, President Clinton issued an 
     embargo on the imports of assault weapons from China. This 
     complete prohibition was issued because Chinese gun 
     manufacturers had exported almost one million Chinese rifles 
     to the United States--more than made by all U.S. 
     manufacturers combined in 1992 according to the BATF.
       The most popular import was the SKS semi-automatic rifle, 
     once a standard weapon among East Bloc forces and used 
     against U.S. troops in Vietnam. The SKS was the fourth most 
     frequently traced firearm in America--surprising since 
     handguns, not rifles, tend to be the guns that criminals use 
     most. They were particularly popular among neo-nazi's, white 
     supremacists and street gangs. What made them attractive was 
     their power and inexpensive price, only $55.95.
       If Congress approves permanent NTR, World Trade 
     Organization regulations will apply to the U.S. ban of gun 
     imports from China. Under WTO regulations, the U.S. is 
     required to treat foreign and domestic goods identically. 
     Since these weapons are legal in the U.S., China will be able 
     to challenge our embargo on these dangerous firearms. The 
     U.S. would have to lift the import ban on China or prohibit 
     the manufacture of those assault weapons domestically.
       Is the U.S. prepared to lift the import ban on assault 
     weapons from China?
       Or is the U.S. prepared to ban the manufacture of those 
     weapons in the U.S.?
       Don't give China the power to decide gun policy in the 
     United States.
       Don't allow China to sell these cheap, dangerous assault 
     weapons on the streets of America.
       Oppose PNTR for China.
           Sincerely,
     Pete Stark,
       Member of Congress.
     Carolyn McCarthy,
       Member of Congress.
     Nancy Pelosi,
       Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 2000.

                    China Threatens War Over Taiwan

       Dear Colleague: BEIJING (AP).--An official Chinese 
     newspaper threatened war today if Taiwan's president-elect 
     refuses to recognize that the island is part of China.
       Stepping up pressure ahead of this weekend's inauguration, 
     Beijing wants Chen Shui-bian, who was elected March 18, to 
     recognize the ``one China principle'' to allay its fears over 
     his previous pro-independence stance.
       China's government and entirely state-run media have for 
     weeks demanded that Taiwan accept that it is part of China as 
     a precondition for talks. But the China Business Times went 
     further, threatening war if Chen

[[Page 8638]]

     fails during his inauguration Saturday to heed Beijing's 
     demands.
       ``If Taiwan's new leader refuses in his inaugural speech to 
     recognize the one China principle and even makes a speech 
     that inclines toward Taiwan independence, then relations 
     between the two sides will certainly take a turn. War in the 
     Taiwan Strait will be difficult to avoid,'' the newspaper 
     said in a front-page article alongside photos of a tank, a 
     warplane and military exercises.

     SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS.

       Pursuant to Article XXI of the GATT 1994, nondiscriminatory 
     treatment (normal trade relations treatment) shall be 
     withdrawn from the products of the People's Republic of China 
     if that country attacks, invades, or imposes a blockade on 
     Taiwan.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Howard L. Berman,
                                               Member of Congress.

                                 A BILL

       Providing for the revocation of normal trade relations 
     treatment from the products of the People's Republic of China 
     if that country attacks, invades, or imposes a blockade on 
     Taiwan.
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) Article XXI of the GATT 1994 (as defined in section 
     2(1)(B) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501 
     (1)(B)) allows a member of the World Trade Organization to 
     take ``any action which it considers necessary for the 
     protection of its essential security interests,'' 
     particularly ``in time of war or other emergency in 
     international relations''; and
       (2) an attack on, invasion of, or blockade of Taiwan by the 
     People's Republic of China would constitute a threat to the 
     essential security interests of the United States and an 
     emergency in international relations.

     SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS.

       Pursuant to Article XXI of the GATT 1994, non-
     discriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) 
     shall be withdrawn from the products of the People's Republic 
     of China if that country attacks, invades, or imposes a 
     blockade on Taiwan.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY TO EXISTING CONTRACTS.

       The President shall have the authority to determine the 
     extent to which the withdrawal under section 2 of normal 
     trade relations treatment applies to products imported 
     pursuant to contracts entered into before the date on which 
     the withdrawal of such treatment is announced. The President 
     shall issue regulations to carry out such determination.

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising these 
issues and I commend her and I commend the Veterans Administration, the 
Legion, the VFW and the others that she mentioned for stepping out and 
standing up, and we appreciate her leadership on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), who has been a great leader on this issue.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say two things. 
I think the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) stated it very well when 
she pointed out how the VFW and the other veterans groups are very much 
opposed to PNTR. I think what came across in our press conference, I 
would say to my good friend from Michigan, and he chaired that, was the 
intensity factor on the part of the veterans. They were very, very 
strong and bold about the security implications of conveying, without 
the annual review, permanent normal trading relations and the human 
rights issues.
  I have had 18 hearings in my Subcommittee on International Operations 
and Human Rights. I have been there three times. It does not make me an 
expert but I think I have some insights and they are shared by so many 
who have done likewise. Torture is commonplace in the PRC. If one is 
arrested as a religious believer or a democracy promoter, they get 
tortured and we are doing business with their torturers.
  I think when we look at every area in human rights they have gone 
from bad to worse over the last 10 years, and I think we need to say 
enough is enough, and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Bonior), for having this special order.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank my friend for his leadership and his passion and 
his courage to take on these human rights issues in his committee as 
the Chair. We enjoy working with him and we look forward to continuing 
to work on these issues that we share common values and beliefs in.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield now to my friend, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior), the distinguished Democratic whip, for yielding and for his 
extraordinary leadership on this important issue.
  I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), and commend her for her leadership as well.
  This next week this House of Representatives will have a vote and 
decide how we will honor the pillars of our own foreign policy, 
promoting democratic values, stopping the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction and growing our own economy by promoting our exports 
abroad. A vote for permanent NTR does not advance any of those goals, 
and I wish to associate myself with the remarks that have been made in 
that regard.
  I wanted to emphasize a point made by our colleague, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) earlier. This weekend in Taiwan, the second 
democratically-elected President will be inaugurated. It is cause for 
celebration in the heart of every person in the world who cares about 
freedom and democracy. At a time when we should all in this body be 
celebrating that great triumph of democracy, we are instead rejecting a 
very simple amendment, and that is the Berman amendment that the 
majority has refused to put in the bill, and that the administration 
has refused to accept.
  That simple amendment would say that PNTR would be lifted for China 
if China invades Taiwan. What could be simpler than associating one's 
self with the idea that if a country invades another place then they 
would not get special privileges in the United States? Not only have we 
ignored China's activity to proliferate weapons of mass destruction 
such as chemical, biological and nuclear technology to rogue states, 
not only have we ignored that, we have certified that they are not 
doing it when we know full well that they are.
  If the President wants to make this a national security issue, let us 
do that. In terms of national security, instead of appeasing the 
Chinese Government every step of the way on their misbehavior 
internationally we are missing an opportunity to say to them do not 
even think about invading Taiwan. If they do not think China is going 
to invade, there is no problem here. Right? Clearly, they do not trust 
the Chinese, or else they would let this amendment pass.
  Again, instead of saluting the democracy in Taiwan, we are rewarding 
the unsafe behavior of the Chinese. So I urge all of my colleagues to 
sign on to a letter to the Committee on Rules to make this amendment in 
order that if China invades Taiwan, we lift PNTR.
  Our relationship with every country should make the world safer, the 
trade fairer and people freer. Permanent NTR at this time does not do 
that. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for his 
leadership.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising that very 
important security issue and freedom issue and as my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), did, I want to thank the veterans 
of this country for coming out in opposition based on basic security 
grounds and human rights grounds and encourage them to continue to call 
their Members of Congress as we enter this vote at the end of the week, 
the American Legion and the VFW and the AMVETS and the many 
organizations that we talked about. I thank my colleagues for joining 
me today.

                          ____________________