[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9116-9153]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           CALL OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.
  A call of the House was ordered.
  The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members 
responded to their names:

                             [Roll No. 226]

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1614

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). On this rollcall, four hundred 
nineteen Members have recorded their presence by electronic device, a 
quorum.
  Under the rule, further proceedings under the call are dispensed 
with.


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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane) will yield 2 minutes to the Majority Leader, and 
then we will have closing statements from each of the managers 
beginning with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), who will have 
4\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who will 
have 4 minutes; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who will have 
4\1/2\ minutes; and

[[Page 9117]]

the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), who will have 4 minutes.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Armey), our distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I support permanent normal trade relations with China 
because I profoundly believe that it will advance the cause of human 
rights for the Chinese people. Mr. Speaker, I believe free and open 
trade is not only the best way to make China a free and open nation, 
but it may be the only way.
  A vote to open the China market and the world experience to the 
Chinese people is a vote to open markets. What is a market, Mr. 
Speaker? Market is simply an arena in which there is a sharing of 
information about market transactions, informations about desires, 
wants, hopes and dreams, and economic conditions.
  But, Mr. Speaker, one cannot share that information about economics 
without also sharing information about culture, politics, religion, and 
values. Information, Mr. Speaker, is the life blood of a market. It is 
also poison to dictators, because dictators know that it is the truth 
that will set one free. They also know that, in a modern technology 
age, information is the basis by which one acquires truth.
  When we open the China market, citizens from all over China will be 
carrying devices like this, a simple little pocket PC. With that PC, 
they can connect to the Internet every bit of information about 
culture, religion, markets, economics, and freedom and dignity 
available on this Earth. They cannot be stopped.
  It is said, Mr. Speaker, that the pen is mightier than the sword. I 
would argue that the PC is mightier than the shackles of tyranny.
  When the people of China are free to transact in world markets, and 
when they share this information about freedom, they will learn the 
lessons of liberty, they will see liberty working out in the lives of 
the other citizens in the world, and they will demand it of their 
nation, and they will change their government.
  The Communist hard-liners know this, Mr. Speaker, and that is why 
they do mischief to our efforts today. That is why they disrupt it, 
because they fear the freedom that comes from commerce and is 
contagious throughout all of human spirit.
  I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what life will be for the Chinese people 
5 or 10 or 15 years from now when we vote for freedom and commerce 
today. I cannot guarantee my colleagues that their life will be better. 
But I can tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, if we vote ``no'' today, if 
we deny them the chance, we will condemn them to a continued life of 
despair.
  I for one choose to vote, instead, for my fondest hope, for the hope 
of freedom, dignity, commerce, and prosperity, for the beautiful people 
of China so that their children, like our children, in this wide open 
world can come home and say in that magical voice, Mom, dad, I got the 
job.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues vote ``no'' today, we have normal 
trading relations with China.
  Jobs, American jobs, bombs, Bibles, in a nutshell, those are the 
three concerns that we have been talking about for the last 5 hours.
  Every year, every year I have been here, we are asked to approve 
normal trade for China based on existing and potential progress with 
these three concerns in mind: jobs, bombs, and Bibles. We are told 
every year that, if we will just extend normal trade for one more year, 
that jobs in this country will not be adversely affected.
  My district has lost manufacturing jobs to cheap Chinese labor every 
year I have been in Congress. There are others of my colleagues who fit 
in that category. This is not just cheap labor, Mr. Speaker, this is 
also slave labor.
  We are told, if we just will extend normal trade for one more year, 
we will not have to worry so much about Red China dropping nuclear 
bombs on us because they are going to be much friendlier, our 
relationship is going to be greatly improved.
  Yet, every single year that I have been in Congress, China has 
increased its nuclear arsenal with technology stolen from us and 
increased its threats to use them against American cities if we dare 
oppose their invasion of our allies.
  We are told that, if we extend normal trade relations for just one 
more year, the human rights in China will surely get better, that 
Christians will not be jailed for having Bibles, and Muslims will not 
be jailed for having the Koran, the Tibetans will not be jailed for 
simply following their traditional religion.
  Yet, every year that I have been in Congress, persecution of anyone 
in China who believes in a higher authority has gotten much worse. All 
of these things, all of them are worse after 5 years of what we have 
described as normal trade relations with China.
  So what is our response we are considering to these violations? To 
grant them normal trade relations forever with no qualifications.
  Here is what we must decide today. Do we allow China to profit from 
stealing our nuclear weapons secrets? Does China profit from violating 
our existing trade agreements and throwing hard-working Americans out 
of their manufacturing jobs? Does China profit from threatening an 
invasion of our friend and ally Taiwan? Does China profit from 
threatening nuclear attack on our cities?
  Does China profit from forcing young Chinese mothers to endure forced 
abortions and sterilization and watch government doctors kill their 
child as it is being born? Does China profit from throwing Christians 
in jail for just having a Bible or crushing the people of Tibet when 
they wanted to worship as they saw fit?
  There are many who support PNTR because they honestly believe that an 
all-out global trade, with no restrictions and no oversight, has a 
chance of simply overwhelming China's corrupt political and economic 
system. I disagree, but I respect their position and do not doubt at 
all their honest motives.
  But there is a seamier side of the China lobby that has successfully 
spread false information to America's business leaders, and many of our 
colleagues and have basically taken advantage of those honest emotions.
  We have a choice in this House today, a big choice. Our collective 
voice, Mr. Speaker, will be heard by billions of people around the 
world. People yearning and struggling for freedom, hoping, fighting and 
praying for democracy and human rights and peace.
  Our choice will determine whether our citizens and those masses of 
humanity locked in darkness continue to believe in America as the great 
beacon of human decency and divine providence, a Nation by whose light 
all mankind can see that liberty still shines brighter than gold.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to recite Horatio at the Bridge 
for my colleagues, but I thought I might get more votes if I took this 
opportunity to recognize the distinguished minority whip to tell us why 
American workers should suffer ill no more.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior)
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Norwood) on a magnificent statement.
  Mr. Speaker, it is almost sunrise in Gwong Dong Province in China. 
Soon 1,000 workers at the Chin She factory will be getting ready to go 
to work. Most of them are young people, some as young as 16 years of 
age. They work 14-hour shifts, 7 days a week. They are housed in 
cramped dormitories that resemble prisons. Their average pay is 3 cents 
an hour. They make handbags for export here to America.

                              {time}  1630

  We are told we need this trade deal to open up the vast markets for 
American goods, but these Chinese workers cannot even afford to buy the 
products they make themselves. How are they going to buy our cars, our 
cell phones, our computers?

[[Page 9118]]

  We can have free markets without free people, but it does not often 
come to a good end; Chile's Pinochet, Indonesia's Suharto.
  We should have learned the lessons of NAFTA, jobs lost in food 
processing, in consumer products, in high-tech; 100,000 good auto 
worker jobs lost forever since NAFTA. And where are those men and women 
today? Oh, they are working. They are working in nursing homes, at gas 
stations, at convenience stores, and making a fraction of what they 
once earned. And the jobs they used to have are now performed by 
workers making pennies on the dollar in Mexico's economic free-fire 
zone called the maquiladora.
  But harsh as life can be in Mexico, China is far worse. It is a 
police state. And I say to the majority leader that their information 
is censored, including the Internet; a nation where injustice is law 
and brutality is order.
  Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote that if people are to become or 
remain civilized, ``the act of associating together must grow and 
improve in the same ratio in which equality of condition is 
increased.''
  That is what enabled America to become the most prosperous Nation in 
the world. It was not the forces of world commerce that enabled coal 
miners and steelworkers and auto workers and textile workers to take 
their place among America's middle class. No, it was leaders like 
Walter Reuther, and it was other Americans exercising their rights to 
form unions, to create political parties, to build women's 
organizations, to organize churches, civic organizations and groups. 
That is what the progressive movement at the turn of the century was 
all about.
  Mr. Speaker, democracy is something that grows from the ground up. 
Theodore Roosevelt understood that a long time ago before any of us. It 
was not the global trade that created our national parks or the laws 
that protect our air and our water; it was the environmental movement. 
It was not free trade that won women the right to vote or beat Jim 
Crow; it was the commitment and the sacrifice of the suffragettes and 
civil rights leaders. It was the Elizabeth Cady Stantons and the A. 
Philip Randolphs, the Martin Luther Kings, and, yes, our own colleague, 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  The advocates of this trade deal tell us that prosperity is a 
precondition for democracy, and with all due respect, they are wrong. 
They have to grow together. While trade may make a handful of investors 
wealthy, it is democracy, democracy, that makes nations prosperous. 
Americans value trade, but we are not willing to trade in our values. 
We understand this approach to trade is really the past masquerading as 
the future. It is turning back the clock on 100 years of progress.
  Some oppose this trade deal because of its impact on the environment, 
still others out of concern for our national security, and still others 
out of a deep commitment to religious liberty and human rights. But 
while we sometimes speak with different voices, we each share that same 
vision, and it is de Tocqueville's vision of a civilized society, and 
it is a vision of a new kind of a global economy, an economy where 
people matter as much as profits.
  Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting to my colleagues that it is 
almost sunrise in Gwong Dong Province, and soon the workers at the Chin 
She Handbag factory will begin another day. Today, we can send them a 
message of hope, a message that the global economy we want is not one 
where working families in China and Mexico and America compete in a 
hopeless race to the bottom.
  We have a better vision than that. It is a vision of the global 
economy where all have a seat at the table. It is a vision of a new 
global economy where none of us are on the outside looking in. At the 
beginning of the last century, the progressive movement began a 
struggle that made the promise of democracy and prosperity real for 
millions of Americans. Now, from this House of Representatives, we 
carry that struggle for human dignity into a new century. For families 
here in America and throughout the world, we have just begun.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman is recognized for 
4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this has been, I think, one of my better 
days in this House; to be able to listen to the eloquent exchanges on 
such an important issue to our country and, indeed, the world; to be 
able to disagree and not be disagreeable; and for people from within 
and without to know that this will still be the House of 
Representatives and the true representatives of the people no matter 
how the vote turns out.
  Let me say this. Some 50 years ago, November 30, 1950, to be exact, I 
found myself a member of the Second Infantry Division, having fought 
from Pusan, entering in July, straight through up to North Korea 
sitting on the Yalu River. I was 20 years old at the time, waiting to 
go home, because we thought the war was over. We had beaten back the 
North Koreans. While we were there and General McArthur was having his 
fight with President Truman, hordes of Chinese, not the lovely Chinese 
that the distinguished Majority Leader was talking about, but hordes of 
Communist Chinese destroyed the entire Eighth Army, and we suffered 90 
percent casualties. I do not take communism lightly.
  But that was 50 years ago, and now the guy that was shot and was a 
high school dropout became a Member of this distinguished body, and now 
this United States is the most powerful country in the world, 
militarily and economically. And how did we get this way? It is because 
we do things better. We are better educated, we are better at 
producing. But in order for us to continue to prosper, we have to have 
economic growth. We have to find new marketplaces.
  Yet, all of a sudden, to my shock and surprise, with the exception of 
Cuba, communism is not the barrier. Instead we are involved in 
exchange, engagement, and find those marketplaces. How can we afford to 
ignore over a billion people, knowing that if we ignore them that the 
Asians and the Europeans will not?
  We come to the well here with an agreement where we are breaking down 
the barriers in China. Not in the United States. They have been down. 
This gives us an opportunity to go into those markets. And I have been 
throughout the United States. No one challenges me that farmers are 
begging to get into those markets. Silicon Valley in California, 
Silicon Alley in New York, farmers, businesses, pharmacists, 
manufacturers, the banking industry, the insurance industry are all 
asking us to allow them to get there and show how good Americans can 
really be.
  We say we would like to do that, but we have deep-seated concerns 
about the way China treats its people. Well, we do not want to ignore 
those concerns. That is why we have the proposal of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a 
commission and oversight that if this fails, we will not have.
  I ask those people that have this compassion and concern for their 
new-found Communist friends in China, what if these Chinese do 
everything that we hate for them to do, what do we do when it comes up 
next year if it is not permanent? Do my colleagues not understand that 
we would be the bad guys for putting in place an impediment to their 
getting into the World Trade Organization, but they will get in anyway? 
We will have no way, except barking at the Moon, to complain about the 
behavior that we dislike.
  But I tell my colleagues this. We cannot forget as Americans that we 
have blemishes on this human rights issue. We have descendants of 
slaves that sit in this body. We have people here as Members of 
Congress that 50 years ago could not eat in certain restaurants. We 
have people living in the United States without educations, without 
hope, without running water.
  Mr. Speaker, I have not leaned on one Member in asking them to vote 
for this bill. I would not think that I am more of an American than 
they are, but I want to share with my colleagues

[[Page 9119]]

that when people in certain districts go to sleep dreaming about human 
rights, they are not thinking about Shanghai; they are thinking about 
an opportunity in this great country.
  We are blessed. Let us break down these barriers. Let us be able to 
go there to China. Let us maintain an annual report, yes; but daily we 
will monitor the conduct and let us give America an opportunity to be 
all that she can be. We will show them.
  Cutting off communication did not work with that Communist, Castro. 
He has outlived close to 10 Presidents. Do not let it happen in China.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), our distinguished Speaker of the 
House.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, here we are, finally, on the floor of this 
great House closing the debate on permanent normal trade relations with 
China.
  Before we move into the finality of this, I want to thank those who 
helped make this legislation possible. I have to thank the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). 
And I must say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), we have 
been talking a lot lately. They will be talking about us.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and my partners, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). I 
thank them all for their diligence in making this happen.
  But while there is one bill being debated here today, there are 
actually two debates going on; two questions that have to be answered. 
One, is granting this status to China in the best interest of the 
United States and the American people? And, two, is granting this 
status good for the people of China?

                              {time}  1645

  I believe the answer to both is ``yes.''
  Among other things, this debate is about American economic security. 
American negotiators have reached a tough, but fair, agreement for 
China's entry into the World Trade Organization. It is in fact a one-
sided agreement. China gets nothing from us they do not already have, 
and we get lower tariffs and easier access for our exports going to 
China. And who makes those exports? American workers do.
  Regardless of whether we grant normal trade status to China, the 
Chinese market is opening. Someone is going to have the opportunity to 
sell to this vast new market. The question is who will be there when 
the door opens? Will it be the United States, or will it be Europe and 
Japan?
  There will be new and larger markets for farm commodities and 
manufactured goods in China. Who will produce those products? American 
farmers and American workers or European farmers and European workers?
  This vote today is about whether American firms set the ground rules 
and standards for business in China.
  The potential for American economic growth is huge. If we pass this 
legislation, U.S. agricultural exports to China would increase by $2 
billion every year. That means American farmers will be selling more 
corn and more wheat and more citrus and more soybeans.
  Last year, the wireless telephone market in China was $20 billion. By 
2003, that market will be up to $45 billion. Our high-tech firms would 
thrive in the Chinese marketplace.
  It is clear that passing this legislation is in the best interest of 
American economic security. That is why Alan Greenspan supports it, and 
that is one reason why we should vote ``yes.''
  But there is another reason. Gradual democratic reform is taking root 
in the hearts and the minds of the Chinese people. But for it to 
continue, we must clear the way for more Americans to work with the 
Chinese.
  More trade will expose the Chinese people to powerful new ideas. 
Thanks to the American business presence in China, thousands of Chinese 
employees already have access to foreign newspapers and the Internet 
and to worldwide e-mail.
  Today this House is doing a good thing. We are showing the people and 
the leaders of China what real democracy looks like.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and I share a common goal, 
to help American workers and to encourage American reforms and human 
rights in China. But we differ on how to achieve that goal.
  I believe my approach is better, and that is why I urge Members to 
support this bill. But I am proud that I live in a country where the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr Bonior) can be here on this floor today 
passionately putting forth his point of view, because that is what true 
democracy is all about. And, ladies and gentlemen, that is what this 
great House of Representatives is all about.
  In addition to the privilege of serving as the Speaker of this House, 
I am honored to be the representative of the people of the 14th 
District of Illinois. Like every State in this great Nation, Illinois 
has a lot to offer the people of China.
  So, in closing, I say to the people of China that we want to send you 
our corn and our farm machinery and our telecommunications equipment. 
But as we do, we are going to send along something more, free of 
charge. We are going to send you a glimpse of freedom and the ideals of 
Illinois' favorite son, Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator. Because 
we want for you the prosperity and the blessings of the liberty that we 
enjoy.
  This is a historic vote and a proud day for this body. I believe the 
vote we are casting today will help ensure our continued prosperity. 
Vote for the future. Vote ``aye.''
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I support 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. I believe in free trade and 
I believe this agreement will bring economic growth to the United 
States and China, but I am highly concerned about the skewed priorities 
of U.S. trade negotiations and the framework of the World Trade 
Organization.
  I voted against the NAFTA because I thought we could make Mexico 
negotiate a better deal with more safeguards for the environment and 
worker rights.
  I voted against the GATT, which created the World Trade Organization, 
because I disapproved of establishing a world trading system that ceded 
our sovereignty in a number of areas, and particularly our ability to 
uphold laws for public health and the environment.
  I would have voted against Fast Track, if it had come to the floor, 
because of my concern that U.S. trade negotiators were not permitted to 
put worker protection issues as well as environment matters on the 
agenda.
  But according to the WTO rules that Congress ratified, and I voted 
against, China will be able to become part of the WTO regardless of our 
vote today. All we can decide here is whether the U.S. will benefit 
from the terms of China's accession.
  Although the symbolic message of rejecting PNTR would be potent, the 
substantive impact could be harmful for our economic and national 
security interests. On the economic side, there are some who believe 
that we can get every benefit by virtue of the bilateral agreement 
signed in 1979. I think that interpretation is incorrect. To press that 
issue, we could end up in a destructive trade war and at the same time 
lose major economic opportunities to America's global competitors.
  In the national security arena, I fear that in rejecting PNTR we 
would treat China as an adversary and that it would in reaction to our 
vote certainly become one. Rejecting PNTR would embolden the hardline 
militarists and make China even less cooperative in arms control and 
regional affairs. On the other hand, supporting the entry of both China 
and Taiwan into the WTO is an unprecedented opportunity to work with 
both countries on equal footing within a major multilateral 
organization.
  Furthermore, I think our current mechanism of annual review is not 
working and as a threat is not credible. I have voted against extending 
Normal Trade Relations status to China every year to protest their 
denial of human rights to their own citizens, but the possibility of 
cutting off trade relations has become an empty threat. That is why I 
strongly support my colleague Sandy Levin's proposal to establish a 
Congressional-Executive Commission to provide a continuous examination 
of human rights in China. It will create a strong network for Congress 
to communicate with NGO activists in China and maintain a

[[Page 9120]]

constant focus on local Chinese elections, grass-roots environmental 
activities, and the situation in Tibet.
  I hope that passing PNTR will also bring greater transparency to 
China, and promote the rule of law. The influx of American interest, 
telecommunications, and media companies will democratize the flow of 
information beyond government control and give us new tools to 
scrutinize China's record on human rights and religious freedom.
  Although I'm supporting this bill, I continue to have serious 
concerns. For one thing, I am very troubled that Chinese tariffs on 
cigarettes will fall from 65% to 25% over the next four years. Lung 
cancer and other smoking-related diseases are already the most common 
cause of death in China, accounting for more than 700,000 deaths 
annually. This tariff reduction could open the door for tobacco 
companies to launch their aggressive marketing tactics against a highly 
vulnerable population where less than 4% know the dangers of smoking. 
Smoking patterns could eventually cause more than 3 millions deaths a 
year in China, and smoking rates could sky-rocket among women and 
children. We have a responsibility to make sure we don't spread the 
tobacco public health crisis to China.
  I also believe that the existing need for WTO reform will become even 
more apparent once China is a WTO member. I think there is a good 
change that China will try to get out of living up to its obligations 
under this accord and that even WTO judgments against China will be 
difficult to enforce. I also suspect that China may make efforts to use 
the WTO rules to challenge our own laws as trade barriers, When that 
happens, and maybe before, we in this country will have to face the 
dangers that the WTO represents and why it must be reformed.
  The WTO's dispute settlement mechanism must be open to input by non-
governmental entities that have an interest in the deliberation. The 
evaluating panels cannot be shrouded in secrecy if dispute settlement 
is going to evolve as a credible and effective tool to enforce 
transparency and compliance.
  The U.S. should be leading the change to make trade rules include 
standards for human rights, labor rights, and the environment. We must 
work for a world economy that lives up to our standards instead of 
sinking to lower ones. Perhaps most importantly, we must make U.S. 
companies the ambassadors of these values when they operate abroad. I 
hope the advantages and consequences that unfold from PNTR will hasten 
our attention to moving forward on this agenda.
  My support for PNTR was not an easy decision. The debate has 
convinced me that we must redouble our efforts to press for domestic 
change in China, a change in U.S. trade priorities and more progressive 
would trading norms. But it has also brought me to the realization that 
isolating China would not cause new problems without without solving 
old ones and bring about great dangers that we must work to prevent.
  Today's vote could determine the course of U.S.-China relations for 
the next century. On voting for PNTR, I hope we will help make our most 
dynamic industries lead the way as they expand into China and the rest 
of the world. I also hope that it will allow us to working to bring 
down national barriers and promote the well-being lf all our peoples.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4444 which would 
extend to the People's Republic of China permanent normal trade 
relations. More importantly, however, passage of this bill serves to 
ratify the bi-lateral trade agreement reached between the U.S. and 
China last fall as a condition for China's accession into the World 
Trade Organization. This will be the only vote Congress has on this 
momentous agreement.
  On the one hand, China is a potential boom market for our industries, 
particularly agriculture which is critically important to my district. 
Bringing China into the WTO has the potential of making the Port of 
Hueneme, in my district, an even more important portal for Pacific Rim 
trade. With 20 percent of the world's population, China is an appealing 
market. It behooves us to work diligently and intelligently to open 
that market to U.S. sellers.
  The other hand carries many pitfalls. China's track record in meeting 
its obligations under international agreements is not good. China is 
the only remaining Communist superpower. China has stolen our nuclear 
secrets and threatens stability in Asia with her belligerence towards 
Taiwan and others. We ignore that reality at our own peril.
  Last year, I voted against a one-year extension of China's Most 
Favored Nation status based on two criteria: The United States 
maintains a multibillion-dollar trade deficit with China and has for 
years, and China has repeatedly demonstrated an aggressive military 
stance that includes stealing our most important nuclear secrets. At 
the beginning of this debate, I was not automatically against China's 
entry into the World Trade Organization, but I did have some very 
serious concerns. WTO membership carries more protection for the United 
States than does Most Favored Nation status. MFN has been a one-way 
street. It was a unilateral decision on our part to allow China access 
to our markets with no reciprocal opening on China's behalf. WTO is 
more of a two-way street. China must meet and maintain certain open-
door criteria to remain in the WTO.
  Our trade with China historically has been a one-way street. In 1990, 
our trade deficit with China stood at $10.4 billion. By 1998, that 
deficit had climbed to $56.9 billion. It is estimated our trade deficit 
with China in 1999 will be $66.4 billion. China's entry into WTO and 
the ratification of the U.S.-China trade agreement can ease that 
deficit, but only if the agreement has teeth. I believe the WTO process 
has those teeth.
  In 1992, China and the U.S. signed a bilateral memorandum of 
understanding on trade access. China has violated it many times. In 
1992, we also struck a deal with China to protect intellectual 
property, including copyrights on U.S. products. Today, U.S. copyrights 
for motion pictures and software in China are still being stolen by 
Chinese companies, a situation that results in the loss of billions of 
dollars and many thousands of American jobs. Chinese noncompliance has 
forced us to threaten trade sanctions several times.
  On the national security front, China was continuing a systematic 
raid on the designs of our most sophisticated thermonuclear weapons at 
the same time that it was modernizing and pretending to normalize 
relations with the U.S. Among the stolen designs was information on the 
neutron bomb, which to date no nation has opted to deploy and hopefully 
no one will. Even though China has been caught red-handed, it continues 
to deny its espionage. Meanwhile, it continues to showcase its 
belligerency by transferring sensitive missile technology to North 
Korea and by repeatedly threatening to attack Taiwan.
  The U.S.-China agreement can have positive consequences for the U.S., 
China and, indeed, the entire world. The agreement will force China to 
open its markets to U.S. goods and services, which will result in a 
lowering of the trade deficit. It could wean China from its passion for 
subsidies and government interference in its industries. It could 
educate the Chinese on the rule of law, as opposed to its current 
system of rule by the whim of its leaders. It could also hasten the 
spread of democracy within her borders. Each time a country has opened 
its economic markets, an open market of ideas has followed.
  But we must step carefully. We must not let our desire to access 
China's markets to blind us to China's distaste for democracy, her 
threat to our national security and her history of violating 
international laws and agreements. For the WTO agreement to work, it 
must level the playing field for U.S. exporters and be fully 
enforceable. Anything less will not open China's markets or advance the 
historical trend toward truly free trade and the rule of law.
  Since the U.S. signed a bilateral trade agreement with China last 
year, I have said repeatedly that my vote for or against permanent 
trade relations with China would rely on specific factors: It must 
protect American jobs, ensure Chinese markets are open to American 
goods and services, protect America's strategic interests and--be 
enforceable.
  I have made it clear that without those provisions, I would vote 
against Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Some of those protections 
were not in the bill until last night.
  Those protections are in the bill only because I and other Members of 
Congress withheld our support until every `i' was dotted. By working 
behind the scenes, we were able to force concessions that make this 
agreement a better deal for American businesses, American workers and 
for those who support greater human rights for the Chinese people. Last 
night, a bipartisan provision was incorporated into the bill that makes 
it easier for us to monitor China's trade compliance, and act if need 
be. That provision builds on provisions in the World Trade Organization 
agreement that allows us to continue to treat China as a communist 
economy. That's important because our safeguards and anti-dumping 
countermeasures are more stringent for communist economies than it is 
for capitalist countries.
  In addition, the revised bill continues Congress' all-important right 
to debate and vote on China's human rights practices and international 
behavior each year.
  The European Union signed its WTO agreement with China on Friday, 
followed by an agreement with Australia on Monday. Both were negotiated 
with China's history of duplicity in mind. In particular, the EU 
agreement

[[Page 9121]]

improves the deal signed by the U.S. by making China significantly more 
open to foreign investment and trade. Under WTO rules, those provisions 
are open to the U.S. as well.
  We have given China Permanent Normal Trade Relations. But this is not 
the end, only the beginning. China has, at best, a mixed record of 
living up to international agreements, and I still have concerns about 
China's adherence to this one. But I am satisfied we have the 
mechanisms in place to force compliance, or take remedial action, if 
necessary. American businesses will not have a level playing field 
unless we continually insist on it, but now we have the tools to do 
that.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this debate I have 
expressed my belief that any trade deal with China involves two 
questions. The first, which we are debating today, is whether the 
Chinese have negotiated an agreement that is fair for American workers 
and businesses. However, before we can address this question we must be 
able to answer the second question, whether the agreement that has been 
negotiated includes the necessary enforcement mechanisms to ensure 
compliance by China and fair treatment for American companies and 
workers. We have not yet answered this question, and consequently I 
cannot support this or any deal with China lacking the enforcement 
mechanisms necessary to guarantee fair trade.
  Today's robust debate has highlighted the concerns of many of my 
colleagues, thousands of interest groups and millions of citizens. All 
the subjects being debated today--national security, human rights, 
religious freedom, democracy, labor at home and abroad, the environment 
and the development of our and the world's economy--are of considerable 
importance.
  China is the most populous nation in the world. As such, its 
potential as a market for American goods and services is second to 
none. The concept of increased trade with China based on a good, 
enforceable agreement is sound and deserving of support. Trade is and 
will be extremely important to both American companies and workers. As 
a blueprint, the agreement negotiated by the Clinton Administration 
with China is good for America in many respects.
  When it comes down to it, any agreement, like any contract, is only 
as good as its enforcement provisions. What we have from China, so far, 
is its promise, if you will, to allow U.S. and foreign firms to compete 
fairly and openly in the Chinese market. But negotiations must still be 
held to reach agreement on how those promises China has made are going 
to be enforced. It has been more than two years since the World Trade 
Organization (WTO) working party and Chinese negotiators first met to 
conduct serious negotiations on the enforcement provisions to be 
included in the protocol.
  Mr. Speaker, members should know in detail what the WTO will do to 
ensure full and fair implementation of China's commitments contained in 
the accession agreement before, not after, we vote on an issue as 
important as the issue on the floor today. Why is the protocol and 
working party report so important, some may ask. The simple answer is 
that the protocol and working party report identify what the WTO will 
do to make sure that China fully implements the commitments it has made 
in the agreements that have been reached with the United States and 
other WTO partners. Until the Congress sees not only the commitments 
China has made but also the WTO's enforcement commitments, there is, in 
reality, no agreement for Congress to consider and determine worthy of 
granting PNTR to China.
  Once China enters the WTO, American firms and American workers must 
turn to the WTO for enforcement of their rights, and enforcement at the 
WTO is an area of considerable disappointment and concern. The WTO's 
``binding dispute resolution'' system has proven to be a system rife 
with bias, incompetency, as well as totally unfamiliar with basic 
principles of due process and openness.
  There are no judges, only ad hoc panelists, most of whom are not 
experienced or qualified in applying proper standards of review. These 
panelists are assisted, if not controlled, by WTO bureaucrats who have 
inherent biases based on their programmatic interests in the subjects 
under review. Proceedings are kept secret from the public and from the 
parties in interest.There is no ability to engage in meaningful fact-
finding. Panel decisions have also created obligations for WTO members 
that they did not agree to in the process of negotiations. And even if 
a panel decides in your favor, as in the case brought by the United 
States against the European Union (EU) on beef hormones and bananas, 
there is no assurance at all that anything will change. Years have gone 
by since the U.S. ``won'' these cases, and U.S. firms still have no 
greater access to the EU market.
  Mr. Chairman, PNTR is an extremely valuable trade benefit with China 
does not have but earnestly wants. It constitutes the only real 
leverage the U.S. has to bring about the kind of economic and trade 
reforms within China that will open that market to the products and 
services American firms and American workers produce. Before we grant 
PNTR to China, we must make sure that China not only makes sufficient 
market opening commitments, but also that those commitments are 
enforceable.
  I am not pleased to vote no today. It is unquestionably in our 
national interest to have a cooperative relationship with China, and I 
am well aware that rejecting this trade package could further strain 
U.S.-Chinese relations and diminish our influence in China with regard 
to democracy, human rights, labor, environmental protection and Taiwan.
  But ultimately, my vote is about fairness and timing. Without 
enforcement mechanisms there can be no assurance of fairness for 
American business, American industry, and American jobs. By voting on a 
trade deal of such great importance before all the deals have been cut, 
especially on the enforcement mechanisms which will decide if this 
agreement is worth the paper it is written on, we needlessly jeopardize 
American jobs and business prospects in China. I guarantee you rules 
that can't be enforced will be broken. This vote should be postponed 
until accession agreements are concluded. Only then can we fully and 
responsibility assess the commitments China makes and determine whether 
the agreement ensures that China's commitment will be fully implemented 
and effectively enforced.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, 
extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status to China. In 
my career, I cannot recall a vote on which a final decision was more 
difficult to reach. Until today, I have been genuinely and sincerely 
undecided. In these past weeks and months, I have been listening 
intently to the forceful arguments for and against the legislation, 
especially those made by my constituents--who are as divided on this 
issue as I have been. I have great respect for the beliefs of those on 
both sides of this debate and for the passion of their convictions. In 
the final analysis, I believe that ``aye'' is the correct vote for a 
variety of reasons, including advancing the causes of human rights and 
democratization, for our national security, and for our economic self-
interest.
  Improving respect for human rights and fostering democracy clearly 
must be top policy priorities in our relationship with China. No one 
here today condones the political and religious repression in that 
nation. The disagreement is over which U.S. policy is more likely to 
contribute to an improvement in conditions in China. I stress the word 
``contribute,'' because we need to be cognizant that nothing we do will 
dramatically change China in the short term.
  Both sides of this debate have prominent human rights activists and 
former political prisoners supporting their position. We are presented 
with no easy formula that instructs us whether China plus or minus PNTR 
results in improved human rights. I have come to the conclusion that 
the increased outside contact, prosperity, and economic liberalization 
that comes with a strong U.S.-Sino trade relationship within the World 
Trade Organization (WTO) will be a greater force for change than the 
annual consideration and routine extension of NTR has offered. I am 
also comforted by the recent expressions of support for China's entry 
into the WTO by the Dalai Lama--perhaps the most prominent symbol of 
the repressive nature of the Chinese regime.
  We have heard much debate about the job losses which could result 
from passage of PNTR. While I am extremely sensitive to labor's 
concerns, on balance I believe that the economic interests of business 
and labor are enhanced by this normalization of trade with China. The 
U.S.-China Bilateral WTO Agreement provides for broad tariff reductions 
by China, for enhanced market access for American goods, and contains 
import surge protections for the U.S. The agreement requires no 
reduction in U.S. tariffs or any enhanced market access for Chinese 
products. As we have never revoked Most Favored Nation/Normal Trade 
Relations through the annual review process, China currently has 
defactor PNTR. I fail to see how reduced Chinese tariffs and other 
concessions in return for ending the formality of the annual review 
leads to increased job loss.
  I believe that passing PNTR will not create any significant job loss 
that was not already occurring in certain sectors of the economy. While 
various estimates of the employment effects of PNTR have been 
proffered, they must be viewed in the context of an economy that is 
dynamic and in constant flux. The shape of the American economy is 
changing and will

[[Page 9122]]

change whether or not we pass PNTR. In fact, I believe that Chinese WTO 
accession and passage of PNTR will be a net creator of good jobs in 
California and in my congressional district.
  It is my fervent hope that over the long term, China's accession to 
the WTO will improve the human rights situation and encourage 
democratization in China. The inclusion in H.R. 4444 of a strong 
legislative package authored by Representatives Sander Levin (D-MI) and 
Doug Bereuter (R-NE) has addressed my doubts about the effects of this 
bill on human rights in China, as well as the American jobs. The human 
rights monitoring commission created by the legislation is a good idea 
in its own right. I believe the merit of close scrutiny of China's 
human rights situation speaks for itself and I would support the 
proposal independent of this PNTR bill.
  The import surge protections negotiated by the Clinton Administration 
and codified in this bill go a long way to addressing my concern about 
job losses resulting from this bill. This mechanism allows the 
President to utilize tariff increases, import restrictions, or other 
relief for domestic industries whose markets are disrupted by a surge 
in Chinese made goods. These powerful tools come in additional to the 
trade remedies already available under U.S. law and under the WTO.
  Ultimately, passing PNTR is in our economic self interest. China will 
join the WTO whether or not we pass this legislation today. The rest of 
the world will enjoy significant tariff reduction on their exports to 
China regardless of the outcome of this vote. We are voting on our 
nation's ability to sell the products made by our workers and our 
companies on a competitive basis. We must continue to vigilantly 
monitor our relationship with China. We must continue to pursue 
improvements in respect for human rights in all appropriate venues, 
including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We will have 
to maintain our steadfast support for Taiwan. We will have to closely 
monitor Chinese compliance with its obligations under the WTO and make 
full use of that organization's mechanisms to enforce those 
obligations. With the knowledge in mind, Mr. Speaker, I am left with 
the belief that passage of this legislation is in the interests of both 
the American and the Chinese people.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today we are plotting a bold course that is 
in keeping with our history, our potential, and our ultimate goal of 
liberating the Chinese people.
  In the international arena, America doesn't shrink from a challenge. 
We seize opportunity. We are fighters, visionaries, and pioneers. It's 
in our nature as Americans, to look past a challenge to victory.
  Standing as we do, at the head of the world, in a position of 
unprecedented strength and prosperity, why would we now choose the 
timid path? We should not, and we will not. That's why we will pass 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations status with the People's Republic of 
China.
  While PNTR will help our American economy, this is only one step 
toward our larger goal; ending communist rule in China by exposing the 
Chinese people to American values. Freedom is a contagious virtue.
  Defeating a foe is a poor substitute for liberating a country from 
the weight of a repressive ideology. We should today ensure the triumph 
of liberty by planting the seeds of freedom in China. We should not 
accept a retrenchment driven by fear and insecurity.
  There are serious issues we must address. Confronting these issues 
requires real American leadership and courage,
  We should not for a moment imagine that PNTR will solve or even the 
address the many troubling questions concerning the future of the 
communist government in Beijing. Without a doubt, expanded trade must 
be matched with a revitalization of America's military and a 
strengthening of our friendships with our allies in Asia. Simply 
expanding trade without supplying these critical elements will not 
create a free China.
  But we shouldn't let the strong steps we must take to resist 
aggression prevent us from communicating with the Chinese people.
  The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy has always been to make the 
case for freedom and democracy. We have never been afraid to place our 
values and our form of government up against any competitor. Give us 
half a chance, and we will win.
  Expanding trade with China is just this sort of opportunity. 
Fundamental change in China will not happen simply through State 
Department dictates. It will only happen after we inspire the Chinese 
people to demand freedom.
  We want to appeal to the Chinese people. To do that we have to be 
there, on the ground, spreading our values and the sure knowledge that 
there is a far better, nobler form of government than communism. 
Ignorance is the ally of repressive governments.
  Expanded trade, because it spreads American values, is an essential 
tool in changing a closed society. And in the battle for China's 
future, one Chinese entrepreneur is worth a million government 
bureaucrats.
  Over the last century, communist countries have run from this 
competition. They hid their people behind walls and fortified borders, 
because they knew that if their citizens were exposed to our values, 
then the battle would be lost. As a great power built on a foundation 
of timeless virtues, we fear no competing political systems because we 
trust the strength of our ideas.
  We should ask ourselves: Why do so many of the hardliners, the old 
communist guard in China, resist opening their country to increased 
trade and interaction with America?
  It's because they understand the power of democratic values. We need 
to support Chinese reformers by giving them more, not less, access to 
American ideals. This will raise the call for human rights and lead 
China to the rule of law.
  We can't for a single minute ignore abuses by the Chinese government. 
Beijing's record on human rights, religious persecution, coercive 
abortion, and arms shipments to hostile states is shameful. The Chinese 
government does wicked things to its people.
  The way to stop these evil deeds is to end communist rule and that 
means transforming China into a free-market democracy. This is much 
more likely to happen if American ideals eat away at the infrastructure 
of tyranny from the inside out.
  We must also reject any notion that our support of expanded trade in 
China signals in any small way a slackening of our solemn commitment to 
defend Taiwan from aggression. We are sworn to defend Taiwan and we say 
again today that the United States will not allow any resolution of 
Taiwan's status that involves force or threats. We will not stand for 
it. Further, we must insist that Taiwan be admitted to the WTO as well.
  Granting PNTR to China is a critical component of a strategy driven 
by our one, clear objective: destroying communism. So, I urge my fellow 
Members, to support PNTR and commit the United States to this contest 
between freedom and repression.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, extending permanent normal trade relations to 
China and supporting its accession to the World Trade Organization 
greatly benefits the United States. By encouraging participation in 
international organizations that facilitate the rule of law, I believe 
that this agreement is also in the best interest of the Chinese people.
  By approving PNTR, we will be enabling the United States to take 
advantage of the across-the-board reductions in tariff barriers that we 
negotiated as terms for our approval of China's accession to the World 
Trade Organization. Agricultural tariffs will be substantially reduced 
on several priority products, including a 66 percent cut on the tariff 
for apples, that will obviously have a large impact on my State of 
Washington and other apple producing areas of our country. China also 
agreed to lift its longstanding ban on the import of wheat and to 
increase the quota by more than 400 percent. China agreed to 
participate in the Information Technology Agreement and to eliminate 
tariffs on products such as software, computers, and semiconductors. 
Also China agreed to slash tariffs on industrial goods by an average of 
62 percent, enabling America's manufacturers to compete much more 
evenly in the Chinese marketplace. The WTO accession agreement also 
contains provisions that will help other industries in which the U.S. 
is a world leader--telecommunications, insurance and banking just to 
name a few.
  The approval last week of a market access agreement between China and 
the European Union further adds to the benefits we will enjoy with 
China's accession to the WTO, as the best terms of each agreement 
negotiated by the Chinese must be extended to all members of the WTO. 
More agricultural tariffs will be cut, including those on wheat gluten 
and Washington wines. Several more tariffs on industrial goods will 
also be reduced, liberalization of the telecommunications industry will 
be accelerated, and United States law firms will be authorized to offer 
legal services in China.
  In return, we do not have to change anything--not one tariff, nor one 
regulation currently enforced by the United States. All we must do, 
according to WTO rules, is to extend permanent normal trade relations 
to China. Those of my colleagues that argue that our record trade 
deficit with China is a reason to oppose this bill must consider this 
point. There is nothing about this bill that will lead to an increase 
in the amount of goods we import from China; rather, this is all about 
slashing Chinese tariffs against United States goods which will lead to 
a substantial increase in United States exports to China. If you are 
truly concerned about addressing the United States trade deficit, you 
should vote for this bill.

[[Page 9123]]

  Some are opposing this bill, claiming that China has rarely adhered 
to prior trade agreements in the past. In my judgment, opponents 
claiming this point should be eager to support this agreement. By 
entering the WTO, China will finally be participating in an 
organization whose sole purpose to enforce trade agreements. A few 
years ago, we had to beg, cajole, and plead with China in order to 
persuade them to provide any enforcement of the intellectual property 
agreement established between our two countries. With accession to the 
WTO, we will have an impartial adjudicator to hear the case and 
determine what redress is warranted. No longer will we have to rely on 
the honesty and effectivness of the Chinese Government to ensure that 
they abide by trade agreements.
  My good friends in the labor community have expressed grave concerns 
over the effects this bill will have on American and Chinese workers. I 
deeply repect their concerns, but I believe that they are best 
addressed by voting for this bill.
  Currently, United States manufacturers and service providers struggle 
to enter the Chinese market becaue of high tariffs and often 
insurmountable red tape. By agreeing to cut their tariffs and reduce 
burdensome rules, China will be creating an incredible opportunity for 
American-made goods to finally penetrate their market. I firmly believe 
that this will be a real job creator in the United States, and 
ultimately of great benefit to U.S. workers. For this reason, the 
27,000 member International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
Workers Local 751 western Washington endorsed this legislaiton.
  I cannot claim that the benefit to the Chinese worker will be as 
quick or as quantifiable as are the gains to American workers, but I do 
believe that accession to the WTO is in the best, long-term interest of 
the Chinese worker. This agreement will contribute to what we are 
already seeing in many parts of China--the growth of economic freedom 
and a vibrant middle class.
  I also respect the convictions of those who consistently oppose any 
engagement with China because of China's disappointing record on human 
rights and religious freedoms. However, I side with many who, like the 
Dalai Lama and dissidents Bao tong and Dai Qing, recognize that 
engaging the Chinese and bringing them into international organizations 
that support the rule of law will be more effective in promoting 
freedom in China than will isolating China from the world community.
  In my justment, the most important reason to support this bill and 
Chinese accession into the WTO is for our own national security. By 
voting against this bill, we would be encouraging the isolation of 
China from the international community and hostility toward the United 
States. History shows that isolating a nation in this fashion often 
leads to mistrust, military buildup, and conflict. A belligerent China, 
possessing nuclear weapons and the largest land army in the world would 
be a grave prospect.
  Conversely, I believe that maintaining our trade link with China will 
continue to provide us with a stable foundation
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, 
Extending Nondiscriminatory Treatment to the People's Republic of 
China. We stand here today at a cross roads in our relations with the 
Chinese. We can choose to engage China in a one sided agreement in 
which their tariffs on United States exports to China drop from the 
current average of 24.6 percent in 1997 to 9.4 percent in 2005. In 
return we will not have to lower our tariffs at all. Or we can choose 
to reject this agreement, allowing China to keep its tariffs high for 
United States goods and services while they reduce them for other 
countries. We must remember that in both of these choices, China joins 
the WTO.
  The choice is clear. The policy of engagement is the better course 
and the path we must choose. However, engagement does not equal 
endorsement. There are three areas we must continue to push China on to 
improve their record: the environment, human rights, and transparency 
in their international dealings. The legislation before us moves us 
forward on each one.
  As our efforts to address global climate change continue, China must 
be part of the solution. If we do not engage China in solutions to 
improve the global environment there is no way our solutions to clean 
up our planet can truly be effective. China is the world's largest 
energy consumer and emitter of greenhouse gases that contribute to 
global climate change. China is also the world's largest developing 
country chemical exporter and the world's largest producer of ozone-
depleting substances. If China is left out of the fight for a cleaner 
environment, our efforts could be neutralized.
  China's record on human rights has been abysmal. However, it is 
important to remember that the most repressive periods in recent 
Chinese history have occurred in times of isolation. Let us continue to 
encourage China to give their people greater freedoms. Under this 
policy of engagement, China has signed the U.N. Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights and the U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social, and 
Cultural Rights. Both await ratification in the National People's 
Congress. It is our hope the Congress will move quickly to ratify. 
These are steps in the right direction which we should continue to 
encourage. The Dalai Lama has endorsed this agreement because he agrees 
that engagement is the fastest road to the realization of giving all 
Chinese democratic rights.
  We need to recognize that China's growing regional integration has 
increased their willingness to settle long-standing disputes with its 
neighbors. Our allies in Asia support granting China permanent normal 
trading status, precisely because it would support regional security 
and cooperative efforts. This is especially true for Taiwan. That is 
why Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bain has endorsed this agreement and 
China's accession into the WTO.
  However, we cannot solely rely on the benefits of trade to protect 
our interests. In February of this year we passed the Taiwan Security 
Act with the overwhelming support of the House. This legislation will 
ensure that Taiwan has the tools necessary to defend itself from a 
potentially aggressive China. Congress needs to pass legislation and 
ensure the President signs it into law this year.
  Most importantly, this agreement is good for U.S. jobs and especially 
for jobs in New York's Hudson Valley. The agreement gives American 
workers unprecedented access to China's markets. For every additional 
billion in exports to China there are estimated to be created 20,000 
new jobs in the United States. Last year New York exported nearly $600 
million in goods and services to China--this figure is expected to 
rapidly multiply under this agreement.
  No one believes trade alone will bring freedom to China or peace to 
the world. When change does come it will be slow and will need our 
encouragement. This is the choice before us today. We can take a step 
move China in the right direction, and gain the benefits; or we can 
push China in the wrong direction, and pay the price. I believe this 
choice is clear. I encourage members on both sides of the aisle to make 
the right choice and join me in voting to approve permanent normal 
trade relations with China.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I do not represent companies. I do not 
represent unions. I represent people. As with any legislation, I ask 
what does this vote on Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for 
China mean to the people I represent back home?
  Workers and farmers throughout northern Illinois stand to benefit 
from the United States-China World Trade Organization (WTO) Accession 
Agreement because they will be making more product that eventually is 
exported to China, either directly or indirectly as suppliers.
  If you work for Daimler Chrysler in Belvidere, this vote simply means 
the opportunity to build and sell more Neons and auto parts to China. 
As recently as 1995, Chrysler exported 600 Neons and purchased parts 
from six different suppliers in northern Illinois for their Jeep 
Cherokee plant in Beijing, China. The amount of Chrysler-related 
exports to China totaled $7.8 million.
  However, in 1999, no Neons and only $30,000 in auto parts from two 
northern Illinois suppliers were sold to China. Why? China's 
protectionist auto policy now makes it virtually impossible to sell 
American cars and auto parts in China. This agreement forces China to 
cut tariffs by 75 percent on American cars and drop local content 
requirements on American-made auto parts. This will allow more Neons 
and American auto parts made by companies like Modine Manufacturing of 
McHenry and Camcar of Rockford to be exported to China.
  The workers at Honeywell's Microswitch plant in Freeport will benefit 
from PNTR for China because the company expects its exports to China to 
double by 2002. There are $15,000 worth of Microswitch parts on each 
Boeing aircraft. China has plans to buy 1,600 new aircraft over the 
next 20 years.
  The workers at Hamilton-Sundstrand in Rockford will benefit from this 
agreement because $400,000 worth of parts are made in Rockford for each 
Boeing aircraft. This translates into hundreds of millions of dollars 
worth of work for the employees at Hamilton-Sundstrand.
  The workers at Motorola in Harvard and Rockford will benefit because 
the agreement eliminates all tariffs on cell phones and pagers. Also, 
for the first time, Motorola will be permitted to sell its full range 
of products directly to the Chinese people.

[[Page 9124]]

  The workers at Goodyear's Kely Springfield Tire plant in Freeport; 
the workers at Cherry Valley Tool & Machine of Belvidere; the workers 
at Kysor/Westram Corporation of Byron; and the workers at the Rockford 
Spring Company will all benefit from PNTR for China as suppliers to the 
agricultural equipment manufacturer, Case. As Case is able to sell more 
combines and tractors to China because the agreement lowers numerous 
tariff and non-tariff barriers to American agricultural equipment, the 
workers in their supplier chain will benefit, too.
  Over half of Caterpillar's 1999 U.S. production was exported. These 
exports supported about 32,000 U.S. supplier jobs at small and medium-
sized enterprises like the 400 employees at Bergstrom Manufacturing of 
Rockford, which makes the Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning 
units. The tariff cuts on construction equipment and the distribution 
rights in the agreement will help Caterpillar and thus Bergstrom 
Manufacturing become more competitive in China.
  The workers at Seward Screw Products of Seward make 80 different 
parts for Harley-Davidson's large motorcycle factory in Milwaukee, WI. 
Today, Harley is prevented from selling any motorcycles in China 
because of import license restrictions, import quotas, excessive 
tariffs, and other significant trade barriers. This agreement 
substantially eliminates or reduces these trade barriers. In addition, 
granting PNTR to China will help Taiwan enter the WTO. The U.S.-Taiwan 
WTO Accession Agreement eliminates Taiwan's import ban on large 
motorcycle engines. Because both China and Taiwan represents the 
greatest long range market potential for motorcycles, the workers at 
Seward Screw Products will benefit by making more products for Harley.
  But this agreement is not just for large companies. Few people know 
that 82 percent of all direct United States exporters to China are 
small-and medium-sized companies. These exporters generated 35 percent 
of the dollar volume of all United States exports to China in 1997. 
This figure is higher than the small business exporter dollar volume 
share of overall U.S. exports, which was 30.6 percent.
  China is the third largest growth market for small business 
exporters. In fact, the number of small businesses exporting to China 
grew by a remarkable 141 percent between 1992 and 1997. Plus, the value 
of small business exports to China more than doubled between 1992 and 
1997.
  Who are these exporters? I held a hearing on this topic last week 
before my Small Business Exports Subcommittee to find out. They are 135 
employees who work for Aqua-Aerobic Systems in Rockford, IL. The 
agreement removes a variety of trade barriers against equipment used in 
sewage treatment plants because China needs the equipment to modernize 
its infrastructure.
  Small companies like the 75 employee Coffee Masters of Spring Grove 
will benefit from this trade agreement. They have tried for years to 
break into the China market but with no success. They believe this 
agreement will knock down the numerous trade barriers to their 
specialized roasted coffee product.
  E.D. Entyre of Oregon just announced earlier this month that they 
received a $53,000 order for road construction equipment for a highway 
project in Hubei province in China. They believe the agreement will 
help their 350 employees deal directly with customers in China rather 
than going through various ``middlemen.''
  Clinton Electronics of Loves Park exports high resolution display 
monitors for medical applications. The cuts in tariffs by over 50 
percent on medical equipment, along with the elimination of quotas, 
will help further boost their 250 employee firm's exports to China.
  And, we cannot forget the farmer. Illinois soybean, grain, and corn 
farmers like Bob Phelps of Rockton want to look to export markets like 
China--not the U.S. government--for their income security. Overall, 
American farmers will be able to sell about $2 billion more of their 
products to China each year because the agreement will cut Chinese 
tariffs in half for farm products.
  Soybean growers will see about a 20 percent increase in exports to 
China, according to the National Oilseed Processors Association. Hog 
farmers will receive about $5 more per head, an Iowa State University 
study projects. That will mean an extra $2.5 million for hog farmers in 
northern Illinois.
  Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this agreement is totally one-sided in favor 
of the people I represent who make products that are either directly or 
indirectly exported to China. We do not change any of our trade laws to 
make it easier for the Chinese to export to us. It is China that has 
granted concession after concession to the benefit of our workers and 
farmers! I urge my colleagues to support Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations for China.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I support the opening of the mainland 
Chinese market to American exports. It is in the best interests of the 
American people and the Chinese people.
  I feel strongly that the Communist government on mainland China is 
tyrannical, aggressive, and undesirable. I would like to see it go the 
way of its Marxist comrade, the Soviet Union. I am alarmed by its 
threatening statements toward the United States and its belligerence 
toward our friends on Taiwan. I am disgusted by Communist China's 
record on human rights, on religious freedom, and its brutal one-child 
policy that forces women to abort their unborn babies.
  If this were a vote on approval of the Communist regime in Beijing, I 
would strongly oppose it as would the vast majority of my colleagues. 
This is not such a vote.
  My record has been highly critical of Communist China. On national 
security, I strongly supported Representative Cox's investigation into 
Communist Chinese theft of American technologies. I cosponsored 
legislation to look into suspicious Chinese activity in the Panama 
Canal. On the question of Taiwan, I cosponsored the Taiwan Security 
Enhancement Act to strengthen the free nation's defense capability in 
case of attack from the mainland.
  On forced abortion, I enthusiastically voted in favor of cutting off 
money to the U.N.'s population control agency so long as it cooperated 
with China's brutal one-child policy. On religious freedom, I recently 
wrote a letter to President Jiang Zemin urging release of Pastor Xu 
Guoxing.
  My vote in favor of PNTR is not a departure. I remain solidly against 
anti-Communist China, which is why I support this agreement.
  I want to end the despicable behavior of the Chinese Government 
against the United States, against Taiwan, and against the people it 
rules. The question is, how do we get there from here?
  I think it is by exporting to China--not only American goods, but 
more importantly American ideas.
  While this agreement is ostensibly about exporting American goods to 
mainland China, its ultimate virtue is the export of American ideas to 
mainland China. How else are things going to change in China? Our ideas 
have triumphed time and again in the past. We Americans have every 
reason to be confident that they will again. Since we are inspired by 
our ideas, is there any reason to think the Chinese, who themselves are 
oppressed by their government, will not be inspired by American ideas 
of liberty?
  This agreement is part of the struggle against communism in China. It 
is war by other means.
  Look at who supports this agreement and who opposes it. Taiwan, who 
has refused to bow to the bullying tactics of the much-larger mainland, 
supports the agreement. The spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, 
who was forced into exile by the Communist Chinese Government supports 
the agreement.
  Within China's Communist establishment, the hard-liners are opposed 
to the PNTR agreement negotiated by the reformers. America's adoption 
of PNTR would be a victory for the reformers, and disapproval would be 
a victory for the hard-liners eager for confrontation with the United 
States. The Soviet Union was vanquished peacefully in a struggle 
between reformers and hardliners.
  Adopting this agreement strengthens the reformers within the Chinese 
Government not only in the internal power struggle, but throughout 
society. Increased contacts with Americans will expose the average 
Chinese citizen to our universally appealing ideas on liberty. 
Increased prosperity and access to communications technologies will 
increase the appetite of Chinese for American ways of life. And the 
expansion of a Chinese middle class that owes nothing to the communists 
is crucial. We are helping build the constituency for Chinese liberty.
  While it may be emotionally satisfying to proclaim that one would 
never cooperate with the murderous regime in Beijing, it ultimately 
achieves little else. Not a single citizen of China is more free or 
better fed. Our own security is no more enhanced, nor is that of our 
friends. It is more important to be effective than to obtain simple 
self-satisfaction in one's hardened stance. I too, am revolted by 
communism, including the version practiced in China. I want to defeat 
it, and this is the way to do it.
  The monstrosity of the crimes committed by Communist China have been 
so great that slaying the monster is more important than just calling 
it a monster.
  Mainland China will gain membership into the WTO with or without 
American support. So why not gain benefits for our American companies 
in exchange? China is expanding trade with the rest of the world. 
Agreeing to this pact would allow American companies to compete on an 
equal footing with everyone else doing

[[Page 9125]]

business on the mainland. By rejecting the agreement, we would punish 
our own companies unnecessarily.
  Americans dominate the world in the agriculture and high-tech 
sectors. Lowering Chinese barriers to American goods will benefit 
Americans. High-tech pay the highest salaries, and increasing markets 
will produce more great jobs for Americans.
  I have voted against the annual renewal of NTR for mainland China in 
the past. This year, the vote is different. In the past, NTR was about 
Chinese goods flowing into the United States. This time, it is about 
access to the mainland Chinese market for American goods. Free 
Americans will continue to buy Chinese-made goods whichever way 
Congress votes on this agreement. But passage will allow mainland 
Chinese to buy goods from Americans at lower prices--made lower by the 
reduction in tarrifs.
  Granting permanent NTR leaves many other levers at our disposal to 
deal with mainland China. We must continue to protect ourselves and to 
speak out against the tyrannical Chinese Government. But we cannot be 
content with just words; we must back that up with action.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4444, a 
bill to provide permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to China. By 
passing this legislation, Congress will create substantial new export 
opportunities for American farmers and businesses, advance the cause of 
personal freedom for the Chinese people, and promote United States 
strategic interests in East Asia.
  It is important to be clear about what the House is voting on. This 
is not a vote on whether China joins the World Trade Organization 
(WTO)--the WTO will admit China later this year. The question before us 
is whether to give China the same trade status that all WTO members are 
required to give each other--permanent normal trade relations. If we 
do, U.S. farmers and businesspeople will enjoy dramatically increased 
access to the world's most populous market. If we do not, the United 
States will be largely shut out of the China market while our trade 
competitors will capitalize on China's market opening measures.
  The United States routinely approves NTR on an annual basis. Even in 
the wake of Tiananmen Square, we did not revoke NTR because to do so 
would not only spark a trade war but would also risk even graver 
conflict between the United States and China. As a result, the annual 
NTR debate has never provided effective leverage to change the behavior 
of the Chinese Government because revoking NTR has never been a 
credible threat.
  For American agriculture, opening the China market is a clear win, 
which is why nearly every farm and commodity organization in the 
country supports this bill. The USDA has conservatively estimated that 
China's market opening measures will increase American agriculture 
exports by $2 billion annually. Under the terms of its agreement to 
join the WTO, Chinese tariffs on wheat will drop from 20 percent to 
just 1 percent; tariffs on beef will fall from 45 percent to 12 
percent; poultry from 20 percent to 10 percent; and pork tariffs will 
decline from 20 percent to 12 percent. In addition, China has agreed to 
eliminate all export subsides on agriculture commodities.
  Opponents of PNTR have raised many valid concerns, including China's 
poor record on human rights, lack of religious and political freedom, 
threats against Taiwan, and a growing trade surplus with the United 
States. I share each of these concerns but disagree about the best way 
to address them. In my view, building commercial relationships with the 
Chinese people will lessen the control of the central government in 
Beijing; giving China a stake in the international economy will make it 
less likely to be aggressive toward its neighbors; and reducing China's 
trade barriers will help increase United States exports and reduce our 
trade deficit.
  With respect to human rights, many of the most prominent Chinese 
political dissidents have urged Congress to approve PNTR. Wang Dan, the 
leader of the Tiananmen Square demonstration, has said that PNTR ``will 
be beneficial for the long-term future of China.'' Martin Lee, the 
democratic leader of Hong Kong, Dai Qing, Bao Tong, and many other 
influential activists have all expressed their support for PNTR. Their 
shared opinion is that engagement with the United States advances the 
cause of personal freedom in China. In addition, no less authority that 
the Dalai Lama has said that Chinese participation in the international 
economy is good for religious freedom in China.
  Approving PNTR for China also serves our national security interests. 
Secretary of Defense William Cohen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff Colin Powell, and many other military experts have said that 
bringing China into the WTO and approving this legislation will enhance 
our security interests in East Asia. The recently and democratically 
elected President of Taiwan, Chen Shui-bian, also supports the normal 
trade relations between the United States and China.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, approving PNTR and opening the China market 
helps American framers, workers, and small businesspeople, supports the 
cause of political and religious freedom in China, and strengthens 
United States security interests in Asia. I urge my colleagues to vote 
yes.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, as we enter a new century and a new millennium, 
relations among the nations of the Pacific Rim and Africa are becoming 
more significant. Trade with China represents a substantial component 
of our country's international commerce. As Congress has debated United 
States trading policies toward China and Africa during the past couple 
of weeks, I have carefully considered many fundamental issues.
  I am a firm believer of self-determination for China. China is a 
Communist country, whether we agree with that system of government or 
not. Nevertheless, whatever political or economic system is in place, 
it is wrong to round up, to intimidate, to arrest people, and place 
them in slave labor camps with no due process. It is reprehensible for 
the United States to endorse this behavior by rewarding it with a 
favorable trade regime.
  The time is now to send a strong message--an unyielding message that 
the United States will not condone mass suffering and oppression.
  Trade must be open, it must be fair. Standards for human rights must 
be included in all trade agreements, environmental protections must be 
in place, women's rights should be advanced, workers' rights must be 
protected, religious freedom should be protected and American jobs 
should not become a casualty of trade policy.
  Many argue that the best way to ensure China's respect for all these 
issues, is to admit China to the World Trade Organization and to grant 
it Permanent Normal Trading Relations status (PNTR). I disagree, and 
believe an annual review provides for this.
  China's persistent gross violations against free exercise of 
religion, against women and reproductive freedom, and against political 
expression should prohibit the U.S. from relaxing its policies toward 
China and should cause us to ask why we want to relax our trade 
policies toward China and reward China for this repression.
  Annual review, at least presents an effective mechanism for China's 
compliance with international worker, environmental, and human rights 
standards. Annual review, moreover, is the most viable insurance for 
the American worker.
  According to the Economic Policy Institute, over 870,000 jobs will be 
lost over the decade. What will happen with these workers?
  If this bill passes, the U.S. trade deficit will continue to 
escalate, leading to job losses in virtually every sector of the 
economy.
  In my state of California 87,294 jobs will be lost. This is very 
scary.
  I support free trade. But our trade policies should also include a 
fair ideal with American workers. Our trade policies should put an end 
to slave labor in China, rather than reward it.
  We are not talking about cutting off our relationship with China. We 
want to make sure that our trade relations are such that people of 
China and the United States can benefit from a fair and free trade 
policy.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
  Very seldom do we have these defining moments; this vote defines who 
we are as a people and as a nation.
  As an African-American whose ancestors were brought here in chains 
and forced to help build this great country as slaves I must oppose any 
measure that allows for the exploitation of people whether here in 
America, in Africa, China or anywhere in the world.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning the legislation which would 
have implemented ``permanent normal trade relations'' with the People's 
Republic of China was three pages in length. Today, it is 66 pages in 
length. Close examination of this bill ``gone bad'' is demonstrative of 
how this Congress misdefines ``free trade'' and how, like most 
everything else is in Washington, this ``free trade'' bill is a 
misnomer of significant proportions.
  For the past several years I have favored normal trade relations with 
the People's Republic of China. Because of certain misconceptions, I 
believe it is useful to begin with some detail as to what ``normal 
trade relations'' status is and what it is not. Previous ``normal trade 
relations'' votes meant only that U.S. tariffs imposed on Chinese goods 
will be

[[Page 9126]]

no different than tariffs imposed on other countries for similar 
products--period. NTR status did not mean more U.S. taxpayers dollars 
sent to China. It did not signify more international family planning 
dollars sent overseas. NTR status does not mean automatic access to the 
World Bank, the World Trade Organization, OPIC, or any member of other 
``foreign aid'' vehicles by which the U.S. Congress sends foreign aid 
to a large number of countries. Rather, NTR status was the lowering of 
a United States citizen's taxes paid on voluntary exchanges entered 
into by citizens who happen to reside in different countries.
  Of course, many of the critics of NTR status for China do not address 
the free trade and the necessarily negative economic consequences of 
their position. No one should question that individual rights are vital 
to liberty and that the communist government of China has an abysmal 
record in that department. At the same time, basic human rights must 
necessarily include the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with 
others. To burden the U.S. citizens who enter into voluntary exchanges 
with exorbitant taxes (tariffs) in the name of ``protecting'' the human 
rights of citizens of other countries would be internally inconsistent. 
Trade barriers when lowered, after all, benefit consumers who can 
purchase goods more cheaply than previously available. Those 
individuals choosing not to trade with citizens of particular foreign 
jurisdictions are not threatened by lowering barriers for those who do. 
Oftentimes, these critics focus instead on human rights deprivation by 
government leaders in China and see trade barriers as a means to 
``reform'' these sometimes tyrannical leaders. However, according to 
Father Robert Sirco, a Paulist priest who discussed this topic in the 
Wall Street Journal, American missionaries in China favor NTR status 
and see this as the policy most likely to bring about positive change 
in China.
  But all of this said, this new 66 page ``free trade'' bill is not 
about free trade at all. It is about empowering and enriching 
international trade regulators and quasi-governmental entities on the 
backs of the U.S. taxpayer. Like NAFTA before us, this bill contains 
provisions which continue our country down the ugly path of 
internationally-engineered, ``managed trade'' rather than that of free 
trade. As explained by Ph.D. economist Murray N. Rothbard: ``[G]enuine 
free trade doesn't require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a `trade 
agreement'; NAFTA was called an agreement so it can avoid the 
constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If 
the establishment truly wants free trade, all its has to do is to 
repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and 
other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or 
foreign maneuvering is necessary.''
  In truth, the bipartisan establishment's fanfare of ``free trade'' 
fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine 
free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer 
(each individual), the merchantilist examines trade from the 
perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of 
the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders 
consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that 
goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the 
mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the 
expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign. This new PNTR 
bill, rather than lowering government imposed barriers to trade, has 
become a legislative vehicle under which the United States can more 
quickly integrate and cartelize government in order to entrench the 
interventionist mixed economy.
  No Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, don't be fooled into thinking this 
bill is anything about free trade. In fact, those supporting it should 
be disgraced to learn that, among other misgivings, this bill, further 
undermines U.S. sovereignty by empowering the World Trade Organization 
on the backs of American taxpayers, sends federal employees to Beijing 
to become lobbyists to members of their communist government to become 
more WTO-friendly, funds the imposition of the questionable Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights upon foreign governments, and authorizes 
the spending of nearly $100 million to expand the reach of Radio Free 
Asia.
  Mr. Speaker, I say no to this taxpayer-financed fanfare of ``free 
trade'' which fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange and 
urge by colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
4444, which would permanently extend normal trade relations (PNTR) 
status to the People's Republic of China. If we enact this legislation 
today, we forever surrender our ability to review our trade relations 
with China on an annual basis.
  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States states 
that ``the Congress shall have power . . . to regulate commerce with 
foreign nations.'' Our founding fathers intentionally granted the 
``People's body'' a separate, distinct voice on trade matters. This 
constitutional obligation makes our democracy unique: European 
parliamentary democracies grant no such powers to their legislatures. 
Under our Constitution, Congress does not simply rubberstamp the 
decisions of the Executive Branch. Congress is a separate, coequal 
partner in our system of checks and balances.
  Every year in the House, we have exercised our Constitutional duty by 
reviewing our trade relationship with China. On an annual basis, the 
President has notified Congress that he will grant most-favored-nation 
(MFN) trading status to China, and we have had the opportunity to 
approve or reject MFN status by a vote on the floor of the House. This 
vote has been preceded by a full debate on whether China deserves to be 
treated as an equal trading partner. Members vote on the issue, and 
their constituents hold them accountable for their vote.
  I have consistently voted against MFN for China because I believe it 
does not deserve to be treated as an equal trading partner. The Chinese 
dictatorship has one of the most deplorable human rights records on 
Earth, and, according to the State Department, things are only getting 
worse. The Chinese government uses executions and torture to maintain 
order, persecutes religious minorities and imprisons dissidents who 
dare to speak out for democracy. At a bare minimum, China's human 
rights record must improve if we are to treat it as an equal partner.
  Equal trading partners extend the benefits of trade to those who 
produce its goods and services. In China, where workers make between 13 
and 35 cents an hour, this relationship does not exist. The basic 
rights that we enjoy in the U.S.--the right to organize, the right to 
strike, decent wages and benefits, safe workplaces--simply do not exist 
in China.
  Equally deplorable is the manner in which China has treated its 
neighbors. It continues its belligerence toward the free-market 
democracy of Taiwan. In fact, shortly after the ink was dry on the 
World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement, China threatened to use force 
against Taiwan. China continues to threaten our interests elsewhere by 
selling weapons of mass destruction to rogue terrorist nations and by 
trying to steal our nuclear weapons designs.
  The WTO agreement is not the first trade deal we have reached with 
China. But trade agreements only work when countries abide by them. 
Regrettably, China has violated every trade deal with the U.S., and top 
Chinese officials have already indicated that they have no intention to 
abide by the WTO deal.
  Despite China's worsening record on human rights, international 
trade, relations with its neighbors, and weapons proliferation, we are 
on the brink of throwing out our annual review forever. Like it or not, 
the annual MFN review process is the only means by which the U.S. can 
influence the Chinese government's behavior toward its own people and 
other nations. If Congress approves PNTR, we forever relinquish any 
leverage we have to improve Chinese behavior.
  Mr. Speaker, many have argued that if we fail to approve PNTR we will 
lose precious business opportunities in China. I concede that point. 
Certainly, European and Japanese companies will be doing a great deal 
of business in China.
  But I believe that America stands for something more than the 
almighty dollar. As the world's sole superpower and strongest 
democracy, we have a moral responsibility to stand up for those who 
struggle against tyranny. We are the only nation capable and willing to 
bring about democratic change in China. And we can use our economic 
power to exert that leverage.
  During the Cold War, we put principles before dollars. We refused to 
grant MFN status to authoritarian communist regimes because of their 
deplorable records toward their citizens and their neighbors. When Lech 
Walesa and the other leaders of the Solidarity movement were imprisoned 
in Poland, the U.S. Congress stood with the Polish people and imposed 
sanctions on the communist government. Now, we enjoy a vibrant trading 
relationship with Poland and other former communist Central European 
nations, but those trade benefits were extended after these countries 
opened their societies and embraced free markets and democracy. In 
fact, we are now doing business with the same dissidents who were 
imprisoned by their former communist regimes. These new leaders 
remember with gratitude that America stood with them--and not their 
oppressors--in the dark days of the countries.
  Today's ``Lech Walesas'' are sitting in prisons in China because they 
dared to speak out

[[Page 9127]]

for freedom and democracy. They, in my opinion, will become the future 
leaders of China. And when we seek to form a trading relationship with 
the future leaders of China, they will remember how we voted today.
  Defeating PNTR would certainly send shockwaves throughout America's 
corporate boardrooms. But it would send a more powerful, purposeful 
message to the people of China that we stand with them in their quest 
to create a free-market, democratic society that cherishes a peaceful 
relationship with her neighbors and the United States. However, if 
Congress approves PNTR, we lose any leverage we have in helping the 
Chinese people realize their vision for a better society.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that today, this Congress is 
taking a vote on giving China permanent normal trade relations. I am 
amazed that this vote is about to take place because all of the 
evidence shows that China has done nothing to deserve America granting 
China permanent access to the U.S. market. In fact, the national 
security evidence and the human rights evidence shows that the Chinese 
government is a brutal regime that sees America not as a strategic 
partner, but as a global threat and competitor, economically and 
militarily.
  There is much debate in this Congress and in America about China's 
future. Proponents of giving China PNTR claim that giving China 
permanent access to the U.S. market will change China's leadership, 
that giving China PNTR will promote democracy, promote religious 
freedom, promote peace, promote human rights.
  While it is my fervent hope that these changes will occur in China, I 
have to ask the question, ``what evidence is there to believe that 
China will change?'' ``What evidence is there that China has changed?''
  After receiving several national security briefings from the CIA on 
China, having visited Tibet and China, and after looking at all of the 
continued and worsening human rights abuses committed by the Chinese 
government, I have to conclude that reality says, that giving China 
PNTR right now is dangerous to America's national security and that 
giving China PNTR will only strengthen the Chinese communists hold on 
power--allowing China to continue with its already horrible human 
rights record.
  Let's look at the evidence.
  China continues to destabilize Asia. In the past 50 years, China has 
clashed with nearly all of its neighbors. They invaded the Soviet 
Union, they invaded parts of India, they invaded Vietnam, they fought 
and killed thousands of U.S. troops in the Korean War. Thousands of 
American GI's who were captured or killed by the Chinese during the 
Korean War are still unaccounted for. We have never found out what 
happened to these GI's at Chinese hands.
  China continues to threaten to use force against Taiwan. China has 
done this repeatedly and forcefully while we in Congress have been 
debating whether or not to give China PNTR. China is right now 
reportedly conducting war games mimicking an invasion of Taiwan that 
includes battle against U.S. troops. China has threatened Taiwan with a 
``blood soaked battle.''
  In 1999, China's Defense Minister declared that war with the U.S. 
``is inevitable.'' It is estimated that China has over a dozen nuclear 
ballistic missiles aimed at major U.S. cities and is reportedly 
building three new types of long-range missiles capable of striking the 
U.S.
  Less than one year ago the Cox Committee found that China has 
``stolen'' classified information regarding the most advanced U.S. 
thermonuclear weapons, giving them design information ``on par with our 
own.'' The information included classified information on every 
currently deployed warhead in the U.S. ballistic missile arsenal.
  China's official military newspaper threatened the U.S. saying if the 
U.S. were to defend Taiwan, China would resort to ``long range'' 
missiles to inflict damage on America.
  China has exported weapons of mass destruction and missiles in 
violation of treaty commitments. The director of the CIA has said that 
China remains a ``key supplier'' of these weapons to Pakistan, Iran, 
and North Korea. Other reports indicate China has passed on similar 
weapons and technology to Libya and Syria. If one of these countries is 
involved in a conflict, it is very possible that our men and women in 
uniform could be called into harm's way. These weapons of mass 
destruction could then be targeted against American troops.
  China is forging an alliance with Russia against the U.S. and China 
is purchasing as many weapons from Russia as it can. Reports indicate 
that China has purchased advanced naval vessels and top of the line 
anti-ship missiles from the Russians that specifically are meant to be 
used against U.S. aircraft carriers.
  Reports indicate that China is seeking to disrupt or end U.S. 
alliances in the Pacific. Reports indicate that China is seeking to be 
the primary power in Asia and to nudge the U.S. out of Asia.
  China has increased its military budget by close to 13 percent this 
year.
  We hear the argument that PNTR will lead to economic and political 
growth in China, but who in China will benefit the most from increased 
foreign investment? Since the Clinton administration reduced technology 
trade restrictions in 1993, incidences of technology transfers from the 
U.S. to China have been numerous. Much of the capital and revenue the 
Chinese would gain from PNTR will go to help increase China's military 
build-up and to help stabilize a repressive, authoritarian regime.
  I'd suggest the money is going to go toward building more jails and 
more prison labor camps, toward more weapons purchases and toward 
funding more intelligence operations against the U.S.
  For all of these reasons and more, all of the major American veterans 
organizations, including the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, AMVETS, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart all oppose 
giving China PNTR. This Congress needs to heed the voices of our 
veterans. These are the people who have fought, who have been wounded, 
and who have put their lives on the line to preserve and protect 
freedom. These veterans know a national security threat when they see 
one. They unanimously oppose giving China PNTR because they know that 
it is very likely that American troops will be in harm's way because of 
China's military threats against the U.S. and because of China's 
military threats in the Asia region. Letters from these groups are 
included for the record.
  Three former Commandants of the Marine Corps, seven retired four star 
generals, a former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Army in Europe, and 
numerous other national security experts signed a letter opposing 
giving China PNTR because of national security concerns. These national 
security leaders argue that if the U.S. gives China PNTR:

       The nation ignores at its peril threatening Chinese 
     rhetoric and behavior. * * * Beijing is using some of the 
     hard currency it is garnering from trade and financial 
     dealings with the United States to acquire ominous weaponry * 
     * * specifically designed to attack American carrier battle 
     groups * * *. We believe that the annual debate on our China 
     policy mandated by current law should not be eliminated at 
     present.

  A recent report issued by the CIA and the FBI stated that China has 
stepped up military spying against the United States while using 
political influence programs to manipulate U.S. policy. This FBI/CIA 
report says that the U.S. military and U.S. private corporations are 
the primary targets of Chinese intelligence. This report also says that 
Chinese companies play a significant role in China's pursuit and 
acquisition of secret U.S. technology.
  I am concerned that Members of Congress and the American public do 
not know enough about the national security threat China poses to the 
U.S. I have been urging our colleagues to obtain a briefing by the CIA 
on China and just over 40 Members have had this briefing. I have 
written President Clinton urging him to declassify information that 
shows the national security threat China poses to the U.S. before this 
vote takes place and he has done nothing.
  Members and the American public need to know the answers to questions 
about the national security concerns regarding China and PNTR before 
this vote takes place.
  Right smack in the middle of this debate on PNTR, the Chinese 
government has stepped up its already heinous human rights violations.
  That's not just me saying that. The 1999 State Department Human 
Rights report on China is 68 pages long on descriptions of China's 
human rights abuses--abuses ranging from its policy of forced abortion 
and forced sterilization, to imprisonment and eradication of any 
democratic dissent, to imprisonment of people for having religious 
beliefs, to forced labor in China's vast prison labor system. The 
report says, ``The Government's poor human rights record deteriorated 
markedly throughout the year, as the Government intensified efforts to 
suppress dissent.''
  The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bi-partisan 
commission established by Congress whose members were appointed by 
Congress and the Administration, opposes giving China PNTR because of 
China's continued religious persecution, saying: ``* * * Congress 
should not approve PNTR for China until China makes substantial 
improvements in respect for religious freedom.''
  We know that 8 Catholic bishops are in prison--and I think there are 
probably more--and

[[Page 9128]]

some have been in custody for over 30 years. In the past week, more 
Protestant House church leaders have been arrested. Muslims in 
northwest China are in prison because of their faith.
  China continues to pillage and occupy Tibet. Tibet is a peace-loving 
country that is not a threat to China. Yet, the Chinese government has 
brutally occupied Tibet for decades and has no plans to leave Tibet. I 
visited Tibet and met with Buddhist monks and nuns. Each temple has a 
Chinese communist official that controls and monitors everything that 
is done in the temple. The Chinese have cameras strewn throughout the 
capital of Lhasa, so they can watch and monitor the people. Hundreds of 
Tibetan monks and nuns are in prison because of their faith.
  The Chinese military is responsible for trafficking in human organs. 
A blood type match is made between a prospective organ recipient and a 
Chinese prisoner. Once the match is made, prisoners are taken to a 
remote location, where the necessary medical personnel have been 
assembled, and summarily executed. Their organs are then removed and 
sold.
  The State Department Human Rights report says that over 500 women in 
China of child bearing age commit suicide each day. Could it be that 
China's policy of forced abortion and forced sterilization are a 
significant cause of these suicides? Could it be that the fines for 
violating the government's birth quotas, that are three times a 
couple's annual salary, are causing these suicides?
  A country that abuses its own citizens on a massive scale cannot be 
trusted in its dealings with the U.S. Do Members actually think that 
the same Chinese government that flattens its own citizens with tanks--
that kills frail 80-year-old Catholic bishops--can be trusted?
  The decision on whether to give China PNTR must be based on facts and 
truth, not on wishful thinking or ill-placed hopes. Our challenge as a 
country and as lawmakers is to examine the facts, to seek the truth and 
to make informed and wise decisions based on the facts and truth. All 
of what I have said about China's worsening human rights record and the 
national security concerns are incontestably true. Yet, a large number 
of Members here are seriously considering giving away to China the only 
leverage the U.S. has--aside from military coercion--our annual review 
of whether to extend to China normal trading privileges.
  I am concerned that we in the U.S. have become so enamored with 
China's prospective market, that we are on the verge of ignoring facts 
and truth. We may be ignoring history, ignoring China's abysmal human 
rights record, and ignoring the threats China poses to U.S. national 
security and to our men and women in uniform.
  Today, in the year 2000, America is at a similar crossroads as Europe 
and America were leading up to World War II. Europe and America in the 
1930's were tired of conflict, having just fought a bloody World War I, 
and chose to ignore the threat emanating from Germany and Japan. 
Neville Chamberlain forced through the sale to Germany of the Merlin 
high-performance engine--the same engine that was used by the British 
during the Battle of Britain in the famous Spitfire fighter plane. 
France was so caught up in enjoying the peace that it depleted its 
artillery stock through artillery sales to Romania, Yugoslavia and 
Turkey. France sold so many of its artillery pieces that when Germany 
invaded France, France only had 90 artillery pieces on its line with 
Germany. America was selling oil to Japan during Japan's invasion of 
Chinese Manchuria and kept selling oil to Japan within a year or so of 
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
  We are at a similar crossroads today. Many in America feel victorious 
as the Cold War with the former Soviet Union no longer exists. Some see 
the recent facts and developments regarding China in a positive and 
hopeful light because they are tired of standing down a potential 
adversary and they are tired of facing a global rival. Events that many 
did not expect to happen in their lifetimes have occurred. The Berlin 
Wall has fallen, Germany is reunited, the Soviet Union has dissolved, 
Western Europe no longer faces a phalanx of hostile tanks, soldiers and 
missiles to its east. The battle against the former Soviet Union 
continued for 40 years and many simply want to wish away a future rival 
and a future conflict.
  Those of us in Congress and in America who are very concerned with 
the national security threat that China poses to the U.S. are 
frequently criticized as having a Cold War mentality toward China and 
of being China bashers. We are accused of being overly critical of 
China and of China's human rights abuses, that we are looking for a 
rival simply to replace the enemy that once was the Soviet Union. 
Because of our concerns with China and opposition to giving China PNTR, 
we are accused of not giving China a chance to change and grow into a 
democracy and into a reliable and trusted ally.
  Yet, in reality, China is still an authoritarian, communist country 
of over a billion people.
  Yet, in reality, China wants the U.S. out of Asia and seeks to be the 
unrivaled power in Asia.
  The massive human rights abuses and massive religious persecution in 
China are undisputed facts.
  It is fact that China plundered Tibet.
  It is fact that communist China has engaged militarily virtually 
every country on its border as well as the U.S. in the past 50 years.
  It is fact that this present Chinese leadership rolled over its own 
people with tanks in Tiananmen Square.
  It is fact that China commits untold atrocities against its own 
people.
  It is fact that China has been publicly threatening to shoot nuclear 
missiles at the U.S.
  Fits of wishful thinking and outright ignoring these and countless 
other facts do not change the reality of the regime in China or the 
plausible threat that China poses to the U.S.
  We need to learn what history teaches us about leadership.
  The lessons from our past are clear. Leadership is not about seeing 
what we wish to see. Leadership is not about closing our eyes to the 
threats before us. Leadership is about clearly, lucidly, and forcefully 
addressing facts and truth and taking appropriate action.
  The American way of life, our freedom can only be preserved by 
vigilance. Vigilance requires us to look at the situation in China 
today and conclude that the Chinese regime should not receive permanent 
trade relations with the U.S. until the questions of national security 
have been adequately addressed and until there is a significant 
improvement in China's human rights record.
  We must have a way to continue our annual review of trade with China. 
If we sign off on permanent trade, we hand over any influence we could 
have in promoting a China that respects its citizens and that is a non-
threatening, peaceful member of the community of nations.
  Annual review of China's trade status is an appropriate foreign 
policy tool, it is an opportunity for Congress to influence the 
behavior of China on matters of national security and human rights, and 
it is the right thing to do in maintaining our vigilance in preserving 
freedom.

                       [From the American Legion]

               China Trade Opposed by the American Legion

       Indianapolis (Wednesday, May 20, 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


                                         of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 2000.
     To: All Members of the United States House of 
         Representatives, 106th U.S. Congress.
     From: John W. Smart, Commander-in-Chief, Veterans of Foreign 
         Wars of the United States.
       The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States oppose 
     Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. China's policies 
     and actions over the past several years have not demonstrated 
     that it is ready to become a permanent-trading partner of the 
     United States.

[[Page 9129]]

       Passage of the China Trade Bill would end annual 
     congressional review of China's access to U.S. markets and 
     give it permanent trade relations with the United States. 
     While this bill might provide certain economic benefits and 
     advantages to some American companies, it could hurt other 
     American industries and may cost many Americans their jobs. 
     Permanent Normal Trade relations with the United States 
     should be earned by China, not given away. Essentially this 
     bill 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.
       Now is not the proper time to grant China Permanent Normal 
     Trade Relations. 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 standards of other modern industrial nations.
       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.
           Respectfully,
                                                    John W. Smart,
     Commander-in-Chief.
                                  ____



                                                       AMVETS,

                                         Lanham, MD, May 16, 2000.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Wolf: AMVETS, the nation's fourth 
     largest veterans 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 can not 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 
     Normal Trade Relations for China.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles L. Taylor,
     National Commander, 1999-2000.
                                  ____

                                             Military Order of the


                                                 Purple Heart,

                                                     May 15, 2000.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     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 been 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 the 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.
                                  ____



                                    Fleet Reserve Association,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 21, 2000.
     Hon. Christopher H. Smith,
     M.C., House of Representatives, 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 door 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.
                                  ____



                                    Naval Reserve Association,

                                      Alexandria, VA, May 9, 2000.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Wolf: The Naval Reserve Association and 
     the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association work together as 
     affiliates to represent 37,000 officers and enlisted members 
     from the Naval Reserve services. They are representative of 
     the 89,000 Selected Reservists, the 4,500 non-pay Drilling 
     Reservists (VTU), and the 91,000 Individual Ready Reservists 
     (IRR), as well as the Retired Reserve community.
       As a resource to the U.S. Military, our membership is 
     concerned with our relationship with China. Decisions made 
     today will be affecting the political-military balance in the 
     Pacific for the next 50 years. The Peoples Republic of China 
     may well be a rival.
       Building its economy on the backs of its people, China is 
     also willing to risk world stability. To generate hard 
     currency, the PRC is selling weapons systems to Third World 
     nations, including many considered rogue states in nature.
       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.
       The process of reviewing trade relations with China each 
     year is an opportunity for Congress to influence the behavior 
     of China on matters of national security and human rights.
       China is the largest of four surviving Communist 
     governments in the world today. Human rights of its citizens 
     continue to be violated. Evidence exists of Chinese espionage 
     within the U.S. Government and industry. The PCR has effected 
     political influence to manipulate U.S. policy. An annual 
     trade review provides an element of counter balance.
       Trade between nations helps maintain diplomatic dialogue 
     and exposes a country's citizenry to outside ideas as well as 
     products. Commerce with China is growing in importance for a 
     number of U.S. Corporations. As a nation, we should continue 
     to expand the marketplace, but not carte blanche. Now is not 
     the time to offer Permanent Normal Trade Relationships (PNTR) 
     for China.
     Marshall Hanson,
       Director of Legislation, Naval Reserve Association.
     Dennis F. Pierman,
       Executive Director, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association.

[[Page 9130]]

     
                                  ____
                                 Warrant Officers Association,

                                         Herndon, VA, May 9, 2000.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington DC.
       Dear Representative Wolf: On behalf of the members 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 possible, 
     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.
           Respectfully,
                                                  Raymond A. Bell,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                      Reserve Officers Association


                                         of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, April 27, 2000.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     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.
       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.
                                  ____


                     An Open Letter to the Congress

     Hon. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Hastert and Senator Lott: In recent days, 
     proponents of granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations 
     (PNTR) status have asserted that the failure by Congress to 
     do so would harm U.S. national security. As individuals who 
     have devoted much of our professional lives to providing for 
     and safeguarding America's security and vital interests, we 
     believe this assertion to be incorrect--possibly dangerously 
     so.
       In our judgment, the Nation ignores at its peril 
     threatening Chinese rhetoric and behavior. For example, PRC 
     leaders and official publications routinely refer to the 
     United States as ``the main enemy.'' They have threatened 
     ``long-distance missile strikes'' against American cities if 
     the U.S. interferes with China's coercion of Taiwan. Beijing 
     is using some of the hard currency it is garnering from trade 
     and financial dealings with the United States to acquire 
     ominous weaponry, such as Russian-built Sovremenny-class 
     destroyers--ships whose nuclear-capable SS-N-22 ``Sunburn'' 
     missiles were specifically designed to attack American 
     carrier battle groups.
       In December, China's Defense Minister General Chi Haotian 
     told a meeting of senior officers of the People's Liberation 
     Army that China needs to prepare for an ``inevitable'' war of 
     several years duration to break American ``hegemony'' in East 
     Asia. A few months earlier, the Central Military Commission 
     of the Communist Party circulated to all PLA bases and 
     garrisons a document in which it declared, ``The strategic 
     superiority which can be claimed by the U.S. is close to 
     zero. It does not even enjoy a sure advantage in terms of the 
     foreseeable scale of war and the high-tech content which can 
     be applied to combat . . . After the first strategic strike, 
     the U.S. forces will be faced with weaponry and logistic 
     problems, providing us with opportunities for major 
     offensives and to win large battles.''
       Such statements and actions suggest that the Chinese today, 
     like the Japanese sixty years ago, put great faith in the 
     ability of a materially weaker challenger to defeat a major 
     power which looks stronger, but which they believe has become 
     decadent and irresolute in the use of power. If Beijing is 
     poised to make the same mistake that Tokyo made in 1941, it 
     would cost this country dearly to prove them wrong should it 
     come to a war the Chinese apparently expect and for which 
     they are preparing. A firm American stand now would likely 
     avoid miscalculation later, boost deterrence and, therefore, 
     promote peace in the Western Pacific and East Asia.
       Toward that end, we believe that the annual debate on our 
     China policy mandated by current law should not be eliminated 
     at present. It should, instead, be expanded to place 
     international economic ties in the larger context of American 
     national security policy and interests in Asia.
       The PRC clearly does not want this yearly debate to occur, 
     which is why granting PNTR at this time, in the face of 
     myriad threats from China, is likely to be interpreted by 
     Beijing as an act of appeasement. If so, far from enhancing 
     U.S. security, a vote for PNTR under present circumstances 
     would only intensify the threat Communist China will pose.
       We believe that, under present and foreseeable 
     circumstances, China's trade status and behavior should 
     continue to be subjected to a formal annual review. In 
     addition, the United States must retain the ability to take 
     whatever measures are deemed necessary to prevent the 
     transfer of technology, capital and other resources to 
     Beijing that could ultimately help threaten U.S. security and 
     American lives. We strongly urge Congress to reject any China 
     NTR or WTO-related legislation that does not contain such 
     safeguards.

       General Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Ret.), former Commandant, 
     U.S. Marine Corps.
       General J.B. Davis, USAF (Ret.), former Chief of Staff, 
     Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe.
       Diana Denman, former Co-Chair, U.S. Peace Corps Advisory 
     Council.
       Adm. Leon A. `Bud' Edney, USN (Ret.), former Supreme Allied 
     Commander, Atlantic.
       Major Gen. Vincent E. Falter, USA (Ret.), former Deputy to 
     the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy.
       Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President, Center for Security 
     Policy and former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense.
       Hon. William R. Graham, former Director of the Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy and Science Advisor to 
     President Reagan.
       James T. Hackett, former Acting Director of the Arms 
     Control and Disarmament Agency.
       Adm. Kinnaird McKee, USN (Ret.), former Director, Naval 
     Nuclear Propulsion.
       Lieutenant General Thomas H. Miller, USMC (Ret.), former 
     Deputy Chief of Staff for Aviation, Headquarters U.S. Marine 
     Corps.
       Gen. Carl Mundy, USMC (Ret.), former Commandant, U.S. 
     Marine Corps.
       Major Gen. J. Milnor Roberts, USA (Ret.), former Chief of 
     Army Reserve.
       General Glenn K. Otis, USA (Ret.), former Commander-in-
     Chief, U.S. Army, Europe.
       General John L. Piotrowski, USAF (Ret.), former Commander, 
     U.S. Space Command and Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force.
       Hon. Roger W. Robinson, Jr., former Senior Director, 
     International Economic Policy, National Security Council.
       Major Gen. John K. Singlaub, USA (Ret.), former Chief of 
     Staff, U.S. Forces Korea.
       Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon, former Member of the U.S. House 
     of Representatives.
       Gen. Donn A. Starry, USA (Ret.), former Commander, U.S. 
     Army Readiness Command.
       Hon. James H. Webb, Jr., former Secretary of the Navy.
       General Joseph J. Went, USMC (Ret.), former Assistant 
     Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps.
       General Louis H. Wilson, USMC (Ret.), former Commandant, 
     U.S. Marine Corps.

[[Page 9131]]

     
                                  ____
                 [From the Center for Security Policy]

      Twenty-one National Security Leaders Urge Rejection of PNTR

       Washington, D.C.--On the eve the House of Representatives 
     vote on granting the People's Republic of China Permanent 
     Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status the Center for Security 
     Policy released an Open Letter to Senate Majority Leader 
     Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (see the 
     attached). This letter, which was signed by over twenty of 
     the Nation's most eminent security policy practitioners and 
     retired military officers, argues forcefully that the 
     granting China PNTR would harm U.S. national security.
       This letter comes on the heels of numerous appeals by the 
     Nation's largest veterans and military service organizations 
     who have expressed their opposition to rewarding China's 
     threatening rhetoric and behavior by removing the yearly 
     review of China's trading status. These groups, including the 
     American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Reserve 
     Officers Association of the United States, the Warrant 
     Officers Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the 
     Military Order of the Purple Heart, AMVETS, the Naval Reserve 
     Association and the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association and 
     the signatories of today's letter should be commended for 
     their defense of America's security and principles.
       The Open Letter's signatories include: three former 
     Commandants of the U.S. Marine Corps (General Robert H. 
     Barrow, General Carl Mundy and General Louis H. Wilson); 
     seven retired four-staff general officers (former Chief of 
     Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, General 
     J.B. Davis, USAF; former Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, 
     Admiral Leon `Bud' Edney, USN; former Director, Naval Nuclear 
     Propulsion, Admiral Kinnaird McKee, USN (Ret.); former 
     Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Army, Europe, General Glenn K. Otis, 
     USA (Ret.); former Commander, U.S. Space Command and Vice 
     Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force, General John L. Piotrowski 
     USAF (Ret.); former Commander, U.S. Army Readiness Command, 
     General Donn A. Starry, USA (Ret.); and former Assistant 
     Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps, General Joseph J. Went, USMC 
     (Ret.)); former Secretary of the Navy, James H. Webb, Jr.; 
     former Science Advisor to President Reagan, William R. 
     Graham; and former Chairman of the House Rules Committee, 
     Gerald B.H. Solomon.
       The Open Letter reads in part:
       ``[T]he Chinese today, like the Japanese sixty years ago, 
     put great faith in the ability of a materially weaker 
     challenger to defeat a major power which looks stronger, but 
     which they believe has become decadent and irresolute in the 
     use of power. If Beijing is poised to make the same mistake 
     that Tokyo made in 1941, it would cost this country dearly to 
     prove them wrong should it come to a war the Chinese 
     apparently expect and for which they are preparing. A firm 
     American stand now would likely avoid miscalculation later, 
     boost deterrence and, therefore, promote peace in the Western 
     Pacific and East Asia. Toward that end, we believe that the 
     annual debate on our China policy mandated by current law 
     should not be eliminated at present. It should, instead, be 
     expanded to place international economic ties in the larger 
     context of American national security policy and interests in 
     Asia.''
       The Center urges Congress to weigh carefully the arguments 
     of these highly respected and accomplished authorities and, 
     in so doing, to discount dubious appeals for granting China 
     PNTR on national security grounds.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of granting permanent 
normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China. I do not 
presume that my comments will change any of my colleagues minds but 
please allow me to tell you why I am in support of this measure.
  During the 19th Century, European powers, more or less, forced their 
own way into China by militarily demanding exclusive trade concessions. 
More often than not, these trade concessions benefitted the European 
merchants almost unilaterally. In this age of imperialism, little 
concern was given to the ``economic benefit'' received by the Chinese 
people in general. To be sure, there were many Chinese feudal lords and 
merchants who grew very wealthy from trading with the Europeans, but as 
a matter of course, widespread economic prosperity would not reach the 
average Chinese peasant or urban laborer until well into the late 20th 
Century.
  The United States during this age of imperialism was steadfast in 
promoting the ``Open Door Policy'' whereby no nation was excluded from 
trade with China. Of course, this privilege was limited to only but a 
few great maritime powers. Nevertheless the concept of free trade and 
open access to markets was there.
  The point of recalling this history is to understand China's present 
frame of political reference. China was, in many ways, abused by the 
Western foreign powers for much of the 19th and early 20th Centuries. 
In the turmoil that followed the Second World War, the Chinese 
Communists seized power in a revolution of the peasantry. In 
establishing a paranoid one-party authoritarian state, the west's 
colonial legacy has remained a rather contemporary influence in the 
body politic of China's leaders. In the years since the Cultural 
Revolution, China has made tremendous in roads to opening up and 
embracing many market concepts. True, they still are ruled by an 
intolerant regime that has an abhorrent human rights, labor rights, 
women's rights, civil liberties, and environmental record. True, they 
are also modernizing their military and repeatedly engage in political 
``saber rattling.''
  Yet anyone who has bothered to study Chinese history will instantly 
recognize that it is China who fears the western world's economic, 
political, and military power. It is China who fears being isolated and 
contained. Beijing recognizes that as a developing nation they need to 
be a part of the global economy in order to survive and become more 
prosperous. Since China increasingly depends on the connections to the 
global economy, they indeed have more to loose if they are cut out. 
Part of the motivation behind the trade accord, as brokered by 
President Clinton, is to ``normalize'' the trade and economic links of 
China with the global economy and thereby cement China's dependence 
upon this community, which is subject to the rule of law.
  So, let us now turn briefly to the agreement as drafted in this bill. 
To address some of the rhetoric let us turn to the facts. All this 
agreement does is remove the annual Congressional review process, as 
required by the 1974 Trade Act, before granting normal trade relations 
to China for the year. In granting this ``permanent'' status, China 
will then be able to work towards joining the World Trade Organization 
(WTO). In this agreement, the granting of PNTR by the United States 
only goes into effect upon China's admittance to the WTO. This process 
could take years. In the meantime this body loses nothing; the annual 
NTR review would still apply. In addition, there are many legal and 
market oriented hoops that the Chinese government must comply with in 
order to become a member of the WTO. Once China is a member of the WTO, 
the United States still can impose sanctions on China but they have to 
be ``WTO consistent.'' This means that if for national security reasons 
or other qualifying reasons, the President feels it is necessary to 
impose economic sanctions, it would be within our rights to do so.
  One concern is that in passing this bill, Congress abdicates its 
ability to have economic leverage over China. There are many other 
processes to affect this ``leverage'' over China. For example, the U.S. 
could use the power of the Export-Import Bank, TDA and OPIC to apply 
pressure on China. Finally, the Levin-Bereuter language that 
establishes a Congressional Executive Commission on Human Rights and 
Labor Abuses in China, will annually grant this body the opportunity to 
investigate and criticize China's abuse in these areas. This language 
preserves our commitment and ability to annually address Human Rights 
and Labor Abuses in China.
  Mr. Speaker the strengths of granting PNTR clearly outweigh the 
weaknesses. It will undoubtedly benefit American businesses and open 
China's markets in U.S. goods. Plain and simple, this agreement is 
about trade. My colleagues, China has along way to go towards reforming 
its civil society but you cannot genuinely compare the current regime 
in China to the government of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Unlike the 
Nazi's, China is not bent on world domination. The Chinese have no 
military plans to occupy parts of California or New York.
  Mr. Speaker, trade inevitably liberalizes a society. Look at South 
Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Spain, Portugal, Chile and Argentina. The 
former authoritarian regimes in these nations were undoubtedly weakened 
by the permeating influence of open markets and the free flow of goods, 
capital, and ideas. As we stand here on the precipice of change, we 
have an opportunity to take a first step towards exposing China towards 
the benefits and responsibilities of trade and the rule of law. 
Granting PNTR and China's membership in the WTO is not a panacea. It 
may change China in profound ways that were not anticipated by most 
Americans. But in the end, the long road ahead for our national 
security and economic security begins with this first step. We should 
grant PNTR and continue to engage China.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, the decision on whether or not we should 
grant normal trade status to China is always a difficult one. In 1995 
and 1996, I supported renewing trade with China because there were 
indications that the Chinese were moving in the right direction toward 
a more open free society. However, abiding concerns about human rights, 
religious persecution, proliferation of advanced missile technology, 
and saber rattling toward Taiwan

[[Page 9132]]

and China's other neighbors led me to vote against granting normal 
trade status to China during the last three years.
  This year, however, the debate over granting normal trade relations 
with China is different. We face a momentous decision about the future 
of jobs in the United States and specifically greater employment 
prospects for men and women living in Georgia's Eighth Congressional 
district. The administration negotiated a one way agreement with China 
that mandates significant reductions in tariffs as a part of China's 
entry into the World Trade Organization as well as includes import 
safeguards for sensitive industries like textiles. In 1998, Georgia 
exported over $338 million worth of goods and services to China. China 
has an estimated $750 billion in infrastructure needs over the next ten 
years. Companies and industries located here in middle and south 
Georgia are well positioned to take advantage of this auspicious 
opportunity. Thousands of Georgia's workers at companies such as Brown 
& Williamson Tobacco Corporation in Macon, Rayonier in Baxley, 
Barnesville, and Lumber City, Hudson Pecan Company in Ocilla, 
International Paper in Folkston, BP Amoco in Hazlehurst and Nashville, 
Blue Bird Body Corporation in Fort Valley, and CSX Corporation in 
Waycross all support increased trade with China.
  I continue to be concerned with a number of issues related to China. 
But today we must decide whether or not we will close the door to 
expanded markets for products made in Georgia, alienate the most 
populous nation in the world, and lose a genuine opportunity to build a 
dialogue with China and spread American values of freedom, democracy, 
and market economics consequently improving the lives of 1.6 billion 
people. We should condemn China's brutal repression against its 
citizens and continue to vigilantly monitor human rights abuses. We 
will ensure that our military and intelligence capabilities are strong 
and robust enough to meet the challenges of any Chinese aggression. We 
must pry open the Chinese market and tear down pernicious trade 
barriers that block American goods and services and restrain 
prosperity.
  We cannot change Chinese civilization overnight. But turning our back 
on China now and limiting our opportunities for improving our 
relationship with the Chinese is not the answer either. Rejecting trade 
with China only frustrates efforts by American businesses to expand 
their worldwide sales and create jobs here at home.
  We must continue to be concerned about human rights and labor issues 
in China. We will now have a forum like we have never had to dialogue 
on these issues.
  For the agricultural community, the benefits of trade with China are 
enormous. Chinese tariffs on pecans will be reduced 35 percent, tobacco 
40 percent, and textiles 13.7 percent. For the manufacturing community, 
the job security and job creation potential are great. Tariffs on wood 
products will be slashed 64 percent, agriculture equipment 50 percent, 
and aluminum 33 percent. In fact, most every agricultural and 
manufacturing group or company in the state of Georgia supports 
expanding trade relations with China.
  Granting China normal trade relations will be beneficial to our 
district and the state. But more importantly, building better 
friendships with the Chinese people, teaching them about the value of 
open, democratic, and free societies, and bringing China into the 
legal, cultural, and economic community of nations will create a better 
world for the next generation.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this bill. 
Deciding how to vote on this has not been easy, and I want to explain 
how I've arrived at my decision.
  I began by reviewing the developments that led to the decision we are 
asked to make today.
  In November 1999, after nearly 14 years of negotiations, the U.S. and 
China reached a bilateral agreement covering market access issues with 
China, taking the first step to China's admission to the World Trade 
Organization (WTO).
  For the U.S. to benefit from China's accession to the WTO, Congress 
must first grant unconditional and permanent NTR to China. This means 
we would no longer have the annual opportunity to review China's record 
on human and worker rights, which Congress has done since the passage 
of the Trade Act in 1974. The Trade Act includes an amendment that 
denies NTR for China, which congress has voted to waive since 1980. I 
think this has been an important exercise that has enabled Congress to 
regularly review China's progress in human and worker rights. Some 
argue that this ``sword of Damocles'' that we hang annually over the 
heads of the Chinese isn't putting a stop to human rights violations. 
But we should ask what might have happened if we hadn't exercised this 
leverage. Human rights organizations and dissidents tell me that as the 
vote approaches every year in Congress, the situation in China becomes 
a little less grim. To me, that indicates that the annual review of 
Congress continues to be important.
  The agreement negotiated last November would require China to open 
its markets widely and deeply, and would provide new trade and 
investment opportunities for U.S. businesses. But there remain 
unanswered questions about the economic consequences of the agreement 
and whether the immediate benefits to U.S. producers will be as great 
as some have claimed. For instance, it is unclear whether the agreement 
will improve our increasing trade imbalance with China, a deficit 
valued annually at $69 billion. It is unclear whether most of the 
benefits of the agreement will be realized by U.S. companies that 
invest directly in China and use China primarily as an export platform, 
or whether there will be an increase in imports of U.S.-made goods to 
China. It also remains unclear on what terms the U.S. and China would 
trade in the absence of the WTO agreement--some analysts maintain that 
the 1979 U.S.-bilateral treaty would allow the U.S. to benefit from 
some, if not all, of the provisions in the WTO agreement, even if the 
agreement itself doesn't go into effect.
  So, I have questions about the details and effects of the trade 
agreement.
  But my misgivings about granting permanent NTR status to China don't 
revolve around questions of the benefits of trade as much as about the 
question of who will benefit. We hear from free trade advocates that 
permanent NTR will be good for the people of China. There's an 
underlying assumption here that free trade invariably leads to 
development and democracy. Markets do produce change, but not 
necessarily ``development'' in a positive sense. Markets without law 
produce the kind of capitalism we see in Russia, and markets without 
democracy produce an Indonesian-style economic disaster. I agree that 
open markets and more porous borders have helped lift up the lives of 
people in many countries of the world. But I am also alarmed about the 
growing economic inequality within and between countries. Unless free 
trade is also fair trade, we risk lifting up the few to the detriment 
of the many. Economic openness accompanied by tighter restrictions on 
basic freedoms. Even now, China claims its action in arresting and 
imprisoning pro-democracy activists and Falun Gong followers are done 
in the name of the ``rule of law.''
  Fortunately, the vote on permanent NTR is not a vote on whether to 
isolate China from the rest of the world. The forces of globalization 
have already changed China and connected it to the world in ways even 
China's leadership can't control. Even now, China receives far more 
foreign direct investment than any other developing country. Trade, 
investment, and reform will continue whether or not the U.S. grants 
China permanent NTR. And this doesn't mean that the U.S. would 
necessarily be left out of the mix. Despite threats to impose stiff 
tariffs on U.S. firms doing business in China if permanent NTR does not 
pass, China's paramount concern right now is its economy and finding 
ways to bring it into the 21st century. If China is determined to find 
this path, it is doubtful that it would choose to neglect the very 
country that consumes 40 percent of its exports.
  After careful consideration, I have decided I cannot support 
permanent NTR for China at this time. There are five main reasons why.
  First, if there is any constant in China's behavior, it is that China 
does not do what it says it will do, especially as regards trade. In my 
view, a WTO agreement can advance economic reform in China only if it 
is enforced. The WTO was founded on the assumption that its members 
respect international laws. But China has violated all four bilateral 
trade agreements that it has entered with the U.S. since 1992. Already, 
some of China's ministries have moved to protect themselves against the 
effect of WTO membership. It seems to me that if we can expect massive 
violations from China based on its record of noncompliance with 
existing trade agreements, we should be concerned that the WTO 
multilateral dispute mechanisms--already cumbersome--are not 
constructed to handle this kind of load.
  Second is the concern I touched on earlier about the importance of 
the leverage provided by the annual NTR review. China's record of 
violating its citizens' fundamental human rights of freedom of speech, 
religion and association will be harder, not easier, to challenge if 
Congress grants PNTR.
  Third, I have many concerns about labor the environmental standards 
that the November 1999 agreement does not take into account. If we 
don't insist now--before we grant permanent NTR--that China commit to 
making progress in these areas, what could be our

[[Page 9133]]

best chance for these reforms will be closed off.
  Fourth, there is important symbolism to consider. Granting China 
permanent NTR would send a powerful message to Asia's genuine fledgling 
democracies--Thailand, the Philippines, Korea, and Indonesia, where 
workers have the right to organize--that they no longer have to abide 
by internationally recognized human and labor rights. Granting China 
permanent NTR would also send a troubling message that although we hold 
other countries accountable through sanctions for arms sales, threats 
to neighboring democracies, or human rights abuses, we are not willing 
to do the same for China. While I am not advocating sanctions for 
China, neither do I believe we should turn a blind eye to China's human 
rights abuses by granting permanent NTR.
  This leads me to my fifth reason, which to me is the most important. 
China has racked up a dismal human rights record year after year, 
despite signing two UN covenants on human rights prior to President 
Clinton's trip to Beijing in 1998. In fact, according to recent reports 
by the State Department, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations, 
the situation has deteriorated markedly since late 1998. Even now at 
the current meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, China 
is fighting a U.S. effort to censure Beijing for its worsening human 
rights record. In the name of ``social stability,'' China has 
effectively banned opposition political parties, further constrained 
free association and religious expression, sped up the pace of arrests 
and executions of activists, and interfered with the free flow of 
information through restrictions on the Internet. This is all in 
addition to extrajudicial killings, torture and mistreatment of 
prisoners, forced confessions, arbitrary arrest and detention, and 
denial of due process. Just recently, a constituent of mine in 
Westminster asked for help in getting his Chinese parents released from 
a jail in Hubei Province, where they are being detained for their Falun 
Gong practice. We've done what we can, but as far as I know, they're 
still there.
  Before we grant PNTR, we should insist that China ratify and live up 
to the two UN human rights treaties it has already signed. We should 
ask that it take steps to begin dismantling its ``reeducation through 
labor'' system, which allows officials to sentence citizens to labor 
camps for up to three years without judicial review. We should insist 
that China change its repressive policies regarding the Tibetan people 
and open Tibet to regular access by UN human rights and humanitarian 
agencies and foreign journalists. If we don't insist now--before we 
grant permanent NTR--that China live up to agreements it has signed and 
that it adhere to international standards of human rights, China will 
have no incentive to move in this direction.
  Some have suggested that the ``brave'' position to take is to vote to 
grant normal trade relations to China. I disagree. For me it is far 
more difficult to cast a vote that some might say would close the door 
on a developing country and its billion citizens, all of whom deserve 
the benefits that truly free trade can bring. On the contrary, I'll be 
the first to welcome China if--as it opens it markets--it also will 
open its prisons; lift restrictions on speech, association, and 
religious expression; protect the rights of its workers; and respect 
its environment.
  I don't believe we can or should ignore China. To do so would risk 
ignoring important economic opportunities and strategic and security 
considerations. I believe we should encourage China's economic 
modernization, but we should also encourage China to take the leap into 
the 21st century in more than just economic ways.
  The question is not whether to engage China, it is how and on whose 
terms. I was encouraged by the efforts of Representative Levin and 
Representative Bereuter to seek a way in which to maintain pressure on 
China to improve its record on human rights, compliance with core labor 
standards, and development of the rule of law. That is why I voted for 
the rule, which added the Levin-Bereuter provisions to the bill. These 
provisions still don't go far enough--given that they have no power of 
enforcement--to allow me to change my position. But I believe they 
reflect the right spirit, a spirit that is about trying actively to 
shape globalization, not passively closing our doors. Although I cannot 
support permanent NTR today, I remain committed to this activist 
course.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, granting China Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations status is unwise, unprincipled, and counterproductive.
  American multi-national corporations are realistic enough to 
understand that most of them will never sell anything in China. They 
will create production platforms taking advantage of cheap labor and 
non-existent health, safety, and environmental regulations to replace 
American men and women who work for a living wage in the United States.
  In our economic relations with China, it is we who have the leverage, 
not the Chinese. They have a $70 billion trade surplus with the United 
States--and this surplus is vital for their military armament plans and 
their economic progress. We have all the cards but pretend to be 
impotent.
  Mr. Speaker, fig leaves have a noble function in Greek sculpture--
they conceal valuable and at times indispensable parts. The 
``Commission'' proposed in this legislation gives a bad name to fig 
leaves. We have governmental and private studies overflowing our desks, 
all proving the outrageous human rights abuses, violations of religious 
freedom, and the denial of political discourse that permeate China. No 
one in his or her right mind believes for a moment that yet another 
commission will have any impact on the dictatorial regime in Beijing.
  China's victory in this struggle today, however, will be carefully 
studied and imitated by the new KGB-trained President of Russia. Our 
ability to advocate pluralism, religious freedom, and political 
liberties in Russia will be profoundly crippled by the hypocrisy of 
this debate today. President Putin will have no trouble learning the 
lesson that what we really care about is stability and investment 
opportunities. All the rhetoric about liberty, freedom of the press, 
and religious freedom is just that--sheer rhetoric with no substance.
  Mr. Speaker, China already has Normal Trade Relations with the United 
States. This measure on which we are voting today merely protects this 
repulsive regime from an annual debate in the Congress, which over the 
past decade has pointed out China's serious shortcomings. Now the 
government in Beijing will have a free ride.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, after considering the arguments for and 
against PNTR, I have concluded that rejecting it would be a serious 
mistake and passing it would benefit Georgia's and our area's economy.
  China will soon enter the World Trade Organization (WTO), which 
oversees the rules of international commerce. The United States is 
already a member. WTO rules say that members must grant one another 
``unconditional'' low-tariff access to their markets. The current 
process of annual votes by Congress on China trade amounts to a 
``condition.'' Hence, the U.S. would be out of compliance with WTO 
rules if PNTR was not passed.
  To gain entry into the WTO, China has agreed to open markets that 
have long been closed, such as agriculture, services, technology, 
telecommunications, and manufactured goods, and will drop or greatly 
reduce tariffs. The U.S. has already opened our markets. U.S. exports 
to China have tripled over the past decade. But China's exports to the 
U.S. are seven times greater. That deficit should drop with an 
expansion of U.S. goods and services under PNTR and WTO.
  Unfortunately, China will only give these market-opening benefits to 
countries that give Chinese products ``unconditional'' access. So, if 
we fail to give China PNTR, they will shut U.S. companies out of huge 
business opportunities in a fast-growing economy of 1.2 billion people. 
That would impact jobs in our area greatly, according to Governor Roy 
Barnes, Agriculture Commissioner Tommy Irvin, the 342,000-members of 
the Georgia Farm Bureau, Proctor and Gamble, Merck Pharmaceutical, 
Miller Brewing, Phillip Morris, Kraft Foods, Georgia Pacific, 
Weyerhaeuer, Ayres Aircraft, Carter Manufacturing, Griffin Chemical, 
Coca-Cola, Bell South, Georgia Power, AT&T, Cargill, Tyson Foods, Gold 
Kist, American Cotton Shippers, Synovus Financial, AFLAC, UPS, Tobacco 
Association of the United States, Brown and Williamson, and countless 
others.
  Too many people associated with these area businesses would lose. We 
just can't afford NOT to grant PNTR.
  Some, including myself, have expressed deeply-felt and well-reasoned 
concerns about PNTR. Some, including veterans groups, have questioned 
whether it might compromise our national security. Some farmers and 
business entrepreneurs feel China's proclivity for cheating might put 
the U.S. at an export disadvantage. Others express concern about 
rewarding a country like China with a horrible record of political 
suppression, religious persecution, and unfair and inhumane labor 
practices. I share all of these concerns.
  Upon close analysis, however, I believe that failure to pass PNTR 
would have even worse consequences. Our national security would be 
endangered because rejection of PNTR would send a clear message that we 
view China as an adversary. The Chinese are modernizing a military that 
has more manpower than any country on earth, and only because of our 
current engagement policy have they agreed to

[[Page 9134]]

stop transferring anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran and other rogue 
nations for cash. If they view us as an adversary, rather than a 
trading partner, they will continue to transfer weapons of mass 
destruction and endanger our national security.
  Moreover, if we are seen as an adversary to China, our bilateral 
relations with other Asian countries such as Singapore, Thailand, 
Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, and even Japan would be affected. These 
countries would have to align themselves with China, their strong 
neighbor, or the U.S. on the other side of the world. Taiwan President-
elect Chen shui-Bian supports PNTR because he says it would promote 
greater cooperation between mainland China and the free world as well 
as contribute to peace and stability.
  As for human rights, labor and environmental issues, it is clear the 
U.S. cannot exert influence if it is disengaged. Although the 
effectiveness of the oversight measures in the PNTR package is 
disputed, the measures do, in fact, make workable mechanisms available 
to the U.S. to take retaliatory action against any breakdown in our 
expectations of China. With the passage of PNTR, China will have the 
opportunity to prove to the world its ability to greatly improve its 
record. In turn, the U.S. and other WTO nations, will have the 
opportunity to hold China more accountable.
  My vote for PNTR is a vote to open markets in China's in order to 
promote jobs in Georgia, and for a safer world.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, China has a continuing legacy of human 
rights violations and oppression which cannot be ignored. Year after 
year we have been told, ``Give most-favored-nation status to China and 
their government will be forced to reform.'' We heard that during the 
Bush years. We hear it during the Clinton years.
  Let us look at the score card a little bit.
  We gave most-favored-nation status and they continue their policy of 
population planning with forced abortion.
  We gave most-favored-nation status and they continue not to tolerate 
any dissent of any kind; the imprisonments, the torture, and the 
killings go on.
  It was reported in the beginning of May that Chinese police cut off a 
villager's tongue after he was detained for writing anti-corruption 
slogans on a communist party office building.
  We gave most-favored-nation status and they continue to try to stamp 
out any religion that is not state-supported religion.
  ``In February, the family of 60-year-old Chen Zixiu, a Falun Gong 
follower, were asked to collect her body from a police station in 
Shandong province where she had been detained for four days. Her body 
was covered with bruises, her teeth were broken and there was blood 
coming out of her ears. She was arrested on suspicion of planning to go 
to Beijing to petition the authorities against the banning of the Falun 
Gong.''
  We gave most-favored-nation status and their policy of cultural 
genocide in Tibet continues.
  ``The International Campaign for Tibet reports that more than 1,000 
monks and nuns were expelled from their monasteries and nunneries in 
1999, bringing to more than 11,000 the number of monks and nuns turned 
out of their monasteries since the beginning of the `Strike Hard' 
campaign in 1996.''
  We gave most-favored-nation status and they sell nuclear and missile 
technology to some of our worst enemies.
  ``In addition, Beijing is aggressively developing strategic ties with 
Burma, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan.''
  We gave most-favored-nation status and they make plans to invade 
Taiwan.
  ``An internal document prepared by China's Central Military 
Commission and published in the Western press states that the United 
States will `pay a high price' if it intervenes in any China-Taiwan 
military conflict.''
  We gave most-favored-nation status to them, and they have the biggest 
buildup of nuclear missile development of any country on the face of 
the earth.
  PNTR supporters say access to China's huge market will increase U.S. 
businesses exports and create extra jobs in America. As it is, we have 
a 70 billion dollar trade deficit with China and most proponents of the 
agreement admit our deficit will continue to grow.
  ``In all likelihood there will be no great improvement in the trade 
balance. . . . And there will be no net extra jobs.''--National 
Journal.
  The United States should not sell out for the promise of an extra 
buck. . . . a promise that will not be kept even if PNTR is passed.
  If you have a rabid dog in your backyard, you don't welcome him into 
your home.
  Vote ``no'' on PNTR with China.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of normal trading 
relations with China.
  Trying to determine what course will be the best for the United 
States and for the people of China in the long run is not easy. No one 
has a crystal ball. However, I believe that is in the best interests of 
the United States and of the people of China to have more contact with 
and interaction rather than less.
  First of all, trade with China directly affects hard-working 
Americans in my district. For example, more than one-third of our 
agricultural production is exported, and China is the largest potential 
overseas market for our cotton, beef, and other products.
  Secondly, we cannot afford to forget that China has more people than 
any other country in the world; it has the world's largest economy 
after ours; and it has a strong military with missiles and nuclear 
warheads which can reach the United States. While Chinese leaders have 
done a number of things with which we do not agree, we should not 
ignore or cut off contact with a country that will inevitably play an 
increasingly important role in world affairs.
  Finally, I believe that continuing trade with China is in the best 
interests of the people of China. They have more freedom today, than 
they ever had since the Communists took control in 1949. The areas 
where people have the greatest freedom are those areas with the most 
contact with the outside world. We should not hesitate to speak out 
strongly for the values we hold dear, such as freedom of religion. But 
we will not help the people of China to obtain that freedom by cutting 
back on our trade, contacts, and influence there.
  For these reasons I will vote for normal trade relations with China 
and continue to work for the national security interests and values of 
the United States.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, Congress takes an historic step today in 
considering legislation to grant normal trade relations to China. We do 
this to position our workers, firms, and farmers to take maximum 
advantage of the vast opportunities offered as a result of China's 
decision to join the WTO.
  Just as importantly, we do this to reinforce the reformers in China 
who look in our direction and at our success, as they attempt to move 
the Chinese economy out from under the iron grip of Communism and 
stranglehold of state control. China's decision to adopt the WTO system 
of fair trade rules is a choice to impose the discipline of market-
based principles throughout a vast country of 1.2 billion people. In my 
estimation, the revolutionary change WTO rules will bring to the 
Chinese economy dwarfs any other avenue of influence available to the 
U.S.
  The trade agreement with China and this vote to normalize trade 
relations between our two countries have been hard fought and long 
awaited. For fourteen years, through Democrat and Republican 
Administrations, this body insisted that we would not take an empty 
trade deal with China. At last we have succeeded in obtaining a great 
win for Americans. In addition to the commercial benefits, this bill 
turns our relationship with China in a positive direction. By 
reinforcing the efforts of Chinese citizens fighting for change, we 
magnify our chances of maintaining peace, stability and security in 
Asia.
  In bringing China into the WTO, we will obtain access to the WTO 
dispute settlement mechanism to systematically tear down barriers, if 
China chooses to be recalcitrant in any area. With a WTO finding on our 
side, and the collective judgment of 135 countries against China, we 
multiply ten-fold our leverage to bring China into compliance with the 
rules of fair trade. In the event China chooses to flaunt a WTO finding 
against it, we would have the ready option of imposing WTO-legal trade 
sanctions.
  I expect this new approach to solving trade disputes with China to be 
many times more effective than our current method of threatening 
unilateral trade sanctions under Section 301.
  Over the past 21 years, China has sought to reform its economy, 
encouraging the growth of the private sector. Since 1979, China's 
government policy toward the private sector has evolved from 
prohibition, to toleration, to active encouragement. The number of 
private sector employees (i.e. those working for a privately owned 
Chinese company or self-employed) rose from 4.5 million in 1985 to an 
estimated 81.3 million in 1999. Accounting for over half of China's 
economic output, the private sector in China has become a major force 
in the country's economic development.
  China's membership in the WTO will require it to privatize a 
substantial portion of its economy, not only to conform to the WTO, but 
also to be able to compete internationally. Reduced government control 
over the economy will enhance living standards and economic freedom for 
the average Chinese citizen.
  The growth of the private sector in China, which WTO membership will 
further encourage, has allowed many more Chinese citizens

[[Page 9135]]

to choose their employment, education, housing and recreation free from 
state control. According to CRS, privatization ``has reduced the 
pervasiveness of the work unit as a means of social control''.
  We know that U.S. foreign investment exposes Chinese workers and 
managers to such principles as merit-based pay and promotion, 
individual rights and privacy, ethical business practices, transparency 
of business and payroll transactions, and free access to more 
information. Internet usages and the consequent flow of information 
into China are surging. Motorola, my own corporate constituent, 
provides wireless communications equipment that enables Chinese 
citizens to gain access to, and utilize affordable communications 
services.
  Motorola directly promotes the exchange of ideas by sending hundreds 
of Chinese employees to its U.S. facilities each year to attend 
technology, engineering, and management seminars. In a country where 
only 10-15% of the people have access to a college education, this is 
precious training that allows for eye-opening exposure to the American 
way of life.
  In 1998, Motorola established the Center for Enterprise Excellence 
(CEE) to provide training for management of China's ailing state-owned 
enterprises. As of June 1999, 500 executives and engineers of 75 state-
owned enterprises from 15 provinces had received training. Motorola 
also provides scholarships to 8 universities in China--with money 
disbursed to approximately 1,000 students and 100 teachers every year.
  Caterpillar has also worked with Illinois State University (ISU) to 
establish a learning center in Beijing.
  Motorola pioneered a company-subsidized Employee Home Ownership 
Program in China. The program provides for an additional 20% of each 
employee's salary to be paid into a special housing fund. The money can 
be withdrawn and used to buy or rent a house or apartment, or to 
renovate an existing home.
  U.S. companies export U.S. concepts of volunteerism, charitable 
giving, and community activism. For example, Motorola has contributed 
approximately $1.5 million to China's Project Hope--which focuses on 
providing funds and mobilizing non-governmental resources to support 
elementary school education in the poorest rural districts in China. 
Through these donations, Project Hope has built 24 primary schools and 
financed education for more than 6,700 children.
  In short, a vote for normal trade relations, which will allow these 
types of exchanges to continue, is a vote for bringing American values 
and ideals much closer to average Chinese citizens.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4444.

                 [From the Daily Herald, May 23, 2000]

                        The Case for China Trade

       Like it or not, China is a growing economic and military 
     force with whom Washington must deal over time.
       U.S. business interest are urging Congress to permanently 
     normalize trade relations with China in a vote this week. 
     That would drive China's tariffs down and further open the 
     vast Asian nation to a wide range of American products.
       American labor, by contrast, is lobbying hard for Congress 
     to reject Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Unions argue that 
     jobs would flow away from Americans and to poorly paid and 
     highly exploited Chinese workers.
       That many Chinese workers toil under miserable conditions 
     is beyond dispute. But the hard reality is that their lives 
     will not improve by Congress rejecting normalized trade with 
     China.
       China is going to be admitted to the World Trade 
     Organization whether Congress OKs permanent normal trade 
     relations or not. European nations have already built their 
     own trade bridges while China. Congressional rejection of 
     permanent trade status for China would merely guarantee that 
     European and Pacific Rim nations would benefit from China's 
     reduced tariffs and do so without competition from U.S. 
     business. Illinois farmers and suburban companies such as 
     Motorola would miss an opportunity that would carry direct 
     and ripple benefits for thousands of workers here.
       That's the economic side of the story. The political side 
     is that Congress, by turning down permanent trade status, 
     would introduce new tensions into U.S.-Chinese relations that 
     would serve no positive purpose for the United States or 
     China's citizens.
       Like it or note, China is a growing economic and military 
     force with whom Washington must deal over time. Those 
     dealings are often frustrated, given China's oppression of 
     its citizens, aggressive stance toward Taiwan, ambitious 
     weapons acquisition and resistance to granting political 
     liberty even as it experiments with limited economic freedom.
       But to nurture a long-term relationship with Cuba is 
     nonetheless in the best interests of the United States, and 
     such a relationship can be better built and sustained between 
     two countries that are cooperating--not battling--over 
     commerce.
       China's leaders make it difficult for Washington to work 
     with Beijing even when doing so is in America's better 
     interests. That was true when Richard Nixon traveled to China 
     and when the U.S. agreed to China's admission to the United 
     Nations. It remains true today, when a vote for permanent 
     trade status is a tough vote but the correct vote noneless.

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, we are making a critical decision today 
on whether to grant permanent normal trade relations to China. This is 
not an easy decision. Before casting my vote, I considered the advice 
and counsel of my constituents and experts in the field. And, after 
weighing the complexity of the PNTR issue and the long-term 
implications of this vote, I have decided to vote against granting 
permanent normal trade relations to China.
  While this bill would have an important economic impact, it fails to 
honor American values regarding human rights, labor protections and the 
environment.
  Free and fair trade makes sense for America. If given a level playing 
field, American companies and workers can compete with any other in the 
international marketplace. Indeed, to a great degree, globalization and 
free trade have helped to sustain this country's record prosperity and 
economic expansion over the past decade.
  Yet, free trade alone, without consideration for human rights, basic 
labor standards, and environmental protection will only encourage a 
race to the bottom.
  For over a decade, I have been troubled by the message our China 
policy has sent to the Chinese people, to our citizens and to the rest 
of the world. Despite egregious human rights violations, China's export 
of weapons of mass destruction around the world, repeated crackdowns on 
religious freedom and its continued occupation of Tibet, we have 
refused to establish a bottom line in our relationship with China.
  Regardless of the policies pursued by the Chinese regime, we continue 
to send a message that economic interests override our concerns 
regarding abuses of human rights, labor standards and the environment.
  Just as our trade policy with Japan and Europe has evolved throughout 
the years to give priority to issues such as market access and 
intellectual property rights, we need to ensure that basic labor and 
environmental standards and respect for human rights be given similar 
weight at the negotiating table.
  There are some who have argued that increased contact with China will 
improve the country's dismal record on these issues, especially through 
the use of information technology and the Internet.
  While I agree that the Internet has promoted the spread of 
information, our recent history with China has shown that increased 
economic engagement will not necessarily lead the country down a path 
to democratic reform.
  Indeed, we have stood by and watched a systematic deterioration in 
China's respect for labor, the environment and human rights, including 
most recently, a series of violent crackdowns on members of the Falun 
Gong movement.
  It is cruicial that we continue to engage China out of concern for 
our own national security interests as well as the interests of China's 
democratic development. For that reason, I'm pleased that the 
legislation before the House today contains a bill I introduced 
authorizing commercial and labor rule of law assistance to China.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote is not just about granting permanent normal 
trade relations to the People's Republic of China--it's about sending a 
message to the world that is consistent with the values that have made 
our nation great. Until such an agreement is before us, I am left with 
no choice but to vote no.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to granting permanent 
normal trade relations to China and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Our nation continues to experience unprecedented economic growth. A 
major factor in that growth is the expansion of international trade and 
the increased global competitiveness of U.S. businesses.
  Expanding export opportunities is especially important in the 
Northeast where the economy is still transitioning into a high-tech 
economy. The economic base of the manufacturing, jewelry, and textile 
industries has been slow to adapt to the global economy. Increasing 
export opportunities for these sectors is critical to foster our 
continued economic growth.
  It is possible to enter into trade agreements that will result in 
higher wages, cleaner air, and greater consumer safeguards. However, 
because we cannot look into a crystal ball to find out how a trade 
agreement will turn out, we must address environmental and consumer 
safeguards and worker rights at the outset.

[[Page 9136]]

Additionally, in today's high-tech world, agreements should also 
contain provisions that protect intellectual property and allow 
equitable market access for all trading partners. Unfortunately, there 
are many countries that do not provide adequate market access, protect 
intellectual property, take steps to preserve the environment, respect 
internationally accepted worker rights, or have adequate measures in 
place to ensure consumer safety.
  In an effort to expand opportunities, I strongly support export 
assistance programs such as the Export-Import Bank (EX-IM) and the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Together these two 
institutions provide critical financial assistance to American 
businesses seeking to expand their business into foreign countries. By 
providing insurance, loans, and loan guarantees, EX-IM and OPIC ensure 
that U.S. businesses are able to compete in markets that are often 
unstable and where foreign companies are subsidized by governments.
  Additionally, as a member of the House Banking and Financial Services 
Committee, I am addressing the impact of trade on international 
financial markets. In particular, we have had to consider several 
financial crises in the last two years. Financial problems in Asia, 
South America, and Russia have led to other trade problems, most 
notably the dumping of foreign products into the U.S. marketplace. In 
an effort to mitigate the impact of the financial crisis. I have 
supported an increase in U.S. payments to the International Monetary 
Fund (IMF). This funding helped to replenish the IMF's resources 
depleted by the financial crises in Asia, Mexico and Russia and to 
prevent the meltdown in the world economy from striking the United 
States.
  There continues to be substantial debate about the progress that 
China has made on worker and human rights, market accesses, and 
protecting intellectual property. In fact, the U.S. government 
continues to express its concerns regarding these issues, as indicated 
in the 1998 Annual Report on Human Rights and the 1999 Trade Policy 
Agenda and 1998 Annual Report of the President of the United States on 
the Trade Agreements Program.
  Exports from the United States to China are far outweighed by goods 
imported to consumers in our country by China. According to the Library 
of Congress, our trade deficit with the Chinese was nearly $57 billion 
in 1998 and, as our country's fourth largest trading partner, China is 
poised to exceed our trade deficit with Japan within a few years. High 
tariffs, in some cases in excess of 100%, restrictions on distribution, 
restrictions on investment, and non-tariff barriers including quotas 
remain substantial impediments to market access for U.S. companies. In 
my opinion, this trade imbalance is troublesome and we must signal our 
intention to China that the playing field for American businesses must 
be leveled.
  By opposing this bill we send a message to China that improvements 
regarding human and worker rights, our growing trade deficit, 
intellectual property protections, and child labor must be made before 
permanent normal trade relations, and child labor must be made before 
permanent normal trade relations is granted.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose PNTR for China.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to provide 
for normal trade relations with China on a permanent basis, otherwise 
known as PNTR. I will focus my remarks on the potential benefits of 
this market opening agreement for U.S. farmers and ranchers. I believe 
those benefits will be significant, and I am in good company in that 
belief. Nine Secretaries of Agriculture who have served since John F. 
Kennedy support PNTR for China. But like my colleagues, my decision is 
much more broadly based. I believe that United States engagement with 
China will help persuade the Chinese to play by the rules in 
agricultural trade, and cause China to improve its record on human 
rights, labor, and environmental issues. And I am in good company in 
this belief as well--Billy Graham; former President Jimmy Carter; 
Martin Lee (champion of Democracy in Hong Kong); Dai-Ching (Chinese 
investigative journalist and environmentalist); all agree that the best 
way to improve China's performance on human rights and the environment 
is to engage China.


                        benefits for agriculture

                              china's need

  I have heard the argument that China, with 21 percent of the world's 
population and 7 percent of the world's arable land, doesn't need U.S. 
agricultural products. Some have stated that between 1992-1998, China 
exported about $4 billion more in agricultural products than it 
imported in each of those years. But this does not reflect the 
significant agricultural imports that enter China ``off the books'' 
through Hong Kong. If we look at agricultural trade for China and Hong 
Kong for the 1992-1998 period, we get a clearer picture of the full 
potential of the Chinese market. According to the U.N. Trade Database, 
China and Hong Kong annually imported about $5.5 billion more in 
agricultural products than they exported. If you include fish and 
forestry, China and Hong Kong's net annual deficit in agricultural 
imports was even larger--$6.9 billion. And these numbers do not reflect 
the predicted growth of China's middle class, and its increased demand 
for meat and other agricultural products. USDA's Economic Research 
Service [ERS] and private United States agricultural commodity groups 
believe that China will continue to be a major market for United States 
agricultural products, and that China's accession to the WTO will 
expand that market.


                    summary of china's wto agreement

  With regard to the agricultural products that U.S. producer groups 
identified as priority items, the average tariff will fall from 31 
percent to 14 percent. This means that these United States agricultural 
products will face less than half the tariff they currently face in the 
Chinese market. China has agreed to end import bans and its 
discriminatory licensing system for bulk commodities, including wheat, 
corn, cotton, rice, and soybean oil. China has also agreed to establish 
a WTO consistent tariff-rate quota [TRQ] system with in-quota tariffs 
of 1-3 percent. Specific rules for the administration of these TRQs, 
and a percentage of trade reserved for non-state trade, will help to 
ensure the quotas get filled, and will increase demand for U.S. 
agricultural products. All of this ensures an initial minimum level of 
access for wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and soybean products--that will 
increase as the agreement is fully implemented.
  China's commitment on export subsidies means that United States 
exports of corn, cotton, and rice will not compete with subsidies from 
the Chinese government in third country markets, such as South Korea, 
Malaysia, and Indonesia. China's commitment to cap and reduce domestic 
subsidies will reduce incentives to overproduce. China's commitment to 
provide greater transparency with regard to its domestic subsidies will 
increase predictability with regard to China's agricultural production. 
China has also agreed to abide by the WTO agreement on Sanitary and 
Phyto-sanitary regulation, and has already implemented rule changes 
that have allowed imports of United States citrus, wheat, and meat. 
China has also agreed that the United States may continue to use its 
anti-dumping methodology for 15 years, and has agreed to an additional 
``product-specific'' 12-year safeguard provision. Together, these 
provisions give U.S. producers a level of protection above and beyond 
that provided for under normal WTO rules.
  Finally, China has agreed to allow any entity to import most products 
into any part of the country within 3 years of accession, and to 
liberalize distribution services for agricultural products. This means 
United States companies will be allowed to market their products in 
China. Let's look at the potential of this agreement for some specific 
commodities. For cotton, China committed to a tariff-rate quota of 
743,000 tons for cotton in 2000, increasing to 894,000 in 2004. The 
within-quota duty would be 4 percent and the over-quota duty would 
decline from 69 percent in 2000 to 40 percent by 2004. Nonstate trade 
companies get \2/3\ of the quota, which means we help avoid the problem 
we have sometimes had in the past with quotas going unfilled. USDA's 
Economic Research Service [ERS] projects that if China did not join the 
WTO, it would import cotton worth $565 million in 2005.
  If China does join, ERS projects that its cotton imports would 
increase to $924 million by 2005. That's why National Cotton Council 
President Ronald Rayner congratulated U.S. negotiators on the 
agricultural agreement, stating that it will ``benefit the U.S. cotton 
industry with greater access to the Chinese market and a promise of 
less subsidization by the Chinese''. For corn, China committed to 
establish a 4.5 million ton tariff rate quota in 2000, rising to 7.2 
million by 2004. Within quota imports would be subject to a 1 percent 
duty, and over-quota duties would be 77 percent in 2000, dropping to 65 
percent by 2004. Nonstate trade companies get \1/4\ of the quota in 
2000 rising to 40 percent by 2004. ERS projects that China's net 
imports of corn in 2005 will increase by $587 million, if it joins the 
WTO. United States exports to China have averaged about 47 million 
bushels over the past 5 years. The National Corn Growers Association 
states that ``we have an opportunity to triple that average if, when 
China joins the WTO, the United States is prepared to grant China 
permanent normal trade relations.'' The Corn Growers add: ``China's 
impressive growth in national income is projected to lead to increased 
consumption of food and fiber. At the same time, growing resource 
constraints on agricultural production are making China increasingly 
reliant on trade.''
  For wheat, China committed to a tariff-rate quota of 7.3 million tons 
in 2000, rising to 9.64

[[Page 9137]]

million in 2004. In quota duty would be 1 percent and out of quota duty 
would be 77 percent in 2000, falling to 65 percent by 2004. Nonstate 
trade companies get 10 percent. ERS projects that China's net imports 
of wheat in 2005 will increase from $231 million to $773 million, if it 
joins the WTO. What does the National Association of Wheat Growers 
say?: ``The United States market is currently open to China; this 
agreement serves to open the Chinese market to American products and 
services. This agreement will give United States wheat producers a far 
greater sales opportunity to a country with 1.2 billion consumers, with 
a potential 10 percent increase in total annual United States wheat 
exports.''.
  For soybean products, China has agreed to a tariff rate quota of 1.72 
million tons of soy oil in 2000, rising to 3.26 million in 2005. The 
in-quota duty is 9 percent and over-quota duty is 74 percent in 2000, 
falling to 9 percent in 2006. Nonstate traders get half the quota in 
2000 and 90 percent by 2005.
  ERS projects that China's net imports of soybean products in 2005 
will increase by $180 million, if it joins the WTO. Here's what the 
American Soybean Association has to say: ``ASA strongly supports WTO 
membership for China, and urges Congress to extend permanent NTR status 
to China.''


                               conclusion

  Overall, the Economic Research Service concludes that China's 
implementation of its WTO obligations between 2000 and 2004 will add $2 
billion to the bottom line for United States farmers and ranchers in 
2005. And ERS is not alone in its view. According to Worldwatch's 
Lester Brown, China's water supplies in its grain-producing areas are 
falling at a high rate. Brown sees massive grain imports and growing 
dependence on U.S. grain. A report dated May 23, 2000 from Kyodo News 
International confirms Brown's story, stating ``A severe drought in 
northern and eastern China threatens millions of hectares of crops and 
is causing widespread drinking water shortages.''. The total area 
affected is about 31 million acres. The Farm Bureau also expects great 
benefits from China's accession to the WTO: ``U.S. exports to the Asian 
region as a whole are expected to increase in the next few years as a 
result of China's accession into the WTO. This is likely to occur as 
Chinese consumption levels increase, domestic production patterns skew 
more to global prices, China ceases to employ export subsidies, and 
there is a commensurate decline in Chinese agricultural exports to the 
Asian region. While this agreement may be with China, it will have 
impacts far beyond Chinese borders.'' To put ERS numbers on China into 
context, I will mention another number, and that is the amount farmers 
and ranchers lost in 1996 due to various U.S. economic sanctions placed 
on countries around the world.
  According to the ERS, we lost half a billion dollars in 1996 due to 
those sanctions. But that is less than a fourth of the $2 billion ERS 
says we will lose in 2005 if we do not grant China permanent normal 
trade relations. All six of the countries currently under sanctions 
(Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and North Korea) together import only 
$7.7 billion in agricultural products each year. That's about half of 
the $14 billion worth of agricultural products China imports annually. 
Fortunately, we are moving in the right direction in our policy on 
sanctions, and the administration's changes last year have allowed 
sales of corn to Iran and wheat to Libya. Let's move forward on China 
too, and stop giving away agricultural markets to our competitors. And 
let's do so just because this is a good deal for farmers and ranchers. 
Let's think about what the Billy Graham Center has to say about 
permanent normal trade relations with China. And, by the way, they are 
the ones who coordinate services for more than a hundred Christian 
organizations involved in service in China. They say that denial of 
PNTR will ``seriously hamper the efforts of Christians from outside 
China who have spent years seeking to establish an effective Christian 
witness among the Chinese people''. I urge your support for permanent 
normal trade relations with China.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, today, we will make a crucial decision about 
our place in the global economy. The question of voting for permanent 
normal trade relations with China is easily answered in economic, 
social and political terms. Formalizing a freer trading relationship 
with China will help American employees and employers alike. For China, 
PNTR will promote democracy, a better standard of living, and 
ultimately improve human rights. The vote on PNTR is a necessary step 
toward China's full membership into the World Trade Organization [WTO]. 
Members of the WTO agree to be governed by a set of rules allowing for 
a relatively open trading relationship among them.
  For China to complete its accession to the WTO, it will have to 
change many of its laws, institutions and policies to make them conform 
with international trade rules. China must complete negotiations with 
the WTO, and separately with its various trading partners within the 
WTO, including the United States. China is the world's third largest 
economy after the United States and Japan, and the largest not a member 
of the WTO. It has the world's 10th largest trade economy. If we fail 
to pass PNTR, our economic competitors in Europe and Japan will have 
greater access to this huge and still-growing Chinese market--while our 
own access will still be blocked. American business can compete 
anywhere in the world and win--if it is given a relatively level 
playing field. The bilateral agreement signed in November 1999 forces 
China to remove protectionist barriers to its markets, while protecting 
import-sensitive American industry from a flood of new Chinese imports.
  The United States has made no significant concessions to China, 
because we already have few barriers to our market. The agreement gives 
our business equal access to the Chinese market. The American export 
sector--which already accounts for 11 million jobs--will be 
strengthened further. According to most experts, China is on the verge 
of huge infrastructure expenditures over the next few years as it 
attempts to catch up with Europe, Japan, and the United States. Most of 
these projects will be contracted to Western firms. This could be a 
boon to southwestern Connecticut. In 1998, the Stamford-Norwalk area 
alone exported $86 million worth of goods to China.
  There are some in Congress and throughout our country who want to 
deny PNTR to China to punish it for its terrible human rights record. 
But closing off China will not bring any improvement in the way it 
treats its citizens. An isolated China will continue to repress its 
population and forestall the onset of democracy and freedom. A nation 
cannot engage in free trade without educating its citizens. The more 
educated a country's citizens become, the more they want and are 
empowered to demand an open society and freedom. In truth, the most 
subversive action we can take towards the oppressive Chinese regime is 
to encourage free trade. Communist hardliners argue the defeat of PNTR 
will make it easier for them to thwart the movement toward democracy 
and capitalism. In the absence of interaction with the United States, 
these hardliners will be able to restrict communication, stop foreign 
travel, and pull the plug on the Internet. Reform will wither on the 
vine.
  Taking a look at recent history, Communist dictatorships that had 
interaction with the West--the Soviet Union, Poland, Romania and 
Hungary--are dead. Those shut off from the rest of the world--Fidel 
Castro's Cuba and Kim Jong Il's North Korea--are still brutalizing 
their citizenry. For me, the issue is clear. PNTR is essential to our 
full participation in the emerging economy of the future. We win access 
to Chinese markets. China becomes exposed to the type of information 
and prosperity that builds democracy and freedom. Candles give way to 
electric lights. The horse and carriage gave way to the automobile. 
Typewriters gave way to word processors and ocmputers. We cannot repeal 
the law of gravity. We are in a world economy, and China is a large and 
vital part of that economy. Permanent normal trade relations with China 
should be approved by Congress and welcome by all Americans.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, this is an historic day for the 
workers, business leaders, and reformers in China and the United 
States. Today Congress has the opportunity to push our relations 
forward by breaking down the walls surrounding China and supporting its 
entrance into the World Trade Organization. As we cast our votes today, 
I ask my colleagues to carefully consider the incredible potential this 
opportunity offers for the Chinese and American people. Passing PNTR 
supports freedom in China.
  As long as China's barriers to the United States remain, our 
relationship with the Chinese people will be restricted. By breaking 
down Chinese barriers to trade, while enhancing our own protections, we 
are creating new opportunities for American and Chinese people to work 
together and develop new ways to agree. Bringing China into the WTO 
will increase the exchange of cultures and ideas, which will in turn 
foster new areas of cooperation and progress. This is the most 
effective way to provide support for the reform-minded Chinese people 
who need our help the most. On their behalf, Congress should extend 
PNTR to China. Passing PNTR also supports the United States.
  Some Members may come to the floor today to claim the United States 
workforce and economy will suffer from greater competition with China. 
However, these Members are misinformed. To the contrary, the United 
States Trade Representative should be congratulated for her effective 
negotiations. This

[[Page 9138]]

is a one-way deal. The United States will continue our current tariff 
levels on all Chinese imports, with new protections, and in return 
China will drop its average tariff level by 62 per cent. By voting yes, 
only China will have to change its laws.
  This vote is about the power of economic freedom and prosperity, as 
displayed in the United States. It is true that as China expands into 
the world markets of goods and services, the United States will face 
new competition. It is also true that for the first time, the domestic 
Chinese economy will face direct competition from the United States. 
The American economy is leading the world--primarily as a result of the 
strength of the American workforce. I have faith in the productivity 
and entrepreneurial spirit of the American economy to continue this 
leadership and find new opportunities for success in China. Congress 
should embrace trade with China, and the competition it brings, because 
this will lead to a higher standard of living for the people of the 
United States as well as the people of China. That is how we make 
progress.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the 
incredible opportunity this vote offers. On behalf of American and 
Chinese workers, businesses, and reformers, I urge my colleagues to 
support progress with China and vote for PNTR.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, to 
authorize extension of permanent normal trade relations [PNTR] to the 
People's Republic of China [PRC]. I do so because, fundamentally, I 
believe that extending PNTR to the PRC is in the United States' short-
term and long-term national interest. Our economic interests and our 
democratic values necessitate extending PNTR to the PRC.
  Extending PNTR to the PRC is in our national interest because 
extending PNTR is a necessary precondition for United States companies 
to enjoy the full advantages of China's entry into the World Trade 
Organization [WTO] and the fruits of thirteen years of difficult 
bilateral negotiations between the PRC and the United States. For my 
State of Delaware, this bilateral agreement opens perhaps the most 
important emerging market to our exports, benefitting key industries 
and creating export and employment opportunities. Extending PNTR to the 
PRC would significantly benefit Delaware's key export sectors, 
including agriculture, poultry, insurance, financial, and chemical 
products.
  According to the United States Department of Commerce, Delaware's 
merchandise export sales to China in 1998 totaled $69 million, up 17 
percent from $59 million in 1993, and China ranked as Delaware's 16th 
largest export destination in 1998. Delaware's exports to China are 
becoming more diversified, with 1998 exports encompassing 17 different 
product categories, up from 12 product sectors in 1993. In twelve of 
these product sectors, exports from Delaware to China more than doubled 
from 1993 to 1998.
  I believe those who claim that the PRC will benefit more from 
receiving PNTR with the United States are mistaken. The United States 
will greatly benefit from PNTR with China, because currently the United 
States market is already open to Chinese exports. To join the WTO and 
receive PNTR, China must make all the concessions--opening its markets, 
eliminating barriers, and implementing comprehensive trade and 
investment reforms. As a result, the terms for Chinese WTO membership 
represent an extraordinary breakthrough for Delaware workers, farmers, 
and consumers. Delaware clearly will have expanded opportunities to 
extend its exports to Chinese markets, and ensuring that China adhere 
to global trade rules is in Delaware's strong interests.
  Because China has received Normal Trade Relations under United States 
law annually since 1980, United States tariffs would remain exactly the 
same if PNTR is approved. In contrast, failure by Congress to extend 
PNTR would squander 14 years of negotiations, invite the unraveling of 
China's extensive WTO commitments and shut American companies and 
farmers out of the world's biggest emergency market for years to come.
  The stakes involved are high. Trade is much more than the sale of 
U.S. goods and services. It is also an exchange of ideas, beliefs, and 
values that changes and enriches all who participate. When we trade 
with China and bring it into the integrated global trading arena, we 
are in a strong sense exporting our American democratic values, beliefs 
and practices. To be sure, there are real hurdles that China faces with 
our relationship with it, but engaging and enveloping and integrating 
China into ``the world of trade'' is tremendously important. We realize 
that implementing the agreements associated with PNTR will be slow and 
difficult, but Chinese government leaders and economists hope the 
process of normalizing trade with the United States will help close 
inefficient state enterprises that employ a great number of Chinese, 
and help reduce government censorship.
  Like most Americans, I continue to be concerned that despite the 
positive influence trade with the United States has had on China's 
development toward more open, liberalized trade policies, serious human 
rights, trade, security, and weapons proliferation issues remain. 
Though sometimes it seems difficult to see how these things have 
improved, I would observe the following: the number of international 
religious missions operating openly in China has grown rapidly in 
recent years. Today, these groups provide educational, humanitarian, 
medical, and development assistance in communities across China. 
Despite continued, documented acts of government oppression, people in 
China nonetheless can worship, participate in communities of faith, and 
move about the country much more freely today than was even imaginable 
twenty years ago. Today, people can communicate with each other and the 
outside world much more easily and with much less government 
interference through the tools of business and trade: telephones, cell 
phones, faxes and e-mail. On balance, foreign investment has introduced 
positive new labor practices into the Chinese workplace, stimulating 
growing aspirations for labor and human rights among Chinese workers.
  Nevertheless, we must continue to work to improve human rights and 
expand freedom in China. I have voted for legislation which 
overwhelmingly passed the House that voiced my strong disapproval of 
China's actions and policies. We can and must continue to place 
pressure on China without punishing American businesses and farmers. I 
have voted to direct House committees to hold hearings and report 
appropriate legislation to the House addressing U.S. concerns with 
China's trade practices, human rights record, military policy, and 
promotion of weapons proliferation. I do not believe that the annual 
congressional debate, linking justifiable concern for human rights and 
religious freedom in China to the threat of unilateral United States 
trade sanctions has been productive. Some will say, the debate on the 
problems we have with China will end if we extend PNTR to China. To 
those I say, the debate will never end, and the pressure will never 
cease until China demonstrates a commitment to a freer and democratic 
nation. Indeed, by extending PNTR to China, the pressure on China to 
address our concerns may prove to be even greater and more consistent.
  Clearly, the Chinese Government has a long way to go, and the 
positive developments we seek will no doubt come about gradually. The 
issue now before the House of Representatives is how to best encourage 
China to respect international norms of behavior in all areas, and what 
can the United States government do that will best advance human rights 
and religious freedom for the people of China. Are conditions more 
likely to improve through isolation and containment, or through opening 
trade, investment, and exchange between peoples? The answer is clear to 
me.
  I believe the best way to encourage the type of behavior we desire is 
through policies that promote the rule of law, free trade, economic 
reform, and democratization in China, for these are the seeds from 
which democracy can grow. Therefore, I believe the U.S. should continue 
to pursue our historic and longstanding policy of ``engagement,'' 
rather than containment, with China, based on the premise that the 
United States will be best able to influence the growth of democracy 
and market-oriented policies in China through enhanced diplomatic and 
trade ties, which over time will hopefully bring improvements in human 
rights and economic conditions. The Chinese government in much more 
likely to develop the rule of law and observe international norms of 
behavior if it is recognized by the U.S. government as an equal, 
responsible partner within the globalized trading community of nations.
  History has shown that when people are empowered economically, they 
also become empowered politically. Economic freedom precipitates 
political freedom. China's citizens will come to have greater choice 
about their lifestyles and employment and to enjoy enhanced access to 
communication and information from the United States.
  The longer China's trade is governed by the rule of law and is 
transparent, the quicker they will assimilate into the global system of 
trade, and raise their standard of living. U.S. private enterprises 
trading with Chinese private enterprises will help change the status 
quo between our nations better than any diplomatic agreements we may 
enter into. As noted earlier, although I am dissatisfied with some of 
China's recent actions, I am convinced we still need to maintain 
mechanisms for engagement, and a functioning, bilateral trade 
relationship provides a framework for helping to

[[Page 9139]]

restore our long-term interests in China. Human rights must not be 
violated, and the U.S. will not trade with people who do not provide 
their own citizens basic human rights and decencies. However, I believe 
that entering into PNTR is in our national interest, and that not going 
forward with it would undermine any competitiveness we have with China, 
while it itself enjoys all the advantages that PNTR provides with every 
other of the 133 WTO member-nations. China must adopt free and fair 
trade practices, and we should help facilitate that as much as we can, 
without sacrificing our values.
  This legislation includes important authority to allow the Congress 
to monitor China's compliance with this agreement. This includes a 
process which would begin with an annual report from the U.S. Trade 
Representative, followed by hearings on Chinese trade practices. 
Congressional panels could then instruct our trade representative to 
investigate any trade violation and pursue a resolution through the 
WTO, the 135-member body that sets the rules for international trade. 
Also included in this legislation is the establishment of a 
congressional-executive commission that would pressure China to improve 
its record on human rights, labor, and rule of law, providing for 
enhanced monitoring of China's conduct in areas from trade to human 
rights, as well as efforts to make labor rights a higher priority in 
U.S. trade policy.
  China is at a turning point in its history. A yes vote on normal 
trade can help propel it forward to greater liberalization and 
engagement with the West. A no vote will encourage Chinese hard-liners 
to resist change, and even be perceived in China as a vote for 
confrontation. It will weaken those who work for change, and strengthen 
those who oppose it at any cost. Our choice is clear. We can try to 
push China in the right direction, and gain the benefits, or, we can 
force them in the wrong direction, and pay a price. But standing for 
freedom, democracy, human rights, security and peace, we must extend 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations to the People's Republic of China 
today.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
4444, legislation which would grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations 
[PNTR] status to China.
  To be honest, the idea of permanently altering our relationship with 
China troubles me. We have been wooed into complacency with the trade 
agreements hammered out last fall in the WTO accession negotiations. 
But the million dollar question that no one seems to be asking is: If 
China plans to abide by their promises, why are they--and why are we--
afraid of a yearly review? The fact is that China has repeatedly 
violated trade agreements and has all but acknowledged that this time 
will be no different. Why do we think that a permanent extension will 
be the magic tool to make China suddenly change their ways? It defies 
logic. In fact, PNTR commends the existing track record of violations 
and noncompliance. A yearly review of our trade relationship with China 
may not be the ideal way to promote change. It is, at best, a blunt 
instrument. But it is one of the only mechanisms we have today to 
highlight this regime's lack of compliance with internationally 
accepted norms. The PNTR advocates have conjured up a crisis in which 
only approval will save the day and U.S. face. This is a farce and a 
mistake that will overshadow any prospect for real progress on key 
human rights and economic justice issues that affect China/U.S. 
relations.
  Repeatedly, China's government has proven itself to be one of the 
most oppressive in the entire world. Many of my colleagues are willing 
to turn a blind eye toward these injustices--clamoring to capitalize on 
a promise of economic gain, with indifference to the human indignities 
upon which it may be built. But even this ``expanded market'' rationale 
is flawed. If China were indeed a market for ``Made in the USA'' goods, 
expanding trade could have the potential of boosting our economy and 
helping working Chinese families. And conversely, if we were importing 
goods from Chinese owned businesses, we might have a small opportunity 
to promote free enterprise with China. However, neither one of these 
scenarios reflect reality. American companies merely use China as a 
production platform--a manufacturing site for goods, which are then 
sold in the United States for inflated profit! Jobs that have 
traditionally provided American workers with living wage employment 
within the USA and a real chance to join the middle class are being--
and will continue to be--exported to China, where companies can exploit 
the labor conditions and people. The notion that somehow this trade 
policy will turn China around on a dime is wishful thinking; it is time 
to face reality and get our heads out of the clouds.
  Why would we lower the standards and protections that provide the 
foundation of our economy and prosperity? Trade pacts have too often 
been the Trojan Horse that undermines progress in emerging areas not 
only in the host of human rights issues, but also environmental policy, 
health, and safety standards.
  Don't vote for the PNTR proposition that says; ``Heads we win, tails 
you lose.'' This, simply put, is a false syllogism, a created crisis 
that will lead to higher trade deficits with little prospect for a 
sound economic or social order in U.S./China policy. Amendments and 
study commissions aren't the answer. Congress doesn't have to reinvent 
itself and set up special groups, in essence trying ourselves and our 
deliberation process in knots to justify oversight and some phony 
``monitoring'' scheme. If Members of Congress can't vote now on the 
reality of the situation before us, what would lead the PNTR advocates 
to believe we would be more willing once this policy is actually in 
place?
  I will not vote to relinquish ability to annually review China's 
record, to advocate for my constituents' interests, and to promote the 
core values that have sustained our nation as the world's most 
successful economy and the promise for individual human rights around 
the globe. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
legislation.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4444, a 
bill that will grant permanent normal trade relations to China. This 
agreement is a tool U.S. farmers and ranchers can use to their great 
benefit.
  China represents an agriculture market that is vital to the long-term 
success of American farmers and ranchers. Agriculture trade with China 
can strengthen development of private enterprise in that country and 
bring China more fully into world trade membership.
  The economic benefits of this agreement for U.S. agriculture are 
clear. China's participation in the WTO will result in a least $2 
billion per year in additional U.S. agricultural exports by 2005.
  More than 80 U.S. agricultural groups support extending permanent 
normal trade relations to China. This is what a few of them have to say 
about the benefits of the U.S.-China agreement.
  The U.S. wheat growers say that PNTR with China represents a 
potential 10% increase in U.S. wheat exports.
  U.S. pork producers believe that China PNTR could pave the way for an 
increase in the value of hogs by $5 per head.
  Poultry producers say that because China is already the largest U.S. 
export market for poultry ($350 million in 1999), under PNTR, it could 
become a $1 billion market in a few years.
  Cattle producers believe that a vote against China PNTR is a vote 
against them. They expect to almost triple beef exports to China by 
2005.
  U.S. corn growers believe they have the opportunity to immediately 
triple their 5-year average of corn exports to China with acceptance of 
permanent normal trade relations.
  Some who oppose normal trade relations with China will say that China 
has an agricultural glut and will never buy U.S. agricultural products. 
That is not true according to USDA's Economic Research Service. They 
say that China's accession to the WTO means that U.S. farmers and 
ranchers can sell an additional $1.6 billion worth of staple 
commodities by 2005. On top of that, $400 million of U.S. fruits, 
vegetables, and animal products can be sold by 2005 with China's entry 
to the WTO. That's $2 billion more of agricultural exports by 2005.
  Still others argue that China is self-sufficient in agricultural 
production, that it produces enough to feed its own people and it does 
not need U.S. commodities. The trade numbers do not reflect that at 
all.
  According to the United Nations statistics, during the 6-year period 
ending in 1998, China was a net importer of agriculture products every 
year. During this period, China's average trade deficit was $5.5 
billion for agricultural products. If fish and forestry are included 
with other agricultural products, the deficit goes up to $6.9 billion.
  The Worldwatch Institute Chairman Lester Brown says that China's 
water supplies in its grain-producing areas are falling at a high rate. 
He sees massive grain imports and growing dependence on U.S. grain. 
China imports large amounts of U.S. agriculture commodities right now, 
some through Hong Kong ($2.5 billion in 1999 of agricultural, fish and 
forestry products). As the diets of the Chinese improve, there will be 
more demand for high quality agriculture products and valued added food 
products. This is what U.S. farmers and the food industry can provide 
to Chinese consumers.
  China has access to the U.S. market right now. China will become a 
member of the WTO and after its accession will still have access to the 
U.S. market. The vote on normal

[[Page 9140]]

trade relations with China will decide whether U.S. agriculture will 
have improved access to the Chinese market or will cede that market to 
the competitors of U.S. agriculture.
  Without approval of H.R. 4444, or agricultural competitors around the 
world will gain the benefit of the agreement negotiated by the United 
States with China and our farmers and ranchers will not. We cannot 
allow that to happen.
  Without approval of H.R. 4444, no enforcement mechanisms will be 
available and the U.S. will not be able to use WTO dispute settlement 
provisions, a critical weapon to ensure U.S. trading rights. The 
ability to enforce tariff rate quotas will be undermined. The U.S. 
could not challenge Chinese export or domestic subsidies that hurt U.S. 
exports in other markets. We could not enforce the benefits of the 
sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that was negotiated with the 
Chinese and is important to U.S. citrus, wheat and meat producers. 
Additionally, the special safeguard provisions, to protect against 
import surges, negotiated by the U.S. would not be available.
  The economic case for supporting permanent normal trade relations 
with China has been made, especially for U.S. agriculture. It is 
crystal clear; we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4444. A vote for this 
bill is a vote of support for United States farmers and ranchers.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, as we enter into debate today on normalizing 
trade with China, there are certain realities which must be 
acknowledged. Reality one, the human rights abuses in Chinese today are 
abominable. China continues to deny its citizens the most basic of 
human rights: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of 
worship. Reality two, China will enter into the World Trade 
Organization whether Congress passes PNTR or not. Reality three, 
isolating China from the United States and the rest of world, will not 
improve human rights for the Chinese.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) for including an essential human rights provision in the 
Levin-Bereuter package--increasing authorization funding for 
international broadcasting operations in China and neighboring 
countries.
  A fundamental prerequisite to political and economic freedom is an 
informed citizenry. One of the best and most cost-effective ways to 
help enhance the respect for human rights abroad is to disseminate 
reliable information that serves to foster the spirit of democracy in 
closed societies. Arming citizens with reliable, accurate information 
will eventually enable them the power to create change. By doing so, 
not only is the U.S. interest served by helping to spread democracy, 
but democratic activists are also empowered to challenge the status 
quo.
  Successful in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Radio Free 
Europe/Radio Liberty provided this accurate information to help bring 
down the Iron Curtain. Radio Free Asia as a surrogate for a free press 
in the People's Republic of China, along with Voice of America, provide 
an invaluable source of uncensored information to the Chinese people. 
RFA currently broadcasts 24-hours a day in three languages in China 
(plus Tibetan in Tibet), and VOA broadcasts 126 hours a week in three 
languages with five hours a week of television.
  Unfortunately, however, many of these signals do not reach the 
intended audience because of the jamming practices of the Chinese 
government. Stronger signals are needed to counteract this jamming. 
Internet is a medium increasingly used by the Chinese, however the 
government jams these sites as well.
  The number of Chinese who risk their lives by listening to RFA and 
VOA is staggering. More staggering is the number of Chinese who put 
their lives in jeopardy by calling into RFA's ``call in'' shows. In the 
first three months of this year alone, RFA reported an average of 
27,200 calls per month. Unfortunately, due to the limited resources of 
RFA less than 2% of these callers were able to speak with RFA 
broadcasters. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world. 
Surely, during this time of unparalleled economic boom we can find a 
few more dollars in our budget to provide resources so these callers, 
callers who risk their lives by simply picking up a telephone, may be 
allowed to have their voices heard.
  As China struggles with democracy, human rights and freedom, the 
importance of independent media sources cannot be underestimated. The 
Chinese government will be less likely to commit abuses (if RFA and VOA 
are shining light on their injustices while promoting democracy and an 
understanding of our country. If we hope to bring stability and 
democracy to Asia, we must not isolate the largest country in the 
world. We must not turn our backs on the those fighting for freedom and 
the rule of law. I support extending permanent normal trade relations 
with China and do not oppose China's entry in the World Trade 
Organization. I strongly believe that membership in the WTO can be used 
as a catalyst for reform in China. Through greater involvement in the 
world community and economic liberalization, China will become a more 
responsible nation, with one day a reality of respecting human rights 
and the rule of law.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my support for H.R. 
4444, legislation to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to grant normal trade 
relations to China. I support H.R. 4444 because I believe this 
legislation will not only open Chinese markets to United States 
products, but will also serves as the next best step we can take in our 
relationship with China.
  I believe I join all of my colleagues in saying that I have serious 
concerns about the Chinese government, most specifically the current 
trade deficit, national security concerns, and human rights violations. 
In 1980, we first granted China annual Most Favored Nation (MFN) 
status, now known more accurately as Normal Trade Relations (NTR). The 
nature of the annual review was supposed to give the U.S. leverage in 
negotiations with China. However, since then, annual renewal has become 
just another exercise, and I believe H.R. 4444 will put us back on the 
path towards results. We need to be engaged with China, and to be an 
influence in China in order to have an effect on how that nation 
governs.
  China is going to join the World Trade Organization regardless of 
what this Congress does today. The question is whether the United 
States is going to take advantage of China being a member of the WTO 
and allow our farmers and manufacturers access to this market. We know 
other countries will.
  One critical aspect of China's ascension to the WTO is that it will 
change the leverage. The U.S. doesn't have to stand alone anymore in 
our disputes with China, but rather, we will stand along with the 
entire 169 nations of the WTO. Everyone in this room knows that the WTO 
is not a perfect organization with perfect policies, but every meeting 
of WTO member countries brings new ideas and suggestions for improving 
the organization. The U.S. will sit at the table while the WTO evolves 
its policies and lives up to the name World Trade Organization. The 
only alternative, two nations battling it out, is much less effective, 
as history has also demonstrated.
  History has taught us some valuable lessons about dealing with 
foreign nations. We have learned from experience that isolation does 
not work. We don't even have to travel one hundred miles from Florida 
to see a perfect example of trade sanctions gone awry. The 1970s 
embargo against the then Soviet Union is another prime example of 
failed isolationism. The Soviets laughed at the U.S., while our farmers 
suffered. History has taught us that engagement is the key to results. 
Engagement allows us to address our concerns about a foreign nation's 
policies, all while expanding opportunities to our own farmers and 
manufacturers.
  World trade is critically important for agriculture, and 23 percent 
of Iowa's entire workforce is in some way tied to agriculture. 
Everything is connected--almost 40 percent of our entire economy relies 
on trade with other countries. Today's vote has been described in terms 
of ``granting'' something to China, but it really means jobs for Iowans 
and new customers for Iowa businesses.
  To me, the most important aspect of China's ascension is that it will 
even the decks on trade tariffs. For too long, the tariffs on U.S. 
goods going into China have proven insurmountable for farmers and 
manufacturers in my district who wish to export to China. The deal 
struck by Ambassador Barshefky will open doors that have been closed 
for too long.
  Opponents of this deal like to claim that it opens the U.S. to China. 
Apparently, they haven't looked at the trade agreement, and I would 
also guess that they haven't been out shopping since 1980. Everytime I 
walk in a store, I pick up products with a ``Made in China'' label on 
them. The agreement we are voting on today is one-way; our way. It 
opens the doors for America, not the doors of America.
  A farmer from my district, Dave Kronlage of Delaware County, traveled 
out to Washington on February 16, 2000, to testify before the Ways and 
Means Committee about China. Dave has done everything he can to profit 
from his business, including minimizing his risks and by joining with 
area farmers to create their own meat company, Delaware County Meats. 
Dave and other farmers, however, are running out of options for 
increasing their profitability. He told the Committee that China's 
ascension to the WTO will provide an estimated 7.7 percent increase to 
his income. In

[[Page 9141]]

Dave's view, the next move belongs to Congress, and the next move will 
be made today.
  In 1996, we made farmers three promises, to reduce taxation, to 
reduce regulations, and improve access to foreign markets. We can stand 
here and argue about how successful Congress has been at the first two, 
but I don't think there is anyone in this body that will claim that 
Congress or the President has helped open new markets to farmers. Now 
is our chance to rectify this shortfall.
  My state is the nation's largest pork, corn, and soybean-producing 
state. Last year, China's increase in pork consumption was roughly 
equal to the pork produced in Iowa. Yet, we sold not one pork chop to 
China last year. While pork producers like Dave Kronlage saw their 
equity evaporate through $8 per hundredweight prices last year, trade 
with China was not an option.
  Normal trade relations with China will put Iowa pork chops, Iowa 
corn, and Iowa manufactured goods on the shopping lists of 1.3 billion 
Chinese people. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman estimates 
agriculture exports will triple, putting another $5 per head in the 
pockets of Iowa pork producers, and increasing demand for Iowa corn by 
360 million bushels. That's the total annual corn production by every 
one of the 21 counties in Iowa's Second District.
  The U.S. produces far more food and manufactured goods than Americans 
can possibly consume. That means we have to find customers outside the 
boundaries of the United States. We cannot ignore 1.3 billion customers 
in China, watch them shop elsewhere, and expect this country to 
continue as a leader in the world economy.
  With one vote, we can hand a market of 1.3 billion people to our 
farmers, and simply say ``Better late than never.'' Now is the time. 
This is the best move to make for farmers and manufacturers in the U.S. 
This is the best move to make for advancing relations with China that 
could lead to meaningful changes in China's style of governing. And 
this is the best move for this Congress to make for the future of our 
economy. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4444.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I, like many of my colleagues, have spent a 
great deal of time talking and listening to my constituents on the 
issue of granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China.
  I have heard from a wide range of voices. These voices represent 
America's broadly based interests, reflecting our democratic values, 
like free speech, freedom of religion, the right to privacy, and the 
right to organize. I have heard from workers in my district who fear 
they would lose their jobs to China. I have heard from environmental 
activities who are angry that China has made no attempt to adhere to 
environmental standards.
  And I have heard from many constituencies who are deeply troubled by 
the religious, political, and human rights oppression China has 
continued to engage in. Veterans have approached me with their concerns 
about the well-documented violations of human rights. Religious groups 
and individuals have called and written about China's lack of true 
religious freedom. Women activists are outraged by the forced abortions 
that continue in China. Students at the University of Wisconsin oppose 
the forced labor and inhumane working conditions that continue to 
plague Chinese workers.
  After listening to the broad range of my constituents's concerns, I 
cannot in good conscience vote to grant China Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations and put profit over labor, environmental and human rights.
  China has violated every trade agreement over the past twenty years 
and Chinese officials are already backing away from commitments they 
made only months ago. I believe we must broaden our policy of 
engagement with China and restore the link between human rights and 
trade.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, the House gathers today to consider an issue 
of seminal importance for the national interests of the United States: 
the case for Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China and 
China's prospective membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO).
  There can be little doubt that this is the most consequential foreign 
policy legislation upon which this Congress has been asked to address 
in the new millennium. Impressively, the vast majority of Members 
appear united on the principle that it is in the interests of the 
United States to develop a credible strategy for integrating China into 
the world economy as a responsible power that accepts international 
political and trading norms. What is at issue is means, not ends; that 
is, whether granting PNTR advances U.S. interests and values in modern 
China.
  In my judgment, approving PNTR for China is in the enlightened self-
interest of the people of the United States and of China. It promotes 
our economic well-being by opening Chinese markets to American goods 
and services. It advances our interest in a rules-based international 
trading system by helping to ``lock-in'' Chinese reforms, economic 
restructuring, and a commitment to orderly globalization. China's 
accession to the WTO, in turn, also paves the way for a long-overdue 
entry by a democratic Taiwan into the global trading body.
  China's entry into the WTO, coupled with permanent normal trade 
relations, opens up substantial commercial advantages to the United 
States. With market-opening commitments in agriculture, banking and 
financial services, telecommunications and a panoply of other 
industries, Americans and other exporters will have much greater access 
to a market that reflects fully one-fifth of the world's population. 
Credible estimates suggest that the market-opening concessions that 
would accompany PNTR would boost U.S. exports to China by around $3 
billion or close to a 15% increase in current U.S. exports to China.
  Indeed, the math is on our side. While we frequently have 3 to 5 
percent tariffs on Chinese goods coming into our country, they just as 
frequently have 30 to 50 percent tariffs on American goods shipped to 
China. This agreement negligibly effects America's tariff structure, 
but dramatically reduces Chinese levies, down in must instances to the 
single digit level.
  The Committee on Banking and Financial Services has jurisdiction over 
certain macro-economic issues as well as the financial services 
industry in particular. With regard to commercial products, China 
maintains unfairly high tariffs, which this PNTR approach is designed 
to reduce. With regard to financial services, China maintains arbitrary 
non-tariff barriers, which this PNTR approach is designed to dismantle. 
Reduction in Chinese tariffs and non-tariff barriers is self-apparently 
in the U.S. national interest. Not insignificantly, commerce follows 
finance. If we fail to pass PNTR, China will simply import fewer 
manufactured goods and farm products from the United States. It will be 
German, French and Japanese banks which will enter China and, by so 
doing, facilitate exports from the companies they serve in their own 
countries. America will remain an import haven, but opportunities for 
building export jobs here at home will be denied to American workers.
  Here, I would emphasize a fatal flaw of failing to approve PNTR--it 
would leave the U.S. unable to apply WTO rules and obligations on the 
Chinese government, including standards of openness and reciprocity as 
well as mechanisms for dispute resolution. In other words, American 
farmers, workers and consumers would be denied the market-opening and 
rules-based trade benefits that China would otherwise be obligated to 
embrace, and our European and Japanese competitors would be given 
extraordinary market advantages in China.
  In this regard, it must be stressed that although our economic ties 
to China have grown rapidly in recent years, so too has the size of our 
trade deficit. It is time American leaders make the fundamental point 
that normal trade relations are all about reciprocity. A billion dollar 
a week trade deficit is politically and economically unsustainable, 
particularly if China's market is closed to American products or biased 
in favor of products and services from other countries.
  The best way for countries to have good sustainable political 
relations is to have reciprocal open markets, and the best way to 
achieve reciprocity in trade is to get politics out of economics and 
competition into the market.
  Balanced and mutually beneficial trade is a cornerstone of good Sino-
American relations. Likewise, unbalanced trade contains the smoldering 
prospect of social rupture. Hence, little is more in the U.S. interest 
than to promote reform and liberalization of China's economic, trade, 
and investment regimes and to bind China to the rules of international 
commerce.
  For some, the PNTR issue has come to symbolize concerns about 
globalization and the increased integration of the world economy 
through trade flows, capital flows, and high-speed information 
technology. While angst exists in some segments of the American public, 
as in all publics, about competition and globalization, the historical 
record affirms that market systems based on free trade and the rule of 
law lead to higher standards of living than systems based on political 
isolation or economic autarky.
  Protectionism is particularly harmful in the credit, securities, and 
savings industries because the general economy is dependent on each. In 
the U.S. today approximately one-fourth of banking assets and one-third 
of commercial loans are made by foreign entities.

[[Page 9142]]

  While some may be startled by these statistics, in general, Americans 
consider foreign financial competition good for the nation's economy 
and believe it would be even more so in developing countries such as 
China, which need to build a financial system that can allocate capital 
on a market basis. Hence, one of the most beneficial and far-reaching 
aspects of our bilateral WTO accession agreement is China's commitment 
to undertake the progressive dismantling of barriers to foreign 
investment in its financial services industry.
  More broadly, Beijing's commitment to the rules and obligations of a 
WTO-based framework should help support China's transition to a modern 
market economy based on the rule of law. As the world's most populous 
nation, China's successful management of economic and social reform is 
very much in the interest of the U.S. and the broader global economy. 
Joining the WTO binds China to a set of rules, which limits the ability 
of government officials to capriciously change market rules to advance 
personal or vested interests. This will help Chinese reformers lay the 
basis for a rule-based economy that is the best hope for controlling 
pervasive official corruption. In this context, it deserves stressing 
that government centered, managed trade provides fertile ground for 
corrupt practices. On the other hand, free trade under the rule of law 
is an economic framework where social corruption has a more difficult 
time flourishing.
  Many Americans, including Members of Congress, are vexed by the human 
rights record of China and are concerned by the pace of economic and 
political change in China. On the other hand, experience teaches that 
the political system that best fits economic free enterprise is 
reflected in democratic political institutions of, by, and for the 
people. Advancing freely associated economic ties with the West under 
the rubric of internationally accepted trade rules has one principal 
political side effect: it builds bridges to democracy. Quixotic 
attempts to isolate China economically run the great risk of 
exacerbating human rights abuses, stunting prospects of establishing 
democratic institutions, and causing intemperate international actions.
  Chinese society is changing far more rapidly than most Americans 
realize. The late Deng Xiaoping underscored the new Chinese pragmatism 
with his cat and mice metaphor, and by promoting ``socialism with 
Chinese characteristics.'' Twenty years of ad hoc, pragmatic economic 
reforms have moved China from the chaos of the Cultural Revolution to 
unprecedented economic development and largely peaceful social change, 
quadrupling the standard of living and laying the foundation for 
systemic reforms. Indeed, despite indefensible examples of continued 
political repression, against groups like the Falun Gong and liberal 
intellectuals, China may be changing as rapidly as any other country in 
the world. While a communist style political apparatus remains 
ensconced at the top of Chinese society, at local government levels, 
experiments with democratic elections are occurring and at the 
individual and family levels, free speech has become increasingly the 
norm. In sharp contrast with the period of Mao's Cultural Revolution 
there is little question that China has become a far more open society 
than it was just a generation ago when Deng inaugurated his period of 
``opening and reform.''
  Nonetheless, China's economic and social system cannot develop to its 
fullest unless the rule of law and its associated rights-including 
freedom of speech and of the press, due process for disputes over 
contractual obligations, and a judiciary that efficiently and fairly 
adjudicates disputes--are made central tenets of Chinese life. As the 
development of a modern market economy impacts on politics, Beijing's 
leaders can be expected to recognize the incompatibility of free 
enterprise and an authoritarian political system. Instability is simply 
too easily unleashed in society when governments fail to provide 
safeguards for individual rights and fail to erect political 
institutions adaptable to change and accountable to the people.
  Lastly, establishing permanent normal trade will help foster a 
stable, mutually beneficial Sino-American relationship, a bilateral 
relationship that is of profound importance to the future of peace and 
prosperity not just in Asia, but for the world. Here, a note about 
Taiwan is important. It is no accident that people in Taiwan as well as 
Hong Kong strongly favor America normalizing trade relations with 
Beijing. The opposite--nonnormal trade--presents too many opportunities 
for friction in an area desperate for normalcy and stability.
  From a historical perspective free trade is a natural extension of 
the open door policy that hallmarked American involvement in China at 
the end of the 19th century. Rejecting PNTR would effectively drive a 
stake through the heart of our economic ties with China and place in 
grave jeopardy the future of our relationship with one-fifth of the 
world's population.
  Whether the 21st century is peaceful and whether it is prosperous 
will most of all depend on whether the world's most populous country 
can live with itself and become open to the world in a fair and 
respectful manner. How the United States, its allies, and the 
international system responds to the complexities and challenges of 
modern China is also one of the central foreign policy challenges of 
our time.
  Failure to approve PNTR would not be responsive to that challenge. It 
would not effectively address our legitimate concerns on human rights, 
nonproliferation, relations across the Taiwan straits, or trade. On the 
contrary, rejection of PNTR would go back on our open door tradition 
and suggest that China and the United States can not maintain 
cooperative relations. It would be a vote with destabilizing 
consequences for the region and beyond.
  Ironically, in this seminal foreign policy vote, the president's 
political opposition is willing to share the obligations of governance 
despite electoral advantage that would accrue in refusing to adopt a 
bipartisan approach. Republicans are generally prepared to be 
supportive of the president's initiative because the majority consider 
PNTR to be key to peace, stability, and prosperity in the 21st century. 
It would be tragic, and I might say unprecedented in the post World War 
II era in any Western democracy, if the majority of the 
administration's own party fails to support its President on what is 
almost certainly the Executive Branch's most important foreign policy 
initiative.
  The irony that should not go unnoticed is that after all the discord 
between the Executive and Legislative branches over the past several 
years the President's own party may produce a vote of no-confidence in 
the President while the Republicans in this instance support his 
foreign policy judgment.
  In the strongest possible terms, I urge my colleagues to cast a vote 
with majority support in both parties in favor of this crucial economic 
and foreign policy measure. Absent a Democratic as well as Republican 
stamp of approval, foreign economic policy will be seen at home and 
abroad as subject to capricious change in Congress if there is a shift 
in party control.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4444, 
which grants the president authority to extend permanent normal trade 
relations (PNTR) with the People's Republic of China, and I urge our 
colleagues to adopt the measure.
  Mr. Speaker, as we all recognize, the decision before us is of 
historic dimension and is one of the most important actions taken by 
this Congress. The arguments for and against granting PNTR to China are 
exceedingly broad and complex. The stakes, too, are tremendous, as it 
involves the destiny of the most populous nation with one-quarter of 
planet's inhabitants, the future of America's economic strength and 
vitality, and perhaps the very stability of the world.
  I commend my colleagues and deeply respect their commitment 
regardless of their position on the issue before us, for there are 
valid and compelling arguments to be made on both sides.
  On this matter, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few observations. After 
examining the November 1999 trade agreement negotiated by the United 
States with China, it is abundantly clear that granting PNTR to China 
to facilitate its entry into the World Trading Organization (WTO) will 
bring innumerable trade benefits to America.
  Under the trade agreement, China must dramatically reduce tariffs, 
phase out quotas, and open up closed market sectors, while the U.S. 
simply maintains the status quo with no further trade concessions to 
China. It is truly a one-way deal in our favor. Ensuring that China and 
the U.S. trade on a level playing field, with WTO enforcement, should 
go a long way toward rectifying our present trade imbalance.
  On the other hand, if we fail to grant PNTR to China, Mr. Speaker, 
China will still enter the WTO but will not be obligated to extend WTO 
trade benefits to the U.S. This will significantly reduce U.S. trade 
and investment with China. I believe our economic competitors in 
Europe, Japan and Asia will welcome our absence in China, Mr. Speaker, 
and through the WTO take advantage of China's market-openings to our 
detriment.
  Although the trade incentives for extending China PNTR are obvious 
and apparent, Mr. Speaker, the most important consideration for me 
concerns what will best promote democratization and continued 
political, social and human rights progress in China.
  On that point, Mr. Speaker, I find most persuasive and enlightening 
the voices of those Chinese who have been persecuted and are among 
China's most ardent and vocal critics--

[[Page 9143]]

individuals who would be expected to take a hard line stance against 
the Beijing government.
  For example, look at prominent dissident Bao Tong, who has urged the 
U.S. Congress to pass PNTR as it would hasten China's entry into the 
WTO, forcing adherence to international standards of conduct and 
respect for the rule of law. Bao has noted that the annual 
Congressional trade reviews have not been effective to improve human 
rights in China and other tools must be sought.
  Xie Wanjun, an exiled leader of Tiananmen Square democracy protests 
and organizer of the China Democracy Party, supports PNTR and the China 
trade deal. Xie states, ``The closer and economic relationships between 
the United States and China, the more chances for the United States to 
monitor human rights in China and the more effective for the United 
States to push China to launch political reforms.''
  Longtime dissident, Ren Wanding, who has been jailed for 11 out of 
the last 21 years, states, ``If you really want China to change, then 
you should approve PNTR. If you want to isolate China and see it get 
worse, then it will get worse and worse.''
  Mr. Speaker, these Chinese democracy activists, along with Wang Dan, 
Dai Qing, Zhou Litai and other prominent dissidents, urge that the U.S. 
extend PNTR to China. Joining their voices are other Chinese leaders 
who have opposed Beijing's communist control, including Hong Kong's 
Democratic Party Chairman Martin Lee and Taiwan's new President Chen 
Shui-bian. Both Lee and Chen have called for normalization of trade 
relations between the U.S. and China and WTO accession by China.
  Mr. Speaker, we should listen to the wisdom of these courageous 
Chinese, whose credentials are impeccable and who clearly have the 
interests of all of the Chinese people at heart. They know that it is 
absolutely crucial and vital for continued political, social and human 
rights progress in China that the U.S. maintain and expand its presence 
there through trade.
  The Chinese people thirst for U.S. engagement because America, and 
everything it represents, is the only nation with the power, the 
conscience, and the fortitude to push for true reforms and democracy in 
China.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to hear the pleas of the Chinese 
people for a brighter future. It is in their best interests, as well as 
ours, that we extend permanent trade relations to China by adoption of 
the legislation before us.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of establishing 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
  Mr. Speaker, China is a rogue nation. Totalitarians and Communists 
rule it. These leaders oppress their people and deny the basic freedoms 
and religious liberties that we hold so dear here in America. China 
regularly fails to abide by standards of good citizenship in the 
community of nations. China's officials have been tied with attempts to 
influence the 1996 elections in the United States through contributions 
to the Democratic National Committee. This nation's spies have stolen 
our nuclear technology. It sells missile technology to Iran and North 
Korea and regularly threatens war against Taiwan.
  It is in this environment that Congress must decide whether we should 
continue our annual renewal of normal trade relations (NTR) for China, 
and forego the benefits of lower tariffs and increased access to 
China's markets, or grant permanent normal trade relations, (PNTR) for 
China. I believe firmly that this vote affects the advancement of 
America's national interests, including national security, human 
rights, religious liberty, and commerce and American jobs.
  With very few measures have I so deeply struggled with determining 
the best course of action, and with identifying what is right or wrong 
for America. After carefully considering all the facts, and reviewing 
the notes and letters and calls from my constituents, I believe that 
our best hope for advancing American national interests in China is 
fulfilled by granting PNTR to China. Moreover, failing to do so today 
would damage America's interests, in national security, human rights 
and religious freedoms, and American commerce and jobs.
  Let me first address the matter of American national security. I can 
assure you that since nearly losing my life fighting communism in 
Vietnam, the matter of what action best represents America's national 
security interests is a matter which I take very seriously. Beijing has 
exhibited poor citizenship in the world. It tested missiles in the 
Taiwan Straits on the eve of free elections in Taiwan. It has sold 
missiles and weapons materials to rogue terrorist nations. It smuggled 
AK-47 rifles into the United States, bound for Los Angeles street 
gangs. It increased its defense budget 40 percent over the past several 
years.
  However, in light of this current and emerging national security 
concern, I believe it is only through American engagement, through the 
extension of PNTR to China, that provides the best hope to advance 
America's national security interests in China and East Asia. I am 
under no illusion that by extending PNTR to China will work miracles in 
the advancement of our national security. It will not. Yet, the penalty 
for sacrificing our engagement in China by not granting PNTR is much 
worse. Denying PNTR to China will not keep China out of the WTO. 
Denying PNTR to China will not protect Taiwan, which is why the 
government leaders of Taiwan support granting PNTR to China. Rather, 
denying PNTR to China would bring instability to this critically 
important area of the world. Denying PNTR to China would force the 
Beijing regime away from the United States, undermine advocates for 
democracy in China, and drive China away from the community of law-
abiding countries, into the arms of the world's terrorist nations.
  Thus, I conclude that it is in America's national security interest 
to encourage American engagement in China and support PNTR for China.
  Secondarily, Mr. Speaker, let me address the issue of religious 
liberty and freedom for the people of China. Again, Beijing's record in 
this field is repugnant to the cause of freedom. Its list of crimes 
against freedom goes on and on. Beijing oppresses the Buddhist people 
of Tibet, and the Muslims of Xinjiang. It strictly limits the rights of 
Christians from meeting or owning religious materials. It practices a 
population policy that includes forced abortion and sterilization. It 
has detained, jailed, and killed its dissidents. It severely restricts 
the activities of people of faith, and imprisons priests and ministers, 
and closes house churches that attempt to teach religion free from the 
reach of the Beijing regime.
  Given this challenge, what action advances America's national 
interest in this area? I conclude that our national interest for 
religious liberty and freedom is best advanced by extending PNTR to 
China. Through American engagement we advance American values, through 
the export of commerce and culture, directly into the lives of Chinese 
citizens. While I respect the views of my friends at the Family 
Research Council and other family organizations who strongly oppose 
extending PNTR to China, it is also true that several U.S.-based 
organizations that support Christian missionaries in China support PNTR 
for China. The case for greater commerce with China can, therefore, be 
cast favorably not just in commercial terms, but in moral terms, as an 
engine of liberty and freedom in an oppressed nation. This is why many 
of our nation's most respected religious leaders, from Billy Graham to 
Pat Robertson, have called for keeping the door to China open.
  I agree that PNTR for China will not work miracles for the people of 
China. It will not directly free a single person wrongly imprisoned by 
the communist government of China. However, Wang Juntao, the leader of 
the protests at Tiananmen Square several years back, has said this: ``I 
prefer to choose `yes' . . . Both fundamental change in the human 
rights situation and democratization in China will come from efforts by 
Chinese within China. The more the relationship between the two 
countries expands, the more space there will be for independent forces 
to grow in China. Such independent forces will eventually push China 
toward democracy.''
  American commerce with China will give the Chinese people a taste of 
economic freedom, and economic freedom will pave a path toward more 
political and religious freedom.
  Lastly, I would like to address the matter of commerce and American 
jobs with the world's most populous nation. Companies in San Diego 
engage in significant exports in China. Among these are Solar Turbines, 
Cubic, Qualcomm, Jet Products, and several other firms large and small, 
which engage in manufacturing, telecommunications, television, 
computers, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and many other industries, 
employing thousands of San Diegans in good high tech, high skill, high 
wage jobs. Furthermore, many Americans jobs are dependent on imports 
from China. These include high-tech jobs in the computer hardware and 
electronic device industries, and hundreds of thousands of lower-tech 
jobs, including retailers with shops all across America. In addition, 
American consumers rely on the ability to purchase goods made in China.
  The vote before us today is about granting American companies access 
to China. This vote and WTO membership for China only lowers China's 
tariffs and China's barriers to trade. This action will allow American 
companies to increase distribution in China, allowing more goods to be 
made in America and exported. This bill will allow American financial 
service companies and insurance companies unprecedented access to 
China's markets.

[[Page 9144]]

Our action today will benefit all Americans through greater exports, 
investment, and opportunity in China.
  I want to remind my colleagues that this vote is not a goal line. 
This is not the end of our duty to the American people on this issue, 
nor is this the last time that we must face the burden of addressing 
the shortcomings of China. To use a football analogy, this is another 
first down in our relationship with China. Since President Nixon 
returned to China, our relationship has been growing and China has 
changed. Since I was there 20 years ago, China is a better place.
  If we are to continue moving China in the right direction during the 
next 10-20 years, we must assure that certain conditions are in place 
to foster that development.
  We need a President who will not sell secrets to China for campaign 
contributions;
  A Vice-President that will show leadership and distinguish right from 
wrong;
  A State Department and Commerce Department that will fight for 
America's interests and not devalue national security concerns for 
business expediency;
  A Department of Defense that has a strong leadership and the support 
and funding necessary to defend America and protect our servicemen and 
women;
  And intelligence organizations with the assets and direction to 
protect our strategic and economic interests here and abroad.
  Right now we have none of these things. And because of the repeated 
failures of the Clinton-Gore administration on China policy, Congress 
must exercise leadership in the United States-China relationship. Here 
in the People's House, we must remember that America is the world's 
leader in human rights, religious freedoms and peace and prosperity.
  I want to close by sharing a recent experience I had in Vietnam. 
Several years ago, my good friend Rep. Hal Rogers asked me to accompany 
him to Vietnam to raise the flag and reopen our embassy there. My first 
response to him was no. I did not want to return to Vietnam. I had lost 
too many friends and had too many memories of my time there to return. 
Then Pete Peterson, now our Ambassador to Vietnam, who was then our 
colleague, called me. Pete said, ``Duke, I was a POW. It is tough for 
me to return to Vietnam, I need you to help me return there and raise 
America's flag.'' To Pete I said ``yes.'' So I returned to Vietnam.
  While I was there I toured old target sites and met with people who 
had led the Vietnamese Army we fought against. One of those was the 
head of the Vietnamese security forces. He is now the Mayor of Hanoi. 
He shared with us many of his thoughts and views on the United States 
relationship with Vietnam and his views on Communism.
  When our conversation turned to questions, I asked him why Vietnam 
was not moving to open trade with the United States. And I will always 
remember what he said.
  He said, ``Congressman, we are communists. If we allow trade with 
America, our people will have things. They will have property and be 
able to own things without our control. That, Congressman, will hurt us 
and weaken our control over the people.''
  When he finished, I thought to myself--``trade is good.''
  Mr. Speaker, expanding trade with China advances America's national 
interests. Expanded trade will help us weaken the hold of the dictators 
in Beijing, bring economic prosperity and greater stability to the 
entire Far East region, and carry American values of freedom and 
liberty into China.
  Mr. Speaker, trade is good.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4444. Establishing 
permanent trade relations with the largest market on the face of the 
planet is the right thing for the American people and it is the right 
direction to support the United States economy.
  I have traveled in China and several other Pacific Rim countries. I 
understand the wealth of opportunity that is available to the countries 
who take the step of moving aggressively into the markets of Asia 
without barriers, beginning in the largest market in the world, China. 
Establishing normal trade relations with this market so our businesses 
have a level playing field has enormous positive economic consequences 
for this country that will last throughout the course of this century. 
Not so long ago, China was a poor country. Now their coastal cities are 
the new, churning economies of the Pacific Rim. The enormous changes 
that are occurring on the coast are spreading rapidly to the interior 
of China, and touching the lives of people there.
  The economic advantages of supporting trade with China may well be 
enough reason to support this resolution, but that is only the 
beginning. Possibly the most important reason the U.S. needs a 
permanent trading relationship with china is the national security 
implications it provides to us. I have seen first hand the relationship 
China has with the other nations of the Pacific Rim. These nations have 
hundreds of centuries of history between themselves and China. When 
China stands closer to the United States, it is possible for the other 
countries of the Pacific Rim to work with the United States on trade 
and make the world safer and more democratic.
  While we have an utterly different philosophy of government than does 
China, during the course of our history it has been the inherent 
responsibility of the American people, especially entrepreneurs, to 
spread the spirit of democracy and freedom throughout the world. This 
may be our most unique opportunity to reach the largest number of 
people yet with the message that the principles of work and 
responsibility are the foundation of freedom and self-determination. 
There is no better way to spread the message of democracy than to 
engage the world's largest nation in a trade agreement that will 
benefit the United States and China for decades and probably centuries 
to come. When we engage a country of 1.3 billion people, we take a 
positive step in demonstrating how freedom works.
  This vote will soon take its place alongside the pivotal votes of the 
past decade which have played a large role in redefining economic 
success and budgetary policy: the 1993 Budget Deficit Reduction Act; 
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). We have been enjoying tremendous 
economic opportunities for the past few years and I hope it continues 
for a very long time. Remember, we can best provide for people and 
communities in the United States when our economy is strong, and PNTR 
will go a long way towards keeping our economy strong.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important 
decisions I have to make as a Member of Congress each year, is how to 
vote on our nation's trading relationship with China. This year, many 
of my constituents have been engaged in this debate as they have 
called, written, or stopped by my office to urge me to vote in favor 
of, or in opposition to, normalizing trade relations with China.
  I have spent months and indeed years weighing the advantages and 
disadvantages of approving Permanent Normal Trading Relations (PNTR) 
with China. We have debated this measure ever since I began my service 
in 1994. As I reviewed the arguments on whether or not to extend Normal 
Trade Relations to China on a permanent basis, I have decided against 
PNTR for China.
  I plan to vote no for several reasons:
  1. The worsening of labor and human rights situation in China;
  2. The continued aggressive military statements and actions against a 
Democratic Taiwan;
  3. The transfer of sensitive military technology by China to rouge 
nations; and
  4. The failure of the current Administration to effectively monitor 
and enforce the trade agreements they have already signed with China, 
including launch quota agreements, which of course, are very important 
for our district.
  First, this is a vote of conscience. My staff and I have thoroughly 
reviewed the 1999 U.S. State Department Report on Human Rights 
Practices in China, which was released in February. The Report told the 
story of egregious civil and human rights abuses by the Chinese 
government against its own people.
  The Administration's Report said, ``The security apparatus is made up 
of the Ministries of State Security and Public Security, the People's 
Armed Police, the People's Liberation Army, and the state judicial, 
procuratorial, and penal systems. Security policy and personnel were 
responsible for numerous human rights abuses.''
  The Report goes on to say, ``The [Chinese] Government's poor human 
rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year, as the 
Government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, particularly 
organized dissent . . . The Government tightened restrictions on 
freedom of speech and of the press, and increased controls on the 
Internet; self-censorship by journalists also increased . . . The 
government continues to restrict freedom of religion, and intensified 
controls on some unregistered churches.''
  In addition, violence against Chinese women is on the rise as the 
government continues to, as the Report states, ``induce coercive family 
planning--which sometimes includes forced abortion and sterilization; 
prostitution; discrimination against women; [Government] trafficking in 
women and children; [Government] abuse of children; and discrimination 
against the disabled and minorities are all problems.
  I believe that by voting in favor of PNTR, I would be giving my 
implicit support for these

[[Page 9145]]

violations of basic human rights. There are some of my colleagues who 
believe that through engagement we can effect changes in China. There 
may be some merit to that argument and I do not fault them for that 
belief. I cannot, however, in good conscience, vote to extend this 
privilege to China at this time. They have shown an unwillingness to 
embrace basic freedoms.
  I am also deeply troubled by Communist China's aggressive 
militaristic threats toward a Democratic Taiwan. The Chinese government 
has threatened the democratically elected Taiwanese government. The 
Chinese have said in no uncertain terms that the recently elected 
democratic leaders of Taiwan have no role as China usurps Taiwan's 
independence under the Chinese umbrella of Communism and 
totalitarianism.
  Even before threatening Taiwan, China was engaged in a massive spying 
effort on the United States. In fact, the Congressional ``Cox 
Commission,'' produced a three-volume report outlining and detailing 
the military and commercial abuses and concerns the United States has 
with the Chinese government. Among the key findings of the bipartisan 
Cox China Espionage Report were:
  1. That Communist China stole billions of dollars worth of American 
nuclear secrets that took our scientists decades of hard work to 
develop;
  2. The Peoples Republic of China has stolen classified information on 
every warhead used for our ICBM and our submarine launched ballistic 
missiles; and
  3. According to the unanimous judgment of the Committee, The People's 
Republic of China will exploit elements of stolen U.S. thermonuclear 
weapons designs on its new ICBMs as 2002.
  The Report goes on and on, like background for a Tom Clancy novel, 
threatening the very fiber of our cultural heritage.
  China has taken the technology they have stolen and shared it with 
rogue nations. They have encouraged the proliferation of nuclear 
weapons and missile technology by sharing these sensitive technologies 
with rogue nations.
  No longer are the American people safe from terrorists and the 
aggressions of our enemies. As many of these rouge nations have access 
to our top level military secrets. What is most disturbing is that the 
Administration knew about these security breaches as early as 1995, but 
failed to act because they were fearful of the repercussions and 
potential the political fallout.
  My first experience with our government's effectiveness or 
unwillingness to challenge the Chinese in their failure to live up to 
their agreements came in 1997, and was in relation to the launch 
agreements, known as the Bilateral Space Launch Services Trade 
Agreement. The Administration significantly expanded agreements with 
the Chinese and Russians which permitted U.S. satellite manufacturers 
to ship satellites to Russia and China for launch. These agreements 
permitted larger numbers of U.S. satellites to be shipped to China and 
Russia for launch in these countries. The Chinese signed an agreement 
stating that they, a non-market economy (NME), would not sell launch 
services at below market costs, in other words ``no market dumping.''
  In probing this issue, I discovered that the Chinese were indeed 
allowed to ``dump'' launch services on the international market at 
below market costs. This was in violation of the agreement that they 
signed and it also was taking launches away from U.S. launch facilities 
at the Cape. Furthermore, our U.S. Trade Representative failed to 
respond to my inquiries over whether or not they were addressing this 
issue of dumping. It was not until I personally went down to their 
offices and went through their files that I discovered the fact that 
they were taking no steps whatsoever to curtail this problem. 
Furthermore, they never took any action to even discuss this problem 
with the Chinese.
  This is a very disturbing trend which I cannot envision will improve 
until we as a nation decide to look at China differently. We must 
always keep our national security, our economic security, and the 
security of basic human rights in mind in all our dealings with China. 
Thus far, we have not.
  Today I have outlined for you numerous abuses by the Chinese 
government. And, I understand that at some point there may be the 
tremendous economic potential to open our trading relations with the 
people of China. However, today I cannot support the Chinese 
government's repression of human and civil rights of the Chinese 
people; I cannot support their continued threats against Taiwan; and I 
cannot support their theft of American technology and military secrets. 
Until China can demonstrate a better track record in these key areas; I 
will not support Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
support for H.R. 4444. Why is granting Permanent Normalized Trade 
Relations (PNTR) to China so important? There are several answers to 
this question. Granting PNTR to China transcends political, economic, 
and social boundaries and should foster better relations between the 
United States and China. Markets will be opened, diplomatic 
communication will be enhanced, and democratic values will spread in a 
Communist arena;.
  There is no question that the South Bay and the state of California 
will see the benefits. China's entry in the World Trade Organization 
(WTO) would mean dramatically expanded access to one of the largest and 
fastest growing markets in the world. China is currently our 12th 
largest trading partner. According to some experts, with China's entry 
into the WTO, that trade could double. Trade in and out of the Ports of 
Los Angeles and Long Beach would dramatically rise.
  To be admitted into the WTO, China will have to make significant 
concessions to the other members. The U.S. reached an agreement with 
China on bilateral trade terms last November. This agreement 
dramatically cuts tariffs on American products, eliminates most 
domestic ownership requirements and provides greater transparency 
regarding Chinese business practices.
  Let's take two industries important to my district to illustrate the 
benefits of this agreement. Mattel currently makes toys in China. To 
sell these toys in China, they must first be exported out of China and 
then imported back into the country. On import, Mattel must pay a 
tariff equal to 35%. After importation, Mattel must rely on Chinese 
companies to distribute the product in the country. PNTR will eliminate 
this requirement and effectively reduce the tariff rates to zero by 
2005. The result? Increased sales and improved productivity for a U.S. 
company.
  The benefits are the same for cars and auto parts. Currently, for TRW 
to sell auto parts in China, it must import the parts, which are 
subject to tariffs that range between 23.4% and 70%. To sell cars in 
China, Honda and Ford are subject to import tariffs as high as 100%. 
These companies are also subject to limits on the number of vehicles 
they can sell. The Chinese also require that cars sold in China must be 
substantially composed of Chinese parts, further hampering TRW's 
ability to sell American-made parts in China. With PNTR, tariffs are 
substantially reduced and the Chinese component requirement is 
eliminated. The result? Increased production and more jobs in the 
United States.
  Granting PNTR for China is not all about dollar signs. There are also 
the social implications that increased trade promotes. There has been 
much debate, often times heated and emotional, over whether to enter 
into this agreement with China.
  Many of the negative feelings associated with China stem from the 
oppressive 1989 crackdown of the student protesters in Tiananamen 
Square. Communist China reminds us of our Cold War opponents of 
yesterday. However, our greatest opportunity to implement change is to 
open the avenues of trade. Expanded trade relations means a greater 
flow of democratic ideals to a population unfamiliar with the freedoms 
we enjoy. The economic freedoms that China is pursuing will not work 
without some levels of political and personal freedom as well.
  Companies like Mattel also implement strict codes of conduct for 
production facilities and contract manufacturers. This focus upon 
working conditions and employee treatment means better treatment for 
Chinese workers following adoption of PNTR.
  Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, recently wrote, 
``The addition of the Chinese economy to the global marketplace will 
result in a more efficient worldwide allocation of resources and will 
raise standards of living in China and it's trading partners. . . 
Further development of China's trading relationships with the United 
States and other industrial countries will work to strengthen the rule 
of law within China and to firm its commitment to economic reform.''
  Diplomatic ties will also be strengthened with improved trade 
relations with China. The worst possible scenario occurs if Congress 
denies granting China PNTR. In this case, diplomatic communication 
between the United States and China will be severely limited. It would 
be dangerous if we, as leaders of the free world, do not have open 
lines of communication with the most populated country in the world. I 
do not believe that this is a risk worth taking.
  There is no doubt that California will make great gains through 
increased trade. The 36th congressional district also stands to 
benefit. But considering the big picture, increased trade and increased 
communication with

[[Page 9146]]

China will allow an opportunity to lessen tensions between our two 
countries. The fall of the Iron Curtain took the Berlin Wall with it. 
Progress can be made with China. Support PNTR.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Permanent Normal 
Trade Relations status for China. This measure is an important step in 
promoting free and fair trade between the United States and the 
People's Republic of China, and in promoting freedom within China.
  I remain concerned about the behavior of the Chinese leadership in a 
number of important areas, including weapons proliferation, human 
rights, and relations with Taiwan. In the past, I have voted against 
extending NTR for these reasons.
  But the vote before us today is different. Extending Permanent NTR to 
China and supporting its accession to the World Trade Organization is 
the strongest catalyst for change in that country. It will promote the 
free market there. It will promote the rule of law there. And I 
strongly believe that it will ultimately promote the rise of democracy 
there.
  We have seen capitalism rip through the ``Iron Curtain,'' and now we 
have a tremendous opportunity to see it tear through Communist China.
  We cannot do this by allowing the remnants of an antiquated economic 
system to remain isolated. Those in China who want to see this measure 
fail are the hard-line Communists who seek to maintain control and 
oppress the new generation that yearns for a better life. The greatest 
threat to the future of these Communist tyrants is the passage of PNTR 
and the freedom it unleashes.
  Today we have an unprecedented opportunity to gain substantially 
greater access to China's market of well over one billion people. If we 
pass this measure, China will have to change its protectionist laws and 
policies, and reduce tariff rates on U.S. products. But if we do not 
extend PNTR, we will lose these benefits, while our trade competitors 
gain them.
  Mr. Speaker the best way to name the communist bear is not to poke it 
in its eye, but to endear yourself to its cubs. The new generation of 
Chinese knows America and has a strong desire to emulate our values and 
culture. This is our country's chance to engage China and have a truly 
profound effect on that nation's future.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4444, 
legislation to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
  The United States Trade Representative's agreement with China gives 
us a unique and historic opportunity to challenge old assumptions and 
establish new goals with respect to China. The Administration, in 
November, laid its bet on improving economic relations with China as 
the best way to ensure that this huge and growing power will become a 
constructive member of the world community. Today, it is up to Congress 
to affirm this deal to make these opportunities a reality.
  Despite our disappointments with China's internal policies, this is 
not a time to withdraw and abandon all dealings with China, 
particularly those that are clearly in our own interest to pursue. The 
deal the U.S. Trade Representative made with China represents a series 
of major concessions by the Chinese to accomplish a goal--Chinese 
membership in the WTO--that is also clearly in our national interests. 
This deal is a classic ``win-win'' proposition for the United States.
  While China will benefit from expanded trade and investment, this 
deal is composed of a series of unilateral concessions by China that 
reduce most of its tariffs, open the markets most attractive to U.S. 
goods and services, and commit China to international rules of 
commercial behavior and extensive monitoring of its compliance. 
Granting China PNTR would result in an opening of markets for American 
farmers, bankers, insurers, and manufacturers of microchips, chemicals, 
cars, computers, and software, who will reap benefits from a whole new 
level of access to what is potentially the world's largest consumer 
market.
  To fully realize the benefits of trade, however, requires more than 
agreements to reduce barriers. Sustaining support for the trading 
system also requires that the rules under which countries engage in 
trade are credible and equitable. The rules should ensure that 
governments play fair--that they not seek advantage for favored 
interests by subsidizing their producers or passing regulations that 
unnecessarily distort international trade. Fairness also requires that 
the gains from trade are shared widely and do not come at the expense 
of core labor and human rights standards.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before Congress today's bill will make these 
larger goals possible. Beyond the market-opening provisions in H.R. 
4444, this bill also contains thoughtful provisions developed by 
Representatives Levin and Bereuter that will establish mechanisms to 
monitor human rights in China, to report on labor market issues, and to 
encourage the development of rule of law and democracy-building in 
China. Granting China permanent PNTR would also mean the beginning of a 
long-term transition from a state-controlled economy toward a free 
market that will make these larger goals possible. Indeed, China is not 
only agreeing to import more American products, they are agreeing to 
import one of democracy's most cherished values--economic and social 
freedom.
  The only thing the United States would do in return is grant China 
the same permanent ``normal trade relations'' status afforded to all 
WTO members, which has been granted on an annual basis for the past 19 
years. Granting PNTR to China is not a ``blessing'' of their past and 
current behavior. Rather, it is a commitment by China to change its 
behavior to become a responsible global citizen.
  This deal would impose on China a clear set of rules for business 
whereby the United States will benefit from China's verifiable and 
enforceable commitment to play by the world's rules. This deal will 
allow the United States to engage this emerging power in well-defined 
and civilized manner, rather than isolating it and strengthening the 
claims of its militarists that the America is an enemy. And this deal 
will open Chinese markets to U.S. products and services, which I hope 
will make the global economic pie bigger, so everyone gets a bigger 
piece.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, in order for farmers, ranchers, 
and food processors to succeed in a global market, the US needs fair 
trade and fair access to growing global markets. Nebraska is one of the 
nation's leading producers and exporters of agricultural products. 
Market access is absolutely crucial to the well being of our 
producers--as it is to producers of all commodities nationwide.
  Agriculture will benefit most from the pending trade agreement with 
China. China's economy is already among the world's largest, and it has 
expanded at annual rates of nearly 10 percent. By supporting PNTR, we 
are giving our agricultural producers the access needed to compete in 
the global market. Passing up the opportunity to increase trade with a 
country that has nearly 26 percent of the world's population would be a 
grave error.
  Under it's World Trade Organization accession agreement, China will 
lower its tariffs from 45 to 12 percent on frozen beef, and 45 to 25 
percent on chilled beef by 2004. also, China will accept all beef from 
the United States that is accompanied by a USDA certificate of 
wholesomeness.
  Nebraska's 1998 exports to China totaled $33 million, which 
represents a 1,200 percent increase from 1993. China is Nebraska's 14th 
largest export destination, up from 31st in 1993. By building on this 
trend, the U.S. has taken a step in the right direction. Approval of 
PNTR is simply the continuation of this process.
  Opponents of PNTR legislation argue that China will no longer need to 
respect our positions on human rights and other issues.
  However, by joining the WTO, China is agreeing to a rules-based 
trading system, and by working closely with China, the U.S. will be 
able to influence positive change on human, religious, and political 
rights.
  Not only must we support PNTR for China for agriculture, but for the 
continued growth of our nation as a whole. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on H.R. 4444.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in urging my 
colleagues to vote No on granting PNTR for the People's Republic of 
China.
  Since relations between the U.S. and China were normalized, Congress 
has had the opportunity, every year, whether or not to grant China the 
same trading status we give to other ``friendly'' nations. Although the 
China trade deal has won out every year, at least we had an annual 
review in place. If this bill passes, I am sure the dictators in 
Beijing will take our concerns even less seriously than they have in 
the past.
  It is well known that China has a terrible record on human and worker 
rights, environmental protection, fair trade and weapons proliferation. 
China has repeatedly violated almost all of their prior agreements. The 
United States consumes 40 percent of China's exports, so common sense 
dictates that we can influence China's actions by threatening to cut 
off market access. By essentially granting China permanent guaranteed 
access to our markets we would surrender our only political and 
economic leverage.
  Big business claims that granting China PNTR will allow for more 
American products

[[Page 9147]]

to be sold to the 1.2 billion consumers in China. But even if China 
opens their doors to our products, which I don't believe they intend on 
doing, how many cars or designer jeans will American workers sell to 
Chinese workers making 13 cents per hour.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this ``Blank Check for China.''
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of continued Normal 
Trade Relations between the United States and China.
  Trade with China has been a significant factor in the economic 
expansion we've been able to enjoy during the 1990s. In my own 
district, Greater Cincinnati companies exports to China have almost 
doubled in this decade alone. That means more jobs for my constituents, 
more prosperity for the families and businesses in Southwest Ohio, and 
a healthier economy for the area I represent, for the state of Ohio as 
a whole and, indeed, for the entire nation.
  For those of my colleagues who are undecided on this subject, I'd 
urge you to take a close look at this PNTR agreement, because it makes 
so much sense. This is a totally one-sided agreement. Because we 
already have an essentially open market, we've given away nothing to 
get this deal, but we've received unprecedented concessions from the 
Chinese.
  Mr. Speaker, China has a long way to go on improving labor standards, 
human rights and environmental protection. That's why I believe our 
most important export to China won't be our products and services. Our 
most important export is our ideas and our beliefs about freedom and 
democracy.
  As the United States and China develop closer ties--as individuals 
from both countries begin to interact more often with each other--it's 
going to be impossible for the Chinese government to prevent our values 
and ideas from spreading. You can already see it happening with the 
spread of the internet in China, despite the best efforts of their 
government to slow it down.
  Mr. Speaker, we can choose to get rid of normal trade relations with 
China, and stand on the sidelines when our European and Asian 
competitors take our place. Or we can build a strong bilateral 
relationship through engagement--opening their country to our products 
and ideas.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rational approach--and to support 
normal trade relations with China.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support permanent 
normal trade relations for China. I will vote in favor of PNTR, not 
only because of the benefits that American farmers and businesses stand 
to gain in terms of increased trade, which are substantial, but also 
because of the impact approval of PNTR will have for U.S. national 
security and stability in Asia.
  A solid trade relationship with China, with its huge potential 
markets, is important to Missouri. In 1998, China was Missouri's sixth 
most important export market and the United States' fourth largest 
trading partner. From 1991 to 1998, U.S. exports to China more than 
doubled. The agreement that the administration reached with China last 
November concerning China's accession to the World Trade Organization 
commits China to eliminate export subsidies and lower tariffs 
dramatically, reduce its farm supports, and play by the same trade 
rules as we do. Further concessions recently gained by the European 
Union would increase the benefits, as the agreement would apply to all 
parties to the WTO.
  During the first 6 years of the agreement, USDA estimates U.S. 
agriculture exports to China will increase a total of $7.5 billion. In 
the first ten years of the agreement, USDA projects one-third of U.S. 
export growth will be in U.S. agricultural products destined for China.
  China is the last major untapped market for American agriculture. As 
China moves from an agrarian economy to a modern economy, someone must 
fill the gap. As the standard of living increases in China, the Chinese 
people will be able to buy more U.S. products. To gain these 
advantages, Congress must approve PNTR status for China. If Congress 
does not do so, the only winners will be our international competitors 
who would welcome the chance to gain market share that would otherwise 
go to U.S. farmers and benefit the entire agriculture community. 
Congressional approval of PNTR also have implications for U.S. national 
security. Early this year, I led a small House Armed Services Committee 
delegation on a trip to the Asia-Pacific region. Although we did not 
visit China, we did find in our meetings will officials how much other 
nations in Asia value America's presence and engagement in the region 
to promote stability.
  The state of U.S.-China relations is critical to the future 
stability, prosperity, and peace of Asia. Encouraging China to 
participate in global economic institutions is in our interest because 
it will bring China under a system of global trade rules and draw it 
into the world community. It is in our long term interest to develop a 
relationship with China that is stable and predictable. China will 
enter the WTO based upon the votes of all 135 WTO members. Denial of 
PNTR by the U.S. will not affect China's entry into the WTO, but 
rejecting PNTR after last year's negotiated agreement will diminish our 
credibility and our ability to make a difference in China.
  WTO memberships will bring China into the system of trading rules and 
standards that apply to all other major trading partners in the world. 
Congress should approve PNTR so that American farmers, workers, 
businesses will be able to take advantage of opening markets in China 
and so that our continued involvement in China can help in working 
toward other reforms. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to 
support PNTR.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of granting normal 
trade relations to China. This measure is good policy for our Nation as 
a whole, and good policy for the people of the 18th district of 
Illinois. The choice we have before us today is whether we want to 
trade with China with our hand open in friendship, or with our hand 
closed in opposition. China is expected to join the WTO later this 
year, and today's vote will set the stage on how we will trade with 
China in the years to come.
  By passing NTR today, we will establish a first in U.S. trade policy. 
We will lock ourselves into a one-sided trade deal, which favors the 
United States. Last year, Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky and our trade 
representatives negotiated a bilateral agreement with China, which not 
only significantly lowers many of China's tariffs, but also provides 
for anti-surge guarantees to protect American manufacturers from 
Chinese dumping of goods into our markets. Failure to pass NTR will not 
prevent China from joining the WTO. It will, however, prevent us from 
benefiting from the bilateral agreement we negotiated, while at the 
same time concede the benefits of this agreement to our Asian, 
European, and Latin American competitors.
  As a member of the House Agriculture Committee, I recently joined 
with my colleagues in a series of field hearings throughout the country 
to get a sense of how agriculture is doing in America. The consensus is 
that unlike the rest of the country, our agriculture community is in 
trouble.
  Granting NTR to China will not cure the ills that face our 
agricultural economy, but it will help. The facts are that China has 20 
percent of the world's population and approximately 7 percent of the 
world's arable land. It is shifting from an agrarian economy to an 
industrialized/manufacturing economy. China currently has a population 
of over 1.3 billion, with a steady rate of population growth. These 
facts indicate that over the long term, China represents a hug 
potential market for American agriculture products. In the near term, 
China is currently the sixth largest market for U.S. farm products. In 
1999, the U.S. exported over $2 billion dollars worth of agricultural 
commodities to Mainland China and Hong Kong, in spite of high tariff 
rates and restrictive trade practices, designed to specifically 
prohibit importation of American agricultural products.
  Once China joins the WTO and accedes to the bilateral agreement, many 
of these high tariff rates and restrictive trade practices will be 
reduced, or phased out, by 2005. This agreement, as well as WTO rules, 
also contain provisions which allow the United States to act 
unilaterally if China violates the terms of the agreement. Granting NTR 
is not only good for agriculture--it is good for American business as 
well. As President Clinton stated in the State of the Union address, 
``Our markets are already open to China. This agreement will open their 
markets to us.'' The Commerce Department recently announced that our 
trade deficit widened in March to an all time high of $30.2 billion. 
Granting NTR to China will help reverse our trade gap by leveling the 
playing field, and allowing American business to crack into this highly 
protected market.
  As I have indicated before, I believe that granting NTR is good for 
the country and good for the people of Illinois. In 1998, direct 
exports to China from the State of Illinois totaled over $505 million. 
If we pass the NTR legislation, I would expect this figure to grow 
significantly. In addition to the agricultural interests in my 
district, I am also proud to represent America's manufacturing 
industry. Caterpillar, Inc., one of nations' leading manufacturers of 
earth moving and construction equipment, is based in my hometown of 
Peoria, Illinois. Caterpillar employees over 67,000 workers worldwide, 
many of whom live in my district, and in 1999, exported $5.2 billion 
worth of equipment. For Caterpillar, and other heavy machinery 
manufacturers, China has always been a

[[Page 9148]]

very difficult market in which to work. The bilateral agreement we 
negotiated would ease market restrictions, lower tariffs on heavy 
machinery, and, in general, make it easier for American companies to 
operate in China.
  Aside from the obvious economic benefits, I believe that granting NTR 
to China will lead to positive societal changes within China. It is my 
hope that improved economic conditions in China will result in a higher 
quality of life for Chinese workers. I also hope that greater 
interaction with Western culture, and its focus on human rights, will 
pressure the Chinese Government to continue with the liberalization of 
its economic and social structure. We need to approach China with an 
open hand, not with a closed fist. I urge my colleagues to support 
granting normal trade relations to China.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4444 to 
grant permanent normal trade relations for China. The United States has 
engaged in normal trade relations with China for the past two decades. 
Since then, trade has grown and flourished between our two countries, 
with an ever-increasing U.S. corporate presence in China. In 1999, 
China was the 4th largest U.S. trading partner. Since I joined 
Congress, I have voted three times in favor of normal trade relations 
with China. Today, however, I will vote to reject H.R. 4444 for three 
reasons.
  First, before today, an annual review of China's performance in the 
areas of human rights and nuclear non-proliferation has been concretely 
tied to a vote in Congress on its trade status. This has provided the 
U.S. with leverage to raise critical issues with China regarding human 
rights, workers rights, freedom of religion and association, the 
autonomy of Tibet, the transfer of nuclear technology, the security of 
Taiwan, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. At least once a year, 
China had to respond seriously to these concerns in order to gain the 
two things it most desires: access to U.S. technology and access to the 
U.S. consumer market. I don't mean to imply that China's performance 
always improved in these areas, but the annual review, directly tied to 
a vote on trade, ensured that the dialogue between our two nations was 
a serious one.
  The vote today strips the Congress, and I believe the Administration, 
of any leverage on these issues. We can establish commissions and 
release reports to monitor human rights in China, but we already do 
that regularly anyway. More pieces of paper will have little impact on 
China. What leverage we had was due to the fact that the review was 
tied directly to a vote on trade.
  Second, I am interested in not only who benefits from the U.S.-China 
bilateral trade agreement, but also who suffers. I believe many of the 
claims made on both sides of this debate will prove, over time, to be 
exaggerated--especially in light of China's record of non-compliance 
with other trade agreements. I believe many businesses in 
Massachusetts, including in my own district, will benefit from 
increased commerce with China, particularly in the areas of high-tech, 
computers and financial services. I believe trade in these areas 
between our two countries will increase even if permanent NTR is 
rejected today.
  I also know, however, that in negotiating this agreement the U.S. 
Trade Representative conceded whole areas of trade and commerce to 
China. Nowhere is this more true than in the textile and clothing 
industry. Prior to the conclusion of negotiations on the bilateral 
trade agreement, I wrote and phoned the USTR about this issue, pleading 
for support. My letters and calls went unanswered. I would like to 
point out to my colleagues that this is the very first trade agreement 
opposed both by the textile manufacturers and the clothing and textile 
workers. As this House knows, that was not the case with NAFTA, the 
Caribbean Basin Initiative/CBI or the recently approved Africa trade 
bill. This alone should give all my colleagues an idea about exactly 
how bad this agreement is for clothing and textiles, and for 
communities like those I represent in southeastern Massachusetts. By 
opposing H.R. 4444, I stand with the families and towns whose lives and 
livelihoods have been so callously disregarded by the USTR.
  Third, I believe the very framework around which we currently pursue 
trade agreements is flawed. Worse, I believe it runs counter to our 
ability to achieve our goals in promoting freedom and democracy 
worldwide. Let me be clear, I support normal trade relations with all 
nations. I believe it is good for America, good for the exchange of 
goods and services, and good for the exchange of ideas. I am not and 
never will be an isolationist. I believe strongly, however, that 
commerce and trade must not operate separate from, let alone contrary 
to, other national priorities; to promote democracy, nuclear non-
proliferation, respect for human rights, and protection of the 
environment. Internationally, the U.S. is a leader on these issues and 
a party to international agreements, standards and law. Yet in the 
areas of trade and commerce, we often negotiate agreements that 
undermine these other standards and agreements. I believe we must 
integrate these priorities, not separate them. We have a global economy 
because the world is now, more than ever before, a global, 
interdependent community.
  The bilateral trade agreement negotiated between the U.S. and China, 
which goes far beyond ``normal'' trade relations, and H.R. 4444 to 
grant permanent NTR to China have aggressively sought to ``de-link'' 
trade from any other U.S. priority or consideration. I believe this 
takes us down the wrong path. It says to all the other countries of the 
world that human rights, arms control, and the environment are not 
important to the U.S. if a buck is to be made. Last minute sugarcoating 
to establish commissions to monitor human rights will not change this 
basic message. And it's the wrong message.
  For these reasons, and many others, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
H.R. 4444.
  I submit the following materials from the textile industry.
                                                  American Textile


                                      Manufacturers Institute,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 2000.

          RE: China Permanent NTR--Textile and Appeal Markets.

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Textile 
     Manufacturers Institute (ATMI), I would like to reiterate our 
     opposition to legislation granting permanent normal trade 
     relations to China (NTR) and to again urge you to vote 
     against this proposal. We have written you previously 
     outlining concerns, and this letter is to elaborate more 
     fully on the issue of market access. ATMI is the national 
     trade association for the domestic textile industry, with 
     member company facilities in more than 30 states.
       Contrary to claims that the United States gave up nothing 
     in the agreement to support China's accession to the World 
     Trade Organization (WTO), we must emphatically point out that 
     the U.S. has actually given China greater access to our 
     textile and apparel market than that given any other WTO 
     member. Incredibly, the U.S. did this while at the same time 
     doing nothing to guarantee that we will receive reciprocal 
     access the China's markets.
       While current WTO members are seeing U.S. textile and 
     apparel quotas phased out over a ten-year period, China will 
     be allowed to benefit from a phaseout period of five years or 
     less (depending on when they actually join the WTO). This is 
     the equivalent of, in a baseball game, allowing one team 
     (China) to start an inning with a runner leading off second 
     base while making every other team play by the normal rules 
     and start each inning in the batters' box. China is being 
     given an enormous headstart toward home plate, which in this 
     case is the elimination of all U.S. quotas and thus 
     unrestricted access to the U.S. market.
       At the same time, the U.S. has received nothing but the 
     same old tired assurance from China that they will allow our 
     textile and apparel exports to enter their country. We have 
     heard this song and dance before. But as the following chart 
     shows. China has effectively used its elaborate system of 
     tariff and non-tariff barriers to keep its market closed to 
     our products.
       Based on this poor track record, we sincerely doubt that 
     China's most recent assurance of access will pan out.
       So as far as textile trade goes, this is a one-sided trade 
     deal that only benefits China, Accordingly, we urge you to 
     reject permanent NTR and allow Congress the chance to use 
     annual renewal of NTR as leverage to force China to honor the 
     promises it has already made to allow U.S. textile and 
     apparel exports access to the vast but heretofore virtually 
     closed Chinese market.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Roger Chastain,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                  American Textile


                                      Manufacturers Institute,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 2000.

   Re: China Permanent NTR--Ineffective Textile and General Product 
                              Safeguards.

       Dear Representative: We understand that the House Ways and 
     Means Committee leadership has reached a deal under which the 
     product safeguard provisions of last November's China WTO 
     accession agreement will be incorporated into the permanent 
     normal trade relations (NTR) bill, H.R. 4444. On behalf of 
     the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI), I would 
     like to point out that this ``breakthrough'' will not do 
     anything to alleviate our concerns. We are still strongly 
     opposed to this legislation and urge your opposition as well.
       Enclosed is a copy of our April 21 letter to Ambassador 
     Barshefsky, which points out serious flaws in the China WTO 
     accession agreement's textile product safeguard and 12-year 
     general product safeguard. As you will note from our letter 
     and accompanying questions, we believe the safeguard 
     provisions in the accession agreement will not be effective 
     in preventing serious harm to the U.S. textile industry as a 
     result of import

[[Page 9149]]

     surges. Therefore, inclusion of these provisions in H.R. 444 
     or any parallel legislation does not address our concerns.
       Also, as we stated in this letter (and as you probably know 
     from our previous letters, congressional testimony, news 
     releases and communications from our members and workers in 
     your district), China's entry into the WTO under the 
     accelerated quota phaseout schedule is projected to cost over 
     150,000 jobs in the U.S. textile and related industries. 
     Thus, we again dispute the claim by supporters of the bill 
     that the United States ``gave away nothing'' in this 
     agreement--in fact, the U.S. is proposing to give China 
     faster access to our market than any other WTO member, and at 
     the cost of 150,000 U.S. jobs.
       Therefore, we urge you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 4444 when it 
     comes before the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                Roger W. Chastain,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                  American Textile


                                      Manufacturers Institute,

                                   Washington, DC, April 21, 2000.
     Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky,
     United States Trade Representative,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ambassador Barshefsky: We would appreciate your review 
     of several important matters concerning the textile product 
     safeguard and the twelve-year general product specific 
     safeguard in the China WTO Accession agreement.
       An effective safeguard is of paramount importance to the 
     livelihoods of more than 1.2 million textile and apparel 
     workers. The study by the International Trade Commission on 
     China's accession concluded that China's share of the U.S. 
     apparel market would triple as a result of the agreement. 
     Another study by Nathan Associates came up with the same 
     conclusion and examined the impact on U.S. textile and 
     apparel employment. The Nathan study determined that over 
     150,000 U.S. jobs in the textile and apparel sector would be 
     lost as a result of the agreement.
       The information we have received thus far as to the details 
     regarding the use of either the textile specific or the 
     general product specific safeguard has created serious 
     concerns regarding the potential effectiveness of either 
     instrument.
       We would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest 
     convenience about how these safeguard mechanisms will 
     operate.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Carios Moore,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____


ATMI Questions on the Textile Product Safeguard and the 12 Year Product 
        Specific Safeguard in the China WTO Accession Agreement

       (1) Textile Product Safeguard
       (a) Administration: Will the Committee for the 
     Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) will be the 
     administrator of the textile product safeguard in the China 
     WTO accession agreement?
       (i) Will CITA be the final decision-making authority on the 
     imposition of this safeguard?
       (ii) Will CITA have authority to direct U.S. Customs to 
     carry-out safeguard actions?
       (b) Timing: Will textile products that have already been 
     integrated be subject to the textile product safeguard 
     immediately upon china's entry into the WTO and will those 
     products that will be integrated in 2002 be eligible for a 
     safeguard action, if appropriate, in 2002?
       (c) Original finding of market disruption: China has by far 
     the world's largest textile and apparel complex and by far 
     the largest quota coverage (over 100 quotas) imposed on its 
     textile and apparel exports. These quotas were imposed 
     because of findings of market disruption over the past 15 
     years. Can the original finding of market disruption 
     automatically be re-applied when these quotas are removed?
       (i) If not, if China's imports do surge across most, if not 
     all, product categories (as the ITC study appears to imply 
     they will), would separate market disruption findings be 
     needed on each category, or, if an overall condition of 
     disruption could be found, could this serve in place of 
     separate statements?
       (d) New findings of market disruption: If the original 
     market disruption finding cannot be reapplied, the U.S. has 
     historically made a determination of market disruption in 
     textile and apparel cases where imports of a given textile 
     product were increasing from a particular country (as well as 
     from the world overall) while domestic U.S. production of 
     that same product was declining. Could the U.S. use these 
     same three criteria alone--increasing Chinese imports, 
     increasing world imports and decreasing U.S. production--to 
     make a similar finding under the textile product safeguard in 
     this agreement?
       If not, what other or different criteria would be required 
     under a WTO-based system?
       (ii) In other cases, the ITC study predicts that china will 
     take market share from other countries. Some of these 
     countries--Mexico and the Caribbean nations--are primary 
     export markets for U.S. textile products. Please confirm that 
     the U.S. could take action on the basis of increasing Chinese 
     imports and declining U.S. production with overall imports 
     remaining stable.
       (e) Use of textile inputs to take an apparel safeguard 
     action: As mentioned above, a large percentage of U.S. 
     textile output is now exported to the CBI and Mexico for 
     assembly into garments for re-export back to the United 
     States. Displacement of these regional apparel imports into 
     the United States by Chinese imports would hurt the U.S. 
     textile industry in the same way that the loss of U.S. 
     apparel production does. In fact, for many products, 
     including knit shirts, underwear and woven trousers, a 
     substantial amount of the production originally sourced in 
     the United States has now shifted to the CBI and Mexico. It 
     is extremely important that ATMI be able to ensure that both 
     safeguards in the agreement can be used to protect its 
     workers if these re-export markets are threatened by Chinese 
     imports.
       (i) Will the government consider declines in complementary 
     U.S. textile products as a basis for imposing safeguard 
     measures against increasing Chinese apparel imports?
       (ii) How would the administration ensure that no WTO 
     difficulties would result from such a result. (see ``e'' 
     below)?
       (f) Definition of U.S. apparel production: The United 
     States currently defines a cut piece of fabric which is being 
     exported as a completed garment--as a result government 
     reports sometimes show that U.S. apparel production for a 
     given product is increasing when in fact it is exports of the 
     cut pieces of cloth that are increasing (note: these pieces 
     constitute the bulk of the trade between the U.S. and Mexico 
     and the CBI). If these cut pieces exports were removed, 
     actual U.S. apparel production would almost certainly be in 
     decline.
       (i) When considering the use of either safeguard will the 
     government commit to removing exported cut pieces of U.S. 
     fabric from its U.S. apparel production calculations?
       (ii) Are there any WTO rules or regulations which this 
     would violate?
       (g) Lack of recent U.S. textile and apparel production 
     data: During the last five years, the Commerce Department has 
     stopped issuing quarterly textile and apparel production 
     figures and, as a result, U.S. apparel production figures are 
     often a year or more out of date. The government has also 
     sometimes delayed safeguard actions until more recent 
     production data was available. The imposition of a safeguard 
     measure requires immediate action if it is to be effective--
     particularly when a dominant supplier such as China is 
     involved.
       (i) Will the government agree that it will either re-
     institute quarterly reporting or that it will use the most 
     recent available production data that it has available as a 
     basis for any safeguard measure and that it will not delay 
     imposition of a safeguard measure because of production 
     information?
       (h) Definition of ``reapplication'': The textile safeguard 
     says that after a measure has been in place a year, the 
     safeguard must be ``reapplied'' in order to be extended. What 
     does ``reapplied'' mean?
       (i) Does it mean that a new market disruption statement 
     would need to be created?
       (1) If so, does this mean that the government would have to 
     wait until imports started increasing again in large numbers 
     before a new safeguard could be imposed?
       (a) Would this mean that the industry could conceivably be 
     forced to wait up to a year--in order for a pattern of 
     increasing imports to be established--before a second 
     safeguard action could be applied?
       (i) Concerns over potential number of cases and speed of 
     response: Under the category system, China currently has over 
     100 quotas applied to it. Under the WTO accession package, 
     almost all of these quotas will disappear on Jan. 1, 2005. 
     How can the U.S. government ensure that safeguard actions 
     will quickly be forthcoming if a large number of categories 
     qualify for action at the same time? ((see b) and I) above 
     for details).
       (j) Can China appeal a safeguard action to the DSB?: If 
     China disagreed with the imposition of a safeguard by the 
     U.S., would it have recourse under the WTO to request dispute 
     settlement?
       (i) If so, could a dispute settlement panel or some other 
     WTO entity overturn the imposition of a quota under this 
     safeguard or authorize Chinese retaliation?
       (1) The creation of a textile safeguard action against a 
     WTO country in Agreement on Textiles and Clothing has 
     steadily become more complex, difficult and time-consuming--
     at least 12 different areas have to be investigated 
     thoroughly and reported upon. Safeguard actions have come to 
     require enormous amount of work and even then outcomes, which 
     require consensus, are often unsatisfactory. As a result, 
     textile safeguard actions for WTO countries are now 
     exceedingly rate.
       (a) If a U.S. safeguard action is appealable within the 
     WTO, how can the U.S. government ensure that safeguard 
     actions against China do not get bogged down in this 
     cumbersome process?
       (k) Use of the category system in safeguard actions: Under 
     the MFA and ATC, the U.S. has used a category system in order 
     to impose specific quotas. Textile Monitoring body (TMB) 
     reports in the WTO have implied that they no longer consider 
     the category system a relevant vehicle for safeguard actions. 
     Would the U.S. use the category system or would it consider 
     using alternative systems for imposing a safeguard?

[[Page 9150]]

       (l) WTO criteria: what are the WTO criteria for ``market 
     disruption'' and what would the U.S. have to do meet to 
     sustain a textile product specific safeguard action under WTO 
     review?
       (2)The 12 Year Product Specific Safeguard
       (a) CITA to administer? Who will be the administrator of 
     the overall product specific safeguard in textile cases? Will 
     CITA administer this safeguard as it has other safeguards 
     under the GATT and the WTO?
       (b) Will a Presidential finding be required? Will a 
     judgment of material injury by the administrator require the 
     imposition of a safeguard or will presidential action be also 
     required? (In 301 cases, we note that Presidential action is 
     NOT required.) The ability of a Presidential to potentially 
     ignore a finding of material injury concerns us.
       (c) Do textile inputs have standing in a case of increased 
     apparel imports? As stated in regards to the textile 
     safeguard (see 1d) a large percentage of U.S. textile output 
     is now exported to the CBI and Mexico for assembly into 
     garments for re-export back to the United States.
       (i) Will declines in complementary U.S. textile products be 
     accepted as a basis for imposing safeguard measures against 
     increasing Chinese apparel imports.
       (ii) Are there any WTO rulings or regulations which could 
     be used to prevent such a basis?
       (d) A second safeguard action? Can a second safeguard 
     action be re-instituted after a three-year or two-year 
     safeguard has been imposed if a new investigation determines 
     that it is warranted?
       (i) Would such a safeguard still be open to retaliation 
     (eg, China's suspension of concessions)?
       (e) Section 406--how does it compare?
       (i) Can the safeguard under section 406 be applied rather 
     than the general product specific safeguard in this 
     agreement?
       (ii) Will section 406 remain in effect in the event that 
     China gets PNTR and the 406, as a part of Jackson Vanik, no 
     longer operable?
       (iii) The administration claims that the injury threshold 
     for the product specific safeguard is lower than section 201, 
     stating that it will be easier for industries to get relief 
     under this provision from growing Chinese imports. However, 
     the injury standard for section 406 appears to be the same as 
     the product specific safeguard and the duration of relief is 
     actually longer under section 406. Yet, section 406 is almost 
     never used, while section 201 is more frequently employed.
       (1) What is the basis for the administration's belief that 
     utilization of this product specific safeguard will be 
     greater and easier to use?
       (2) In your opinion, why are section 406 actions so rarely 
     brought and why should product specific safeguard actions--
     which appear to be virtually identical--be any easier?
       (3) Dumping
       (a) Textile dumping cases: Can language be inserted into 
     the agreement making it easier to bring dumping cases against 
     Chinese imports (right now, effective textile dumping cases 
     are difficult to bring because minor product specific changes 
     can result in the evasion of dumping margins.)
       (4) Countervailing Duty Cases
       (a) Are CVD cases now possible? The USTR Fact Sheet 
     published in Inside US Trade implies that countervailing duty 
     suits will be allowed against China. However, Commerce 
     maintains a prohibition on any CVD petitions against non-
     market economies and the dumping provisions in the United 
     States/China agreement refer to China as a non-market 
     economy. China, therefore, appears to be immune from United 
     States CVD law.
       (i) Will the Administration change the Commerce position?

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4444, 
permanent normal trade relations for China. While I must first say that 
I am essentially a ``free trader'' I am opposed to the extension of 
permanent normal trade relations with China because of China's dismal 
record on human rights and its dismal record on worker rights, labor 
standards and environmental protections. The United States has formerly 
criticized China's human rights record before the United Nations Human 
Rights Commission for measures against political activists that have 
created what officials called a ``sharply deteriorated [human] rights 
situation . . .'' Pursuant to a May 1, 2000 Report on International 
Religious Freedom, ``Chinese government violations of religious freedom 
increased markedly during the past year.''
  China has received normal trade relations (NTR) status annually since 
1980. However, gross human rights abuses in China still prevail. Since 
the Tiananmen Square tragedy of 1989, the annual process of renewal has 
been a meaningful way to impact human rights considerations into the 
U.S.-china trade debate. The annual debate in the Congress on normal 
trade relations is the only substantive economic leverage the Congress 
can choose to exert against China. If Congress grants China permanent 
normal trade status, the United States will lose the best leverage it 
has to meaningfully influence China to enact internationally recognized 
rights and protections. While there is no doubt that the globalization 
of the world's markets is inevitable, Congress should continue to have 
an opportunity to review China's human rights performance on an annual 
basis before granting China permanent normal trade relations.
  Mr. Speaker, in the past, I have voted in support of most favored 
nation [MFN] status for China. Last year, I opposed the year long MFN 
for China. However, today, I oppose PNTR for China because of its 
potential negative impact on the American worker.
  While this bill might provide certain economic benefits and 
advantages to some American companies, it could hurt other American 
industries and may cost many Americans their jobs. Pursuant to a report 
by the Economic Policy Institute, American workers in every state will 
lose jobs if this bill is passed. Over the next decade, U.S. job losses 
would total 872,091 with every industry suffering.
  In the State of Florida alone, an estimated 22,277 jobs will be lost. 
If we do not protect the interest of the American worker, then who 
will? We must not allow ``big business'' to sell out the American 
worker, nor can I allow small business in my district to be severely 
impacted by this trade pact.
  Most Americans recognize the importance of trade. Most Americans also 
recognize the importance of decent wages and decent work standards. In 
the United States, our manufacturing industry served as the lifeblood 
of millions of Americans for generations. The manufacturing industry 
and other similar industries served as a vehicle for millions of 
Americans to lift themselves out of poverty and achieve the American 
dream. However, in the last 20 years, millions of manufacturing jobs 
have been lost to low-wage foreign nations producing cheap imports. We 
can not continue to lose American jobs to cheap labor abroad without 
substantive protections for the American worker.
  Free trade without enforceable labor and environmental protections 
will promote the growth of child labor, forced labor, poverty-level 
wages and environmental abuses. Increasingly, American companies are 
moving their operations abroad in order to take advantage of cheap 
labor and near non-existent environmental standards. Unfortunately, for 
many businesses, this is the great attraction of China. PNTR will 
perpetuate the increasing exploitation of Chinese workers and add to 
the suffering of thousands of children who toil in filthy hazardous 
sweatshops. We must not aid in this human tragedy.
  Mr. Speaker, human rights is a fundamental principal of American 
democracy; the ability of the American worker to gain meaningful 
employment is critical to the prosperity of America; labor standards 
and worker rights are fundamental rights which should be extended to 
every worker--across the globe; and exploitation of innocent children 
is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 510, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Bonior

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BONIOR. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bonior moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4444, to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on 
     International Relations with instructions that those 
     committees report the bill back to the House promptly with 
     the following amendment:
       Add at the end of title I the following new section:

     SEC. 105. WITHDRAWAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS.

       (a) 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.

[[Page 9151]]

       (b) 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.
       (c) Applicability to Existing Contracts.--The President 
     shall have the authority to determine the extent to which the 
     withdrawal under subsection (b) 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his motion to recommit.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is the exact same 
language as an amendment that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon) and I offered in the Committee on Rules we sought to have 
incorporated in the base bill or to be offered as an amendment, but we 
were not allowed to so. It is very simple. It simply says that PNTR is 
automatically revoked if China attacks, invades, or blockades Taiwan.
  Now, when we talk to people in the administration or even outside in 
the academic world, people who are China experts, they all say, but if 
China invades, attacks, or blockades Taiwan, of course we would revoke 
PNTR and much more.
  But, over and over again in history, we know that when nations do not 
tell the consequences for conduct for aggressive actions, other 
countries misread those consequences.
  Having studied what happened prior to the Gulf War for a very long 
time, I believe if we had made more clear to Saddam Hussein what would 
have happened should he invade Kuwait, that particular bloody battle 
could have been avoided.
  If all we are going to do is agree to revoke PNTR should this very 
real threat be implemented, then let us tell the Chinese beforehand.
  I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), reach out 
to the future. But as we do so, remember the past, give the specific 
announcement of the consequence for the threat to our national security 
interests for which we spend billions of dollars in forward deployment 
in the Western Pacific.
  And, by the way, this is GATT pursuant to article 21. Arguments being 
spread around this Chamber that this somehow is GATT violative are 
inaccurate, wrong, and improper legal analysis.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bipartisan motion. 
Surely we should use our economic leverage with China to deter any 
Chinese aggression against Taiwan. It is a very simple motion that will 
do exactly what we need to do to protect our ally.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has been so marvelous on this issue.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, there are good people on both sides. I know as 
a Member that sometimes we want to be with our party and sometimes we 
want to be with our President.
  For me, I want to be with my conscience. My conscience tells me, and 
I think the American people would agree, that if China attacks, 
invades, or blockades Taiwan, they should lose PNTR.
  Support the motion to recommit. That is where the American people 
would be.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I think the bottom line 
question we all need to ask, Mr. Speaker, is, is there anything that 
the dictatorship in Beijing can do that would lead to a loss of support 
for PNTR that Beijing so desperately wants? They need to know, as my 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), said, up front what 
the consequences will be.
  If pervasive torture, religious persecution, Laogai labor, a lack of 
press freedom, and worker rights and other human rights abuses are not 
enough, I sincerely hope that war with Taiwan is sufficiently egregious 
to trigger a loss of support for PNTR.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked only three questions of the CIA when I went in 
for the briefing. I said, will PNTR, if we pass it, stabilize or 
destabilize the regime? They said, stabilize. I said, what will it do 
to buildup of forces on the shoreline and the aggressive forces that 
are being amassed against Taiwan? They said, it will improve it.
  I tell my colleagues now, as I left that meeting, I walked away 
thinking about the oath of office I took with all of my colleagues 
here, the oath that said I swear to protect and defend this country.
  Think about that oath. Vote for this motion to recommit.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, if we supplied the American dollars 
for the missile destroyers, we supplied American dollars for the AWACS 
and air refueling equipment and for the kilo submarines that China is 
acquiring, we at least owe the commitment to Taiwan to condition those 
supplies of American cache with a commitment to have a benign 
relationship with Taiwan on the part of mainland China.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if this motion to recommit passes, it does 
not instruct the committee to report back forthwith with instructions. 
Does that mean that if this motion to recommit passes that the bill 
will have to go back to committee?

                              {time}  1700

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas is 
correct.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, what that means is that it will be reported 
back to committee, and there will be no vote on final passage?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is correct, the 
bill would be recommitted to two committees.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, is it not also true that if indeed this 
motion passed, this bill could be reported back to the two respective 
committees to which it is designated and that bill could be reported 
back to the House tomorrow?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. At some subsequent time, the committees 
could meet and report the bill back to the House.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Defense of 
the Committee on Appropriations for 22 years and a former member of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I rise to oppose the motion 
to recommit. First of all, the Bonior motion to recommit violates GATT 
provision article 1, because you cannot condition most favored nation 
status, MFN, or NTR, so this is a killer amendment.
  The President, by the way, already has the authority to withdraw at 
any time MFN or NTR status for the People's Republic of China. Also, 
under article 21 of GATT, the United States has unilateral authority to 
exert its national security exception for any reason. Clearly reacting 
to an attack on Taiwan would meet the security exception.

[[Page 9152]]

  The U.S. can withdraw MFN or NTR clearly under those circumstances 
without having to in any way compensate China. And WTO members have 
wide discretion to invoke its GATT 21 rights. This authority has gone 
back for many years. We have exerted it against Cuba, we have exerted 
it against Nicaragua, and it has been sustained in every instance. So 
this amendment is not necessary, it is a killer amendment, and I hope 
that the House will reject the motion to recommit.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion to 
recommit. If Members are for the bill, vote for it. If they are against 
the bill, vote against it, but do not do it this way. This is a very 
clear poison pill by opponents of free trade to kill this historic 
legislation, make no mistake about it. This amendment is a procedural 
vote that is cleverly drafted to appeal to those of us who support 
Taiwan. But let us be clear. This is a blatant political move to bring 
down this bill both on substance and on procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no bigger supporter and defender of Taiwan than 
myself. I have worked with Members on both sides of this aisle and on 
both sides of this debate on legislation to protect Taiwan and give it 
the resources it needs to defend itself from Beijing. Most Members 
voted for the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. I have been and will 
continue to be an outspoken opponent against China's Communist leaders.
  I share the concerns of my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman) about Beijing's constant refusal to renounce the use of force 
against Taiwan, and I will continue to work with anyone in this 
Congress who wants to address these issues. But, Mr. Speaker, this 
amendment does not help Taiwan. It puts them square in the middle of a 
vicious political fight. Taiwan supporters need to understand this. 
Taiwan does not support this language. We have spoken to I-jen Chiou, 
the Deputy Secretary-General of the Taiwan Security Council, and he 
made it clear that this amendment is not helpful to Taiwan. They 
support PNTR. They support China getting into the WTO. This amendment 
puts all of that in jeopardy.
  Let me say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, if China attacks 
Taiwan, I will be the first to come down on this floor to force any 
administration, whether it be Democrat or Republican, to take action 
against China. But let us be clear. This language will do nothing to 
address our concerns with Beijing, it will have no impact on their 
actions but will permit the Chinese to refuse WTO benefits to American 
companies.
  The USTR has already made it clear that this language will subject us 
to punishing tariffs once China enters the WTO. And at the same time, 
it does not give us any new authority. We already have the authority 
under the WTO to remove PNTR for China for national security reasons. 
However, singling out China preemptively is a violation of our 
commitments under the WTO. So, Mr. Speaker, I understand why this 
language looks appealing, but I urge my colleagues not to use our 
friends in Taiwan as a political tool.
  After all the discussions, after all the commitments that have been 
made on this issue, Members will not even get to vote on final passage 
today if this motion to recommit passes. Now, they say it will come 
back from committee. I have got to tell Members, they do not come back 
from committee. When motions to recommit like this go back to 
committee, they are subject to oblivion.
  This is it. If you are against it, vote against the bill. If you are 
for it, vote for the bill but do not play this kind of game. Vote 
``no'' on the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 258, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 227]

                               AYES--176

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Capuano
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pombo
     Rahall
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--258

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds

[[Page 9153]]


     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Scarborough
      

                              {time}  1724

  Mr. RUSH and Ms. WATERS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 197, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 228]

                               AYES--237

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

                               NOES--197

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Capuano
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pombo
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
       
     Scarborough
       

                              {time}  1741

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to authorize extension 
of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to 
the People's Republic of China, and to establish a framework for 
relations between the United States and the People's Republic of 
China.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________