[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13843-13870]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



DISAPPROVAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TREATMENT TO PRODUCTS OF PEOPLE'S 
                           REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement 
of July 17, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 50) disapproving 
the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of 
the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic of China, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of H.J. Res. 50 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 50

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Congress does not approve the extension of the authority 
     contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     recommended by the President to the Congress on June 1, 2001, 
     with respect to the People's Republic of China.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of Tuesday, July 17, 2001, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) and a Member in support of the joint resolution each will 
control 1 hour.
  Is there a Member in support of the joint resolution?
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) 
will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield one-half of 
the time, 30 minutes, to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the 
Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, and that he be permitted to yield time as he sees fit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of my 
time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who supports 
the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 50, which 
would cut off normal trade relations with China.
  This resolution, I believe, is terribly short-sighted toward Chinese 
reform and hard-fought gains of American consumers, workers and 
exporters, given how China is so close to accepting the comprehensive 
trade disciplines of the World Trade Organization membership.

                              {time}  1615

  Just last July, this body voted 273 to 197 to extend normal permanent 
trade relations to China upon its accession to the WTO. The reason this 
measure is in front of us today is that, after negotiations between 
Ambassador Zoellick and the Republic of China, we have come to an 
agreement on a bilateral agreement which is a precursor to the 
admission of China. Unfortunately, the date sequences leave us with an 
open period of time in which this annual renewal is necessary.
  In order to support the United States government's decision based 
upon the bilateral negotiated treaty with China, I urge all Members to 
oppose H.J. Res. 50.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 50, which would 
cut-off normal trade relations with China. This resolution is terribly 
short-sighted toward Chinese reforms and the hard-fought gains of 
American consumers, workers, and exporters, given how close China is to 
accepting the comprehensive trade disciplines of WTO membership.
  Last July, this body voted 273 to 197 to extend permanent normal 
trade relations with China upon its accession to the WTO. I expect 
China to officially assume the full responsibilities of WTO membership 
by year end. Defeat of H.J. 50 is necessary to support Ambassador's 
Zoellick's decision to take the extra time to ensure that China's 
concessions to the Untied States are as clear and as expansive as 
possible.
  Despite its history, despite having been pushed and pulled between 
colonialism and nationalism, ravaged by simultaneous imperial invasion 
and civil war, and finally driven to near ruin by Mao and his Cultural 
Revolution, China is finally prepared to join the world of trading 
nations by accepting the fair trade rules of the WTO. This is progress 
that must be supported. While the world and the Chinese people still 
face overwhelming problems with the behavior of the Chinese government, 
it is imperative to understand that China is changing. These last ten 
years represent the most stable and industrious decade China has known 
in the last 150 years. WTO Membership and normal trade relations with 
the United States is the best tool we have to support the changes we 
see in China.
  Thanks to the Chinese government's structural economic reforms, more 
than 40 percent of China's current industrial output now comes from 
private firms. Urban incomes in China have more than doubled. For 
millions of Chinese, increased prosperity and well-being has been 
manifest in the form of improved diets and purchases of consumer goods.
  Everyday, more and more ordinary Chinese citizens are able to start 
their own businesses and begin the process of building an entirely new 
way of life for themselves. We are witnessing Chinese society renew 
itself, absorbing new ideas and a world of information and knowledge. 
As well, the Beijing Government is taking steps to integrate 
capitalists into China's domestic political system.
  Revoking NTR at this time would undermine the success of the 
capitalist and social reforms taking place in China. Let us not turn 
our backs on the gains our negotiators have made with China for 
America's farmers, businesses, and consumers. Instead, let us all give 
capitalism a true chance in China.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 50.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, many might view this debate as an exercise in futility 
as China has already received permanent normal trade relations status. 
But I see it as an opportunity to recall some of the false arguments 
made on behalf of granting permanent normal trade relations to the 
People's Republic of China and to reflect back on the progress China 
has made in becoming a global trade partner worthy of normal trade 
relations status.
  Last year when we debated the relations with China, we heard all kind 
of horrific scenarios from the industries that support this about the 
threats of what would happen to the American economy if we did not 
grant permanent

[[Page 13844]]

trade relations to China. For instance, in May, 2000, Motorola ran a 
full-page ad in Roll Call and had a picture of the Motorola flip phone, 
like so many of us carry, and it said, ``If we do not sell products to 
China, someone else will.''
  They contended in their ad that, of course, these phones were made by 
Motorola. They falsely said that this would mean China's markets would 
not be open to U.S. exports. Well, less than a year after the 
enactment, Motorola shut down its only U.S. manufacturing plant and 
moved the manufacturing jobs to China. There are many, many anecdotes 
to that. We just sold out too cheap.
  The argument, if we do not sell products to China, China will sell 
them to us, that is the argument that Motorola should have used.
  They made promises with respect to weapons which they have not kept. 
They have made promises with respect to human rights which they have 
not kept. And we, like a bunch of chumps, have bought into that 
argument and allowed China to run roughshod over human rights, over 
American dignity, over American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this resolution, 
to end this charade that these people are doing anything that would 
help America or that they voluntarily will increase human rights on 
their part.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. I do not really look upon this as 
an exercise in futility. It is an exercise that would have some true 
irony if this resolution were to pass because, as we know, China has 
now essentially finished its negotiations with all of the countries, 
save one perhaps, and with the WTO except for a few outstanding issues. 
Its accession is now essentially completed.
  If this resolution were to pass, we would withdraw NTR for a few 
months and then it would go into effect upon the formal accession of 
China. So, in that sense, any passage of this would be not only be 
radical but probably counterproductive. In that sense, maybe it is 
futile.
  I think we should look upon this discussion as an opportunity to 
assess where matters are since we voted for PNTR.
  In a word, I would say that it is a mixture of changing and staying 
the same. There has been continuing change in China. It has continued 
to move away from a state-dominated economy towards a free-market 
economy. That has been true in industrial sectors, and now more and 
more it is gaining a foothold elsewhere, both geographically and in 
other sectors. Also, it has been true in the smaller enterprises as 
well as the larger.
  We have also seen a rapid expansion of the Internet. We also have 
seen the beginnings of cracks in their legal system that has been so 
dominated by the state. For the first time, we are seeing some 
successful suits by workers and individuals to redress grievances.
  It is said soon China will be acceding to the WTO, and that I think 
everybody would agree is likely to accelerate change. Indeed, one of 
the issues is how China is going to handle these changes.
  But in many other respects China has stayed the same. Anyone who 
thinks increased trade is a panacea that will bring about all kinds of 
changes in the near future, I think those people are wrong. I think we 
have seen in the last year continued trampling on the human rights in 
China, Falun Gong, the repression of Tibet and other ethnic minorities 
and the grievous detention of scholars and American citizens.
  We have also witnessed some security issues, including the downing of 
our airplane. These are troubling issues, and they continue to be. So I 
think the events of the last year fortify the approach that was taken 
last year, and that is to combine engagement with China that I think is 
truly unavoidable in view of its size, its importance, and also the 
need to pressure China, indeed at times to confront, to engage and to 
pressure.
  Last year, the legislation had some provisions relating to 
engagement. They also did so in terms of pressure. We set up a 
congressional executive commission. I think that now all of the members 
have been named. There will be one change in the Senate. I think that 
within the next weeks, if not few days, that important commission will 
become operational. It will work on issues of human rights, including 
worker rights, be an active force to pressure China to move in the 
right direction.
  It did not like our creation of that commission, and I think that 
commission will fulfill its obligations.
  We asked in that legislation that there be an annual review of 
China's performance within the WTO. Many were skeptical that could be 
achieved, but it has been through the negotiations by USTR. We also 
inserted an anti-surge provision in the legislation that was the 
strongest inserted into legislation in American history, and that is 
there as a pressure point.
  So, in a word, I think that we need to continue the path that we have 
set, one of active engagement, but also of vigorous alertness and 
pressure. So, therefore, I oppose this resolution, not only because we 
would be withdrawing NTR only for it to go back into operation in a few 
months but because I think on balance the appropriate course is one of 
continuing engagement and also of vigorous pressure.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is the best path to follow, not an easy 
one, but the one that is most likely to be productive on all sides of 
the equation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have introduced House Joint Resolution 50 with my 
colleague from Ohio (Mr. Brown) to disapprove the extension of the 
President's waiver on the Jackson-Vanik provision in the Trade Act of 
1974. My reason for this resolution is to protect our country's 
national security, as well as to call attention to the gross violations 
of human rights that now are taking place on the mainland of China.
  Since we held this debate last year, and despite previous 
Presidential waivers, the Communist Chinese have used their $80 billion 
that they have in annual trade surplus with the United States to 
modernize their military and boost their nuclear forces which target 
American cities. In other words, they are using the $80 billion trade 
surplus that we are permitting. We are approving the rules of 
engagement in terms of our economic relationship. They use that $80 
billion to buy technology to kill Americans. That is absurd, that we 
should continue in this type of relationship.
  Mr. Speaker, many people are going to suggest that this is in some 
way beneficial to the people of the United States. There is no doubt 
that the China trade is beneficial to a very few people in the United 
States, a few billionaires who are able to exploit the labor, the near 
slave labor in China and thus do not have to put up with unions or 
regulations in the United States of America. So, yes, it is beneficial 
for them, but it is not beneficial for the people of the United States 
of America.
  What is it then that propels this vote on normal trade relations? Why 
is it that we always have this vote, and those of us who are against 
normal trade relations with Communist China always lose. Well, it is 
because we have these people who have great wealth and power who are 
exercising their influence on this body and with the public to try to 
pressure to continue going down this road even though every road sign 
says, ``Turn back, not this way.''
  Mr. Speaker, we will hear during this debate over and over again, 
mark my words, we will hear people say we have got to have normal trade 
relations with China in order to exploit the world's biggest market in 
order to sell American products.
  Let me repeat this two or three times. That is not what normal trade

[[Page 13845]]

relations is about. It is not what normal trade relations is about. 
Opening up markets and selling American products that are manufactured 
here is not what normal trade relations is about.
  What normal trade relations is about is, with the passing of this 
bill, those billionaires that I just mentioned are able to get tax 
subsidies, subsidies for their investment. They are able to close down 
manufacturing companies in the United States and open up factories in 
Communist China to use their slave labor with a subsidy from the 
American taxpayer, be it the Export-Import Bank or other subsidized 
international financial institutions.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what this vote is about. This vote is whether we 
should be subsidizing big business to close down American factories and 
give that subsidy to them to open up factories in Communist China. It 
is an insult to the people of the United States. We are taxing them to 
put them out of their own jobs. That is what this vote is about. It is 
about continuing the economic rules of engagement with Communist China 
which has led to their militarization and has led them to become so 
arrogant of the United States that the Chinese downed an American 
military aircraft and held American military personnel hostage for 11 
days.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider, what if those people 
had died on that airplane? Those 24 Americans, it was a miracle that 
they did not die, that that crash did not occur. Otherwise, what would 
we be doing today?
  I would suggest many people in this body would be making the same 
arguments, do not worry about Communist China, it is actually getting 
better. What do they have to do? They are murdering their own people. 
They are putting Christians in jail. They are putting Falun Gong 
meditators in jail. They have a higher level of oppression than they 
had before. They are bringing down American aircraft. What do we have 
to do?
  Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that there are powerful forces at 
work in this country and they are profiting from what, from a tax 
subsidy from our taxpayers to give them the type of loan guarantees 
that they cannot get from private banks.

                              {time}  1630

  This has nothing to do with free trade. It has nothing to do with 
selling American products in China. It has everything to do with 
subsidizing and guaranteeing big businessmen who cannot get their loans 
guaranteed in the private sector because it is too risky to go and set 
up factories in China.
  That is what this vote is about. I would ask my colleagues to support 
our position and to reject the Jackson-Vanik waiver for trade with 
China.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint Resolution 50, 
which attempts to disapprove normal trade relations with China. It is 
clearly in our country's best interest to open up China's market of 
more than 1.2 billion potential customers. Our markets are already open 
to China. We need normalized trade relations to further open up their 
markets to us.
  And we are moving in the right direction. Twelve years ago, the 
images we saw from China were of students standing in front of tanks. 
Now the images we see on our TV screens are of students standing in 
front of Internet cafes and McDonalds. There are several Wal-Mart 
stores that have recently opened up in China. U.S. exports to China 
have increased by $4 billion over the last 5 years, with a 24 percent 
increase last year alone as a result of normal trade relations.
  Some folks who want to put an end to our trading relationship with 
China point out that they have a less than satisfactory record on human 
rights. I agree. But I also agree with President Bush that maintaining 
normal trade relations with China is our best hope for improving their 
record in terms of human rights. I think President Bush did a great job 
in securing the safe return of 24 brave servicemen and women from China 
after the surveillance plane incident.
  Looking forward, we can make a positive impact by engaging in 
constructive dialogue with China, exporting more Bibles to China, 
opening up their minds about democracy through the Internet, and other 
things.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution to 
disapprove MFN status for the People's Republic of China. I recognize 
this is largely a symbolic action. The die was cast last year when 
Congress approved PNTR for the People's Republic.
  I voted to support normal trade status as it was an essential step 
towards inclusion of China in the WTO and mainstream of international 
trade. As a part of the bilateral agreement between China and the 
United States, once China joins the WTO we will have achieved 
significant concessions from China in our trade arrangements. We will 
also have a permanent human rights monitoring of China. But to date, 
China has not become part of the WTO and standing on its own, using 
human rights as the test, particularly reviewing China's record during 
the past 12 months, China is not entitled to MFN status.
  I view this vote as a signal to the leaders of the Chinese Communist 
Party that their actions in numerous areas, but most particularly in 
the area of human rights, are unacceptable internationally.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just quote from the report of our own State 
Department on human rights practices in China:
  ``The government's poor human rights record worsened, and it 
continued to commit numerous serious abuses.
  ``The government's respect for religious freedom deteriorated 
markedly during the year, as the government conducted crackdowns 
against Christian groups, et cetera.
  ``Abuses included instances of extrajudicial killings, the use of 
torture, forced confessions.
  ``The government severely restricted freedom of assembly and 
continued to restrict freedom of association.
  ``Violence against women, including coercive family planning 
practices which sometimes includes forced abortion and forced 
sterilization.''
  Mr. Speaker, the report goes on and on and on on the human rights 
violations of China. Jackson-Vanik speaks to our Nation that we believe 
that human rights are an important part of normal trade with our 
Nation. Based upon the record during the past 12 months, China does not 
deserve normal trade relations; and we should approve the resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and ask unanimous consent that he be 
allowed to control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, last year I was a strong supporter of granting PNTR 
status to China and the opportunity for them to join the WTO. Today I 
rise in strong opposition to the resolution of disapproval for normal 
trade relations with China.
  Has China improved over the last year and have they become the kind 
of nation that we would believe would be the perfect trade partner for 
us? Have they shared our values of democracy and human rights? Have 
they worked toward improving the environment? No, they have not.
  But at the same time, I believe that former Secretary of State 
Madeleine

[[Page 13846]]

Albright was correct when she said that engagement with China is not 
endorsement. And having an opportunity to work with a China that is 
opening its markets, that is one that is part of the World Trade 
Organization, that is opportunistically working to open its markets 
with us and is also able to be subject to the adjudication of the World 
Trade Organization is somebody that I think is necessarily part of the 
world market.
  We have an opportunity to know that in this connection, trade is not 
always about economic and political freedom, but it certainly will help 
us to get to a place where China can move toward improving its human 
rights, and that is a very important opportunity for the working 
families of my district in California.
  Mr. Speaker, normal trade relations with China is good for businesses 
and for working families. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution 
disapproving normal trade relations with China because exposing the 
Chinese people to economic and political freedom is the best way to 
encourage change in that country.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), a man who knows we should not be 
subsidizing American investment in China.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time; and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for 
always keeping our eyes focused.
  It is funny what people see when they look at countries or events. 
When we look to China, we see a quick buck. That is what we look at.
  What did the students in Tiananmen Square see when they looked at 
America? They built a statue modeled after the Statue of Liberty. When 
you come into my office, the first thing you will see is the young man 
standing in front of the two tanks. He is dead.
  We debate faith-based initiatives today and what role religious 
organizations ought to have in our public life, and we jealously guard 
separation of church and state. What do they do in China? They will 
kill you if you step out of line.
  We debate passionately a woman's right to choose. There is no debate 
in this country about the government forcing somebody to have an 
abortion, but that is the norm in China. When you talk about normal 
relations, you better understand who you are talking about.
  Slave labor. We debate worker safety, environmental protections; and 
we have different views. But nobody in this House would allow one 
American to live like the Chinese people live under Communist tyranny.
  Time Magazine, not my favorite magazine, is banned in China. It is 
banned in China because they wrote something the Communist Chinese 
dictators did not like.
  Trade with China. You show me one agreement we have made with them, 
and I will tell you how they cheat. They are destroying the textile 
industry because they cheat.
  If during the Reagan years we had done with the former Soviet Union 
what we are doing with China, communism would still be alive and well 
because we would give the Communist dictators in the former Soviet 
Union the money to stay in business. The money going to China does not 
go to the people. It goes to their government.
  What is a normal relationship with China? The normal day-to-day 
operations in China should make most Americans feel ashamed that we are 
doing business with them.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is probably the last time that the United States 
Congress will engage in what has become known as the annual ritual of 
debating normal trade relations with China. No matter what side of this 
trade debate you are on, you cannot deny that China is rapidly emerging 
as a nation. They are already a regional power in Asia, and they have 
the capability to be a world player. This is not a value statement; it 
is clearly a fact.
  Another fact, and one that I have asserted many times over the years, 
is that market reform is a powerful force for positive change in China. 
As it develops economically, a massive class of better educated, 
wealthier Chinese people is emerging, people empowered not through 
politics and the ballot box but increasingly empowered through property 
rights and information technology. This is China's entrepreneurial 
class.
  We all recognize that the Chinese government does not share our 
values. The people who make up China's entrepreneurial class 
increasingly should share our values, but they often do not. The 
disturbing reality is that we appear to be losing the hearts and minds 
of the Chinese people.
  Now, there is no question that many Chinese leaders do not like 
America and the values that it embodies. But we need a national policy 
toward China that is able to penetrate through the haze of the Chinese 
information ministers and make it clear to the people of China that the 
people of the United States are their friends. The vast majority of the 
1.3 billion people in China share the hopes and dreams that we hold. 
They want good jobs, strong families, and a peaceful future. The desire 
for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may have been penned by 
an American, but there is no reason to believe that the dream does not 
extend to people in China or anywhere else. That is why America has 
been a symbol for hope and human freedom for over 200 years.
  That is also why we must be committed to ensuring that the average 
Chinese family does not believe that America stands in the way of those 
basic goals. In short, we need to stand up to the Chinese government 
for freedom in ways that do not put us on the wrong side of the Chinese 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, the House is going to reject this resolution of 
disapproval because ending trade with China is bad for the American 
people and it is bad for the Chinese people. We may not need to go 
through this exercise again, but we should be thinking about how to 
build ties to the emerging Chinese entrepreneurial class. Winning the 
trade fight but losing the hearts and minds of those in China who 
should be America's friends may very well prove to be a Pyrrhic 
victory.
  For the people of the United States and the people of China, vote 
``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi) who believes that this Congress should 
quit rewarding China for its human rights violations, for its political 
oppression, and for its persecution of religious figures.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership on this important issue.
  I just want to pick up where my colleague from California left off, 
and, that is, he said ending trade with China. Speaking that way is a 
grave disservice to this debate. Nobody here is talking about ending 
trade with China. What we are saying is that our trade with any country 
should promote our values, promote our economy through promoting our 
exports and make the people freer. Our trade relationship with China 
fails on all three points.
  I had hoped that this debate would not even be necessary. Last year 
when PNTR was passed, it was said it was necessary for us to do our 
part of the bargain so that China would come into the WTO and start 
complying with international trade rules.

                              {time}  1645

  Here we are again, 1 year later. Frankly, I think you should all be 
very embarrassed. You promised if we did that, they would be in. But, 
then again, you have been saying since 1989, when we first started this 
debate, that if we gave China most-favored-nation status, now had its 
name changed to protect the guilty, if we gave them PNTR, or NTR, or 
whatever you want to call it, that human rights, that the trade 
advantage would improve for us, and that

[[Page 13847]]

they would stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, three 
areas of concern.
  Well, bad news again. The news is bad on every score. When we first 
started this debate in 1989, the trade deficit with China was $2 
billion a year. My, my, my, we thought that gave us leverage, $2 
billion a year. The annual renewal, this policy that is in place that 
was going to improve our trade relationship, that deficit is projected 
to be $100 billion for this year. Not $2 billion a year, but $2 billion 
a week. On the basis of trade alone, this is a bad deal for the U.S.
  Intellectual property is supposed to be our competitive advantage. 
The International Intellectual Property Alliance reports that piracy 
rates in China continue to hover at the 90 percent level, an alarming 
increase in the production of pirate optical media products, including 
DVDs by licensed, as well as underground, CD plants. I will submit the 
full report in the record. Growing Internet piracy, growing production 
of higher-quality counterfeit products, and respective uses of 
unauthorized copies of software in government enterprises and 
ministries.
  The Bush administration report on agriculture is very bad. It says 
that the anticipated access for agricultural products has not been 
seen. So that was the big thing we held out last year. If you vote for 
this, our products will get into China. The access is just not there.
  On proliferation, China continues to proliferate weapons of mass 
destruction to rogue states, which we have now changed the name to 
``countries of concern,'' and to unsafe guarded states like Pakistan, 
North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya, making the world a less safe 
place.
  On the question of human rights, we were told if we gave China most-
favored-nation status, human rights would improve. The brutal 
occupation of Tibet continues. The human rights violations continue and 
are worsened. If you are a political dissident in China, you are either 
in jail or in exile.
  So I say to my colleagues, if we are standing here again next year, 
shame on us. I think we should finesse this issue. Next year we have to 
examine this policy closer.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution.
  Normal trade relations with China has been supported by every single 
President of the United States, Republican and Democratic alike, since 
1980. By continuing normal trade relations with China, we are neither 
providing China special treatment, nor are we endorsing China's 
policies. The United States is the only major country that does not 
extend permanent normal trade relations with China. China is also the 
world's largest economy that is not subject to the World Trade 
Organization's trade liberalization requirements.
  The vast majority of Members voted to grant PNTR status to China last 
year. This action is critical to advancing China's accession to the 
WTO, which will bring the Chinese into a rules-based trading system. It 
would also enable U.S. consumers and businesses to gain access to the 
broadest range of goods and services from China at the lowest prices. 
Restricting trade will only force our consumers to pay higher prices.
  Continuing normal trade relations with China serves our best economic 
interests. Approximately 200,000 U.S. jobs are tied directly to U.S. 
exports to China. Without this relationship, we would be placing 
American firms at a severe competitive disadvantage. American companies 
are setting an example in China. They are offering good jobs, fair 
compensation, and strong worker protections.
  While I share the concerns expressed by many of our colleagues 
regarding human rights abuses in China, discontinuing normal trade 
relations will not improve human rights in China. Instead of isolating 
China, we should be exposing the Chinese people to Western ideas and 
the rule of law.
  Bringing China into the global free enterprise economy will shine a 
much-needed light on its government. Last week's decision by the 
International Olympic Committee to award China the bid for the 2008 
games will put more pressure on the Chinese leadership to prove it is 
worthy of the designation and the international attention.
  Promoting normal trade and continued economic engagement over time 
will help open up China's economy and society. The way we engage the 
Chinese Government will help determine whether China assimilates into 
the community of nations or becomes more isolated and unpredictable. By 
revoking NTR with China, we would be standing alone on a trade policy 
that neither our allies nor trade competitors would follow. Our 
competitors would gain an advantage, consumers would pay higher retail 
prices, the Chinese people would suffer, and economic and political 
reform in China would be arrested.
  In short, we have much to lose and little to gain by failing to 
continue our current trading relationship with China. We should reject 
this resolution, and we should support continuing normal trade 
relations with China.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), who knows it is not right for U.S. 
taxpayers to subsidize businesses to close up here and set up shop on 
the mainland of China.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, let us get to the point: China is a 
communist dictatorship. China has threatened Taiwan, and even Los 
Angeles. As we speak, China is shipping arms to Cuba. China has just 
signed an agreement with Russia. China held 24 Americans hostage, no 
matter how you want to state it. China stole our secrets. China just 
recently illegally bought U.S. microchips to make more missiles. China 
already, according to the Pentagon, has missiles aimed at American 
cities. Hey, China is on record, according to the Pentagon, as 
referring to Uncle Sam as imperialist and, quote-unquote, ``the 
enemy.''
  Now, if that is not enough to spoil your stir-fry, China is taking 
$100 billion in trade surplus a year out of America. And we might 
laugh, but I believe that the Congress of the United States, with 
American taxpayer dollars, is funding World War III. World War III.
  A dragon does not negotiate with its prey; a dragon kills its prey. 
When are we going to wise up around here? China's record speaks for 
itself.
  My God, even the Pentagon bought the black berets from China. On the 
Mall, the symphony was performing on Independence Day, and vendors were 
passing out plastic Old Glories made in China.
  The last I heard, we were referred to around the world as Uncle Sam. 
So help me God, the way we are acting, the world is beginning to look 
at America as Uncle Sucker.
  I will have no part of this. There is an old saying: ``Better dead 
than red.'' This is a communist dictatorship. I want to give credit to 
former President Reagan, who crippled and dismantled communism, brought 
the Berlin Wall down, destroyed and destructed what he called that Evil 
Bear, the Soviet Union. And what we have done in the last 3 years, we 
not only reinvented communism, we are now starting to subsidize it. 
And, by God, we are funding, I believe, and I warn this Congress, a 
future World War III; and we had better be careful.
  With that I thank the gentleman for his time, and I support this 
resolution, and I think this resolution is more important than the 
consideration it is getting very flippantly from some economists in 
America.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the resolution that would 
revoke normal trade relations with China. I think very clearly doing 
this would be a destabilizing factor in our relationship. I am sure 
that is the intention of those who have this resolution today. I think 
it would steer China on a certain course towards isolationism and 
nationalism, and I would think that those

[[Page 13848]]

who support this resolution certainly do not independently intend that 
to happen, because that certainly is not in the interests of either 
country. That would be counterproductive, certainly to our own economic 
and to our foreign policy interests.
  There is nothing new in the debate really this year from what we had 
last year when we passed permanent normal trade relations. Nothing has 
changed since then. The reasons we supported PNTR last year are equally 
as valid as they were a year ago, and I say that despite the recent 
storms that we have had in U.S.-China relations. The recent downing of 
our aircraft and the holding of the plane and the crew for an 
inordinate length of time does not change the reasons that we need to 
have normal trade relations with that country.
  We must remember that if China is going to become a member of the 
World Trade Organization, it has to make dramatic policy changes. As a 
result, its economy is going to become more and more open, more and 
more capitalistic, in the future. Free market forces are growing and 
they are getting stronger in China. Economic liberty is on the rise, 
and that is exactly the course we want to help China navigate.
  If the U.S. revokes normal trade relations, it would be devastating 
to China's economic progress and hurt American consumers and workers in 
the process.
  I heard here earlier about how this is about the almighty dollar; and 
I say no, it is not about that. This is about making sure that China 
continues on a path towards opening its political and its economic 
system; and, yes, it does help American workers in the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the House to oppose this resolution 
and to defeat it.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who has fought human rights abuses in this 
country and wants to stop human rights abuses in China.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution. We must stand 
up for human rights and democracy throughout the world; not only here 
at home, but around the world.
  Where is the freedom of speech? Where is the freedom of assembly? 
Where is the freedom to organize? Where is the freedom to protest? 
Where is the freedom to pray? It is not in China.
  China continues to violate the human rights of its citizens. They 
continue to arrest people for practicing their own religion. They 
arrested two elderly bishops and 22 other Catholics at Easter, and more 
than 200 Falun Gong members have died in custody since 1999. They 
continue to execute their own people, nearly 1,800 people in the last 3 
months alone. They continue to imprison hundreds of people who 
participated in the pro-democracy protests of 1989. They continue to 
detain United States citizens without explanation. And we continue to 
reward China.
  What message are we sending to China? What message are we sending to 
the rest of the world? The people of China want to practice their own 
religion. They want to speak their mind. They want to live in a free 
and open and democratic society.
  If we stand for civil rights in America and other places in the 
world, we must stand for human rights in China and speak for those who 
are not free to speak for themselves. Today, with our vote, we have an 
opportunity to speak for the dignity of man and for the destiny of 
democracy.
  Now, I believe in trade, free and fair trade; but I do not believe in 
trade at any price, and the price to continue to grant normal trade 
relations with China is much too high.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution 
and send a message to China.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution. I 
brought this glass of water out here because, when we look at it, it is 
not quite clear whether it is half full or it is half empty. This 
debate is really a half-full, half-empty debate.
  I went to China first in 1977 with the first legislative delegation 
that got into China after Mao died in 1976. There were about 25 of us 
State legislators who traveled all over China. The Chinese people at 
this point dressed in either gray, if they were in the government; or 
blue, if they were a peasant; or green, if they were in the army. You 
could look around the whole place and there was not anything but gray 
and blue and green.
  In 1982, I went back to China with a group from Seattle to establish 
a sister city relationship with Chungking. I was one of the five 
official delegates who did that. We went to the largest city in China, 
Chungking in the west. At that point, immediately one noticed two 
things. One was people's clothing had begun to change. People were 
allowed to have a little free expression here and there. The second 
thing that happened was that people were not afraid to come up and talk 
in English.
  When we had been there in 1977, people who had been trained in Bible 
schools and all sorts of places in the United States and spoke good 
English were afraid to speak to you in the street in English. In 1982, 
that had changed. They were talking about development of free trade 
zones in Tianjin and other places in China.
  I went back to China in 1992, and the changes were even more dramatic 
in terms of the change in people's dress, the change in people's 
behavior. They were having dancing classes, doing western ballroom 
dancing out in the street in front of the Shanghai hotels.
  Now, we say that is all superficial, but it is very indicative of the 
changes that are occurring in China.
  Now, if I were to tell my colleagues that there were labor leaders in 
one of the states of China that had formed a union and they worked on 
the docks and they did not like the way things were going so they 
called a strike, and the governor of the State, the State Attorney 
General, actually, were to put those labor leaders in house arrest for 
an entire year for having a strike, I am sure somebody would be out 
here jumping up and down and telling me all about these terrible human 
rights violations going on in China.
  The description I just gave my colleagues is going on in South 
Carolina today. A black longshore union down in South Carolina has 
three or four labor leaders under house arrest for a year while the 
Attorney General runs for governor and uses them as his bait.
  Now, the Bible says that before you talk about the mote in our 
brother's eye, look at the plank in your own eye. We are not clean on 
all of these issues of human rights, and giving everybody opportunity. 
The Chinese have changed dramatically since 1977 when I first went 
there. Have they a long way to go? Of course.
  I have been to India and seen the Dalai Lama, seen the people who 
have fled from Tibet who live in Katmandu. I have seen all of the 
aspects of this. Many of them live in Seattle. And those are not right 
situations.
  And none of us who think we ought to keep the pressure on the Chinese 
to change, none of us who are supportive, at least none that I know who 
are supportive of continuing a trade relationship with China, for 1 
minute condone what is happening in Tibet or what is happening in a 
variety of slave situations in forced labor camps, none of that. But to 
walk away and say to one-fifth of the world's population, we have no 
interest in you, go your own way, do whatever you want; until you do it 
our way, we are not going to talk to you. We tried that.
  My Senator, Warren Magnuson, who was here for 44 years, said, the 
biggest mistake we ever made was in 1947 when Mao put his hand out to 
the United States and said he wanted to work with us, and we said, no, 
you are a Communist. We will not deal with a Communist.
  We closed the door on China from 1946 until a Republican President

[[Page 13849]]

showed up. I mean, I do not have many good things to say about Richard 
Nixon, but I will say he had the courage to go and reopen the door and 
say, closing the door does not work. We have lots of proof of that. And 
to go back to the pre-1972 era is simply not in either in our best 
interests or in the world's best interests.
  If the gentleman from Ohio is correct, that the Chinese are this 
great, fearful dragon, I think they are mythical animals, but, anyway, 
if they are really a fear to us, it is much better that we know them, 
that we are talking with them, that we are involved with them, and that 
we are using trade as a way to get them to adopt the rules of a civil 
world society, that is, the World Trade Organization.
  Everybody plays by the same rules. They have to make changes for that 
to work in the WTO. They cannot continue the way they have been, and 
they have not. They have been going gradually, not as fast as we would 
like, but the next time somebody tells us something has not changed in 
China in 10 years, remember, they have been there 6,000 years. They do 
not do things in a minute.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  This is a cup that, as we can all see, is empty, but I will submit to 
my colleague that there will be many people who will try to tell you 
that there is water in this cup. No. It is an empty cup. And no matter 
how much we would like it to be filled with water, it is not filled 
with water. No matter how much we would like to say that there has been 
human rights progress in China, there has been no human rights progress 
in China.
  In fact, the situation has retrogressed in the last few years. Japan 
was becoming highly westernized in the 1920s and 1930s. Berlin became a 
real party town compared to what it was when they were real poor and 
went through their economic hard times. Did this make Japan and Germany 
any less a threat to world peace? No. Today, China is, yes, advancing 
economically, but the money is being used by the militaristic elite to 
prepare for war and to attack the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  It is historically accurate to say, I believe, that political freedom 
can influence economic vitality. I think that that is a provable point. 
I think it is much more difficult to try to prove the opposite, that, 
in fact, economic freedom can somehow force political freedom. It is a 
very difficult thing to do, just as my colleague has described. In the 
past, economic freedom, economic vitality did not lead ipso facto to 
political freedom, which is the case that is made over and over in 
defense of NTR. It will not necessarily work that way.
  The gentleman from California earlier, in opposition to this bill, 
suggested that we have to deal with the fact that China is an emerging 
nation. Wow. Pretty profound. It is, in fact, yes, it is an emerging 
nation. No one can deny that. No one does deny that.
  What kind of an emerging nation is China? It is a nation that in the 
last year has increased military capabilities to threaten Taiwan; 
exploded a neutron bomb a little over a year ago, that event went 
widely unpublicized; constructed 11 naval bases around the Spratley and 
Paracel Island group; convicted a U.S. scholar of spying for Taiwan; 
jailed or exiled every major dissident in China; closed or destroyed 
thousands of unregistered religious institutions; arrested 35 
Christians for worshipping outside the official church and sentenced 
them indefinitely to forced labor camps; expanded the total number of 
slave labor camps to around 1,100; expanded the industry of harvesting 
and selling human organs.
  The government intensified crackdowns in the treatment of political 
dissidents in Tibet; suppressed any person or group perceived to 
threaten the government. Hundreds of Falun Gong have been imprisoned. 
Thousands of practitioners remained in detention or were sentenced to 
reeducation-through-labor camps or incarcerated in mental institutions. 
China has increased the number of extrajudicial killings; increased the 
use of torture, forced confessions, arbitrary arrest and detention, the 
mistreatment of prisoners, lengthy incommunicado detention, and the 
denial of due process.
  In May, the U.N. Committee Against Torture issued a report critical 
of continuing serious incidents of torture, especially involving 
national minorities; and, of course, last but not least, forced down an 
American plane and held 24 Americans hostage.
  This since we passed PNTR. This is the result. This is what we got 
for doing what we did. What can we expect, do my colleagues think? I 
quake to think what we can expect from a continued relationship of this 
nature.
  Trade. The issue of trade has come up so many times. The term trade 
we throw around here so lightly implies a two-way street. It implies an 
action we take, they take. We sell, they buy. No, it is not what is 
happening. Mr. Speaker, $100 billion later we explain to the rest of 
the world that this trade has not worked out to our advantage. And what 
makes us think that it ever will?
  I suggest only this: Please, when the gentleman earlier said that 
companies are setting an example in China, he is right, and here is the 
example they are setting. Those companies are putting profit above 
patriotism. Please do not encourage that kind of behavior. Vote for 
this resolution.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. J. Res. 50, which 
would terminate Normal Trade Relations with China 60 days after 
enactment. This resolution jeopardizes the jobs and livelihoods of 
nearly 400,000 American workers and their families who depend upon 
trade with China. It also sells out millions more Chinese striving hard 
to reform a nation with an exceptionally complex and painful past, and 
for what? Let me suggest that there is a better way.
  Commercial engagement with China has been and continues to be the 
cornerstone of America's productive and maturing relationship with 
China. Since the historic 1979 U.S.-China Agreement on Trade, every 
American President has understood the importance of integrating China 
and its one-fifth share of humanity into the international system. 
Since the end of the destructive Maoist era, I believe that China has 
been experiencing nothing less than a ``great awakening.'' In ever-
larger strides China has proceeded to open its doors to free enterprise 
and engage in international trade and commerce, now reaching $500 
billion per year.
  On October 10 last year, President Clinton signed legislation that 
terminated the provision of the 1974 Jackson-Vanik statute that 
requires the annual consideration of China's Normal Trade Relations 
status, NTR. By a vote of 237 to 197, the House voiced its unwavering, 
bipartisan support for the reforms taking place in China and committed 
to extend Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, status to China when 
it becomes a member of the World Trade Organization.
  Under the accession agreement, our tariffs on Chinese imports will 
not change, while Chinese tariffs on our exports will be sharply 
reduced, giving us access to 1.2 billion customers. This agreement also 
requires China to undertake a wide range of market-opening reforms to 
key sectors of its economy still under state control, covering 
agriculture, industrial goods and services.
  On June 11, Ambassador Zoellick reached a breakthrough agreement with 
China on most of our remaining bilateral trade liberalization issues. 
In light of the progress made so far, it is very possible that China 
will become a WTO member by the end of this year. Therefore, it appears 
that Congress needs to reauthorize NTR status one last time for the 
span of just a few months.

                              {time}  1715

  In light of our historic PNTR vote last fall, we must keep moving 
forward toward our common goal of integrating China into the 
international system of rules and standards. After 15 years, we are 
almost there.

[[Page 13850]]

  Mr. Speaker, relations with China this year have been anything but 
smooth. We are all angered and frustrated by the two steps forward, one 
step backward behavior of the Beijing government. The world expects 
much more from China.
  Yet, denying China NTR will not bring about political and religious 
freedom for the Chinese. In fact, it will have a quite opposite effect. 
A better way to America's long-term national security interests in 
China and the Asian region will be to help China begin this century on 
an economic reform path shaped and refined by the economic trade rules 
of the WTO, and I urge a no vote on House Joint Resolution 50.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller) to control the time on our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who believes we should not 
reward a nation that uses slave labor to sell products to the United 
States.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, we need to expect more from ourselves 
first of all, not the Chinese government. I do not need the unions to 
tell me what to do on this issue, I do not need the churches, the 
synagogues, I do not need environmental groups, because this is what I 
carry with me, the Constitution of the United States, since I raised my 
hand.
  This is what this is all about, article 1, Section 8. It gives to the 
Congress of the United States the power to deal in trade.
  What we are doing, this is the last vote we are ever going to have on 
this issue. Think about that, Members, we are not going to be able to 
change anything. This is the last vote that we are going to have on 
trade with China.
  We, who have been voted by the public not the trade representatives 
of the United States, who did not stand for election, I stood for 
election, the Members stood for election, we stood for election, we 
have an obligation to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the 
Constitution.
  To China, I say I thank them for returning a New Jersey citizen they 
detained for 5 months without cause. I thank them. The opponents of 
this resolution will call this unfortunate. For this noble act, not 
only do they deserve the Olympics in 2008, but please take a 
continuation of the most-favored-nation status.
  Has China done anything to warrant our continuation of most-favored-
nation status? No. The Chinese government has abused its citizens, 
tortured its prisoners, held Americans hostage, and is doing its part 
to destroy the Earth's environment.
  We must not reward these heinous actions by giving them American 
jobs, exporting them one after the other.
  I plead with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to take a small step, a 
temporary step, and revoke MFN that the Chinese want and do not 
deserve.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I hear this debate; and some of it bothers me because I 
do not want to go back to the Cold War. I do not want to bring about 
new hostilities between the United States and China and other countries 
of the world. I do not think the United States should be the Big 
Brother of the world. I do not think that we have all the answers in 
the world, as well.
  I am for fair trade, I am for free trade, and I am in support of the 
normal trade relations with China. We know the importance of trade. Can 
Members imagine not trading with a country with a population of 1.3 
billion people? They are on a land area approximately the same size as 
the United States. The only difference is, we have about 300 million 
people and they have 1 billion more people than we have. They have one-
fifth of the world's population.
  Yet, we are saying because we do not necessarily like their human 
rights record, which I do not, and they do not have the same democratic 
principles as the United States, that we are not going to trade with 
them under normal trade relations?
  We do not need to raise the walls of isolation and separatism. I 
believe that the best approach to improving our relationship with the 
most populous country in the world is through diplomatic and economic 
channels. Revoking trade relations with China jeopardizes the U.S. 
economy. The expansion of markets abroad for U.S. goods and services is 
critical to sustaining our country's economic expansion.
  The United States has a lot of softness, do we not, in our economy 
today? We do not need to worsen it. It most certainly will hurt 
American workers, who will see their jobs disappear if exporting 
opportunities to China are lost.
  A policy of principled, purposeful engagement with China remains the 
best way to advance U.S. interests. Extending to China the same normal 
trade relations we have with virtually every country in the world will 
promote American prosperity and security and foster greater openness in 
China.
  We have serious differences with China, and I will continue to deal 
forthrightly with the Chinese on these differences. But revoking normal 
trade relations would rupture our relationship with the country of 
China. As we foster a better relationship with the Chinese based on 
trade and commerce and diplomacy, we can also work to establish 
increased freedoms and democracy for the 1.3 billion people that live 
there.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a leader of the Human Rights Caucus, who has been 
a champion of human rights here in the Congress.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and in 
opposition to PNTR.
  In some respects, listening to the debate in my office and reading 
about it, this reminds me of the time when Winston Churchill used to 
rise in the House of Commons to talk about the threat of Nazi Germany. 
They did not listen to Winston Churchill; and frankly, I do not think 
the country is listening today.
  This is an issue of values. Mary McCrory in The Washington Post said 
the other day in her column, ``We talk human rights, but we act like 
shopkeepers. We are listening to the cash register.''
  We are listening to the sounds of the cash register, but we are not 
listening to the Catholic bishops, ten of them, that are in jail, and 
one because he gave holy communion to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith), and he still has not gotten out. We are not listening to 
the sounds of agony of the Protestant pastors. Those who said they care 
about the church and the persecution, we listen to the sound of the 
cash registers.
  They get down here and talk about the Dalai Lama in Tibet. I have 
been there and I have seen the persecution of the Muslims, but we are 
listening to the cash registers.
  Harry Wu will tell us, when the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) 
and I went to Beijing Prison Number 1, where there were 40 Tiananmen 
Square demonstrators, and some are still there, but we listen to the 
sounds of the cash registers.
  For this side of the aisle, we name buildings after Ronald Reagan, 
but if we want to honor Ronald Reagan we should vote NTR down. Ronald 
Reagan not only did not give MFN to the Soviet Union; in 1986, he took 
away MFN for Romania. It was my bill, and the bill of the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall).
  Ronald Reagan understood. He never gave it to them. He talked about 
values. The Soviet Union did not because we gave them MFN, the Soviet 
Union fell because Ronald Reagan stood up to them, the Pope stood up to 
them, the AFL-CIO and Lane Kirkland stood up to them, and not just 
grant them trade.
  We talk about freedom,we talk about human rights. But as Mary McCrory 
said, ``Frankly, this Congress and this

[[Page 13851]]

country,'' and quite frankly, the Bush administration, the Bush 
administration had better be careful it does not emulate the Clinton 
administration. Clinton talked about it but did nothing about it. This 
administration had better be careful. We talk about human rights, we 
act like shopkeepers. We are just listening to the cash registers, not 
to the bishops, not to the pastors, not to the Members of Congress, not 
to the people in the slave labor camps.
  There are more slave labor camps in China today than there were when 
Solzhenitsyn wrote the book Gulag Archipelago. Let us listen to them 
and not to the cash registers.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we as a legislative body face reality 
about the People's Republic of China. We've annually debated trade 
relations with China. We've heard about human rights abuses, religious 
persecution, nuclear arms sales. And it has annually been the will of 
the Congress that we engage in trade with China with the expectation 
that human rights would improve and that China would get on the road to 
democracy.
  But the expectations have fallen far short. As we have increased 
trade, the human rights situation in China has grown worse. For the 
past two years, the Department of State's annual report on human rights 
in China has stated this clearly, saying: ``the Government's poor human 
rights record has deteriorated markedly'' and ``the Government's poor 
human rights record worsened, and it continued to commit numerous 
serious abuses.''
  Giving China most favored nation status hasn't changed for the better 
the lives of thousands of men and women languishing in forced labor 
prison camps. Human rights violations in China are about people who are 
suffering. Human rights violations in China are about people of faith 
being thrown into a dismal prison cell because of their faith.
  When China violates its own citizens' human rights, people die, 
people suffer and families are torn apart.
  I recently read the graphic testimony of a Chinese doctor who 
participated in the removal of organs and skin from executed prisoners 
in China. Dr. Wang Guoqi was a skin and burn specialist employed at a 
People's Liberation Army hospital. He recently testified before the 
House International Relations Subcommittee on International 
Organizations, and Human Rights on the Government of China's 
involvement in the execution, extraction, and trafficking of prisoner's 
organs.
  Dr. Wang writes that his work ``required me to remove skin and 
corneas from the corpses of over one hundred executed prisoners, and, 
on a couple of occasions, victims of intentionally botched 
executions.''
  What kind of government skins alive and sells the organs of its own 
citizens?
  The Government of China also persecutes and imprisons people because 
of their religious beliefs. The U.S. Department of State recently sent 
me a letter, on the status of religious freedom in China, which I 
enclose for the record. This letter states that the Government of China 
persecutes believers of many faiths, including Roman Catholics, 
Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and Protestant Christians.
  It is estimated that some ``ten Catholic Bishops, scores of Catholic 
priests and [Protestant] house church leaders, 100-300 Tibetan 
Buddhists, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Falun Gong adherents, and an 
unknown but possible significant number of Muslims are in various forms 
of detention in China for the expression of their religious or 
spiritual beliefs.''
  What kind of government imprisons its nation's religious leaders?
  Compass Direct, a news service that monitors international religious 
freedom reports that ``Christian leaders in both the unofficial house 
churches and the registered `Three Self' churches in eastern China 
confirmed . . . that there is increased pressure against the church in 
China.''
  When China violates its own citizens' human rights, people die, 
people suffer and families are torn apart.
  Today is the 159th day a mother and wife and permanent U.S. resident 
has spent in a Chinese jail. Dr. Gao Zhan is a researcher at American 
University here in Washington, D.C. She is my constituent. She studies 
women's issues. One hundred and fifty-nine days ago, Chinese 
authorities detained Gao Zhan and her husband and their 5-year-old son, 
Andrew. In the matter of an instant, this happy young family was torn 
apart by the regime in Beijing. A 5-year-old child was taken from his 
parents, a young couple was divided by prison walls and armed guards. 
Imagine how you would feel if the Government of China did this to your 
family. Imagine how you would feel if the Government of China put your 
5-year-old son in prison.
  What kind of government imprisons mothers who are academic experts on 
women's issues?
  News reports indicate that the Government of China is due to deport 
American citizen Li Shaomin, whom the Chinese have imprisoned for 
several months and whom they recently convicted of espionage. While I 
am hopeful that Li Shaomin will be released, I also call on the Chinese 
Government to immediately release Gao Zhan, mother, scholar and devoted 
wife. I also call on the government of China to release the remaining 
American permanent residents and citizens it has arrested on trumped-up 
charges, including Wu Jianmin, Tan Guangguang, Teng Chunyan, Liu Yaping 
and others.
  Last year during the debate on PNTR, I expressed concern ``about the 
alliance that seems to be forming between China and Russia against the 
U.S.'' Now, this week, Russia and China have signed a treaty of 
``Friendship and Cooperation'' that I enclose for the Record. Article 9 
of this treaty outlines what China and Russia mean by agreeing to 
``friendship'' and ``cooperation'':

       Article 9. If one party to the treaty believes that there 
     is a threat of aggression menacing peace, wrecking peace, and 
     involving its security interests and is aimed at one of the 
     parties, the two parties will immediately make contact and 
     hold consultations in order to eliminate the threat that has 
     arisen.

  China is purchasing sophisticated weapons systems from Russia that 
could place in harm's way, the lives of U.S. service members and U.S. 
capabilities in Asia. Russia has sold China an ``estimated $1.5 billion 
worth of weapons contracts last year alone,'' according to a July 12 
article from Jane's Defense Weekly. Jane's also reports that 
``strategic cooperation between Beijing and Moscow has also extended 
beyond their bilateral relationship to include neighboring states . . . 
for co-operation on military and other issues.''
  Jane's also reports that the PLA has increased its official defense 
budget by 18 percent this year and that ``the [Chinese] military enjoys 
additional funding from other classified government programmes, such as 
for foreign arms procurements and weapons research and development.''
  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 these weapons of mass 
destruction could be targeted against American troops.
  There have been numerous reports that the Chinese military views the 
U.S. as its primary threat. Evidence of this militaristic view toward 
the U.S. may be seen in China's unacceptable behavior in the downing of 
the U.S. surveillance aircraft and detainment of the crew. China's 
behavior in this incident and its subsequent piecemeal dismemberment of 
the aircraft by the Chinese is an affront to the U.S. and is further 
evidence that China views the U.S. as a threat.
  In light of the downing and detainment of the U.S. surveillance 
aircraft and crew, in light of the new Russian-Chinese treaty, in light 
of China's increased military budget, because of China's proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction, because of China's viewing the U.S. as 
being their primary threat, why would Congress want to give China 
normal trade relations (NTR) and all the benefits that come with NTR? 
Giving China NTR will give away any leverage the U.S. has on these and 
other issues of concern.
  Successive Presidents and previous Congresses have acted to trade 
with the People's Republic of China expecting China's human rights 
record to improve and the growth of democracy. After nearly two decades 
in which China has received most favored nation status, it is clear 
religious freedom, human rights and democracy have been given lip 
service by the Chinese government.
  If the U.S. wants to help bring democracy to China, it cannot 
continue to give China a blank check in the form of normalized trade 
relations. As Lawrence F. Kaplan writes in a July 9 article from The 
New Republic, ``. . . to pretend we can democratize China by means of 
economics is, finally, a self-serving conceit. Democracy is a political 
choice, an act of will. Someone, not something must create it.'' I 
enclose it for the record.
  It is clear that many years of giving China NTR has not helped 
advance democracy in China. Arguably, giving China NTR has made the 
prospects for democracy in China worse and may actually be standing in 
the way of creating democracy in China.
  It is time to try something new in our China policy. If the U.S. 
wants to see the growth of

[[Page 13852]]

democracy and see China's human rights record to improve, the U.S. 
ought to review trade relations with China on an annual basis, until 
the Chinese government proves that it will treat its own people, its 
mothers, fathers, religious leaders and even common criminals with the 
dignity, compassion and respect that all human life deserves.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article and a letter 
relating to human rights and trade with China:

                Why Trade Won't Bring Democracy to China

                        (By Lawrence F. Kaplan)

       On February 25, business professor and writer Li Shaomin 
     left his home in Hong Kong to visit a friend in the mainland 
     city of Shenzhen. His wife and nine-year-old daughter haven't 
     heard from him since. That's because, for four months now, Li 
     has been rotting in a Chinese prison, where he stands accused 
     of spying for Taiwan. Never mind that Li is an American 
     citizen. And never mind that the theme of his writings, 
     published in subversive organs like the U.S.-China Business 
     Council's China Business Review, is optimism about China's 
     investment climate. Li, it turns out, proved too optimistic 
     for his own good. In addition to rewarding foreign investors, 
     he believed that China's economic growth would create, as he 
     put it in a 1999 article, a ``rule-based governance system.'' 
     But as Li has since discovered, China's leaders have other 
     plans.
       Will American officials ever make the same discovery? Like 
     Li, Washington's most influential commentators, politicians, 
     and China hands claim we can rely on the market to transform 
     China. According to this new orthodoxy, what counts is not 
     China's political choices but rather its economic 
     orientation, particularly its degree of integration into the 
     global economy. The cliche has had a narcotic effect on 
     President Bush, who, nearly every time he's asked about 
     China, suggests that trade will accomplish the broader aims 
     of American policy.
       Bush hasn't revived Bill Clinton's recklessly historical 
     claim that the United States can build ``peace through trade, 
     investment, and commerce.'' He has, however, latched onto 
     another of his predecessor's high-minded rationales for 
     selling Big Macs to Beijing--namely, that commerce will act, 
     in Clinton's words, as ``a force for change in China, 
     exposing China to our ideas and our ideals.'' In this 
     telling, capitalism isn't merely a necessary precondition for 
     democracy in China. It's a sufficient one. Or, as Bush puts 
     it, ``Trade freely with China, and time is on our side.'' As 
     Congress prepares to vote for the last time on renewing 
     China's normal trading relations (Beijing's impending entry 
     into the World Trade Organization will put an end to the 
     annual ritual), you'll be hearing the argument a lot: To 
     promote democracy, the United States needn't apply more 
     political pressure to China. All we need to do is more 
     business there.
       Alas, the historical record isn't quite so clear. Tolerant 
     cultural traditions, British colonization, a strong civil 
     society, international pressure, American military occupation 
     and political influence--these are just a few of the 
     explanations scholars credit as the source of freedom in 
     various parts of the world. And even when economic conditions 
     do hasten the arrival of democracy, it's not always obvious 
     which ones. After all, if economic factors can be said to 
     account for democracy's most dramatic advance--the implosion 
     of the Soviet Union and its Communist satellites--surely the 
     most important factor was economic collapse.
       And if not every democracy emerged through capitalism, it's 
     also true that not every capitalist economy has produced a 
     democratic government. One hundred years ago in Germany and 
     Japan, 30 years ago in countries such as Argentina and 
     Brazil, and today in places like Singapore and Malaysia, 
     capitalist development has buttressed, rather than 
     undermined, authoritarian regimes. And these models are 
     beginning to look a lot more like contemporary China than the 
     more optimistic cases cited by Beijing's American 
     enthusiasts. In none of these cautionary examples did the 
     free market do the three things businessmen say it always 
     does: weaken the coercive power of the state, create a 
     democratically minded middle class, or expose the populace to 
     liberal ideals from abroad. It isn't doing them in China 
     either.
       One of the most important ways capitalism should foster 
     democracy is by diminishing the power of the state. Or, as 
     Milton Friedman put it in Capitalism and Freedom. ``[t]he 
     kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom 
     directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes 
     political freedom because it separates economic power from 
     political power and in this way enables the one to offset the 
     other.'' In his own way, Bush makes the same point about 
     China: ``I believe a whiff of freedom in the marketplace will 
     cause there to be more demand for democracy.'' But the theory 
     isn't working so well in the People's Republic, whose brand 
     of capitalism isn't quite what Adam Smith had in mind.
       China's market system derives, instead, from a pathological 
     model of economic development. Reeling from the economic 
     devastation of the Mao era, Deng Xiaoping and his fellow 
     party leaders in the late 1970s set China on a course toward 
     ``market socialism.'' The idea was essentially the same one 
     that guided the New Economic Policy in Soviet Russia 50 years 
     before: a mix of economic liberalization and political 
     repression, which would boost China's economy without 
     weakening the Communist Party. And so, while leaving the 
     party in control of China's political life, Deng junked many 
     of the economy's command mechanisms--granting state-owned 
     enterprises more autonomy, opening the country to limited 
     investment, and replacing aging commissars with a 
     semiprofessional bureaucracy. The recipe worked well: China 
     has racked up astronomical growth rates ever since. And 
     democracy seems as far away as ever.
       The reason isn't simply that government repression keeps 
     economic freedom from yielding political freedom. It's that 
     China's brand of economic reform contains ingredients that 
     hinder--and were consciously devised to hinder--political 
     reform. The most obvious is that, just as the state retains a 
     monopoly on the levers of coercion, it also remains perched 
     atop the commanding heights of China's economy. True, China 
     has been gradually divesting itself of state-owned 
     enterprises, and the process should quicken once China enters 
     the World Trade Organization (WTO). But Beijing's leaders 
     have said they will continue to support China's most 
     competitive and critical industries. Taking a cue from 
     authoritarian South Korea during the 1980's, China's leaders 
     have proposed sponsoring industrial conglomerates in crucial 
     sectors of the economy, transformed industrial ministries 
     into ``general associations,'' merged failing state-owned 
     firms with more successful ones, and established 
     organizations to, as Chinese economist Xue Muqiao has put it, 
     ``serve as a bridge between the state and the enterprises.''
       But that's where any similarities with South Korea end. 
     Unlike South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan, which 
     evolved from authoritarianism (and did so, significantly, as 
     de facto protectorates of the United States), China even 
     today has no effective system of property rights--a signature 
     trait that distinguishes its Communist regime from 
     traditional authoritarian ones. The absence of a private-
     property regime in China means that, at the end of the day, 
     the state controls nearly the entire edifice on which China's 
     ``free'' markets rest. It also means that China's brand of 
     capitalism blurs, rather than clarifies, the distinction 
     between the public and the private realms on which political 
     liberty depends. Nor is that the only requisite for democracy 
     that China's markets lack. As the imprisonment of Li Shaomin 
     and thousands of other political prisoners attests, 
     capitalism in the PRC still operates within the confines of 
     an arbitrary legal order and a party-controlled court system. 
     ``China is still a lawless environment,'' says University of 
     Pennsylvania sinologist Arthur Waldron. ``Whether in terms of 
     individual rights or the rights of entrepreneurs, interests 
     are protected not by institutions but by special 
     relationships with those in power.''
       Before he was arrested, Li diagnosed this condition as 
     ``relation-based capitalism.'' What he meant was that 
     relations with government officials, not property rights or 
     the rule of law, underpin the Chinese market. Because the 
     political foundations of China's economy remain the exclusive 
     property of the state, China's entrepreneurs operate with a 
     few degrees of separation, but without true autonomy, from 
     the government. Hence, capital, licenses, and contracts flow 
     to those with connections to officials and to their friends 
     and relatives, who, in turn, maintain close relations with, 
     and remain beholden to, the regime. Their firms operate, in 
     the words of Hong Kong-based China specialist David Sweig, 
     ``[l]ike barnacles on ships, . . . draw[ing] their sustenance 
     from their parastatal relationships with the ministries from 
     which they were spun off.''
       Helping to keep all these distortions in place are Deng's 
     functionaries, who now constitute the world's largest 
     bureaucracy and still control the everyday levers of the 
     Chinese economy. Today, they function as the engines and 
     administrators of a market increasingly driven by skimming 
     off the top. The foreign-trade sector offers particularly 
     easy pickings. In 1995, for instance, the World Bank found 
     that while China's nominal tariff rate was 32 percent, only a 
     6 percent rate was officially collected. Presumably, much of 
     the difference went into the pockets of Chinese officials. 
     And even though WTO accession will reduce opportunities for 
     rent-seeking from inflated trade tariffs, China's bureaucracy 
     will be able to continue siphoning funds from distorted 
     interest rates, the foreign exchange markets, and virtually 
     any business transaction that requires its involvement--which 
     is to say, nearly every business transaction. Nor is the 
     problem merely the corrupting influence these bureaucrats 
     wield over China's markets. The larger problem is that, 
     whereas in the United States the private sector wields 
     enormous influence over the political class, in China the 
     reverse is true.
       For precisely this reason, Washington's celebrations of the 
     democratic potential of the new Chinese ``middle class'' may 
     be premature. ``Entrepreneurs, once condemned as

[[Page 13853]]

     `counterrevolutionaries,' are now the instruments of reform. 
     . . . [T]his middle class will eventually demand broad 
     acceptance of democratic values,'' House Majority Whip Tom 
     DeLay insisted last year. Reading from the same script, 
     President Bush declares that trade with China will ``help an 
     entrepreneurial class and a freedom-loving class grow and 
     burgeon and become viable.'' Neither DeLay nor Bush, needless 
     to say, invented the theory that middle classes have nothing 
     to lose but their chains. In the first serious attempt to 
     subject the ties between economic and political 
     liberalization to empirical scrutiny, Seymour Martin Lipset 
     published a study in 1959, Some Social Requisites of 
     Democracy, which found that economic development led to, 
     among other things, higher levels of income equality, 
     education, and, most important, the emergence of a socially 
     moderate middle class--all factors that promote 
     democratization. More recent studies have found that rising 
     incomes also tend to correlate with participation in 
     voluntary organizations and other institutions of ``civil 
     society,'' which further weakens the coercive power of the 
     state.
       But middle classes aren't always socially moderate, and 
     they don't always oppose the state. Under certain conditions, 
     late modernizing economies breed middle classes that actively 
     oppose political change. In each of these cases, a strong 
     state, not the market, dictates the terms of economic 
     modernization. And, in each case, an emerging entrepreneurial 
     class too weak to govern on its own allies itself--
     economically and, more importantly, politically--with a 
     reactionary government and against threats to the established 
     order. In his now-classic study Social Origins of 
     Dictatorship and Democracy, sociologist Barrington Moore 
     famously revealed that, in these ``revolutions from above,'' 
     capitalist transformations weakened rather than strengthened 
     liberalism. In the case of nineteenth-century Japan, Moore 
     writes that the aim of those in power was to ``preserve as 
     much as possible of the advantages the ruling class had 
     enjoyed under the ancient regime, cutting away just enough . 
     . . to preserve the state, since they would otherwise lose 
     everything.'' Japan's rulers could do this only with the aid 
     of a commercial class, which eagerly complied, exchanging its 
     political aspirations for profits. On this point, at least, 
     Marx and Engels had things right. Describing the 1848 
     revolution in Germany, they traced its failure partly to the 
     fact that, at the end of the day, entrepreneurs threw their 
     support not behind the liberal insurrectionists but behind 
     the state that was the source of their enrichment.
       Much the same process is unfolding in China, where economic 
     and political power remain deeply entwined. In fact, China's 
     case is even more worrisome than its historical antecedents. 
     In Germany and Japan, after all, an entrepreneurial class 
     predated the state's modernization efforts, enjoyed property 
     rights, and as a result, possessed at least some autonomous 
     identity, In China, which killed off its commercial class in 
     the 1950s, the state had to create a new one. Thus China's 
     emerging bourgeoisie consist over-whelmingly of state 
     officials, their friends and business partners, and--to the 
     extent they climbed the economic ladder independently--
     entrepreneurs who rely on connections with the official 
     bureaucracy for their livelihoods. ``It is improbable, to say 
     the least,'' historian Maurice Meisner writes in The Deng 
     Xiaoping Era: An Inquiry Into the Fate of Chinese Socialism, 
     ``that a bourgeoisie whose economic fortunes are so dependent 
     on the political fortunes of the Communist state is likely to 
     mount a serious challenge to the authority of that state . . 
     . the members of China's new bourgeoisie emerge more as 
     agents of the state than as potential antagonists.''
       A steady diet of chauvinistic nationalism hasn't helped. In 
     the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre, party leaders 
     launched a ``patriotism'' campaign, a sentiment they defined 
     as ``loving the state'' as well as the Communist Party. As 
     the Shanghai-based scholar and party apologist Xiao Gongqin 
     explains, ``[T]he overriding issue of China's modernization 
     is how, under new historical circumstances, to find new 
     resources of legitimacy so as to achieve social and moral 
     integration in the process of social transition.'' To Xiao 
     and others like him, the answer is nationalism. And, as 
     anyone who turned on a television during the recent EP-3 
     episode may have noticed, it's working. Indeed, independent 
     opinion polling conducted by the Public Opinion Research 
     Institute of People's University (in association with Western 
     researchers, who published their findings in 1997), indicate 
     greater public support for China's Communist regime than 
     similar surveys found a decade earlier. And, contrary to what 
     development theory might suggest, the new nationalism appears 
     to have infected the middle class--particularly university 
     students and intellectuals--more acutely than it has China's 
     workers and farmers. ``The [closeness of the] relationship 
     between the party and intellectuals is as bad as in the 
     Cultural Revolution,'' a former official in the party's 
     propaganda arm noted in 1997. Even many of China's exiled 
     dissidents have fallen under its spell.
       In addition to being independent of the regime and 
     predisposed toward liberal values, China's commercial class 
     is supposed to be busily erecting an independent civil 
     society. But, just as China's Communist system restricts 
     private property, it prohibits independent churches and labor 
     unions, truly autonomous social organizations, and any other 
     civic institutions that might plausibly compete with the 
     state. Indeed, China's leaders seem to have read Robert 
     Putnam's Bowling Alone and the rest of the civil-society 
     canon--and decided to do exactly the reverse of what the 
     literature recommends. ``Peasants will establish peasants' 
     organizations as well, then China will become another 
     Poland,'' senior party official Yao Yilin reportedly warned 
     during the Tiananmen protests. To make sure this fear never 
     comes true, China's leaders have dealt with any hint of an 
     emerging civil society in one of two ways: repression or co-
     optation. Some forbidden organizaions--such as Falun Gong, 
     the Roman Catholic Church, independent labor unions, and 
     organizations associated with the 1989 democracy movement--
     find their members routinely imprisoned and tortured. Others, 
     such as the Association of Urban Unemployed, are merely 
     monitored and harassed. And as for the officially sanctioned 
     organizations that impress so many Western observers, they 
     mostly constitute a Potemkin facade. ``[A]lmost every 
     ostensibly independent organization--institutes, foundations, 
     consultancies--is linked into the party-state network,'' says 
     Columbia University sinologist Andrew Nathan. Hence, 
     Beijing's Ministry of Civil Affairs monitors even sports 
     clubs and business associations and requires all such groups 
     to register with the government.
       The same kind of misreading often characterizes 
     celebrations of rural China's ``village committees,'' whose 
     democratic potential the engagement lobby routinely touts. 
     Business Week discerns in them evidence ``of the grassroots 
     democracy beginning to take hold in China.'' But that's not 
     quite right. China's leaders restrict committee elections to 
     the countryside and, even there, to the most local level. 
     Nor, having been legally sanctioned 14 years ago, do they 
     constitute a recent development. More important, China's 
     leaders don't see the elections the way their American 
     interpreters do. In proposing them, says Jude Howell, co-
     author of In Search of Civil Society: Market Reform and 
     Social Change in Contemporary China, party elites argued that 
     elected village leaders ``would find it easier to implement 
     central government policy and in particular persuade 
     villagers to deliver grain and taxes and abide by family 
     planning policy. Village self-governance would thus foster 
     social stability and order and facilitate the implementation 
     of national policy. By recruiting newly elected popular and 
     entrepreneurial village leaders, the Party could strengthen 
     its roots at the grassroots level and bolster its legitimacy 
     in the eyes of the rural residents.'' Which is exactly what 
     it has done. In races for village committee chairs, the 
     Ministry of Civil Affairs allows only two candidates to stand 
     for office, and until recently many townships nominated only 
     one. Local party secretaries and officials often push their 
     favored choice, and most committee members are also members 
     of the Communist Party, to which they remain accountable. 
     Should a nonparty member be elected, he must accept the 
     guidance of the Communist Party, which, in any case, 
     immediately sets about recruiting him. As for those rare 
     committee members who challenge local party officials, their 
     success may be gleaned from the fate of elected committee 
     members from a village in Shandong province who in 1999 
     accused a local party secretary of corruption. All were 
     promptly arrested.
       Still, the very fact that China's leaders feel compelled to 
     bolster their legitimacy in the countryside is telling. Last 
     month Beijing took the unusual step of releasing a report 
     ``Studies of Contradictions Within the People Under New 
     Conditions,'' which detailed a catalogue of ``collective 
     protests and group incidents.'' What the report makes clear 
     is that Beijing's leaders think China's growing pool of 
     overtaxed farmers and unemployed workers, more than its newly 
     moneyed elites, could become a threat to the regime. 
     Fortunately for the authorities, with no political opposition 
     to channel labor unrest into a coherent movement, protests 
     tend to be narrow in purpose and poorly coordinated. And the 
     wheels of repression have already begun to grind, with 
     Beijing launching a ``strike hard'' campaign to quell any 
     trouble. In any case, what these formerly state-employed 
     workers have been demonstrating for is not less communism, 
     but more--a return to the salad days of central planning.
       Which brings us to the final tenet of the engagement lobby: 
     that commerce exposes China to the ideals of its trading 
     partners, particularly those of the United States. As House 
     Majority Leader Dick Armey has put it, ``Freedom to trade is 
     the great subversive and liberating force in human history.'' 
     Or, as Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger burbled 
     in 1997, ``The fellow travelers of the new global economy--
     computers and modems, faxes and photocopiers, increased 
     contacts and binding contracts--carry with them the seeds of 
     change.'' But the Chinese disagree. To begin with, they don't 
     import much. And economists predict that won't change 
     dramatically once they've joined the

[[Page 13854]]

     WTO, since China's leaders have committed themselves to the 
     kind of export-oriented, mercantilist growth model that South 
     Korea, Japan, and Taiwan pursued in decades past. Last year, 
     for instance, China exported $100 billion in goods and 
     services to the United States and only imported $16 billion 
     worth. Hence, for every six modems it sent to America, Sandy 
     Berger sent back only one.
       To be sure, that one modem may carry with it seeds of 
     change. Bush, for instance, says, ``If the Internet were to 
     take hold in China, freedom's genie will be out of the 
     bottle.'' Alas, through links to Chinese service providers, 
     Beijing tightly controls all access to the Web. And Western 
     investors in China's information networks have eagerly 
     pitched in. One Chinese Internet portal, bankrolled by Intel 
     and Goldman Sachs, greets users with a helpful reminder to 
     avoid ``topics which damage the reputation of the state'' and 
     warns that it will be ``obliged to report you to the Public 
     Security Bureau'' if you don't. But Goldman Sachs needn't 
     worry. If anything, China's recent experience lends credence 
     to the pessimistic theories of an earlier era, which held 
     that nations shape the uses of technology rather than the 
     other ways around. Thus Beijing blocks access to damaging 
     ``topics'' and to Western news sources like The New York 
     Times, The Washington Post, and this magazine. It also 
     monitors e-mail exchanges and has arrested Internet users who 
     have tried to elude state restrictions. And, in ways that 
     would make Joseph Goebbels blush, the government uses 
     websites--and, of course, television, newspapers, and radio--
     to dominate the circuits with its own propaganda. ``Much as 
     many people might like to think the Internet is part of a 
     bottom-up explosion of individualism in China, it is not,'' 
     writes Peter Lovelock, a Hong Kong-based academic who studies 
     the Internet's effect in the PRC. Instead, it provides ``an 
     extraordinarily beneficial tool in the administration of 
     China.'' And that tool was on vivid display during the EP-3 
     crisis, when China blocked access to Western news sources and 
     censored chat rooms.
       American politicians describe foreign direct investment, 
     too, as a potent agent of democratization. But, in this case, 
     they're not even paraphrasing political science literature 
     they haven't read because the literature makes no such claim. 
     In fact, a 1983 study by the University of North Carolina's 
     Kenneth Bollen found that levels of foreign trade 
     concentration and penetration by multinational corporations 
     have no significant effect on the correlation between 
     economic development and democracy. In China's case, it's 
     easy to understand why. Beijing requires foreign investors in 
     many industries to cooperate in joint ventures with Chinese 
     partners, most of whom enjoy close ties to the government. 
     These firms remain insulated mainly in three coastal enclaves 
     and in ``special economic zones'' set apart from the larger 
     Chinese economy. Moreover, they export a majority of their 
     goods--which is to say, they send most of their ``seeds of 
     change'' abroad. At the same time, their capital largely 
     substitutes for domestic capital (foreign-owned firms 
     generate half of all Chinese exports), providing a much-
     needed blood transfusion for China's rulers, who use it to 
     accumulate reserves of hard currency, meet social welfare 
     obligations, and otherwise strengthen their rule. Nor is it 
     clear that U.S. companies even want China to change. If 
     anything, growing levels of U.S. investment have created an 
     American interest in maintaining China's status quo. Hence, 
     far from criticizing China's rulers, Western captains of 
     industry routinely parade through Beijing singing the praises 
     of the Communist regime (and often inveighing against its 
     detractors), while they admonish America's leaders to take no 
     action that might upset the exquisite sensibilities of 
     China's politburo. Business first, democracy later.
       But ultimately the best measure of whether economic ties to 
     the West have contributed to democratization may be gleaned 
     from China's human rights record. Colin Powell insists, 
     ``Trade with China is not only good economic policy; it is 
     good human rights policy.'' Yet, rather than improve that 
     record, the rapid expansion of China's trade ties to the 
     outside world over the past decade has coincided with a 
     worsening of political repression at home. Beijing launched 
     its latest crackdown on dissent in 1999, and it continues to 
     this day. The government has tortured, ``reeducated through 
     labor,'' and otherwise persecuted thousands of people for 
     crimes no greater than practicing breathing exercises, 
     peacefully championing reforms, and exercising freedom of 
     expression, association, or worship. It has arrested Chinese-
     American scholars like Li Shaomin on trumped-up charges, 
     closed down newspapers, and intimidated and threatened 
     dissidents. Nor is it true that linking trade and human 
     rights will necessarily prove counterproductive. When 
     Congress approved trade sanctions against Beijing in the 
     aftermath of Tiananmen, China's leaders responded by 
     releasing more than 800 political prisoners, lifting martial 
     law in Beijing, entering into talks with the United States, 
     and even debating among themselves the proper role of human 
     rights. As soon as American pressure eased, so did China's 
     reciprocal gestures.
       Turning a blind eye to Beijing's depredations may make 
     economic sense. But to pretend we can democratize China by 
     means of economics is, finally, a self-serving conceit. 
     Democracy is a political choice, an act of will. Someone, not 
     something, must create it. Often that someone is a single 
     leader--a Mikhail Gorbachev, a King Juan Carlos, or a Vaclav 
     Havel. But such a man won't be found in China's current 
     leadership. Other times, the pressure for democracy comes 
     from a political opposition--the African National Congress in 
     South Africa, Solidarity in Poland, or the marchers in 
     Tiananmen Square. But there are no more marchers in Tiananmen 
     Square.
       Pressure for democratization, however, can also come from 
     abroad. And usually it comes from the United States or from 
     nowhere at all. During the 1980s America applied diplomatic 
     and economic pressure to repressive regimes from Poland to 
     South Africa; intervened to prevent military coups in the 
     Philippines, Peru, El Salvador, Honduras, and Bolivia; and 
     loudly enshrined human rights and democracy in official 
     policy. The United States played a pivotal and direct role in 
     democratizing even countries like South Korea and Taiwan, 
     which many China-engagers now tout as evidence that the 
     market alone creates political freedom. Appropriately enough, 
     the decade closed with democracy activists erecting a 
     facsimile of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square.
       The commercialist view of China, by contrast, rests on no 
     historical foundation; it is a libertarian fantasy. ``The 
     linkage between development and rights is too loose, the 
     threshold too high, the time frame too long, and the results 
     too uncertain to make economic engagement a substitute for 
     direct policy intervention,'' writes Columbia's Nathan. Yet 
     make it a substitute is precisely what the United States has 
     done. And, far from creating democracy, this subordination of 
     political principle has created the justified impression of 
     American hypocrisy and, worse, given U.S. policymakers an 
     excuse to do nothing.
       Maybe the claim that we can bring liberty to China by 
     chasing its markets will prove valid in the long run. But 
     exactly how long is the long run? A political scientist at 
     Stanford University says it ends in 2015, when, he predicts, 
     China will be transformed into a democracy. Others say China 
     will democratize before that. Still others say it may take a 
     half-century or more. The answer matters. After all, while 
     capitalist Germany and Japan eventually became democracies, 
     it wasn't capitalism that democratized them, and it certainly 
     wasn't worth the wait. In China's case, too, no one really 
     knows what might happen as we wait for politics to catch up 
     with economics. With the exception, perhaps, of Li Shaomin, 
     who tested the link between economic and political 
     liberalization in China for himself. He's still in jail.
                                  ____



                                          Department of State,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2001.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Co-Chairman, Human Rights Caucus,
     House of Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Wolf: This is in response to your request of 
     Acting Assistant Secretary Michael Parmly for additional 
     information during his testimony before the Human Rights 
     Caucus on May 15 on the status of religious freedom in China. 
     We appreciate your concern about the recent deterioration of 
     religious freedoms in China and the large number of persons 
     held in China for the peaceful expression of their religious 
     or spiritual views. We regret the delay in responding to your 
     request for information, but we wanted to provide as 
     comprehensive a list of these individuals as possible.
       We currently estimate that roughly ten Catholic Bishops, 
     scores of Catholic priests and house church leaders, 100-300 
     Tibetans Buddhists, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Falun 
     Gong adherents, and an unknown but possibly significant 
     number of Muslims are in various forms of detention in China 
     for the expression of their religious or spiritual beliefs. 
     The forms of detention range from de facto house arrest to 
     imprisonment in maximum security prisons. As you know, we 
     regularly raise cases of religious prisoners with Chinese 
     officials both here and in China. Our information about such 
     cases comes from sources as diverse as religious dissidents, 
     human rights NGOs, interested Americans and, most 
     importantly, regular reporting from our embassies and 
     consulates. Unfortunately, the opaqueness of the Chinese 
     criminal justice system and absence of any central system 
     that provides basic information on who is incarcerated and 
     why makes it exceedingly difficult to determine the exact 
     number of religious prisoners currently being held in China. 
     We have, however, attached lists of cases of particular 
     concern that we have raised with Chinese authorities or have 
     included in our human rights and religious freedom reports.
       We recognize the importance of compiling and maintaining a 
     database of political and religious prisoners from additional 
     sources such as Chinese newspapers and government notices and 
     appreciate Congressional interest in providing us additional 
     resources to fund such activities. At present, the Bureau for 
     Democracy, Human Rights and Labor is discussing with the 
     International Republican

[[Page 13855]]

     Institute a proposal which will be submitted through the 
     National Endowment for Democracy. This proposal will be for a 
     Human Rights and Democracy Fund grant specifically for the 
     purpose of funding a U.S. NGO's efforts to develop and 
     maintain a list of political and religious prisoners in 
     China.
       Such a database will be extremely valuable to the human 
     rights work done not only by this bureau but also by other 
     government agencies, the Congress, and NGOs. We welcome your 
     interest in and support of this effort and look forward to 
     cooperative efforts to develop and fund a comprehensive 
     record of religious prisoners in China.
       In the meantime, we hope the information in this letter and 
     the attached lists are helpful to you. We would welcome any 
     case information that you might have available that could 
     improve the quality of this list.
           Sincerely,

                                             Michael E. Guest,

                                       Acting Assistant Secretary,
                                              Legislative Affairs.
       Enclosure.

           Illustrative List of Religious Prisoners in China

       Note: See comments in cover letter. The following 
     illustrative list is compiled from various sources, including 
     information provided to us by reputable non-governmental 
     organizations and from the State Department's annual reports 
     on human rights and on religious freedom. We cannot vouch for 
     its overall accuracy or completeness.


                                Muslims

       Xinjiang Abduhelil Abdumijit: Tortured to death in custody.
       Turhong Awout: Executed.
       Rebiya Kadeer: Serving 2nd year in prison.
       Zulikar Memet: Executed.
       Nurahmet Niyazi: Sentenced to death.
       Dulkan Rouz: Executed.
       Turhan Saidalamoud: Sentenced to death.
       Alim Younous: Executed.
       Krubanjiang Yusseyin: Sentenced to death.


                          Protestants (misc.)

       Qin Baocai: Reeducation through labor sentence.
       Zhao Dexin: Serving 3rd year in prison.
       Liu Haitao: Tortured to death in custody.
       Miao Hailin: Serving 3rd year in prison.
       Han Shaorong: Serving 3rd year in prison.
       Mu Sheng: Reeducation through labor sentence.
       Li Wen: Serving 3rd year in prison.
       Yang Xian: Serving 3rd year in prison.
       Chen Zide: Serving 3rd year in prison.


                        Evangelistic Fellowship

       Hao Huaiping: Serving reeducation sentence.
       Jing Quinggang: Serving reeducation sentence.
       Shen Yiping: Reeducation; status unknown.


                          Cold Water Religion

       Liu Jiaguo: Executed in October 1999.


                         FENGCHENG CHURCH GROUP

       Zheng Shuquian: Reeducation; status unknown
       David Zhang: Reeducation; status unknown


                               CATHOLICS

     Bishops
       Bishop Han Dingxiang: Arrested in 1999, status unknown.
       Bishop Shi Engxiang: Arrested in October 1999.
       Bishop Zeng Jingmu: Rearrested on September 14, 2000.
       Bishop Liu: House arrest in Zhejiang.
       Bishop Jiang Mingyuang: Arrested in August 2000.
       Bishop Mattias Pei Shangde: Arrested in early April 2001.
       Bishop Xie Shiguang: Arrested in 1999; status unknown.
       Bishop Yang Shudao: Arrested Feb. 2001; status unknown.
       Bishop An Shuxin: Remains detained in Hebei.
       Bishop Li Side: House arrest.
       Bishop Zang Weizhu: Detained in Hebei.
       Bishop Lin Xili: Arrested Sept. 1999, status unknown.
       Bishop Su Zhimin: Whereabouts unknown.
     Priets
       Fr. Shao Amin: Arrested September 5, 1999.
       Fr. Wang Chengi: Serving reeducation sentence.
       Fr. Wang Chengzhi: Arrested September 13, 1999.
       Fr. Zhang Chunguang: Arrested May 2000.
       Fr. Lu Genjun: Serving 1st year of 3 year sentence.
       Fr. Xie Guolin: Serving 1st year of 1 year sentence.
       Fr. Li Jianbo: Arrested April 19, 2000.
       Fr. Wei Jingkun: Arrested August 15, 1998.
       Fr. Wang Qingyuan: Serving 1st year of 1 year sentence.
       Fr. Xiao Shixiang: Arrested June 1996, status unknown.
       Fr. Hu Tongxian: Serving 3rd year of 3 year sentence.
       Fr. Cui Xingang: Arrested March 1996
       Fr. Guo Yibao: Arrested April 4, 1999.
       Fr. Feng Yunxiang: Arrested April 13, 2001.
       Fr. Ji Zengwei: Arrested March 2000.
       Fr. Wang Zhenhe: Arrested April 1999.
       Fr. Yin: Serving 1st of 3 year sentence.
       Fr. Kong Boucu: Arrested October 1999.
       Fr. Lin Rengui: Arrested Dec. 1997, status unknown.
       Fr. Pei Junchao: Arrested Jan. 1999, status unknown.
       Fr. Wang Chengi: Arrested Dec. 1996, status unknown.


                           tibetan buddhists

     Lamas
       Gendum Choekyi Nyima: House Arrest.
       Pawo Rinpoche: House Arrest.
     Nuns
       Ngawang Choekyi: Serving 9th year of 13 year sentence.
       Ngawag Choezom: Serving 9th year of 11 year sentence.
       Chogdrub Drolma: Serving 6th year of 11 year sentence.
       Jamdrol: Serving 6th year of 7 year sentence.
       Namdrol Lhamo: Serving 9th year of 12 year sentence.
       Phuntsog Nyidrol: Serving 12th year of 17 year sentence.
       Yeshe Palmo: Serving 4th year of 6 year sentence.
       Ngawang Sangdrol: Serving 9th year of 21 year sentence.
       Jigme Yangchen: Serving 11th year of 12 year sentence.
     Monks
       Ngawang Gyaltsen: Serving 12th year of 17 year sentence.
       Ngawang Jamtsul: Serving 12th year of 15 years sentence.
       Jamphel Jangchub: Serving 12th year of 18 year sentence.
       Ngawang Kalsang: Serving 6th year of 8 year sentence.
       Thubten Kalsang: Sentence not reported.
       Lobsang Khetsun: Serving 5th year of 12 year sentence.
       Phuntsok Legmon: Sentenced to 3 years in prison.
       Namdrol: Sentenced to four years in prison.
       Yeshe Ngawang: Serving 12th year of 14 year sentence.
       Ngawang Oezer: Serving 12th year of 17 year sentence.
       Ngawang Phuljung: Serving 12th year of 19 year sentence.
       Lobsang Phuntsog: Serving 6th year of 12 year sentence.
       Sonam Phuntsok: Arrested in October 1999.
       Phuntsog Rigchog: Serving 7th year of 10 year sentence.
       Lobsang Sherab: Serving 5th year of 16 year sentence.
       Sonam Rinchen: Serving 15th year sentence.
       Ngawang Sungrab: Serving 9th year of 13 year sentence.
       Jampa Tenkyong: Serving 10th year of 15 year sentence.
       Ngawang Tensang: Serving 10th year of 15 year sentence.
       Lobsang Thubten: Serving 7th year of 15 year sentence.
       Agya Tsering: Arrested in October 1999.
       Trinley Tsondru: Serving 5th year of 8 year sentence.
       Tenpa Wangdrag: Serving 13 year of 14 year sentence.

  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a strong proponent of the opportunity for 
Illinois workers who believe in free trade.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Illinois, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against the 
resolution to revoke normal trade relations for China.
  Some of my colleagues have said that this body should signal our 
disapproval of Chinese policy by denying NTR. Mr. Speaker, I would 
caution those who seek to signal China by ending NTR to think for one 
moment today about the likely consequences, and first answer some very 
basic questions:
  Will Members' vote for NTR for China today actually change the 
behavior of China tomorrow?
  Will ending NTR free the political prisoners, end the military 
buildup, enhance respect for human rights, and stop the persecution of 
religious groups?
  Will denying NTR bolster the moderates, or will it strengthen the 
hand of hard-liners as they struggle to control the future course of 
Chinese policy?
  Most importantly, will revoking NTR teach the youth of China the 
values of democracy, the principles of capitalism, and the merits of a 
free and open society?
  Mr. Speaker, if I thought that ending NTR would achieve these goals 
in China, I, too, would cast my vote of disapproval today. But make no 
mistake, denying China NTR denies the U.S. the opportunity to influence 
China's workers, China's human rights policies, China's politics, and 
perhaps, most importantly, China's future.

[[Page 13856]]

  Make no mistake, ending NTR for China will end our best hope of 
getting China to open its markets and live by the world's trade rules. 
It will effectively put an end to our trade with China. In short, 
revoking NTR for China will send much more than a signal. It will 
portend the end of U.S. trade with China and the end of our influence 
in China.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to retain our influence and our trade 
relations with China by voting against the resolution today.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), who has fought against labor 
camps in China and fought for human rights for workers and people 
around the world.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, those who favor granting China special trade privileges, 
some of them would have us believe that approving this MFN for China is 
going to lead to a freer society. They would have us believe that 
conditions in China have improved since the People's Republic was 
granted most-favored-nation status last year.
  In fact, the opposite is true. Let me just tell the Members a few 
stories.
  Bishop Shi Enxiang, a 79-year-old Catholic bishop jailed on good 
Friday for not practicing state-sanctioned religion and for refusing to 
reject the legitimacy of the Pope, 79 years of age.
  Of course, China will speak of its state-sanctioned Catholic Church. 
However, this is the same church that proclaimed 120 newly elected or 
canonized Chinese saints to be traitors and imperialist agents.
  Liu Zhang, a worker in the Chun Si Enterprise Handbag Factory, who 
was desperate for work. The factory promised him a good job, living 
quarters, and a temporary residence permit. However, Chun Si did not 
follow through on his promise. Liu Zhang made about $22 a month, $15 of 
which went back to the company for room and board. His factory held its 
900 workers in virtual imprisonment, and regularly subjected them to 
physical abuse.

                              {time}  1730

  Gao Zhan and Li Shaomin, American scholars detained by China for 
allegedly spying for Taiwan. Gao Zhan, her husband, and her son were 
about to return to the United States after visiting her parents when 
she was arrested in the Beijing airport.
  Li Shaomin, who ironically believed that free trade would lead to a 
free China, was arrested when he left Hong Kong and entered China.
  Peng Shi and Cao Maobin, Chinese union organizers, arrested for 
staging protests and forming labor unions. Peng has been sentenced to 
life imprisonment for fighting for better lives for his family and 
coworkers. Cao was held in a mental hospital after daring to speak to 
foreign reporters about the formation of an independent labor union 
protesting the company's layoffs and refusing to pay 6 months of back 
pay.
  Now, if someone is for religious rights or political rights or 
economic rights, as a labor group or organizer they cannot function in 
China. They are going to end up in prison.
  These terrible stories of oppression have all happened in China 
within the last year. They have all happened since this House voted to 
extend permanent MFN to China. They are bitter lessons that we must 
remember.
  We cannot have free markets without free people. We in America have 
the privilege of living in the freest country in the world, but even 
here global trade is not the force that brought our steelworkers and 
our auto workers into the middle class. It was their organizing, it was 
their right to collective bargaining, it was their right to participate 
freely in the political life of this Nation that established safe 
working conditions and fair wages and labor rights. These folks 
demonstrated in America. They marched, they were beaten, they went to 
jail. Some of them died for these rights that we have that have set the 
standard in our country.
  People are doing the same thing in China each and every day and we 
are not on their side, we are on the sides of their oppressors. It was 
not global trade that brought protections for our air and water; it was 
people who fought and struggled in this country to elect leaders of 
their choosing to make a difference.
  We have to do our part to ensure that China respects human rights and 
democratic freedoms and environmental rights. We have to stand with the 
people who are standing up for these basic freedoms. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this resolution and reject further MFN for 
China.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation 
today, and I do so to answer the question that the gentleman from 
California raised a moment ago when he held up an empty glass. I 
concede it is almost empty, but the question is how do we fill it? And 
I submit to my colleagues that we do not fill it in exactly the same 
way that we have been trying to do with the little island off the tip 
of Florida in which we have now for 40 years refused to trade with Cuba 
in the belief that somehow, some way that will cause Fidel Castro to 
change his ways. It has failed. The only people it has hurt are the 
Cuban people and those in the United States that could have benefited 
from selling, other than those who have continued to sell. That is what 
it is all about.
  Now, normal trade relations with China is not going to solve all our 
farmers' problems. No, in fact, I think we have oversold a lot of trade 
issues. But I believe that the benefits of normal trade relations for 
U.S. agriculture will be significant, and I am in no small company in 
saying so. Nine Secretaries of agriculture have served since John F. 
Kennedy supported normal trade relations with China.
  China has 21 percent of the world's population, 7 percent of the 
world's arable land. There are those that argue that China does not 
need us. They say China exports more agricultural products than it 
imports. But this ignores the fact that significant agricultural 
imports enter China through Hong Kong. In fact, China and Hong Kong 
annually import about $6.9 billion more in agricultural products than 
they export.
  There will be those that stand up and say, there you go again, you 
are only talking about profit. Well, the question is, whom do we want 
to profit and whom do we think we are going to punish if we deny 
American jobs providing that which might be sold to China?
  We are not talking about Most Favored Nation; we are talking about 
normal trade relations. This is what sends a message to the people out 
there that somehow we are doing something special. I do not want to do 
anything special for those commie pinkos that do the bad things that 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) talked about their doing. I do 
not want to see these things continue. I want China to change. They are 
not doing good things. They are bad people, their leaders. Their people 
are good people.
  That is the significant question for us to answer today, How do we as 
a country begin to change those that do things that we do not like? And 
again I just point to that little island off the tip of Florida. We 
tried it by doing it my colleagues' way, those that suggest that 
somehow we can by not trading with China and allowing all our 
``friends'' to trade with China that we will force them to do things. 
If it has not worked with a little island off the tip of Florida, how 
can it possibly work with a country of 1.2 billion Chinese people, most 
of whom like America, most of whom will like us better once they get to 
know us? And the only way they will get to know us is for us to treat 
them like the rest of the world treats them.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me remind my colleagues we are not talking about an embargo 
against China. That is not what this vote is about. Normal trade 
relations is about one thing: Should we subsidize, the American 
taxpayer subsidize American businessmen who want to close up their 
factories here and set them up in China?

[[Page 13857]]

  It is not about free trade or not about whether we can sell our goods 
in China. It is about whether or not big businessmen will get this 
subsidy. They cannot get guaranteed loans from the banks. It is too 
risky. So the taxpayers come in and guarantee the loans. That is what 
this is all about. It is not about selling American products; it is not 
about embargoes. It is about subsidies to big businesses to set up 
factories in China.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of the Rohrabacher-Brown resolution, 
H.J. Res. 50, disapproving the extension of the waiver authority that 
is contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to 
the People's Republic of China. I commend the sponsors for bringing 
this measure to the House floor at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, what will it take for us to wake up and understand that 
trade benefits for the People's Republic of China is not in our 
Nation's best interest? Human rights, religious tolerance, labor 
rights, even the right to die without having one's organs removed 
before one is dead are nonexistent in the People's Republic of China. 
The dictatorship in China threatens its neighbors, Democratic Taiwan, 
India, Japan, and the stability of the entire Pacific region with its 
threats and military buildup, funded almost exclusively by our enormous 
growing trade imbalance in China, $80 billion this year and growing 
even greater. This trade imbalance now surpasses our trade deficit with 
Japan.
  The Chinese totalitarian dictatorship has now embraced an alliance 
with Russia. China also supports the dictatorships in North Korea, Cuba 
and Burma. It has threatened democracy throughout the world by 
obstructing the United Nations' Human Rights Convention in Geneva. Its 
agents attempt to sell AK-47s and stinger missiles to Los Angeles 
street gangs here in our own Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come to recognize that China, the sleeping 
dragon, has awakened; and we need to respond appropriately. My 
colleagues, as we consider this proposal of denying free trade to 
China, let us bear in mind some of China's violations of basic 
international accords: its threats to Taiwan, its murder and its arrest 
of Christians, of Buddhists, and Falun Gong practitioners, the downing 
of our surveillance aircraft, and its occupation of Tibet. This is not 
peaceful behavior by that nation.
  I think it is time now for us to give an appropriate assessment of 
where China is. Mr. Speaker, the time has come to recognize that 
China's behavior does not support stability and we need to respond 
appropriately. And until it changes its behavior and until it stops 
threatening its neighbors and does not repress its citizens, we should 
not be supporting this repressive government and its growing military 
with normal trade benefits.
  Accordingly, I urge all my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 50 in 
opposition to the favorable trade status for China.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time. I rise today on behalf of Hoosier farmers, 
dedicated men and women who wake at sunrise and leave their sweat in 
the fields by sunset.
  In the year 2000 alone, American farmers benefited from U.S. 
agricultural exports to China totaling $1.9 billion; and China's 
ascension into the WTO, expected later this year, is projected to 
produce an additional $2 billion annually to our Nation's farmers. Mr. 
Speaker, at a time when most U.S. agricultural commodities are 
experiencing their lowest prices in decades, stable access to China's 
markets is critical.
  Mr. Speaker, according to our best traditions, we are to live as free 
men but not use our freedom as a coverup for evil. And unlike many in 
this Chamber, since arriving in Washington I have been a vociferous 
opponent of the human rights' abuses of the Chinese Government, and I 
will continue to be. In fact, I recently stood at this very podium and 
criticized China's incarceration of American troops, American 
academicians, and its securing of the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing. 
But, Mr. Speaker, I believe our relationship with China is a complex 
one, and it can best be described as follows: America's relationship 
with China should be America with one hand extended in friendship and 
in trade and with the other hand resting comfortably on the holster of 
the arsenal of democracy.
  By empowering the President to offer this extension, we will continue 
to open Chinese society to foreign investment and expose Chinese 
citizens to private property, contract, and the rule of law, while we 
commit ourselves to the necessary rebuilding of the American military 
with special emphasis on the Asian Pacific Rim.
  I urge my colleagues not to mix trade and security today. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 50 and allow the President to extend NTR 
to China for one more year.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of this resolution. And because to some it 
may seem contradictory to my stand on behalf of permanent normal 
trading relations, I rise not so much to convince others to follow me 
as to explain why I take this position.
  In my view, the human rights performance in China is abominable, 
whether we are considering NTR or PNTR. However, I believe this 
provision of NTR is a one-way street. That is to say, I believe this is 
America giving to China, sanctioning, in effect, China's performance.
  I believed PNTR was a two-way street, in which we required China to 
accede to WTO, to agree to a commerce of law, to agree to an opening of 
markets; and, therefore, I supported it. Because like the previous 
speaker, I believe our relationship with China is a complex one. I 
believe China, perhaps, can be one of the most dangerous nations on the 
face of the earth or one of the most economically positive nations on 
the face of the earth.
  But this vote is about simply the United States giving a benefit to 
China. I think we ought not to do that. I think we ought to require, as 
I hope will happen in November, for them to take unto themselves 
certain responsibilities that manifest an intent to become an equal and 
performing partner in the family of nations.
  Therefore, I will vote for this resolution, but will continue to hope 
that China does in fact accede to the WTO and that we do pursue 
permanent normal trading relations with China, which I believe will 
have positive effects. I do not believe that simply annually pretending 
that China is not performing in a way with which we should not deal in 
a normal way is justified.
  I thank the gentleman for giving me this opportunity.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution of 
disapproval which would cause a tremendous break in an established 
trading relationship.
  I commend all who are participating in the debate and deeply respect 
the heartfelt concerns of the advocates for this resolution for the 
concerns that have been expressed so passionately and well this 
afternoon. All of us are terribly concerned about the issues that have 
been covered.
  The question is, how do we best effect change on these areas of 
concern? Is removal of the normal trade relations, reversing the course 
over the last many years, placing China, a nation of 1.2 billion, in a 
trade status only held by Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam, is that the 
way to advance our concerns?
  We have a track record on the application of unilateral U.S. efforts 
to isolate major world powers. I believe the

[[Page 13858]]

most recent one was a Carter administration effort to place a grain 
embargo on the Soviet Union, expressing our outrage about their 
involvement in Afghanistan. The result is now very clear. We lost 
important agricultural opportunities. Our farmers paid a huge price. 
Other countries benefitted tremendously. We did not change Soviet Union 
behavior by that action one lick. I believe the same is absolutely 
before us.
  No matter how much we may want to, we cannot isolate this nation of 
1.2 billion people. The record in China is mixed. Fairness in this 
debate requires us to reflect briefly on the fact that there is 
continued growth in their free market economy. The spread of private 
enterprise has moved from the coast. Growth of the Internet continues 
to slowly erode the stranglehold of information held by the state. 
Earlier this year, China ratified a United Nations agreement on 
economic and social rights. Progress is also evident in the agriculture 
area.
  We must reject this and move forward even while we continue to be 
very concerned about the conduct of China.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who knows we should not be subsidizing with 
taxpayer dollars investments in Communist China.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.J. Res. 50 to disapprove of the extension of MFN to the PRC.
  The point was well taken by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher). We are not talking about embargo. We are talking about 
most favored or permanent normal trading relationship with China.
  Unlike the grain embargo that was just mentioned by the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), there we had Ronald Reagan and many 
presidents thereafter not allowing MFN to go forward for the Soviet 
Union because of their egregious human rights abuses and because of 
their gross mistreatments.
  Let me say briefly, Mr. Speaker, that, as we speak, two American 
citizens are being held hostage in China, Dr. Li Shaomin, who may get 
out and hopefully will get out but not after he had a kangaroo trial, 
and Mr. Wu Jianmin. Additional U.S. residents, including Dr. Gao Zhan, 
are being held.
  Recently we had a hearing in the Committee on International Relations 
and we heard from the relatives who were asking us, pleading with us to 
reach out to these American citizens. These are Americans being held 
hostage by a dictatorship while we are conferring normal trading 
relationship to a country that is anything but normal. Its dictatorship 
is grossly abnormal.
  Let us not kid ourselves. This is a big, fat payday for a brutal 
dictatorship. Eighty billion dollars is the balance in trade right now. 
That will grow potentially to $100 billion. The average person is not 
reaping that benefit and certainly the religious believer, be he or she 
a Buddhist or a Catholic or a Uighur or a Falun Gong or anyone else. 
The underground Protestant church, the Buddhists in Tibet are not 
reaping these benefits. They are suffering unbelievable torture as a 
direct result of the policy of this dictatorship.
  Look at the country reports on human rights practices. They make it 
very clear. Torture is absolutely pervasive, government-sponsored 
torture. If we are arrested in China for practicing our faith outside 
the bounds of the government, we get tortured.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the Rohrabacher resolution. Human 
rights should matter. Let us send a clear message to the Beijing 
dictatorship.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong opposition to H.J. 
Res. 50.
  Free trade is not just sound economic policy. It is great foreign 
policy as well. Free trade shares far more than just goods and 
services. It shares sound ideas and institutional norms across 
boundaries. Countries that are open to trade and capital flows are far 
more often than not also open to such ideas as political freedom.
  We have heard today that China has a poor human rights record. That 
is not true. China has an atrocious human rights record. The question 
is, how do we best affect that for the better? Do we do it through 
trade? Do we do it through isolationism? Are we better to engage China 
or to isolate them?
  We have heard today that we cannot have free markets without free 
people. I submit we can rarely have a truly free people without free 
markets. We have got to engage. We have got to get China to accept 
institutional norms. The best way to do that is through engagement.
  The relevant question is, how do we change China for the better? I 
believe it is done through engagement, and I would urge defeat of the 
resolution.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) who believes we should not award China's human 
rights abuses with WTO membership and the Olympics.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Rohrabacher-
Brown amendment as someone who loves liberty and believes in free trade 
among free people.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to enter into the Record as part of this debate a 
wonderful article by Lawrence Kaplan in a recent edition of The New 
Republic where he talks about why trade will not bring democracy to 
China. He talks about the relationship between profit and freedom and 
looks at the long history of nation states, talks about foreign trade 
and the penetration of multinational corporations having no significant 
effect on the correlation between economic development and democracy.
  Capitalism does not bring democracy. 100 years ago in Germany and 
Japan, 30 years ago in countries such as Argentina and Brazil, and 
today in places like Singapore and Malaysia, capitalist development has 
buttressed rather than undermined authoritarian regimes.
  In none of these cautionary examples did the free market do the three 
things business people say it does: weaken the coercive power of the 
state, create a democratically minded middle class, or expose the 
populist to liberal ideas from abroad. It is not doing that in China 
either.
  In fact, capitalism in the People's Republic of China, a Communist 
state, still operates within the confines of an arbitrary legal order 
and a party-controlled system where the emerging bourgeoisie consist 
overwhelmingly of state officials, their friends and their business 
partners. And who is benefiting from all of this? The authoritarian, 
repressive regimes that are imprisoning Catholic bishops, that are not 
allowing U.S. citizens of Chinese heritage to go back into that 
country, and the very same people who took our surveillance aircraft 
and held our troops all those weeks and now are asking us to pay for 
the time that they held American citizens on their territory.
  Mr. Speaker, is something wrong with this picture?
  Vote in support of the Rohrabacher-Brown resolution.
  The May 1, 2001, report by the United States Commission on 
International Religious Freedom links the deterioration of rights to 
receipt of normal trade relations. ``China has concluded that trade 
trumps all.'' Torture of believers increased, the government 
confiscated and destroyed as many as 3,000 unregistered religious 
buildings, and has continued to interfere with the selection of 
religious leaders.
  Since passage, persecution and execution have increased.

              [From the New Republic, July 9 and 16, 2001]

        Why Trade Won't Bring Democracy to China.--Trade Barrier

                        (By Lawrence F. Kaplan)

       On February 25, business professor and writer Li Shaomin 
     left his home in Hong Kong to visit a friend in the mainland 
     city of Shenzhen. His wife and nine-year-old daughter haven't 
     heard from him since. That's because, for four months now, Li 
     has been rotting in a Chinese prison, where he stands accused 
     of spying for Taiwan. Never mind that Li is an American 
     citizen. And never mind that the theme of his writings, 
     published in subversive organs like the U.S.-China Business 
     Council's China Business Review, is optimism about China's 
     investment climate.

[[Page 13859]]

     Li, it turns out, proved too optimistic for his own good. In 
     addition to rewarding foreign investors, he believed that 
     China's economic growth would create, as he put it in a 1999 
     article, a ``rule-based governance system.'' But, as Li has 
     since discovered, China's leaders have other plans.
       Will American officials ever make the same discovery? Like 
     Li, Washington's most influential commentators, politicians, 
     and China hands claim we can rely on the market to transform 
     China. According to this new orthodoxy, what counts is not 
     China's political choices but rather its economic 
     orientation, particularly its degree of integration into the 
     global economy. The cliche has had a narcotic effect on 
     President Bush, who, nearly every time he's asked about 
     China, suggests that trade will accomplish the broader aims 
     of American policy.
       Bush hasn't revived Bill Clinton's recklessly ahistorical 
     claim that the United States can build ``peace through trade, 
     investment, and commerce.'' He has, however, latched onto 
     another of his predecessor's high-minded rationales for 
     selling Big Macs to Beijing--namely, that commerce will act, 
     in Clinton's words, as ``a force for change in China, 
     exposing China to our ideas and our ideals.'' In this 
     telling, capitalism isn't merely a necessary precondition for 
     democracy in China. It's a sufficient one. Or, as Bush puts 
     it, ``Trade freely with China, and time is on our side.'' As 
     Congress prepares to vote for the last time on renewing 
     China's normal trading relations (Beijing's impending entry 
     into the World Trade Organization will put an end to the 
     annual ritual), you'll be hearing the argument a lot: To 
     promote democracy, the United States needn't apply more 
     political pressure to China. All we need to do is more 
     business there.
       Alas, the historical record isn't quite so clear. Tolerant 
     cultural traditions, British colonization, a strong civil 
     society, international pressure, American military occupation 
     and political influence--these are just a few of the 
     explanations scholars credit as the source of freedom in 
     various parts of the world. And even when economic conditions 
     do hasten the arrival of democracy, it's not always obvious 
     which ones. After all, if economic factors can be said to 
     account for democracy's most dramatic advance--the implosion 
     of the Soviet Union and its Communist satellites--surely the 
     most important factor was economic collapse.
       And if not every democracy emerged through capitalism, it's 
     also true that not every capitalist economy has produced a 
     democratic government. One hundred years ago in Germany and 
     Japan, 30 years ago in countries such as Argentina and 
     Brazil, and today in places like Singapore and Malaysis, 
     capitalist development has buttressed, rather than 
     undermined, authoritarian regimes. And these models are 
     beginning to look a lot more like contemporary China than the 
     more optimistic cases cited by Beijing's American 
     enthusiasts. In none of these cautionary examples did the 
     free market do the three things businessmen say it always 
     does: weaken the coercive power of the state, create a 
     democratically minded middle class, or expose the populace to 
     liberal ideals from abroad. It isn't doing them in China 
     either.
       One of the most important ways capitalism should foster 
     democracy is by diminishing the power of the state. Or, as 
     Milton Friedman put it in Capitalism and Freedom, ``[t]he 
     kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom 
     directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes 
     political freedom because it separates economic power from 
     political power and in this way enables the one to offset the 
     other.'' In his own way, Bush makes the same point about 
     China: ``I believe a whiff of freedom in the marketplace will 
     cause there to be more demand for democracy.'' But the theory 
     isn't working so well in the People's Republic, whose brand 
     of capitalism isn't quite what Adam Smith had in mind.
       China's market system derives, instead, from a pathological 
     model of economic development. Reeling from the economic 
     devastation of the Mao era, Deng Xiaoping and his fellow 
     party leaders in the late 1970s set China on a course toward 
     ``market socialism.'' The idea was essentially the same one 
     that guided the New Economic Policy in Soviet Russia 50 years 
     before: a mix of economic liberalization and political 
     repression, which would boost China's economy without 
     weakening the Communist Party. And so, while leaving the 
     party in control of China's political life, Deng junked many 
     of the economy's command mechanisms--granting state-owned 
     enterprises more autonomy, opening the country to limited 
     investment, and replacing aging commissars with a 
     semiprofessional bureaucracy. The recipe worked well: China 
     has racked up astronomical growth rates ever since. And 
     democracy seems as far away as ever.
       The reason isn't simply that government repression keeps 
     economic freedom from yielding political freedom. It's that 
     China's brand of economic reform contains ingredients that 
     hinder--and were consciously devised to hinder--political 
     reform. The most obvious is that, just as the state retains a 
     monopoly on the levers of coercion, it also remains perched 
     atop the commanding heights of China's economy. True, China 
     has been gradually divesting itself of state-owned 
     enterprises, and the process should quicken once China enters 
     the World Trade Organization (WTO). But Beijing's leaders 
     have said they will continue to support China's most 
     competitive and critical industries. Taking a cue from 
     authoritarian South Korea during the 1980s, China's leaders 
     have proposed sponsoring industrial conglomerates in crucial 
     sectors of the economy, transformed industrial ministries 
     into ``general associations,'' merged failing state-owned 
     firms with more successful ones, and established 
     organizations to, as Chinese economist Xue Muqiao has put it, 
     ``serve as a bridge between the state and the enterprises.''
       But that's where any similarities with South Korea end. 
     Unlike South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan, which 
     evolved from authoritarianism (and did so, significantly, as 
     de facto protectorates of the United States), China even 
     today has no effective system of property rights--a signature 
     trait that distinguishes its Communist regime from 
     traditional authoritarian ones. The absence of a private-
     property regime in China means that, at the end of the day, 
     the state controls nearly the entire edifice on which China's 
     ``free'' markets rest. It also means that China's brand of 
     capitalism blurs, rather than clarifies, the distinction 
     between the public and the private realms on which political 
     liberty depends. Nor is that the only requisite for democracy 
     that China's markets lack. As the imprisonment of Li Shaomin 
     and thousands of other political prisoners attests, 
     capitalism in the PRC still operates within the confines of 
     an arbitrary legal order and a party-controlled court system. 
     ``China is still a lawless environment,'' says University of 
     Pennsylvania sinologist Arthur Waldron. ``Whether in terms of 
     individual rights or the rights of entrepreneurs, interests 
     are protected not by institutions but by special 
     relationships with those in power.
       Before he was arrested, Li diagnosed this condition as 
     ``relation-based capitalism.'' What he meant was that 
     relations with government officials, not property rights or 
     the rule of law, underpin the Chinese market. Because the 
     political foundations of China's economy remain the exclusive 
     property of the state, China's entrepreneurs operate with a 
     few degrees of separation, but without true autonomy, from 
     the government. Hence, capital, licenses, and contracts flow 
     to those with connections to officials and to their friends 
     and relatives, who, in turn, maintain close relations with, 
     and remain beholden to, the regime. Their firms operate, in 
     the words of Hong Kong-based China specialist David Zweig, 
     ``[l]ike barnacles on ships, . . . draw[ing] their sustenance 
     from their parastatal relationships with the ministries from 
     which they were spun off.''
       Helping to keep all these distortions in place are Deng's 
     functionaries, who now constitute the world's largest 
     bureaucracy and still control the everyday levers of the 
     Chinese economy. Today, they function as the engines and 
     administrators of a market increasingly driven by skimming 
     off the top. The foreign-trade sector offers particularly 
     easy pickings. In 1995, for instance, the World Bank found 
     that while China's nominal tariff rate was 32 percent, only a 
     6 percent rate was officially collected. Presumably, much of 
     the difference went into the pockets of Chinese officials. 
     And even though WTO accession will reduce opportunities for 
     rent seeking from inflated trade tariffs, China's bureaucracy 
     will be able to continue siphoning funds from distorted 
     interest rates, the foreign exchange markets, and virtually 
     any business transaction that requires its involvement--which 
     is to say, nearly every business transaction. Nor is the 
     problem merely the corrupting influence these bureaucrats 
     wield over China's markets. The larger problem is that, 
     whereas in the United States the private sector wields 
     enormous influence over the political class, in China the 
     reverse is true.
       For precisely this reason, Washington's celebrations of the 
     democratic potential of the new Chinese ``middle class'' may 
     be premature ``Entrepreneurs, once condemned as `counter 
     revolutionaries,' are now the instruments of reform. . . . 
     [T]his middle class will eventually demand broad acceptance 
     of democratic values,'' House Majority Whip Tom DeLay 
     insisted last year. Reading from the same script, President 
     Bush declares that trade with China will ``help an 
     entrepreneurial class and a freedom-loving class grow and 
     burgeon and become viable,'' Neither DeLay nor Bush, needless 
     to say, invented the theory that middle classes have nothing 
     to lose but their chains. In the first serious attempt to 
     subject the ties between economic and political 
     liberalization to empirical scrutiny, Seymour Martin Lipset 
     published a study in 1959, Some Social Requisites of 
     Democracy, which found that economic development led to, 
     among other things, higher levels of income equality, 
     education and, most important, the emergence of a socially 
     moderate middle class--all factors that promote 
     democratization. More recent studies have found that rising 
     incomes also tend to correlate with participation in 
     voluntary organizations and other institutions of ``civil 
     society,'' which further weakens the coercive power of the 
     state.
       But middle classes aren't always socially moderate, and 
     they don't always oppose the

[[Page 13860]]

     state. Under certain conditions late modernizing economies 
     breed middle classes that actively oppose political change. 
     In each of these cases, a strong state, not the market, 
     dictates the terms of economic modernization. And, in each 
     case, an emerging entrepreneurial class too weak to govern on 
     its own allies itself--economically and, more importantly, 
     politically--with a reactionary government and against 
     threats to the established order. In his now-classic study 
     Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, sociologist 
     Barrington Moore famously revealed that, in these 
     ``revolutions from above,'' capitalist transformations 
     weakened rather than strengthened liberalism. In the case of 
     nineteenth-century Japan Moore writes that the aim of those 
     in power was to ``preserve as much as possible of the 
     advantages the rule class had enjoyed under the ancient 
     regime, cutting away just enough . . . to preserve the state, 
     since they would otherwise lose everything.'' Japan's rulers 
     could do this only with the aid of a commercial class, which 
     eagerly complied, exchanging its political aspirations for 
     profits. On this point, at least Marx and Engels had things 
     right. Describing the 1848 revolution in Germany, they traced 
     its failure partly to the fact that, at the end of the day, 
     entrepreneurs threw their support not behind the liberal 
     insurrectionists but behind the state that was the source of 
     their enrichment.
       Much the same process is unfolding in China, where economic 
     and political power remain deeply entwined. In fact, China's 
     case is even more worrisome than its historical antecedents. 
     In Germany and Japan, after all, an entrepreneurial class 
     predated the state's modernization efforts, enjoyed property 
     rights, and, as a result, possessed at least some autonomous 
     identity. In China, which killed off its commercial class in 
     the 1950s, the state had to create a new one. Thus China's 
     emerging bourgeoisie consists overwhelmingly of state 
     officials, their friends and business partners, and--to the 
     extent they climbed the economic ladder independently--
     entrepreneurs who rely on connections with the official 
     bureaucracy for their livelihoods. ``It is improbable, to say 
     the least,'' historian Maurice Meisner writes in The Deng 
     Xiaoping Era: An Inquiry Into the Fate of Chinese Socialism, 
     ``that a bourgeoisie whose economic fortunes are so dependent 
     on the political fortunes of the Communist state is likely to 
     mount a serious challenge to the authority of the state . . . 
     the members of China's new bourgeoisie emerge more as agents 
     of the state than as potential antagonists.''
       A steady diet of chauvinistic nationalism hasn't helped. In 
     the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre, party leaders 
     launched a ``patriotism'' campaign, a sentiment they defined 
     as ``loving the state'' as well as the Communist Party. As 
     the Shanghai-based scholar and party apologist Xiao Gongqin 
     explains, ``[T]he overriding issue of China's modernization 
     is how, under new historical circumstances, to find new 
     resources of legitimacy so as to achieve social and moral 
     integration in the process of social transition.'' To Xiao 
     and others like him, the answer is nationalism. And, as 
     anyone who turned on a television during the recent EP-3 
     episode may have noticed, it's working. Indeed, independent 
     opinion polling conducted by the Public Opinion Research 
     Institute of People's University (in association with Western 
     researchers, who published their findings in 1997), indicate 
     greater public support for China's Communist regime than 
     similar surveys found a decade earlier. And, contrary to what 
     development theory might suggest, the new nationalism appears 
     to have infected the middle class--particularly university 
     students and intellectuals--more acutely than it has China's 
     workers and farmers. ``The [closeness of the] relationship 
     between the party and intellectuals is as bad as in the 
     Cultural Revolution,'' a former official in the party's 
     propaganda arm noted in 1997. Even many of China's exiled 
     dissidents have fallen under its spell.
       In addition to being independent of the regime and 
     predisposed toward liberal values, China's commercial class 
     is supposed to be busily erecting an independent civil 
     society. But, just as China's Communist system restricts 
     private property, it prohibits independent churches and labor 
     unions, truly autonomous social organizations, and any other 
     civic institutions that might plausibly compete with the 
     state. Indeed, China's leaders seem to have read Robert 
     Putnam's Bowling Alone and the rest of the civil-society 
     canon--and decided to do exactly the reverse of what the 
     literature recommends. ``Peasants will establish peasants' 
     organizations as well, then China will become another 
     Poland,'' senior party official Yao Yilin reportedly warned 
     during the Tiananmen protests. To make sure this fear never 
     comes true, China's leaders have dealt with any hint of an 
     emerging civil society in one of two ways: repression or co-
     optation. Some forbidden organizations--such as Falun Gong, 
     the Roman Catholic church, independent labor unions, and 
     organizations associated with the 1989 democracy movement--
     find their members routinely imprisoned and tortured. Others, 
     such as the Association of Urban Unemployed, are merely 
     monitored and harassed. And as for the officially sanctioned 
     organizations that impress so many Western observers, they 
     mostly constitute a Potemkin facade. ``[A]lmost every 
     ostensibly independent organization--institutes, foundations, 
     consultancies--is linked into the party-state network,'' says 
     Columbia University sinologist Andrew Nathan. Hence, Beijings 
     Ministry of Civil Affairs monitors even sports clubs and 
     business associations and requires all such groups to 
     register with the government.



       The same kind of misreading often characterizes 
     celebrations of rural China's ``village committees,'' whose 
     democratic potential the engagement lobby routinely touts. 
     Business Week discerns in them evidence ``of the grassroots 
     democracy beginning to take hold in China.'' But that's not 
     quite right. China's leaders restrict committee elections to 
     the countryside and, even there, to the most local level. 
     Nor, having been legally sanctioned 14 years ago, do they 
     constitute a recent development. More important, China's 
     leaders don't see the elections the way their American 
     interpreters do. In proposing them, says Jude Howell, co-
     author of In Search of Civil Society: Market Reform and 
     Social Change in Contemporary China, party elites argued that 
     elected village leaders ``would find it easier to implement 
     central government policy and in particular persuade 
     villagers to deliver grain and taxes and abide by family 
     planning policy. Village self-governance would thus foster 
     social stability and order and facilitate the implementation 
     of national policy. By recruiting newly elected popular and 
     entrepreneurial village leaders, the Party could strengthen 
     its roots at the grassroots level and bolster its legitimacy 
     in the eyes of rural residents.'' Which is exactly what it 
     has done. In races for village committee chairs, the Ministry 
     of Civil Affairs allows only two candidates to stand for 
     office, and until recently many townships nominated only one. 
     Local party secretaries and officials often push their 
     favored choice, and most committee members are also members 
     of the Communist Party, to which they remain accountable. 
     Should a nonparty member be elected, he must accept the 
     guidance of the Communist Party, which, in any case, 
     immediately sets about recruiting him. As for those rare 
     committee members who challenge local party officials, their 
     success may be gleaned from the fate of elected committee 
     members from a village in Shandong province who in 1999 
     accused a local party secretary of corruption. All were 
     promptly arrested.
       Still, the very fact that China's leaders feel compelled to 
     bolster their legitimacy in the countryside is telling. Last 
     month Beijing took the unusual step of releasing a report, 
     ``Studies of Contradictions Within the People Under New 
     Conditions'' which detailed a catalogue of ``collective 
     protests and group incidents.'' What the report makes clear 
     is that Beijing's leaders think China's growing pool of 
     overtaxed farmers and unemployed workers, more than its newly 
     moneyed elite could become a threat to the regime. 
     Fortunately for the authorities, with no political opposition 
     to channel labor unrest into a coherent movement, protests 
     tend to be narrow in purpose and poorly coordinated. And the 
     wheels of repression have already begun to grind, with 
     Beijing launching ``strike hard'' campaign to quell any 
     trouble. In any case, what these formerly state-employed 
     workers have been demonstrating for is not less communism, 
     but more--a return to the salad days of central planning.
       Which brings us to the final tenent of the engagement 
     lobby: that commerce exposes China to the ideals of its 
     trading partners, particularly those of the United States. As 
     House Majority Leader Dick Armey has put it, ``Freedom to 
     trade is the great subversive and liberating force in human 
     history.'' Or, as Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy 
     Berger burbled in 1997, ``The fellow travelers of the new 
     global economy--computers and modems, faxes and photocopiers, 
     increased contacts and binding contacts--carry with them the 
     seeds of change.'' But the Chinese disagree. To begin with, 
     they don't import much. And economists predict that won't 
     change dramatically once they've joined the WTO, since 
     China's leaders have committed themselves to the kind of 
     export-oriented, merchantilist growth model that South Korea, 
     Japan, and Taiwan pursued in decades past. Last year, for 
     instance, China exported $100 billion in goods and services 
     to the United States and only imported $16 billion worth. 
     Hence, for every six modems it sent to America, Sandy Berger 
     sent back only one.
       To be sure, that one modem may carry with it seeds of 
     change. Bush, for instance, says, ``If the Internet were to 
     take hold in China, freedom's genie will be out of the 
     bottle.'' Alas, through links to Chinese service providers, 
     Beijing tightly controls all access to the Web. and Western 
     investors in China's information networks have eagerly 
     pitched in. One Chinese Internet portal, bankrolled by Intel 
     and Goldman Sachs, greets users with a helpful reminder to 
     avoid ``topics which damage the reputation of the state'' and 
     warns that it will be ``obliged to report you to the Public 
     Security Bureau'' if you don't. But Goldman Sachs needn't 
     worry. If anything, China's recent experience lends credence 
     to the pessimistic theories of an earlier era, which held 
     that nations shape the uses of technology rather than the 
     other

[[Page 13861]]

     way around. Thus Beijing blocks access to damaging ``topics'' 
     and to Western news sources like The New York Times, The 
     Washington Post, and this magazine. It also monitors e-mail 
     exchanges and has arrested Internet users who have tried to 
     elude state restrictions. And, in ways that would make Joseph 
     Goebbels blush, the government uses websites--and, of course, 
     television, newspapers, and radio--to dominate the circuits 
     with its own propaganda. ``Much as many people might like to 
     think the Internet is part of a bottom-up explosion of 
     individualism in China, it is not,'' writes Peter Lovelock, a 
     Hong Kong-based academic who studies the Internet's effect in 
     the PRC. Instead, it provides ``an extraordinarily beneficial 
     tool in the administration of China.'' And that tool was on 
     vivid display during the EP-3 crisis, when China blocked 
     access to Western news sources and censored chat rooms.
       American politicians describe foreign direct investment, 
     too, as a potent agent of democratization. But, in this case, 
     they're not even paraphrasing political science literature 
     they haven't read, because the literature makes no such 
     claim. In fact, a 1983 study by the University of North 
     Carolina's Kenneth Bollen found that levels of foreign trade 
     concentration and penetration by multinational corporations 
     have no significant effect on the correlation between 
     economic development and democracy. In China's case, it's 
     easy to understand why. Beijing requires foreign investors in 
     may industries to cooperate in joint ventures with Chinese 
     partners, most of whom enjoy close ties to the government. 
     These firms remain insulated mainly in three coastal enclaves 
     and in ``special economic zones'' set apart from the larger 
     Chinese economy. Moreover, they export a majority of their 
     goods--which is to say, they send most of their ``seeds of 
     change'' abroad. At the same time, their capital largely 
     substitutes for domestic capital (foreign-owned firms 
     generate half of all Chinese exports), providing a much-
     needed blood transfusion for China's rulers, who use it to 
     accumulate reserves of hard currency, meet social welfare 
     obligation, and otherwise strengthen their rule. Nor is it 
     clear that U.S. companies even want China to change. If 
     anything, growing levels of U.S. investment have created an 
     American interest in maintaining China's status quo. Hence, 
     far from criticizing China's rulers, Western captains of 
     industry routinely parade through Beijing singing the praises 
     of the Communist regime (and often inveighing against its 
     detractors), while they admonish America's leaders to take no 
     action that might upset the exquisite sensibilities of 
     China's politburo Business first, democracy later.
       But ultimately the best measure of whether economic ties to 
     the West have contributed to democratization may be gleaned 
     from China's human rights record. Colin Powell insists, 
     ``Trade with China is not only good economic policy; it is 
     good human rights policy.'' Yet, rather than improve that 
     record, the rapid expansion of China's trade ties to the 
     outside world over the past decade has coincided with a 
     worsening of political repression at home. Beijing launched 
     its latest crackdown on dissent in 1999, and it continues to 
     this day. The government has tortured, ``reeducated through 
     labor,'' and otherwise persecuted thousands of people for 
     times no greater than practicing breathing exercises, 
     peacefully championing reforms, and exercising freedom of 
     expression, association, or worship. It has arrested Chinese-
     American scholars like Li Shaominn on trumped-up charges, 
     closed down newspapers, and intimidated and threatened 
     dissidents. Nor is it true that linking trade and human 
     rights will necessarily prove counterproductive. When 
     Congress approved trade sanctions against Beijing in the 
     aftermath of Tiananmen, China's leaders responded by 
     releasing more than 800 political prisoner, lifting martial 
     law in Beijing, entering into talks with the United States, 
     and even debating among themselves the proper role of human 
     rights. As soon as American pressure eased, so did China's 
     reciprocal gestures.
       Turning a blind eye to Beijing's depredations may make 
     economic sense. But to pretend we can democratize China by 
     means of economics is, finally, a self-serving conceit. 
     Democracy is a political choice, an act of will. Someone, not 
     something, must create it. Often that someone is a single 
     leader--a Mikhail Gorbachev, a King Juna Carlos, or a Vaclav 
     Havel. But such a man won't be found in China's current 
     leadership. Other times, the pressure for democracy comes 
     from a political opposition--the African National Congress in 
     South Africa, Solidarity in Poland, or the marchers in 
     Tiananmen Square. But there are no more marchers in Tiananmen 
     Square.
       Pressure for democratization, however, can also come from 
     abroad. And usually it comes from the United States or from 
     nowhere at all. During the 1980s America applied diplomatic 
     and economic pressure to repressive regimes from Poland to 
     South Africa; intervened to prevent military coups in the 
     Philippines, Peru, El Salvador, Honduras, and Bolivia; and 
     loudly enshrined human rights and democracy in official 
     policy. The United States played a pivotal and direct role in 
     democratizing even countries like South Korea and Taiwan, 
     which many China-engagers now tout as evidence that the 
     market alone creates political freedom. Appropriately enough, 
     the decade closed with democracy activists erecting a 
     facsimile of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square.
       The commercialist view of China, by contrast, rests on no 
     historical foundation; it is a libertarian fantasy. ``The 
     linkage between development and rights is too loose, the 
     threshold too high, the time frame too long, and the results 
     too uncertain to make economic engagement a substitute for 
     direct policy intervention,'' writes Columbia's Nathan. Yet 
     make it a substitute is precisely what the United States has 
     done. And, far from creating democracy, this subordination of 
     political principle has created the justified impression of 
     American hypocrisy and, worse, given U.S. policymakers an 
     excuse to do nothing.
       Maybe the claim that we can bring liberty to China by 
     chasing its markets will prove valid in the long run. But 
     exactly how long is the long run? A political scientist at 
     Stanford University says it ends in 2015, when, he predicts, 
     China will be transformed into a democracy. Others say China 
     will democratize before that. Still others say it may take a 
     half-century or more. The answer matters. After all, while 
     capitalist Germany and Japan eventually became democracies, 
     it wasn't capitalism that democratized them, and it certainly 
     wasn't worth the wait. In China's case, too, no on really 
     knows what might happen as we wait for politics to catch up 
     with economies. With the exception, perhaps, of Li Shaomin, 
     who tested the link between economic and political 
     liberalization in China for himself. He's still in jail.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. This 
debate is not about condoning slave labor in China, child labor, or 
religious or political persecution occurring in China.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this debate is about empowering the Chinese 
people to make the improvements, make the positive changes that all of 
us in this Chamber would like to see made someday. I believe the best 
way to empower the Chinese people is with information: information from 
the outside world, information from us. And the best way we can 
accomplish this is through a policy of engagement, through trade, 
especially with greater telecommunications and Internet access within 
China.
  Just last year I had an opportunity to meet with five Chinese 
university students who wanted to talk with me since I serve on the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce. I asked them, what is the 
most exciting thing occurring in Chinese universities? Almost all of 
them simultaneously said the Internet, because now we have access to 
outside information and ideas that we have never been exposed to before 
or were precluded from having.
  Mr. Speaker, I was sitting looking at this young crowd, thinking this 
is the next generation of leadership growing up in China, and if we 
want to see the positive, revolutionary changes occur in China that are 
long overdue, we need to empower them and the Chinese people.
  I believe the worst mistake we can make as a Congress in this new 
century is to pick a new cold war confrontation with the world's most 
populated nation after we have just concluded a very lengthy and costly 
cold war with the Soviet Union during most of the 20th century.
  The Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc nations did not collapse 
because of military defiance from the West. They collapsed because 
Gorbachev had the courage to institute perestroika and glasnost and 
open up their societies to the influence of the outside world, and the 
people realized that they were living under a failed system and policy. 
They stood in defiance of those governments, and the governments came 
down. The same potential holds true in China.
  Mr. Speaker, Cordell Hull, FDR's Secretary of State, was fond of 
saying, when goods and products cross borders, armies do not. I believe 
that is what is at stake here in our debate with NTR with China, 
getting them included in WTO as a member of the world trading 
community.
  I hope that we make that decision correctly for the sake of our 
children, for the sake of their children, and for the sake of a 
positive relationship with China and the United States as we embark 
together on this marvelous journey in the 21st century.

[[Page 13862]]


  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know what books my colleague has been reading 
from about history, but I read nowhere in history that if we treat the 
Nazis or the Japanese militarists as anything but dictatorships and 
threats where it turns out beneficial to the democratic countries of 
the world.
  I do not read where we in the past have ever benefited from trying to 
not recognize a real threat in the dictatorships around the world but 
instead try to gloss over those differences.
  I do not read where trade with dictatorships has led to peace. I do 
not read that.
  What I read is when there is free trade with dictatorships, they 
manipulate the trade in order to gain money for their own regimes; and 
our next speaker realizes we should not be using tax dollars to 
subsidize businessmen for closing factories in the United States and 
reopening them in China.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Hayes).

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote 
for this measure and oppose granting China normal trade relations. 
Normal trade relations for the People's Republic of China does not 
represent fair trade for our Nation's textile workers. For the tens of 
thousands of textile workers and the many communities that depend on 
these jobs in North Carolina's eighth district, this agreement 
continues down the road of trading away a vital industry to our State's 
economy.
  Since December of 1994, the textile and apparel industry has lost 
nearly 600,000 workers, 20 percent of which belonged to North 
Carolinians. A devastating effect on many communities throughout the 
district has resulted. Closed foreign markets which persist despite 
trade policies that open our markets, continuing large-scale customs 
fraud, transshipments, and currency devaluation have all led to this 
loss of jobs in a vital industry.
  The textile industry is not protectionist. It is not afraid of 
competition. In fact, it is a highly automated and technology-driven 
industry that simply wants to assure its place within the global 
economy through fairness and equal access. Until that happens, I urge 
my colleagues to oppose trade with China.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) not only a distinguished 
gentleman but one of America's greatest war heroes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, most of my life I have spent fighting 
against Communists and Socialists. You would think of anybody that did 
not want to support the Chinese, it would be Duke Cunningham. I am 
probably the only one in this room that has been shot at by the Chinese 
near the Vietnamese border. I cannot tell you what I told them over the 
radio or called them. And they were my enemy.
  They are an emerging threat today. When the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the committee, asked me to go to Vietnam 
and raise the American flag over Ho Chi Minh City, I said, ``No, I 
can't do that. It's too hard.'' And then Pete Peterson, a friend of 
mine, the Ambassador to Vietnam, said, ``Duke, I need your help. I was 
a prisoner for 6\1/2\ years. I can do this. You can, too.'' So I went. 
And I met with the Prime Minister in Hanoi.
  I asked him, I said, Mr. Prime Minister, President Clinton is trying 
to work negotiations and trade with Hanoi to open up our two countries. 
Why are you dragging your feet?
  In perfect English, he looked at me and said, Congressman, I am a 
Communist. If we move too fast in trade, you see those people out 
there? And we were looking at a sea of thousand bicycles. He said, 
those people out there will have things, like property, like things of 
their own, like their own bicycles that they could own. He very frankly 
said, as a Communist, I will be out of business.
  I looked at him, and I said, Mr. Prime Minister, trade is good.
  I was the commanding officer of Adversary Squadron, and at Navy 
fighter weapons school my job was to teach Asian and Sino-Soviet 
threats to the world. Twenty years ago, they were a real threat. Today, 
China is a threat; but let us not close the door on our farmers, on the 
people that fought in Tiananmen Square, on the people that are fighting 
for human rights within China itself.
  My daughter dates Matthew Li. He is Chinese. I want to tell you, you 
look at our universities and the immigrants that we have into this 
country. They are the hardest working, the most freedom-seeking people 
in the world. And if we do not support this open trade with China, then 
we are going to lose that opportunity.
  China is not what it is or what it was 20 years ago. Are they going 
to be a democracy? Not in my lifetime. But do we want them to go 
backwards? Or do we want to slowly change that 10,000-year-old dog? It 
is hard to teach an old dog new tricks is the saying. I believe with 
all of my heart that if we close that door and that opportunity for us 
to reach out, at the same time I think it was wrong to give China 
missile secrets and then for China to then give it to North Korea and 
make us vulnerable to missile threats, but we can hold them at bay.
  Do not let the cobra in the baby crib but milk it for its venom.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) who understands that the facts show that 
Western investors prefer totalitarian countries more than democratic 
countries because Western investors like the docile workforce that 
China provides.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, let me be very blunt. In my opinion, our 
current trade relations with China are an absolute disaster and are 
based on an unholy alliance between corporate America and the corrupt 
Communist leadership in China. As part of this trade agreement, 
corporate America gets the opportunity to invest tens of billions of 
dollars in China and to hire workers who are forced to slave away at 
wages as low as 20 cents an hour. And in the process, as corporate 
America invests in China, they are throwing out on the streets hundreds 
of thousands of American workers who used to make a living wage, who 
used to be able to join a union, who worked under some kinds of 
environmental protection. What an outrage, that corporate America has 
decided that it is better to pay Chinese workers starvation wages, have 
their government arrest those people if they form a union, and allow 
corporate America to destroy their environment.
  Mr. Speaker, today is a day to stand up for living wages in this 
country. Not only are we seeing a huge loss of manufacturing jobs 
because of our trade policy with China, what we are seeing is wages 
being forced down. How is an American worker supposed to make a living 
wage competing against somebody who makes 20 cents an hour? The result 
is that today, millions of American workers are working longer hours 
for lower wages than was the case 20 years ago. High school graduates 
in America no longer get manufacturing jobs at decent wages. They work 
at McDonald's for minimum wage. The reason for that is those 
manufacturing jobs are now in China.
  Let us stand today for American workers, for decent jobs, for decent 
wages, and let us support the Rohrabacher amendment.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The Chair informs those who 
are controlling time that their introductions of their next speakers--
the time consumed in that--does come out of their time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  There is not a Member of this House who agrees with all of the 
policies of the regime in China. I think there is not a Member in this 
House who would not like to see the Chinese government change their 
policies, whether it relates to their strategic relationship

[[Page 13863]]

with the United States, whether it relates to groups such as the Falun 
Gong, whether it relates to their labor policy. But at the same time I 
do not think any Member of this House can make a credible argument that 
the United States unilaterally erecting trade barriers with the Chinese 
would somehow cause the Chinese government to change those policies. A 
unilateral action of what is proposed in the gentleman's resolution 
would only come back to hurt the United States.
  Furthermore, I think Members need to understand, while we do have a 
trade deficit with China, it would be simplistic and incorrect to 
assume that there would be an exact substitution for the dollars of 
goods that we export to China going somewhere else versus what is 
imported here.
  In fact, I would submit to the body that if we were to erect barriers 
and eliminate trade with China as the gentleman's resolution would 
ultimately do, we in effect would lose export dollars in the United 
States at the expense of American workers. I think that would be a very 
grave mistake. I would think it would be an even worse mistake given 
the fact that we know that the United States economy is in a great 
slowdown right now, perhaps closing in on a recession but certainly 
very slow growth. The rest of the world economy is experiencing slow 
growth. And so this is exactly the wrong time that we would want to be 
cutting off trade and the selling of U.S. goods and services when in 
fact our manufacturing sector is in a recession.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that Members would realize that while from 
a rhetorical standpoint it may sound good, from a practical economic 
standpoint, the resolution would do nothing but bring harm to the 
United States.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me remind my colleagues, this has nothing to do with erecting 
economic barriers around China. It has nothing to do with an embargo. 
It has everything to do with removing a subsidy. That is the only 
effect of this vote that we are having right here today. The only 
effect of taking away normal trade relations from China is that big 
businessmen who want to set up a factory in China, maybe close one in 
the United States, are not going to get their loans guaranteed or their 
loan subsidized in order to set up that factory. It has nothing to do 
with stopping people from selling American products or erecting some 
sort of trade barriers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, in 1941, about 6 months before Pearl Harbor, 
our former colleague Carl Andersen said that at some point in the near 
future we might be engaged in battle with a Japanese fleet. And if that 
occurred, we would be fighting a Navy whose ships were built with 
American steel and that were powered with American fuel. A few months 
after he made that statement, in fact, we were engaged at Pearl Harbor, 
December 7, 1941, losing hundreds of ships and aircraft and thousands 
of lives to a Japanese fleet that was built with American steel and 
powered with American petroleum.
  Today, we are sending $80 billion more to China than they are sending 
to us. They are using those hard American trade dollars to build a 
military machine. A part of that military machine is the Sovremenny-
class missile destroyers that they have now bought from the Soviet 
Union complete with Sunburn missiles that were designed for one thing 
and that is to kill American aircraft carriers. They are building 
coproduction plants for Su-27 aircraft, high performance fighters with 
the ability to take on American fighters very effectively. And with 
American trade dollars they are building a nuclear force, 
intercontinental ballistic missile force, aimed at American cities.
  Mr. Speaker, we are leaving a century in which 619,000 Americans died 
on the battlefield. It is a century in which a great Democrat 
President, FDR, joined early on with Winston Churchill to face down 
Hitler and save the world for democracy. And it is also a century in 
which a great Republican President, Ronald Reagan, faced down the 
Soviet Union, brought down the Berlin Wall, and disassembled the Soviet 
military machine.
  Let us not replace that Soviet military machine with another military 
superpower built with American trade dollars. Vote ``yes'' on 
Rohrabacher. Vote ``no'' on MFN for China.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a strong proponent of engagement with China.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution that 
would revoke normal trade relations with China. It is a mistake to 
declare economic warfare on 1.3 billion people on the other side of the 
globe, on China, which in effect this resolution would do.
  We have NTR with about 190 nations. We do not with about four or five 
that we consider enemies. But instead of espousing the opinions of 
politicians and my own views, I was interested in finding out what are 
the views of those impacted by the human rights abuses in China? Those 
unregistered church leaders, pastors of unregistered house churches? I 
have some faxes here from some of them. This is what they say.
  Here is a Chinese pastor: ``It is good and right that America be firm 
and strong on the issue of human rights but trying to enforce human 
rights through using NTR status as a lever is a misguided policy.''

                              {time}  1815

  Another one, a leader for over 20 years in a house church, he said, 
``If China cannot enter WTO, that means closing the door on China and 
also on us Christians. It will have a direct impact on China if it 
joins WTO and keeps its doors open to the outside world.''
  I could go on and on. But, Mr. Speaker, this disapproving the 1-year 
NTR extension will accomplish nothing except pouring salt into the 
wound of those in China who desire freedom. It will reinforce the 
agenda of the hard-line rulers in China.
  We should support NTR, not for the corrupt dictators in Beijing, but 
for the people of China and the people of the United States. Only by 
continuing to actively engage China can we help stem the nationalism, 
the anti-Westernism of the communist leaders, help the reformers and 
have the opportunity to influence China for good. We should not 
withdraw; we should not be isolationists. We should vote against this 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The Chair would inform the 
House of the order of closing. The order of closing will be as follows: 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher); the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown); and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  The time remaining is as follows: the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller), 8 minutes; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), 9\1/2\ 
minutes; the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), 2\1/2\ 
minutes; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), 1 minute.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to my friend, 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us turn to a recent statement by President Bush on 
trade sanctions. Calling sanctions a ``moral statement,'' President 
Bush ordered stricter enforcement of the U.S. trade embargo and greater 
support for the country's dissidents. ``It is wrong to prop up a regime 
that routinely stifles all the freedoms that make us human,'' said 
President Bush.
  Unfortunately, of course, he was referring to that puny little nation 
of Cuba, and not to the giant economic military power, China. God 
forbid we should apply the same standards to someone as powerful as 
they are.
  You know, driven by big business, policymakers in this body and 
downtown at the White House for more than 100 years have been talking 
about dramatic policy changes in China. They are coming. If you stacked 
up all of the agreements on trade, arms control, and

[[Page 13864]]

human rights that have been negotiated and signed over the last 100 
years by U.S. Presidents, you would have a new Great Wall, or more 
likely I guess you could call it an imaginary line, because the 
agreements are not worth the paper they are written on.
  Most recently, the 1992 MOU on prison labor: violated, torn up, 
thrown away. The 1994 bilateral on textiles: violated, torn up, thrown 
away. 1992 MOU on market access; 1996, 1998 intellectual property; 1999 
grains and poultry: all ignored and violated.
  But the proponents, or should I call them the apologists, are 
constantly making new rationalizations, ``and this time it is really 
different,'' a little bit like maybe Lucy and the football; or perhaps 
we could say their arguments are as finely packaged as our Navy plane, 
which is coming back to us in pieces.
  It is about U.S. jobs, they say; it is about engagement; it is about 
the dissidents. Well, here is a headline the day after we granted China 
permanent MFN status last year. The Wall Street Journal ran a front-
page story. It said: ``Debate focused on exports, but, for many 
companies, going local is the goal.''
  The gentleman who preceded me talked about dissidents. I sat with a 
dissident who said, you know, occasionally we were treated better when 
the U.S. took certain action.
  Were those actions a doormat giving the Chinese everything they 
wanted? No. The few times we have gotten tough with China, the 
dissidents from prison were treated better. If we give them everything 
they want, like a spoiled child, we will get no change in their 
behavior.
  Please, please, this is our last chance. Vote to send a message to 
China.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, as we listen to the impassioned debate on both sides of 
this issue, people we all respect have differing views.
  One group of people has been often overlooked in this debate, and 
that is the American worker. Trade with China means a lot to American 
workers. I think it is important to point out that 350,000 American 
families depend entirely on trade with China. In fact, exports to China 
are rising and will rise faster in a more open and free market with the 
Chinese.
  Last year, U.S. exports to China increased a record 24 percent to 
$16.3 billion, and China is now our 11th largest export market. Trade 
with China is important to farmers and our rural communities. In fact, 
the U.S. farm exports to China could grow by $2 billion annually, 
nearly tripling our current rate of exports to China.
  The point is, you are not pro-agriculture unless you are pro-free 
trade with China. I would also note that trade with China will also 
boost the technology sector, one of our weaker sectors today. We have 
seen the last 8 years a five-fold increase in exports to China from the 
technology community. The facts are, you are not pro-technology unless 
you are pro-free trade with China.
  America is the world's largest exporter, and China is now our largest 
consumer.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk), a strong proponent of engagement with China.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Human Rights Caucus, I rise in 
support of trade with China. China is in the middle of a historic 
transformation. Half of all construction cranes in the world now 
operate in China. More cell phone users and Internet subscribers will 
live in China than in Europe. Opening China will help human rights.
  In the 1960s, 30 million people died in China of starvation, and it 
took the U.S. intelligence community over 20 years to even find out. 
Today, tens of thousands of Westerners travel throughout China each 
day. We know more about China than ever before, and we can fight for 
democratic change and more effective human rights better than ever 
before.
  Martin Lee, the democratic leader of Hong Kong's pro-democracy 
forces, supports trade with China. Taiwan supports trade with China.
  As the world is being remade in our image, I believe that free trade 
with China is the most effective way to support democratic change and 
human rights in China.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time to speak in favor of House Joint Resolution 50.
  Mr. Speaker, I was one of the 237 that voted for the most-favored-
nation permanent relations with China last year, but since that time I 
have watched with interest the developments in China since we gave them 
the most-favored-nation status.
  I have watched them confiscate our airplane and destroy it. I have 
watched the continuation of human exploitation. Instead of trade, I 
have watched slave trade abound in China. And as important as that, I 
have noticed that China continues to dump steel in this country to the 
detriment of the American worker in this country.
  In the State of Indiana, the largest producer of steel has dropped 
substantially in terms of its steel production and steel exports with 
the loss of several thousand steel jobs in my State, along with 
Alabama, devastated by steel dumping, Pennsylvania, Michigan, 
Washington State, Detroit, Michigan, devastated by steel dumping. 
Thirty thousand steelworkers in Indiana had to accept shorter work 
weeks, lower-paying job assignments, or early retirement.
  The Commerce Department has reported that 11,000 American 
steelworkers have been laid off, and I was pleased to see President 
Bush had taken a look at this for the purpose of maybe imposing quotas.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me this opportunity to protest.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of revoking 
China's normal trade relations status. It has to be clear to all of us 
that granting China special trade status has not persuaded them to 
conform to standards of decency and fairness. Instead, their record of 
human rights abuses has worsened and trade imbalances have actually 
increased.
  Today, U.S. companies import 36 percent of all Chinese exports, but 
the presence of U.S. purchasing power has done nothing to improve 
Chinese workers' lives. What is most alarming is that many of the 
products the U.S. imports are made by young children, children who work 
more than 12 hours a day and more than 6 days a week.
  If the mere possibility of cheaper goods made by children, slaves and 
prisoners is worth all the human rights violations, the religious 
persecution, more forced abortions and sterilizations, then I do not 
think this country stands for what we know we believe in. Of course, we 
do not stand for that.
  It is long overdue for U.S. trade policy to address human rights, 
workers' rights, and the environment. Trade is not free, trade is not 
fair, when there is no freedom and no fairness for the citizens of the 
country involved. Yet, year after year, this Congress grants special 
trade status to China.
  This time, right now, tonight, let us have the courage to lever our 
economic strength and real reform and vote yes on this resolution.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as I have heard other Members, 
I rise today to give explanation to my protest vote today to deny China 
this normal trade relations, because I voted for PNTR. But already Lee 
Chow Min has been in China, a U.S. citizen, since February 25, 2001. 
His family and lawyers have not been able to access him.
  A young mother, wife and academic, Dr. Zhou Yongjun, whose husband 
and son are U.S. citizens, whose 5-year-old son was kept for 26 days 
away from her,

[[Page 13865]]

and she is now, if you will, incognito, with no lawyers and family able 
to see her.
  I believe China's leaders can do something about their human rights 
abuses. I believe the Chinese leadership can stand up to the words and 
say we accept the benefits and we accept the burdens.
  I am here today to vote in protest, because I demand that China 
become a citizen of the world, treat its citizens with respect, allow 
democracy and freedom; and I believe that if we say to China that we 
will take it no more, we will see a Chinese Government that understands 
that they can make a change.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, a year ago corporate CEOs flocked to the Hill to lobby 
for increased trade with China. They talked about access to 1.2 billion 
Chinese customers, but their real interest was in 1.2 billion Chinese 
workers.
  CEOs tell us that democracies will flourish with increased trade; 
but, as the last decade showed, democratic nations in the developing 
world, such as India, are losing out to totalitarian governments such 
as China, where people are not free and the workers do as they are 
told.
  In the post-Cold War decade, the developing democratic nations' share 
of developing country exports to the U.S. fell from 54 percent to 35 
percent.

                              {time}  1830

  Decisions about Chinese economy are made by three groups: the 
Communist party, the People's Liberation Army, and western investors. 
Which of these three groups wants to empower workers?
  Does the Chinese Communist party want the Chinese people to enjoy 
increased human rights? I do not think so.
  Does the People's Liberation Army want to close the labor camps? I do 
not think so.
  Do western investors want Chinese workers to bargain collectively and 
be empowered? I do not think so.
  None of these groups, the Chinese Communist party, the People's 
Liberation Army, or western investors, none of these groups has any 
interest in changing the status quo in China. All three profit too much 
from the situation the way it is to want to see human rights improve in 
China, to want to see labor rights improve on China.
  Mr. Speaker, vote ``yes'' on the Rohrabacher-Brown resolution. Send a 
message to the Communist party in China.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Let me note as we close this debate that over and over again in this 
debate I have stated that the only practical effect and, let us say, 
the dominant effect of Normal Trade Relations with China is one thing, 
and that is that it ensures that a subsidy that we currently provide to 
American businessmen to close their factories in the United States and 
rebuild factories in China to exploit the slave labor there, that that 
is the only practical effect of Normal Trade Relations. If we deny 
Normal Trade Relations, no longer will these big businessmen be able to 
get a taxpayer, U.S. Taxpayer-guaranteed loan or subsidized loan in 
order to build a factory in Communist China so that they can exploit 
the slave labor there.
  When we are asked to consider the American worker, I hope we will 
consider that, because there may be 400,000 American workers, maybe, 
depending on the China trade, but that does not take into consideration 
the millions of American workers who have lost their jobs because we 
have subsidized big businessmen to go to China and invest there, rather 
than to try to invest in the United States of America.
  If my colleagues will note, no one on the other side has sought to 
try to disprove that point, and over and over again I made the point. I 
would challenge my opponents here tonight in their closing statement to 
say that that is not true. Well, they cannot say that, because they 
know that that is the practical effect of this vote.
  We were asked by the gentleman from Illinois, will the young people 
of China know anything more about democracy if we deny normal trade 
relations? My answer is, emphatically, yes. The young people of China 
will understand that this greatest democracy on earth is standing with 
them and their aspirations to have a free country and to live in 
freedom and democracy and have decent lives. They will learn that, the 
young people will learn that, rather than learn the lesson of today, 
that America is doing the bidding of a few billionaires who are in 
partnership, as the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) said, an 
unholy alliance with the dictators of China in order to exploit slave 
labor. Yes, we can teach them a lesson.
  This is not about free trade. It is not about whether people can 
trade with China. It is whether or not we are going to side with those 
billionaires and those dictators in China against the people of China.
  The people of China are our greatest ally. We must reach out to them, 
not to the rulers. When we talk about free trade with a dictatorship, 
we are talking about them controlling trade on the other side so they 
can make the billions of dollars and put it to use buying military 
equipment which will some day threaten American soldiers.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support my initiative to deny 
Normal Trade Relations with this Communist Chinese dictatorship.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Most likely, this is not the last time we are going to be debating 
our relationship, including our trade relationship, with China. They 
were going to go into the WTO with or without U.S. support. So what we 
did last year was to decide we needed to both engage and pressure 
China. The assumption was that trade is the important part of 
engagement, but it is not a magic path. It will not automatically, even 
over time, bring about democracy.
  So, in part, we responded by setting up a commission. It will be in 
operation soon at an executive congressional level. It is charged with 
submitting to the Congress and the President an annual report with the 
committee of jurisdiction required to hold hearings, and it is assumed 
that they will, it says, with a view of reporting to the House 
appropriate legislation in furtherance of the commission's 
recommendations.
  This has been a useful debate. We need to keep the light and the heat 
on this issue, and we intend to do just that.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I stand to ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
this resolution and ``no'' to Most Favored Nations trading status for 
China. I am honored to stand here and be the last speaker; and I stand 
on the work of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher). I stand upon their work and their shoulders.
  I would like to ask my pro-life colleagues something. I am pro-
choice, but whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, how can we give Most 
Favored Nation trading status to a nation that forces women to have 
abortions? That is not pro-life. That is not pro-choice.
  We just had a debate about religious freedom in this Chamber, and 
both sides of the issue professed to support religious freedom in the 
context of charitable choice. How can one support religious freedom and 
support Most Favored Nation trading status for a country that forces 
free churches to hide in attics and basements?
  Labor rights. If you are a student organizer in China, you get jail 
time. If you are a labor organizer in China, you get a bullet in the 
back of the head. If we support labor rights, how can we support Most 
Favored Nation trading status for China?
  Finally, to my so-called pro-business colleagues in this House, I was 
an international trade lawyer and an intellectual property attorney. 
What I see is a nation that sells us $100 billion worth of goods and we 
sell them $16 billion of goods. That is $84 billion worth of leverage 
that we are leaving on the

[[Page 13866]]

negotiating table. I would have committed legal malpractice if I had 
not used that leverage, and I will tell my colleagues this: If we 
approve this resolution today, his excellency, the ambassador of the 
People's Republic of China, will crawl across broken glass to the other 
Chamber to make sure that they do not vote the same way.
  Freedom does not automatically come from trade. It is an act of will. 
It is an act of human choice.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The time of the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Wu was allowed to proceed for 2 additional 
minutes.)
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, to those who say freedom automatically follows 
trade, I offer the historic example of a century ago. In 1900, more of 
international GDP was international trade than today. More of 
international GDP was invested in foreign countries than today. And 
there were writers in 1890 and 1900 who said, war is impossible, 
because nations and business people surely will not bombard their own 
investments. They were wrong. They were wrong.
  Freedom does not automatically follow trade and business. Freedom is 
an act of human will.
  And to those who say that this is a futile debate, I say: tough, yes; 
futile, no. No more tougher than what our predecessors faced.
  I got across the street to the library of Congress the other day. I 
got in before it opened. Apparently, their security guards are a little 
bit more lax than those at the Department of Energy. And I found a 
letter from Mr. Jefferson written in 1826, 10 days before he died. He 
was invited to this city to celebrate the 4th of July, and this was his 
response: ``I should indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and 
exchanged there, congratulations personally, with a small band, the 
remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day in the 
bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between 
submission or the sword, and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory 
fact that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and 
prosperity, continue to approve the choice that we made.''
  Mr. Speaker, freedom is a choice. We can make a choice today to send 
a strong signal and use the leverage that we have. Mr. Jefferson had a 
broader vision for freedom in this world. He continued in that letter, 
10 days before his death, speaking of the 4th of July: ``May it be to 
the world what I believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others 
later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst their 
chains.''
  I ask my colleagues to vote for this resolution and against Most 
Favored Nation trading status for China.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Resolution 50, which 
would cut off Normal Trade Relations with China. I respect my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who oppose free trade with China, 
but I believe that this resolution is terribly shortsighted. When 
recognizing the reforms of the Chinese government and the hard-fought 
gains of America's consumers, workers and exporters, and given how 
close China is to accepting comprehensive trade disciplines of the 
World Trade Organization's membership, I would note that China is 
agreeing to live by the same rules that all leading trading nations 
live by.
  This past year, this last July, this House voted in a bipartisan 
vote, 237 to 197, to extend Normal Trade Relations to China upon their 
admission to the World Trade Organization, and we expect China to fully 
and officially assume responsibilities of WTO membership by the end of 
this year. Defeat of H.J. Res. 50 is necessary to support Special Trade 
Representative Zoellick's decision to take the extra time to ensure 
that China's concessions to the United States are as clear and 
expansive as possible.
  Despite its history and historic policies which many of us have 
disapproved of, as well as disagreed with, China has made it clear that 
they are fully prepared and finally prepared to join the world of 
trading nations by accepting the fair trade rules of the World Trade 
Organization. This is progress, and we must support this type of 
progress.
  While we see that the Chinese people still face overwhelming problems 
with the behavior of their government and their leaders, it is 
imperative to understand that China is changing. The last 10 years 
represent the most stable and industrious decade China has known in the 
last 150 years. WTO membership and Normal Trade Relations with the 
United States offers the best tool we have to support the changes we 
have witnessed over the last few years in China.
  With these changes, we have seen now that more than 40 percent of 
China's current industrial output comes from private firms, 40 percent 
of China's output now comes from free enterprise, and urban incomes in 
China have more than doubled. Engagement with China is working, the 
exchange of ideas and our values with China is working, and we must 
continue our engagement and free trade with China.
  The bottom line for American workers is it offers a tremendous amount 
of opportunity, opportunity for our farmers, opportunity for those who 
work in manufacturing, opportunity for our hard-hit technology sector.
  But I would note that America is not only the world's largest 
exporter but China is again the world's largest consumer. Over the next 
5 years, China will have more than 230 million middle-income consumers 
with retail sales exceeding $900 billion, making China the world's 
largest market for consumer goods and services.

                              {time}  1845

  We are making a choice today, Mr. Speaker: Do we want our farmers, do 
we want our manufacturing workers, do we want our creative friends in 
the technology sector to have an opportunity to participate in the 
globe's largest market of 1.3 billion people? I believe we do. I 
believe a bipartisan majority supports continued engagement, as well as 
free trade with China.
  Revoking normal trade relations at this time would undermine the 
success of the free enterprise and social reforms taking place today in 
China. Let us not turn our backs on the gains our negotiators have 
gained with China, gains that benefit America's farmers, America's 
businesses, America's workers, and America's consumers.
  Instead, let us give capitalism a true chance in China. I urge a vote 
no on House Joint Resolution 50.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.J. Res. 50. I 
firmly believe that engagement is the only thing that will bring 
positive change in the Republic of China in the areas that I care so 
deeply about: human rights, labor and environmental sustainability.
  China is well on its way to joining the WTO, so the vote today is 
largely symbolic.
  I have consistently voted to support the annual extension of NTR 
status because of my belief that revoking it would worsen our 
relationship with China and negatively impact these issues. In 
addition, it could worsen the national security issues that have long 
plagued U.S.-China relations.
  Closing the door on China will not improve the lives of those who are 
suffering under an oppressive regime. It will not raise the standard of 
living in China. And it will not benefit our citizens by opening the 
market for American goods and services.
  In my state alone, there are already hundreds of companies that have 
begun exporting products to China. The potential for increased trade 
once China has lowered its tariffs is enormous in such areas as 
manufactured goods, technology and agriculture, just to name a few. A 
more open market will create significant new business opportunities for 
a broad cross section of Colorado businesses. Enhanced trade relations 
with China will economically benefit my district, my state and the 
nation as a whole.
  After much discussion and deliberation I decided to support PNTR 
because I strongly believe it will economically benefit the people of 
Colorado, and because I believe continued long-term engagement with 
China is the best way to promote democracy and protect human rights.
  An open door to the West provides the best hope for progressive 
change in China over the long term, both in terms of American business 
opportunities and human rights. It is possible to both reap the 
economic benefits and help promote democracy and free markets in China. 
Enhancing trade and diplomatic relations will accomplish these goals.

[[Page 13867]]


  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. 
Res. 50, disapproving Normal Trade Relations with China. We are 
considering a critically important piece of legislation that we must 
defeat; legislation that will affect the way our Nation and our world 
progress into the new millennium. However, I would like to outline 
three simple points that should show why supporting Normal Trade 
Relations for China is the right thing to do, both for the benefit of 
the United States and the people of China. Those three points are the 
economic benefits to American workers and business, the human rights 
benefits for the people of China, and the necessity to move forward 
into a more productive and challenging relationship with the government 
of China.
  First, and most important to our communities and constituents, is the 
way in which NTR for China will help Americans economically. Many 
people become understandably confused over the complexities of trade 
policy. However, the necessity of NTR can be easily explained. Although 
I am disappointed China has still not joined the WTO--as expected last 
year--it is anticipated that they will accede this coming autumn. 
However, as part of the terms of their accession to the WTO, China was 
required to negotiate a bilateral trade agreement with the United 
States. We won those negotiations.
  Last year's agreement that was reached requires China to throw open 
its doors to American business and agriculture. They will reduce 
tariffs on American-made products from automobiles and aircraft landing 
systems to soybeans and pork products. They will dramatically reduce 
existing quotas on American made products. They will increase the 
access to their domestic economy by opening up distribution and 
marketing channels. All of these changes mean that American businesses 
will be able to sell more of their products to more Chinese people. At 
the same time, the United States gives up nothing to the Chinese--not 
one single thing. There is absolutely nothing in this agreement that 
would encourage an American company to move to China. In fact, the 
agreement actually gives American companies more incentive to stay in 
the United States. More exports to China means more jobs for Americans 
at better wages. Enacting NTR will change the status quo, and allow us 
to export American products, not American jobs.
  However, if this body fails to defeat this measure today, the United 
States will not be able to take advantage of that deal. The current 
status quo will remain, and American companies will find it 
increasingly difficult to sell their wares to a booming Chinese market. 
In fact, due to the fact that the European Union and other countries in 
Asia and around the world have similar agreements with China, American 
companies will actually be worse off than they are now! The other WTO 
members will be able to market their products to China more efficiently 
than we can, effectively shutting the United States out of the China 
market.
  The choice is simple: Economic stagnation and regression or 
commercial growth and prosperity. We need to respond to the new global 
economy, driven by a technological revolution, with a new fair trade 
policy. The choice is just as clear on the issue of human rights.
  It may be easy for people in Washington, D.C. to speculate what 
policies might be best for the Chinese people. However, when it comes 
to improving the human rights and political freedoms of people in 
China, I tend to place more weight on what the people in China, 
fighting those fights every day, think is best for themselves. The 
following human rights advocates strongly endorse this new policy:

       Martin Lee--chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong 
     which struggles daily to maintain the freedoms that are 
     unique to that region;
       Xie Wanjun--chief director of the China Democracy Party, 
     most of whose members are now in detention in China;
       Nie Minzhi--a member of the China Democracy party who is 
     under house arrest as we stand in this chamber today;
       Zhou Yang--a veteran of the 1979 Democracy Wall movement;
       Boa Tong--a persecuted dissident and human rights activist;
       Dai Quig--an environmentalist and writer who served time in 
     prison after Tiananmen Square;
       Zhou Litai--a pioneering Chinese labor lawyer who 
     represents injured workers in legal battles against Chinese 
     companies;
       Even the Dalai Lama himself, probably the most famous 
     Chinese dissident in the world, supports the WTO accession.

  All of these people have been fighting for democracy and freedom in 
China on the ground, day-to-day. They all say the same thing: Support 
PNTR for China. They say this because they have seen how the annual 
renewal of NTR for China has become a bargaining chip for an oppressive 
government. They have seen firsthand how engagement with the United 
States had made China a more open society. They don't want to become 
isolated from the world. They want to join us in freedom and democracy.
  Working to ensure human rights in China is the right thing to do. 
However voting against NTR is not the way to do it. We need to listen 
to the brave people fighting the good fight on the ground in China, and 
we need to pass NTR. Very prominent Americans, such as the Rev. Billy 
Graham and President Jimmy Carter, agree with this approach.
  Finally, I want to stress the need for a change in our relationship 
with China. While we have come to see some improvement in China since 
the late 1970's, the Chinese government has still remained insular, 
resistant to change, and unwilling to allow sweeping reforms. The 
relationship between our two countries has warmed, but it has not 
completely thawed.
  Voting against NTR is telling China and the rest of the world that 
you like things the way they are today; that you prefer the status quo. 
As an elected representative to Congress however, I cannot in good 
conscience say that keeping the status quo with China is the best way 
for our country to proceed in this new millennium.
  Isolation and recrimination in the face of repression get us nowhere. 
One only has to look to China's neighbor, North Korea. We cut that 
country off from the world fifty years ago, and look what happened to 
them. North Korea is easily one of the most unstable, irrational, and 
hostile nations on this planet. Human rights and political freedoms are 
non-existent, and on top of it all, its people are slowly starving to 
death in a massive famine. Is that what we want China to become? Do we 
want to shut China off from the world? Will we refuse the challenge and 
engage the Chinese government?
  I say that pursuing a policy of thoughtless isolationism is not only 
economical suicide for the American worker, it is also callously 
dismissive of those brave souls in China who are trying to create 
change and fight for human rights.
  We must vote against this resolution today. We must actively work to 
make our world a better place for our children. We must reach out to 
the Chinese and attempt to lead them down the right path to embrace our 
values of democracy, open markets, and human rights. We must help them 
become a modern nation. The United State will probably be the main 
beneficiary of this evolution in China, but it will help the Chinese 
people some day join our fellowship of democratic nations with a 
respect for universal human rights.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, will vote to defeat this disapproval 
resolution, H. J. Res. 50, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to 
support continued engagement and free and fair trade with China.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the annual request 
for Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status for China and support H.J. Res. 
50 to reject this request. While I hope and believe we should continue 
to seek engagement with China and other nations around the world, I 
also think it's clear that on the key issues of trade, human rights and 
rule of law, the behavior of the Chinese regime has deteriorated in the 
past year. The Chinese leadership fails to respect or support the 
aspirations of its own people. Unfortunately, when it comes to trade 
and other relations, China is not yet a responsible partner in the 
international arena.
  Most worrisome is the ongoing record of human rights abuses detailed 
in the State Department's ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 
for 2000.'' The report states: ``China's poor human rights record 
worsened during the year, as the authorities intensified their harsh 
measures against underground Christian groups and Tibetan Buddhists, 
destroyed many houses of worship, and stepped up their campaign against 
the Falun Gong movement. China also sharply suppressed organized 
dissent.''
  China's abuse of academic experts who simply want to study that 
nation's economic, political and cultural systems has been well 
documented in the past year. Both Chinese and American citizens have 
been swept up in the Chinese government's attack on academic freedom. 
Earlier this year, I wrote Chinese authorities to protest the detention 
of several Chinese-born U.S. citizens or permanent residents detained 
in China. Two of these individuals have been formally charged with 
espionage, though no information or evidence has been presented to 
justify these charges. Another was sentenced to a three year prison 
term for ``prying into and illegally providing state intelligence 
overseas,'' after she attempted to document the forcible detention of

[[Page 13868]]

Falun Gong members in mental institutions. Others remain in detention 
and under interrogation.
  I have strong reservations about the granting of the 2008 Olympic 
Games to Beijing, in light of China's poor record on the individual 
rights and freedoms that this competition embodies. However, with this 
award, the Chinese government should know that its human rights abuses 
will be scrutinized because of the increased attention that China will 
receive during preparations for the 2008 Olympics.
  While this is likely to be the last vote on annual NTR for China, I 
am confident that the Congress will not abandon its role of monitoring 
Chinese abuses of human rights. The newly established Congressional-
Executive Commission on China will assist the Congress in maintaining 
its traditional tough scrutiny of the Chinese government.
  China has a track record of suppressing the yearning of the Chinese 
people for democracy, and cracking down on those who would fight for 
their freedom, and a nation that does not respect the rule of law will 
not likely be interested in protecting intellectual property or other 
pillars of normal trade relations. I urge my colleagues to consider the 
reality of the situation in China as it is today, and to join me in 
affirming the bedrock values of our society. I urge my colleagues to 
turn back annual NTR until China becomes a responsible nation in a free 
and fair international trade regime.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment to 
disapprove Normal Trade Relations with China.
  Last year Congress voted to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to 
China.
  After much consideration, I voted against that bill because I did not 
believe that the United States should enact a trade policy that rewards 
the use of child and prison forced labor; environmental degradation; 
and religious and political repression.
  I also opposed PNTR because of the enormous, $83 billion dollar trade 
deficit we have with China.
  The Economic Policy Institute estimates that PNTR will cost 872,000 
American jobs in the next decade, 84,000 of them from my home state, 
California.
  That deficit is growing larger, while our own economy is slowing 
down, making jobs an even more precious commodity.
  We cannot make American jobs a casualty of our trade policy.
  And while the trade deficit increases, so does China's persecution of 
its own citizens.
  Our trade policy has done nothing to promote the protection of human 
rights.
  The Chinese government has trampled reproductive rights of women, 
imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners for carrying out their exercises, 
and arrested political dissidents for the simple expression of their 
beliefs.
  I support free and fair trade. An $83 billion dollar deficit that 
siphons off American jobs is not free and fair.
  A national industrial policy that is based on the forced labor of 
children and prisoners is not free and fair.
  Therefore, I urge you to support H.J. Res. 50.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.J. Res. 50, the measure 
denying China Normal Trade Relations. Just last year, we approved 
historic legislation (HR 4444) providing for Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations (PNTR) for China conditional on China's accession to the 
World Trade Organization. Those talks have not concluded, so yet again, 
we are called on to vote on a measure denying Normal Trade Relations 
for China. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Now more than ever it is important that we engage China for domestic 
and foreign policy reasons.
  On the domestic side, access to China-our 4th largest trading partner 
is important to US workers and US companies, especially our high-
technology industry. In 2000, the high-tech sector accounted for 29% of 
US merchandise exports and has accounted for 30% of GDP growth since 
1995. This in turn has led to greater prosperity for American workers. 
In 2000 (according to AeA's Key Industry Statistics) the Average Wage 
in the High-Tech Industry was $83,103. An estimated 350,000-400,000 US 
jobs depend on our exports to China. The case for trade with China is 
clear on the domestic front.
  But the case on the foreign policy side is also compelling. Free 
markets cannot prosper in authoritarian regimes and authoritarian 
regimes cannot long survive the impact of freedom and free markets. 
Change in China will be incremental. Where American engagement with 
China will promote human rights, revoking NTR status for China would 
simply curtail American influence in this important area.
  At the beginning of a new millennium, we should not regress and 
isolate China, we should help engage China in the world community. It 
is my strong belief that helping to engage China in the world community 
will advance the cause of freedom. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting against H.J. Res. 50.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House 
Joint Resolution 50, which would deny extension of normal trade 
relations (NTR) to the People's Republic of China. I urge our 
colleagues to vote against the measure.
  Mr. Speaker the decision before us is one of the most important 
actions taken by this Congress. The arguments for and against granting 
NTR to China are exceedingly broad and complex. The stakes, too, are 
tremendous, as it involves America's relationship with the world's 
largest nation, a nation composed of one-fifth of humanity.
  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.
  For those who oppose NTR for China, I agree that China continues to 
be plagued with serious problems--from human rights abuses, to trade 
imbalances, to growing military and security concerns.
  However, none of these problems will be resolved by attempts to 
isolate and disengage from China by denial of NTR status.
  If anything, isolating China will only encourage it to turn inwards, 
making matters worse and likely resulting in increased violations of 
human rights, lessened respect for political and social progress for 
China's citizens, and heightened paranoia of other nations' intentions 
resulting in expanded Chinese military spending.
  It is important for the U.S. to remain engaged with China and 
granting NTR status that will assist China's entry into the World Trade 
Organization is one very major way to achieve that objective while 
gaining WTO protections for our trade interests. Additionally, China's 
membership in the WTO will further open up China to the international 
community and force its compliance with WTO multinational standards and 
rules of law. With WTO enforcement, this will ensure China and the U.S. 
trade on a level playing field, which should go a long way toward 
rectifying our present trade imbalance.
  Although the trade incentives for extending China NTR 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--individuals who would be 
expected to take a hard line stance against the Beijing government.
  Prominent Chinese democracy activists such as Bao Tong, Xie Wanjun, 
Ren Wanding, Dai Qing, Zhou Litai and Wang Dan have urged the United 
States to extend China normal trade relations as it would hasten 
China's entry into the WTO, forcing adherence to international 
standards of conduct and respect for the rule of law. Moreover, they 
urge that closer economic relations between the U.S. and China allows 
America to more effectively monitor human rights and push for political 
reforms in 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 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 plead for the U.S. to remain engaged and not turn 
away from China because our nation is the only one with the power, the 
conscience, and the fortitude to push for true reforms and democracy in 
China.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to heed the best interests of the 
Chinese people as well as the American people by normalizing trade 
relations between our nations and opposing the legislation before us.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.J. Res. 50 and express my 
strong support for Normal Trade Relations for China. Unfortunately, due 
to family commitments in my hometown of Portland, Oregon, I will be 
unable to vote on the motion today.
  Last year Congress overwhelmingly made a difficult decision that we 
were following path of

[[Page 13869]]

engagement with the Chinese by voting to approve China's admission to 
the WTO and extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations. In so doing, 
the majority of Congress and the leaders of both political parties 
aligned themselves with the forces of change and reform in China.
  Because Chinese ascension to WTO has taken longer than we 
anticipated, we are back again with the need to do the last annual 
extension. We continue our roller-coaster relationship with China, 
although nothing has fundamentally changed. China continues to be ruled 
at the top by party and military leaders who are threatened by China's 
engagement with the United States and the broader world.
  Chinese leaders fear further penetration of the Chinese market by 
foreign economic powers, especially the United States. Tearing down 
economic barriers that would permit us to trade effectively would have 
a destabilizing effect on the repressive regime. Indeed, the distance 
that China has already traveled from the butchery and starvation of the 
Great Leap Forward and chaos of the Cultural Revolution today is almost 
unimaginable.
  Engagement will play to the positive forces of change, which are 
strengthening the new generation of entrepreneurial spirit, provincial 
and municipal leadership, and new business partnerships.
  A classic example happened earlier this year when an explosion 
occurred at a school based fireworks factory where children were being 
forced to assemble firecrackers as young as 3rd and 4th graders in this 
school. The official Chinese line was that a suicide bomber had entered 
a school and detonated an explosion. Within days, due to the magic of 
Chinese e-mail, the Chinese Premier was forced to acknowledge that it 
was an accident in the school-based factory. Through modern 
communications the reality was out instantly all across China and the 
truth triumphed.
  This is just one example of how reform is happening daily in hundreds 
of examples on a smaller scale that illustrate the point. It's not 
going to be quick or easy. But we can use the leverage of WTO 
membership to accelerate the progress and hasten the day when the 
Chinese people will enjoy the liberties that we too often take for 
granted.
  Failure to renew now would be a serious mistake. We have already 
embarked on a policy of engagement and established a policy on it. To 
reverse course now would have an extraordinarily destabilizing effect 
on our relationship, at a time when we are attempting to reduce 
tensions between the two countries. Economics would be the least of our 
worries. This would be a gratuitous and unfortunately escalation of 
pressures on our side, which would frustrate, if not infuriate the 
Chinese, confound our allies, and delight our business competitors.
  History suggests isolation will not have the impact desired by 
opponents of normal relations with China. It's particularly ironic that 
some are calling for disengagement with China at a time when we are now 
inching towards acknowledging our policy of attempting to isolate a 
much smaller country, Cuba, has been a failure. It's only harmed the 
Cuban people and prolonged the life of the Cuban dictatorship. Had we 
opened our borders, engaged in commerce and interaction, Castro would 
certainly be less powerful, and probably a thing of the past.
  China's behavior continues to be troubling and its record on human 
rights is atrocious; the potential is great that our frustrations with 
China may even escalate in the near term. Trading with China is not 
going to solve all our problems. We are still going to have to be 
aggressive in our negotiations, vigilant for human rights, the 
environment, and trade compliance. With China in the WTO we will have 
more tools and more allies in this struggle.
  Given the overwhelming positive effects of trade and engagement with 
China, I urge my colleagues to support continued NTR with China and 
vote no on the disapproval resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of Tuesday, July 17, 2001, the joint resolution is considered as 
having been read for amendment, and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 169, 
nays 259, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 255]

                               YEAS--169

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McIntyre
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Ney
     Norwood
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Smith (NJ)
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--259

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capps
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reynolds

[[Page 13870]]


     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (MI)
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Blumenauer
     DeLay
     Engel
     McKinney
     Saxton
     Spence

                              {time}  1909

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida and Messrs. EHLERS, LaHOOD, LARGENT, WATT of 
North Carolina, SHOWS, and ENGLISH changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Ms. SANCHEZ, Messrs. NORWOOD, RADANOVICH, DINGELL, and Ms. WATERS 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I hit the wrong key on the recorded vote 
No. 255 on passage for H.J. Res. 50. I voted ``no'' accidently and 
would like it to be changed to ``yea'' for the Record.

                          ____________________