Summary:

All articles in House section

CALL OF THE HOUSE
(House of Representatives - May 24, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3711-H3747] CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names: [Roll No. 226] Abercrombie Ackerman Aderholt Allen Andrews Armey Baca Bachus Baird Baker Baldacci Baldwin Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Barrett (WI) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Becerra Bentsen Bereuter Berkley Berry Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Blagojevich Bliley Blumenauer Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonior Bono Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Campbell Canady Cannon Capps Capuano Cardin Carson Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth-Hage Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coble Coburn Collins Combest Condit Conyers Cook Cooksey Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crowley Cubin Cummings Cunningham Danner Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis (VA) Deal DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro DeLay DeMint Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dickey Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doolittle Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Eshoo Etheridge Evans Everett Ewing Farr Fattah Filner Fletcher Foley Forbes Ford Fossella Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Gonzalez Goode Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Granger Green (TX) Green (WI) Greenwood Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hansen Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill (IN) Hill (MT) Hilleary Hilliard Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Hoekstra Holden Holt Hooley Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inslee Isakson Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kelly Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind (WI) King (NY) Kingston Kleczka Klink Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich Kuykendall LaFalce LaHood Lampson Lantos Largent Larson Latham LaTourette Lazio Leach Lee Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McCrery McDermott McGovern McHugh McInnis McIntyre McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Metcalf Mica Millender-McDonald Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Miller, George Minge Mink Moakley Mollohan Moore Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Morella Murtha Myrick Nadler Napolitano Neal Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Ose Owens Oxley Packard Pallone Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Pease Pelosi Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Phelps Pickering Pickett Pitts Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Regula Reyes Reynolds Riley Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rothman Roukema Roybal-Allard Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sabo Salmon Sanchez Sanders Sandlin Sanford Sawyer Saxton Schaffer Schakowsky Scott Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherman Sherwood Shimkus Shows Shuster Simpson Sisisky Skeen Skelton Slaughter Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Souder Spence Spratt Stabenow Stark Stenholm Strickland Stump Stupak Sununu Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thornberry Thune Thurman Tiahrt Toomey Towns Traficant Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Velazquez Vento Visclosky Vitter Walden Walsh Wamp Waters Watkins Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Waxman Weiner Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Wexler Weygand Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey Wu Wynn Young (FL) {time} 1614 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). On this rollcall, four hundred nineteen Members have recorded their presence by electronic device, a quorum. Under the rule, further proceedings under the call are dispensed with. AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAN TRADE RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) will yield 2 minutes to the Majority Leader, and then we will have closing statements from each of the managers beginning with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), who will have 4\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who will have 4 minutes; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who will have 4\1/2\ minutes; and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), who will have 4 minutes. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), our distinguished majority leader. Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I support permanent normal trade relations with China because I profoundly believe that it will advance the cause of human rights for the Chinese people. Mr. Speaker, I believe free and open trade is not only the best way to make China a free and open nation, but it may be the only way. A vote to open the China market and the world experience to the Chinese people is a vote to open markets. What is a market, Mr. Speaker? Market is simply an arena in which there is a sharing of information about market transactions, informations about desires, wants, hopes and dreams, and economic conditions. But, Mr. Speaker, one cannot share that information about economics without also sharing information about culture, politics, religion, and values. Information, Mr. Speaker, is the life blood of a market. It is also poison to dictators, because dictators know that it is the truth that will set one free. They also know that, in a modern technology age, information is the basis by which one acquires truth. When we open the China market, citizens from all over China will be carrying devices like this, a simple little pocket PC. With that PC, they can connect to the Internet every bit of information about culture, religion, markets, economics, and freedom and dignity available on this Earth. They cannot be stopped. It is said, Mr. Speaker, that the pen is mightier than the sword. I would argue that the PC is mightier than the shackles of tyranny. When the people of China are free to transact in world markets, and when they share this information about freedom, they will learn the lessons of liberty, they will see liberty working out in the lives of the other citizens in the world, and they will demand it of their nation, and they will change their government. The Communist hard-liners know this, Mr. Speaker, and that is why they do mischief to our efforts today. That is why they disrupt it, because they fear the freedom that comes from commerce and is contagious throughout all of human spirit. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what life will be for the Chinese people 5 or 10 or 15 years from now when we vote for freedom and commerce today. I cannot guarantee my colleagues that their life will be better. But I can tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, if we vote ``no'' today, if we deny them the chance, we will condemn them to a continued life of despair. I for one choose to vote, instead, for my fondest hope, for the hope of freedom, dignity, commerce, and prosperity, for the beautiful people of China so that their children, like our children, in this wide open world can come home and say in that magical voice, Mom, dad, I got the job. [[Page H3712]] Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues vote ``no'' today, we have normal trading relations with China. Jobs, American jobs, bombs, Bibles, in a nutshell, those are the three concerns that we have been talking about for the last 5 hours. Every year, every year I have been here, we are asked to approve normal trade for China based on existing and potential progress with these three concerns in mind: jobs, bombs, and Bibles. We are told every year that, if we will just extend normal trade for one more year, that jobs in this country will not be adversely affected. My district has lost manufacturing jobs to cheap Chinese labor every year I have been in Congress. There are others of my colleagues who fit in that category. This is not just cheap labor, Mr. Speaker, this is also slave labor. We are told, if we just will extend normal trade for one more year, we will not have to worry so much about Red China dropping nuclear bombs on us because they are going to be much friendlier, our relationship is going to be greatly improved. Yet, every single year that I have been in Congress, China has increased its nuclear arsenal with technology stolen from us and increased its threats to use them against American cities if we dare oppose their invasion of our allies. We are told that, if we extend normal trade relations for just one more year, the human rights in China will surely get better, that Christians will not be jailed for having Bibles, and Muslims will not be jailed for having the Koran, the Tibetans will not be jailed for simply following their traditional religion. Yet, every year that I have been in Congress, persecution of anyone in China who believes in a higher authority has gotten much worse. All of these things, all of them are worse after 5 years of what we have described as normal trade relations with China. So what is our response we are considering to these violations? To grant them normal trade relations forever with no qualifications. Here is what we must decide today. Do we allow China to profit from stealing our nuclear weapons secrets? Does China profit from violating our existing trade agreements and throwing hard-working Americans out of their manufacturing jobs? Does China profit from threatening an invasion of our friend and ally Taiwan? Does China profit from threatening nuclear attack on our cities? Does China profit from forcing young Chinese mothers to endure forced abortions and sterilization and watch government doctors kill their child as it is being born? Does China profit from throwing Christians in jail for just having a Bible or crushing the people of Tibet when they wanted to worship as they saw fit? There are many who support PNTR because they honestly believe that an all-out global trade, with no restrictions and no oversight, has a chance of simply overwhelming China's corrupt political and economic system. I disagree, but I respect their position and do not doubt at all their honest motives. But there is a seamier side of the China lobby that has successfully spread false information to America's business leaders, and many of our colleagues and have basically taken advantage of those honest emotions. We have a choice in this House today, a big choice. Our collective voice, Mr. Speaker, will be heard by billions of people around the world. People yearning and struggling for freedom, hoping, fighting and praying for democracy and human rights and peace. Our choice will determine whether our citizens and those masses of humanity locked in darkness continue to believe in America as the great beacon of human decency and divine providence, a Nation by whose light all mankind can see that liberty still shines brighter than gold. Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to recite Horatio at the Bridge for my colleagues, but I thought I might get more votes if I took this opportunity to recognize the distinguished minority whip to tell us why American workers should suffer ill no more. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) on a magnificent statement. Mr. Speaker, it is almost sunrise in Gwong Dong Province in China. Soon 1,000 workers at the Chin She factory will be getting ready to go to work. Most of them are young people, some as young as 16 years of age. They work 14-hour shifts, 7 days a week. They are housed in cramped dormitories that resemble prisons. Their average pay is 3 cents an hour. They make handbags for export here to America. {time} 1630 We are told we need this trade deal to open up the vast markets for American goods, but these Chinese workers cannot even afford to buy the products they make themselves. How are they going to buy our cars, our cell phones, our computers? We can have free markets without free people, but it does not often come to a good end; Chile's Pinochet, Indonesia's Suharto. We should have learned the lessons of NAFTA, jobs lost in food processing, in consumer products, in high-tech; 100,000 good auto worker jobs lost forever since NAFTA. And where are those men and women today? Oh, they are working. They are working in nursing homes, at gas stations, at convenience stores, and making a fraction of what they once earned. And the jobs they used to have are now performed by workers making pennies on the dollar in Mexico's economic free-fire zone called the maquiladora. But harsh as life can be in Mexico, China is far worse. It is a police state. And I say to the majority leader that their information is censored, including the Internet; a nation where injustice is law and brutality is order. Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote that if people are to become or remain civilized, ``the act of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio in which equality of condition is increased.'' That is what enabled America to become the most prosperous Nation in the world. It was not the forces of world commerce that enabled coal miners and steelworkers and auto workers and textile workers to take their place among America's middle class. No, it was leaders like Walter Reuther, and it was other Americans exercising their rights to form unions, to create political parties, to build women's organizations, to organize churches, civic organizations and groups. That is what the progressive movement at the turn of the century was all about. Mr. Speaker, democracy is something that grows from the ground up. Theodore Roosevelt understood that a long time ago before any of us. It was not the global trade that created our national parks or the laws that protect our air and our water; it was the environmental movement. It was not free trade that won women the right to vote or beat Jim Crow; it was the commitment and the sacrifice of the suffragettes and civil rights leaders. It was the Elizabeth Cady Stantons and the A. Philip Randolphs, the Martin Luther Kings, and, yes, our own colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). The advocates of this trade deal tell us that prosperity is a precondition for democracy, and with all due respect, they are wrong. They have to grow together. While trade may make a handful of investors wealthy, it is democracy, democracy, that makes nations prosperous. Americans value trade, but we are not willing to trade in our values. We understand this approach to trade is really the past masquerading as the future. It is turning back the clock on 100 years of progress. Some oppose this trade deal because of its impact on the environment, still others out of concern for our national security, and still others out of a deep commitment to religious liberty and human rights. But while we sometimes speak with different voices, we each share that same vision, and it is de Tocqueville's vision of a civilized society, and it is a vision of a new kind of a global economy, an economy where people matter as much as profits. Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting to my colleagues that it is almost sunrise in Gwong Dong Province, and soon the workers at the Chin She Handbag factory will begin another day. Today, we can send them a message of hope, a message that the global economy we want is not one where [[Page H3713]] working families in China and Mexico and America compete in a hopeless race to the bottom. We have a better vision than that. It is a vision of the global economy where all have a seat at the table. It is a vision of a new global economy where none of us are on the outside looking in. At the beginning of the last century, the progressive movement began a struggle that made the promise of democracy and prosperity real for millions of Americans. Now, from this House of Representatives, we carry that struggle for human dignity into a new century. For families here in America and throughout the world, we have just begun. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman is recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this has been, I think, one of my better days in this House; to be able to listen to the eloquent exchanges on such an important issue to our country and, indeed, the world; to be able to disagree and not be disagreeable; and for people from within and without to know that this will still be the House of Representatives and the true representatives of the people no matter how the vote turns out. Let me say this. Some 50 years ago, November 30, 1950, to be exact, I found myself a member of the Second Infantry Division, having fought from Pusan, entering in July, straight through up to North Korea sitting on the Yalu River. I was 20 years old at the time, waiting to go home, because we thought the war was over. We had beaten back the North Koreans. While we were there and General McArthur was having his fight with President Truman, hoards of Chinese, not the lovely Chinese that the distinguished majority leader was talking about, but hoards of Communist Chinese destroyed the entire Eighth Army, and we suffered 90 percent casualties. I do not take Communists lightly. But that was 50 years ago, and now the guy that was shot and was a high school dropout became a Member of this distinguished body, and now this United States is the most powerful country in the world, militarily and economically. And how did we get this way? It is because we do things better. We are better educated, we are better at producing. But in order for us to continue to prosper, we have to have economic growth. We have to find new marketplaces. Yet, all of a sudden, to my shock and surprise, with the exception of Cuba, communism is not the barrier. It is exchange, engagement, and find those marketplaces. How can we afford to ignore over a billion people, knowing that if we ignore them that the Asians and the Europeans will not? We come to the well here with an agreement where we are breaking down the barriers in China. Not in the United States. They have been down. This gives us an opportunity to go into those markets. And I have been throughout the United States. No one challenges me that farmers are begging to get into those markets. Silicon Valley in California, Silicon Alley in New York, farmers, pharmacists, manufacturers, the banking industry, the insurance industry are all asking us to allow them to get there and show how good Americans can really be. We say we would like to do that, but we have deep-seated concerns about the way China treats its people. Well, we do not want to eliminate those concerns. That is why we have locked into place, with the help of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a commission and oversight that if this fails, we will not have. I ask those people that have this compassion and concern for their new-found Communist friends in China, what if these Chinese do everything that we hate for them to do, what do we do when it comes up next year if it is not permanent? Do my colleagues not understand that we would be the bad guys for putting in place an impediment to their getting into the World Trade Organization, but they will get in anyway? We will have no way, except barking at the Moon, to complain about the behavior that we dislike. But I tell my colleagues this. We cannot forget as Americans that we have blemishes on this human rights issue. We have descendants of slaves that sit in this body. We have people here as Members of Congress that 50 years ago could not eat in certain restaurants. We have people living in the United States without educations, without hope, without running water. Mr. Speaker, I have not leaned on one Member in asking them to vote for this bill. I would not think that I am more of an American than they are, but I want to share with my colleagues that when people in certain districts go to sleep dreaming about human rights, they are not thinking about Shanghai; they are thinking about an opportunity in this great country. We are blessed. Let us break down these barriers. Let us be able to go there to China. Let us maintain an annual report, yes; but daily we will monitor the conduct and let us give America an opportunity to be all that she can be. We will show them. Cutting off communication did not work with that Communist, Castro. He has outlived close to 10 Presidents. Do not let it happen in China. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), our distinguished Speaker of the House. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, here we are, finally, on the floor of this great House closing the debate on permanent normal trade relations with China. Before we move into the finality of this, I want to thank those who helped make this legislation possible. I have to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). And I must say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), we have been talking a lot lately. They will be talking about us. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and my partners, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). I thank them all for their diligence in making this happen. But while there is one bill being debated here today, there are actually two debates going on; two questions that have to be answered. One, is granting this status to China in the best interest of the United States and the American people? And, two, is granting this status good for the people of China? {time} 1645 I believe the answer to both is ``yes.'' Among other things, this debate is about American economic security. American negotiators have reached a tough, but fair, agreement for China's entry into the World Trade Organization. It is in fact a one- sided agreement. China gets nothing from us they do not already have, and we get lower tariffs and easier access for our exports going to China. And who makes those exports? American workers do. Regardless of whether we grant normal trade status to China, the Chinese market is opening. Someone is going to have the opportunity to sell to this vast new market. The question is who will be there when the door opens? Will it be the United States, or will it be Europe and Japan? There will be new and larger markets for farm commodities and manufactured goods in China. Who will produce those products? American farmers and American workers or European farmers and European workers? This vote today is about whether American firms set the ground rules and standards for business in China. The potential for American economic growth is huge. If we pass this legislation, U.S. agricultural exports to China would increase by $2 billion every year. That means American farmers will be selling more corn and more wheat and more citrus and more soybeans. Last year, the wireless telephone market in China was $20 billion. By 2003, that market will be up to $45 billion. Our high-tech firms would thrive in the Chinese marketplace. It is clear that passing this legislation is in the best interest of American economic security. That is why Alan [[Page H3714]] Greenspan supports it, and that is one reason why we should vote ``yes.'' But there is another reason. Gradual democratic reform is taking root in the hearts and the minds of the Chinese people. But for it to continue, we must clear the way for more Americans to work with the Chinese. More trade will expose the Chinese people to powerful new ideas. Thanks to the American business presence in China, thousands of Chinese employees already have access to foreign newspapers and the Internet and to worldwide e-mail. Today this House is doing a good thing. We are showing the people and the leaders of China what real democracy looks like. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and I share a common goal, to help American workers and to encourage American reforms and human rights in China. But we differ on how to achieve that goal. I believe my approach is better, and that is why I urge Members to support this bill. But I am proud that I live in a country where the gentleman from Michigan (Mr Bonior) can be here on this floor today passionately putting forth his point of view, because that is what true democracy is all about. And, ladies and gentlemen, that is what this great House of Representatives is all about. In addition to the privilege of serving as the Speaker of this House, I am honored to be the representative of the people of the 14th District of Illinois. Like every State in this great Nation, Illinois has a lot to offer the people of China. So, in closing, I say to the people of China that we want to send you our corn and our farm machinery and our telecommunications equipment. But as we do, we are going to send along something more, free of charge. We are going to send you a glimpse of freedom and the ideals of Illinois' favorite son, Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator. Because we want for you the prosperity and the blessings of the liberty that we enjoy. This is a historic vote and a proud day for this body. I believe the vote we are casting today will help ensure our continued prosperity. Vote for the future. Vote ``aye.'' Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I support Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. I believe in free trade and I believe this agreement will bring economic growth to the United States and China, but I am highly concerned about the skewed priorities of U.S. trade negotiations and the framework of the World Trade Organization. I voted against the NAFTA because I thought we could make Mexico negotiate a better deal with more safeguards for the environment and worker rights. I voted against the GATT, which created the World Trade Organization, because I disapproved of establishing a world trading system that ceded our sovereignty in a number of areas, and particularly our ability to uphold laws for public health and the environment. I would have voted against Fast Track, if it had come to the floor, because of my concern that U.S. trade negotiators were not permitted to put worker protection issues as well as environment matters on the agenda. But according to the WTO rules that Congress ratified, and I voted against, China will be able to become part of the WTO regardless of our vote today. All we can decide here is whether the U.S. will benefit from the terms of China's accession. Although the symbolic message of rejecting PNTR would be potent, the substantive impact could be harmful for our economic and national security interests. On the economic side, there are some who believe that we can get every benefit by virtue of the bilateral agreement signed in 1979. I think that interpretation is incorrect. To press that issue, we could end up in a destructive trade war and at the same time lose major economic opportunities to America's global competitors. In the national security arena, I fear that in rejecting PNTR we would treat China as an adversary and that it would in reaction to our vote certainly become one. Rejecting PNTR would embolden the hardline militarists and make China even less cooperative in arms control and regional affairs. On the other hand, supporting the entry of both China and Taiwan into the WTO is an unprecedented opportunity to work with both countries on equal footing within a major multilateral organization. Furthermore, I think our current mechanism of annual review is not working and as a threat is not credible. I have voted against extending Normal Trade Relations status to China every year to protest their denial of human rights to their own citizens, but the possibility of cutting off trade relations has become an empty threat. That is why I strongly support my colleague Sandy Levin's proposal to establish a Congressional-Executive Commission to provide a continuous examination of human rights in China. It will create a strong network for Congress to communicate with NGO activists in China and maintain a constant focus on local Chinese elections, grass-roots environmental activities, and the situation in Tibet. I hope that passing PNTR will also bring greater transparency to China, and promote the rule of law. The influx of American interest, telecommunications, and media companies will democratize the flow of information beyond government control and give us new tools to scrutinize China's record on human rights and religious freedom. Although I'm supporting this bill, I continue to have serious concerns. For one thing, I am very troubled that Chinese tariffs on cigarettes will fall from 65% to 25% over the next four years. Lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases are already the most common cause of death in China, accounting for more than 700,000 deaths annually. This tariff reduction could open the door for tobacco companies to launch their aggressive marketing tactics against a highly vulnerable population where less than 4% know the dangers of smoking. Smoking patterns could eventually cause more than 3 millions deaths a year in China, and smoking rates could sky-rocket among women and children. We have a responsibility to make sure we don't spread the tobacco public health crisis to China. I also believe that the existing need for WTO reform will become even more apparent once China is a WTO member. I think there is a good change that China will try to get out of living up to its obligations under this accord and that even WTO judgments against China will be difficult to enforce. I also suspect that China may make efforts to use the WTO rules to challenge our own laws as trade barriers, When that happens, and maybe before, we in this country will have to face the dangers that the WTO represents and why it must be reformed. The WTO's dispute settlement mechanism must be open to input by non- governmental entities that have an interest in the deliberation. The evaluating panels cannot be shrouded in secrecy if dispute settlement is going to evolve as a credible and effective tool to enforce transparency and compliance. The U.S. should be leading the change to make trade rules include standards for human rights, labor rights, and the environment. We must work for a world economy that lives up to our standards instead of sinking to lower ones. Perhaps most importantly, we must make U.S. companies the ambassadors of these values when they operate abroad. I hope the advantages and consequences that unfold from PNTR will hasten our attention to moving forward on this agenda. My support for PNTR was not an easy decision. The debate has convinced me that we must redouble our efforts to press for domestic change in China, a change in U.S. trade priorities and more progressive would trading norms. But it has also brought me to the realization that isolating China would not cause new problems without without solving old ones and bring about great dangers that we must work to prevent. Today's vote could determine the course of U.S.-China relations for the next century. On voting for PNTR, I hope we will help make our most dynamic industries lead the way as they expand into China and the rest of the world. I also hope that it will allow us to working to bring down national barriers and promote the well-being lf all our peoples. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4444 which would extend to the People's Republic of China permanent normal trade relations. More importantly, however, passage of this bill serves to ratify the bi-lateral trade agreement reached between the U.S. and China last fall as a condition for China's accession into the World Trade Organization. This will be the only vote Congress has on this momentous agreement. On the one hand, China is a potential boom market for our industries, particularly agriculture which is critically important to my district. Bringing China into the WTO has the potential of making the Port of Hueneme, in my district, an even more important portal for Pacific Rim trade. With 20 percent of the world's population, China is an appealing market. It behooves us to work diligently and intelligently to open that market to U.S. sellers. The other hand carries many pitfalls. China's track record in meeting its obligations under international agreements is not good. China is the only remaining Communist superpower. China has stolen our nuclear secrets and threatens stability in Asia with her belligerence towards Taiwan and others. We ignore that reality at our own peril. Last year, I voted against a one-year extension of China's Most Favored Nation status based on two criteria: The United States maintains a multibillion-dollar trade deficit with [[Page H3715]] China and has for years, and China has repeatedly demonstrated an aggressive military stance that includes stealing our most important nuclear secrets. At the beginning of this debate, I was not automatically against China's entry into the World Trade Organization, but I did have some very serious concerns. WTO membership carries more protection for the United States than does Most Favored Nation status. MFN has been a one-way street. It was a unilateral decision on our part to allow China access to our markets with no reciprocal opening on China's behalf. WTO is more of a two-way street. China must meet and maintain certain open-door criteria to remain in the WTO. Our trade with China historically has been a one-way street. In 1990, our trade deficit with China stood at $10.4 billion. By 1998, that deficit had climbed to $56.9 billion. It is estimated our trade deficit with China in 1999 will be $66.4 billion. China's entry into WTO and the ratification of the U.S.-China trade agreement can ease that deficit, but only if the agreement has teeth. I believe the WTO process has those teeth. In 1992, China and the U.S. signed a bilateral memorandum of understanding on trade access. China has violated it many times. In 1992, we also struck a deal with China to protect intellectual property, including copyrights on U.S. products. Today, U.S. copyrights for motion pictures and software in China are still being stolen by Chinese companies, a situation that results in the loss of billions of dollars and many thousands of American jobs. Chinese noncompliance has forced us to threaten trade sanctions several times. On the national security front, China was continuing a systematic raid on the designs of our most sophisticated thermonuclear weapons at the same time that it was modernizing and pretending to normalize relations with the U.S. Among the stolen designs was information on the neutron bomb, which to date no nation has opted to deploy and hopefully no one will. Even though China has been caught red-handed, it continues to deny its espionage. Meanwhile, it continues to showcase its belligerency by transferring sensitive missile technology to North Korea and by repeatedly threatening to attack Taiwan. The U.S.-China agreement can have positive consequences for the U.S., China and, indeed, the entire world. The agreement will force China to open its markets to U.S. goods and services, which will result in a lowering of the trade deficit. It could wean China from its passion for subsidies and government interference in its industries. It could educate the Chinese on the rule of law, as opposed to its current system of rule by the whim of its leaders. It could also hasten the spread of democracy within her borders. Each time a country has opened its economic markets, an open market of ideas has followed. But we must step carefully. We must not let our desire to access China's markets to blind us to China's distaste for democracy, her threat to our national security and her history of violating international laws and agreements. For the WTO agreement to work, it must level the playing field for U.S. exporters and be fully enforceable. Anything less will not open China's markets or advance the historical trend toward truly free trade and the rule of law. Since the U.S. signed a bilateral trade agreement with China last year, I have said repeatedly that my vote for or against permanent trade relations with China would rely on specific factors: It must protect American jobs, ensure Chinese markets are open to American goods and services, protect America's strategic interests and--be enforceable. I have made it clear that without those provisions, I would vote against Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Some of those protections were not in the bill until last night. Those protections are in the bill only because I and other Members of Congress withheld our support until every `i' was dotted. By working behind the scenes, we were able to force concessions that make this agreement a better deal for American businesses, American workers and for those who support greater human rights for the Chinese people. Last night, a bipartisan provision was incorporated into the bill that makes it easier for us to monitor China's trade compliance, and act if need be. That provision builds on provisions in the World Trade Organization agreement that allows us to continue to treat China as a communist economy. That's important because our safeguards and anti-dumping countermeasures are more stringent for communist economies than it is for capitalist countries. In addition, the revised bill continues Congress' all-important right to debate and vote on China's human rights practices and international behavior each year. The European Union signed its WTO agreement with China on Friday, followed by an agreement with Australia on Monday. Both were negotiated with China's history of duplicity in mind. In particular, the EU agreement improves the deal signed by the U.S. by making China significantly more open to foreign investment and trade. Under WTO rules, those provisions are open to the U.S. as well. We have given China Permanent Normal Trade Relations. But this is not the end, only the beginning. China has, at best, a mixed record of living up to international agreements, and I still have concerns about China's adherence to this one. But I am satisfied we have the mechanisms in place to force compliance, or take remedial action, if necessary. American businesses will not have a level playing field unless we continually insist on it, but now we have the tools to do that. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this debate I have expressed my belief that any trade deal with China involves two questions. The first, which we are debating today, is whether the Chinese have negotiated an agreement that is fair for American workers and businesses. However, before we can address this question we must be able to answer the second question, whether the agreement that has been negotiated includes the necessary enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance by China and fair treatment for American companies and workers. We have not yet answered this question, and consequently I cannot support this or any deal with China lacking the enforcement mechanisms necessary to guarantee fair trade. Today's robust debate has highlighted the concerns of many of my colleagues, thousands of interest groups and millions of citizens. All the subjects being debated today--national security, human rights, religious freedom, democracy, labor at home and abroad, the environment and the development of our and the world's economy--are of considerable importance. China is the most populous nation in the world. As such, its potential as a market for American goods and services is second to none. The concept of increased trade with China based on a good, enforceable agreement is sound and deserving of support. Trade is and will be extremely important to both American companies and workers. As a blueprint, the agreement negotiated by the Clinton Administration with China is good for America in many respects. When it comes down to it, any agreement, like any contract, is only as good as its enforcement provisions. What we have from China, so far, is its promise, if you will, to allow U.S. and foreign firms to compete fairly and openly in the Chinese market. But negotiations must still be held to reach agreement on how those promises China has made are going to be enforced. It has been more than two years since the World Trade Organization (WTO) working party and Chinese negotiators first met to conduct serious negotiations on the enforcement provisions to be included in the protocol. Mr. Speaker, members should know in detail what the WTO will do to ensure full and fair implementation of China's commitments contained in the accession agreement before, not after, we vote on an issue as important as the issue on the floor today. Why is the protocol and working party report so important, some may ask. The simple answer is that the protocol and working party report identify what the WTO will do to make sure that China fully implements the commitments it has made in the agreements that have been reached with the United States and other WTO partners. Until the Congress sees not only the commitments China has made but also the WTO's enforcement commitments, there is, in reality, no agreement for Congress to consider and determine worthy of granting PNTR to China. Once China enters the WTO, American firms and American workers must turn to the WTO for enforcement of their rights, and enforcement at the WTO is an area of considerable disappointment and concern. The WTO's ``binding dispute resolution'' system has proven to be a system rife with bias, incompetency, as well as totally unfamiliar with basic principles of due process and openness. There are no judges, only ad hoc panelists, most of whom are not experienced or qualified in applying proper standards of review. These panelists are assisted, if not controlled, by WTO bureaucrats who have inherent biases based on their programmatic interests in the subjects under review. Proceedings are kept secret from the public and from the parties in interest.There is no ability to engage in meaningful fact- finding. Panel decisions have also created obligations for WTO members that they did not agree to in the process of negotiations. And even if a panel decides in your favor, as in the case brought by the United States against the European Union (EU) on beef hormones and bananas, there is no assurance at all that anything will change. Years have gone by since the U.S. ``won'' these cases, and U.S. firms still have no greater access to the EU market. Mr. Chairman, PNTR is an extremely valuable trade benefit with China does not have but earnestly wants. It constitutes the only real leverage the U.S. has to bring about the kind of economic and trade reforms within China that will open that market to the products and [[Page H3716]] services American firms and American workers produce. Before we grant PNTR to China, we must make sure that China not only makes sufficient market opening commitments, but also that those commitments are enforceable. I am not pleased to vote no today. It is unquestionably in our national interest to have a cooperative relationship with China, and I am well aware that rejecting this trade package could further strain U.S.-Chinese relations and diminish our influence in China with regard to democracy, human rights, labor, environmental protection and Taiwan. But ultimately, my vote is about fairness and timing. Without enforcement mechanisms there can be no assurance of fairness for American business, American industry, and American jobs. By voting on a trade deal of such great importance before all the deals have been cut, especially on the enforcement mechanisms which will decide if this agreement is worth the paper it is written on, we needlessly jeopardize American jobs and business prospects in China. I guarantee you rules that can't be enforced will be broken. This vote should be postponed until accession agreements are concluded. Only then can we fully and responsibility assess the commitments China makes and determine whether the agreement ensures that China's commitment will be fully implemented and effectively enforced. Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status to China. In my career, I cannot recall a vote on which a final decision was more difficult to reach. Until today, I have been genuinely and sincerely undecided. In these past weeks and months, I have been listening intently to the forceful arguments for and against the legislation, especially those made by my constituents--who are as divided on this issue as I have been. I have great respect for the beliefs of those on both sides of this debate and for the passion of their convictions. In the final analysis, I believe that ``aye'' is the correct vote for a variety of reasons, including advancing the causes of human rights and democratization, for our national security, and for our economic self- interest. Improving respect for human rights and fostering democracy clearly must be top policy priorities in our relationship with China. No one here today condones the political and religious repression in that nation. The disagreement is over which U.S. policy is more likely to contribute to an improvement in conditions in China. I stress the word ``contribute,'' because we need to be cognizant that nothing we do will dramatically change China in the short term. Both sides of this debate have prominent human rights activists and former political prisoners supporting their position. We are presented with no easy formula that instructs us whether China plus or minus PNTR results in improved human rights. I have come to the conclusion that the increased outside contact, prosperity, and economic liberalization that comes with a strong U.S.-Sino trade relationship within the World Trade Organization (WTO) will be a greater force for change than the annual consideration and routine extension of NTR has offered. I am also comforted by the recent expressions of support for China's entry into the WTO by the Dalai Lama--perhaps the most prominent symbol of the repressive nature of the Chinese regime. We have heard much debate about the job losses which could result from passage of PNTR. While I am extremely sensitive to labor's concerns, on balance I believe that the economic interests of business and labor are enhanced by this normalization of trade with China. The U.S.-China Bilateral WTO Agreement provides for broad tariff reductions by China, for enhanced market access for American goods, and contains import surge protections for the U.S. The agreement requires no reduction in U.S. tariffs or any enhanced market access for Chinese products. As we have never revoked Most Favored Nation/Normal Trade Relations through the annual review process, China currently has defactor PNTR. I fail to see how reduced Chinese tariffs and other concessions in return for ending the formality of the annual review leads to increased job loss. I believe that passing PNTR will not create any significant job loss that was not already occurring in certain sectors of the economy. While various estimates of the employment effects of PNTR have been proffered, they must be viewed in the context of an economy that is dynamic and in constant flux. The shape of the American economy is changing and will change whether or not we pass PNTR. In fact, I believe that Chinese WTO accession and passage of PNTR will be a net creator of good jobs in California and in my congressional district. It is my fervent hope that over the long term, China's accession to the WTO will improve the human rights situation and encourage democratization in China. The inclusion in H.R. 4444 of a strong legislative package authored by Representatives Sander Levin (D-MI) and Doug Bereuter (R-NE) has addressed my doubts about the effects of this bill on human rights in China, as well as the American jobs. The human rights monitoring commission created by the legislation is a good idea in its own right. I believe the merit of close scrutiny of China's human rights situation speaks for itself and I would support the proposal independent of this PNTR bill. The import surge protections negotiated by the Clinton Administration and codified in this bill go a long way to addressing my concern about job losses resulting from this bill. This mechanism allows the President to utilize tariff increases, import restrictions, or other relief for domestic industries whose markets are disrupted by a surge in Chinese made goods. These powerful tools come in additional to the trade remedies already available under U.S. law and under the WTO. Ultimately, passing PNTR is in our economic self interest. China will join the WTO whether or not we pass this legislation today. The rest of the world will enjoy significant tariff reduction on their exports to China regardless of the outcome of this vote. We are voting on our nation's ability to sell the products made by our workers and our companies on a competitive basis. We must continue to vigilantly monitor our relationship with China. We must continue to pursue improvements in respect for human rights in all appropriate venues, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We will have to maintain our steadfast support for Taiwan. We will have to closely monitor Chinese compliance with its obligations under the WTO and make full use of that organization's mechanisms to enforce those obligations. With the knowledge in mind, Mr. Speaker, I am left with the belief that passage of this legislation is in the interests of both the American and the Chinese people. Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today we are plotting a bold course that is in keeping with our history, our potential, and our ultimate goal of liberating the Chinese people. In the international arena, America doesn't shrink from a challenge. We seize opportunity. We are fighters, visionaries, and pioneers. It's in our nature as Americans, to look past a challenge to victory. Standing as we do, at the head of the world, in a position of unprecedented strength and prosperity, why would we now choose the timid path? We should not, and we will not. That's why we will pass Permanent Normal Trade Relations status with the People's Republic of China. While PNTR will help our American economy, this is only one step toward our larger goal; ending communist rule in China by exposing the Chinese people to American values. Freedom is a contagious virtue. Defeating a foe is a poor substitute for liberating a country from the weight of a repressive ideology. We should today ensure the triumph of liberty by planting the seeds of freedom in China. We should not accept a retrenchment driven by fear and insecurity. There are serious issues we must address. Confronting these issues requires real American leadership and courage, We should not for a moment imagine that PNTR will solve or even the address the many troubling questions concerning the future of the communist government in Beijing. Without a doubt, expanded trade must be matched with a revitalization of America's military and a strengthening of our friendships with our allies in Asia. Simply expanding trade without supplying these critical elements will not create a free China. But we shouldn't let the strong steps we must take to resist aggression prevent us from communicating with the Chinese people. The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy has always been to make the case for freedom and democracy. We have never been afraid to place our values and our form of government up against any competitor. Give us half a chance, and we will win. Expanding trade with China is just this sort of opportunity. Fundamental change in China will not happen simply through State Department dictates. It will only happen after we inspire the Chinese people to demand freedom. We want to appeal to the Chinese people. To do that we have to be there, on the ground, spreading our values and the sure knowledge that there is a far better, nobler form of government than communism. Ignorance is the ally of repressive governments. Expanded trade, because it spreads American values, is an essential tool in changing a closed society. And in the battle for China's future, one Chinese entrepreneur is worth a million government bureaucrats. [[Page H3717]] Over the last century, communist countries have run from this competition. They hid their people behind walls and fortified borders, because they knew that if their citizens were exposed to our values, then the battle would be lost. As a great power built on a foundation of timeless virtues, we fear no competing political systems because we trust the strength of our ideas. We should ask ourselves: Why do so many of the hardliners, the old communist guard in China, resist opening their country to increased trade and interaction with America? It's because they understand the power of democratic values. We need to support Chinese reformers by giving them more, not less, access to American ideals. This will raise the call for human rights and lead China to the rule of law. We can't for a single minute ignore abuses by the Chinese government. Beijing's record on human rights, religious persecution, coercive abortion, and arms shipments to hostile states is shameful. The Chinese government does wicked things to its people. The way to stop these evil deeds is to end communist rule and that means transforming China into a free-market democracy. This is much more likely to happen if American ideals eat away at the infrastructure of tyranny from the inside out. We must also reject any notion that our support of expanded trade in China signals in any small way a slackening of our solemn commitment to defend Taiwan from aggression. We are sworn to defend Taiwan and we say again today that the United States will not allow any resolution of Taiwan's status that involves force or threats. We will not stand for it. Further, we must insist that Taiwan be admitted to the WTO as well. Granting PNTR to China is a critical component of a strategy driven by our one, clear objective: destroying communism. So, I urge my fellow Members, to support PNTR and commit the United States to this contest between freedom and repression. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, extending permanent normal trade relations to China and supporting its accession to the World Trade Organization greatly benefits the United States. By encouraging participation in international organizations that facilitate the rule of law, I believe that this agreement is also in the best interest of the Chinese people. By approving PNTR, we will be enabling the United States to take advantage of the across-the-board reductions in tariff barriers that we negotiated as terms for our approval of China's accession to the World Trade Organization. Agricultural tariffs will be substantially reduced on several priority products, including a 66 percent cut on the tariff for apples, that will obviously have a large impact on my State of Washington and other apple producing areas of our country. China also agreed to lift its longstanding ban on the import of wheat and to increase the quota by more than 400 percent. China agreed to participate in the Information Technology Agreement and to eliminate tariffs on products such as software, computers, and semiconductors. Also China agreed to slash tariffs on industrial goods by an average of 62 percent, enabling America's manufacturers to compete much more evenly in the Chinese marketplace. The WTO accession agreement also contains provisions that will help other industries in which the U.S. is a world leader--telecommunications, insurance and banking just to name a few. The approval last week of a market access agreement between China and the European Union further adds to the benefits we will enjoy with China's accession to the WTO, as the best terms of each agreement negotiated by the Chinese must be extended to all members of the WTO. More agricultural tariffs will be cut, including those on wheat gluten and Washington wines. Several more tariffs on industrial goods will also be reduced, liberalization of the telecommunications industry will be accelerated, and United States law firms will be authorized to offer legal services in China. In return, we do not have to change anything--not one tariff, nor one regulation currently enforced by the United States. All we must do, according to WTO rules, is to extend permanent normal trade relations to China. Those of my colleagues that argue that our record trade deficit with China is a reason to oppose this bill must consider this point. There is nothing about this bill that will lead to an increase in the amount of goods we import from China; rather, this is all about slashing Chinese tariffs against United States goods which will lead to a substantial increase in United States exports to China. If you are truly concerned about addressing the United States trade deficit, you should vote for this bill. Some are opposing this bill, claiming that China has rarely adhered to prior trade agreements in the past. In my judgment, opponents claiming this point should be eager to support this agreement. By entering the WTO, China will finally be participating in an organization whose sole purpose to enforce trade agreements. A few years ago, we had to beg, cajole, and plead with China in order to persuade them to provide any enforcement of the intellectual property agreement established between our two countries. With accession to the WTO, we will have an impartial adjudicator to hear the case and determine what redress is warranted. No longer will we have to rely on the honesty and effectivness of the Chinese Government to ensure that they abide by trade agreements. My good friends in the labor community have expressed grave concerns over the effects this bill will have on American and Chinese workers. I deeply repect their concerns, but I believe that they are best addressed by voting for this bill. Currently, United States manufacturers and service providers struggle to enter the Chinese market becaue of high tariffs and often insurmountable red tape. By agreeing to cut their tariffs and reduce burdensome rules, China will be creating an incredible opportunity for American-made goods to finally penetrate their market. I firmly believe that this will be a real job creator in the United States, and ultimately of great benefit to U.S. workers. For this reason, the 27,000 member International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 751 western Washington endorsed this legislaiton. I cannot claim that the benefit to the Chinese worker will be as quick or as quantifiable as are the gains to American workers, but I do believe that accession to the WTO is in the best, long-term interest of the Chinese worker. This agreement will contribute to what we are already seeing in many parts of China--the growth of economic freedom and a vibrant middle class. I also respect the convictions of those who consistently oppose any engagement with China because of China's disappointing record on human rights and religious freedoms. However, I side with many who, like the Dalai Lama and dissidents Bao tong and Dai Qing, recognize that engaging the Chinese and bringing them into international organizati

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

CALL OF THE HOUSE
(House of Representatives - May 24, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3711-H3747] CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names: [Roll No. 226] Abercrombie Ackerman Aderholt Allen Andrews Armey Baca Bachus Baird Baker Baldacci Baldwin Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Barrett (WI) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Becerra Bentsen Bereuter Berkley Berry Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Blagojevich Bliley Blumenauer Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonior Bono Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Campbell Canady Cannon Capps Capuano Cardin Carson Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth-Hage Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coble Coburn Collins Combest Condit Conyers Cook Cooksey Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crowley Cubin Cummings Cunningham Danner Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis (VA) Deal DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro DeLay DeMint Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dickey Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doolittle Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Eshoo Etheridge Evans Everett Ewing Farr Fattah Filner Fletcher Foley Forbes Ford Fossella Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Gonzalez Goode Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Granger Green (TX) Green (WI) Greenwood Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hansen Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill (IN) Hill (MT) Hilleary Hilliard Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Hoekstra Holden Holt Hooley Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inslee Isakson Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kelly Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind (WI) King (NY) Kingston Kleczka Klink Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich Kuykendall LaFalce LaHood Lampson Lantos Largent Larson Latham LaTourette Lazio Leach Lee Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McCrery McDermott McGovern McHugh McInnis McIntyre McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Metcalf Mica Millender-McDonald Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Miller, George Minge Mink Moakley Mollohan Moore Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Morella Murtha Myrick Nadler Napolitano Neal Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Ose Owens Oxley Packard Pallone Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Pease Pelosi Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Phelps Pickering Pickett Pitts Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Regula Reyes Reynolds Riley Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rothman Roukema Roybal-Allard Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sabo Salmon Sanchez Sanders Sandlin Sanford Sawyer Saxton Schaffer Schakowsky Scott Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherman Sherwood Shimkus Shows Shuster Simpson Sisisky Skeen Skelton Slaughter Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Souder Spence Spratt Stabenow Stark Stenholm Strickland Stump Stupak Sununu Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thornberry Thune Thurman Tiahrt Toomey Towns Traficant Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Velazquez Vento Visclosky Vitter Walden Walsh Wamp Waters Watkins Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Waxman Weiner Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Wexler Weygand Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey Wu Wynn Young (FL) {time} 1614 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). On this rollcall, four hundred nineteen Members have recorded their presence by electronic device, a quorum. Under the rule, further proceedings under the call are dispensed with. AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAN TRADE RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) will yield 2 minutes to the Majority Leader, and then we will have closing statements from each of the managers beginning with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), who will have 4\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who will have 4 minutes; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who will have 4\1/2\ minutes; and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), who will have 4 minutes. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), our distinguished majority leader. Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I support permanent normal trade relations with China because I profoundly believe that it will advance the cause of human rights for the Chinese people. Mr. Speaker, I believe free and open trade is not only the best way to make China a free and open nation, but it may be the only way. A vote to open the China market and the world experience to the Chinese people is a vote to open markets. What is a market, Mr. Speaker? Market is simply an arena in which there is a sharing of information about market transactions, informations about desires, wants, hopes and dreams, and economic conditions. But, Mr. Speaker, one cannot share that information about economics without also sharing information about culture, politics, religion, and values. Information, Mr. Speaker, is the life blood of a market. It is also poison to dictators, because dictators know that it is the truth that will set one free. They also know that, in a modern technology age, information is the basis by which one acquires truth. When we open the China market, citizens from all over China will be carrying devices like this, a simple little pocket PC. With that PC, they can connect to the Internet every bit of information about culture, religion, markets, economics, and freedom and dignity available on this Earth. They cannot be stopped. It is said, Mr. Speaker, that the pen is mightier than the sword. I would argue that the PC is mightier than the shackles of tyranny. When the people of China are free to transact in world markets, and when they share this information about freedom, they will learn the lessons of liberty, they will see liberty working out in the lives of the other citizens in the world, and they will demand it of their nation, and they will change their government. The Communist hard-liners know this, Mr. Speaker, and that is why they do mischief to our efforts today. That is why they disrupt it, because they fear the freedom that comes from commerce and is contagious throughout all of human spirit. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what life will be for the Chinese people 5 or 10 or 15 years from now when we vote for freedom and commerce today. I cannot guarantee my colleagues that their life will be better. But I can tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, if we vote ``no'' today, if we deny them the chance, we will condemn them to a continued life of despair. I for one choose to vote, instead, for my fondest hope, for the hope of freedom, dignity, commerce, and prosperity, for the beautiful people of China so that their children, like our children, in this wide open world can come home and say in that magical voice, Mom, dad, I got the job. [[Page H3712]] Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues vote ``no'' today, we have normal trading relations with China. Jobs, American jobs, bombs, Bibles, in a nutshell, those are the three concerns that we have been talking about for the last 5 hours. Every year, every year I have been here, we are asked to approve normal trade for China based on existing and potential progress with these three concerns in mind: jobs, bombs, and Bibles. We are told every year that, if we will just extend normal trade for one more year, that jobs in this country will not be adversely affected. My district has lost manufacturing jobs to cheap Chinese labor every year I have been in Congress. There are others of my colleagues who fit in that category. This is not just cheap labor, Mr. Speaker, this is also slave labor. We are told, if we just will extend normal trade for one more year, we will not have to worry so much about Red China dropping nuclear bombs on us because they are going to be much friendlier, our relationship is going to be greatly improved. Yet, every single year that I have been in Congress, China has increased its nuclear arsenal with technology stolen from us and increased its threats to use them against American cities if we dare oppose their invasion of our allies. We are told that, if we extend normal trade relations for just one more year, the human rights in China will surely get better, that Christians will not be jailed for having Bibles, and Muslims will not be jailed for having the Koran, the Tibetans will not be jailed for simply following their traditional religion. Yet, every year that I have been in Congress, persecution of anyone in China who believes in a higher authority has gotten much worse. All of these things, all of them are worse after 5 years of what we have described as normal trade relations with China. So what is our response we are considering to these violations? To grant them normal trade relations forever with no qualifications. Here is what we must decide today. Do we allow China to profit from stealing our nuclear weapons secrets? Does China profit from violating our existing trade agreements and throwing hard-working Americans out of their manufacturing jobs? Does China profit from threatening an invasion of our friend and ally Taiwan? Does China profit from threatening nuclear attack on our cities? Does China profit from forcing young Chinese mothers to endure forced abortions and sterilization and watch government doctors kill their child as it is being born? Does China profit from throwing Christians in jail for just having a Bible or crushing the people of Tibet when they wanted to worship as they saw fit? There are many who support PNTR because they honestly believe that an all-out global trade, with no restrictions and no oversight, has a chance of simply overwhelming China's corrupt political and economic system. I disagree, but I respect their position and do not doubt at all their honest motives. But there is a seamier side of the China lobby that has successfully spread false information to America's business leaders, and many of our colleagues and have basically taken advantage of those honest emotions. We have a choice in this House today, a big choice. Our collective voice, Mr. Speaker, will be heard by billions of people around the world. People yearning and struggling for freedom, hoping, fighting and praying for democracy and human rights and peace. Our choice will determine whether our citizens and those masses of humanity locked in darkness continue to believe in America as the great beacon of human decency and divine providence, a Nation by whose light all mankind can see that liberty still shines brighter than gold. Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to recite Horatio at the Bridge for my colleagues, but I thought I might get more votes if I took this opportunity to recognize the distinguished minority whip to tell us why American workers should suffer ill no more. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) on a magnificent statement. Mr. Speaker, it is almost sunrise in Gwong Dong Province in China. Soon 1,000 workers at the Chin She factory will be getting ready to go to work. Most of them are young people, some as young as 16 years of age. They work 14-hour shifts, 7 days a week. They are housed in cramped dormitories that resemble prisons. Their average pay is 3 cents an hour. They make handbags for export here to America. {time} 1630 We are told we need this trade deal to open up the vast markets for American goods, but these Chinese workers cannot even afford to buy the products they make themselves. How are they going to buy our cars, our cell phones, our computers? We can have free markets without free people, but it does not often come to a good end; Chile's Pinochet, Indonesia's Suharto. We should have learned the lessons of NAFTA, jobs lost in food processing, in consumer products, in high-tech; 100,000 good auto worker jobs lost forever since NAFTA. And where are those men and women today? Oh, they are working. They are working in nursing homes, at gas stations, at convenience stores, and making a fraction of what they once earned. And the jobs they used to have are now performed by workers making pennies on the dollar in Mexico's economic free-fire zone called the maquiladora. But harsh as life can be in Mexico, China is far worse. It is a police state. And I say to the majority leader that their information is censored, including the Internet; a nation where injustice is law and brutality is order. Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote that if people are to become or remain civilized, ``the act of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio in which equality of condition is increased.'' That is what enabled America to become the most prosperous Nation in the world. It was not the forces of world commerce that enabled coal miners and steelworkers and auto workers and textile workers to take their place among America's middle class. No, it was leaders like Walter Reuther, and it was other Americans exercising their rights to form unions, to create political parties, to build women's organizations, to organize churches, civic organizations and groups. That is what the progressive movement at the turn of the century was all about. Mr. Speaker, democracy is something that grows from the ground up. Theodore Roosevelt understood that a long time ago before any of us. It was not the global trade that created our national parks or the laws that protect our air and our water; it was the environmental movement. It was not free trade that won women the right to vote or beat Jim Crow; it was the commitment and the sacrifice of the suffragettes and civil rights leaders. It was the Elizabeth Cady Stantons and the A. Philip Randolphs, the Martin Luther Kings, and, yes, our own colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). The advocates of this trade deal tell us that prosperity is a precondition for democracy, and with all due respect, they are wrong. They have to grow together. While trade may make a handful of investors wealthy, it is democracy, democracy, that makes nations prosperous. Americans value trade, but we are not willing to trade in our values. We understand this approach to trade is really the past masquerading as the future. It is turning back the clock on 100 years of progress. Some oppose this trade deal because of its impact on the environment, still others out of concern for our national security, and still others out of a deep commitment to religious liberty and human rights. But while we sometimes speak with different voices, we each share that same vision, and it is de Tocqueville's vision of a civilized society, and it is a vision of a new kind of a global economy, an economy where people matter as much as profits. Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting to my colleagues that it is almost sunrise in Gwong Dong Province, and soon the workers at the Chin She Handbag factory will begin another day. Today, we can send them a message of hope, a message that the global economy we want is not one where [[Page H3713]] working families in China and Mexico and America compete in a hopeless race to the bottom. We have a better vision than that. It is a vision of the global economy where all have a seat at the table. It is a vision of a new global economy where none of us are on the outside looking in. At the beginning of the last century, the progressive movement began a struggle that made the promise of democracy and prosperity real for millions of Americans. Now, from this House of Representatives, we carry that struggle for human dignity into a new century. For families here in America and throughout the world, we have just begun. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman is recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this has been, I think, one of my better days in this House; to be able to listen to the eloquent exchanges on such an important issue to our country and, indeed, the world; to be able to disagree and not be disagreeable; and for people from within and without to know that this will still be the House of Representatives and the true representatives of the people no matter how the vote turns out. Let me say this. Some 50 years ago, November 30, 1950, to be exact, I found myself a member of the Second Infantry Division, having fought from Pusan, entering in July, straight through up to North Korea sitting on the Yalu River. I was 20 years old at the time, waiting to go home, because we thought the war was over. We had beaten back the North Koreans. While we were there and General McArthur was having his fight with President Truman, hoards of Chinese, not the lovely Chinese that the distinguished majority leader was talking about, but hoards of Communist Chinese destroyed the entire Eighth Army, and we suffered 90 percent casualties. I do not take Communists lightly. But that was 50 years ago, and now the guy that was shot and was a high school dropout became a Member of this distinguished body, and now this United States is the most powerful country in the world, militarily and economically. And how did we get this way? It is because we do things better. We are better educated, we are better at producing. But in order for us to continue to prosper, we have to have economic growth. We have to find new marketplaces. Yet, all of a sudden, to my shock and surprise, with the exception of Cuba, communism is not the barrier. It is exchange, engagement, and find those marketplaces. How can we afford to ignore over a billion people, knowing that if we ignore them that the Asians and the Europeans will not? We come to the well here with an agreement where we are breaking down the barriers in China. Not in the United States. They have been down. This gives us an opportunity to go into those markets. And I have been throughout the United States. No one challenges me that farmers are begging to get into those markets. Silicon Valley in California, Silicon Alley in New York, farmers, pharmacists, manufacturers, the banking industry, the insurance industry are all asking us to allow them to get there and show how good Americans can really be. We say we would like to do that, but we have deep-seated concerns about the way China treats its people. Well, we do not want to eliminate those concerns. That is why we have locked into place, with the help of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a commission and oversight that if this fails, we will not have. I ask those people that have this compassion and concern for their new-found Communist friends in China, what if these Chinese do everything that we hate for them to do, what do we do when it comes up next year if it is not permanent? Do my colleagues not understand that we would be the bad guys for putting in place an impediment to their getting into the World Trade Organization, but they will get in anyway? We will have no way, except barking at the Moon, to complain about the behavior that we dislike. But I tell my colleagues this. We cannot forget as Americans that we have blemishes on this human rights issue. We have descendants of slaves that sit in this body. We have people here as Members of Congress that 50 years ago could not eat in certain restaurants. We have people living in the United States without educations, without hope, without running water. Mr. Speaker, I have not leaned on one Member in asking them to vote for this bill. I would not think that I am more of an American than they are, but I want to share with my colleagues that when people in certain districts go to sleep dreaming about human rights, they are not thinking about Shanghai; they are thinking about an opportunity in this great country. We are blessed. Let us break down these barriers. Let us be able to go there to China. Let us maintain an annual report, yes; but daily we will monitor the conduct and let us give America an opportunity to be all that she can be. We will show them. Cutting off communication did not work with that Communist, Castro. He has outlived close to 10 Presidents. Do not let it happen in China. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), our distinguished Speaker of the House. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, here we are, finally, on the floor of this great House closing the debate on permanent normal trade relations with China. Before we move into the finality of this, I want to thank those who helped make this legislation possible. I have to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). And I must say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), we have been talking a lot lately. They will be talking about us. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and my partners, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). I thank them all for their diligence in making this happen. But while there is one bill being debated here today, there are actually two debates going on; two questions that have to be answered. One, is granting this status to China in the best interest of the United States and the American people? And, two, is granting this status good for the people of China? {time} 1645 I believe the answer to both is ``yes.'' Among other things, this debate is about American economic security. American negotiators have reached a tough, but fair, agreement for China's entry into the World Trade Organization. It is in fact a one- sided agreement. China gets nothing from us they do not already have, and we get lower tariffs and easier access for our exports going to China. And who makes those exports? American workers do. Regardless of whether we grant normal trade status to China, the Chinese market is opening. Someone is going to have the opportunity to sell to this vast new market. The question is who will be there when the door opens? Will it be the United States, or will it be Europe and Japan? There will be new and larger markets for farm commodities and manufactured goods in China. Who will produce those products? American farmers and American workers or European farmers and European workers? This vote today is about whether American firms set the ground rules and standards for business in China. The potential for American economic growth is huge. If we pass this legislation, U.S. agricultural exports to China would increase by $2 billion every year. That means American farmers will be selling more corn and more wheat and more citrus and more soybeans. Last year, the wireless telephone market in China was $20 billion. By 2003, that market will be up to $45 billion. Our high-tech firms would thrive in the Chinese marketplace. It is clear that passing this legislation is in the best interest of American economic security. That is why Alan [[Page H3714]] Greenspan supports it, and that is one reason why we should vote ``yes.'' But there is another reason. Gradual democratic reform is taking root in the hearts and the minds of the Chinese people. But for it to continue, we must clear the way for more Americans to work with the Chinese. More trade will expose the Chinese people to powerful new ideas. Thanks to the American business presence in China, thousands of Chinese employees already have access to foreign newspapers and the Internet and to worldwide e-mail. Today this House is doing a good thing. We are showing the people and the leaders of China what real democracy looks like. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and I share a common goal, to help American workers and to encourage American reforms and human rights in China. But we differ on how to achieve that goal. I believe my approach is better, and that is why I urge Members to support this bill. But I am proud that I live in a country where the gentleman from Michigan (Mr Bonior) can be here on this floor today passionately putting forth his point of view, because that is what true democracy is all about. And, ladies and gentlemen, that is what this great House of Representatives is all about. In addition to the privilege of serving as the Speaker of this House, I am honored to be the representative of the people of the 14th District of Illinois. Like every State in this great Nation, Illinois has a lot to offer the people of China. So, in closing, I say to the people of China that we want to send you our corn and our farm machinery and our telecommunications equipment. But as we do, we are going to send along something more, free of charge. We are going to send you a glimpse of freedom and the ideals of Illinois' favorite son, Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator. Because we want for you the prosperity and the blessings of the liberty that we enjoy. This is a historic vote and a proud day for this body. I believe the vote we are casting today will help ensure our continued prosperity. Vote for the future. Vote ``aye.'' Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I support Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. I believe in free trade and I believe this agreement will bring economic growth to the United States and China, but I am highly concerned about the skewed priorities of U.S. trade negotiations and the framework of the World Trade Organization. I voted against the NAFTA because I thought we could make Mexico negotiate a better deal with more safeguards for the environment and worker rights. I voted against the GATT, which created the World Trade Organization, because I disapproved of establishing a world trading system that ceded our sovereignty in a number of areas, and particularly our ability to uphold laws for public health and the environment. I would have voted against Fast Track, if it had come to the floor, because of my concern that U.S. trade negotiators were not permitted to put worker protection issues as well as environment matters on the agenda. But according to the WTO rules that Congress ratified, and I voted against, China will be able to become part of the WTO regardless of our vote today. All we can decide here is whether the U.S. will benefit from the terms of China's accession. Although the symbolic message of rejecting PNTR would be potent, the substantive impact could be harmful for our economic and national security interests. On the economic side, there are some who believe that we can get every benefit by virtue of the bilateral agreement signed in 1979. I think that interpretation is incorrect. To press that issue, we could end up in a destructive trade war and at the same time lose major economic opportunities to America's global competitors. In the national security arena, I fear that in rejecting PNTR we would treat China as an adversary and that it would in reaction to our vote certainly become one. Rejecting PNTR would embolden the hardline militarists and make China even less cooperative in arms control and regional affairs. On the other hand, supporting the entry of both China and Taiwan into the WTO is an unprecedented opportunity to work with both countries on equal footing within a major multilateral organization. Furthermore, I think our current mechanism of annual review is not working and as a threat is not credible. I have voted against extending Normal Trade Relations status to China every year to protest their denial of human rights to their own citizens, but the possibility of cutting off trade relations has become an empty threat. That is why I strongly support my colleague Sandy Levin's proposal to establish a Congressional-Executive Commission to provide a continuous examination of human rights in China. It will create a strong network for Congress to communicate with NGO activists in China and maintain a constant focus on local Chinese elections, grass-roots environmental activities, and the situation in Tibet. I hope that passing PNTR will also bring greater transparency to China, and promote the rule of law. The influx of American interest, telecommunications, and media companies will democratize the flow of information beyond government control and give us new tools to scrutinize China's record on human rights and religious freedom. Although I'm supporting this bill, I continue to have serious concerns. For one thing, I am very troubled that Chinese tariffs on cigarettes will fall from 65% to 25% over the next four years. Lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases are already the most common cause of death in China, accounting for more than 700,000 deaths annually. This tariff reduction could open the door for tobacco companies to launch their aggressive marketing tactics against a highly vulnerable population where less than 4% know the dangers of smoking. Smoking patterns could eventually cause more than 3 millions deaths a year in China, and smoking rates could sky-rocket among women and children. We have a responsibility to make sure we don't spread the tobacco public health crisis to China. I also believe that the existing need for WTO reform will become even more apparent once China is a WTO member. I think there is a good change that China will try to get out of living up to its obligations under this accord and that even WTO judgments against China will be difficult to enforce. I also suspect that China may make efforts to use the WTO rules to challenge our own laws as trade barriers, When that happens, and maybe before, we in this country will have to face the dangers that the WTO represents and why it must be reformed. The WTO's dispute settlement mechanism must be open to input by non- governmental entities that have an interest in the deliberation. The evaluating panels cannot be shrouded in secrecy if dispute settlement is going to evolve as a credible and effective tool to enforce transparency and compliance. The U.S. should be leading the change to make trade rules include standards for human rights, labor rights, and the environment. We must work for a world economy that lives up to our standards instead of sinking to lower ones. Perhaps most importantly, we must make U.S. companies the ambassadors of these values when they operate abroad. I hope the advantages and consequences that unfold from PNTR will hasten our attention to moving forward on this agenda. My support for PNTR was not an easy decision. The debate has convinced me that we must redouble our efforts to press for domestic change in China, a change in U.S. trade priorities and more progressive would trading norms. But it has also brought me to the realization that isolating China would not cause new problems without without solving old ones and bring about great dangers that we must work to prevent. Today's vote could determine the course of U.S.-China relations for the next century. On voting for PNTR, I hope we will help make our most dynamic industries lead the way as they expand into China and the rest of the world. I also hope that it will allow us to working to bring down national barriers and promote the well-being lf all our peoples. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4444 which would extend to the People's Republic of China permanent normal trade relations. More importantly, however, passage of this bill serves to ratify the bi-lateral trade agreement reached between the U.S. and China last fall as a condition for China's accession into the World Trade Organization. This will be the only vote Congress has on this momentous agreement. On the one hand, China is a potential boom market for our industries, particularly agriculture which is critically important to my district. Bringing China into the WTO has the potential of making the Port of Hueneme, in my district, an even more important portal for Pacific Rim trade. With 20 percent of the world's population, China is an appealing market. It behooves us to work diligently and intelligently to open that market to U.S. sellers. The other hand carries many pitfalls. China's track record in meeting its obligations under international agreements is not good. China is the only remaining Communist superpower. China has stolen our nuclear secrets and threatens stability in Asia with her belligerence towards Taiwan and others. We ignore that reality at our own peril. Last year, I voted against a one-year extension of China's Most Favored Nation status based on two criteria: The United States maintains a multibillion-dollar trade deficit with [[Page H3715]] China and has for years, and China has repeatedly demonstrated an aggressive military stance that includes stealing our most important nuclear secrets. At the beginning of this debate, I was not automatically against China's entry into the World Trade Organization, but I did have some very serious concerns. WTO membership carries more protection for the United States than does Most Favored Nation status. MFN has been a one-way street. It was a unilateral decision on our part to allow China access to our markets with no reciprocal opening on China's behalf. WTO is more of a two-way street. China must meet and maintain certain open-door criteria to remain in the WTO. Our trade with China historically has been a one-way street. In 1990, our trade deficit with China stood at $10.4 billion. By 1998, that deficit had climbed to $56.9 billion. It is estimated our trade deficit with China in 1999 will be $66.4 billion. China's entry into WTO and the ratification of the U.S.-China trade agreement can ease that deficit, but only if the agreement has teeth. I believe the WTO process has those teeth. In 1992, China and the U.S. signed a bilateral memorandum of understanding on trade access. China has violated it many times. In 1992, we also struck a deal with China to protect intellectual property, including copyrights on U.S. products. Today, U.S. copyrights for motion pictures and software in China are still being stolen by Chinese companies, a situation that results in the loss of billions of dollars and many thousands of American jobs. Chinese noncompliance has forced us to threaten trade sanctions several times. On the national security front, China was continuing a systematic raid on the designs of our most sophisticated thermonuclear weapons at the same time that it was modernizing and pretending to normalize relations with the U.S. Among the stolen designs was information on the neutron bomb, which to date no nation has opted to deploy and hopefully no one will. Even though China has been caught red-handed, it continues to deny its espionage. Meanwhile, it continues to showcase its belligerency by transferring sensitive missile technology to North Korea and by repeatedly threatening to attack Taiwan. The U.S.-China agreement can have positive consequences for the U.S., China and, indeed, the entire world. The agreement will force China to open its markets to U.S. goods and services, which will result in a lowering of the trade deficit. It could wean China from its passion for subsidies and government interference in its industries. It could educate the Chinese on the rule of law, as opposed to its current system of rule by the whim of its leaders. It could also hasten the spread of democracy within her borders. Each time a country has opened its economic markets, an open market of ideas has followed. But we must step carefully. We must not let our desire to access China's markets to blind us to China's distaste for democracy, her threat to our national security and her history of violating international laws and agreements. For the WTO agreement to work, it must level the playing field for U.S. exporters and be fully enforceable. Anything less will not open China's markets or advance the historical trend toward truly free trade and the rule of law. Since the U.S. signed a bilateral trade agreement with China last year, I have said repeatedly that my vote for or against permanent trade relations with China would rely on specific factors: It must protect American jobs, ensure Chinese markets are open to American goods and services, protect America's strategic interests and--be enforceable. I have made it clear that without those provisions, I would vote against Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Some of those protections were not in the bill until last night. Those protections are in the bill only because I and other Members of Congress withheld our support until every `i' was dotted. By working behind the scenes, we were able to force concessions that make this agreement a better deal for American businesses, American workers and for those who support greater human rights for the Chinese people. Last night, a bipartisan provision was incorporated into the bill that makes it easier for us to monitor China's trade compliance, and act if need be. That provision builds on provisions in the World Trade Organization agreement that allows us to continue to treat China as a communist economy. That's important because our safeguards and anti-dumping countermeasures are more stringent for communist economies than it is for capitalist countries. In addition, the revised bill continues Congress' all-important right to debate and vote on China's human rights practices and international behavior each year. The European Union signed its WTO agreement with China on Friday, followed by an agreement with Australia on Monday. Both were negotiated with China's history of duplicity in mind. In particular, the EU agreement improves the deal signed by the U.S. by making China significantly more open to foreign investment and trade. Under WTO rules, those provisions are open to the U.S. as well. We have given China Permanent Normal Trade Relations. But this is not the end, only the beginning. China has, at best, a mixed record of living up to international agreements, and I still have concerns about China's adherence to this one. But I am satisfied we have the mechanisms in place to force compliance, or take remedial action, if necessary. American businesses will not have a level playing field unless we continually insist on it, but now we have the tools to do that. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this debate I have expressed my belief that any trade deal with China involves two questions. The first, which we are debating today, is whether the Chinese have negotiated an agreement that is fair for American workers and businesses. However, before we can address this question we must be able to answer the second question, whether the agreement that has been negotiated includes the necessary enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance by China and fair treatment for American companies and workers. We have not yet answered this question, and consequently I cannot support this or any deal with China lacking the enforcement mechanisms necessary to guarantee fair trade. Today's robust debate has highlighted the concerns of many of my colleagues, thousands of interest groups and millions of citizens. All the subjects being debated today--national security, human rights, religious freedom, democracy, labor at home and abroad, the environment and the development of our and the world's economy--are of considerable importance. China is the most populous nation in the world. As such, its potential as a market for American goods and services is second to none. The concept of increased trade with China based on a good, enforceable agreement is sound and deserving of support. Trade is and will be extremely important to both American companies and workers. As a blueprint, the agreement negotiated by the Clinton Administration with China is good for America in many respects. When it comes down to it, any agreement, like any contract, is only as good as its enforcement provisions. What we have from China, so far, is its promise, if you will, to allow U.S. and foreign firms to compete fairly and openly in the Chinese market. But negotiations must still be held to reach agreement on how those promises China has made are going to be enforced. It has been more than two years since the World Trade Organization (WTO) working party and Chinese negotiators first met to conduct serious negotiations on the enforcement provisions to be included in the protocol. Mr. Speaker, members should know in detail what the WTO will do to ensure full and fair implementation of China's commitments contained in the accession agreement before, not after, we vote on an issue as important as the issue on the floor today. Why is the protocol and working party report so important, some may ask. The simple answer is that the protocol and working party report identify what the WTO will do to make sure that China fully implements the commitments it has made in the agreements that have been reached with the United States and other WTO partners. Until the Congress sees not only the commitments China has made but also the WTO's enforcement commitments, there is, in reality, no agreement for Congress to consider and determine worthy of granting PNTR to China. Once China enters the WTO, American firms and American workers must turn to the WTO for enforcement of their rights, and enforcement at the WTO is an area of considerable disappointment and concern. The WTO's ``binding dispute resolution'' system has proven to be a system rife with bias, incompetency, as well as totally unfamiliar with basic principles of due process and openness. There are no judges, only ad hoc panelists, most of whom are not experienced or qualified in applying proper standards of review. These panelists are assisted, if not controlled, by WTO bureaucrats who have inherent biases based on their programmatic interests in the subjects under review. Proceedings are kept secret from the public and from the parties in interest.There is no ability to engage in meaningful fact- finding. Panel decisions have also created obligations for WTO members that they did not agree to in the process of negotiations. And even if a panel decides in your favor, as in the case brought by the United States against the European Union (EU) on beef hormones and bananas, there is no assurance at all that anything will change. Years have gone by since the U.S. ``won'' these cases, and U.S. firms still have no greater access to the EU market. Mr. Chairman, PNTR is an extremely valuable trade benefit with China does not have but earnestly wants. It constitutes the only real leverage the U.S. has to bring about the kind of economic and trade reforms within China that will open that market to the products and [[Page H3716]] services American firms and American workers produce. Before we grant PNTR to China, we must make sure that China not only makes sufficient market opening commitments, but also that those commitments are enforceable. I am not pleased to vote no today. It is unquestionably in our national interest to have a cooperative relationship with China, and I am well aware that rejecting this trade package could further strain U.S.-Chinese relations and diminish our influence in China with regard to democracy, human rights, labor, environmental protection and Taiwan. But ultimately, my vote is about fairness and timing. Without enforcement mechanisms there can be no assurance of fairness for American business, American industry, and American jobs. By voting on a trade deal of such great importance before all the deals have been cut, especially on the enforcement mechanisms which will decide if this agreement is worth the paper it is written on, we needlessly jeopardize American jobs and business prospects in China. I guarantee you rules that can't be enforced will be broken. This vote should be postponed until accession agreements are concluded. Only then can we fully and responsibility assess the commitments China makes and determine whether the agreement ensures that China's commitment will be fully implemented and effectively enforced. Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status to China. In my career, I cannot recall a vote on which a final decision was more difficult to reach. Until today, I have been genuinely and sincerely undecided. In these past weeks and months, I have been listening intently to the forceful arguments for and against the legislation, especially those made by my constituents--who are as divided on this issue as I have been. I have great respect for the beliefs of those on both sides of this debate and for the passion of their convictions. In the final analysis, I believe that ``aye'' is the correct vote for a variety of reasons, including advancing the causes of human rights and democratization, for our national security, and for our economic self- interest. Improving respect for human rights and fostering democracy clearly must be top policy priorities in our relationship with China. No one here today condones the political and religious repression in that nation. The disagreement is over which U.S. policy is more likely to contribute to an improvement in conditions in China. I stress the word ``contribute,'' because we need to be cognizant that nothing we do will dramatically change China in the short term. Both sides of this debate have prominent human rights activists and former political prisoners supporting their position. We are presented with no easy formula that instructs us whether China plus or minus PNTR results in improved human rights. I have come to the conclusion that the increased outside contact, prosperity, and economic liberalization that comes with a strong U.S.-Sino trade relationship within the World Trade Organization (WTO) will be a greater force for change than the annual consideration and routine extension of NTR has offered. I am also comforted by the recent expressions of support for China's entry into the WTO by the Dalai Lama--perhaps the most prominent symbol of the repressive nature of the Chinese regime. We have heard much debate about the job losses which could result from passage of PNTR. While I am extremely sensitive to labor's concerns, on balance I believe that the economic interests of business and labor are enhanced by this normalization of trade with China. The U.S.-China Bilateral WTO Agreement provides for broad tariff reductions by China, for enhanced market access for American goods, and contains import surge protections for the U.S. The agreement requires no reduction in U.S. tariffs or any enhanced market access for Chinese products. As we have never revoked Most Favored Nation/Normal Trade Relations through the annual review process, China currently has defactor PNTR. I fail to see how reduced Chinese tariffs and other concessions in return for ending the formality of the annual review leads to increased job loss. I believe that passing PNTR will not create any significant job loss that was not already occurring in certain sectors of the economy. While various estimates of the employment effects of PNTR have been proffered, they must be viewed in the context of an economy that is dynamic and in constant flux. The shape of the American economy is changing and will change whether or not we pass PNTR. In fact, I believe that Chinese WTO accession and passage of PNTR will be a net creator of good jobs in California and in my congressional district. It is my fervent hope that over the long term, China's accession to the WTO will improve the human rights situation and encourage democratization in China. The inclusion in H.R. 4444 of a strong legislative package authored by Representatives Sander Levin (D-MI) and Doug Bereuter (R-NE) has addressed my doubts about the effects of this bill on human rights in China, as well as the American jobs. The human rights monitoring commission created by the legislation is a good idea in its own right. I believe the merit of close scrutiny of China's human rights situation speaks for itself and I would support the proposal independent of this PNTR bill. The import surge protections negotiated by the Clinton Administration and codified in this bill go a long way to addressing my concern about job losses resulting from this bill. This mechanism allows the President to utilize tariff increases, import restrictions, or other relief for domestic industries whose markets are disrupted by a surge in Chinese made goods. These powerful tools come in additional to the trade remedies already available under U.S. law and under the WTO. Ultimately, passing PNTR is in our economic self interest. China will join the WTO whether or not we pass this legislation today. The rest of the world will enjoy significant tariff reduction on their exports to China regardless of the outcome of this vote. We are voting on our nation's ability to sell the products made by our workers and our companies on a competitive basis. We must continue to vigilantly monitor our relationship with China. We must continue to pursue improvements in respect for human rights in all appropriate venues, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We will have to maintain our steadfast support for Taiwan. We will have to closely monitor Chinese compliance with its obligations under the WTO and make full use of that organization's mechanisms to enforce those obligations. With the knowledge in mind, Mr. Speaker, I am left with the belief that passage of this legislation is in the interests of both the American and the Chinese people. Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today we are plotting a bold course that is in keeping with our history, our potential, and our ultimate goal of liberating the Chinese people. In the international arena, America doesn't shrink from a challenge. We seize opportunity. We are fighters, visionaries, and pioneers. It's in our nature as Americans, to look past a challenge to victory. Standing as we do, at the head of the world, in a position of unprecedented strength and prosperity, why would we now choose the timid path? We should not, and we will not. That's why we will pass Permanent Normal Trade Relations status with the People's Republic of China. While PNTR will help our American economy, this is only one step toward our larger goal; ending communist rule in China by exposing the Chinese people to American values. Freedom is a contagious virtue. Defeating a foe is a poor substitute for liberating a country from the weight of a repressive ideology. We should today ensure the triumph of liberty by planting the seeds of freedom in China. We should not accept a retrenchment driven by fear and insecurity. There are serious issues we must address. Confronting these issues requires real American leadership and courage, We should not for a moment imagine that PNTR will solve or even the address the many troubling questions concerning the future of the communist government in Beijing. Without a doubt, expanded trade must be matched with a revitalization of America's military and a strengthening of our friendships with our allies in Asia. Simply expanding trade without supplying these critical elements will not create a free China. But we shouldn't let the strong steps we must take to resist aggression prevent us from communicating with the Chinese people. The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy has always been to make the case for freedom and democracy. We have never been afraid to place our values and our form of government up against any competitor. Give us half a chance, and we will win. Expanding trade with China is just this sort of opportunity. Fundamental change in China will not happen simply through State Department dictates. It will only happen after we inspire the Chinese people to demand freedom. We want to appeal to the Chinese people. To do that we have to be there, on the ground, spreading our values and the sure knowledge that there is a far better, nobler form of government than communism. Ignorance is the ally of repressive governments. Expanded trade, because it spreads American values, is an essential tool in changing a closed society. And in the battle for China's future, one Chinese entrepreneur is worth a million government bureaucrats. [[Page H3717]] Over the last century, communist countries have run from this competition. They hid their people behind walls and fortified borders, because they knew that if their citizens were exposed to our values, then the battle would be lost. As a great power built on a foundation of timeless virtues, we fear no competing political systems because we trust the strength of our ideas. We should ask ourselves: Why do so many of the hardliners, the old communist guard in China, resist opening their country to increased trade and interaction with America? It's because they understand the power of democratic values. We need to support Chinese reformers by giving them more, not less, access to American ideals. This will raise the call for human rights and lead China to the rule of law. We can't for a single minute ignore abuses by the Chinese government. Beijing's record on human rights, religious persecution, coercive abortion, and arms shipments to hostile states is shameful. The Chinese government does wicked things to its people. The way to stop these evil deeds is to end communist rule and that means transforming China into a free-market democracy. This is much more likely to happen if American ideals eat away at the infrastructure of tyranny from the inside out. We must also reject any notion that our support of expanded trade in China signals in any small way a slackening of our solemn commitment to defend Taiwan from aggression. We are sworn to defend Taiwan and we say again today that the United States will not allow any resolution of Taiwan's status that involves force or threats. We will not stand for it. Further, we must insist that Taiwan be admitted to the WTO as well. Granting PNTR to China is a critical component of a strategy driven by our one, clear objective: destroying communism. So, I urge my fellow Members, to support PNTR and commit the United States to this contest between freedom and repression. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, extending permanent normal trade relations to China and supporting its accession to the World Trade Organization greatly benefits the United States. By encouraging participation in international organizations that facilitate the rule of law, I believe that this agreement is also in the best interest of the Chinese people. By approving PNTR, we will be enabling the United States to take advantage of the across-the-board reductions in tariff barriers that we negotiated as terms for our approval of China's accession to the World Trade Organization. Agricultural tariffs will be substantially reduced on several priority products, including a 66 percent cut on the tariff for apples, that will obviously have a large impact on my State of Washington and other apple producing areas of our country. China also agreed to lift its longstanding ban on the import of wheat and to increase the quota by more than 400 percent. China agreed to participate in the Information Technology Agreement and to eliminate tariffs on products such as software, computers, and semiconductors. Also China agreed to slash tariffs on industrial goods by an average of 62 percent, enabling America's manufacturers to compete much more evenly in the Chinese marketplace. The WTO accession agreement also contains provisions that will help other industries in which the U.S. is a world leader--telecommunications, insurance and banking just to name a few. The approval last week of a market access agreement between China and the European Union further adds to the benefits we will enjoy with China's accession to the WTO, as the best terms of each agreement negotiated by the Chinese must be extended to all members of the WTO. More agricultural tariffs will be cut, including those on wheat gluten and Washington wines. Several more tariffs on industrial goods will also be reduced, liberalization of the telecommunications industry will be accelerated, and United States law firms will be authorized to offer legal services in China. In return, we do not have to change anything--not one tariff, nor one regulation currently enforced by the United States. All we must do, according to WTO rules, is to extend permanent normal trade relations to China. Those of my colleagues that argue that our record trade deficit with China is a reason to oppose this bill must consider this point. There is nothing about this bill that will lead to an increase in the amount of goods we import from China; rather, this is all about slashing Chinese tariffs against United States goods which will lead to a substantial increase in United States exports to China. If you are truly concerned about addressing the United States trade deficit, you should vote for this bill. Some are opposing this bill, claiming that China has rarely adhered to prior trade agreements in the past. In my judgment, opponents claiming this point should be eager to support this agreement. By entering the WTO, China will finally be participating in an organization whose sole purpose to enforce trade agreements. A few years ago, we had to beg, cajole, and plead with China in order to persuade them to provide any enforcement of the intellectual property agreement established between our two countries. With accession to the WTO, we will have an impartial adjudicator to hear the case and determine what redress is warranted. No longer will we have to rely on the honesty and effectivness of the Chinese Government to ensure that they abide by trade agreements. My good friends in the labor community have expressed grave concerns over the effects this bill will have on American and Chinese workers. I deeply repect their concerns, but I believe that they are best addressed by voting for this bill. Currently, United States manufacturers and service providers struggle to enter the Chinese market becaue of high tariffs and often insurmountable red tape. By agreeing to cut their tariffs and reduce burdensome rules, China will be creating an incredible opportunity for American-made goods to finally penetrate their market. I firmly believe that this will be a real job creator in the United States, and ultimately of great benefit to U.S. workers. For this reason, the 27,000 member International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 751 western Washington endorsed this legislaiton. I cannot claim that the benefit to the Chinese worker will be as quick or as quantifiable as are the gains to American workers, but I do believe that accession to the WTO is in the best, long-term interest of the Chinese worker. This agreement will contribute to what we are already seeing in many parts of China--the growth of economic freedom and a vibrant middle class. I also respect the convictions of those who consistently oppose any engagement with China because of China's disappointing record on human rights and religious freedoms. However, I side with many who, like the Dalai Lama and dissidents Bao tong and Dai Qing, recognize that engaging the Chinese and bringing them into international

Summary:

All articles in House section

CALL OF THE HOUSE
(House of Representatives - May 24, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3711-H3747] CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names: [Roll No. 226] Abercrombie Ackerman Aderholt Allen Andrews Armey Baca Bachus Baird Baker Baldacci Baldwin Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Barrett (WI) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Becerra Bentsen Bereuter Berkley Berry Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Blagojevich Bliley Blumenauer Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonior Bono Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Campbell Canady Cannon Capps Capuano Cardin Carson Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth-Hage Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coble Coburn Collins Combest Condit Conyers Cook Cooksey Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crowley Cubin Cummings Cunningham Danner Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis (VA) Deal DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro DeLay DeMint Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dickey Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doolittle Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Eshoo Etheridge Evans Everett Ewing Farr Fattah Filner Fletcher Foley Forbes Ford Fossella Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Gonzalez Goode Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Granger Green (TX) Green (WI) Greenwood Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hansen Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill (IN) Hill (MT) Hilleary Hilliard Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Hoekstra Holden Holt Hooley Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inslee Isakson Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kelly Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind (WI) King (NY) Kingston Kleczka Klink Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich Kuykendall LaFalce LaHood Lampson Lantos Largent Larson Latham LaTourette Lazio Leach Lee Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McCrery McDermott McGovern McHugh McInnis McIntyre McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Metcalf Mica Millender-McDonald Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Miller, George Minge Mink Moakley Mollohan Moore Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Morella Murtha Myrick Nadler Napolitano Neal Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Ose Owens Oxley Packard Pallone Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Pease Pelosi Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Phelps Pickering Pickett Pitts Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Regula Reyes Reynolds Riley Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rothman Roukema Roybal-Allard Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sabo Salmon Sanchez Sanders Sandlin Sanford Sawyer Saxton Schaffer Schakowsky Scott Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherman Sherwood Shimkus Shows Shuster Simpson Sisisky Skeen Skelton Slaughter Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Souder Spence Spratt Stabenow Stark Stenholm Strickland Stump Stupak Sununu Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thornberry Thune Thurman Tiahrt Toomey Towns Traficant Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Velazquez Vento Visclosky Vitter Walden Walsh Wamp Waters Watkins Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Waxman Weiner Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Wexler Weygand Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey Wu Wynn Young (FL) {time} 1614 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). On this rollcall, four hundred nineteen Members have recorded their presence by electronic device, a quorum. Under the rule, further proceedings under the call are dispensed with. AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAN TRADE RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) will yield 2 minutes to the Majority Leader, and then we will have closing statements from each of the managers beginning with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), who will have 4\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who will have 4 minutes; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who will have 4\1/2\ minutes; and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), who will have 4 minutes. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), our distinguished majority leader. Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I support permanent normal trade relations with China because I profoundly believe that it will advance the cause of human rights for the Chinese people. Mr. Speaker, I believe free and open trade is not only the best way to make China a free and open nation, but it may be the only way. A vote to open the China market and the world experience to the Chinese people is a vote to open markets. What is a market, Mr. Speaker? Market is simply an arena in which there is a sharing of information about market transactions, informations about desires, wants, hopes and dreams, and economic conditions. But, Mr. Speaker, one cannot share that information about economics without also sharing information about culture, politics, religion, and values. Information, Mr. Speaker, is the life blood of a market. It is also poison to dictators, because dictators know that it is the truth that will set one free. They also know that, in a modern technology age, information is the basis by which one acquires truth. When we open the China market, citizens from all over China will be carrying devices like this, a simple little pocket PC. With that PC, they can connect to the Internet every bit of information about culture, religion, markets, economics, and freedom and dignity available on this Earth. They cannot be stopped. It is said, Mr. Speaker, that the pen is mightier than the sword. I would argue that the PC is mightier than the shackles of tyranny. When the people of China are free to transact in world markets, and when they share this information about freedom, they will learn the lessons of liberty, they will see liberty working out in the lives of the other citizens in the world, and they will demand it of their nation, and they will change their government. The Communist hard-liners know this, Mr. Speaker, and that is why they do mischief to our efforts today. That is why they disrupt it, because they fear the freedom that comes from commerce and is contagious throughout all of human spirit. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what life will be for the Chinese people 5 or 10 or 15 years from now when we vote for freedom and commerce today. I cannot guarantee my colleagues that their life will be better. But I can tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, if we vote ``no'' today, if we deny them the chance, we will condemn them to a continued life of despair. I for one choose to vote, instead, for my fondest hope, for the hope of freedom, dignity, commerce, and prosperity, for the beautiful people of China so that their children, like our children, in this wide open world can come home and say in that magical voice, Mom, dad, I got the job. [[Page H3712]] Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues vote ``no'' today, we have normal trading relations with China. Jobs, American jobs, bombs, Bibles, in a nutshell, those are the three concerns that we have been talking about for the last 5 hours. Every year, every year I have been here, we are asked to approve normal trade for China based on existing and potential progress with these three concerns in mind: jobs, bombs, and Bibles. We are told every year that, if we will just extend normal trade for one more year, that jobs in this country will not be adversely affected. My district has lost manufacturing jobs to cheap Chinese labor every year I have been in Congress. There are others of my colleagues who fit in that category. This is not just cheap labor, Mr. Speaker, this is also slave labor. We are told, if we just will extend normal trade for one more year, we will not have to worry so much about Red China dropping nuclear bombs on us because they are going to be much friendlier, our relationship is going to be greatly improved. Yet, every single year that I have been in Congress, China has increased its nuclear arsenal with technology stolen from us and increased its threats to use them against American cities if we dare oppose their invasion of our allies. We are told that, if we extend normal trade relations for just one more year, the human rights in China will surely get better, that Christians will not be jailed for having Bibles, and Muslims will not be jailed for having the Koran, the Tibetans will not be jailed for simply following their traditional religion. Yet, every year that I have been in Congress, persecution of anyone in China who believes in a higher authority has gotten much worse. All of these things, all of them are worse after 5 years of what we have described as normal trade relations with China. So what is our response we are considering to these violations? To grant them normal trade relations forever with no qualifications. Here is what we must decide today. Do we allow China to profit from stealing our nuclear weapons secrets? Does China profit from violating our existing trade agreements and throwing hard-working Americans out of their manufacturing jobs? Does China profit from threatening an invasion of our friend and ally Taiwan? Does China profit from threatening nuclear attack on our cities? Does China profit from forcing young Chinese mothers to endure forced abortions and sterilization and watch government doctors kill their child as it is being born? Does China profit from throwing Christians in jail for just having a Bible or crushing the people of Tibet when they wanted to worship as they saw fit? There are many who support PNTR because they honestly believe that an all-out global trade, with no restrictions and no oversight, has a chance of simply overwhelming China's corrupt political and economic system. I disagree, but I respect their position and do not doubt at all their honest motives. But there is a seamier side of the China lobby that has successfully spread false information to America's business leaders, and many of our colleagues and have basically taken advantage of those honest emotions. We have a choice in this House today, a big choice. Our collective voice, Mr. Speaker, will be heard by billions of people around the world. People yearning and struggling for freedom, hoping, fighting and praying for democracy and human rights and peace. Our choice will determine whether our citizens and those masses of humanity locked in darkness continue to believe in America as the great beacon of human decency and divine providence, a Nation by whose light all mankind can see that liberty still shines brighter than gold. Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to recite Horatio at the Bridge for my colleagues, but I thought I might get more votes if I took this opportunity to recognize the distinguished minority whip to tell us why American workers should suffer ill no more. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) on a magnificent statement. Mr. Speaker, it is almost sunrise in Gwong Dong Province in China. Soon 1,000 workers at the Chin She factory will be getting ready to go to work. Most of them are young people, some as young as 16 years of age. They work 14-hour shifts, 7 days a week. They are housed in cramped dormitories that resemble prisons. Their average pay is 3 cents an hour. They make handbags for export here to America. {time} 1630 We are told we need this trade deal to open up the vast markets for American goods, but these Chinese workers cannot even afford to buy the products they make themselves. How are they going to buy our cars, our cell phones, our computers? We can have free markets without free people, but it does not often come to a good end; Chile's Pinochet, Indonesia's Suharto. We should have learned the lessons of NAFTA, jobs lost in food processing, in consumer products, in high-tech; 100,000 good auto worker jobs lost forever since NAFTA. And where are those men and women today? Oh, they are working. They are working in nursing homes, at gas stations, at convenience stores, and making a fraction of what they once earned. And the jobs they used to have are now performed by workers making pennies on the dollar in Mexico's economic free-fire zone called the maquiladora. But harsh as life can be in Mexico, China is far worse. It is a police state. And I say to the majority leader that their information is censored, including the Internet; a nation where injustice is law and brutality is order. Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote that if people are to become or remain civilized, ``the act of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio in which equality of condition is increased.'' That is what enabled America to become the most prosperous Nation in the world. It was not the forces of world commerce that enabled coal miners and steelworkers and auto workers and textile workers to take their place among America's middle class. No, it was leaders like Walter Reuther, and it was other Americans exercising their rights to form unions, to create political parties, to build women's organizations, to organize churches, civic organizations and groups. That is what the progressive movement at the turn of the century was all about. Mr. Speaker, democracy is something that grows from the ground up. Theodore Roosevelt understood that a long time ago before any of us. It was not the global trade that created our national parks or the laws that protect our air and our water; it was the environmental movement. It was not free trade that won women the right to vote or beat Jim Crow; it was the commitment and the sacrifice of the suffragettes and civil rights leaders. It was the Elizabeth Cady Stantons and the A. Philip Randolphs, the Martin Luther Kings, and, yes, our own colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). The advocates of this trade deal tell us that prosperity is a precondition for democracy, and with all due respect, they are wrong. They have to grow together. While trade may make a handful of investors wealthy, it is democracy, democracy, that makes nations prosperous. Americans value trade, but we are not willing to trade in our values. We understand this approach to trade is really the past masquerading as the future. It is turning back the clock on 100 years of progress. Some oppose this trade deal because of its impact on the environment, still others out of concern for our national security, and still others out of a deep commitment to religious liberty and human rights. But while we sometimes speak with different voices, we each share that same vision, and it is de Tocqueville's vision of a civilized society, and it is a vision of a new kind of a global economy, an economy where people matter as much as profits. Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting to my colleagues that it is almost sunrise in Gwong Dong Province, and soon the workers at the Chin She Handbag factory will begin another day. Today, we can send them a message of hope, a message that the global economy we want is not one where [[Page H3713]] working families in China and Mexico and America compete in a hopeless race to the bottom. We have a better vision than that. It is a vision of the global economy where all have a seat at the table. It is a vision of a new global economy where none of us are on the outside looking in. At the beginning of the last century, the progressive movement began a struggle that made the promise of democracy and prosperity real for millions of Americans. Now, from this House of Representatives, we carry that struggle for human dignity into a new century. For families here in America and throughout the world, we have just begun. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman is recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this has been, I think, one of my better days in this House; to be able to listen to the eloquent exchanges on such an important issue to our country and, indeed, the world; to be able to disagree and not be disagreeable; and for people from within and without to know that this will still be the House of Representatives and the true representatives of the people no matter how the vote turns out. Let me say this. Some 50 years ago, November 30, 1950, to be exact, I found myself a member of the Second Infantry Division, having fought from Pusan, entering in July, straight through up to North Korea sitting on the Yalu River. I was 20 years old at the time, waiting to go home, because we thought the war was over. We had beaten back the North Koreans. While we were there and General McArthur was having his fight with President Truman, hoards of Chinese, not the lovely Chinese that the distinguished majority leader was talking about, but hoards of Communist Chinese destroyed the entire Eighth Army, and we suffered 90 percent casualties. I do not take Communists lightly. But that was 50 years ago, and now the guy that was shot and was a high school dropout became a Member of this distinguished body, and now this United States is the most powerful country in the world, militarily and economically. And how did we get this way? It is because we do things better. We are better educated, we are better at producing. But in order for us to continue to prosper, we have to have economic growth. We have to find new marketplaces. Yet, all of a sudden, to my shock and surprise, with the exception of Cuba, communism is not the barrier. It is exchange, engagement, and find those marketplaces. How can we afford to ignore over a billion people, knowing that if we ignore them that the Asians and the Europeans will not? We come to the well here with an agreement where we are breaking down the barriers in China. Not in the United States. They have been down. This gives us an opportunity to go into those markets. And I have been throughout the United States. No one challenges me that farmers are begging to get into those markets. Silicon Valley in California, Silicon Alley in New York, farmers, pharmacists, manufacturers, the banking industry, the insurance industry are all asking us to allow them to get there and show how good Americans can really be. We say we would like to do that, but we have deep-seated concerns about the way China treats its people. Well, we do not want to eliminate those concerns. That is why we have locked into place, with the help of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a commission and oversight that if this fails, we will not have. I ask those people that have this compassion and concern for their new-found Communist friends in China, what if these Chinese do everything that we hate for them to do, what do we do when it comes up next year if it is not permanent? Do my colleagues not understand that we would be the bad guys for putting in place an impediment to their getting into the World Trade Organization, but they will get in anyway? We will have no way, except barking at the Moon, to complain about the behavior that we dislike. But I tell my colleagues this. We cannot forget as Americans that we have blemishes on this human rights issue. We have descendants of slaves that sit in this body. We have people here as Members of Congress that 50 years ago could not eat in certain restaurants. We have people living in the United States without educations, without hope, without running water. Mr. Speaker, I have not leaned on one Member in asking them to vote for this bill. I would not think that I am more of an American than they are, but I want to share with my colleagues that when people in certain districts go to sleep dreaming about human rights, they are not thinking about Shanghai; they are thinking about an opportunity in this great country. We are blessed. Let us break down these barriers. Let us be able to go there to China. Let us maintain an annual report, yes; but daily we will monitor the conduct and let us give America an opportunity to be all that she can be. We will show them. Cutting off communication did not work with that Communist, Castro. He has outlived close to 10 Presidents. Do not let it happen in China. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), our distinguished Speaker of the House. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, here we are, finally, on the floor of this great House closing the debate on permanent normal trade relations with China. Before we move into the finality of this, I want to thank those who helped make this legislation possible. I have to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). And I must say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), we have been talking a lot lately. They will be talking about us. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and my partners, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). I thank them all for their diligence in making this happen. But while there is one bill being debated here today, there are actually two debates going on; two questions that have to be answered. One, is granting this status to China in the best interest of the United States and the American people? And, two, is granting this status good for the people of China? {time} 1645 I believe the answer to both is ``yes.'' Among other things, this debate is about American economic security. American negotiators have reached a tough, but fair, agreement for China's entry into the World Trade Organization. It is in fact a one- sided agreement. China gets nothing from us they do not already have, and we get lower tariffs and easier access for our exports going to China. And who makes those exports? American workers do. Regardless of whether we grant normal trade status to China, the Chinese market is opening. Someone is going to have the opportunity to sell to this vast new market. The question is who will be there when the door opens? Will it be the United States, or will it be Europe and Japan? There will be new and larger markets for farm commodities and manufactured goods in China. Who will produce those products? American farmers and American workers or European farmers and European workers? This vote today is about whether American firms set the ground rules and standards for business in China. The potential for American economic growth is huge. If we pass this legislation, U.S. agricultural exports to China would increase by $2 billion every year. That means American farmers will be selling more corn and more wheat and more citrus and more soybeans. Last year, the wireless telephone market in China was $20 billion. By 2003, that market will be up to $45 billion. Our high-tech firms would thrive in the Chinese marketplace. It is clear that passing this legislation is in the best interest of American economic security. That is why Alan [[Page H3714]] Greenspan supports it, and that is one reason why we should vote ``yes.'' But there is another reason. Gradual democratic reform is taking root in the hearts and the minds of the Chinese people. But for it to continue, we must clear the way for more Americans to work with the Chinese. More trade will expose the Chinese people to powerful new ideas. Thanks to the American business presence in China, thousands of Chinese employees already have access to foreign newspapers and the Internet and to worldwide e-mail. Today this House is doing a good thing. We are showing the people and the leaders of China what real democracy looks like. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and I share a common goal, to help American workers and to encourage American reforms and human rights in China. But we differ on how to achieve that goal. I believe my approach is better, and that is why I urge Members to support this bill. But I am proud that I live in a country where the gentleman from Michigan (Mr Bonior) can be here on this floor today passionately putting forth his point of view, because that is what true democracy is all about. And, ladies and gentlemen, that is what this great House of Representatives is all about. In addition to the privilege of serving as the Speaker of this House, I am honored to be the representative of the people of the 14th District of Illinois. Like every State in this great Nation, Illinois has a lot to offer the people of China. So, in closing, I say to the people of China that we want to send you our corn and our farm machinery and our telecommunications equipment. But as we do, we are going to send along something more, free of charge. We are going to send you a glimpse of freedom and the ideals of Illinois' favorite son, Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator. Because we want for you the prosperity and the blessings of the liberty that we enjoy. This is a historic vote and a proud day for this body. I believe the vote we are casting today will help ensure our continued prosperity. Vote for the future. Vote ``aye.'' Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I support Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. I believe in free trade and I believe this agreement will bring economic growth to the United States and China, but I am highly concerned about the skewed priorities of U.S. trade negotiations and the framework of the World Trade Organization. I voted against the NAFTA because I thought we could make Mexico negotiate a better deal with more safeguards for the environment and worker rights. I voted against the GATT, which created the World Trade Organization, because I disapproved of establishing a world trading system that ceded our sovereignty in a number of areas, and particularly our ability to uphold laws for public health and the environment. I would have voted against Fast Track, if it had come to the floor, because of my concern that U.S. trade negotiators were not permitted to put worker protection issues as well as environment matters on the agenda. But according to the WTO rules that Congress ratified, and I voted against, China will be able to become part of the WTO regardless of our vote today. All we can decide here is whether the U.S. will benefit from the terms of China's accession. Although the symbolic message of rejecting PNTR would be potent, the substantive impact could be harmful for our economic and national security interests. On the economic side, there are some who believe that we can get every benefit by virtue of the bilateral agreement signed in 1979. I think that interpretation is incorrect. To press that issue, we could end up in a destructive trade war and at the same time lose major economic opportunities to America's global competitors. In the national security arena, I fear that in rejecting PNTR we would treat China as an adversary and that it would in reaction to our vote certainly become one. Rejecting PNTR would embolden the hardline militarists and make China even less cooperative in arms control and regional affairs. On the other hand, supporting the entry of both China and Taiwan into the WTO is an unprecedented opportunity to work with both countries on equal footing within a major multilateral organization. Furthermore, I think our current mechanism of annual review is not working and as a threat is not credible. I have voted against extending Normal Trade Relations status to China every year to protest their denial of human rights to their own citizens, but the possibility of cutting off trade relations has become an empty threat. That is why I strongly support my colleague Sandy Levin's proposal to establish a Congressional-Executive Commission to provide a continuous examination of human rights in China. It will create a strong network for Congress to communicate with NGO activists in China and maintain a constant focus on local Chinese elections, grass-roots environmental activities, and the situation in Tibet. I hope that passing PNTR will also bring greater transparency to China, and promote the rule of law. The influx of American interest, telecommunications, and media companies will democratize the flow of information beyond government control and give us new tools to scrutinize China's record on human rights and religious freedom. Although I'm supporting this bill, I continue to have serious concerns. For one thing, I am very troubled that Chinese tariffs on cigarettes will fall from 65% to 25% over the next four years. Lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases are already the most common cause of death in China, accounting for more than 700,000 deaths annually. This tariff reduction could open the door for tobacco companies to launch their aggressive marketing tactics against a highly vulnerable population where less than 4% know the dangers of smoking. Smoking patterns could eventually cause more than 3 millions deaths a year in China, and smoking rates could sky-rocket among women and children. We have a responsibility to make sure we don't spread the tobacco public health crisis to China. I also believe that the existing need for WTO reform will become even more apparent once China is a WTO member. I think there is a good change that China will try to get out of living up to its obligations under this accord and that even WTO judgments against China will be difficult to enforce. I also suspect that China may make efforts to use the WTO rules to challenge our own laws as trade barriers, When that happens, and maybe before, we in this country will have to face the dangers that the WTO represents and why it must be reformed. The WTO's dispute settlement mechanism must be open to input by non- governmental entities that have an interest in the deliberation. The evaluating panels cannot be shrouded in secrecy if dispute settlement is going to evolve as a credible and effective tool to enforce transparency and compliance. The U.S. should be leading the change to make trade rules include standards for human rights, labor rights, and the environment. We must work for a world economy that lives up to our standards instead of sinking to lower ones. Perhaps most importantly, we must make U.S. companies the ambassadors of these values when they operate abroad. I hope the advantages and consequences that unfold from PNTR will hasten our attention to moving forward on this agenda. My support for PNTR was not an easy decision. The debate has convinced me that we must redouble our efforts to press for domestic change in China, a change in U.S. trade priorities and more progressive would trading norms. But it has also brought me to the realization that isolating China would not cause new problems without without solving old ones and bring about great dangers that we must work to prevent. Today's vote could determine the course of U.S.-China relations for the next century. On voting for PNTR, I hope we will help make our most dynamic industries lead the way as they expand into China and the rest of the world. I also hope that it will allow us to working to bring down national barriers and promote the well-being lf all our peoples. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4444 which would extend to the People's Republic of China permanent normal trade relations. More importantly, however, passage of this bill serves to ratify the bi-lateral trade agreement reached between the U.S. and China last fall as a condition for China's accession into the World Trade Organization. This will be the only vote Congress has on this momentous agreement. On the one hand, China is a potential boom market for our industries, particularly agriculture which is critically important to my district. Bringing China into the WTO has the potential of making the Port of Hueneme, in my district, an even more important portal for Pacific Rim trade. With 20 percent of the world's population, China is an appealing market. It behooves us to work diligently and intelligently to open that market to U.S. sellers. The other hand carries many pitfalls. China's track record in meeting its obligations under international agreements is not good. China is the only remaining Communist superpower. China has stolen our nuclear secrets and threatens stability in Asia with her belligerence towards Taiwan and others. We ignore that reality at our own peril. Last year, I voted against a one-year extension of China's Most Favored Nation status based on two criteria: The United States maintains a multibillion-dollar trade deficit with [[Page H3715]] China and has for years, and China has repeatedly demonstrated an aggressive military stance that includes stealing our most important nuclear secrets. At the beginning of this debate, I was not automatically against China's entry into the World Trade Organization, but I did have some very serious concerns. WTO membership carries more protection for the United States than does Most Favored Nation status. MFN has been a one-way street. It was a unilateral decision on our part to allow China access to our markets with no reciprocal opening on China's behalf. WTO is more of a two-way street. China must meet and maintain certain open-door criteria to remain in the WTO. Our trade with China historically has been a one-way street. In 1990, our trade deficit with China stood at $10.4 billion. By 1998, that deficit had climbed to $56.9 billion. It is estimated our trade deficit with China in 1999 will be $66.4 billion. China's entry into WTO and the ratification of the U.S.-China trade agreement can ease that deficit, but only if the agreement has teeth. I believe the WTO process has those teeth. In 1992, China and the U.S. signed a bilateral memorandum of understanding on trade access. China has violated it many times. In 1992, we also struck a deal with China to protect intellectual property, including copyrights on U.S. products. Today, U.S. copyrights for motion pictures and software in China are still being stolen by Chinese companies, a situation that results in the loss of billions of dollars and many thousands of American jobs. Chinese noncompliance has forced us to threaten trade sanctions several times. On the national security front, China was continuing a systematic raid on the designs of our most sophisticated thermonuclear weapons at the same time that it was modernizing and pretending to normalize relations with the U.S. Among the stolen designs was information on the neutron bomb, which to date no nation has opted to deploy and hopefully no one will. Even though China has been caught red-handed, it continues to deny its espionage. Meanwhile, it continues to showcase its belligerency by transferring sensitive missile technology to North Korea and by repeatedly threatening to attack Taiwan. The U.S.-China agreement can have positive consequences for the U.S., China and, indeed, the entire world. The agreement will force China to open its markets to U.S. goods and services, which will result in a lowering of the trade deficit. It could wean China from its passion for subsidies and government interference in its industries. It could educate the Chinese on the rule of law, as opposed to its current system of rule by the whim of its leaders. It could also hasten the spread of democracy within her borders. Each time a country has opened its economic markets, an open market of ideas has followed. But we must step carefully. We must not let our desire to access China's markets to blind us to China's distaste for democracy, her threat to our national security and her history of violating international laws and agreements. For the WTO agreement to work, it must level the playing field for U.S. exporters and be fully enforceable. Anything less will not open China's markets or advance the historical trend toward truly free trade and the rule of law. Since the U.S. signed a bilateral trade agreement with China last year, I have said repeatedly that my vote for or against permanent trade relations with China would rely on specific factors: It must protect American jobs, ensure Chinese markets are open to American goods and services, protect America's strategic interests and--be enforceable. I have made it clear that without those provisions, I would vote against Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Some of those protections were not in the bill until last night. Those protections are in the bill only because I and other Members of Congress withheld our support until every `i' was dotted. By working behind the scenes, we were able to force concessions that make this agreement a better deal for American businesses, American workers and for those who support greater human rights for the Chinese people. Last night, a bipartisan provision was incorporated into the bill that makes it easier for us to monitor China's trade compliance, and act if need be. That provision builds on provisions in the World Trade Organization agreement that allows us to continue to treat China as a communist economy. That's important because our safeguards and anti-dumping countermeasures are more stringent for communist economies than it is for capitalist countries. In addition, the revised bill continues Congress' all-important right to debate and vote on China's human rights practices and international behavior each year. The European Union signed its WTO agreement with China on Friday, followed by an agreement with Australia on Monday. Both were negotiated with China's history of duplicity in mind. In particular, the EU agreement improves the deal signed by the U.S. by making China significantly more open to foreign investment and trade. Under WTO rules, those provisions are open to the U.S. as well. We have given China Permanent Normal Trade Relations. But this is not the end, only the beginning. China has, at best, a mixed record of living up to international agreements, and I still have concerns about China's adherence to this one. But I am satisfied we have the mechanisms in place to force compliance, or take remedial action, if necessary. American businesses will not have a level playing field unless we continually insist on it, but now we have the tools to do that. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this debate I have expressed my belief that any trade deal with China involves two questions. The first, which we are debating today, is whether the Chinese have negotiated an agreement that is fair for American workers and businesses. However, before we can address this question we must be able to answer the second question, whether the agreement that has been negotiated includes the necessary enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance by China and fair treatment for American companies and workers. We have not yet answered this question, and consequently I cannot support this or any deal with China lacking the enforcement mechanisms necessary to guarantee fair trade. Today's robust debate has highlighted the concerns of many of my colleagues, thousands of interest groups and millions of citizens. All the subjects being debated today--national security, human rights, religious freedom, democracy, labor at home and abroad, the environment and the development of our and the world's economy--are of considerable importance. China is the most populous nation in the world. As such, its potential as a market for American goods and services is second to none. The concept of increased trade with China based on a good, enforceable agreement is sound and deserving of support. Trade is and will be extremely important to both American companies and workers. As a blueprint, the agreement negotiated by the Clinton Administration with China is good for America in many respects. When it comes down to it, any agreement, like any contract, is only as good as its enforcement provisions. What we have from China, so far, is its promise, if you will, to allow U.S. and foreign firms to compete fairly and openly in the Chinese market. But negotiations must still be held to reach agreement on how those promises China has made are going to be enforced. It has been more than two years since the World Trade Organization (WTO) working party and Chinese negotiators first met to conduct serious negotiations on the enforcement provisions to be included in the protocol. Mr. Speaker, members should know in detail what the WTO will do to ensure full and fair implementation of China's commitments contained in the accession agreement before, not after, we vote on an issue as important as the issue on the floor today. Why is the protocol and working party report so important, some may ask. The simple answer is that the protocol and working party report identify what the WTO will do to make sure that China fully implements the commitments it has made in the agreements that have been reached with the United States and other WTO partners. Until the Congress sees not only the commitments China has made but also the WTO's enforcement commitments, there is, in reality, no agreement for Congress to consider and determine worthy of granting PNTR to China. Once China enters the WTO, American firms and American workers must turn to the WTO for enforcement of their rights, and enforcement at the WTO is an area of considerable disappointment and concern. The WTO's ``binding dispute resolution'' system has proven to be a system rife with bias, incompetency, as well as totally unfamiliar with basic principles of due process and openness. There are no judges, only ad hoc panelists, most of whom are not experienced or qualified in applying proper standards of review. These panelists are assisted, if not controlled, by WTO bureaucrats who have inherent biases based on their programmatic interests in the subjects under review. Proceedings are kept secret from the public and from the parties in interest.There is no ability to engage in meaningful fact- finding. Panel decisions have also created obligations for WTO members that they did not agree to in the process of negotiations. And even if a panel decides in your favor, as in the case brought by the United States against the European Union (EU) on beef hormones and bananas, there is no assurance at all that anything will change. Years have gone by since the U.S. ``won'' these cases, and U.S. firms still have no greater access to the EU market. Mr. Chairman, PNTR is an extremely valuable trade benefit with China does not have but earnestly wants. It constitutes the only real leverage the U.S. has to bring about the kind of economic and trade reforms within China that will open that market to the products and [[Page H3716]] services American firms and American workers produce. Before we grant PNTR to China, we must make sure that China not only makes sufficient market opening commitments, but also that those commitments are enforceable. I am not pleased to vote no today. It is unquestionably in our national interest to have a cooperative relationship with China, and I am well aware that rejecting this trade package could further strain U.S.-Chinese relations and diminish our influence in China with regard to democracy, human rights, labor, environmental protection and Taiwan. But ultimately, my vote is about fairness and timing. Without enforcement mechanisms there can be no assurance of fairness for American business, American industry, and American jobs. By voting on a trade deal of such great importance before all the deals have been cut, especially on the enforcement mechanisms which will decide if this agreement is worth the paper it is written on, we needlessly jeopardize American jobs and business prospects in China. I guarantee you rules that can't be enforced will be broken. This vote should be postponed until accession agreements are concluded. Only then can we fully and responsibility assess the commitments China makes and determine whether the agreement ensures that China's commitment will be fully implemented and effectively enforced. Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status to China. In my career, I cannot recall a vote on which a final decision was more difficult to reach. Until today, I have been genuinely and sincerely undecided. In these past weeks and months, I have been listening intently to the forceful arguments for and against the legislation, especially those made by my constituents--who are as divided on this issue as I have been. I have great respect for the beliefs of those on both sides of this debate and for the passion of their convictions. In the final analysis, I believe that ``aye'' is the correct vote for a variety of reasons, including advancing the causes of human rights and democratization, for our national security, and for our economic self- interest. Improving respect for human rights and fostering democracy clearly must be top policy priorities in our relationship with China. No one here today condones the political and religious repression in that nation. The disagreement is over which U.S. policy is more likely to contribute to an improvement in conditions in China. I stress the word ``contribute,'' because we need to be cognizant that nothing we do will dramatically change China in the short term. Both sides of this debate have prominent human rights activists and former political prisoners supporting their position. We are presented with no easy formula that instructs us whether China plus or minus PNTR results in improved human rights. I have come to the conclusion that the increased outside contact, prosperity, and economic liberalization that comes with a strong U.S.-Sino trade relationship within the World Trade Organization (WTO) will be a greater force for change than the annual consideration and routine extension of NTR has offered. I am also comforted by the recent expressions of support for China's entry into the WTO by the Dalai Lama--perhaps the most prominent symbol of the repressive nature of the Chinese regime. We have heard much debate about the job losses which could result from passage of PNTR. While I am extremely sensitive to labor's concerns, on balance I believe that the economic interests of business and labor are enhanced by this normalization of trade with China. The U.S.-China Bilateral WTO Agreement provides for broad tariff reductions by China, for enhanced market access for American goods, and contains import surge protections for the U.S. The agreement requires no reduction in U.S. tariffs or any enhanced market access for Chinese products. As we have never revoked Most Favored Nation/Normal Trade Relations through the annual review process, China currently has defactor PNTR. I fail to see how reduced Chinese tariffs and other concessions in return for ending the formality of the annual review leads to increased job loss. I believe that passing PNTR will not create any significant job loss that was not already occurring in certain sectors of the economy. While various estimates of the employment effects of PNTR have been proffered, they must be viewed in the context of an economy that is dynamic and in constant flux. The shape of the American economy is changing and will change whether or not we pass PNTR. In fact, I believe that Chinese WTO accession and passage of PNTR will be a net creator of good jobs in California and in my congressional district. It is my fervent hope that over the long term, China's accession to the WTO will improve the human rights situation and encourage democratization in China. The inclusion in H.R. 4444 of a strong legislative package authored by Representatives Sander Levin (D-MI) and Doug Bereuter (R-NE) has addressed my doubts about the effects of this bill on human rights in China, as well as the American jobs. The human rights monitoring commission created by the legislation is a good idea in its own right. I believe the merit of close scrutiny of China's human rights situation speaks for itself and I would support the proposal independent of this PNTR bill. The import surge protections negotiated by the Clinton Administration and codified in this bill go a long way to addressing my concern about job losses resulting from this bill. This mechanism allows the President to utilize tariff increases, import restrictions, or other relief for domestic industries whose markets are disrupted by a surge in Chinese made goods. These powerful tools come in additional to the trade remedies already available under U.S. law and under the WTO. Ultimately, passing PNTR is in our economic self interest. China will join the WTO whether or not we pass this legislation today. The rest of the world will enjoy significant tariff reduction on their exports to China regardless of the outcome of this vote. We are voting on our nation's ability to sell the products made by our workers and our companies on a competitive basis. We must continue to vigilantly monitor our relationship with China. We must continue to pursue improvements in respect for human rights in all appropriate venues, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We will have to maintain our steadfast support for Taiwan. We will have to closely monitor Chinese compliance with its obligations under the WTO and make full use of that organization's mechanisms to enforce those obligations. With the knowledge in mind, Mr. Speaker, I am left with the belief that passage of this legislation is in the interests of both the American and the Chinese people. Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today we are plotting a bold course that is in keeping with our history, our potential, and our ultimate goal of liberating the Chinese people. In the international arena, America doesn't shrink from a challenge. We seize opportunity. We are fighters, visionaries, and pioneers. It's in our nature as Americans, to look past a challenge to victory. Standing as we do, at the head of the world, in a position of unprecedented strength and prosperity, why would we now choose the timid path? We should not, and we will not. That's why we will pass Permanent Normal Trade Relations status with the People's Republic of China. While PNTR will help our American economy, this is only one step toward our larger goal; ending communist rule in China by exposing the Chinese people to American values. Freedom is a contagious virtue. Defeating a foe is a poor substitute for liberating a country from the weight of a repressive ideology. We should today ensure the triumph of liberty by planting the seeds of freedom in China. We should not accept a retrenchment driven by fear and insecurity. There are serious issues we must address. Confronting these issues requires real American leadership and courage, We should not for a moment imagine that PNTR will solve or even the address the many troubling questions concerning the future of the communist government in Beijing. Without a doubt, expanded trade must be matched with a revitalization of America's military and a strengthening of our friendships with our allies in Asia. Simply expanding trade without supplying these critical elements will not create a free China. But we shouldn't let the strong steps we must take to resist aggression prevent us from communicating with the Chinese people. The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy has always been to make the case for freedom and democracy. We have never been afraid to place our values and our form of government up against any competitor. Give us half a chance, and we will win. Expanding trade with China is just this sort of opportunity. Fundamental change in China will not happen simply through State Department dictates. It will only happen after we inspire the Chinese people to demand freedom. We want to appeal to the Chinese people. To do that we have to be there, on the ground, spreading our values and the sure knowledge that there is a far better, nobler form of government than communism. Ignorance is the ally of repressive governments. Expanded trade, because it spreads American values, is an essential tool in changing a closed society. And in the battle for China's future, one Chinese entrepreneur is worth a million government bureaucrats. [[Page H3717]] Over the last century, communist countries have run from this competition. They hid their people behind walls and fortified borders, because they knew that if their citizens were exposed to our values, then the battle would be lost. As a great power built on a foundation of timeless virtues, we fear no competing political systems because we trust the strength of our ideas. We should ask ourselves: Why do so many of the hardliners, the old communist guard in China, resist opening their country to increased trade and interaction with America? It's because they understand the power of democratic values. We need to support Chinese reformers by giving them more, not less, access to American ideals. This will raise the call for human rights and lead China to the rule of law. We can't for a single minute ignore abuses by the Chinese government. Beijing's record on human rights, religious persecution, coercive abortion, and arms shipments to hostile states is shameful. The Chinese government does wicked things to its people. The way to stop these evil deeds is to end communist rule and that means transforming China into a free-market democracy. This is much more likely to happen if American ideals eat away at the infrastructure of tyranny from the inside out. We must also reject any notion that our support of expanded trade in China signals in any small way a slackening of our solemn commitment to defend Taiwan from aggression. We are sworn to defend Taiwan and we say again today that the United States will not allow any resolution of Taiwan's status that involves force or threats. We will not stand for it. Further, we must insist that Taiwan be admitted to the WTO as well. Granting PNTR to China is a critical component of a strategy driven by our one, clear objective: destroying communism. So, I urge my fellow Members, to support PNTR and commit the United States to this contest between freedom and repression. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, extending permanent normal trade relations to China and supporting its accession to the World Trade Organization greatly benefits the United States. By encouraging participation in international organizations that facilitate the rule of law, I believe that this agreement is also in the best interest of the Chinese people. By approving PNTR, we will be enabling the United States to take advantage of the across-the-board reductions in tariff barriers that we negotiated as terms for our approval of China's accession to the World Trade Organization. Agricultural tariffs will be substantially reduced on several priority products, including a 66 percent cut on the tariff for apples, that will obviously have a large impact on my State of Washington and other apple producing areas of our country. China also agreed to lift its longstanding ban on the import of wheat and to increase the quota by more than 400 percent. China agreed to participate in the Information Technology Agreement and to eliminate tariffs on products such as software, computers, and semiconductors. Also China agreed to slash tariffs on industrial goods by an average of 62 percent, enabling America's manufacturers to compete much more evenly in the Chinese marketplace. The WTO accession agreement also contains provisions that will help other industries in which the U.S. is a world leader--telecommunications, insurance and banking just to name a few. The approval last week of a market access agreement between China and the European Union further adds to the benefits we will enjoy with China's accession to the WTO, as the best terms of each agreement negotiated by the Chinese must be extended to all members of the WTO. More agricultural tariffs will be cut, including those on wheat gluten and Washington wines. Several more tariffs on industrial goods will also be reduced, liberalization of the telecommunications industry will be accelerated, and United States law firms will be authorized to offer legal services in China. In return, we do not have to change anything--not one tariff, nor one regulation currently enforced by the United States. All we must do, according to WTO rules, is to extend permanent normal trade relations to China. Those of my colleagues that argue that our record trade deficit with China is a reason to oppose this bill must consider this point. There is nothing about this bill that will lead to an increase in the amount of goods we import from China; rather, this is all about slashing Chinese tariffs against United States goods which will lead to a substantial increase in United States exports to China. If you are truly concerned about addressing the United States trade deficit, you should vote for this bill. Some are opposing this bill, claiming that China has rarely adhered to prior trade agreements in the past. In my judgment, opponents claiming this point should be eager to support this agreement. By entering the WTO, China will finally be participating in an organization whose sole purpose to enforce trade agreements. A few years ago, we had to beg, cajole, and plead with China in order to persuade them to provide any enforcement of the intellectual property agreement established between our two countries. With accession to the WTO, we will have an impartial adjudicator to hear the case and determine what redress is warranted. No longer will we have to rely on the honesty and effectivness of the Chinese Government to ensure that they abide by trade agreements. My good friends in the labor community have expressed grave concerns over the effects this bill will have on American and Chinese workers. I deeply repect their concerns, but I believe that they are best addressed by voting for this bill. Currently, United States manufacturers and service providers struggle to enter the Chinese market becaue of high tariffs and often insurmountable red tape. By agreeing to cut their tariffs and reduce burdensome rules, China will be creating an incredible opportunity for American-made goods to finally penetrate their market. I firmly believe that this will be a real job creator in the United States, and ultimately of great benefit to U.S. workers. For this reason, the 27,000 member International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 751 western Washington endorsed this legislaiton. I cannot claim that the benefit to the Chinese worker will be as quick or as quantifiable as are the gains to American workers, but I do believe that accession to the WTO is in the best, long-term interest of the Chinese worker. This agreement will contribute to what we are already seeing in many parts of China--the growth of economic freedom and a vibrant middle class. I also respect the convictions of those who consistently oppose any engagement with China because of China's disappointing record on human rights and religious freedoms. However, I side with many who, like the Dalai Lama and dissidents Bao tong and Dai Qing, recognize that engaging the Chinese and bringing them into international organizati

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

CALL OF THE HOUSE
(House of Representatives - May 24, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3711-H3747] CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names: [Roll No. 226] Abercrombie Ackerman Aderholt Allen Andrews Armey Baca Bachus Baird Baker Baldacci Baldwin Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Barrett (WI) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Becerra Bentsen Bereuter Berkley Berry Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Blagojevich Bliley Blumenauer Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonior Bono Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Campbell Canady Cannon Capps Capuano Cardin Carson Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth-Hage Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coble Coburn Collins Combest Condit Conyers Cook Cooksey Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crowley Cubin Cummings Cunningham Danner Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis (VA) Deal DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro DeLay DeMint Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dickey Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doolittle Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Eshoo Etheridge Evans Everett Ewing Farr Fattah Filner Fletcher Foley Forbes Ford Fossella Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Gonzalez Goode Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Granger Green (TX) Green (WI) Greenwood Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hansen Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill (IN) Hill (MT) Hilleary Hilliard Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Hoekstra Holden Holt Hooley Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inslee Isakson Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kelly Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind (WI) King (NY) Kingston Kleczka Klink Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich Kuykendall LaFalce LaHood Lampson Lantos Largent Larson Latham LaTourette Lazio Leach Lee Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McCrery McDermott McGovern McHugh McInnis McIntyre McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Metcalf Mica Millender-McDonald Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Miller, George Minge Mink Moakley Mollohan Moore Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Morella Murtha Myrick Nadler Napolitano Neal Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Ose Owens Oxley Packard Pallone Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Pease Pelosi Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Phelps Pickering Pickett Pitts Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Regula Reyes Reynolds Riley Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rothman Roukema Roybal-Allard Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sabo Salmon Sanchez Sanders Sandlin Sanford Sawyer Saxton Schaffer Schakowsky Scott Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherman Sherwood Shimkus Shows Shuster Simpson Sisisky Skeen Skelton Slaughter Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Souder Spence Spratt Stabenow Stark Stenholm Strickland Stump Stupak Sununu Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thornberry Thune Thurman Tiahrt Toomey Towns Traficant Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Velazquez Vento Visclosky Vitter Walden Walsh Wamp Waters Watkins Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Waxman Weiner Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Wexler Weygand Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey Wu Wynn Young (FL) {time} 1614 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). On this rollcall, four hundred nineteen Members have recorded their presence by electronic device, a quorum. Under the rule, further proceedings under the call are dispensed with. AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAN TRADE RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) will yield 2 minutes to the Majority Leader, and then we will have closing statements from each of the managers beginning with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), who will have 4\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who will have 4 minutes; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who will have 4\1/2\ minutes; and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), who will have 4 minutes. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), our distinguished majority leader. Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I support permanent normal trade relations with China because I profoundly believe that it will advance the cause of human rights for the Chinese people. Mr. Speaker, I believe free and open trade is not only the best way to make China a free and open nation, but it may be the only way. A vote to open the China market and the world experience to the Chinese people is a vote to open markets. What is a market, Mr. Speaker? Market is simply an arena in which there is a sharing of information about market transactions, informations about desires, wants, hopes and dreams, and economic conditions. But, Mr. Speaker, one cannot share that information about economics without also sharing information about culture, politics, religion, and values. Information, Mr. Speaker, is the life blood of a market. It is also poison to dictators, because dictators know that it is the truth that will set one free. They also know that, in a modern technology age, information is the basis by which one acquires truth. When we open the China market, citizens from all over China will be carrying devices like this, a simple little pocket PC. With that PC, they can connect to the Internet every bit of information about culture, religion, markets, economics, and freedom and dignity available on this Earth. They cannot be stopped. It is said, Mr. Speaker, that the pen is mightier than the sword. I would argue that the PC is mightier than the shackles of tyranny. When the people of China are free to transact in world markets, and when they share this information about freedom, they will learn the lessons of liberty, they will see liberty working out in the lives of the other citizens in the world, and they will demand it of their nation, and they will change their government. The Communist hard-liners know this, Mr. Speaker, and that is why they do mischief to our efforts today. That is why they disrupt it, because they fear the freedom that comes from commerce and is contagious throughout all of human spirit. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what life will be for the Chinese people 5 or 10 or 15 years from now when we vote for freedom and commerce today. I cannot guarantee my colleagues that their life will be better. But I can tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, if we vote ``no'' today, if we deny them the chance, we will condemn them to a continued life of despair. I for one choose to vote, instead, for my fondest hope, for the hope of freedom, dignity, commerce, and prosperity, for the beautiful people of China so that their children, like our children, in this wide open world can come home and say in that magical voice, Mom, dad, I got the job. [[Page H3712]] Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues vote ``no'' today, we have normal trading relations with China. Jobs, American jobs, bombs, Bibles, in a nutshell, those are the three concerns that we have been talking about for the last 5 hours. Every year, every year I have been here, we are asked to approve normal trade for China based on existing and potential progress with these three concerns in mind: jobs, bombs, and Bibles. We are told every year that, if we will just extend normal trade for one more year, that jobs in this country will not be adversely affected. My district has lost manufacturing jobs to cheap Chinese labor every year I have been in Congress. There are others of my colleagues who fit in that category. This is not just cheap labor, Mr. Speaker, this is also slave labor. We are told, if we just will extend normal trade for one more year, we will not have to worry so much about Red China dropping nuclear bombs on us because they are going to be much friendlier, our relationship is going to be greatly improved. Yet, every single year that I have been in Congress, China has increased its nuclear arsenal with technology stolen from us and increased its threats to use them against American cities if we dare oppose their invasion of our allies. We are told that, if we extend normal trade relations for just one more year, the human rights in China will surely get better, that Christians will not be jailed for having Bibles, and Muslims will not be jailed for having the Koran, the Tibetans will not be jailed for simply following their traditional religion. Yet, every year that I have been in Congress, persecution of anyone in China who believes in a higher authority has gotten much worse. All of these things, all of them are worse after 5 years of what we have described as normal trade relations with China. So what is our response we are considering to these violations? To grant them normal trade relations forever with no qualifications. Here is what we must decide today. Do we allow China to profit from stealing our nuclear weapons secrets? Does China profit from violating our existing trade agreements and throwing hard-working Americans out of their manufacturing jobs? Does China profit from threatening an invasion of our friend and ally Taiwan? Does China profit from threatening nuclear attack on our cities? Does China profit from forcing young Chinese mothers to endure forced abortions and sterilization and watch government doctors kill their child as it is being born? Does China profit from throwing Christians in jail for just having a Bible or crushing the people of Tibet when they wanted to worship as they saw fit? There are many who support PNTR because they honestly believe that an all-out global trade, with no restrictions and no oversight, has a chance of simply overwhelming China's corrupt political and economic system. I disagree, but I respect their position and do not doubt at all their honest motives. But there is a seamier side of the China lobby that has successfully spread false information to America's business leaders, and many of our colleagues and have basically taken advantage of those honest emotions. We have a choice in this House today, a big choice. Our collective voice, Mr. Speaker, will be heard by billions of people around the world. People yearning and struggling for freedom, hoping, fighting and praying for democracy and human rights and peace. Our choice will determine whether our citizens and those masses of humanity locked in darkness continue to believe in America as the great beacon of human decency and divine providence, a Nation by whose light all mankind can see that liberty still shines brighter than gold. Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to recite Horatio at the Bridge for my colleagues, but I thought I might get more votes if I took this opportunity to recognize the distinguished minority whip to tell us why American workers should suffer ill no more. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) on a magnificent statement. Mr. Speaker, it is almost sunrise in Gwong Dong Province in China. Soon 1,000 workers at the Chin She factory will be getting ready to go to work. Most of them are young people, some as young as 16 years of age. They work 14-hour shifts, 7 days a week. They are housed in cramped dormitories that resemble prisons. Their average pay is 3 cents an hour. They make handbags for export here to America. {time} 1630 We are told we need this trade deal to open up the vast markets for American goods, but these Chinese workers cannot even afford to buy the products they make themselves. How are they going to buy our cars, our cell phones, our computers? We can have free markets without free people, but it does not often come to a good end; Chile's Pinochet, Indonesia's Suharto. We should have learned the lessons of NAFTA, jobs lost in food processing, in consumer products, in high-tech; 100,000 good auto worker jobs lost forever since NAFTA. And where are those men and women today? Oh, they are working. They are working in nursing homes, at gas stations, at convenience stores, and making a fraction of what they once earned. And the jobs they used to have are now performed by workers making pennies on the dollar in Mexico's economic free-fire zone called the maquiladora. But harsh as life can be in Mexico, China is far worse. It is a police state. And I say to the majority leader that their information is censored, including the Internet; a nation where injustice is law and brutality is order. Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote that if people are to become or remain civilized, ``the act of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio in which equality of condition is increased.'' That is what enabled America to become the most prosperous Nation in the world. It was not the forces of world commerce that enabled coal miners and steelworkers and auto workers and textile workers to take their place among America's middle class. No, it was leaders like Walter Reuther, and it was other Americans exercising their rights to form unions, to create political parties, to build women's organizations, to organize churches, civic organizations and groups. That is what the progressive movement at the turn of the century was all about. Mr. Speaker, democracy is something that grows from the ground up. Theodore Roosevelt understood that a long time ago before any of us. It was not the global trade that created our national parks or the laws that protect our air and our water; it was the environmental movement. It was not free trade that won women the right to vote or beat Jim Crow; it was the commitment and the sacrifice of the suffragettes and civil rights leaders. It was the Elizabeth Cady Stantons and the A. Philip Randolphs, the Martin Luther Kings, and, yes, our own colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). The advocates of this trade deal tell us that prosperity is a precondition for democracy, and with all due respect, they are wrong. They have to grow together. While trade may make a handful of investors wealthy, it is democracy, democracy, that makes nations prosperous. Americans value trade, but we are not willing to trade in our values. We understand this approach to trade is really the past masquerading as the future. It is turning back the clock on 100 years of progress. Some oppose this trade deal because of its impact on the environment, still others out of concern for our national security, and still others out of a deep commitment to religious liberty and human rights. But while we sometimes speak with different voices, we each share that same vision, and it is de Tocqueville's vision of a civilized society, and it is a vision of a new kind of a global economy, an economy where people matter as much as profits. Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting to my colleagues that it is almost sunrise in Gwong Dong Province, and soon the workers at the Chin She Handbag factory will begin another day. Today, we can send them a message of hope, a message that the global economy we want is not one where [[Page H3713]] working families in China and Mexico and America compete in a hopeless race to the bottom. We have a better vision than that. It is a vision of the global economy where all have a seat at the table. It is a vision of a new global economy where none of us are on the outside looking in. At the beginning of the last century, the progressive movement began a struggle that made the promise of democracy and prosperity real for millions of Americans. Now, from this House of Representatives, we carry that struggle for human dignity into a new century. For families here in America and throughout the world, we have just begun. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman is recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this has been, I think, one of my better days in this House; to be able to listen to the eloquent exchanges on such an important issue to our country and, indeed, the world; to be able to disagree and not be disagreeable; and for people from within and without to know that this will still be the House of Representatives and the true representatives of the people no matter how the vote turns out. Let me say this. Some 50 years ago, November 30, 1950, to be exact, I found myself a member of the Second Infantry Division, having fought from Pusan, entering in July, straight through up to North Korea sitting on the Yalu River. I was 20 years old at the time, waiting to go home, because we thought the war was over. We had beaten back the North Koreans. While we were there and General McArthur was having his fight with President Truman, hoards of Chinese, not the lovely Chinese that the distinguished majority leader was talking about, but hoards of Communist Chinese destroyed the entire Eighth Army, and we suffered 90 percent casualties. I do not take Communists lightly. But that was 50 years ago, and now the guy that was shot and was a high school dropout became a Member of this distinguished body, and now this United States is the most powerful country in the world, militarily and economically. And how did we get this way? It is because we do things better. We are better educated, we are better at producing. But in order for us to continue to prosper, we have to have economic growth. We have to find new marketplaces. Yet, all of a sudden, to my shock and surprise, with the exception of Cuba, communism is not the barrier. It is exchange, engagement, and find those marketplaces. How can we afford to ignore over a billion people, knowing that if we ignore them that the Asians and the Europeans will not? We come to the well here with an agreement where we are breaking down the barriers in China. Not in the United States. They have been down. This gives us an opportunity to go into those markets. And I have been throughout the United States. No one challenges me that farmers are begging to get into those markets. Silicon Valley in California, Silicon Alley in New York, farmers, pharmacists, manufacturers, the banking industry, the insurance industry are all asking us to allow them to get there and show how good Americans can really be. We say we would like to do that, but we have deep-seated concerns about the way China treats its people. Well, we do not want to eliminate those concerns. That is why we have locked into place, with the help of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a commission and oversight that if this fails, we will not have. I ask those people that have this compassion and concern for their new-found Communist friends in China, what if these Chinese do everything that we hate for them to do, what do we do when it comes up next year if it is not permanent? Do my colleagues not understand that we would be the bad guys for putting in place an impediment to their getting into the World Trade Organization, but they will get in anyway? We will have no way, except barking at the Moon, to complain about the behavior that we dislike. But I tell my colleagues this. We cannot forget as Americans that we have blemishes on this human rights issue. We have descendants of slaves that sit in this body. We have people here as Members of Congress that 50 years ago could not eat in certain restaurants. We have people living in the United States without educations, without hope, without running water. Mr. Speaker, I have not leaned on one Member in asking them to vote for this bill. I would not think that I am more of an American than they are, but I want to share with my colleagues that when people in certain districts go to sleep dreaming about human rights, they are not thinking about Shanghai; they are thinking about an opportunity in this great country. We are blessed. Let us break down these barriers. Let us be able to go there to China. Let us maintain an annual report, yes; but daily we will monitor the conduct and let us give America an opportunity to be all that she can be. We will show them. Cutting off communication did not work with that Communist, Castro. He has outlived close to 10 Presidents. Do not let it happen in China. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), our distinguished Speaker of the House. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, here we are, finally, on the floor of this great House closing the debate on permanent normal trade relations with China. Before we move into the finality of this, I want to thank those who helped make this legislation possible. I have to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). And I must say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), we have been talking a lot lately. They will be talking about us. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and my partners, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). I thank them all for their diligence in making this happen. But while there is one bill being debated here today, there are actually two debates going on; two questions that have to be answered. One, is granting this status to China in the best interest of the United States and the American people? And, two, is granting this status good for the people of China? {time} 1645 I believe the answer to both is ``yes.'' Among other things, this debate is about American economic security. American negotiators have reached a tough, but fair, agreement for China's entry into the World Trade Organization. It is in fact a one- sided agreement. China gets nothing from us they do not already have, and we get lower tariffs and easier access for our exports going to China. And who makes those exports? American workers do. Regardless of whether we grant normal trade status to China, the Chinese market is opening. Someone is going to have the opportunity to sell to this vast new market. The question is who will be there when the door opens? Will it be the United States, or will it be Europe and Japan? There will be new and larger markets for farm commodities and manufactured goods in China. Who will produce those products? American farmers and American workers or European farmers and European workers? This vote today is about whether American firms set the ground rules and standards for business in China. The potential for American economic growth is huge. If we pass this legislation, U.S. agricultural exports to China would increase by $2 billion every year. That means American farmers will be selling more corn and more wheat and more citrus and more soybeans. Last year, the wireless telephone market in China was $20 billion. By 2003, that market will be up to $45 billion. Our high-tech firms would thrive in the Chinese marketplace. It is clear that passing this legislation is in the best interest of American economic security. That is why Alan [[Page H3714]] Greenspan supports it, and that is one reason why we should vote ``yes.'' But there is another reason. Gradual democratic reform is taking root in the hearts and the minds of the Chinese people. But for it to continue, we must clear the way for more Americans to work with the Chinese. More trade will expose the Chinese people to powerful new ideas. Thanks to the American business presence in China, thousands of Chinese employees already have access to foreign newspapers and the Internet and to worldwide e-mail. Today this House is doing a good thing. We are showing the people and the leaders of China what real democracy looks like. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and I share a common goal, to help American workers and to encourage American reforms and human rights in China. But we differ on how to achieve that goal. I believe my approach is better, and that is why I urge Members to support this bill. But I am proud that I live in a country where the gentleman from Michigan (Mr Bonior) can be here on this floor today passionately putting forth his point of view, because that is what true democracy is all about. And, ladies and gentlemen, that is what this great House of Representatives is all about. In addition to the privilege of serving as the Speaker of this House, I am honored to be the representative of the people of the 14th District of Illinois. Like every State in this great Nation, Illinois has a lot to offer the people of China. So, in closing, I say to the people of China that we want to send you our corn and our farm machinery and our telecommunications equipment. But as we do, we are going to send along something more, free of charge. We are going to send you a glimpse of freedom and the ideals of Illinois' favorite son, Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator. Because we want for you the prosperity and the blessings of the liberty that we enjoy. This is a historic vote and a proud day for this body. I believe the vote we are casting today will help ensure our continued prosperity. Vote for the future. Vote ``aye.'' Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I support Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. I believe in free trade and I believe this agreement will bring economic growth to the United States and China, but I am highly concerned about the skewed priorities of U.S. trade negotiations and the framework of the World Trade Organization. I voted against the NAFTA because I thought we could make Mexico negotiate a better deal with more safeguards for the environment and worker rights. I voted against the GATT, which created the World Trade Organization, because I disapproved of establishing a world trading system that ceded our sovereignty in a number of areas, and particularly our ability to uphold laws for public health and the environment. I would have voted against Fast Track, if it had come to the floor, because of my concern that U.S. trade negotiators were not permitted to put worker protection issues as well as environment matters on the agenda. But according to the WTO rules that Congress ratified, and I voted against, China will be able to become part of the WTO regardless of our vote today. All we can decide here is whether the U.S. will benefit from the terms of China's accession. Although the symbolic message of rejecting PNTR would be potent, the substantive impact could be harmful for our economic and national security interests. On the economic side, there are some who believe that we can get every benefit by virtue of the bilateral agreement signed in 1979. I think that interpretation is incorrect. To press that issue, we could end up in a destructive trade war and at the same time lose major economic opportunities to America's global competitors. In the national security arena, I fear that in rejecting PNTR we would treat China as an adversary and that it would in reaction to our vote certainly become one. Rejecting PNTR would embolden the hardline militarists and make China even less cooperative in arms control and regional affairs. On the other hand, supporting the entry of both China and Taiwan into the WTO is an unprecedented opportunity to work with both countries on equal footing within a major multilateral organization. Furthermore, I think our current mechanism of annual review is not working and as a threat is not credible. I have voted against extending Normal Trade Relations status to China every year to protest their denial of human rights to their own citizens, but the possibility of cutting off trade relations has become an empty threat. That is why I strongly support my colleague Sandy Levin's proposal to establish a Congressional-Executive Commission to provide a continuous examination of human rights in China. It will create a strong network for Congress to communicate with NGO activists in China and maintain a constant focus on local Chinese elections, grass-roots environmental activities, and the situation in Tibet. I hope that passing PNTR will also bring greater transparency to China, and promote the rule of law. The influx of American interest, telecommunications, and media companies will democratize the flow of information beyond government control and give us new tools to scrutinize China's record on human rights and religious freedom. Although I'm supporting this bill, I continue to have serious concerns. For one thing, I am very troubled that Chinese tariffs on cigarettes will fall from 65% to 25% over the next four years. Lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases are already the most common cause of death in China, accounting for more than 700,000 deaths annually. This tariff reduction could open the door for tobacco companies to launch their aggressive marketing tactics against a highly vulnerable population where less than 4% know the dangers of smoking. Smoking patterns could eventually cause more than 3 millions deaths a year in China, and smoking rates could sky-rocket among women and children. We have a responsibility to make sure we don't spread the tobacco public health crisis to China. I also believe that the existing need for WTO reform will become even more apparent once China is a WTO member. I think there is a good change that China will try to get out of living up to its obligations under this accord and that even WTO judgments against China will be difficult to enforce. I also suspect that China may make efforts to use the WTO rules to challenge our own laws as trade barriers, When that happens, and maybe before, we in this country will have to face the dangers that the WTO represents and why it must be reformed. The WTO's dispute settlement mechanism must be open to input by non- governmental entities that have an interest in the deliberation. The evaluating panels cannot be shrouded in secrecy if dispute settlement is going to evolve as a credible and effective tool to enforce transparency and compliance. The U.S. should be leading the change to make trade rules include standards for human rights, labor rights, and the environment. We must work for a world economy that lives up to our standards instead of sinking to lower ones. Perhaps most importantly, we must make U.S. companies the ambassadors of these values when they operate abroad. I hope the advantages and consequences that unfold from PNTR will hasten our attention to moving forward on this agenda. My support for PNTR was not an easy decision. The debate has convinced me that we must redouble our efforts to press for domestic change in China, a change in U.S. trade priorities and more progressive would trading norms. But it has also brought me to the realization that isolating China would not cause new problems without without solving old ones and bring about great dangers that we must work to prevent. Today's vote could determine the course of U.S.-China relations for the next century. On voting for PNTR, I hope we will help make our most dynamic industries lead the way as they expand into China and the rest of the world. I also hope that it will allow us to working to bring down national barriers and promote the well-being lf all our peoples. Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4444 which would extend to the People's Republic of China permanent normal trade relations. More importantly, however, passage of this bill serves to ratify the bi-lateral trade agreement reached between the U.S. and China last fall as a condition for China's accession into the World Trade Organization. This will be the only vote Congress has on this momentous agreement. On the one hand, China is a potential boom market for our industries, particularly agriculture which is critically important to my district. Bringing China into the WTO has the potential of making the Port of Hueneme, in my district, an even more important portal for Pacific Rim trade. With 20 percent of the world's population, China is an appealing market. It behooves us to work diligently and intelligently to open that market to U.S. sellers. The other hand carries many pitfalls. China's track record in meeting its obligations under international agreements is not good. China is the only remaining Communist superpower. China has stolen our nuclear secrets and threatens stability in Asia with her belligerence towards Taiwan and others. We ignore that reality at our own peril. Last year, I voted against a one-year extension of China's Most Favored Nation status based on two criteria: The United States maintains a multibillion-dollar trade deficit with [[Page H3715]] China and has for years, and China has repeatedly demonstrated an aggressive military stance that includes stealing our most important nuclear secrets. At the beginning of this debate, I was not automatically against China's entry into the World Trade Organization, but I did have some very serious concerns. WTO membership carries more protection for the United States than does Most Favored Nation status. MFN has been a one-way street. It was a unilateral decision on our part to allow China access to our markets with no reciprocal opening on China's behalf. WTO is more of a two-way street. China must meet and maintain certain open-door criteria to remain in the WTO. Our trade with China historically has been a one-way street. In 1990, our trade deficit with China stood at $10.4 billion. By 1998, that deficit had climbed to $56.9 billion. It is estimated our trade deficit with China in 1999 will be $66.4 billion. China's entry into WTO and the ratification of the U.S.-China trade agreement can ease that deficit, but only if the agreement has teeth. I believe the WTO process has those teeth. In 1992, China and the U.S. signed a bilateral memorandum of understanding on trade access. China has violated it many times. In 1992, we also struck a deal with China to protect intellectual property, including copyrights on U.S. products. Today, U.S. copyrights for motion pictures and software in China are still being stolen by Chinese companies, a situation that results in the loss of billions of dollars and many thousands of American jobs. Chinese noncompliance has forced us to threaten trade sanctions several times. On the national security front, China was continuing a systematic raid on the designs of our most sophisticated thermonuclear weapons at the same time that it was modernizing and pretending to normalize relations with the U.S. Among the stolen designs was information on the neutron bomb, which to date no nation has opted to deploy and hopefully no one will. Even though China has been caught red-handed, it continues to deny its espionage. Meanwhile, it continues to showcase its belligerency by transferring sensitive missile technology to North Korea and by repeatedly threatening to attack Taiwan. The U.S.-China agreement can have positive consequences for the U.S., China and, indeed, the entire world. The agreement will force China to open its markets to U.S. goods and services, which will result in a lowering of the trade deficit. It could wean China from its passion for subsidies and government interference in its industries. It could educate the Chinese on the rule of law, as opposed to its current system of rule by the whim of its leaders. It could also hasten the spread of democracy within her borders. Each time a country has opened its economic markets, an open market of ideas has followed. But we must step carefully. We must not let our desire to access China's markets to blind us to China's distaste for democracy, her threat to our national security and her history of violating international laws and agreements. For the WTO agreement to work, it must level the playing field for U.S. exporters and be fully enforceable. Anything less will not open China's markets or advance the historical trend toward truly free trade and the rule of law. Since the U.S. signed a bilateral trade agreement with China last year, I have said repeatedly that my vote for or against permanent trade relations with China would rely on specific factors: It must protect American jobs, ensure Chinese markets are open to American goods and services, protect America's strategic interests and--be enforceable. I have made it clear that without those provisions, I would vote against Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Some of those protections were not in the bill until last night. Those protections are in the bill only because I and other Members of Congress withheld our support until every `i' was dotted. By working behind the scenes, we were able to force concessions that make this agreement a better deal for American businesses, American workers and for those who support greater human rights for the Chinese people. Last night, a bipartisan provision was incorporated into the bill that makes it easier for us to monitor China's trade compliance, and act if need be. That provision builds on provisions in the World Trade Organization agreement that allows us to continue to treat China as a communist economy. That's important because our safeguards and anti-dumping countermeasures are more stringent for communist economies than it is for capitalist countries. In addition, the revised bill continues Congress' all-important right to debate and vote on China's human rights practices and international behavior each year. The European Union signed its WTO agreement with China on Friday, followed by an agreement with Australia on Monday. Both were negotiated with China's history of duplicity in mind. In particular, the EU agreement improves the deal signed by the U.S. by making China significantly more open to foreign investment and trade. Under WTO rules, those provisions are open to the U.S. as well. We have given China Permanent Normal Trade Relations. But this is not the end, only the beginning. China has, at best, a mixed record of living up to international agreements, and I still have concerns about China's adherence to this one. But I am satisfied we have the mechanisms in place to force compliance, or take remedial action, if necessary. American businesses will not have a level playing field unless we continually insist on it, but now we have the tools to do that. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this debate I have expressed my belief that any trade deal with China involves two questions. The first, which we are debating today, is whether the Chinese have negotiated an agreement that is fair for American workers and businesses. However, before we can address this question we must be able to answer the second question, whether the agreement that has been negotiated includes the necessary enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance by China and fair treatment for American companies and workers. We have not yet answered this question, and consequently I cannot support this or any deal with China lacking the enforcement mechanisms necessary to guarantee fair trade. Today's robust debate has highlighted the concerns of many of my colleagues, thousands of interest groups and millions of citizens. All the subjects being debated today--national security, human rights, religious freedom, democracy, labor at home and abroad, the environment and the development of our and the world's economy--are of considerable importance. China is the most populous nation in the world. As such, its potential as a market for American goods and services is second to none. The concept of increased trade with China based on a good, enforceable agreement is sound and deserving of support. Trade is and will be extremely important to both American companies and workers. As a blueprint, the agreement negotiated by the Clinton Administration with China is good for America in many respects. When it comes down to it, any agreement, like any contract, is only as good as its enforcement provisions. What we have from China, so far, is its promise, if you will, to allow U.S. and foreign firms to compete fairly and openly in the Chinese market. But negotiations must still be held to reach agreement on how those promises China has made are going to be enforced. It has been more than two years since the World Trade Organization (WTO) working party and Chinese negotiators first met to conduct serious negotiations on the enforcement provisions to be included in the protocol. Mr. Speaker, members should know in detail what the WTO will do to ensure full and fair implementation of China's commitments contained in the accession agreement before, not after, we vote on an issue as important as the issue on the floor today. Why is the protocol and working party report so important, some may ask. The simple answer is that the protocol and working party report identify what the WTO will do to make sure that China fully implements the commitments it has made in the agreements that have been reached with the United States and other WTO partners. Until the Congress sees not only the commitments China has made but also the WTO's enforcement commitments, there is, in reality, no agreement for Congress to consider and determine worthy of granting PNTR to China. Once China enters the WTO, American firms and American workers must turn to the WTO for enforcement of their rights, and enforcement at the WTO is an area of considerable disappointment and concern. The WTO's ``binding dispute resolution'' system has proven to be a system rife with bias, incompetency, as well as totally unfamiliar with basic principles of due process and openness. There are no judges, only ad hoc panelists, most of whom are not experienced or qualified in applying proper standards of review. These panelists are assisted, if not controlled, by WTO bureaucrats who have inherent biases based on their programmatic interests in the subjects under review. Proceedings are kept secret from the public and from the parties in interest.There is no ability to engage in meaningful fact- finding. Panel decisions have also created obligations for WTO members that they did not agree to in the process of negotiations. And even if a panel decides in your favor, as in the case brought by the United States against the European Union (EU) on beef hormones and bananas, there is no assurance at all that anything will change. Years have gone by since the U.S. ``won'' these cases, and U.S. firms still have no greater access to the EU market. Mr. Chairman, PNTR is an extremely valuable trade benefit with China does not have but earnestly wants. It constitutes the only real leverage the U.S. has to bring about the kind of economic and trade reforms within China that will open that market to the products and [[Page H3716]] services American firms and American workers produce. Before we grant PNTR to China, we must make sure that China not only makes sufficient market opening commitments, but also that those commitments are enforceable. I am not pleased to vote no today. It is unquestionably in our national interest to have a cooperative relationship with China, and I am well aware that rejecting this trade package could further strain U.S.-Chinese relations and diminish our influence in China with regard to democracy, human rights, labor, environmental protection and Taiwan. But ultimately, my vote is about fairness and timing. Without enforcement mechanisms there can be no assurance of fairness for American business, American industry, and American jobs. By voting on a trade deal of such great importance before all the deals have been cut, especially on the enforcement mechanisms which will decide if this agreement is worth the paper it is written on, we needlessly jeopardize American jobs and business prospects in China. I guarantee you rules that can't be enforced will be broken. This vote should be postponed until accession agreements are concluded. Only then can we fully and responsibility assess the commitments China makes and determine whether the agreement ensures that China's commitment will be fully implemented and effectively enforced. Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status to China. In my career, I cannot recall a vote on which a final decision was more difficult to reach. Until today, I have been genuinely and sincerely undecided. In these past weeks and months, I have been listening intently to the forceful arguments for and against the legislation, especially those made by my constituents--who are as divided on this issue as I have been. I have great respect for the beliefs of those on both sides of this debate and for the passion of their convictions. In the final analysis, I believe that ``aye'' is the correct vote for a variety of reasons, including advancing the causes of human rights and democratization, for our national security, and for our economic self- interest. Improving respect for human rights and fostering democracy clearly must be top policy priorities in our relationship with China. No one here today condones the political and religious repression in that nation. The disagreement is over which U.S. policy is more likely to contribute to an improvement in conditions in China. I stress the word ``contribute,'' because we need to be cognizant that nothing we do will dramatically change China in the short term. Both sides of this debate have prominent human rights activists and former political prisoners supporting their position. We are presented with no easy formula that instructs us whether China plus or minus PNTR results in improved human rights. I have come to the conclusion that the increased outside contact, prosperity, and economic liberalization that comes with a strong U.S.-Sino trade relationship within the World Trade Organization (WTO) will be a greater force for change than the annual consideration and routine extension of NTR has offered. I am also comforted by the recent expressions of support for China's entry into the WTO by the Dalai Lama--perhaps the most prominent symbol of the repressive nature of the Chinese regime. We have heard much debate about the job losses which could result from passage of PNTR. While I am extremely sensitive to labor's concerns, on balance I believe that the economic interests of business and labor are enhanced by this normalization of trade with China. The U.S.-China Bilateral WTO Agreement provides for broad tariff reductions by China, for enhanced market access for American goods, and contains import surge protections for the U.S. The agreement requires no reduction in U.S. tariffs or any enhanced market access for Chinese products. As we have never revoked Most Favored Nation/Normal Trade Relations through the annual review process, China currently has defactor PNTR. I fail to see how reduced Chinese tariffs and other concessions in return for ending the formality of the annual review leads to increased job loss. I believe that passing PNTR will not create any significant job loss that was not already occurring in certain sectors of the economy. While various estimates of the employment effects of PNTR have been proffered, they must be viewed in the context of an economy that is dynamic and in constant flux. The shape of the American economy is changing and will change whether or not we pass PNTR. In fact, I believe that Chinese WTO accession and passage of PNTR will be a net creator of good jobs in California and in my congressional district. It is my fervent hope that over the long term, China's accession to the WTO will improve the human rights situation and encourage democratization in China. The inclusion in H.R. 4444 of a strong legislative package authored by Representatives Sander Levin (D-MI) and Doug Bereuter (R-NE) has addressed my doubts about the effects of this bill on human rights in China, as well as the American jobs. The human rights monitoring commission created by the legislation is a good idea in its own right. I believe the merit of close scrutiny of China's human rights situation speaks for itself and I would support the proposal independent of this PNTR bill. The import surge protections negotiated by the Clinton Administration and codified in this bill go a long way to addressing my concern about job losses resulting from this bill. This mechanism allows the President to utilize tariff increases, import restrictions, or other relief for domestic industries whose markets are disrupted by a surge in Chinese made goods. These powerful tools come in additional to the trade remedies already available under U.S. law and under the WTO. Ultimately, passing PNTR is in our economic self interest. China will join the WTO whether or not we pass this legislation today. The rest of the world will enjoy significant tariff reduction on their exports to China regardless of the outcome of this vote. We are voting on our nation's ability to sell the products made by our workers and our companies on a competitive basis. We must continue to vigilantly monitor our relationship with China. We must continue to pursue improvements in respect for human rights in all appropriate venues, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We will have to maintain our steadfast support for Taiwan. We will have to closely monitor Chinese compliance with its obligations under the WTO and make full use of that organization's mechanisms to enforce those obligations. With the knowledge in mind, Mr. Speaker, I am left with the belief that passage of this legislation is in the interests of both the American and the Chinese people. Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today we are plotting a bold course that is in keeping with our history, our potential, and our ultimate goal of liberating the Chinese people. In the international arena, America doesn't shrink from a challenge. We seize opportunity. We are fighters, visionaries, and pioneers. It's in our nature as Americans, to look past a challenge to victory. Standing as we do, at the head of the world, in a position of unprecedented strength and prosperity, why would we now choose the timid path? We should not, and we will not. That's why we will pass Permanent Normal Trade Relations status with the People's Republic of China. While PNTR will help our American economy, this is only one step toward our larger goal; ending communist rule in China by exposing the Chinese people to American values. Freedom is a contagious virtue. Defeating a foe is a poor substitute for liberating a country from the weight of a repressive ideology. We should today ensure the triumph of liberty by planting the seeds of freedom in China. We should not accept a retrenchment driven by fear and insecurity. There are serious issues we must address. Confronting these issues requires real American leadership and courage, We should not for a moment imagine that PNTR will solve or even the address the many troubling questions concerning the future of the communist government in Beijing. Without a doubt, expanded trade must be matched with a revitalization of America's military and a strengthening of our friendships with our allies in Asia. Simply expanding trade without supplying these critical elements will not create a free China. But we shouldn't let the strong steps we must take to resist aggression prevent us from communicating with the Chinese people. The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy has always been to make the case for freedom and democracy. We have never been afraid to place our values and our form of government up against any competitor. Give us half a chance, and we will win. Expanding trade with China is just this sort of opportunity. Fundamental change in China will not happen simply through State Department dictates. It will only happen after we inspire the Chinese people to demand freedom. We want to appeal to the Chinese people. To do that we have to be there, on the ground, spreading our values and the sure knowledge that there is a far better, nobler form of government than communism. Ignorance is the ally of repressive governments. Expanded trade, because it spreads American values, is an essential tool in changing a closed society. And in the battle for China's future, one Chinese entrepreneur is worth a million government bureaucrats. [[Page H3717]] Over the last century, communist countries have run from this competition. They hid their people behind walls and fortified borders, because they knew that if their citizens were exposed to our values, then the battle would be lost. As a great power built on a foundation of timeless virtues, we fear no competing political systems because we trust the strength of our ideas. We should ask ourselves: Why do so many of the hardliners, the old communist guard in China, resist opening their country to increased trade and interaction with America? It's because they understand the power of democratic values. We need to support Chinese reformers by giving them more, not less, access to American ideals. This will raise the call for human rights and lead China to the rule of law. We can't for a single minute ignore abuses by the Chinese government. Beijing's record on human rights, religious persecution, coercive abortion, and arms shipments to hostile states is shameful. The Chinese government does wicked things to its people. The way to stop these evil deeds is to end communist rule and that means transforming China into a free-market democracy. This is much more likely to happen if American ideals eat away at the infrastructure of tyranny from the inside out. We must also reject any notion that our support of expanded trade in China signals in any small way a slackening of our solemn commitment to defend Taiwan from aggression. We are sworn to defend Taiwan and we say again today that the United States will not allow any resolution of Taiwan's status that involves force or threats. We will not stand for it. Further, we must insist that Taiwan be admitted to the WTO as well. Granting PNTR to China is a critical component of a strategy driven by our one, clear objective: destroying communism. So, I urge my fellow Members, to support PNTR and commit the United States to this contest between freedom and repression. Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, extending permanent normal trade relations to China and supporting its accession to the World Trade Organization greatly benefits the United States. By encouraging participation in international organizations that facilitate the rule of law, I believe that this agreement is also in the best interest of the Chinese people. By approving PNTR, we will be enabling the United States to take advantage of the across-the-board reductions in tariff barriers that we negotiated as terms for our approval of China's accession to the World Trade Organization. Agricultural tariffs will be substantially reduced on several priority products, including a 66 percent cut on the tariff for apples, that will obviously have a large impact on my State of Washington and other apple producing areas of our country. China also agreed to lift its longstanding ban on the import of wheat and to increase the quota by more than 400 percent. China agreed to participate in the Information Technology Agreement and to eliminate tariffs on products such as software, computers, and semiconductors. Also China agreed to slash tariffs on industrial goods by an average of 62 percent, enabling America's manufacturers to compete much more evenly in the Chinese marketplace. The WTO accession agreement also contains provisions that will help other industries in which the U.S. is a world leader--telecommunications, insurance and banking just to name a few. The approval last week of a market access agreement between China and the European Union further adds to the benefits we will enjoy with China's accession to the WTO, as the best terms of each agreement negotiated by the Chinese must be extended to all members of the WTO. More agricultural tariffs will be cut, including those on wheat gluten and Washington wines. Several more tariffs on industrial goods will also be reduced, liberalization of the telecommunications industry will be accelerated, and United States law firms will be authorized to offer legal services in China. In return, we do not have to change anything--not one tariff, nor one regulation currently enforced by the United States. All we must do, according to WTO rules, is to extend permanent normal trade relations to China. Those of my colleagues that argue that our record trade deficit with China is a reason to oppose this bill must consider this point. There is nothing about this bill that will lead to an increase in the amount of goods we import from China; rather, this is all about slashing Chinese tariffs against United States goods which will lead to a substantial increase in United States exports to China. If you are truly concerned about addressing the United States trade deficit, you should vote for this bill. Some are opposing this bill, claiming that China has rarely adhered to prior trade agreements in the past. In my judgment, opponents claiming this point should be eager to support this agreement. By entering the WTO, China will finally be participating in an organization whose sole purpose to enforce trade agreements. A few years ago, we had to beg, cajole, and plead with China in order to persuade them to provide any enforcement of the intellectual property agreement established between our two countries. With accession to the WTO, we will have an impartial adjudicator to hear the case and determine what redress is warranted. No longer will we have to rely on the honesty and effectivness of the Chinese Government to ensure that they abide by trade agreements. My good friends in the labor community have expressed grave concerns over the effects this bill will have on American and Chinese workers. I deeply repect their concerns, but I believe that they are best addressed by voting for this bill. Currently, United States manufacturers and service providers struggle to enter the Chinese market becaue of high tariffs and often insurmountable red tape. By agreeing to cut their tariffs and reduce burdensome rules, China will be creating an incredible opportunity for American-made goods to finally penetrate their market. I firmly believe that this will be a real job creator in the United States, and ultimately of great benefit to U.S. workers. For this reason, the 27,000 member International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 751 western Washington endorsed this legislaiton. I cannot claim that the benefit to the Chinese worker will be as quick or as quantifiable as are the gains to American workers, but I do believe that accession to the WTO is in the best, long-term interest of the Chinese worker. This agreement will contribute to what we are already seeing in many parts of China--the growth of economic freedom and a vibrant middle class. I also respect the convictions of those who consistently oppose any engagement with China because of China's disappointing record on human rights and religious freedoms. However, I side with many who, like the Dalai Lama and dissidents Bao tong and Dai Qing, recognize that engaging the Chinese and bringing them into international