David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Atlanta for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to, since he has entered the Chamber, congratulate my very good friend, the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Portman), for having taken the lead on this extremely important issue. He has done a great job in pointing to the importance of it and putting together a coalition that has included my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). Mr. Speaker, creating digital opportunity is the priority that we have. I do not like to call it the digital divide. What we want to do is we want to make sure that we create opportunities for every single American to be able to have access to this information economy. We have this information-based economy, and we all know that it is tied to virtually everything that goes through some sort of telecommunications area, and the hindrance that is there is a tax. Our great historian, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), talked about the cost of the Spanish-American War and the fact that last year $5 billion was collected for that. We are finally going to declare victory; and at the same time, we are going to reduce that one burden that has stood in the way of enhancing digital opportunity. The fact is, again, telecommunications is the foundation of this information-age economy that we have developed. In my State alone, it is amazing to look at the number of jobs, the number of families that are able to maintain and expand their standard of living because of these opportunities. It is about 800,000 in my State that have been created since 1993; and nationwide it is approaching 5 million, about 4.8 million. We want to do everything we can to expand that. Again, in California, 45 percent of small businesses, and the small business sector, as we all know, is the backbone of our economy; 45 percent of those small businesses say that they use the Internet to do business, and anything that stands in the way to expand that, we very much want to repeal and address. So I believe that we have a great opportunity here to strike a blow for our quest to expand opportunities for every single American, to get in and enjoy this economy, because when we look at a family that has earned $25,000 or less, they have said that the one thing that stands in the way of their getting into this information-age economy is the cost. So this is one step, a very important step, that we can take towards decreasing that cost and enhancing opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote. This will be another wonderful accomplishment when we move this through to the leadership, the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and this great and very, very, very successful 106th Congress.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, and, most important in this instance, the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being elected to the Congress in November of 1980, the same day that Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States; and Ronald Reagan said, ``Give people a taste of freedom, and they will thirst for more.'' That is exactly what is happening today in the People's Republic of China. My friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), just said that, basically, the genie is out of the bottle and the Internet is expanding. There are 9 million Internet users in China today, 70 million cellular telephones. So the fact is the genie is out of the bottle. And guess what? They are getting that taste of freedom, and they are thirsting for more. Now, we have people who are here making all kinds of arguments with a load of acronyms: PNTR, PLA, MFN, MTR, WTO. All of these acronyms are being thrown out there. Somebody supports PNTR. Somebody does not support PNTR. The fact of the matter is the Dalai Lama stands for human rights. The Dalai Lama's statement in Copenhagen, Denmark, last Sunday was very clear. The Dalai Lama, the great spiritual leader of Tibet, said that openness and creating greater economic freedom will, in fact, lead to democracy, and he never supported anything that would isolate China. A ``no'' vote on this rule and on this vote that we are going to have later this afternoon would, in fact, isolate China. It would really isolate the United States of America, the great global leader, the beacon of hope and opportunity for the rest of the world. It would isolate us from China, and it would jeopardize our ability to get our American values into China. Look at other leaders. I am so proud of what my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), just said here. He spent time working on this issue. There is no one who is more committed to the security of the United States of America than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). I believe that any Member who has any question on the issue of national security should, in fact, talk with him. My friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), sitting in the second row here, has anguished over this issue. He has opposed it in the past but has come to the conclusion that expanding freedom this way is the way to go. And the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) sitting two rows behind him who has worked long and hard in support of this and is vigorously pursuing human rights with the Bereuter-Levin proposal. And when we look at others who want to encourage openness, the Reverend Billy Graham is not involving himself in this debate, but he is a strong supporter of openness. And openness with China is, obviously, going to be promoted through granting permanent normal trade relations. The former Presidents who stood with President Clinton down at the White House just a couple of weeks ago in strong support of this, talking about the national security aspect. I know this issue of Taiwan is going to be an important part of the debate over the next several hours. The morning after the election, Chen Shui-bian, the least desirable candidate in the eyes of Beijing, who was elected president on Taiwan, that great island with 24 million people, said that he believed that China's entry into the World Trade Organization was very important because he knows, and it is included in the Bereuter-Levin resolution, we call for simultaneity. But, frankly, Taiwan will enter the World Trade Organization shortly after China does. This is the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we need to stand with the likes of Colin Powell and those former Presidents and all who are pursuing freedom. So I urge an ``aye'' vote on the rule and an ``aye'' vote on permanent normal trade relations so that we can, in fact, continue to be the world's paramount leader. Mr. STARK, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the rule on H.R. 4444. I cosponsored two amendments to this bill to clarify some of the many concerns I have with granting China permanent normal trade relations status. Unfortunately the rule blocked these amendments in the continued interest of those Members under the influence of big business campaign cash, big business, and the administration that have been pushing for passage of this legislation. The first amendment addressed Taiwan's accession to the World Trade Organization. The amendment would have guaranteed Taiwan's accession by conditioning permanent normal trade relations [PNTR] status to China on Taiwan's entrance to the WTO. Once China enters the WTO it will actively spearhead efforts to block Taiwan's entry into the WTO. Proponents of permanent NTR claim that this is nothing more than a scare tactic on the part of PNTR opponents. However this claim is well founded in the truth and the Pelosi-Stark amendment is quite necessary. The administration assured me that China has already verbally agreed to allow Taiwan to enter the WTO without resistance from China after China accedes to the Organization. If China has made a verbal agreement, then there should be no problem with legislating such a proposal. However, on May 16, 2000, the very same day I offered a similar amendment to the Ways and Means Committee markup bill, China proved that it will, in fact, try to block Taiwan's entry into the WTO. The PRC led the charge against Taiwan's fourth bid for observer status in the World Health Organization [WHO]. If China is willing to go to great lengths to block Taiwan from the World Health Organization, it is certain to lead a full campaign against Taiwan's application for WTO membership. China has demonstrated time and again that it is not to be trusted. China has broken every bilateral agreement it has with the United States. If we can't trust China with a signed agreement then this Congress is completely foolish to trust them with a verbal agreement. China has no intention of allowing Taiwan to enter the WTO without a fight. The Pelosi-Stark amendment to condition PNTR on Taiwan's WTO accession ensures a smooth accession for that democratic nation. I also cosponsored an amendment with Representatives Pelosi and Markey that conditions extension of permanent NTR on an additional agreement between the United States and China on President Clinton's 1994 embargo on arms and ammunition imports. In 1994, as a condition of granting China annual MFN status, President Clinton issued an order than bans the imports of assault weapons from China. Under World Trade Organization [WTO] rules, the United States is required to treat foreign and domestic goods identically. Although the United States bans these imports from China, it continues to manufacture and sell assault weapons. Clearly, by banning China from selling to the United States market, but allowing domestic manufacturers to continue with business as usual, the United States does not treat foreign and domestic goods identically. This means that once China accedes to the WTO, they will have every right as a member to dispute the United States ban. And since the order does violate WTO rules, the WTO will most likely find the United States in violation treating China's assault weapons differently from those in the United States. This would mean that the United States would have to lift the import ban on China, or ban the sale and manufacture of its own assault weapons as well as the imports from other countries. China accounted for 42 percent of all rifles imported into the United States civilian market between 1987 and 1994, the year in which President Clinton finally blocked the flood of assault weapons from the China. The PRC's weapons dumping was so great that it increased the overall import of guns into the United States. Chinese rifles and handguns accounted for 15 percent of all firearms imported for the civilian market in six of the eight years between 1987 and 1994. The import of Chinese guns was effectively stopped in 1994 when President Clinton imposed a ban as a condition of renewing China's most favored nation status. Proponents of PNTR will claim that the United States ban will be upheld if challenged by China under the WTO dispute settlement process. The claim is that the United States can hide behind the clause that allows for protection of security interests. However, this clause is narrowly defined providing an exception only as a means for self- defense. No WTO dispute settlement body is going to believe that the United States needs to keep Chinese assault weapons off its streets for national security reasons. If we grant China permanent most favored nation trade status, China, not the Members of the 106th Congress, will dictate United States gun import policy. The issues I have presented today are just two, of a much greater list, of the problems I have with granting China permanent NTR status. But they clearly highlight two problems with the current negotiated bilateral trade agreement between the United States and China. In addition, these amendments would serve to demonstrate that granting China PNTR is not a win-win situation for the United States. Many people will suffer if we grant permanent normal trade relations to China without receiving some significant concessions from China first. These amendments are two concessions China must make before Congress votes to relinquish the only leverage it has with China. I urge Members to vote against this rule and send a message to the Rules Committee that these concerns must be addressed by the House before we sell our country to China lock, stock, and barrel.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Newport Beach, California (Mr. Cox), my very good friend, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, who has worked long and hard on this issue and is a strong supporter of both the rule and PNTR.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have created 20 million jobs and have an unemployment rate of less than 4 percent. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Material of the Committee on Commerce, a hard-working member of our whip team on this issue. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday in Copenhagen, Denmark, the Dalai Lama said he supported China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a very hard-working Member from the Committee on Rules, my friend from the ``Big D.''

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Chen Shui-bian the new President of Taiwan strongly supports the entry into the World Trade Organization without any conditions whatsoever because they know it will benefit both Taiwan, China, and the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a hard-working member of our whip team.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 510 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as is customary for consideration of trade legislation, H.Res. 510 is a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4444, a bill to authorize extension of normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China. The rule provides 3 hours of debate in the House equally divided among the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) or their designees. The rule provides that in lieu of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the rule shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, today's vote on trade with China is probably the most important vote that we will face in this session of Congress. Make no mistake about it. This vote is a win-win-win for America's workers, America's first-class businesses, and the very important goal of promoting American values. This will be a win for American workers because China will finally be required to play by the rules when they trade with America. They are opening their markets to American exporters which means good jobs across the United States. This is also a major win for world-class American businesses. We are home to the world's best high-tech companies, entertainers, farmers, and financial institutions. These industries are at the heart of my home State of California's vibrant growing economy. They dominate global markets, and they will do the same in China if we let them. However, as good a trade deal as this is, it does not get any more one sided in our favor than this. We do not face a choice between American pocketbooks and American values. The fact is, trade with China is good for the Chinese people. It is good for human rights. It is good for democratic reform. It is good for national security, and it is good for American values. Yes, high-tech industries strongly support this bill. Yes, farmers across America strongly support this bill. Yes, this bill is key to spreading the Internet across China. That is all great. But the real story is that leading human rights activists, democratic reformers and religious leaders in China support permanent normal trade relations and China entering the World Trade Organization. Mr. Speaker, China is in the midst of great and dynamic change; and free market reform is the primary engine pushing that change. In fact, market reform is the single most powerful force for positive change in the 5,000-year history of Chinese civilization. Mr. Speaker, if we care about the Chinese people, we cannot ignore reality that free market reforms have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of the depths of poverty. They have led to greater personal freedom for nearly everyone in China. Mr. Speaker, supporters of trade with China, those of us who are supporters are not fools. We know that there are huge problems in China, and we do not ignore those problems. China is a country of 1.3 billion people with, as I said, 5,000 years of history dominated by both poverty and repression. Freedom and prosperity will not come to China overnight, or in a year or two. But if we stand for trade, if we stand for trade, we stand with Martin Lee, the leading democracy activist in Hong Kong, with Chen Shui-bian, the newly-elected president of Taiwan, who, the morning after he was elected, said one of the top priorities is China's accession to the World Trade Organization. Billy Graham, who has not injected himself into this debate, other than to say that he believes that communication with China and openness is very important for us. Colin Powell, who just yesterday talked about the importance of this with Governor George W. Bush; Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board; and, of course, former Presidents George Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford; as well as Ren Wanding, who is leader of China's 1978 Democracy Wall Movement in China; and a host of other Chinese human rights activists. People like Wei Jinhsheng, who for 7 years was imprisoned following the Tiananmen Square protests, people like this have come forward and said this is a very important thing to do. So when we vote yes on permanent normal trade relations today, Mr. Speaker, we will be standing with winners. We stand with the people that will win in today's debate. We stand with the people that will win with this very important, but most important, Mr. Speaker, we stand with the winning tide of history that is slowly lifting the people of China from the depth of poverty and repression into the community of nations based on freedom and human dignity. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I never said he did.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I understand that. But I think that the global community recognizes that the U.S. presence in the World Trade Organization enabling access to China is very important.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I just say, what I said, as I stood up, is that, in Copenhagen, Denmark last Sunday morning, the Dalai Lama said that he supported China's entry into the World Trade Organization.

Mr. DREIER. That is what I said.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very dear friend from South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) with whom I spend many long evenings upstairs in the Committee on Rules, including last night, to get this measure down here, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), another of our hard- working advocacy workers here in the House.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Palm Beach, Florida (Mr. Foley), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Fairfax, Virginia (Mr. Davis), my good friend, one of the great champions of globalization and trade. (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a hard-working member of the Committee on Rules and Secretary of the Republican Conference.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the lead author of the very important legislation which is incorporated in this bill, which I believe will play a key role in bringing about its victory today. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 decades we have observed incredible changes, the cause of freedom, both economic and political freedom, sweep across our globe. I recall very well 10 years ago this last October as the Berlin Wall was getting ready to come down, we heard a speech from the first elected leader of South Korea, one of those countries which we maintained an economic tie with and brought about economic reform and political reform in. He said in his speech here, ``The forces of freedom and liberty are eroding the foundations of closed societies. The efficiency of the market economy and the benefits of an open society have become undeniable. Now these universal ideals, symbolized by the United States of America, have begun to undermine the fortresses of repression.'' I was struck with that speech that he gave a decade ago right here in this Chamber; and, Mr. Speaker, if we stand with the likes of Colin Powell, the Dalai Lama, Billy Graham, the former Presidents, and a wide range of leaders in China and dissidents who understand the power of opening this up, we will one day see the first elected leader from the People's Republic of China stand right here in this Chamber delivering a familiar, similar speech. Mr. Speaker, with that, I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on what many have described as the most important vote of our careers.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time for the Speaker as though pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4444) to authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the People's Republic of China; that the first reading of the bill be dispensed with; that all points of order against consideration of the bill be waived; that general debate proceed without intervening motion, be confined to the bill, and be limited to 2 hours equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) or their designees; that after general debate the Committee of the Whole rise without motion; and that no further consideration of the bill be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to maximize the amount of time for the House to debate the important issue of commercial relations with the People's Republic of China, I intend to propound a unanimous- consent request to begin debate on this issue this evening with 2 hours of debate equally divided between the bill's proponents and opponents from both sides of the aisle. Furthermore, the Committee on Rules will meet later today to grant a rule on H.R. 4444 which will provide for further consideration, debate, and a vote on this very important issue.