Robert Matsui

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I speak in opposition to H.J. Res. 121, and support the continuation of trade relations with China. I oppose the resolution on the floor because I believe that our national strategic interests, not just our commercial interests, are at stake. The U.S.-China relation is by far the most important bilateral relationship the United States will have in the 21st century. A constructive positive economic and political relationship with China is a key to a long-lasting peace and prosperity and stability in Asia and throughout the world. Democratic and Republican presidents, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, and President Clinton have all recommended the extension of normal trading relations with China each year since it was first granted in 1980. We have also 17 former Secretaries of State, Defense, and National Security Advisors and they have written a bipartisan open letter to Congress urging the continuation of normal trade relations with China. They point out that normal trade relations advance our interests in China by continuing to open and reform its economy and improve the quality of life of its citizens. They underscore that the vital importance of continuing the engagement with China is serving America's best economic and national security interests. As said by previous speakers, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) in particular, China represents 23 percent of the world population. One person in every five living on this planet is a Chinese citizen. We cannot ignore this simple reality and we cannot and should not try to isolate China. Rather, we should continue to build upon and strengthen the positive relationship which has undeniably been an engine for change in China. This was demonstrated most recently and visibly on the President's recent trip to China last month when human rights and other sensitive issues were openly discussed and televised for the first time. There is no disagreement about the fact that China still has a long way to go in granting its citizens basic human rights and religious and political freedoms. We all know that. Change toward respect for human values that we cherish is gradual and obviously slower in this case than we wish. The Chinese market, of course, is not as open to our goods and services as we speak, and China may have shared nuclear technology with other nations. These are the kinds of things that obviously we deplore. But China is also working with us to restore stability in the Asian region. It is assisting in the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons. As we know with the Asian financial crisis, which many of the economists in the world and in the United States in particular have said is comparable to the prelude before the 1930 ``Great Crash,'' the Chinese are assisting us by maintaining the value of its currency and not devaluing, obviously causing economic harm to its own citizens, unlike some other Asian countries, and encouraging a peaceful resolution in the differences among South Asian countries and certainly in the Korean Peninsula. Such cooperation on areas of mutual national interest is the result of a constructive diplomacy and engagement. And while we also continue to deal forthrightly with Chinese leaders on these areas of disagreement, we continue to press them in the area of human rights and obviously democratic principles. In fact, as many of us know, we are at this time working with China on an issue called the rule of law. It is going to take a great deal of time to get the Chinese to understand that they have a right to sue in their courts, but we are slowly making progress in that area. We believe that in the area of commercial rules of law, eventually and hopefully it will move into the area of human rights and due process, items that we in our country cherish. Revoking normal trade relation status will not only hurt U.S. exporters and help foreign competitors in the Chinese markets, but it will not really close our bilateral trade deficit. We continue to insist, as we should, that China provide meaningful market access and adhere to international trading rules before joining the WTO. But China and Hong Kong are also major customers for U.S. products. Until the recent financial crisis, the increasing trade deficit has largely been offset in our deficit with other Asian countries, particularly the Four Tigers. Mr. Speaker, I might just add to this that the Chinese now are wondering whether they do want to enter into the WTO under the terms that we have suggested. We will allow and grant the Chinese the ability to enter into the World Trade Organization, but only as a developed nation. They want to come in as a developing nation, which means they will not have to comply with all the WTO rules. But I would have to say that ultimately we will want the Chinese in the WTO, because that is the way to get the Chinese to abide by international standards that were promulgated by over 186 countries in 1996. Cutting off normal trade relations would cut off a vital link between our two countries and an important catalyst for change through increased business and trade contracts with Chinese leaders and citizens. Even more important, our withdrawal now from a policy of normal trade relations would reverse the long process of engagement to encourage China to be a responsible and constructive member of the international community. In effect, the enactment of H.J. Res. 121 would create a new Cold War in the 21st century with only negative consequences for our national security and certainly our own national interests. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cast a ``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 121, and to support a continuation of normal trade relations with China. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement). (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly), the distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to take this whole issue seriously this afternoon. We all know that it is not going to become law. It is going to pass out of the House but the Senate will not take action on it. That is why we are not seeing lobbyists clamber down on Capitol Hill. That is why we are not seeing letters to the editor. That is why we are seeing no stories in the major newspapers throughout the country. This is really a political opportunity for one of the parties. This is not going to become law. So it is really hard to get particularly pushed out of shape or excited or concerned about this. It is just not going to become law. Because the reality of the situation is that those that are advancing this particular proposal really in 1997 added thousands of pages to the Tax Code. In fact, we have added in 1997 when the Republicans were in control of the Congress 285 new sections to the Tax Code, 824 new amendments to the Tax Code. This is just in 1 year. There are now five ways, five separate ways to do capital gains. In fact, Schedule D, which had 23 lines, now has 54 lines, and it really does take H&R Block to really figure it out. The average person cannot do their taxes. Most of them do not have capital gains so they do not have to worry about it. In addition to that, there are now two different way to do IRAs, a back-ended way and a front- ended way. In addition, you can convert over, but you better make sure you understand your economic situation before you do. We also have a number of different ways either to take a credit or a deduction if you are a student. Should the student take it? Should the student's parents take it? Should the grandparents take it? We have really added complexity to the Code. The 1997 bill was probably the worst tax bill the United States has ever had, because it added more complexity to the Code than we have had in the last 25 years. And so this is not a real exercise in good government. This is really a show game. I have to say that if it were taken seriously, I think people in this country today would be really concerned. You would have to say, shall I buy a house because I get a deduction on my home, and that is an incentive, that reduces my taxes. But obviously if we changed the Code or the Code is eliminated in 3 years, I may lose that deduction and all of a sudden I might not be able to make my monthly payments on my other expenses. But no one is saying that, because this is not a serious effort. It is really a shame. We are going to be in until midnight tonight and we are not going to take any really substantive action. The irony of it is that we have 13 appropriations bills that are supposed to pass, we have a budget, but we do not have it out of the House yet. Not one appropriations bill has been taken to this body. There has been no budget reconciled between the House and the Senate. It was supposed to be done on April 15. Here we are at June 17, 2 months later. It is amazing. It is absolutely amazing that we are wasting our time engaged in this kind of activity that has no relevance, no value and certainly it is something that is a political exercise that I think the American public will eventually get disgusted with.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3809 poses an unfortunate dilemma for many Members. On the one hand, it authorizes additional resources needed by the United States Customs Service for antidrug enforcement. On the other hand, it contains provisions affecting Customs employees and their collective bargaining rights in particular, which are controversial and do not have bipartisan support. Title I of the bill authorizes appropriations for the Customs Service for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, as requested by the President, plus additional funds authorized specifically for additional equipment and personnel to strengthen enforcement along our borders against illegal drugs and other contraband. The $90 million earmarked for the latest equipment and technology and the $301 million earmarked over 2 prior years for an additional 1,745 Customs inspectors, special agents and other personnel are necessary for additional resources to detect and interdict illegal drugs. Mr. Speaker, the problem with this bill, however, is two provisions in the bill which Democrats opposed in the Committee on Ways and Means, sections 211 and 212. These two sections would allow Customs managers to abrogate unilaterally collective bargaining agreements between Customs management and Customs employees and to regulate the collective bargaining process as it applies to the temporary reassignment of Customs inspectors and the interdiction of contraband. Specifically, section 211 authorized Customs management to reassign its employees without regard to any existing executive order, Federal law or collective bargaining agreement. Section 212 authorizes Customs to determine whether a collective bargaining agreement has an adverse impact on the interdiction of contraband and to implement a management action if agreement is not reached within 90 days with the union. Under exigent circumstances, whatever Customs basically determines them to be, management action may be implemented immediately. In short, Mr. Speaker, Customs is being authorized to ignore and abrogate collective bargaining agreements negotiated in good faith. That is the major problem with this legislation. I might just point out to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means that the administration is not opposing this provision because of special interests or because of labor. It is because the administration believes that contracts should not be abrogated. I think it is about time that the majority begin to stop considering it a conspiracy every time something that they disagree with happens. They should stop looking under the bed or opening up closets. Maybe they might then come to the realization that sometimes these decisions are made based upon good faith and certainly upon good policy and good judgment. Most of the Members on our committee did support this legislation. It is my hope that when this matter goes to the House-Senate conference that we can correct section 211 and section 212, which certainly need major revisions, if, in fact, this bill is eventually to get to the President and certainly before the President will sign this legislation.