Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who understands that granting PNTR would allow China to continue to regularly threaten the Democratic Nation of Taiwan and the U.S. with military attack.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), who understands that the 600,000 jobs lost because of the $70 billion trade deficit to China has affected many of the footwear manufacturers in the northeastern part of this country. (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) who understands that the slogan ``We Bring Good Things to Life'' will not help murdered female children in China.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) who realizes that to honor China and punish Cuba is the height of hypocrisy.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), someone who realizes that slave labor is not the American way to get cheap T-shirts at Wal-Mart. (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), who recognizes that a trade deal with China gives away our leverage to protect the lives and human beings and slaves in China. (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) who realizes that, like NAFTA, PNTR will promote global business and undermine environmental protections, undermine labor standards and undermine human rights.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit). (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who understands that China will soon surpass the United States to become the leading emitter of greenhouse gases and that will not abate. (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) who recognizes to open our border to cheap Chinese assault weapons will cause the deaths of thousands of American children.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader, a gentleman who recognizes that the trade deal with China gives away our leverage to protect the lives of environmental, human, and religious activists in China; who recognizes that the Religious Freedom Commission set up by Congress in 1998 recommended Congress not give PNTR to China; who recognizes that the Levin-Bereuter provisions are hollow and do not provide for human rights violation enforcement; and recognizes that this agreement does not provide enforcement of China's promises. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, I rise today in vehement opposition to granting the People's Republic of China (PRC) permanent and unconditional trade relations status. Although proponents of this measure call it permanent normal trade relations, or PNTR, there is nothing normal about this relationship. The PRC makes promises to the U.S., the U.S. engages Beijing and Beijing breaks those promises. But China has absolutely no reason to keep their promises. The U.S. grants China most favored nation (MFN) trading status year after year while ignoring China's myriad of trade, labor, human rights, and nonproliferation violations. Now, the Administration wants Congress to hand over our only form of leverage to Beijing. I oppose extending permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to China because the agreement signed last November is bad for U.S. as well as Chinese workers, and because the legislation before us cannot deliver what its backers promise. i. the agreement We don't really know what the agreement between the U.S. and China will bear because China breaks its current agreements on nonproliferation, intellectual property rights, human rights and forced labor. Chinese officials have been telling the U.S. that they're opening their markets and telling their own business leaders that once they've entered the WTO, they'll protect certain markets--such as telecom, electronics and autos. Unfair competition is an integral part of Beijing's economic system. China restricts imports of U.S. goods through various formal and informal trade barriers. The 1992 memorandum of understanding agreement China signed on market access and intellectual property has been and continues to be violated. China cannot be trusted. Factory workers in China earn as little as thirteen cents per hour. The average individual income in China is $108. This hardly sounds like a burgeoning middle class. But the Administration keeps telling us--as they did with NAFTA and Mexico--that if we don't capitalize on this market, Europe will. All I know is that a Chinese factory worker, or a rural peasant, making $108 per year isn't able to afford goods made in the U.S. when they can't even afford goods made in their own country. I do know that this agreement encourages U.S. businesses to set-up shop in China and ensures them access to exploit China's cheap labor. This is a bad deal for the U.S. workers and a bad deal for the Chinese worker. ii. the legislation before us Many Members feel that they are able to vote for today's bill because it offers assurances that workers and human rights will be protected while promoting the rule of law in China. This is a tall order when we have yet to get China to keep any of its commitments made to the U.S. The bill before us sets up another commission to monitor human rights. On May 18, 1998, 375 Members of the 105th Congress voted to establish the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. When the Commission brought its findings on China's egregious religious violations, the 106th Congress looked the other way. The Commission recommended that we not give PNTR to China at this time. If this body is going to ignore the recommendations of the Commission that we established, why would we want to set-up another one? No Commission will be effective if Congress is going to ignore the fact that China abuses its people for practicing Falun Gong or any other religion not endorsed by the barbaric regime. The human rights provision in this legislation is hollow. The provisions set forth by the Levin-Bereuter proposal do not guarantee enforcement of China's harsh practices. iii. conclusion I'm not suggesting we end trade with China. I'm not even asking that we reform our trading practices with China. I merely want China to abide by the promises it has already made. I urge my colleagues to look closely at China's record. I urge my colleagues to scrutinize China's current practices and ask yourselves if you believe China will keep its word. I don't! Oppose Congress giving up its only tool to enforce China's promises. Oppose PNTR for China.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when I suggested to the gentleman that I heard William Clay Ford, Jr., say that the Ford Motor Company delivers excellent products and strives to make the world a better place, this gentleman recognized that Ford was going to have to change that and say they would deliver excellent products and strive to make the world a better place for polluters, slavery, intolerance, and repression. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) who understands that the Dalai Lama never said he supports PNTR and understands that there is a difference between China acceding to WTO and Congress passing PNTR.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski). (Mr. KANJORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK

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. 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)

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation based on the highly successful Act of Parliament of 1714 which established a prize for the invention of an absolutely essential tool: the modern sextant necessary to prevent shipwrecks. My legislation would establish a series of prizes for the discovery of cures to many of the major diseases and illnesses that plague mankind. The prizes would be appropriate to the horror of the illness-- $10 billion tax free for a cure or prevention for Alzheimer's; $10 billion for MS, $10 billion for AIDS, etc. The condition--the quid pro quo--is that the prize would go to an inventor/company (and cooperative consultation would be encouraged) in exchange for making the medical breakthrough available to the world at the cost of production. An unusual bill? Yes. But it worked before. And we desperately need to find a way to bring disease-curing, break-through drugs to market faster, but at a price that is affordable to the people who need them. I'm including in the Record a description of how the British Admiralty, quite tired of its fleets ramming into land unexpectedly and sinking with massive loss of life, offered the huge sum of 20,000 in 1714 for the person who could ``discover longitude.'' The Library of Congress tells me that 20,000 Pounds Sterling in 1750 would be worth $401.4 million today. I assume that if the data allowed a conversion of Pounds to Dollars back to 1714, the amount would be about half a billion dollars. This huge prize led to a flurry of research and invention that produced the sextant and other devices and modernized the world of commerce and travel. To cure Alzheimer's, or MS, or AIDS, or Cancer, or the other major diseases is, I believe, worth more than half a billion dollars, and I would propose a tax free $10 billion prize per major disease. On just Alzheimer's, for example, by 2025 with the aging of the Baby Boomers, it is expected that 14 million Americans will have Alzheimer's. Conservatively assuming $50,000 a year in current dollars for the various costs to ``manage'' an Alzheimer's patient, the cost to society will be about $700 billion a year for this one disease! Clearly, a $10 billion prize would be a bargain. The NIH could guide us on the size of prizes for other designated diseases. Why not rely on the current private sector process of finding cures? First, a lot of current private industry research is wasted in the research on ``me too'' drugs, vanity drugs, and marginal improvements in existing products. The U.S. pharmaceutical companies profit levels are about 50 percent higher than their R&D budgets, and their overhead, sales, and lobbying expenses are twice as high. We need to focus the companies and the scientific community on major breakthroughs, not me toos. Second, when a major breakthrough is invented, it is priced--at least in the United States--at such sky-high levels that access to life- saving drugs has become the major source of inflation in the economy and is unaffordable to the poor and sick. The industrialized world's drug companies resist allowing low cost production in the world's poorest nations, thus leaving millions to suffer and die needlessly, and even in America, the poor find their pharmaceutical care severely rationed. The tax-free prize I am proposing would give any company or scientist the appropriate honor and monetary reward in exchange for ensuring the life-saving invention is available to society at a reasonable price. Following is an excerpt from ``Evolution of the Sextant'' by Rod Cardoza of the Sea West Company. Until the very early years of the 18th century a mariner's navigation consisted of sunshots to determine the latitude and dead reckoning, coupled with piloting, to estimate the longitude. Latitude, the distance north or south of the equator, is the horizontal component of the imaginary grid system encircling the earth, unaffected by the earth's rotation relative to the stars. Longitude, the distance east or west on the earth's surface, is the vertical component of these lines of position. It changes constantly, with respect to the heavens, as the earth rotates. Thus a key element in most methods of determining longitude is precise time keeping. The onset of the 18th century saw new methods and instruments innovated for finding the elusive longitude. Among these, the lunar distance method found favor with the English, culminating in the perfection of the reflecting circle by Mayer, Borda, and Troughton toward the end of the century. Another method, longitude by change in compass variation, promised an easy solution in theory, but was not precise enough to be of any value in practice. The search for the longitude generated some bizarre proposals. In one case Sir Kenelm Digby claimed that he had caused one of his medical patients to jump with a start, even though the two were separated by a great distance. This was accomplished by placing some specially invented ``powder of sympathy'' into a bucket of water and then adding a bandage taken from the patient's wound. This ``fact'' led to the suggestion that every ship should be equipped with a wounded dog. On shore, a diligent individual equipped with a standard pendulum clock and a powdered bandage from the dog's wound, would dip the bandage into water at the stroke of each hour causing the dog aboard the ship to yelp at the appropriate instant! The impractical application of all these systems was becoming tragically obvious. Several instances of entire squadrons of British ships being lost due to imprecise navigation occurred in 1691, 1707, and again in 1711. These losses provided a final impetus to the British Admiralty to pass a bill ``for providing a publick reward for such person or persons as shall discover the Longitude,'' in 1714. The amount of the reward was K20,000--a phenomenal sum at the time--indicative of the importance placed upon perfecting an accurate means of navigating. Finally in 1735, John Harrison, a Yorkshire carpenter, successfully constructed the first marine chronometer having some components of wood and weighing 125 pounds! Because of its precise timekeeping ability, the chronometer, in perfected form, was later to become an indispensable addition to nearly every ocean-going vessel afloat. As a result of his successful contribution Harrison eventually received the reward. In the interim, the modern era in navigation had begun. The increased activity in ``the search for the longitude'' also spurred innovative interest in other areas of navigation. In 1731 John Hadley demonstrated his new reflecting quadrant to fellow members of the Royal Society in London. His quadrant was based on the principle of light reflection and angles of incidence described by Robert Hooke, Issac Newton, and Edmund Halley nearly a century earlier.