[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 55 (Monday, May 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


       TRIBUTE TO THE NATIONAL COALITION OF 100 BLACK WOMEN, INC.

 Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, on Sunday, May 15, 1994, the 
National Coalition of Black Women, Inc. [NCBW] will inaugurate the 
second Louisiana chapter in Baton Rouge.
  NCBW is a nonprofit, volunteer organization dedicated to community 
service, leadership development, and enhancing career opportunities 
through networking and social programs. This group was initially formed 
in 1970 by a small group of women in New York City to address problems 
facing black women in the wake of the women's and civil rights 
movements. In 1981, under the leadership of one of its founders and 
current chairman of the board of directors, Jewel Jackson McCabe, the 
coalition expanded into a national organization which now has a 
membership of over 6,000 women nationwide and has chapters in over 20 
States and the District of Columbia. The efforts of women such as Maya 
Angelou, Johnette B. Cole, and Yvonne Braithwaite Burke have had a 
tremendous impact on the direction of this organization and have been 
instrumental in expanding the worthy endeavors of the NCBW.
  Through their outreach efforts, empowerment programs have been put in 
place to help meet the diverse needs of African-American women. These 
programs enable NCBW to develop and position the leadership talent 
within the community of black women; make black women a visible force 
in the socioeconomic and political arenas; and provide networking among 
black female leaders to establish links between them and the corporate 
and political sectors.
  The NCBW chapter in Baton Rouge represents a cross-section of 
African-American women in the Baton Rouge community who are leaders in 
education, civic organizations, government, and business who are 
committed to improving the lives of African-American women in 
Louisiana. This group will work to bring together a united group of 
middle income African-American women to ensure their future economic 
viability; serve as mentors to young African-American girls to develop 
an awareness and understanding of self; boost
  Mr. President, it will only be through expanding important 
initiatives like those of the NCBW that we will be able to address 
fully the expanding and challenging problems facing this underserved 
segment of our population. The formation of the Greater Baton Rouge 
NCBW marks an important day in Louisiana's history and one that I am 
confident will be long remembered for bringing committed individuals 
together to confront the challenges which face Louisiana in improving 
the lives of African-American women.
                                 ______


            CORPS OF ARTILLERISTS AND ENGINEERS BICENTENNIAL

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today's U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers traces its beginnings to the establishment of the Continental 
Army in June 1775 when provision was made for a Chief Engineer. This 
week marks the bicentennial of another significant event in the long 
history of the corps. I would like to take a moment to recount the 
history of this important event.
  On May 9, 1794, Congress established a Corps of Artillerists and 
Engineers in the U.S. Army. This action returned Engineers to the ranks 
of the Army for the first time in more than 10 years and assured that 
the Engineers would continue as a vital part of the Army of the new 
United States.
  At the end of the Revolutionary War, several officers, including 
Louis Lebegue Duportail, Chief Engineer, argued for a peacetime Army 
with a single Corps of Artillerists and Engineers as was customary in 
many European states. But Congress decided instead to disband the bulk 
of the Continental Army, including the Corps of Engineers with its 
chief engineer and companies of sappers and miners, in November 1783. 
By June 1784, the surviving military establishment consisted solely of 
an infantry regiment and a company of artillery stationed at West 
Point.
  When the new Government under the Constitution was launched in 1789, 
Secretary of War Henry Knox revived the recommendation for a small 
Corps of Artillerists and Engineers. Congress finally took action in 
1794, when war with Britain threatened. There was suddenly an acute 
need to upgrade existing coastal fortifications and construct new ones.
  In March 1794, Congress appropriated funds for fortifications works 
from Maine to Georgia, and Secretary Knox hired seven individuals as 
temporary engineers to carry out the work. The group included Pierre 
L'Enfant and Stephen Rochefontaine, both veterans of the Revolutionary 
War. Although employed by the War Department, these engineers did not 
join the Army.
  Knox took advantage of the situation and again urged Congress to 
approve the plan he and Duportail had advanced earlier for a combined 
Corps of Artillerists and Engineers. In particular he argued that the 
corps would provide the additional trained troops needed to garrison 
the coastal fortifications. And so, 200 years ago today the Corps of 
Artillerists and Engineers was created. The new corps was commanded by 
a lieutenant colonel and had four battalions, each commanded by a major 
and each consisting of four companies.
  Significantly, the legislation recognized that the grade of cadet 
denoted an officer candidate. The Secretary of War was also directed to 
provide the books, instruments, and apparatus necessary for the new 
corps. These were the first steps toward establishment of a national 
military academy.
  It took months for the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers to recruit 
the officers and troops needed to reach its authorized strength. Then 
international tensions eased in the latter half of 1794 and jeopardized 
the whole effort. But, in December of that year, Congress resolved to 
continue a seacoast defense program.
  By the end of the year, there were single company garrisons of 
artillerists and engineers at Fort Jay, New York; Fort Mifflin, 
Philadelphia; Fort Whetstone, later McHenry, Baltimore; and Fort 
Johnson, Charleston. The following February, Stephen Rochefontaine, one 
of the temporary engineers, was commissioned a lieutenant colonel and 
took command of the corps.
  In 1798, when war with France appeared likely, Congress added a 
second regiment to the corps. However, by the time Thomas Jefferson 
became President in 1801, it had become clear that the united corps was 
not producing a well-educated body of engineer officers. The short-
lived experiment was ended. In 1802 Congress permanently established a 
separate Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point 
as the Nation's first engineering school.
  After 1800, many politicians, including Secretary of War James 
McHenry, desired the corps to contribute to both military construction 
and works of a civil nature. Thus in the years after the War of 1812, 
the corps took on civil works responsibilities in addition to the 
combat engineering and fortifications work it engaged in during the 
Revolution and the 1790's.
  Today, after more than 200 years of service, the Corps of Engineers 
remains a vital part of America's Army. It is key to our military 
strength, as the Gulf war amply demonstrated. And the Corps of 
Engineers plays an important role in fighting natural disasters, such 
as floods and earthquakes, here at home. And it all began with an act 
of Congress 200 years ago during our Nation's infancy. The Corps of 
Engineers is an enduring arm of the Federal Government. I am certain 
that it will still be here providing civil and military engineering 
expertise for the United States 200 years from now.
                                 ______


                             MFN FOR CHINA

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, most Americans are good citizens, 
and they look for good citizenship in the people and companies they do 
business with. In our country, most people would not have dealings with 
a company that maintains sweatshop conditions and wages, locks up 
malcontented workers, bans unions uses force to take over and control a 
neighboring firm, and offsets its R&D outlays by smuggling missile 
parts and lethal weapons in defiance of the law of the land. People 
would certainly not wish to deal with such a company on the same 
favorable terms accorded to reputable business partners.
  This is the kind of dilemma posed by the President's upcoming 
decision regarding the continuation of China's MFN status. Americans 
have a long history of sensitivity to the values and behavior of 
foreign countries they do business with. In the 1930's, when Japanese 
armies invaded China and committed atrocities there, many Americans 
were reluctant to buy Japanese goods. Some of the advocates of MFN 
renewal for China this year are suggesting that it is unsound policy to 
link trading conditions with human rights performance, the occupation 
of Tibet, China's export of ballistic missile technology in defiance of 
the international Missile Technology Control Regime, and other issues 
outlined in the President's May 1993 Executive order. In my view, this 
linkage is correct and reasonable.
  I would like to insert in the Record the excellent May 6 New York 
Times article by A.M. Rosenthal that sets the facts straight: the 
United States accounts for 38 percent of the People's Republic's 
exports and is running a $25 billion annual trade deficit with the 
People's Republic. Who should be worried about whom? I agree that 
American jobs are at issue in the debate over China's MFN status, but 
we can secure those jobs without sacrificing our values by showing the 
Chinese that we are in earnest about human rights--not by falling all 
over ourselves in trying to justify a policy of appeasement.
  The article follows:

                 [From the New York Times, May 6, 1994]

                       The Contest of two Lobbies

                          (By A.M. Rosenthal)

       The struggle in Washington on whether the United States 
     should continue to allow Communist China low-tariff privilege 
     involves a skein of American interest--political, economic, 
     strategic and moral.
       But at its center are some simple realities that confront 
     President Clinton, and every American who has hopes for him, 
     as he nears the decision he has to make before June 3.
       1. On May 28, 1993, Mr. Clinton signed an order committing 
     him to remove those privileges unless by June 3, 1994, China 
     had made ``significant progress'' toward human rights in 
     China and occupied Tibet.
       Congress was about to pass again a bill writing that either 
     or plan into law--a bill once vetoed by President Bush. Mr. 
     Clinton persuaded Congress to let him do the job himself, by 
     executive order.
       2. In the year since, repression by police and army power 
     in China and Tibet has remained unalleviated.
       Its instruments, used day in, day out as consistently as 
     ever, are prison torture, religious persecution, arrest of 
     political dissidents, forced confessions, arbitrary detention 
     and the enforcement of the official bastions of economic 
     growth: cheap labor, prison labor, slave labor and 
     prohibition of labor unions.
       To all this, despite a few carefully timed prisoner 
     releases, the State Department's own reports bear witness.
       3. Now Mr. Clinton is under pressure by American companies 
     trading with China to decide that somehow Number 2 fulfills 
     the promises he made to the American and Chinese people in 
     Number 1.
       Naturally, not a soul in Congress, the Administration or 
     business believes for a moment that China has improved its 
     human rights record. The China lobby wants to dump the 
     promises of last year altogether or slide around them by 
     accepting as progress more Beijing statements of intent like 
     the ones they have already broken.
       4. The China lobby in and out of government sells economic 
     fear. It says the debate is about America ``pulling out'' of 
     China economically. Nobody has suggested that. The lobby and 
     its servants lie.
       The China lobby heavily breathes warning that China itself 
     will cut off trade with the U.S. The Communists are not 
     suicides.
       China exports to the U.S. $25 billion more than it buys 
     from America. The exports to the U.S. are 38 percent of 
     China's world total. Without American customers, China's 
     growing trade deficit could bring the economy down. Who 
     should be worried about whom?
       5. The majority of Americans are against low American 
     tariffs to China because they strengthen the wardens of the 
     gulag. These Americans are not without voice or courage.
       Most of Congress is behind them. So is the energetic human 
     rights lobby--Asia Watch, the U.S. Conference of Catholic 
     Bishops, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the International Campaign for 
     Tibet, Amnesty International. They count.
       6. But the China lobby has the money. The Clinton 
     Administration is sending out so many mixed signals, and so 
     many are craven, that Washington is convinced Mr. Clinton is 
     caving fast.
       The meaning of Mr. Clinton's 1993 order was clear: No human 
     rights progress, no tariff privileges. A year later, nobody 
     of knowledge in Washington seems to believe other than Mr. 
     Clinton will sidle away from that.
       The struggle now is about what is left. Should the human 
     rights policy just be dumped as a lost cause? Or can Mr. 
     Clinton save his name with a few more promises of intent from 
     Beijing? How about a China-U.S. commission to improve human 
     rights? Or a human rights code, not for the Communists but 
     for American businesses in China?
       If nobody can keep a straight face about those, how about 
     ending the low tariffs only for goods produced by the state 
     and the army? Maybe the Chinese will attach neat labels, for 
     the convenience of U.S. customs?
       The human rights people would rather have some compromise 
     than nothing, so that they can fight another day. Most are 
     too strong in soul to just vomit and walk away.
       By nature, many daily newspapermen are optimistic. How 
     could they otherwise keep confronting the keyboard?
       All right; Honorable people in government still struggle 
     for Mr. Clinton's mind and honor. So it's best to keep 
     calling around, until the President makes his decision about 
     the Executive Order of May 1993, now that it is May 1994.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Metzenbaum). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________