[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 95 (Wednesday, July 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 RESOLVED THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD USE TRADE POLICY TO IMPLEMENT 
                          HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, tonight instead of the normal special 
orders, the House of Representatives is holding its third Oxford-style 
debate. This debate differs from the first two that we have said in 
that it is bipartisan in nature. The teams are made up of both 
Democrats and Republicans. This debate demonstrates how Democrats and 
Republicans can work together to solve the problems facing our country.
  The topic for tonight's debate is: Resolved that the United States 
should use trade policy to implement human rights policy. The debaters 
supporting the resolution are Steny Hoyer from the 5th District of 
Maryland, Gerald Solomon from the 22d District of New York, Nancy 
Pelosi of the 8th District of California, and Frank Wolf of the 10th 
District of Virginia.
  The debaters opposing the resolved statement are David Dreier of the 
28th District of California, Mike Kopetski of the 5th District of 
Oregon, Jim Kolbe of the 5th District of Arizona, and Eddie Bernice 
Johnson of the 30th District of Texas.
  At this time I would like to remind the debaters that the time limits 
will be strictly enforced. During the questioning portion of the 
debate, questions will be limited to no more than 30 seconds and 
answers to no more than 1\1/2\ minutes. During that period I would ask 
the Members to please remember that questions must be asked by the 
questioners and answers must be given by the respondents.
  At this time I recognize the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], who 
is entitled to 3 minutes for an opening statement.
  Mr. HOYER. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
  It is our position that America should, in appropriate instances, and 
in the face of human rights abuses, use trade policy as one of its 
strategies to implement its commitment to universal human rights. We 
believe America has been uniquely a leader in standing for human rights 
and principle in the international arena.
  At our birth, Thomas Jefferson stated clearly our conviction which 
has become the world standard. He said that we hold these truths to be 
self-evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by 
their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

                              {time}  2010

  Jefferson said that declaration was issued out of a decent respect 
for the opinion of mankind.
  Following the Holocaust of the 1930's and 1940's, the United Nations, 
in its charter, reaffirmed, and I quote, ``faith in fundamental 
rights,'' and in its 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, the 
international community recognized, and again I quote, ``the inherent 
dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the 
human family as the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the 
world.''
  It is our side's proposition that in the face of egregious violations 
of these unalienable rights that business as usual is an untenable 
denial of the very essence of America's character and history. In fact, 
we have repeatedly and effectively used trade policy to implement our 
policy of expecting all nations to honor their international 
commitments, with Cuba, North Korea, and now Haiti, in defense of 
freedom; with Iran, Iraq, and Libya in opposition to terrorism; with 
Vietnam on behalf of the men and women prisoners of war and missing in 
action; with Serbia in opposition to aggression and genocide; with the 
Soviet Union and Romania on behalf of the right to emigrate; with China 
in rejecting the products of slave labor; and with South Africa on 
behalf of justice and freedom.
  We believe doing business as usual with those who violate the human 
rights of their own people and thereby threaten the peace and stability 
of the international community is not only morally unacceptable but 
strategically dangerous. Therefore, trade sanctions in some instances 
at some times against certain human rights abusers is and must be an 
option for American policy.
  Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] is now 
entitled to 3 minutes to speak an opening statement against the 
resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Moderator, I thank you and our colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], for organizing what you 
described as the first bipartisan Oxford-style debate.
  Today marks the 25th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's giant leap for 
mankind. Just as I will never forget watching the grainy TV pictures of 
those brave astronauts standing on lunar soil for the first time, I 
will always remember looking across the aisle to the Democrat 
leadership desk and seeing my leader on the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], standing there.
  Five years ago this month on an extraordinarily hot and rainy day, 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Poelosi] and I marched from 
Capitol Hill to the Chinese Embassy to demonstrate our outrage over the 
Tiananmen Square massacre.
  There was no partisan divide in the American effort to reach the 
Moon, and there are no partisan lines when it comes to supporting human 
rights overseas. That is an American principle. Despite what Members of 
the other team may say tonight, there is no question that each 
participant in this debate is fully committed to freedom and human 
rights.
  While we recognize on the surface we may appear to have taken a 
difficult position, we are confident that because we know that our two 
teams do not differ on goals, we disagree on whether trade sanctions 
improve human rights conditions. We know that the overwhelming weight 
of evidence supports our position that the best trade policy to promote 
human rights is economic freedom, freer trade. Trade sanctions have 
generally proven ineffective to implement human rights. In fact, they 
hurt the people they intend to help: the poor and weak who suffer both 
economic hardship and increased repression.

  The same year as Tiananmen, President Roh Tae Woo of South Korea, the 
first democratically elected President, stood here in this Chamber 
addressing a joint session of Congress. Republicans and Democrats alike 
cheered when he said the forces of freedom and liberty are eroding the 
foundations of closed societies, and 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.
  Well, 1989 was a dramatic year for freedom. President Roh's address 
to Congress struck me as especially poignant, because he represented 
the victory of democracy and human rights in South Korea, a nation 
which stood on our side during the cold war. President Roh's appearance 
was more evidence of a simple truth: Free-market policies promote trade 
which strengthens private enterprise which creates wealth which 
improves living standards which undermines political repression. That 
formula works.
  That is why our position goes beyond simply emotional rhetoric. We 
stand on the concrete experiences of countries that have moved from 
economic liberalization to political liberalization.
  I believe tonight we will provide evidence that that is the case.
  Mr. CARDIN. The next 11 minutes will be shared by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski]. 
First, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is entitled to 1\1/2\ 
minutes for an opening statement.
  Mr. SOLOMON. My colleagues, linking trade to human rights is in our 
national interest, because history shows that nations which violate 
human rights almost inevitably are more likely to be aggressive in 
their foreign policies. Thus, for America, our moral imperative to 
challenge human rights abuses dovetails with our strategic need to 
challenge military aggression throughout this world, and short of war, 
the best and only weapon we have is trade sanctions.
  Take two examples, the Soviet Union and China. Both are countries 
that were massive violators of human rights. We all know that. And both 
were aggressive, destabilizing countries. Well, trade sanctions, 
coupled with a tough NATO defense policy, was the strategy that brought 
the Soviets to their knees, brought down the Iron Curtain, and ended 
imperialistic communism around this world. Trade sanctions did that, 
while at the same time, Communist China had been granted favorable 
trading privileges, and the unconscionable human rights abuses continue 
unabated right today; no democracy there. You know that.
  Finally, American leadership in world affairs is absolutely critical 
to our national security, and our ability to lead hinges on staying 
true to our ideals, for if America forgets her ideals, America will 
lose her credibility, and without credibility, the oppressed people of 
this world will lose all hope of ever being treated like human beings.
  We Americans cannot allow that to happen.
  Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski] is entitled to a 
minute and a half for an opening statement.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Thank you.
  Make no mistake, America is second to none in guaranteeing basic 
human rights to its own citizens and to fostering human rights 
throughout the world. Americans will always cherish this virtue and 
never abandon this noble mission.

  But we cannot pretend that, as important as human rights are, they 
are the only foreign policy issue. Because of this reality, we must 
weigh the effectiveness of each action not in the isolated instance of 
one country, one grievance, but as part of a comprehensive foreign 
policy. The principles under which our Nation applies trade sanctions 
must be clear and consistently applied.
  Tonight's debate raises two questions for our Nation. First, should 
America use its trade policy to reflect our anger with a given nation 
for human rights abuses against its own citizens? My response is that 
we should not. For it is a policy which is doomed to failure.
  Second, should we use our trade policy as a means to foster human 
rights throughout the world? I say yes. But in a different sense than 
the opposing side, for I believe the basic human rights are best 
improved by a policy of open trade.
  In trade, not only are goods exchanged but so, too, are attitudes, 
ideas, the rule of law, and the importance of procedural rights.
  I visited Czechoslovakia in the fall of 1989. There a border guard in 
the dark of night told me that exposure to the Western world, to 
different standards of living, and to individual freedom, much of which 
was learned through tourist trade and television, had as much to do 
with their quest for freedom as the innate call to be free.
  Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] now controls 4 minutes to 
question the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Thank you. And, you know, one of the greatest violations 
of human rights would have to be the sponsoring of terrorism. Currently 
we have sanctions or embargoes against Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, 
because of their support for international terrorism and exporting 
revolution. We do not believe those sanctions should be lifted.
  And I would ask you along the question that we debate tonight, do 
you?
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Solomon, the issues involved in those countries are 
national security issues, and all of those countries are not directly 
related to human rights issues. And I would be glad to go case-by-case 
through each one of those.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. SOLOMON. I do not think I am supposed to debate you on that issue 
at this point, but let me ask you, since we have just the 30 seconds on 
the other question because this is poignant as well: For 2 years we 
have maintained sanctions against Serbia, which has committed genocide 
against the people of Bosnia, the worst crimes against humanity in 
Europe since Hitler and Stalin. Our side does not believe these 
sanctions should be lifted. Again, with the question we are debating 
here tonight, do you?
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Solomon, I do not believe these trade sanctions 
should be lifted, and the reason is because again we are dealing with 
the very extreme situation where there is no government, there is no 
government, and that is part of the problem in what was the former 
Yugoslavia today. There is still this transition period of trying to 
formulate a government.
  It is not just a human rights issue that we are dealing with there. 
We are dealing with the national security issue in terms of Europe, we 
are dealing with a country that has been decimated because of internal 
strife. The debate this evening, I thought, was supposed to be centered 
on human rights issues. And if you broaden this, if you broaden it to 
include national security issues, I am sure that your team and my team 
are going to find common ground in many areas of the world where we 
should use trade as part of the tools.
  Mr. CARDIN. Question?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would just say to the gentleman, and I respect his 
answer, he knows and we know that as far as national security is 
concerned, we do not want to put one single American soldier on foreign 
soil if we do not have to. That is why we need trade sanctions to make 
sure. Your only alternatives are war, diplomacy, or trade sanctions. 
Let us take the trade sanctions, that is the safest and most humane 
way.
  Mr. CARDIN. Is that a question?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I think the gentleman agrees with that, does he?
  Mr. KOPETSKI. In response, you are absolutely right in defining three 
areas that we can use. Our premise is that trade is but one of those 
tools. You have outlined wonderfully our debate this evening, and I am 
ecstatic that you have found a new ground with us, a common ground, 
because we have to look at each nation individually and we have to use 
our smarts in terms of what will be effective because the policies that 
we may adopt may be counterproductive and exacerbate the living 
conditions in a particular country, they may cause repercussions with 
another country. So you have to look at this in an educated sense. But 
just because one country has outrageous human rights conditions, that 
does not, nor should it automatically, mean that we should impose trade 
sanctions on that nation.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Kopetski now controls 4 minutes to question Mr. 
Solomon.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
  Mr. Solomon, history will record that perhaps President Nixon's 
greatest achievement was his historic trip to China in 1972 and 
reopening of diplomatic relations between our two nations. He did this 
during the height of the repressive Cultural Revolution. This is only 
the second time in the 4,000-year history of China that China has 
ventured out into the world.
  Do you believe President Nixon erred in engaging China?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I most certainly do think he erred, because I think 
playing the China card was wrong because if you know the Chinese 
people, if you have been there and you have worked with them like 30 or 
40 years as I have, you know that China is going to do what they want 
to do and what is in their best interest.
  Let me just say to you that if we had not played the China card, 
there would be no chance that the Chinese would have engaged in a war 
with the Soviet Union. Yet at the same time, we were placing sanctions 
on the Soviet Union and having most-favored-nation treatment of China. 
Look at what happened. You go to the Soviet Union today and, you know, 
there is no infrastructure, there is no economy there whatsoever, and 
the reasons was because at the same time that President Reagan was 
deploying the intermediate-range missiles and having a tough NATO 
policy, no trade was going on.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. You have wandered afield, Mr. Solomon. I want to bring 
you back to the issue of China in 1972.
  I am astounded to find that you think it was an error. But you are a 
very consistent politician, and I am sure the people of your district 
appreciate that.
  But does the gentleman believe therefore that the Chinese people had 
more civil rights prior to 1972 than they do now, today, post-1972?
  Mr. SOLOMON. The truth of the matter is they may very well have. The 
truth is that, according to every--according to Asia Watch, to all of 
the organizations, they say more people are being detained in prison 
today than there were last year and more people were detained last year 
than there were the year before.
  Did you know that 80 million people have been killed since that time, 
since President Nixon recognized the China card? That to me is 
unconscionable.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Reclaiming my time, prison time is one thing; freedom 
of movement, Chinese students coming to the United States to get an 
education, all of these kinds of activities that have occurred, the 
development of a market economy in China?
  Mr. CARDIN. Question, please.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Do you believe that this would have happened regardless 
of whether President Nixon would have gone to China or not?
  Mr. SOLOMON. We did not extend most-favored-nation treatment to China 
back in the Nixon years. Let me just say to the gentleman, people 
coming to this country today are favored people by the Chinese regime 
there. If you listen to any of the missionaries, if you listen--if you 
go there and you talk to anybody, they will tell you there is a $24 
billion trade deficit that is costing tens of thousands of American 
jobs in this country that the revenues----
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Moderator.
  Mr. SOLOMON. May I answer his question?
  Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman controls the time, but he should give him 
an opportunity to respond.
  Mr. SOLOMON. He can't cut me off in the middle of my answer.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Solomon, trade sanctions hurt people, they do not 
hurt government. The gentleman is advocating the deprivation, 
starvation, pain and suffering; does the gentleman deny that his policy 
would target the Government by striking at the Chinese people?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would say to the gentleman that sanctions do hurt the 
government. What hurts the people are blockades, total embargoes. That 
could actually hurt the people. But not sanctions.
  Sanctions are a long-term affair, the same as were used with the 
Soviet Union all those years that brought the Soviet Union to its knees 
so that they did not even have a hospital structure, they had no 
commercial manufacturing structure. That is what sanctions did. 
Sanctions work, you know it, and that is why we need a policy that not 
only the world press will listen to but if we maintain trade sanctions 
against these people that create these terrible abuses, it is going to 
help.
  Mr. CARDIN. All time has expired on this section.
  The next 11 minutes will be controlled by Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Kolbe.
  First, Ms. Pelosi is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes to give an opening 
statement in favor of the statement.
  Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
  Mr. Moderator, it is appropriate that we have this debate in this 
hallowed Chamber. Over the years the House has been a bastion of 
freedom, true to our national birthright and in keeping with the spirit 
that is distinctly American, promoting freedom, democratic principles 
and human rights.
  In this great Chamber there are only two paintings, one of George 
Washington and the other of LaFayette. This honor to LaFayette 
recognizes France's contribution to our own freedom.
  In return, our founding fathers determined that while being defenders 
of freedom at home, we would be friends of freedom throughout the 
world.
  One of the ways in which we have been a friend of freedom is by the 
use of trade policy, which has been and can be an effective tool 
because it enables us to use leverage and at the same time shines the 
bright light of freedom on repression.
  History has shown that countries which honor their people's rights 
make better neighbors and better trading partners.
  Economically, countries which do not respect their people, repress 
their rights, and the wages of their workers, this is not only unfair 
to their workers, it is an injustice to American workers as well. 
Politically, each year hundreds of thousands of people flock to our 
shores in search of freedom. We must export democratic principles so 
that they can enjoy freedom in their home countries.
  Strategically, by supporting those who struggle for liberty, we can 
prevent a repetition of the tragedies of the 20th century and lay a 
foundation for peace in the next millenium.
  Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
  Mr. CARDIN. At this time the team in opposition to the statement is 
entitled to 4 minutes to question Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Ms. Pelosi, in March 1993 the 
U.N. Human Rights Commission passed a resolution endorsing a report 
which made strong and detailed criticism of Cuba's systematic violation 
of human rights.

                              {time}  2030

  The report concluded with seven steps Cuba must take to bring human 
rights up to minimum international standards. None of these have been 
taken.
  Does the gentlewoman agree that Cuba and Fidel Castro are just as 
repressive as or has records of human rights violations equal to or 
worse than that of China?
  Ms. PELOSI. I will answer by saying that I support the words that are 
in the California Democratic platform which say that we should not 
remove the embargo on Cuba unless there is an improvement in human 
rights in Cuba. I was proud to join with many of the women in Congress 
in sending a letter to Fidel Castro calling for the release of a woman 
poet in Cuba saying that her rights were being violated and she was 
being mistreated in prison. I believe that we oppose human rights 
violations wherever they occur.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Do you think that the United 
States should trade with Cuba? If you feel that trade sanctions are a 
good idea against China, do you think we should continue the current 
trade embargo on Cuba?
  Ms. PELOSI. I am glad the gentlewoman asked that question because we 
are talking now about two very different situations in terms of what 
our trade sanction is. Do I think we should give most-favored-nation 
status to Cuba? No. And that is the tool I am talking about insofar as 
China is concerned, removing most-favored-nation status for products 
made by the Chinese military which occupies Tibet, represses people in 
China, is friendly to the North Koreans, has sold weapons to the Khmer 
Rouge as recently as this spring.
  So, I think, when we talk about an embargo versus a favorable trade 
treatment which is targeted to the Government and to the military, we 
are talking about two different tactics, and so I would say that I 
would treat Cuba the same way as we treat parts of the Chinese economy, 
which is I would not extend most-favored status to either of them.
  Mr. KOLBE. I would just point out in light of what was just said, if 
we were to withdraw the embargo against Cuba, that would establish 
most-favored-nation status. That is the consequence of not having an 
embargo with a country unless specific----
  Ms. PELOSI. Not necessarily.
  Mr. KOLBE. That is not given it----
  Ms. PELOSI. No----
  Mr. KOLBE. It does have most-favored-nation status----
  Ms. PELOSI. Not necessarily.
  Mr. KOLBE. But let me ask this question:
  I was pleased that last fall the gentlewoman and I were on the same 
side of a debate dealing with Mexico and granting trade status, new 
trade status, to the North American Free-Trade Agreement with Mexico.
  More recently, in January of this year, there was an uprising in one 
state of Mexico. Do you think that the trade that we have with Mexico, 
the increased trading that we are doing with them, has had any kind of 
leavening effect whatsoever in the way Mexico has responded to that 
situation?
  Ms. PELOSI. I certainly hope so, but if the gentleman's point is to 
say that, if it is so with Mexico, why is it not with some other 
country, I would say that, as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] 
said in his opening remarks, that we have to in certain circumstances 
make a judgment about how to use trade sanctions. In our own 
hemisphere, with the strong environmental challenges, the difficult 
environmental challenges that trade with Mexico presented, as well as 
with the opportunity to lower Mexican tariffs, I think it was 
appropriate for us to determine that our national interest was best 
served by having a North American Free-Trade Agreement. I do not think 
that that is necessarily the case with China because I believe that, as 
the Chinese have said, it will take dozens of generations----
  Mr. DREIER. Since the gentlewoman has gone back to the issue----
  Mr. CARDIN. We have run out of time.
  Mr. DREIER. It says 30 seconds down there.
  Mr. CARDIN. Well, we are down to around 15, and that does not give 
time for a question and an adequate answer.
  The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] now controls a minute and a 
half for an opening statement.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Moderator, I want to join with my 
colleagues in thanking you for this opportunity this evening. I want to 
reinforce a point that was made by my good friend and a strong champion 
of human rights, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], earlier 
this evening.
  Using trade sanctions to change a country's record of human rights 
violations only stifles the entrepreneurial spirit upon which democracy 
and civil liberties depend for its sustenance and security. The best 
foreign policy tools available to us to encourage political and civil 
reform in any country are policies that promote capitalism, market 
reform, and free trade. All are powerful levers for political change 
precisely because they are powerful mechanisms for economic change. 
These tools promote the evolution of societies, enabling citizens 
depressed for political reform from within. A larger measure of 
economic freedom inevitably leads to greater political freedom and 
respect for human rights.
  It was John Locke who told us that the basis of individual liberty is 
private property. With trade we seek to enlarge the share of private 
property available to peoples everywhere. Freedom House, a respected 
nonpartisan organization that rates countries of the world according to 
their degree of civil and political freedom, confirms that fact. Taiwan 
is one such example. Years ago Freedom House rated Taiwan as 
nonexistent for its protection of political and civil liberties. But as 
its economy grew, and trade and contact with the world increased, so 
did the desires of its citizens for political and civil freedom. Today 
a large measure of freedom exists in Taiwan.
  The record is clear. Trade helps us promote democracy around the 
world.
  Mr. CARDIN. The team in favor of the resolution now controls 4 
minutes to question Mr. Kolbe.
  Mr. HOYER. We will all stand up.
  I say, Mr. Kolbe, let me ask you a question with reference to the 
Soviet Jews who immigrated to Israel. How would you respond to them 
when they say to you, ``Mr. Kolbe, trade policies did, in fact, work, 
and we are in Israel because of trade policies and trade sanctions?''
  Mr. KOLBE. Well, I might respond to them by saying, ``Sadly you are 
mistaken.'' They are there today, but it was not because of those 
policies that that happened. If we look at the record, the actual 
amount of emigration after we imposed what the gentleman is referring 
to, the so-called Jackson-Vanik rule, regulation, that law; after that 
was imposed, immigration from Israel dropped by almost--to Israel from 
the Soviet Union dropped by almost 60 percent. We had, in the 4 years 
prior to 1973, 30,000 Jewish people a year emigrated from Russia, then 
the Soviet Union. After that, only 1 year, only 1 year, in 1979, did 
the number exceed that, and the average through 1985 was 12,000. So the 
numbers that emigrated dropped off rather dramatically after the 
Jackson-Vanik amendment was adopted.
  Mr. HOYER. Quick followup:
  In fact, it was 62,000 in 1979 as the trade sanctions----
  Mr. KOLBE. And that was the only year it exceeded the amount before 
1973.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I say, ``My friend, Mr. Kolbe, you know economic aid is 
an important and highly visible aspect of U.S. foreign policy. Too 
often we have overlooked human rights in considering where aid should 
go, only to be met with the condemnation of many Americans that are 
appalled at the propping up of ruthless dictators.''
  Should the United States ignore human rights in determining where 
economic aid goes, even military aid, as with Turkey, for instance?
  Mr. KOLBE. We are really mixing apples and oranges when we talk about 
that kind of thing. That is not the issue at all as to whether or not 
we give aid. Aid is something we affirmatively give to them. To trade, 
we are talking about whether they should have the same ability to trade 
with us as other countries should have, and I would point out, since we 
are talking about human rights and since it was raised by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] that, when we talked about 
American workers, that when we deny trade to another country, we are 
also denying the trade of our own country with that country, China 
being a good example of that.

  What is it about the human rights of the Boeing worker who will find 
himself without a job because we have decided to cut off trade with 
China?
  So, it is a far different matter when we talk about trade with a 
country that when we talk about extending aid to a country. That is 
something quite, quite different.
  Ms. PELOSI. As I prepare to ask my question, I just want to say that, 
as far as the Boeing worker is concerned, I am afraid that the transfer 
of technology that is taking place, that he and she will have to look 
after their jobs as well while most of the American workers in this 
country are blocked from having their products go----
  Mr. CARDIN. Question.
  Ms. PELOSI. Excuse me.
  I say, ``Mr. Kolbe, in your statement you imply that economic reform 
would necessarily lead to political reform. Deng Xiaoping himself has 
said that to those who think that economic reform will lead to 
political reform, it will take dozens of generations, and we will deal 
harshly with those who would hasten the process.''
  They just recently had a crackdown in China on this very subject. How 
does the gentleman respond to that?
  Mr. KOLBE. Well, it is kind of one of those things that is on either 
side of the argument. I say, ``If you argue one way, that it's going to 
make no difference anyhow, then should we not have the benefits of 
trade? I would argue that trade itself will make the changes that Deng 
Xiaoping says will not come for years.''

                              {time}  2040

  And, indeed, if you look at parts of China, particularly the southern 
parts of China, the Guangdong Province, you will find that the changes 
taking place down there are very dramatic indeed, because there is more 
economic liberalization in that part of the country. The more economic 
liberalization we have, the more contact we have, that the people of 
the United States, the businesses in the United States have with China, 
the better off we are and the better off the people of China will be.
  Mr. CARDIN. This segment of time has been concluded. Eleven minutes 
will now be controlled by statements by Mr. Wolf and Ms. Johnson and 
questioning by the various teams.
  Mr. Wolf is first and entitled to a minute and a half for an opening 
statement in support of the resolution.
  Mr. WOLF. This debate is about people, people who are suffering 
persecution, imprisonment, and even death, for the sake of their faith 
or political beliefs. People like Bishop Chu, a Catholic leader in 
China, imprisoned for 15 years, and beaten so hard with a board that 
the board was left in splinters.
  People like Father Ceaushu, imprisoned by the brutal Romanian 
dictator Ceausescu for more than 20 years and, rearrested one Easter 
after delivering a powerful series of Lenten sermons on freedom. The 
leverage of most-favored-nation status for Romania led to father 
Ceaushu's release. Just ask him. In Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, 
and most recently South Africa, United States trade leverage eventually 
worked, bringing down repressive governments, encouraging the oppressed 
and emboldening of the future leaders of these countries in their 
struggle for democracy.
  Ask South Africa's Nelson Mandela, ask Lech Walesa in Poland, or ask 
Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel, all former prisoners who turned 
presidents, whether they appreciate the pressure of the United States 
trade leverage on their oppressive governments, and they will say yes.
  And then we must ask ourselves as a nation if trade at any price is 
worth more to us than our American values. What is at stake here is the 
credibility of our moral leadership on the world stage. The height of 
American hypocrisy is to preach our cherished values of freedom of 
religion and speech while we price the lost dollar over the lost life.
  Mr. CARDIN. The team in opposition to the resolution will have 4 
minutes to questions Mr. Wolf.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Wolf, let me first commend you for your strong 
advocacy for years on behalf of human rights around the world. I know 
no one in this body has been a stronger advocate of that. I think we 
all agree with that. The questions is how do we best promote that.
  You mentioned South Africa. In South Africa there was strong support 
by the man in the street, the person in the street, for sanctions. That 
is not the case in China. Every commentator that has gone there has 
come back and said the one thing people say over and over again is 
continue trading with us, keep the contact. How would you reconcile 
that difference?
  Mr. WOLF. I beg to differ. That is not accurate. When I was in China 
and we met with Christians in house churches, they would tell us, 
please take away MFN and go back and tell them that is the only thing 
that will bring democracy to our country.
  When I was in Romania and used to go into churches and synagogues, 
after the communist securitatae, the people would put notes in my hands 
and tell me please take away MFN. It is the only message that will 
bring down our government and bring us freedom. So the people there do 
stand for taking away MFN. Deng Xiaoping doesn't and the corrupt 
dictators don't, but the people do.
  Mr. KOLBE. Let me follow up with another aspect of this when it comes 
to China, because you spoke very eloquently about how this is an issue 
about people, and it is an issue when it comes to people. But the 
United States also has national security interests, and I think you 
would with agree we have a very serious concern in North Korea, for 
example.
  Should that play a role in our decision about whether or not we give 
trade opportunities to another country? Is national security a 
consideration or not?
  Mr. WOLF. It is a security interest of the United States. But I will 
tell you, after President Clinton gave MFN to China, the president of 
China refused to take his telephone call. Since that time there have 
been more people arrested. The conditions in Tibet are absolutely 
worse, and they have not exercised any leverage on the North Korean 
Government. So I do not believe that we should sacrifice the 
principles, as Congressman Hoyer said, of the Declaration of 
Independence, we hold these truths to be self-evident, endowed by God, 
in God we trust, that all men are created equal, inalienable rights. I 
would not want to sacrifice the Constitution for one short-term gain.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Wolf, let me just raise one point. You have talked to 
people in China, and clearly as you talk to individuals, you will find 
some who are opposed to the maintenance of most-favored-nation trading 
status.
  But the fact of the matter is, there are 1.2 billion people in China, 
and if you talk around, I look simply at the statement that was made 
just this May be Nicholas Christophe, who was the Beijing bureau chief 
for the New York Times. He said talk to intellectuals, talk to workers. 
Talk to the intellectuals, to the workers, to the peasants. All the way 
across the board they agree on one thing: Don't curb trade.
  How do you respond to the fact that these studies which have shown 
this, from James Fallows, the Progressive Policy Institute, they say 
overwhelmingly the people want to maintain MFN status?
  Mr. WOLF. The people that I have talked to in China, the Christians 
and those who have been persecuted, if you talk to the Dalai Lama and 
those in Tibet, they do not favor granting MFN to China. They feel this 
is the only way. And I predict by denying MFN to China, we will see 
democracy and justice in China before the end of this century. And they 
know that and are willing to wait for that long-term gain.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. On the North Korea issue, I know firsthand that the PRC 
and the United States worked together as partners to get the North 
Koreans to abide by the MPT treaty.
  Don't you believe that as a basic human right, controlling the spread 
of nuclear weapons is more important today than the individual rights 
conditions of a citizen of China?
  Mr. WOLF. Well, the Declaration of Independence says, and it said 
during the week of the meeting of early June, the entire Chinese 
hierarchy turned out to greet their North Korean counterparts, 
declaring the two countries, ``As close as lips and teeth.'' That was 
in the Christian Science Monitor.
  It is in the best interests of China not to have nuclear war on that 
peninsula, and they will do it for that reason, and not to satisfy the 
United States or their citizens.
  Mr. CARDIN. Ms. Johnson is now entitled to 1\1/2\ minutes for an 
opening statement in opposition to the resolution.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Trade 
policy and human rights policy are and should be two different things. 
While human rights must remain a focus of American interests, the 
process of utilizing trade policy to enforce human rights policy has 
been erratically used and unsuccessful.
  Freedom House, a noted human rights watchdog groups group, reports 
that the nations of the world that are classified as having a low 
regard for human rights, are almost all in Africa, Asia, and Latin 
America. A logical policy then would be the enforcement of trade 
sanctions against all of these nations.
  Consider for a moment the debilitating effects such a policy would 
have upon these countries. When sanctions are used, who suffers? The 
nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America need trade to improve and 
grow economically. The common citizens of these nations suffer when 
trade with the rest of the world, and particularly the United States, 
is restricted. Sanctioning these nations simply drives them further and 
further away from human rights improvements.

  In order to achieve improvement in human rights policy, a 
constructive working relationship should be established. Remember, 
encouragement from a friend is much more persuasive than a slap from an 
enemy.
  As you recall what we have already heard tonight and review what will 
be said by both sides in the time remaining, ask yourself, who is being 
sanctioned and what proof is there that sanctions improve human 
conditions?
  Mr. CARDIN. The team in support of the resolution is entitled to 4 
minutes to question Ms. Johnson.
  Mr. HOYER. Ms. Johnson, I appreciate your statement. Let me ask you, 
however, with respect to South Africa, we had, as you know, a policy of 
constructive engagement, which is in fact what your side has been 
talking about, continuing to do business as usual.
  In point of fact, this Congress decided not to pursue that policy 
because we felt it was ineffective. The President vetoed that 
legislation and this Congress overrode the President's veto.
  Do you believe there would have been a more successful policy and 
would you believe that the country should not have denied constructive 
engagement with South Africa?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me say, Mr. Hoyer, that 
happened before I came. But I was in Texas carrying legislation also to 
bring about sanctions in trade policy. But the entire population in 
South Africa, the clear overwhelming majority of that population, cried 
out to the world asking for those sanctions.

                              {time}  2050

  It was not this country deciding that they should have them. It was 
also more than that that caused that law, the laws on which they were 
operating to crumble. It was the fact that the banks started losing 
confidence and the money started crumbling. It had a lot more to do 
with that.
  But the overriding issue, more than 75 percent of the population, the 
majority population, pleaded to the world, not just the United States, 
the entire world responded. And, yes, it had some effect, but clearly, 
it was not just that.
  As a matter of fact, we now are seeing what the real effect is on 
human rights. And they are pleading now for trade. It is giving people 
their rights to be independent, to have ownership, to look out for 
themselves, giving them an opportunity to trade their goods so they 
become independent.
  Mr. HOYER. Do you believe that trade sanctions worked?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. What do they work for? It is not 
just trade sanctions. It was a loss of confidence and it brought 
about--human rights have really not improved yet in South Africa. But 
they have had an election. It was clearly a constitutional issue. It 
had nothing at the time to do with trade. They did not have anything to 
trade. The population we are talking about had no power whatsoever. 
They had no say-so. To keep trade from going to South Africa did not 
affect them because they cannot affect anybody that is already on the 
ground with nothing to do but crawl.
  Clearly, that government had to change for it to affect the majority 
population there.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Hoyer is correct. Had this Congress not acted on 
sanctions, the sanctions would have failed around the world. But the 
question that I have for you is, I have visited Bosnia and seen the 
persecution in the Bosnian camps run by the Serbs under the leadership 
of Milosevic. In light of the ethnic cleansing, the concentration 
camps, the rapes and mutilations and murders, Bosnia, which is 
basically a Schindler's List, if you have seen the movie Schindler's 
List, you have been to Serbia.
  I would ask you again to reiterate the question asked before, do you 
agree that it is appropriate to continue the United States sanctions 
against Serbia, yes or no and why.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Wolf, the same thing is going 
on in Haiti. But tonight we are debating whether or not we should 
extend most-favored-nation to China.
  I am saying that we need to separate trade from human rights as it 
relates to China.
  Mr. WOLF. The resolve clause was with regard to trade, and I think 
everyone would agree that we should continue the sanctions against 
Milosevic in Serbia.
  Mr. CARDIN. The time has expired in this segment of the debate.
  The next segment will consist of eight minutes in which there will be 
questioning by the teams, first against Mr. Hoyer and then with Mr. 
Dreier.
  At this point the team against the resolution will control 4 minutes 
in questioning Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Hoyer, you are a distinguished senior Member of 
this House. You are one of our leaders. I appreciate your work on human 
rights very much. We have heard a lot of rhetoric this evening, but I 
judge by your opening statement that you would agree that in the case 
of these two teams, that we do share the same goal; it truly is a 
difference over the means to achieve that end. Is that a fair 
statement?
  Mr. HOYER. Our side has no doubt that your side is committed to human 
rights; that is correct.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. And that it is a question of the means to that end.
  Mr. HOYER. We agree with that. That is what we are debating. I might 
add, Mr. Kopetski, that not only are we talking about means, but we are 
talking about the principal position of the United States, not 
plebiscite of another nation. That is to say, whether 51 percent think 
they ought to do business as usual and make profits because the United 
States will do business with them, but whether or not this ought to be 
a policy that we use in trying to implement not only the policy of the 
United States vis-a-vis human rights but, as I pointed out, 
international policy on human rights.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Let me follow up on that with a question. I am curious 
about your views on this. Would you say that sometimes there are 
national security interests for the United States which are more 
important for the moment, which require us to serve as partners with a 
country, which may in fact engage in human rights abuses?
  Mr. HOYER. Yes.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Thank you very much.
  Mr. HOYER. I think the gentleman's proposition that if a policy of 
the United States would lead to more closely bringing us to nuclear 
war, clearly the devastation of the world is the ultimate human rights 
abuse. And, therefore, we would have to make a judgment. But in the 
case where that is not true, then I think we ought to press forward 
with trade sanctions as we have done in so many instances, we would 
argue successfully.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. I thank the gentleman for the agreement.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me ask you a quick question. The real question that 
we face here is, your side is saying trade sanctions against countries 
improve human rights. You had an exchange with Mr. Kolbe about the 
issue of Jackson-Vanik. We often have a pattern in this country of 
implementing policies which lead us to feel good but they do not often 
do good.
  I argue, as Mr. Kolbe did, that Jackson-Vanik, if you look at that 
pattern, since the early 1970's, saw actually a reduction in the 
emigration of Soviet Jews who were attempting to emigrate from the 
Soviet Union. It seems to me that we need to realize that it was the 
Reagan doctrine which created the opportunity for the Soviet Union to 
fall and for us to get to a point where 100,000 Soviet Jews are able to 
emigrate.
  Do you not agree with the fact that it was the Reagan doctrine which 
actually brought about that opening up and not Jackson-Vanik which did 
make us feel very good but did nothing but reduce the flow of Soviet 
Jews?
  Mr. HOYER. As it relates to the Reagan doctrine, our side does not 
believe that you ought to do business as usual with an evil empire. In 
fact, it believes we ought to say, you are not in good standing in the 
international community. And we will impose economic sanctions on you 
and a trade sanction as well.
  Mr. DREIER. That is why the Reagan administration stood up to them.
  Mr. HOYER. We think the Reagan administration would agree with our 
proposition.
  Mr. KOLBE. I would like to go back to the Jackson-Vanik issue, if I 
might. What would you say to the thousands of Jews who did not get to 
emigrate from Russia, from the Soviet Union during the 1970's, if we 
are to use the statistics, and you were the one  that cited this in the 
first place, of 30,000 average before 1974, 12,000 annual emigration 
after 1974, what would you say to those Jews who were not allowed to 
emigrate but to say, you have to wait in line longer because we have a 
policy in place that the Soviet Union has decided to clamp down on 
emigration and not permit you to emigrate?

  Mr. HOYER. As you know, I visited the Soviet Union scores of times 
during the 1980's. I never had a Jewish individual in Russia tell that. 
I never had one tell me that they did not believe that trade sanctions 
ought to continue until emigration was opened. Not numbers, but 
emigration was opened, that the commitments of the Soviet Union under 
the Helsinki Final Act were carried out so that there was unanimity in 
the position of Jewish-Russian people that I talked to.
  Mr. CARDIN. All time has expired.
  The team in support of the resolution now is entitled to 4 minutes to 
question Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Dreier, let me go back to the question that I asked of 
Ms. Johnson. How would you have felt that the Untied States could have 
better impacted on South Africa to change its abhorrent apartheid 
policy than do what in fact we did, and that is, stop business as usual 
in the middle 1980's when then we saw progress because it impacted not 
on the people that Ms. Johnson spoke to but on the white oppressive 
regime?
  Mr. DREIER. It was very apparent that the policy of apartheid was 
coming down. Why was it coming down? It was coming down because it was 
a failed system. Helen Sutzmann, who was a very prominent and outspoken 
member of parliament in South Africa, made it very clear in statement 
after statement, she did an article a few years ago in the Washington 
Post in which she pointed to the fact that the economic decline and the 
problems that existed in South Africa were bringing apartheid down. So 
it seems to me that we need to realize that there were a wide range of 
options.
  I happen to have been one who believed very sincerely that 
constructive engagement would have been a way to also bring us to that 
point. There are many people who today claim that because there has 
been an election in South Africa, there is a great deal of success 
there.

                              {time}  2100

  Frankly, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
pointed to a very important item, that being the fact that we have seen 
an election in South Africa, but we, as yet, do not know the fate of 
many poor victims in that country. We are already for it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Dreier, we have no doubt.
  After years of extending favorable trading conditions to China, Mr. 
Speaker, we have seen no progress in human rights. The gentleman has 
been there, I have been there. China continues its destabilizing 
foreign policy. Of course, these huge trade deficits are just 
devastating industries in the United States, especially in my district.
  I would just say, in light of this, how has continual extension of 
favorable trading conditions helped to improve it, other than in 
Bejing, where they are all Communist, or in Shanghai, when we get out 
into the 1.2 billion people, how has it helped?
  Mr. DREIER. There is no way that I could come to the same conclusions 
that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has. When we look at the 
issue of human rights and trade in China, clearly we have just 
recently, in the Washington Post, seen a story. The gentleman referred 
to those 80 million people who he said have been killed since the 1972 
opening with China. The opposite is the case. It took place much 
earlier on, and we have seen, in fact, if we move through China, an 
indication by the people, and I have talked to many people in China who 
have indicated that there has been an improvement since we have been 
engaged in the kind of economic situation that is very important there.
  I was in Xian outside of Bejing just a few months ago, when I talked 
to a person there. We told the standard old joke about the fact, and he 
asked the question, what is 100-yards-long and eats cabbage--a meat 
line in Moscow. He looked to me and said, ``That was China 10 years 
ago.''
  I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], he has to 
recognize that things are not perfect there, and I deplore the human 
rights violations which I have seen. The fact of the matter is, things 
have improved dramatically, not just in Bejing, they have improved 
throughout the country, especially in the two southern provinces where 
we have seen free markets proliferate.
  Mr. CARDIN. There is time for one more question.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Dreier, you put in the Congressional Record the 
other day an article by Amos Jordan in which he said:

       Given such a challenge, they may reason, the Jefferson 
     approach to governing is likely to produce chaos, with spills 
     over into the neighboring territories. Tiananmen was 
     indefensible, but not inexplicable.

That is the 80 million we are talking about, the kind that died in 
Tiananmen.
  I defend you as one of the greatest supporters of those people who 
are trying to stop human rights abuses around the world.
  Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman has 45 seconds to respond if he cares to. 
Let me just caution about any personal references.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I obviously totally concur with the plight 
of those victims, and I am as concerned as you said about human rights. 
The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and several of us marched 
up to the Embassy.
  I happen to believe very strongly that trade promotes private 
enterprise, which creates wealth, which improves living standards, 
which undermines political repression. We have to recognize that 
denying trade is a violation of human rights and a reprehensible one.
  Mr. CARDIN. The time in this segment has expired.
  The next segment will consist of 8 minutes that will be controlled by 
Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Kolbe in questioning. First, Ms. Pelosi will have 4 
minutes to question Mr. Kolbe.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Kolbe, is there any instance where trade policy 
should be used on behalf of human rights; say, for example, a clear 
case of a developed country, of the genocide of a people because of 
their race or origin; if you could explain to me a point at which human 
rights outweighs economic interest, in your view.
  Mr. KOLBE. I think the question is a valid one, and the very fact 
that there are three people over on your side of the aisle that 
supported NAFTA and joined us in support of NAFTA suggests this is not 
a black-and-white issue, that we cannot ever make absolute judgments 
about these things, and we do have to apply these standards in a way 
that we can make an intelligent judgment about it.
  I think the question you ask is indeed a very valid one. My answer to 
that would be that the first thing we have to consider is what are our 
national security interests, are our national security interests 
involved in this.

  The second thing we must ask is, can we make change with that policy? 
Will our policy of withholding trade, and that is what we are talking 
about here tonight, trade, will our policy of withholding trade make a 
difference? Will it change the internal factors within that country? 
Will it change the politics of that country?
  Those two questions we must ask before we decide in the name of 
feeling good here at home whether we should apply those sanctions. If 
we can have no effect, if it does no good, then we have to ask, do we 
do so because it is so morally reprehensible, as in the case of 
Kampuchea, where clearly, I think, we do not want to have any contact 
with a country of that kind, but it is more than just trade sanctions 
at that point, it is any diplomatic contact.
  Ms. PELOSI. You are saying in the case of Cambodia it would be 
appropriate to have trade sanctions?
  Mr. KOLBE. In the case of Cambodia we had no diplomatic contact, as 
you know. We had withdrawn all types of contact with that country, yes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Since you mentioned Cambodia, I did not know if you were 
aware, because you keep putting it in a larger context, which I think 
is appropriate, the issue of trade; do you think added to your two 
criteria you would add the trade situation, the trade imbalance between 
two countries?
  For example, there is no point in saying we are going to withdraw 
most-favored-nation status if the other country has a trade deficit, 
but in our case, as with China, where we have this year a $24 billion 
trade deficit, and it is going to be larger next year, in fact the 
figures released today show a $400 million increase from April to May 
of this year, and says that in the next 5 years our deficit will be 
higher than with Japan.
  Mr. CARDIN. Question, please.
  Ms. PELOSI. Do you think that the fact that a country needs access to 
our markets to develop its economy should be a factor in determining if 
we can deal with their reprehensible human rights records?
  Mr. KOLBE. Let me make it clear that under no circumstances should a 
decision about whether we grant a trade partnership with another 
country be based on whether or not we have a balance of trade. I am 
stunned, shocked, that you would suggest that, as I hope that others on 
your team would not say the basis on which we decide the human rights 
policy of the country should be based on whether or not we have a trade 
balance or a surplus or a trade imbalance, as you have just suggested.

  Ms. PELOSI. If I may reclaim my time, what I am saying to you is in 
that case we would have leverage. Let us assume there are two 
countries, both having reprehensible human rights violations. With one 
country they may say, ``Who cares if you take our MFN away?'' The other 
country may desperately fight to keep the MFN, and that place gives us 
opportunity, and therefore responsibility, to do something about it.
  Mr. KOLBE. And in the case of China, very clearly I do not think we 
have that kind of leverage. You are talking about more than a billion 
people. You are talking about the third largest economy of the world. 
You are talking about a country that has its own internal political 
problems, and could care less whether or not we grant them most-
favored-nation status. They are not going to change their political 
policies because of that.
  What will change the political policies in China, as we trade with 
them, as companies develop contacts with them, and just as an example 
of that, Procter & Gamble years ago established a system in that 
country for hiring people that allowed people----
  Ms. PELOSI. But, Mr. Kolbe, Deng Xiao Ping said dozens of 
generations.
  Mr. CARDIN. The time has expired.
  Mr. Kolbe, you are now entitled to 4 minutes to question Ms. Pelosi.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about how we weigh this 
in the balance, on which side you come down, I would like to ask about 
Vietnam, certainly a country that is not a great country when it comes 
to human rights, has not had a very good record, and most of us here 
would acknowledge that.
  Do you think it is appropriate for us to lift the embargo with 
Vietnam, and if so, why? Surely its record is not better than China's 
record is.
  Ms. PELOSI. Again, you are talking about an embargo, and in China we 
are talking about preferential trade treatment, most-favored-nation, so 
embargo is different from that.
  Yes, I think if we have some progress made on the POW's and the 
MIA's, which our colleagues seem to be satisfied with, and that is the 
standard we set for Vietnam, with that standard, if it is met, we can 
lift the embargo. That does not mean we would extend MFN. As you know, 
with the extension of MFN, it is supposed to have some reciprocity. It 
does not, in China. They do not extend MFN to us, but it becomes a 
trade decision at that point in terms of will they give most-favored-
nation status to us, will we give it to them.

  Mr. KOLBE. Ms. Pelosi, for all those who are listening, I hope one 
thing, if nothing else, we can clarify, and that is that most-favored-
nation [MFN] is one of the most misnamed things. It is not preferential 
status.
  Ms. PELOSI. But, nonetheless, it is not an embargo.
  Mr. KOLBE. It means only other countries having the same status.
  Ms. PELOSI. It is not an embargo.
  Mr. CARDIN. A question, please, and then an answer.
  Mr. KOLBE. Let me go back to follow up on that. We never imposed any 
kinds of sanctions on South Korea, but I think most of us here tonight 
would agree that human rights conditions have improved in South Korea 
over the years. Should we, during the 1960's and 1970's, should the 
United States have imposed trade sanctions against South Korea in order 
to enhance human rights in that country?
  I believe we had other leverage with South Korea with the presence of 
American troops there, and a commitment to defend South Korea. However, 
the point about South Korea and how it is not an example that can be 
used throughout the world is that it is a small country compared to a 
country like China, and in a country like Korea, trade can have a more 
immediate impact, because you can have the development of a middle 
class, and that can lead to more political freedom.
  In a country like China where there has been a national decision, and 
in fact, an edict released last week which said that 
counterrevolutionary activities will be defined as any disagreement on 
any issue with the Communist party, under those circumstances, economic 
reform cannot necessarily lead to political reform.
  We talk about South Korea, we talk about Taiwan. We cannot in the 
next breath apply the examples, the experience there, to China, because 
you are talking about a country which is 20 to 50 times bigger than 
those small countries.
  Mr. KOLBE. It is striking to me that what we have seen is that the 
principle of human rights seems to have gone out the window. We had 
other leverage with South Korea.
  Ms. PELOSI. That is right, and we used the leverage we had.
  Mr. KOLBE. It is a small country as opposed to a big country.
  Ms. PELOSI. No, that is not the case.

                              {time}  2110

  Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman from Arizona can ask the question.
  Mr. KOLBE. Let me ask the gentlewoman another question. In the case 
of Argentina, a country that had a reprehensible policy of human 
rights, should we have imposed sanctions against them? We did not. But 
I think most would agree it is a better country today than it was.
  Ms. PELOSI. I would say to you that as you talked earlier about 
establishing criteria for how you can make change, that the use of 
trade sanctions should be an arrow that we have in our quiver. If we 
believe that by using trade sanctions we can make a difference, then we 
should use those trade sanctions. And that difference would be 
predicated on how dependent access to our markets in a preferential way 
is to that country. If we believe that, for example, in the case of 
China, 40 percent of their exports, they need our markets for 40 
percent of their exports. So that is a criterion that I would add to 
the list, to say, is the human rights situation reprehensible, do we 
have trade with that country, do we have opportunity because they need 
us more than we need them in terms of trade. In those cases, then we 
should use our economic arrow.
  Mr. KOLBE. I appreciate your agreeing with our position.
  Mr. CARDIN. The time of this segment has concluded. We will now go to 
an 8-minute segment for questioning by the teams. First the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], and then the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Kopetski]. The team in opposition of the resolution will have 4 minutes 
to question the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. DREIER. Let me talk about something that we have just brought up 
slightly.
  I have the highest regard for the gentleman from New York and your 
service as a marine and, of course, your very, very courageous military 
service in South Korea. I was a little confused with the statement that 
was just made by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] raising 
this issue of United States troops in South Korea somehow protecting 
the human rights of South Koreans. We have failed to point to some of 
the incredible successes where trade has actually improved the human 
rights situation. I think South Korea is one, Taiwan, Chile, Argentina, 
clearly have seen dramatic improvements. In fact, somebody was talking 
earlier about Freedom House. We have seen evidence in the past 20 years 
it has improved greatly. I would like to ask you the question that the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] raised of the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Do you believe that President Reagan and President Carter were 
incorrect during the 1970's and 1980's in not imposing trades sanctions 
on South Korea because of the fact that human rights were being 
violated there?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me just correct the gentleman. I served in the 
United States Marine Corps during the Korean war era. I did not serve 
in combat in Korea.
  But let me say this to you. We, in fact, did use trade. In other 
words, we have three alternatives. One alternative is diplomacy. When 
diplomacy does not work, you have another alternative, to go to war. We 
do not do that, because American foreign policy is to defend 
democracies against outside military aggression. That is what we were 
doing there. In fact, we did use diplomacy on both Taiwan and on South 
Korea. We did it back in the early days, in 1979, after Carter had 
derecognized Taiwan, and we actually wrote the Taiwan Relations Act, so 
that we could threaten them, if need be, to move toward a democracy and 
it worked.
  Then we did the same thing with South Korea and we used the trade 
with those countries, both covertly and overtly and publicly to get 
them to move, and they made dramatic changes in both countries toward 
human rights. Today we have democracies in those two countries.
  Mr. DREIER. Should trade sanctions have been used against South 
Korea, Taiwan, Chile, and Argentina? Because we had greater trade. We 
expanded opportunities there. That is what happened to it. You all 
stand and you are now saying we should have trade sanctions sometimes 
when human rights are being violated. That is what I think is the 
confusing area here.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me answer the question. When you hear my closing 
remarks, my friend, I am going to talk about the awesome power of the 
American purse. Two hundred sixty million Americans, with the greatest 
buying power in the world. That is what we need to use. We need to take 
that opportunity to tell countries like Taiwan and South Korea, which 
we did, ``You improve or else we do not trade with you.'' We need to do 
the same thing desperately with the people of China.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Reclaiming our time, and we cannot wait for that 
closing. I am trying to understand, there is a lot of speeches and 
rhetoric at first about standing by American values, and that is why we 
cannot allow using trade with these kinds of nations where there are 
human rights violations. Now all of a sudden you and the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi] are saying, forget the values, we have 
some other tools we can use. Can you clarify this a little bit for me?
  Mr. SOLOMON. If you look at the question we are debating here, the 
United States should use trade policy to implement human rights policy. 
We should use trade policy. That does not mean we have to go and throw 
sanctions out on every country that has some kind of human rights 
abuses. It means that we will move to that if we have to, to be 
successful in lifting the human rights abuses off these oppressed 
people.
  Mr. CARDIN. The team now in support of the resolution will have 4 
minutes to question the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski].
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski], earlier in his 
opening statement, said that the United States will never abandon the 
important principle of human rights. I believe that, as well. But I ask 
the gentleman, how does the world know that if we do business as usual 
with those who repress and violate human rights on a regular basis? I 
say that in the sense that clearly we may not on every country impose 
sanctions for human rights abuses, but if we never do it, how does the 
world know we stand by those principles?
  Mr. KOPETSKI. I believe that the world knows and wants to emulate the 
U.S. Constitution, our way of doing business, our way of conducting 
government. People want still to move here to the United States. That 
is our greatest evidence that we are the greatest country in the world 
as a democracy.
  Mr. HOYER. If a nation knows that we will not impose trade sanctions, 
why would it change its business as usual?
  Mr. KOPETSKI. We do not do business as usual with every violator of 
human rights. And we take different approaches with every nation that 
is oppressing its people. Maybe we do have trading relationships with 
them. We can go down the list with questions, whether it is Turkey, or 
India, the list goes on and on where there are questions, we have them 
as allies. We trade with them, there is no doubt about it, but that 
does not mean we are not using negotiations and diplomacy as well in 
pressuring these nations to change their human rights policies. The 
world knows that. The world understands that. They do a better job 
understanding foreign affairs than the average American citizen, I am 
sad to say. They understand what we stand for and what we fight for. 
What they want is for us to be effective. When we make a decision, a 
policy decision, they want to make sure we have thought it through and 
that it will not backfire on them. As the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie 
Bernice Johnson, was pointing out, further oppress the people of a 
country but hopefully it will move that nation toward human rights, 
toward an economic system of freedom as well.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I have great respect for the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Kopetski], as I do for the other members of your team, but you are 
confusing me. When diplomacy does not work and when war is undesirable. 
And concerning trade, please explain to us at what point economic 
interests outweigh interest in human rights. I do not understand how we 
get there.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Diplomacy does not work, let us begin there. One of the 
problems that many people outside of the United States will criticize 
about the American psyche is that a problem arises in the world and we 
have to solve it in 2 weeks. There are longstanding problems, cultural, 
religious, in many of these nations. China, for one.
  Mr. SOLOMON. At what point, though, does the economic interest 
outweigh human rights interest? There has to be a point there.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. The human rights interests never outweigh the economic 
interest. The issue is what is the most effective means to change the 
human rights policies of a nation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Thank you. I think we just won the argument.
  Mr. CARDIN. I think we have time for a very quick question and answer 
if there is one.
  Ms. PELOSI. If it is only a quick question, I will ask the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski] if he favors the sanctions on Haiti.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Yes, I do.
  Ms. PELOSI. I understand that that is a trade sanction and that is 
using trade policy to improve the situation.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. We are in concert on the Haiti policy with diplomatic 
pressures from our country, from our Government, from other nations as 
well. And I see no problem with that whatsoever.
  Mr. CARDIN. On this segment, the time has expired. The next segment 
consists of 8 minutes that will be controlled by the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] in 
questioning. First the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is entitled 
to 4 minutes to question the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].

                              {time}  2120

  Mr. HOYER. I mentioned in my opening statement the Holocaust. In 
1933, Jewish organizations called upon our Government to alter the way 
we were doing business and stop sending goods to the German Government.
  Secretary Hull wrote to the Embassy and said that there was concern 
in this country and he wanted a report, and that he then said he did 
not believe that that would have an impact. And in point of fact, of 
course, our country continued to do business with Germany as usual for 
some period of time during the 1930's.
  I would ask the gentleman from California, do you think that was an 
effective use of your economic policy?
  Mr. DREIER. I will tell the gentleman, if he looks at the rise of 
Adolf Hitler I believe that it came about in large part due to 
protectionist policies led by the United States, tragically, which in 
1930 implemented the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which almost universally 
has been proclaimed a failure, being in large part responsible for 
extending and exacerbating the Great Depression.
  So it seems to me that we need, desperately need to realize that as 
we look at the problem that existed there, it came about because of 
protectionist policies, and we did not create the opportunity which was 
necessary to expand free trade, which clearly does create private 
enterprise, which creates wealth, improves living standards, and 
undermines political repression.
  Mr. HOYER. That is not the question I asked. Smoot-Hawley, of course, 
dealt across the board. We continued to do business with Germany as 
usual.
  Do you believe that was an effective policy?
  Mr. DREIER. We were looking at a national security threat once again 
there, not simply human rights questions. The subject of this debate is 
whether economic sanctions should be used to improve human rights. We 
know clearly that the situation was reprehensible, and you are right, 
part of it was the Holocaust. But there were many other aspects to the 
Second World War which need to be realized. And I believe that the rise 
to power of Adolf Hitler and the reprehensible behavior of the Nazi 
regime came about because of protectionist trade policies, which I 
believe will continue to create more and more problems today if we do 
not move toward freer trade and expanding into parts of the world where 
human rights desperately need to improve, and we can take the offensive 
by bringing our Western values there through trade.
  Mr. HOYER. As you know by our votes, we have shown that this side 
also believes in freer trade. But if we delink human rights from trade 
policy, why is there any incentive from an economic standpoint for 
regimes to honor their human rights commitments?
  Mr. DREIER. The fact of the matter is that I do not like the term 
``delinking of human rights.'' I believe we should promote human rights 
through free trade because what we are creating is a situation where as 
economies expand, as they are in the southern Provinces of China which 
are tied closely to Hong Kong, which is that tremendous export market, 
the cause of freedom is expanding throughout and standards of living 
are rising. As the standard of living rises we will see there that 
actually repression diminishes as we are in many areas.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] continues to point to the 
fact that what we have constantly observed has been an increase in 
human rights violations, when every empirical study that we have, 
including personal testimony that I have received from people who live 
in China, Chinese citizens, is that the situation is improved and it 
has come about because of freer trade and exposure to the West.
  Mr. HOYER, do you believe we ought to lift the sanctions on Cuba?
  Mr. DREIER. Do I believe we ought to lift the sanctions on Cuba? I 
think we ought to look very seriously at the prospects of lifting 
sanctions on Cuba when we determine that Fidel Castro does not pose a 
national security threat destabilizing countries in Latin America. As 
long as he is hell bent on his attempt to overthrow governments in 
Latin America, we should not lift it, because that poses a national 
security threat to the United States.
  Mr. CARDIN. The has expired. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier] is now entitled to 4 minutes to question the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. DREIER. The United States has, in fact, placed trade sanctions on 
a number of countries throughout the world, and we have talked about a 
number of them. Unfortunately, we have not really had an opportunity to 
point to some of the great successes where we have actually seen trade 
encourage human rights. But the fact of the matter is I would like to 
ask the gentleman about several countries.
  Could you tell me if the human rights conditions have actually 
improved in Iran since we have seen the imposition of economic 
sanctions?
  Mr. HOYER. I cannot tell you that, quite obviously. And it is not our 
proposition that in every instance repressive regimes will be turned 
around by the exercise of trade policy vis-a-vis human rights and 
related to human rights. But I can tell you, I can tell you that if the 
world believes that the greatest economic engine in the world will not 
use its economic leverage through trade policy to sanction the failure 
to recognize human rights in a nation, then there will be little if any 
incentive for repressive regimes around the world to change their human 
rights policies.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me ask this: Have we actually seen the human rights 
situation improve in Iraq since we have imposed economic sanctions on 
Iraq?
  Mr. HOYER. No, and I know it is not my time to ask questions, but 
irrespective of that, I would not be for lifting economic sanctions on 
Iraq.
  Mr. DREIER. Has it improved the human rights situation in Iraq?
  Mr. HOYER. Because, let me answer the question, because and I would 
reiterate, the principles for which we stand are not just for Iraq, but 
for the rest of the world as well, and they are international 
principles now. And because we stand for them in Iraq I suggest to you 
that yes, it has an impact on other countries of the world, even if the 
unhappy situation that exists in Iraq of a madman like Saddam Hussein 
having absolute and total control, precludes the effectiveness of trade 
sanctions we ought to continue.
  Mr. DREIER. You would argue the human rights situation has not 
improved in Iraq, in Iran, Libya, in North Korea, in Vietnam, in Cuba. 
I would assume you would argue that is the case. So we have once again 
come to the issue that economic sanctions should be imposed sometimes.
  I would like to remind our colleagues once again of the topic of this 
debate. It has to do with improving human rights and imposing economic 
sanctions to do that.
  Let me ask this question: If you look at the issue of South Korea, 
Taiwan, Chile, Argentina, actually we have never placed economic 
sanctions on them, but do you believe that the human rights situation 
in those four countries improved over the last 20 years?
  Mr. HOYER. In point of fact, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] pointed out, and as the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] also mentioned, trade policy is not the only quiver. The issue, 
as stated in this debate, is whether we ought to use trade policy to 
implement human rights policy.
  Mr. DREIER. But we stand for principle.
  Mr. HOYER. We ought to stand on principle, and that does not mean in 
every instance we implement through trade policy, particularly when 
diplomacy may work, and particularly when other devices can work and 
are working.
  Mr. DREIER. Like free trade. That is just what we have in South 
Korea, Taiwan, Chile, and Argentina. We have seen a great deal of 
success from that, and I wish you all would acknowledge it has been 
exposure to Western values, not war, not diplomacy, free trade which 
has improved the human rights of the people in those four countries, 
and can do it in China and other places.
  Mr. HOYER. We clearly acknowledge on this side that free trade and 
open trade and the bringing of a free market to a country can, in fact, 
improve human rights. The proposition of this debate, however, is 
whether we ought to be able to use trade from time to time in 
implementing our human rights policy.
  Clearly we suggest we very definitely ought to and ought not to take 
the position that because we have successes, and because market 
economies will breed freer, more just societies, that in every instance 
we ought not to use trade policy.
  Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] was entitled to 
his last 5 seconds to complete his thought.
  Mr. HOYER. I completed my thought. I am just not sure he heard it.
  Mr. CARDIN. All time for this segment has expired.
  The next segment consists of 8 minutes of questioning by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson]. First the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] 
will be entitled to 4 minutes to question the gentlewoman from Texas 
[Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson].
  Mr. WOLF. Let the record show that what happened in Germany was 
because Hitler was evil, the Nazi Party was evil, and the world was 
slow to speak out, and the record should show that.
  I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson], in Romania, which I have visited many times, and my daughter 
Brenda was there on a mission project, the threat of most-favored-
nation revocation each year was successful in enforcing the brutal 
Communist dictatorship to allow thousands and hundreds of thousands of 
Jews and other minorities to emigrate. Would you now tell these 
immigrants safely, settled in new countries, that trade sanctions were 
not helpful in gaining their freedom?

                              {time}  2130

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Independence is what is helpful, 
and improving human rights, the opportunity to have something of 
ownership, to gain that independence, perhaps to leave the country, but 
it is that independence. It is not going to be a policy of us policing 
the world and implementing policies of ours that we are not altogether 
necessarily going to implement for ourselves.
  So, you see, I am committed to human rights. But I am also committed 
to independence. I am committed to individual ownership.
  I know by my experience, living here, that the more one controls 
their own destiny through their own ownership and having some ownership 
of their own finances they will determine that no government is going 
to keep them repressed.
  People overthrow their own governments when they disagree, when they 
are in a position to be independent.
  Mr. WOLF. The question, though, was about the brutal dictatorship of 
the Ceausescu administration, and they would not have gotten out just 
by asking for a visa. They only got out because the United States held 
leverage on MFN.
  But to ask the last question, if you shopped in a store back in 
Houston that used child labor and exploited its employees and 
discriminated against certain religious groups, those of the Christian 
faith, Jewish faith, and the Moslem faith and you found out about it, 
would you notify the authorities, and continue to shop, would you call 
the police and yet continue to shop, would you call a press conference, 
would you continue to shop or would you take your dollar and shop 
someplace else?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I would go to the proper 
authorities first, as we have in this country. Secretary Bentsen, a 
native Texan, has already started to negotiate and to come up with 
agreements for dealing with child labor laws and other labor laws, and 
that is the way I think we are going to cause change as we negotiate 
trade policy.
  I do not believe that this country is going to be able to police the 
world based upon trade policy.
  Mr. WOLF. I think that if you knew that this person was exploiting 
children and exploiting employees and discriminating against people of 
different religious beliefs, most people would stop.
  In closing, the closing question is: Do you believe, as the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] have said, that 
sanctions ought to be an option, that the U.S. Government uses similar 
to a man in the military may use a rifle, may use a bayonet, or may use 
a pistol, but he has those options? Do you believe there should always 
be an option for the U.S. Government?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I believe we ought to have 
policies that are consistent. I believe we have chosen certain 
countries to implement sanctions and others we have chosen to ignore.
  If we decide to use sanctions at all times for human rights 
violations, why then are we not looking at Saudi Arabia? Is it because 
we need their oil?
  Mr. CARDIN. The gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson] 
now has 4 minutes to pose questions to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf].
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Wolf, I would like to ask 
that last question. Why are we inconsistent in looking at policies in 
other areas other than China? Why have we not looked at trade policy to 
effect the change of human rights violations in Saudi Arabia?
  Mr. WOLF. I believe very deeply that if we find that they are 
discriminating in Saudi Arabia, we should be willing to use leverage, 
and if our diplomatic efforts do not prove successful and they are 
persecuting those of the Jewish faith and those of the Christian faith 
and those of the Moslem faith, then I think it should be something we 
should be willing to exercise. It should be an option, just like the 
soldier. He has a rifle, he has a pistol, he has a bayonet. They are 
all options to be used. If the Saudis continue to do that, at some 
point I would be in favor of taking away MFN from the Saudi Government.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Wolf, do you think that the 
policy of South Africa was effective? Did you think that was the thing 
to do?
  Mr. WOLF. I do think it was effective. Let me just say for the record 
the first time the vote came up, I voted against sanctions for South 
Africa. The next time it came up, I had a pang of conscience. I voted 
the other way. I am proud of the vote I case. If Nelson Mandela were 
with us tonight, he would be sitting on this side saying clearly 
sanctions have worked.

  I listened to a National Public Radio show several weeks ago where 
they interviewed a white South African businessman. He said, ``I was 
opposed to sanctions. I thought they were wrong. But now I must confess 
that they worked.'' And I might say that I voted to override the 
President of the United States, of my own party, on that issue, because 
I think America should always stand, as the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer] said, we the people, inalienable rights, life, liberty, and 
the pursuit of happiness, and sometimes, Ms. Johnson, when we get into 
the economic issue, even though it means we may lose some trade, we 
have to do the right thing.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. So from your experience, is it 
fair to say that poorer developing countries have a far greater 
tendency to have repressive antidemocratic governments than more 
wealthy, more economically developed countries?
  Mr. WOLF. Not necessarily. Evil can be wealthy, and evil can be poor. 
Hitler was wealthy, and he was probably one of the most evil men in 
this century. What is taking place in Indonesia and East Timor, they 
are poor, they are doing very bad things there, and so I think that 
evil goes with wealth and goes with poorness.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Do you think the human rights 
policies of the United States should be consistent, or should we pick 
and choose a few countries we want to see do good things and we want to 
make ourselves feel good and make sure the human rights conditions are 
better?
  Mr. WOLF. I personally think it should be consistent across the board 
with any nation that violates life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, 
persecutes people, has slave labor, has gulag camps, kills people, and 
does these things.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. If you say we should be 
consistent then what do we do about Saudi Arabia?
  Mr. WOLF. I think we should pound on the Saudi Government. We should 
pound whenever we find human rights violations, and we pound, and we 
pound, and you are asking me this question.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. When you say we pound, sir----
  Mr. WOLF. You lead me to believe that perhaps I should take a trip to 
Saudi Arabia, and if I find any abuses, if need be, I would personally 
introduce a bill to deny the MFN, to take it away from the Saudi 
Government.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me tell you right now, Mr. 
Wolf, women cannot vote in Saudi Arabia, and lots of other violations 
are going on. If we are going to be consistent, and you have committed 
yourself to be consistent, what is our next step?
  Mr. WOLF. I am going to look into it, I can tell you that. I fought 
the Reagan administration when they favored MFN for Romania. It was my 
bill to take away MFN from Serbia. I will certainly follow what is 
going on in Saudi Arabia. Let the word go forth, if the Saudi 
Government is listening, I would not be averse to doing anything I 
could to bringing about human rights in Saudi Arabia.
  Mr. CARDIN. The time for this segment has expired. We are now 
prepared to go to the final segment of the debate, which is a 5-minute 
segment in which one member from each team will have the opportunity to 
make a closing comment about the resolution. We will start first with 
the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski], who will control 2\1/2\ 
minutes for a closing statement in opposition to the resolution.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
  This is not a debate about whether human rights are important. They 
are.
  As the gentleman from Maryland conceded, the question is what is the 
best means to achieve our shared goal of human rights progress in all 
nations.
  This last weekend the Washington Post chronicled the gruesome Mao 
Zedong era in China. We read that from 1949 to 1976 a many as 80 
million Chinese died during the repressive policies during the eras 
known as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
  A China or any nation that is engaged in the world community could 
not hide 80 million deaths. Repression and mass slaughter are only 
possible when a nation isolates itself from the world.
  Sunshine is the best disinfectant for repressive government, and that 
is what trade brings.
  It is a new world out there. The Iron Curtain is drawn open. 
International companies are chipping away at the Iron Rice Bowl. We 
must engage these societies, drawing them out even more into the world 
community.
  But let us not kid ourselves, nations like Russia and China are still 
in transition. There is every possibility that they could return to the 
ways of the recent past, and the Chinese people, for one, live in fear 
of this.
  The Washington Post story quoted a farmer who said, ``Who knows what 
could happen? If there is a change of policy at the top, who knows?''
  Our side in this debate rejects any policy that seeks to isolate 
nations from the world community. Trade shines the bright light of the 
free market into closed societies. Market economies, as we have shown, 
lead to human rights improvements.
  In this debate, we have answered the question: What does trade bring?
  Let me summarize again. Trade brings a better standard of living so 
children do not have to go to bed hungry at night, so families have a 
roof over their heads, and it also brings about the exchange of ideas, 
whether principles of law and a judicial system, or the exchange of 
students and scientists, music, books, and movies, and as innocuous as 
that sounds, art is saturated with cultural messages and floods over a 
closed society in a wash of Western values and individual freedoms.
  Vaclav Havel once said:

       Communism was not defeated by military force but by life, 
     by human spirit, by conscience, by the resistance of being 
     and man to manipulation.

                              {time}  2140

  Havel is right. We all have a duty, even a moral obligation, to 
pursue the path of trade, diplomatic engagement, produce healthier, 
more just societies on Earth.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Solomon is now recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes for his 
closing points. In support of the resolution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Ladies and gentleman, who won the debate? Tomorrow's 
Congressional Record will show that our opposition supported all of the 
present sanctions in place by the U.S. Government. That should answer 
the question.
  Let me commend all of you for a job well done. My colleagues, the 
world respects the United States of America because we stand for 
something. We stand for something different, something good. America is 
not just a people, it is not a race, it is not a religion, it is a set 
of ideals. In short, we believe that human beings should live as free 
individuals, unfettered by intrusive or repressive Government. These 
ideals define the very essence of who we Americans are, what our 
country is.
  If we allow ourselves to succumb to the temptation to be like 
everybody else or to do business as usual with any dictator, we will 
lose this essence, we will lose who we are. It is simply a fact that if 
America will not stand up to the dictators of the world, no one will.
  Since military solutions are often unrealistic, and I am a military 
man, or they are undesirable, trade remains the best weapon we have to 
stand up to these destabilizing dictators.
  My colleagues, it is no accident that the U.S. dollar is the 
international currency or that English is the international business 
language. It is because the power of the American purse is so awesome. 
There are 260 million Americans; everybody wants to do business with 
us. In fact, everybody needs to do business with us.
  But the reverse is not true. Our standard of living and consumer 
buying power afford us the opportunity to choose our business partners 
more carefully. We must use that opportunity. We must apply leverage 
where we can in order to defend freedom, deter aggression, and, yes, 
protect American jobs.
  When a regime systematically represses its own people and threatens 
its neighbors, America must say no to business as usual. When a regime 
destroys American jobs by refusing to allow fair access to American 
goods made by American workers, America must say no to business as 
usual.
  As peace-loving Americans, we do not attempt to enforce our human 
rights policies on others by force. But as leaders of the free world we 
do have a moral obligation to promote democracy and encourage decent 
treatment of all human beings. And without firing a shot, without 
losing one American soldier's life, we can do that, without firing a 
shot, by linking our trade policy with human rights. That is the 
decent, humane thing to do, and you know it.
  Thank you.
  Mr. CARDIN. All time has expired.
  Let me, if I might, thank the eight Members who have participated in 
tonight's debate. As I mentioned at the beginning of tonight's debate, 
this is our third in a series in which we have a trial in the House of 
Representatives. We have debated health care, we have debated welfare, 
and tonight we have debated human rights and trade.
  I think that the quality of the debate that has taken place tonight 
can only help us in shedding light on these issues in the finest 
traditions of the House of Representatives and can only help us in 
trying to reach solutions to these very difficult problems.
  I want to thank all 24 Members who have participated in the first 
three debates. This is a trial period, but I think the leadership is 
committed to the continuation of the Oxford-style debates because it 
has been helpful to all of us in focusing issues in this body. I also 
want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker], and the Republican side who has helped organize the 
Republicans and has helped to bring this about. I personally want to 
thank each one of you for the time you have spent tonight.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I gladly yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to join the gentleman in thanking a number of people because I 
think this has been a very positive exercise on behalf of the House of 
Representatives, in behalf of the Republican and Democratic Parties.
  This debate, particularly, composed of bipartisan teams, showed that 
there is a thoughtful difference of opinion from time to time, not 
necessarily dictated by party. I particularly want to thank the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], our majority leader, and the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], our minority whip, who worked 
closely together to bring about this innovative opportunity to debate 
substantively issues of importance to the people of this country and 
indeed the international community.
  I too want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], who for their 
respective sides have led the organization for this effort.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in extending my appreciation on 
behalf of our side, which now includes Mike Kopetski and Eddie Bernice 
Johnson, I am happy to say. Clearly, this is a bipartisan effort which 
has come about because the leadership on both sides are strongly 
committed.
  We will welcome Mr. Solomon back here.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I was going to ask----
  Mr. DREIER. We have a spot on the other side of the rail.
  Mr. HOYER. You can have Mr. Solomon, but we are not letting Mr. Wolf 
go.
  Mr. DREIER. You want to keep him?
  Mr. Speaker, I think the moderator has underscored again and again 
that we are all strongly committed to the cause of human rights, and I 
believe very strongly in the position our team has taken, and I know 
they feel strongly in theirs. But it is clear to all that we are 
committed to improving the human rights of people here in the United 
States and throughout the world.
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________