[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 98 (Monday, July 25, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          OXFORD STYLE DEBATE

                                 ______


                        HON. MICHAEL J. KOPETSKI

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 25, 1994

  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, July 20, I was honored to 
join my colleagues Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Dreier,  Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Johnson  of 
Texas, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Kolbe, and Mr. Solomon in the third Oxford-style 
debate on the House floor. The debate addressed the following 
statement, ``Resolved that the United States should use trade policy to 
implement human rights policy.''
  Importantly, this was the first bipartisan debate. The true winner in 
last week's debate was the House of Representatives. For America was 
able to watch eight Members debate policy options in a bipartisan 
manner for a problem our Nation confronts on a daily basis. Too often, 
the congressional observer through C-SPAN or another media outlet only 
sees the partisan side of politics and the House of Representatives. 
Clearly, there are many differences between the Democratic and 
Republican Parties on a wide variety of issues. However, it is 
important to showcase the parties working together in the interests of 
our Nation. Last week's debate did just that.
  I also want to take this opportunity to clarify a point discussed in 
the debate. Specifically, I want to correct a response of mine to a 
question from Congressman Solomon. Congressman Solomon asked, ``At what 
point, though, does the economic interest outweigh human rights 
interest?'' I responded to Congressman Solomon with the following, 
``The human rights interest never outweigh the economic interest. The 
issue is what is the most effective means to change the human rights 
policies of a nation.''
  In the heat of the debate, I misspoke and it was not until afterward 
that I recognized my mistake. What I meant to say, and fervently 
believe, is human rights interests always outweigh the economic 
interest. I believe my comments throughout the debate are consistent 
with this clarification. The issue, as I said in response to 
Congressman Solomon's question, is what is the most effective policy 
for the United States to pursue to bring real change to the human 
rights practices of a given country, and importantly, to the citizens 
of the country who struggle to survive daily under repressive and 
violent government.
  Our side of the debate, Mr. Dreier, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Kolbe, 
and myself, simply argued that the path of free trade and diplomatic 
engagement produce healthier and more just societies, with higher human 
rights standards. South Korea, Argentina, Taiwan, and Chile all stand 
out as bright examples of closed societies opened by commerce and the 
resulting cultural and political influences associated with free trade.
  In my opinion, the debate focused on the means or policy objectives 
to achieve human rights improvements wherever violations occur. The 
debate was not about concern for human rights, as this objective was 
shared equally by all participants.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House leadership, both 
majority and minority, for scheduling last week's debate. I also want 
to add my admiration for the debate's participants. Truly, this 
exercise was in the interests of the American people and the House of 
Representatives.

                          ____________________