[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 108 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          MFN FOR CHINA? YES.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Schenk). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Madam Speaker, tomorrow the House is scheduled to 
revoke or to condition China's trading status which we have with them, 
that is, the United States' trading status with China under most-
favored-nation law.
  I rise this evening to oppose both H.R. 4950, offered by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], and House Joint Resolution 
373, offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Madam Speaker, this is a highly emotional issue, with legitimate 
arguments on both sides. I hope that in its deliberation tomorrow the 
House will deal with the facts.
  I want to take this opportunity this evening to clarify and refute in 
some instances some of the claims made by proponents of the 
legislation.
  First, the claim has been made that most-favored-nation trading 
status is preferential access to the U.S. market. This is absolutely 
false. MFN, as we all know, is actually a misnomer. What it means in 
fact is whether we grant normal trading status to a nation such as 
China. Only eight nations do not have MFN status from the United 
States, nations such as Iran, Iraq, and Libya. I might add that the 
greatest policy factor in not granting MFN to these nations, the eight 
nations, is primarily because of national security reasons.
  The second erroneous claim is that China does not grant MFN status to 
the United States. This claim is also false. Just last week during a 
hearing in the Ways and Means I asked the administration this question, 
and they responded that, ``yes,'' China does grant MFN status to the 
United States. So at this point it is reciprocal.
  The third claim is that China is not helping the United States in its 
efforts to keep North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. As one who 
is heavily involved in arms control and that issue, I know that this is 
false, personally. The administration confirmed in last week's Ways and 
Means Committee hearing that they have been a willing and able partner 
with us. The United States negotiator toward North Korea, Mr. Bob 
Gallucci, was in Beijing to consult with the Chinese prior to the most 
recent negotiations with North Korea.
  China, by virtue of its relations with North Korea, has certain 
avenues for diplomatic pressures unavailable to the United States. Were 
the United States to condition MFN with China, thus poisoning our 
relations, China would certainly not be as willing to cooperate with 
the United States at this crucial time.
  Another claim is that H.R. 4590 will only affect $5 billion of 
Chinese exports to the United States. This is false. The number is 
actually about $17 billion. What we do know is that by cutting off MFN 
status, it surely invites a trade war with China. I do not know who 
wins that war, but I know American workers will lose because the fact 
is we already have about 180,000 American jobs dependent on and 
supported by exports to China. And thousands of future American jobs 
are dependent upon our future access to the Chinese market.
  Another claim is that passage of H.R. 4590 will encourage the 
development of the private sector in China. False. According to the 
State Department, far from encouraging the development of the private 
sector in China, H.R. 4590, if enacted, would do just the opposite.

  The definition of state-owned enterprise in the bill is extremely 
vague. Many firms potentially coming within the definition actually are 
privately operated and worthy of our support and could go out of 
business.
  Another claim is that China's rampant arms sales promote 
proliferation. Chinese arms sales are in fact troubling to me 
personally and to the United States as a policy, particularly the type 
of sales some of the nations with which China is doing business. But 
the fact is that the United States has little credibility to question 
China on this issue.
  Currently, the United States controls 73 percent of the market for 
arms sales to Third World countries. In 1993 the United States sold 
$14.8 billion in arms to Third World nations. China in 1993 sold $300 
million worth of arms to Third World nations.
  Ironically, China purchased $1.1 billion in arms from the United 
States in 1993. The United States is the world's largest arms 
proliferator. In fact, this Congress has gone so far as to consider 
legislation to expand our arms exports, when we ought to be restricting 
arms exports, especially to Third World nations.
  This country ought to deal with this fact.
  Finally, again I trust the debate tomorrow will be emotional, yes, 
but I hope also it is founded and based on facts.

                              {time}  1900

  The goals of those of us who oppose the legislation to advance the 
cause of human rights, and we all want to advance the cause of human 
rights; the issue, as a means will have a great debate tomorrow, and I 
appreciate the accommodation made this evening for this time.

                          ____________________