[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 109 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 373, DISAPPROVING MOST-
FAVORED-NATION TREATMENT FOR CHINA AND FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4590, 
                    UNITED STATES-CHINA ACT OF 1994

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 509 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 509

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 373) disapproving the extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) 
     to the products of the People's Republic of China, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against the joint 
     resolution and against its consideration are waived. The 
     joint resolution shall be debatable for eighty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by Representative Solomon of 
     New York and Representative Gibbons of Florida or their 
     designees. Pursuant to sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act 
     of 1974, the previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening 
     motion. The provisions of sections 152 and 153 of the Trade 
     Act of 1974 shall not apply to any other joint resolution 
     disapproving the extension of most-favored-nation treatment 
     to the People's Republic of China for the remainder of the 
     One Hundred Third Congress.
       Sec. 2. After disposition of the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 373), the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4590) to provide conditions for renewing 
     nondiscriminatory (most-favored-nation) treatment for the 
     People's Republic of China. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against the bill 
     and against its consideration are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and the amendments made in 
     order by this resolution and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee. on Ways and Means. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as 
     read. No amendment shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All 
     points of order against the amendments printed in the 
     report are waived. If more than one of the amendments 
     printed in the report is adopted, only the last to be 
     adopted shall be considered as finally adopted and 
     reported to the House. At the conclusion of consideration 
     of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and 
     report the bill to the House with such amendment as may 
     have been finally adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1320

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and 
pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. BONIOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, the eyes of America and much of 
the world were focused on a place called Tiananmen Square and a group 
of young Chinese students who tried to change the world.
  They quoted Thomas Jefferson.
  They read from our Constitution.
  The built a Chinese version of the Statute of Liberty.
  They faced down tanks and they marched for freedom. In our memories, 
those images still burn.
  Time and time again the past 5 years, Members have stood on this 
floor and said ``we cannot forget the students who marched at Tiananmen 
Square.''
  We cannot forget those who risked their lives for freedom.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we find out if we really meant it.
  Today, we find out if we really are going to stand up for democracy 
and human rights in China.
  This debate is really about some very simple questions.
  Do we really believe that we should reward China with unconditional 
most-favored-nation trading status even though they have made no 
progress on human rights and even though China does not extend MFN to 
us?
  Do we really believe that we should give special trade benefits to 
products made by the Chinese army even though they use prison labor and 
even though the profits go to support the same people who drove the 
tanks at Tiananmen Square?
  Do we really believe that we should ask American taxpayers to 
subsidize products made by Chinese workers earning 10 cents an hour 
even though those imports have cost America over half a million jobs 
and even though it's led to a trade deficit of $23 billion with China?
  Do we really believe that?
  Those are the questions we are here to debate today.
  Those are the questions we are here to answer.
  To be honest, I wish we didn't need to have this debate.
  I wish we could be celebrating China's progress.
  But 15 months ago, America issued a challenge to China: either 
improve your human rights situation or pay the price.
  And sadly, 15 months later, it's clear from any reasonable accounting 
that the situation in China is getting worse, not better.
  In the past 15 months alone, there have been over 500 new documented 
cases of political torture and abuse at the hands of the Chinese 
Government.
  From the use of electric shock, floggings, and iron rods on prisoners 
to religious persecution in Tibet.
  From political arrests in the middle of the night to forced prison 
labor on products that are shipped to America.
  From the imprisonment of people for nonviolent expression of 
political ideas to dissidents who disappear without a trace.
  The stories come in by the dozens, every week, week after week.
  In the 3 months that have passed since the administration's last 
announcement, organizations like Asia/Watch have documented 17 new 
cases of disappearance and arrests in China.
  And the Chinese Government itself recently thumbed its nose at the 
international community and said it would continue to crack down on 
dissenters who commit the crime of exercising free speech.
  That is the reality in China today.
  We know it. They know it. The international community knows it. Even 
supporters of MFN for China know it.
  The question we have to answer today is, what are we going to do 
about it?
  Are we going to continue to unconditionally subsidize torture in 
China? Or are we going to use the economic leverage of MFN to promote 
human rights in China?
  That's the question.
  And today, we are presented with three very different answers to this 
question.
  Three very different options about which direction we should head.
  We can either reward China by renewing MFN unconditionally.
  We can cut off MFN altogether.
  Or we can choose a compromise with limited sanctions that target the 
most egregious offenders of human rights in China today--the military 
and the state.
  Those are the three options before us today.
  The first choice is the Hamilton amendment.
  The Hamilton amendment will be seen as an endorsement of the status 
quo in China today.
  It says the way to improve human rights in China is to let them keep 
doing what they're doing, that the best way to respond to the human 
rights abuses are to grant them unconditional most-favored-nation 
trading status--no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
  The Hamilton amendment would even grant special status to products 
made by Chinese army and by the state.
  These are the very people who arrest, who torture, and who abuse the 
right of people in China today.
  These are the people who drag innocent civilians out of their homes 
in the middle of the night.
  These are the people who manned the tanks at Tiananmen Square.
  These are the people who are forcing prisoners to work at gunpoint to 
make products to ship to our market.
  And the Hamilton amendment would continue a policy that subsidizes 
this kind of behavior.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road before.
  This is the same thing we've been doing for the past 5 years.
  We have unconditionally extended MFN for China time and time again, 
and the situation has just gotten worse.
  Why should we do it again?
  China does not even grant MFN status to American products.
  Let me say that one more time, Mr. Speaker: China does not grant MFN 
status to American products.
  Even after recent reforms, China routinely charges ten times more to 
let our products into their country than we do to theirs.
  Is it any wonder why our trade deficit with China is expected to grow 
from $23 to $30 billion this year?
  We are the only major industrialized nation in the world that has a 
trade deficit with China. All of our competitors impose high tariffs on 
Chinese goods because they know many Chinese products are made with 
prison labor.
  Yet, the Hamilton amendment is asking our workers to compete with 
workers who earn 10 cents an hour.
  We're asking them to compete with a nation that exports products made 
from prison labor.
  We're asking them to compete with a nation that refuses to accept 
even modest labor provisions.
  Unconditional MFN undercuts both American workers and American jobs.
  There are those who say that our exports to China creates jobs.
  But what about the more than half a million jobs that we have lost 
due to Chinese imports? What about the huge trade imbalance that we 
must now bear?
  The question is not how many jobs revoking unconditional MFN will 
cost us. The question is, how many jobs is MFN costing us now?
  We can do better than the approach embodied in the Hamilton 
amendment.
  We can do better than unconditional MFN.
  The other two amendments before us today offer a clear choice.
  On one hand, the Solomon amendment would revoke MFN altogether.
  There is certainly a case to be made for revoking MFN outright, and 
the gentleman from New York, who has been such a strong defender of 
human rights in China, has forcefully and passionately made his case 
time and time again.
  And given the worsening situation there, has approach is certainly 
understandable.
  But the Pelosi amendment offers a clear compromise between those who 
would advocate total revocation and those who unconditionally renew 
MFN.
  Let's be clear what this amendment does not do.
  The Pelosi amendment does not propose that we eliminate most-favored-
nation trading status altogether.
  It does not hand a ``Keep Out'' sign on the United States border for 
Chinese products.
  And it does not turn our backs on the China market.
  The Pelosi amendment simply targets the most egregious offenders of 
human rights in China today specifically the military and the state and 
says that if you want to produce toys, toasters, or tennis shoes in the 
sweatshops of the Chinese army the United States is not going to 
subsidize it and we're not going to force our workers to compete with 
it.
  Specifically, the Pelois amendment would target $5 billion worth of 
sanctions on products made by the Chinese military and other state-run 
agencies.
  It would affect just 15 percent of our total trade with China and it 
would do so while extending MFN status to private businesses that trade 
with the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, every year, China ships hundreds of millions of dollars 
worth of products to the United States hundreds of millions of dollars 
worth of products which come in under special trade status which are 
made in the sweatshops of the Chinese army.
  In fact, last year the Chinese army used the profits garnered under 
MFN to increase its defense budget by over 20 percent and to step up 
its reign of terror, torture, and abuse of the Chinese people.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States should not be in the business of 
subsidizing torture.
  We should not be in the business of subsidizing forced prison labor.
  The Pelosi amendment simply uses the economic leverage of MFN to 
promote human rights and to send a clear message: that if you want to 
do business with the United States, you have to respect your own 
people.
  Only then can we compete on the quality of the product, and not on 
the misery and suffering of the people who make it.
  Five years ago, we rallied to the cause of the Chinese people.
  Today, it's time to decide if we really meant it.
  It's time to decide if we're going to stand with the people of China 
who have stood up for democracy.
  To stand with those people who have risked their lives for freedom in 
China.
  And to stand with those people in our own country who are fighting 
for American workers and American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 509 provides for the consideration of 
three alternative approaches to U.S. trade policy toward the People's 
Republic of China.
  The rule first provides for the consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 373, a resolution disapproving the extension of most-
favored-nation treatment for the products of China. The rule provides 
80 minutes of general debate, equally divided, and waives all points of 
order against the resolution.
  After final disposition of House Joint Resolution 373, the rule 
provides for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4590.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill, equally 
divided, and makes in order two substitutes under a king-of-the-hill 
procedure. All points of order against the bill--and against both 
substitutes--are waived.
  The substitute offered by Representative Hamilton will be considered 
first, followed by a substitute offered by Representative Pelosi. The 
last substitute to be adopted in the Committee of the Whole will be 
reported back to the full House.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Speaker, at this point I will halt my comments on the rule and 
say to my colleagues as they approach this issue this afternoon and 
early this evening on the floor that I beg them to listen to the debate 
and to consider the three options before us, and I ask them to consider 
what was in their hearts, what was on their minds, and what was on 
their lips 5 years ago when they spoke out so strongly against what was 
happening in China and what is continuing to happen today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] has adequately 
described the rule, so I will not go into the details now.
  This rule is indeed complicated, because it provides for the 
consideration of three measures.
  However, I would advise Members that this rule is the product of 
genuine bipartisan consultation.
  And it does provide the house with the means for conducting a full, 
fair, and expeditious debate on the very important subject of most-
favored-nation trade status for the People's Republic of China.
  Without repeating everything that was said by the gentleman from 
Michigan, I would simply reiterate that this rule provides, first, for 
the consideration of House Joint Resolution 373, the resolution of 
disapproval that I introduced on June 8.
  That resolution of disapproval would, if enacted, revoke China's MFN 
status 60 days after the date the resolution was enacted.
  Needless to say, I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Following the vote on the resolution of disapproval, the House shall 
proceed to a king-of-the-hill procedure for the consideration of a bill 
introduced by the gentlewoman from California, [Mrs. Pelosi], and a 
bill introduced by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Hamilton].
  Mr. Speaker, I do not support king of the hill procedures like this 
and I voted against it in the Rules Committee. However, as I just 
mentioned there was bipartisan cooperation on bringing these three 
bills to the floor with as much as four hours of debate on these 
controversial measures and therefore, (as we have done in the past), 
like on the defense authorization bill, we will not press the king of 
the hill issue, because all sides were consulted * * * and the author 
of the bill agreed to the king of the hill procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, I shall have a number of things to say later on at 
various points during the actual debate on these several measures.
  But for the rest of my time on the rule right now, I would like to 
take a few moments in order to put the question of China's MFN Status 
in perspective.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not offer a resolution of disapproval flippantly or 
to otherwise intrude on a very busy legislative schedule.
  But I do so because it is my conviction that America's interests, and 
the interests of the Chinese people, are not served by a continuation 
of the present policies.
  Mr. Speaker, the trade balance between our two countries is seriously 
out of whack. Measured in both qualitative and quantitative terms, this 
trade relationship makes no sense at all!
  And it also sends precisely the wrong message to the Chinese people.
  Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, however monolithic and permanent the 
Chinese communist regime may appear to be, let us never lose sight of 
the fact that someday that regime is going to fall.
  And before anybody says that cannot happen, I would remind you that 
everybody used to say the same thing about the Soviet Union and about 
the Chinese regime's best friend, the Ceausescu regime in Romania.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot predict what kind of government will follow the 
communists in China, but there can be no doubt concerning the 
aspirations of the Chinese people.
  And, frankly, when the day comes for the Chinese people to take 
control of their own country, and their own destiny, I want them to 
remember that America stood with them.
  I want them to remember that it was America who told the truth about 
the communists.
  I want them to remember that it was America who tried to take the 
guns out of the hands of their oppressors.
  I want them to remember, that it was America who refused to finance 
the arms buildup the Chinese military was rewarded with, for its role 
in crushing the Chinese people in Tiananmen Square.
  And I want them to remember that it was America who taught the lesson 
that freedom and morality are to be valued about everything else.
  Because everything else--including, yes, the relentless pursuit of 
profit--is meaningless, if it is not built on a foundation of human 
dignity and justice.
  Mr. Speaker, the people of China are watching us today.
  And they are not the only ones. Their oppressors are watching us, 
too.
  I can picture them, the angry old men in Beijing. I can picture them 
in their walled compound--Zhongnanhai--I have been there. They live in 
a walled forbidden city of their own, totally isolated from the people 
of China.
  And they are watching, too. And they are laughing up their sleeve 
once again.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, it is not just renewal of most-favored-nation 
trade status that is at issue today. It is also the renewal of what has 
come to be known as the China exception.
  The China exception says that respect for human rights and the rule 
of law are morally imperative for the people of every country on 
Earth--except China.
  It says that nonproliferation standards apply to the Government of 
every country on Earth--except China.
  It says that fair and reciprocal trade practices are expected of 
every trading nation on Earth--except China.
  In short, it says that a minimum standards of decent behavior is 
required of the leadership of any country that would assume a 
responsible and rightful place in the community of nations--except 
China.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body wants to see political change 
and reform in China.
  But I will tell you that the angry old men in Beijing have no 
intention of reforming, so long as they can continue to rely on the 
annual renewal of the Chinese exception.
  Most favored nation treatment for them which they deny to us!
  Mr. Speaker, let us call their bluff, once and for all.
  Vote ``yes'' on the Solomon resolution and the Pelosi bill as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hamburg].
  Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Speaker, during the years I lived in China, I 
learned something about how the Chinese people, and not just the high 
mucky-mucks, but the people of China, perceive us.
  I think a lot is summed up in two Chinese words: Jin shan and 
gueiloh. Jin shan means gold mountain, and gueiloh means ghost people. 
We are the ghost people from the gold mountain.
  To the Chinese, a ghost is someone without real substance. So the 
Chinese believe that somehow we, these people without substance, have 
struck it rich, beyond the dreams of any ordinary Chinese.
  I spend time in China over the course of a decade, and I know how 
powerful are two major social currents there. One is the fast-rising 
economic expectations of the people, especially the Chinese born after 
the 1949 revolution and the Chinese who live among the companies line.
  Second is the fast-rising democratic aspirations of a people who have 
grown weary of a paternalistic and despotic regime.
  For most of the decade I was in and out of China, the first trend was 
definitely more evident. The communist party continued to dominate all 
aspects of right, from pregnancy, to school, to housing, to occupation. 
But incomes were rising to the point where the television set replaced 
the bicycle as the major status symbol, and women could look forward to 
doing their laundry in a washing machine, instead of using a common 
spigot out on the street.
  but despite these improvements, the central fact that I experienced 
in China was the people wanted to get out. I stopped going to China 
shortly after the Tiananmen Square massacre.
  It is interesting that the word Tiananmen means gate of heavenly 
peace. This gate leads to the Palace of the Emperors, the Forbidden 
City. The Forbidden City for the Chinese is freedom. That is why when 
the students and the workers in the square erected a replica of the 
Statue of Liberty, it was such an affront to the party elite who sat in 
their walled compounds.
  If the 1989 massacre of workers and students was an anomaly, perhaps 
we could just pay our respects to the dead and move on. But that is not 
the case.
  Political repression, after some slackening in the early and mid-
eighties, has returned with a vengeance. The ongoing brutal subjugation 
of Tibet by the communist regime is an undisputed historical fact, 
which is still being swept under the international rug, even as we 
praise the leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama.
  I have heard the argument against denying MFN to China. Denying MFN 
will not work because it is not an internationally applied sanction. 
Our corporations will lose profits, our workers will lose export-
related jobs. Of course, you hear that the prosperity that we bring 
will hasten a Democratic opening in the People's Republic of China. Let 
me remind you that many Chinese believed the same thing before 
Tiananmen Square.
  George Will wrote during the Bush years during the debate on MFN, the 
conservative columnist, that our policy regarding MFN in China, ``That 
we love commerce more than we hate communism.''
  In the end I hope Mr. Will is wrong. I hope we do what is right; and 
we prove that what we really care about, what we really love, is not 
business, but justice; not simply profit, but principle. I hope that we 
prove that we are not gueiloh, not a people without substance, living 
on a gold mountain.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], a very distinguished member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to a very unfair rule. It is 
a rigged, king-of-the-hill process which disadvantages the Hamilton 
amendment in order to benefit the Pelosi amendment.
  Although the Committee on Ways and Means reported the Pelosi 
sanctions bill unfavorably, it became evident to many of us that the 
Committee on Rules would report the bill to the House floor regardless. 
In that light, a bipartisan substitute amendment incorporating the 
President's more comprehensive approach to relations with China was 
drafted.
  The chairman and ranking Republican member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means and the chairman and ranking Republican member of the 
Subcommittee on Trade urged the Committee on Rules to make the 
bipartisan Hamilton amendment in order as a substitute to the Pelosi 
bill. Rather than follow that judicious recommendation, this rule 
incorporates the flawed king-of-the-hill process. Instead of giving an 
advantage to the last amendment offered, I believe that the amendment 
receiving the most affirmative votes should prevail on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, both sides in this debate share the same goal. We simply 
disagree on the effectiveness of the different proposals to achieve 
that goal. I believe that the overwhelming weight of evidence supports 
the contention that trade sanctions are ineffective in improving human 
rights. In fact, they hurt the people they intend to help. In this 
case, the poor working people of China will suffer both economic 
hardship and increased repression.
  President Clinton was correct when he reaffirmed President Bush's 
policy that the best way to promote human rights in China is to 
maintain trade by granting China MFN status and pursue a comprehensive 
diplomatic program in support of human rights.
  That comprehensive program is outlined in the Hamilton amendment. It 
is difficult to argue with the emotional rhetoric of those who want to 
punish the Chinese government now. However, despite the emotional 
appeal of imposing sanctions, we need to keep our goals in mind: First, 
to help the Chinese people; second, to undermine the repressive Chinese 
leadership.
  Sanctions will hurt the Chinese people. Despite the calls of a few 
expatriates, the Chinese people do not want a monkey wrench thrown into 
the increasingly market-based economy that is lifting hundreds of 
millions of Chinese out of poverty.
  The Hamilton strategy is also best to undermine the grip of the 
Chinese Communists over life in China. We do not need a cold war II 
strategy with the Chinese Communists as the Evil Empire in a sequel to 
our relationship with the Soviet Union. The Chinese Communists are 
already losing their ability to control people in the regions of China 
with the greatest economic development. Let free trade continue to wear 
away that power.
  Free market policies promote trade, which strengthens private 
enterprise, which creates wealth, which improves living standards, 
which undermines political repression.

                              {time}  1350

  That formula works, Mr. Speaker. In a society 4,000 years old, the 
changes might not occur overnight, but it will work. There is no reason 
to believe that a sanction policy can bring any of the same benefits.
  The House deserves a fair opportunity to choose between these two 
human rights strategies. Trade sanctions to make us feel better or the 
President's trade and diplomatic strategy that will let the Chinese 
people live better. This king-of-the-hill rule does not provide a level 
playing field for that choice. Let us defeat that rule and urge the 
Committee on Rules to do better.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield a minute and a half to the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in 
support of House Joint Resolution 373, the Solomon resolution to 
disapprove the extension of MFN status for China. I do not often agree 
with my Republican friend from upstate New York, but he is right on 
this issue and I am happy to work with him on it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of human rights and foreign policy, and 
it is important to us for that reason. But it is also an issue dealing 
with the loss of American jobs and the lowering of our standard of 
living--and for that reason it should also be a concern to every Member 
of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, multinational corporations and the Big Business 
community have launched a huge lobbying effort to preserve MFN status 
for China, claiming that their investments creates United States jobs. 
Unfortunately, they are wrong, very wrong. While it is true that the 
huge multinationals like Chrysler, AT&T, Boeing and others can in fact 
make huge profits by investing in China, it is not true that these 
investments improve the standard of living for the average American 
worker. In fact, the opposite is the case.
  Mr. Speaker, when multinational corporations throw American workers 
out on the street and move to China where workers are paid 15 cents an 
hour, where slave labor exists, where basic domestic rights are 
ignored, and where workers cannot organize free trade unions--that 
scenario may be good for the profit margins of the big corporations, 
but it is a disaster for American workers.
  It is insane to be talking about most-favored-nation status for a 
country which allows for the ruthless exploitation of its workers. 
American workers cannot be, and must not be asked, to compete against 
the workers in China who in many instances are working under subhuman 
conditions. I know that this is a very radical idea, but maybe, just 
maybe, we might want to encourage American corporations reinvest in 
this country--providing decent jobs and decent wages, rather than in 
China where they pay workers 2 or 3 dollars a day.
  We are told by the Commerce Department that the $9 billion a year in 
exports from the United States to China generates 225,000 American 
jobs. But if this is correct, then what is the effect of the over $30 
billion a year in imports from China--over three times the level of 
exports? Strangely enough, the Commerce Department hasn't been able to 
calculate that figure. And I think the reason is clear--it would show 
that our massive $24 billion trade deficit with China is costing 
hundreds of thousands of Americans their jobs.
  When Chinese students and workers were violently suppressed in 
Tiananmen Square, Americans and people all over the world were 
horrified. Politicians vowed to act swiftly and strongly to pressure 
China to stop its repression. But although the repression goes on, 
American corporations have decided to put profits ahead of human 
rights. In fact, between 1988 and 1992, U.S. corporations increased 
their investments fourfold.
  We are faced with a choice today, my colleagues. We can decide to 
stand with the workers of America, and with the workers of China, in 
defense of basic human and economic rights. Or we can stand with the 
multinational corporations who put their own greed ahead of the rights 
of the people who work for them, here and throughout the world.
  Mr. Speaker, it make no sense to the working people of this country 
for our Government to be providing preferential treatment to countries 
that repress their workers. This House should decisively reject MFN 
status for China, and demand that conditions for MFN renewal for China 
include the protection of basic labor rights. Vote for the Solomon 
resolution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I cannot help but make a short quip here that MFN must be working 
because the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] had them at 10 cents 
an hour, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has them at 15. That 
is a 50-percent increase in wages in less than an hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Even when President Clinton makes the right decision, he gets second 
guessed by the leadership of his own party.
  In June, I offered an amendment to the Commerce, Justice and State 
appropriation to require President Clinton to seek authorization from 
Congress before invading Haiti. The Democrat leadership of the House 
opposed my amendment because they did not want tie the President's 
hands.
  A little more than a week ago, I spent 13 hours conferencing the 
Foreign Operations appropriations bill. It took 13 hours to conference 
the bill because the Senate had placed over 160 earmarks in the bill. 
The House Democrat conferees fought to remove most of those earmarks 
because they said they wanted to give the President maximum flexibility 
to conduct foreign policy.
  Yet we are here today because the leadership of the President's own 
party has now decided they know better than the President, his advisers 
and at least two former Secretaries of State. Isn't this our lucky day.
  Consider this: House Democrats will give Bill Clinton a blank check 
to sacrifice American lives in Haiti, to give Jordan debt relief even 
though they tranship weapons to Iraq and support Russia no matter what 
steps it takes to rebuild the Soviet Empire. But when it comes to Asia, 
the House Democrat leadership suddenly finds a foreign policy expertise 
it must lack in those other areas.
  It is ironic that a President who accuses Republicans of 
obstructionism in health care will depend on our votes today in order 
to conduct a responsible foreign policy in Asia.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is a joke. King of the hill rules are the 
invention of a party which likes to appear on both sides of an issue. 
Well, the Democrats should be subject to the same accountability as the 
rest of America. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise in strong support of the Solomon amendment and the rule to 
disapprove most-favored-nation status with China. Because disapproval 
does the most for jobs in America and the most for democracy building 
in China, why should the United States grant such red carpet treatment 
to send Chinese goods into our marketplace from an undemocratic nation 
that denies the most fundamental rights to its own people?
  This debate is not just about human rights in China, it is also about 
jobs in America and the conditions under which the United States does 
business with undemocratic nations of the world.
  What do the facts tell us? The facts tell us China MFN is a bad deal 
for the United States. As this chart well demonstrates, United States-
China trade is disturbingly imbalanced in favor of China. Over $30 
billion worth of its goods will come into our country this year, and we 
have only been able to get about $8 billion of our goods into its 
market. Their rate of increase in our market is much larger than our 
rate of increase into theirs.
  In fact, there has been an 800 percent increase in Chinese goods 
coming into this country, jobs that could be created right here on our 
shores.
  Take Nike Shoes. Nike Shoes does not employ one single manufacturing 
worker here in this country. It costs Nike $8 to make a pair of shoes 
in China, and then they go ahead and send it over here and sell it in 
our marketplace, like Charles Barkley shoes for nearly $140 a pair. So 
who is really making out on that deal?

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Speaker, while we are considering reducing them, our tariffs to 
Chinese goods coming into our marketplace, we see they keep up their 
tariffs to our goods going into their marketplace.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, they keep their tariffs up 10 times higher than 
our tariffs, even under MFN. In fact, if we really want reciprocity we 
ought to vote to maintain the current standards and not grant China 
MFN. In fact, it is interesting to think about, that one-third of all 
Chinese exports come to one nation in the world: not Europe, not Japan, 
only the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, our doors are completely open, while their doors are 
closed to us. This debate today, Mr. Chairman, is not just about human 
rights, because that undergirds the entire relationship between the 
United States and China. What we would hope for in the years ahead is 
that they would have their own Bill of Rights, but in fact, the issue 
of economics and what is driving this particular agreement is those 
companies that seek to benefit off the sweat of the people of that 
nation, including the Government of China, and their own leaders who 
benefit off the hardship of their own people and, unfortunately, the 
multinational corporations of our own country who turn their backs on 
our people, as well as the people of China.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], one of the real fighters for human rights for 
people around this world.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, this debate is about trade, but this debate is 
also about people. It is about people like Bishop Su, a Catholic leader 
in China imprisoned for 15 years and beaten with a board so hard that 
the board was left in splinters; people like Wei Jingsheng, a leading 
prominent dissident who, after he was released, was rearrested again, 
and no one in this Congress and in the administration has done anything 
about it.
  This debate is about the People's Liberation Army, the brutal, iron-
fisted arm of the Chinese Government, the People's Liberation Army that 
savagely gunned down this young Chinese student 5 years ago in 
Tiananmen Square.
  This debate is about the army that sold weapons to Saddam Hussein 
that eventually were used to kill American men and women in the gulf. 
This debate is about an army that sells weapons into the Middle East, 
that destabilizes the Middle East and sells weapons to Iran.
  This debate is about an army that continues to test nuclear weapons 
and engage in massive military buildups. It is about an army that uses 
money earned from selling socks in America to fund bullets to kill 
people like this.
  This debate is about an army with a relationship as close as lips and 
teeth to the North Korean dictators, as they said.
  This debate is about a government that beats and tortures and 
imprisons Catholic priests, and Catholic bishops, and Protestant 
ministers. Today, Mr. Speaker, as we now speak, there are Catholic 
bishops that are in jail, that have been in jail for years, and now you 
want to give them MFN? Do you know there are evangelical pastors that 
are in jail because of their faith, who want to worship God, and yet 
you want to give them MFN?
  This debate is about an army that persecutes the followers of the 
Dalai Lama and subjects Tibet to an armed occupation.
  This debate is about a government that executes prisoners with little 
or no due process, and before the body grows cold, a set of doctors 
will come and then cut the cornea and the liver and the kidney out and 
sell it for organ sales. This is what this debate is about.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is about a gulag camp, a gulag camp that is 
much worse than that that Solzhenitsyn talked about, a gulag camp that 
shows the slaves in a chemical processing room making chemicals, and 
chemicals eat into their bodies.
  This debate is really about a government that laughs in our face when 
we point out about these brutal realities. This debate, frankly, in 
closing, is about the principle that America was founded upon.
  We were founded, and it says in the Declaration of Independence that 
all men are created equal. It does not say all American men and women, 
it is Chinese men and women and all men and women, endowed by their 
Creator, given by God to them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. That is what this debate is about.
  Some will say ``It is a trade issue.'' Frankly, it is about all these 
things, these people who have been persecuted. I am shocked that we 
would not be passing the Pelosi bill 435 to zero.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
rule, and I intend to vote for the Solomon amendment and then also for 
the Pelosi amendment, which seems to me to be, given where we are, the 
one with the best chance to pass.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first make a couple of points here. The following 
things will be discussed today by people who have an on-and-off 
attachment to them:
  Whether or not economic sanctions work: Most Members of the House 
think they work sometimes and not other times. It depends on whether or 
not they like the country against whom the sanctions are being applied.
  Should the President have flexibility in foreign policy or not? For 
most Members of the House, that depends on A, the President, and B, the 
foreign policy.
  The king-of-the-hill rule. People are for or against the king-of-the-
hill rule, depending on which hill it is.
  The notion that the king-of-the-hill rule somehow distorts the House 
probably ought to be taken down when mentioned. That is, it unfairly 
denigrates the House, because the argument is that when Members vote 
for something, they cannot understand that if they later vote for 
something else, they will undo what they did.
  In other words, the notion is that the Members are so stupid that, 
having voted for something once, they will then vote for something else 
and not understand that they have undone it. Obviously, the king-of-
the-hill rule fools no one and is intended to fool no one. It is a 
rational way to structure a lot of different preferences.
  The question is, will sanctions work with regard to China, because 
people, I assume, are telling us that if they would work, they would be 
for the bill. They are saying it would not work, the Chinese will not 
pay attention. That is what they said about South Africa, that is what 
they said about Serbia. Sanctions are not a short-term solution, but 
they often do work in the long term.
  Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask, if sanctions are so unimportant, 
what are the Chinese so upset about if they are such a minor factor?
  Clearly we have the regime today in the world, the Chinese regime, 
which is responsible for a greater number of human rights violations 
than almost all others put together. They have more people to deal 
with. They are quantitatively the most brutal regime, and qualitatively 
they are right up there.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to foreign policy, whether it is 
the North Korean nuclear situation or others, they have not been very 
cooperative. Why do we continue an economic arrangement which is 
overwhelmingly to their benefit? Because that is what MFN is.
  Let me make one particular point. Sure, there will be some economic 
harm to us if we adopt Solomon or Pelosi. We have been telling nations 
much smaller and poorer than ourselves that they must engage in some 
economic harm to themselves vis-a-vis Iraq. We have told Turkey that 
they have to take a hit vis-a-vis Iraq. We have told that to other 
countries. We ought to do it for ourselves.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. Ben Gilman, the distinguished ranking Republican member of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, who has been a real leader of this 
issue.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for 
House Joint Resolution 373, legislation to fully revoke most-favored-
nation trading status for the People's Republic of China.
  I commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York, 
the distinguished ranking minority member of the Rules Committee, Mr. 
Solomon, for his leadership role and efforts on behalf of the Chinese 
people. For so many years through thick and thin he has never wavered 
in his support for our Chinese friends who fought Communist takeover of 
China. No matter who ran the White House, Congressman Solomon has stood 
before us in the well of the House to forcefully denounce, confront, 
and condemn any action that appeared to appease the rulers in Beijing.
  It is an honor to count him as a colleague and a good friend.
  Most of us are familiar with the arguments made both for and against 
the granting of most-favored-nation trading status for the People's 
Republic of China. This is the fifth year we have discussed this issue.
  As we consider this issue, let us bear in mind the following 
concerns:
  China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle 
East and elsewhere.
  China's huge forced labor camps and political prisons, and China's 
brutal occupation of Tibet; China's coercive population controls, 
including forced abortion policies; China's lack of support for the 
United Nation's efforts regarding North Korea; the painful image of the 
brutal massacre of the young people in Tiananmen Square; China's 
billion dollars of military support for the junta that rules Burma; 
China's support of the Khmer Rouge; China's massive military build-up 
and adventurism in the oil rich South China Sea; China's aggressive 
espionage activities here in the United States; our Nation's $23 
billion trade deficit with China, and Beijing's continuing religious 
persecution of Christians, Protestants, and Buddhists.
  Each of these issues standing alone is reason enough for trade 
restrictions with Communist China. But all of them taken together show 
an incredible blindness of thought in the way that we deal with the 
brutal rulers of that country. It is a delusive policy formulation at 
its worst. Historians will ponder in bewilderment this lingering error 
and wonder why it was allowed to go on for so long.
  My good friend from New York has for so many years warned us that we 
were heading down the wrong path with the wrong people. I know that it 
has pained him to watch our Nation's leaders allow this shortsighted 
policy to continue., Today let us help set our Nation's course in the 
right direction. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Solomon resolution, H.J. Res. 373 and terminate MFN for the People's 
Republic of China.
  In the event that the Solomon amendment H.J. Res. 373 is not accepted 
by the House, I urge my colleagues to support the Pelosi amendment, 
H.R. 4590, legislation that simply revokes MFN for products produced by 
the Peoples Liberation Army.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me 
the time. I rise in strong support of the rule and both the Solomon and 
Pelosi amendments.
  This debate is really about whether Americans need things so badly 
from China that we are willing to clip the wings of the Chinese people 
that are out there trying so hard to gain human rights and to really 
bring democracy to that country. I certainly hope that we have not lost 
our values so much that we absolutely refuse to yield on that.
  We are going to have a lot of people stand down here and say this is 
an emotional debate and giving MFN to China does not mean we condone 
what they do on human rights. Maybe you think that, but if you do not 
think the Chinese Government will not interpret this to their people as 
saying we condone what they do in human rights, you have not got a grip 
on reality, because that is exactly what they are going to do. That is 
why the Olympics did not go there. That is why so many of their 
neighbors are not thrilled about what China is doing. Their neighbors 
are terrified to speak out because they feel they are shoved in a 
bathtub with an elephant.
  China is very big and China is throwing her weight around, in moving 
to the Spratly Islands and being fairly silent on the whole issue of 
North Korea, and we have not seen any real progress on human rights 
since we last visited this issue. So why would we give them this 
benefit? Why, when we have been the leaders in talking about sanctions 
and embargoes and outer countries that are doing similar types of 
things, when we have been trying to get world leadership on those 
issues and saying these things work and then all of a sudden, it is 
like we are afraid of the elephant in the bathtub, also, and that makes 
absolutely no sense. I think you also have to know how these 
enterprises are set up.
  As Members know, each military installation is allowed to engage in 
all kinds of commercial activity as long as they send a certain 
percentage of the profits back to Beijing. We are almost creating a 
warlord type of situation. And if you believe that those workers who 
are really soldiers who have really been drafted are negotiating for 
their labor or anything else, you are really out of touch with reality. 
They are doing this and they are going to export these at any cost, and 
to think that Americans can ever compete with that kind of system or 
that we will ever see the kind of fairness and safety standards we 
believe in imposed in that kind of system is totally unreal.
  So I think it is time that we have to remain firm and say we are 
sorry China did not make any progress. We would much rather be down 
here celebrating the progress they have made and say, let us go forward 
with MFN, but they did not and we know it.
  I urge a vote for Solomon and Pelosi.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith], an outstanding Member of this body who has spent so 
much of his time fighting for human rights for people.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, later today we will have the opportunity to vote to 
support millions of people who strive for ideals of freedom, democracy, 
and human rights in China.
  When the President extended MFN status to China, he made a commitment 
that unless China significantly improved its human rights record, MFN 
would be revoked. In the year that ensued, there was no significant 
progress. If anything, there was significant regression. However, even 
with all the evidence in front of him, Mr. Clinton once again rewarded 
the Chinese Government with MFN and he turned his back on the victims.
  Anyone interested in human rights for a fifth of the world's 
population has to ask themselves, ``Why?'' Why the flip-flop after the 
ironclad assurances that he would not back down?
  Surely President Clinton knows that when it comes to religion, that 
only the Catholic Patriotic Association and the Three Self-Patriotic 
Movement, which are headed by the government through their chosen 
leaders, are allowed to function in China.
  Surely Mr. Clinton knows that religious believers, both Protestant 
and Catholic, who refuse to participate in these government-controlled 
and sponsored churches are subjected to imprisonment, torture, and 
death. Even as the President was making his decision, three Catholic 
church leaders, three priests, were arrested and sentenced to education 
through labor. When I met with Bishop Su during a human rights trip in 
January, that bishop, simply for celebrating mass, was arrested and 
held for 9 days. Add that to the 15 years that he spent incarcerated 
for his faith.
  Mr. Clinton surely knows that millions of Chinese are detained in 
forced labor camps where they work long hours each day to reach 
unrealistic production quotas.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I visited one of those 
prison camps, Beijing Prison 1, some 3 years ago. We saw firsthand the 
kind of exploitation of people who were part of the pro-democracy 
movement.
  Surely Mr. Clinton knows that every day thousands of Chinese 
citizens, particularly women, are exploited by the cruel one-child-per-
couple policy, where women are forced to undergo abortions and 
sterilization to meet the rigid guidelines of that egregious policy. 
Surely Mr. Clinton knows and he has even said that these human rights 
abuses continue. They sure do, Mr. President.
  We in this Congress have a job to do. We cannot say, well, the 
President has acted and we are just going to fall by the wayside. 
Despite the actions by the President, the courage of the Chinese people 
that they have demonstrated cannot be betrayed again by this Chamber. 
We must continue to let the Chinese political leaders know that we too 
are watching and we will let these people know that we care and care 
deeply.
  Today support for passage of the Solomon resolution and for the 
Pelosi bill will send a clear, unmistakable message to the Chinese 
leadership, to that dictatorship, that we will not stand idly by while 
people are exploited. We will stand up for human rights and freedom. I 
urge Members to vote for the rule and for the two resolutions.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant], one of the very outspoken Members of this body 
and a very valuable Member.
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to all the debate, I have 
listened to it for years and quite frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a 
damn, and I am amazed. I am listening to all the debate about human 
rights today. This is not a debate about human rights. If Congress 
wants to do something about human rights in China, do it in some other 
bill. Today's debate is about commerce and trade. It is about business. 
It is about imports. It is about jobs and unemployment. It is about 
bankruptcy and it is about stupidity on behalf of the American 
Congress. Because there is one word that should be invoked into this 
debate today--Constitution. And the Constitution says Congress, not the 
White House; Congress, not the Supreme Court, shall regulate--listen to 
the word, it is so frightful, Congress--regulate, regulate commerce 
with foreign nations.
  So let us look at that charge. In China, their average wage is 10 
cents an hour. In China, there are slaves that make products. In China, 
they deny our products. In China, they will support a North Korean 
dictatorship before they support our marines. And in China they will 
not only send over those products made by slave labor, they will put a 
fraudulent ``made in America'' label on it and laugh all the way to the 
bank. And the other body does not even want that law in the crime bill. 
If that fraudulent label law, the amendment I passed, is not in the 
crime bill, I want Democrat leaders to hear this. I don't give a damn 
if the crime bill solves cancer, I am going to vote no.
  Ladies and gentleman, this is about a Congress of the United States 
that has become so idealistic it now has blinders on and has caused us 
to lose jobs and has allowed trading partners to rip us off and rip off 
our families, and we wonder what happened to family life.

                              {time}  1420

  My colleagues, there will be no families in America if we continue to 
allow every other nation to take our families' job. I want Members to 
think about that.
  So today I think while some are debating most-favored-nation trading 
status for China, I would like to say they are also debating the most 
foolish nation trading status that Uncle Sam could possibly have.
  Regulate. Make it fair. Make it level.
  I want to commend the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for 
the great job she has done. I want to commend all of the Democrat 
leaders. But I only have one vote, and that ``aye'' is going to go for 
Mr. Solomon, period. If Members want to debate human rights, bring it 
in a human rights bill, do not cost us more jobs with it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the argument is often made that the best 
way to get the present Chinese leadership to modify and reform its 
course is through trade. Open up the avenues of commerce, and all the 
other good things will naturally follow.
  So the argument goes, but does it have any merit?
  Let's look at the record since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.
  United States exports to China--which were already low to start with 
because China does not give most-favored-nation status to us--rose by 
52 percent in the 4 years between 1989 and 1993.
  During that same period, however, Chinese exports to the United 
States rose by 262 percent. And our trade deficit with China rose in 
just 4 years by a staggering 366 percent.
  The trade deficit was $6.2 billion in 1989; it reached $22.8 billion 
in 1993, and this year, it is rising toward $30 billion. Within 3 
years, the trade deficit we have with China will exceed the one we have 
with Japan.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the question then occurs: What kind of change has 
all of this trade wrought in china? What is different today, compared 
to 5 years ago, or 10 years ago?
  Well, here is what has changed: The repression in China has gotten 
worse and the Chinese military has gotten bigger. In the last 5 years, 
China is the only major country in the world that has increased the 
size and forceprojection capabilities of its military, and they have 
increased it by plenty. Military spending is up by at least 50 percent.
  So the burden of proof in this whole argument continues to fall on 
those who believe that trade is working. The burden of proof continues 
to fall on those who say yes to that question which was first posed so 
many centuries ago: ``Can a leopard change its spots?''
  Believe me, the Chinese communists are not changing.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record statistics on open versus 
restrictive rules and rollcall votes in the Rules Committee on the 
amendment to this rule on MFN for China, as follows:

Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendment to Proposed Rule on 
                    China Most-Favored-Nation Status

       1. To provide for the adoption of the substitute receiving 
     the most favorable votes rather than the last amendment 
     adopted. (Vote: Defeated 4 to 7). Yeas: Solomon, Quillen, 
     Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, 
     Bonior, Hall, Slaughter. Not Voting: Wheat, Gordon.

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           86      24         28       62         72 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Aug. 8, 1994.                                                         


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 240-185 A:Voice Vote (July   
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).   
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).   
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act  3 (D-2; R-1)....  3 (D-2; R-1)..............  PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           of 1994.                                                                     21, 1994).                      
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994....  O         H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994....  O         S. 208: NPS Concession Policy  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 494, July 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4801: SBA Reauth &        10 (D-5; R-5)...  6 (D-4; R-2)..............  PQ: 215-169 A: 221-161 (July 29, 
                                           Amdmts. Act.                                                                 1994).                          
H. Res. 500, Aug. 1, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4003: Maritime Admin.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 336-77 (Aug. 2, 1994).        
                                           Reauth..                                                                                                     
H. Res. 501, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         S. 1357: Little Traverse Bay   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Bands.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 502, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         H.R. 1066: Pokagon Band of     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Potawatomi.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 507, Aug. 4, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4217: Federal Crop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 5, 1994).    
                                           Insurance.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 509, Aug. 5, 1994.....  MC        H.J. Res. 373/H.R. 4590: MFN   N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           China Policy.                                                                                                
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], who has led this effort, and 
who has been so courageous and valiant and articulate on this issue for 
so many years.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our majority whip for yielding the 
time and thank him for his wonderful statement earlier. It is a great 
honor to be associated with him in this effort as well as the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] and all of our other colleagues who have 
spoken on this issue.
  I just want to say how we got here today. In the course of the past 5 
years especially, this Congress has expressed its concern about three 
issues in our relationship with China: trade, as the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant] just mentioned so eloquently, human rights, and 
the proliferation of weapons by the Chinese military to unsafeguarded 
countries.
  The bill that we have before us today under the rule, the Pelosi 
bill, H.R. 4590, has those three concerns converge with the Chinese 
military. We do address trade, proliferation and human rights. I say to 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], by focusing our target on 
revoking MFN for the Chinese military.
  Very briefly, because I do not have much time, I just want to respond 
to those who have said that it is impossible for us to target products 
made by the Chinese military. I call to the attention of my colleagues 
this chart which I have brought up here on a regular basis about 
companies under the defense industrial companies of China as well as 
the catalogues for products made in China, which I will make available 
at the desk. These are catalogues of companies and products, and I 
think Members will be amazed to see everything from air mattresses, to 
food, to tennis shoes, to clothing, household appliances to computer 
technology that the Chinese military is exporting to the United States. 
We are targeting them because they are the oppressors in China and 
Tibet, because they are proliferators into the Middle East and 
Pakistan, and selling weapons to the Khmer Rouge. We target them 
because they dominate much of the prison labor that is used for making 
products for export to the United States.
  And on the issue of human rights, because I think it is inextricably 
tied to the issue of American jobs, I respectfully disagree with the 
President when he delinked trade and human rights. Trade is about jobs. 
The American worker's destiny and his wages and his job is tied 
directly to the promotion of human rights abroad.
  Right now an Asian activist has said, ``The pressure on developing 
countries to keep wages low or risk losing highly mobile businesses has 
created what activists call a race to the bottom.
  ``Companies and countries compete for the worst laws and the weaker 
the laws are, the better they like it.''
  American companies separate themselves from the manufacturing process 
and from the responsibility for the employing and the subcontracting 
that goes on. So it is impossible to separate these. The American 
worker's job is dependent on the worker's rights in another country. As 
our majority whip has said many times, countries which repress their 
people repress their people's wages.
  Support the American worker by supporting human rights abroad. Vote 
``yes'' on H.R. 4590.
  I rise in support of the rule.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________