[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]

 
                    UNITED STATES-CHINA ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 509 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4590.

                              {time}  1622


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4590) to provide conditions for renewing nondiscriminatory--most-
favored-nation--treatment for the People's Republic of China, with Mr. 
Sharp in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi], the sponsor of this bill, and ask unanimous 
consent that she be allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] is well-intended, but it has some very serious defects in it. 
It would interrupt as much as one-half, or $17 billion worth of Chinese 
imports into the United States.
  This would be a very expensive proposition for both China and the 
United States and would be tantamount to revoking China's MFN status.
  Enactment of H.R. 4590 would set off a number of years of strained 
dialog between the Chinese and United States Governments. Our relations 
with China and with other countries in this region would suffer.
  In addition, the Pelosi bill would prove difficult, if not 
impossible, to administer. Members have received a letter from the 
Commissioner of Customs, Mr. George Weise, indicating that enactment of 
H.R. 4590 would require investigation, over a very short period of 
time, of about 100,000 Chinese industries, 25,000 of which are in the 
textile industry alone. Commissioner Weise notes that he does not have 
the personnel who could speak Chinese, nor does he know whether he 
would be granted the access be Chinese plants necessary to conduct such 
investigations.
  Commissioner Weise is doing an admirable job of administering a 
complex body of trade laws with already limited resources. 
Administering the Pelosi bill would draw Customs agents away from U.S. 
ports, thereby thinning an already overburdened Customs presence on the 
U.S. border.
  I do not believe any of us would want to put a law on the books that 
we could not enforce or have no chance to enforce, but this certainly 
would qualify as such. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4590.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], the very fine chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Trade, and would ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Archer].
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed 
to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 4590, a bill which would 
effectively deny most-favored-nation treatment to almost half of all 
goods imported into the United States from the People's Republic of 
China. H.R. 4590 directly undermines an extension of China MFN for 
another year. I recognize that serious political repression continues 
in China. But the method proposed in this bill would be a fatal blow to 
our objective of promoting human rights. This bill is completely 
unworkable, and dangerous to our long term strategic interests in the 
region.
  China is one of the fastest growing markets for U.S. exports. At the 
same time, Americans of modest income benefit from many low cost 
Chinese imports.
  The administration estimates that nearly half of all Chinese exports 
to the United States in 1993 fall within the ``unqualified goods'' 
category, targeted for sanctions by this bill. Mirror retaliation by 
the Chinese would be virtually certain upon enactment. The impact on 
the United States economy and job market would be too great--
particularly for those United States businesses just establishing 
themselves in the Far East--and on the more than 150,000 estimated 
United States workers whose jobs depend on trade with China.
  Second, with one fifth of the world's population, China is a major 
actor in important international efforts we undertake. China's 
cooperation on issues such as drug interdiction, refugees, environment, 
population control, and weapons proliferation is essential.
  It would be impossible to enlist China's support in promoting our 
worldwide goals, and simultaneously implement the bill on the floor 
today. We cannot slap China in the face, and then turn around and 
expect that country's help in achieving success in other foreign policy 
initiatives.
  Third, H.R. 4590 is an unworkable proposal. The difficulties in 
distinguishing between China's state-owned and private enterprises are 
immense. Of the 8 million manufacturing and agricultural concerns in 
China, most fall into a hybrid category where ownership arrangements 
are shared between the public and private sector.
  The direction in this bill to identify firms receiving any state 
subsidies as ``state-owned'' is not practical.
  The determination process would command an amount of Treasury 
Department resources that simply does not exist, rendering this 
legislation unenforceable.
  Other means are available to pursue the human rights agenda. 
Multilateral efforts underway offer encouraging prospects for 
improvement. One possible forum for addressing these issues is the 15-
nation Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation group [APEC], chaired this 
year by the United States. Multilateral efforts to press for 
improvements in human rights have yielded more worthwhile results than 
demands announced unilaterally.
  The presence of the American business community in China also 
continues to advance the human rights cause. Trade is a two-way street, 
which takes our ideas along with our exports to China. I would 
challenge proponents of H.R. 4590 to show me a United States-owned firm 
in China that is not far out in front of its competitors in promoting 
health and safety standards, workers compensation, and 
nondiscrimination in the workplace.
  The bottom line is this. We can accomplish more by continuing to 
develop positive United States-China relations. While China has not 
achieved an acceptable level of success in the human rights area, there 
is forward movement in China. We must keep the momentum going in that 
direction.
  H.R. 4590 would be a step in the wrong direction--several steps 
backwards in fact. The United States must continue to exert influence 
in this area, while keeping in mind the wide range of United States 
economic and foreign policy interests in China.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4590.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Hutto] and I am very pleased to have his support on this 
legislation.
  Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Chairman, I want the United States to trade with 
China, but not at any price.
  I do not believe it is right to have unrestricted trade with a nation 
that acts like communist China--a nation that treats its people the way 
it does. China has little regard for anything resembling human rights. 
The world outcry about Tiananmen Square apparently has fallen on deaf 
ears, and there has been little or no improvement. Their propaganda 
would lead one to believe there has been change but we all know that 
persecution still exists in China.
  In approving most-favored-nation with China, I believe we should 
maintain some leverage. That is why I am supporting the Pelosi 
substitute which imposes sanctions on products produced by the People's 
Liberation Army and defense industrial companies. I believe it was 
wrong for President Reagan to agree to ship nuclear technology to China 
in the mideighties. It was a mistake because China is on the side of 
the bad guys. Do you think it is right to give favored status to a 
nation that sells missiles to Iran and others who pose such a threat to 
the world? They are even supporters of North Korea.
  Yes, let us trade with China, but we must let this communist country 
know that they must shape up and that they cannot continue to trample 
the rights of the Chinese people.
  Vote for the Pelosi amendment that will impose sanctions on products 
produced by the People's Liberation Army and defense industrial 
companies. Vote Pelosi.
  Please, let us keep some leverage in trading with China.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the United States-
China Act of 1994.
  This bill offers us one last chance to do what is right--to show that 
our commitment to human rights and decency is more than a bag of empty 
words.
  I vividly remember watching the tanks roll over Lady Freedom at 
Tiananmen Square--and the situation has not changed much.
  Last year, our President drew a line in the sand and said that if the 
Chinese government did not clean up its act and start showing a little 
more respect for human rights, fair trade and fair dealing, we would 
cut off their preferred trading status with our country.
  Now, a year later, China is still one of the worst violators of human 
rights in the world. Religious persecution is still widespread. Beijing 
still persists in its methodical, sustained assault on the native 
culture of Tibet.
  And China still continues to maintain a vast array of trade barriers 
to prevent our goods from competing in their markets.
  And through it all, China keeps using the profits from its trade with 
us to finance a dangerous and de-stabilizing military buildup of its 
own.
  Last year, the challenge was issued. And since then, China has shown 
not one ounce of improved respect for human rights or demonstrated one 
iota of newfound respect for human decency. And the trade goes on.
  Folks, it is time to put up or shut up.
  The President of the United States has changed his mind and backed 
away from his own challenge, but the challenge has already been issued. 
We cannot take it back now.
  If we do nothing at this point; if we continue granting 
unconditional, preferential trade treatment to China, our credibility 
as a world leader and as a defender of human rights will be devastated.
  If we do nothing now, it will only prove that our national principles 
are for sale. It will prove that we stand firmly for fair trade and 
human rights only when it does not get in the way of business and 
profits.
  If we do nothing today, we will be saying it's OK to get tough with 
Cuba--it is a small country--or Afghanistan--or Laos or Montenegro. It 
does not cost us much to stand on principle with them. They are little 
and their potential trade is not significant.
  The nine countries that do not receive MFN status have a combined 
population of 145 million. And we have stood by our commitment to them.
  But if we do nothing today, we will be saying we do not stand on 
principle when it comes to the big boys--like China--because it costs 
too much.
  Yes, I understand that China is a huge potential market for United 
States goods and services. And I can understand why corporate America 
and the business community do not want to do anything to rock the boat.
  But there are some principles that are worth rocking the boat for, 
even if costs us trade opportunities and profits over the short term.
  Sometimes you just have to stand up for what is right. And it is not 
right for this Nation to continue rewarding behavior that is immoral 
and abhorrent to civilized people everywhere.
  This bill is the right thing to do. It goes to the heart of the 
problem. It does not punish the Chinese people or Chinese businesses 
for conduct or actions their government has committed. Our gripe is not 
with the Chinese people.

  This bill strikes down MFN status only for goods produced by the army 
or by state-operated businesses.
  It would affect only one-sixth of China's exports to this country--
that portion of their trade that is used to finance the growth of their 
army and strengthen the police state.
  You do not fight repression of feeding the dragon. This bill might 
not stop repression, but it would stop U.S. trade from helping buy the 
tanks to fuel that repression.
  And, more importantly, by passing this bill today, we could show 
China and the world that when we make a commitment to human rights, we 
stand by it even if it costs us a little trade and few profits.
  I would have preferred to cut off MFN status for China altogether as 
proposed by the gentleman from New York.
  However, since that effort failed, it is absolutely imperative that 
we approve this resolution.
  This bill is our last chance to prove that we do stand by our 
commitments to human rights and simple decency. It is the least we can 
do. It is something we have to do.
  I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our 
colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman], the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, at first glance, the Pelosi measure seems 
like an appropriate way to balance our concern with human rights in the 
PRC without revoking MFN--a step which many of us, myself included, 
believe would do more harm than good.
  Ms. Pelosi's alternative seems appealing because it tries to punish 
the state sector while leaving private enterprise in China untouched. 
However, this approach is based on a drastic oversimplification of the 
complex Chinese economy, and it is absolutely unenforceable.
  The United States Customs Service simply does not have the ability to 
distinguished between state-owned, or military, or private enterprises 
in China.
  The three sectors are inextricably linked in a complex web of joint 
ventures, subsidiary relationships, and other connections.
  The Pelosi bill, therefore, amounts to little more than political 
symbolism.
  If there were no negative consequences to this measure, then such 
symbolism might be appropriate. But that is not the case, imposing 
sanctions on China would invite retaliation-in-kind against nearly $8.8 
billion in exports and approximately 180,000 United States jobs.
  By threatening China overtly, we play into the hands of the hard-
liners there, by bolstering their claims that the West wants to push 
China around, and increases the leadership's resolve to resist what 
they call United States imperialism. No Chinese leader could survive 
for a day if they were to be viewed as kowtowing to United States 
pressure.
  Second, by reducing trade and investment, this bill undermines the 
development of a free market economy in China.
  Those of us who watch China closely know that the greatest economic 
and political liberalization in China has been in the southeast. The 
Guangdong and Fujian provinces--the bedrock of capitalism in China--are 
precisely the regions which would be hit by these sanctions.
  President Clinton's MFN decision recognizes that human rights can 
only thrive if buttressed by a firm foundation of democratic ideas, 
ideals, and principles.
  The most effective way to encourage these ideals is the free market 
economy. We have seen time and again within a capitalist system, people 
are allowed to think, create, and to enter into agreements and 
contracts. And by being able to benefit, personally, from the work 
product of their hands and minds, the entrepreneurs and the workers in 
a capitalist system are afforded a stake in the system.
  Mr. Speaker, all over the world democracy is following designer 
jeans. Love of freedom quickly takes root in the fertile soil of open 
economic systems. Let us not poison that soil that is proven to nurture 
human rights.
  This bill is bad policy. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to 
vote for the Hamilton substitute and against the Pelosi measure.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pelosi amendment and in 
favor of the Hamilton proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Solomon and Pelosi 
legislation that would significantly affect our trading relationship 
with China. I will support Chairman Hamilton's measure to renew China's 
most-favored-nation trade status.
  I continue to be deeply concerned about China's record on human 
rights. Clearly, there exists much room for improvement. However, 
denial of MFN status to China is not the best avenue to gain this human 
rights improvement.
  Over the last few years I have become convinced that direct 
engagement with China through a vigorous bilateral trade relationship 
is the most effective means to gain progress in this area. 
Strengthening the fledging free enterprise system in China will only 
promote greater respect for human rights, enhance United States-Chinese 
cooperation on other critical matters including national security 
issue.
  China represents a dynamic, expanding market for United States 
exports. Clearly, growth in U.S. exports has led our recent and current 
economic recovery and expansion, creating thousands of high-paying, 
high-value American jobs.
  Denial of MFN status to China will damage our economy and only serve 
the interests of our international trade competitors.
  We have here before us two attempts to reverse the President's 
decision or place conditions on extension of MFN. I will oppose such 
efforts and seek to promote improvement in China's human rights record 
through other avenues.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yea'' vote on Hamilton.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier], a respected member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend, the ranking 
Republican member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said when I stood here earlier, I sincerely 
believe that the most inhumane, immoral thing we could do for the 
people we are hoping to help the most would be to deny most-favored-
nation trading status to the People's Republic of China. Make no 
mistake about it, that is exactly what the Pelosi measure does.
  Mr. Chairman, every shred of empirical evidence that we have 
demonstrates that over the last 15 years, as economic liberalization 
and exposure to the United States has increased in China, their human 
rights situation has improved. Things are not perfect, we all recognize 
that. Terrible repression exists. However, consider the progress that 
has been made. As I said earlier, for example, it has come to light 
that up to 80 million Chinese people, 80 million people, were killed 
during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution of the Mao era. 
Nobody can read the names of those 80 million people into the Record to 
illustrate what is wrong with a China cut off from the outside world. 
Nevertheless, we should remember them and heed their warning.
  Despite the Tiananmen Square massacre and the ensuing repression, 
there has been great progress in China. Punishing the Chinese people 
with economic sanctions that push them back toward the dark days of a 
closed China would be a grave moral injustice.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], the deputy majority whip.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of the 
Pelosi amendment. This is a good and important amendment. It does the 
right thing.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not give unconditional most-favored-nation 
status to a country like China. Nothing has changed since Tiananmen 
Square.
  We should not reward China for doing nothing, for not moving toward 
democracy as it has promised to do. Human rights is an important 
foreign policy objective.
  The abuses in China and Tibet continue. In fact, they are growing. 
Innocent students, monks, and nuns are forced to work in slave labor 
camps. People are detained for their religious, cultural, and political 
beliefs. People don't have the right to protest for what is right. 
There is no such thing as freedom of assembly. There is no freedom of 
speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom at all. Things have not 
changed.
  I believe we should use all nonviolent tools at our disposal to 
ensure and protect human rights. Trade is one of our most powerful and 
mighty tools.
  Do not misunderstand me. I believe in trade. But, I do not believe in 
trade at any cost. We should not, we must not, trade away our 
commitment to human rights and freedom. I, for one, am not willing to 
pay that price.
  We all live on this planet together. What happens or fails to happen 
in China happens to us all.
  The Hamilton amendment is a fig leaf. It covers nothing. It does 
nothing. We must do more. We can do more. I urge my colleagues to vote 
no on the Hamilton amendment. Send a message to China that things must 
change--support the Pelosi amendment.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, in a Washington Post op-ed article on March 22, 
Secretary of State Warren Christopher wrote ``President Clinton forged 
the first concensus--a consensus of conscience--on American policy 
toward China. The core of our policy, the President said, would be ``a 
resolute insistance'' on overall significant progress on human rights 
if MFN for China was to be renewed.''
  Many of us would have truly admired the President's consensus of 
conscience had he not gone and done the unconscionable. He betrayed all 
those who took his word--and words--seriously.
  It is a sad day when the President of the United States betrays those 
who have put their lives on the line for human rights.
  Rather than bag MFN pursuant to his own explicit human rights 
conditions which were not met, Bill Clinton bagged the conditions. He 
threw in the towel--and said, ``No mas.''
  I remember the President's stirring words--on May 28, 1993, as he 
said, ``It is time that a unified American policy recognizes both the 
value of China and the value of America. Starting today the United 
States will speak with one voice on China policy. We no longer have an 
executive branch policy and a congressional policy. We have an American 
policy.''
  What a difference a year makes.
  Faced with the fact that China's record on human rights has actually 
worsened during the past 12 months, Mr. Clinton has now abandoned the 
so-called ``American policy'' and values he so proudly boasted of.
  I have traveled to China on two separate human rights trips, Mr. 
Speaker, most recently in January. In addition to meetings with top 
Chinese officials, we met with numerous dissidents and church people.
  Mr. Chairman, Bishop Su who said Mass for our delegation was 
previously incarcerated for 15 years safely for his faith--was arrested 
and held for 9 days, for simply meeting with me. Had I met with Bishop 
Su to talk Nike shoe sales--both he and I would have gotten the red 
carpet. Official government religious intolerance is on the rise like a 
tidal wave--believers are being arrested, jailed, tortured, and raped.
  Not only is it illegal to teach anyone under the age of 18 about God, 
but two new decrees issued in January make it a crime to assemble, to 
pray, and worship God--even in your own home. The Government has begun 
a new crackdown on proselytizing by foreign missionaries and prohibits 
importing of religious goods and publications. In February of this 
year, an American missionary, Reverend Balcombe was arrested for 
preaching the word of God.
  The Chinese Government continues to arrest and hold in prison 
political and religious dissidents. As a matter of fact, repression 
agaisnt belivers in God has significantly worsened. Yes, a few well 
known dissidents have been released, including Wang Juntao. But 
according to Human Rights Watch/Asia the number of known releases of 
political or religious prisoners since the Executive order was issued 
totals twenty-five. The number of new arrests of peaceful political or 
religious activists since the executive order was issued is well over 
100.
  Mr. Chairman, our 1993 trade deficit with China was approximately $23 
billion. The projected deficit in 1994 in $30 billion. And as we have 
seen demonstrated by Harry Wu--part of that deficit is built on the 
backs of millions of men and women detained in prison labor camps. 
Access to these prisons by international human rights organizations is 
prohibited. The MOU, renegotiated earlier this year, allows for access 
to some prisons by U.S. monitors 60 days after a request is made. And 
yet, even then, not the entire prison may be inspected. Harry Wu's 
remarkable research, done at great risk to his own life, provides us 
with the only accurate look into China's prison labor gulag. And it is 
appalling.

  Finally, China continues its bizarre antiwoman, antichild policy of 
permitting only one child per couple--a policy that relies on forced 
abortion and forced sterilization to achieve its results.
  In China today, bearing a child without explicit government 
permission results in a coerced abortion. Those women lucky enough to 
escape this repressive policy have illegal children and are subject to 
heavy fines, job demotion, and harassment of many types. Imagine, 
living in a land where brothers and sisters are illegal. No government 
has the right to tell families they cannot nurture and protect their 
own children.
  On two occasions, Congress has condemned China's forced abortion 
policy calling these heinous acts, crimes against humanity.
  Now we just look the other way. The Clinton administration continues 
to break the Kemp-Kasten law against coercion and has or is in the 
process of providing over $100 million to the UN Population Fund, a 
group that was denied funding because of its support and comanagment of 
China's brutal policy by the Bush and Reagan administrations.
  And MFN, if Mr. Clinton gets his way will be absolutely delinked from 
human rights abuse--including these crimes against women and children.
  I urge support for the United States-China Act of 1994 as the very 
least we can do to protect against the widespread violations of human 
rights by the government of the PRC.
  H.R. 4590, would revoke MFN status for the products produced, 
manufactured, or exported by the People's Liberation Army, Chinese 
defense industrial trading companies and certain State-owned companies.
  This exceedingly modest action would affect about $5 billion of 
China's $30 billion in exports.
  Congress should not join President Clinton in his wholesale 
capitulation to the dictatorship in Beijing.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Kopetski].
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
original text of H.R. 4590. I will support the Hamilton substitute and 
I support fully President Clinton's courageous decision to move United 
States-China relations away from the annual most-favored-nation [MFN] 
status confrontation.
  America is second to none in guaranteeing basic human rights to its 
own citizens and fostering human rights throughout the world. Americans 
will always cherish this virtue and never abandon this noble mission.
  Several weeks ago, I had the privilege of participating in the 
House's third Oxford-style debate addressing the linkage of United 
States human rights and trade policies. Today's debate provides the 
opportunity to revisit the debate and two fundamental questions for 
American policy makers. First, should America use its trade policy to 
reflect our anger with a given nation for human rights abuses against 
its citizens? My response is that we should not. For it is a policy 
which is doomed to failure, including in China.
  Second, should we use our trade policy as a means to foster human 
rights throughout the world? I say yes. For I believe that basic human 
rights are best improved by a policy of open trade. In trade, not only 
are goods exchanged, but so, too, are attitudes, ideas, the rule of 
law, and the importance of procedural rights.
  I visited Czechoslovakia in the fall of 1989. There, a border guard, 
in the dark of night, told me that exposure to the western world, to 
different standards of living and individual freedoms--much of which 
was learned through tourists, trade, and television--had as much to do 
with their quest for freedom as the innate resolve of all individuals 
to be free.
  I have many reasons for opposing H.R. 4590. Today, I want to focus my 
remarks on American jobs--for it is the American worker who stands to 
lose the most with passage of this legislation. Already some 180,000 
American jobs are tied to China exports. These are high paying jobs, 
often union jobs, in aerospace, industrial machinery, computers, energy 
and electronics.
  Proponents of this legislation argue that China trade is a job loser 
for the United States. This assertion is inaccurate and misleading. 
Yes, the United States runs a trade deficit with China. However, look 
at the goods coming into the United States from China--predominantly 
toys, apparel, and other light manufactured goods. Regrettably, these 
jobs left American soil years ago. Passage of legislation to revoke or 
condition China's most-favored-nation status will not bring these jobs 
back to American soil. Rather, it will drive them to other third world 
developing nations with lower wages and in some cases, equally 
questionable human rights practices.
  America's economic future is high skill and high wage jobs--exactly 
the type of jobs created by United States exports to China.
  China is the largest growth market for United States exports. In 
1993, $9 billion in United States exports went to China, a figure that 
has grown 17 percent since 1992. China intends to spend $100 billion 
per year on infrastructure needs well into the next century. This 
figure includes industries where U.S. technology is among the best in 
the world. These are the jobs of the future; high wage and high skill. 
These are the jobs Secretary of Labor Bob Reich talks about for 
America. These are the jobs Members of Congress pontificate about 
creating each and every day.
  In telecommunications, China intends to spend $20-$35 billion through 
the year 2000. China's telecommunications spending will account for 10-
20 percent of the global market.
  In transportation, China plans to spend $40-$50 billion through the 
year 2000. China will build airports, ports, subway systems, rail and 
highway networks with or without United States participation and 
competition for contracts.
  In other sectors like aviation, energy, environmental and public 
works, consulting services, agriculture and industrial machinery, China 
intends to spend billions of dollars in the international marketplace. 
The United States must compete and win in this market. The U.S. 
industrial base will lose global competitiveness and thousands of U.S. 
jobs will be threatened, or worse yet, not even created if the United 
States pursues the course prescribed in H.R. 4590.
  Let me share with the House two Oregon examples of companies heavily 
involved in Oregon's economy to demonstrate the impact of today's 
decision on American jobs. First, the Boeing Company, which employs 
nearly 2,000 workers just outside my congressional district. Boeing 
estimates the size of the Chinese aerospace market at between $25 and 
$35 billion between now and the year 2010. Annually in Oregon, the 
Boeing Company spends more than $100 million on subcontractors--small 
manufacturing firms, accountants, bankers, cleaning services, and 
environmental consultants to name a few. All of these subcontractors 
stand to be negatively impacted by legislation to condition or revoke 
MFN.
  The second example is the NIKE Corp. NIKE employs some 5,000 people 
in Oregon. Additionally, in 1993, NIKE subcontracted with Oregon firms 
for more than $120 million. Again, these firms--union construction 
contractors, landscapers, caterers, engineering, and law firms, 
advertising agencies and security services--all stand to lose 
economically were the United States to condition or revoke MFN to 
China.
  Today's debate, like the Oxford style debate, is not about whether 
human rights are important. They are. The question is: What is the best 
means to achieve human rights progress in China and other nations?
  The Washington Post chronicled recently the gruesome Mao Zedong era 
in China. We read that, from 1949-1976, as many as 80 million Chinese 
died by the repressive policies during the eras known as the Great Leap 
Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
  A China, or any nation, that is engaged in the world community could 
not hide 80 million deaths. Repression and mass slaughter are only 
possible when a nation isolates itself from the world. Sunshine is the 
best disinfectant for repressive governments. And that is what trade 
brings.
  It is a new world out there, the Iron Curtain is drawn open, and 
international companies are chipping away at the Iron Rice Bowl in 
China. We must engage these closed societies, drawing them out even 
more into the world community. But let's not kid ourselves, nations 
like Russia and China are still in transition. There is every 
possibility that they could return to the ways of the recent past, and 
the Chinese people, for one, live in fear of this. The Washington Post 
story quoted a farmer, who said: ``Who knows what could happen? If 
there is a change of policy at the top, who knows?''
  Trade brings a better standard of living, so children do not go to 
bed hungry, so families have a roof over their heads. And trade also 
brings about the exchange of ideas. Whether principles of law, and a 
judicial system; or the exchange of students, and scientists; or music, 
books, and movies. As innocuous as it sounds, art is saturated with 
cultural messages, and floods over closed societies in a wash of 
Western values and individual freedoms.
  Vaclav Havel once said: ``Communism was not defeated by military 
force, but by life, by the human spirit, by conscience, by the 
resistance of being and man to manipulation.'' Havel is right. We all 
have a duty, even a moral obligation, to pursue the path of trade and 
diplomatic engagement to produce healthier, more just societies on 
Earth.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4590 and in support of the 
Hamilton amendment.
  Writing as a columnist in Time magazine in 1992, now Deputy Secretary 
of State Strobe Talbott concluded an analysis of Congress' last debate 
on China by saying:

       Politicians are quick to embrace simple positions on 
     complex issues that make them feel good and look good--but in 
     fact make a bad situation worse.

  Unfortunately, 2 years later, we find Secretary Talbott's opinion of 
Congress still justified. While waiting to testify before the Rules 
Committee last Friday, I heard a Member in favor of H.R. 4590 say: 
``This legislation sends China a very simple message.''
  We cannot send China a simple message because we are dealing with a 
complex problem. I share the frustration of this House with China's 
abusive human rights practices. But you cannot act solely on the issue 
of human rights and not expect the other issues that divide our two 
countries to be unaffected.
  This legislation is the worst possible reflection on Congress because 
it is neither enforceable nor fiscally responsible.
  As the ranking Republican on the Treasury, Postal Appropriations 
Subcommittee, it is my job to make sure the Customs Service has enough 
funds to perform its mission. Customs Commissioner Weise has reviewed 
this legislation and concluded Customs could not enforce this measure. 
And I can tell you that our appropriations subcommittee does not have 
the funds to purchase the equipment and hire the thousands of people 
necessary to make it enforceable.
  We can do better and we have. The Hamilton amendment is a 
responsible, realistic approach to the many issues in Sino/American 
relations. It builds on President Clinton's May 26 decision to extend 
MFN and delink it from human rights.
  The Hamilton amendment is not a quick fix. But this House must move 
beyond what has become annual brinkmanship with China and set a new 
course.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], chairman of the Democratic Caucus, and a leader 
internationally in promoting human rights in his leadership role with 
the Helsinki Commission.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time, and I 
congratulate her for her leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Pelosi substitute which 
denies most-favored-nation status for products produced, manufactured 
or exported by the People's Liberation Army of China and state-owned 
enterprises in China.
  The gentleman who preceded me is in fact the ranking member, and he 
is a good member of the Treasury-Postal Subcommittee which I chair. 
Very frankly, I think not only can they, but I think they will enforce 
this if this Congress passes and the President signs this bill.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman for granting me the opportunity to 
speak.
  Last year when the President extended MFN trade status to China for 1 
year, I supported him. However, implicit in my support was the 
understanding that China's human rights practices would be subject to 
serious scrutiny and our trading relations would be reviewed.
  I did not believe it was pretend. I did not believe I had my fingers 
crossed. I did not believe we were not serious.
  State Department and human rights groups' reports and findings have 
shown that China has continued to openly violate the human rights of 
its citizens. No one on this floor denies that. As the country which is 
the leading proponent of human rights in the world, we are proud of 
that. It makes us distinct in the world community. This is not just a 
matter of the United States imposing its standards, but upholding its 
principles.
  The issue which is so crucial to understand is that these are basic 
notions of human rights and fundamental freedoms which the Chinese 
Government has itself signed onto in the universal declaration of human 
rights.
  This is not imposing our values. This is expecting the values 
articulated to be theirs by China itself.
  It is important to remember the events of 1989, because this is not 
ancient history. The people responsible for the Tiananmen Square 
massacre are still in power in 1994.
  Five years after the occurrence of this tragedy, China has no freedom 
of the press, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of speech, no right to 
emigrate, no freedom of religion, and no representative government.
  My friend, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski], spoke of Vaclav 
Havel who came to this floor and spoke to us of the values of Jefferson 
and the values of our Constitution, and he stated that it was the 
American public, the American Congress and the principles for which we 
stand that moved the East to freedom in Europe. And it was that same 
nation that was under a trade sanction called Jackson-Vanik, and 
Jackson-Vanik worked. It did not work overnight, but it worked.
  It is also important to remember that China's trade deficit with the 
United States for last year climbed to $23 billion dollars--second only 
to Japan.
  Moreover, almost 40 percent of China's exports are to the United 
States while China receives less than 2 percent of our exports.
  As this Nation has learned throughout its history, we develop our 
strongest alliances, garner our greatest respect, and safeguard lasting 
security when we stand firmly and unequivocally for the principles upon 
which our Nation was founded. To the extent that our actions must 
affect China, let it not be at the expense of individual freedoms and 
human dignity. Mr. Speaker, the Pelosi substitute will provide us with 
that opportunity, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Let us pass the Pelosi bill. Let us be serious when we commit 
ourselves to human rights.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the 
Pelosi bill and in opposition to the Hamilton alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, adopting the Pelosi bill to revoke MFN on products of 
the Chinese military is not only the moral thing to do, but it is 
absolutely essential for our national security.
  The Chinese People's Liberation Army is growing fat and ever-more 
dangerous, and it is financed by the trade surplus that we give China 
with our annual extensions of MFN.
  As I stated earlier, last year's monstrous $23 billion trade deficit 
with China is now funding a massive 22-percent increase in Chinese 
military spending.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if there ever was an example of Lenin's prediction 
that we would sell the Communists the rope with which they will hang 
us, this is it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the Record an article by 
William Triplett that appeared in the Washington Post and which clearly 
explains why it is so important to pass the Pelosi bill.
  Mr. Triplett estimates that when profits earned by front companies of 
the Chinese military are added in, actual Chinese military expenditures 
are 3 times the official numbers, or close to $100 billion annually.
  Mr. Chairman, this is 2\1/2\ times that of Japan.
  And Chinese military spending has doubled since 1989.
  And what is China buying with all of this? Some of the best military 
hardware available:
  Su-27 Flankers, a top Russian fighter.
  The Russian T-80U tank, comparable to our Abrams.
  Guided missile technology, solid-fuel rocket boosters, uranium 
enrichment technology and air-to-air refueling capabilities.
  According to Mr. Triplett, it is clear that China is striving to 
create a strategic force of modern, highly accurate, mobile ICBM's.
  And according to former Ambassador James Lilley, China's buildup 
clearly reflects a desire to develop the ability to project power 
beyond her own borders.
  Mr. Chairman, it is simply against our own interests to fund this 
drive with favorable trade conditions for front companies of China's 
military machine.
  Many analysts believe that China could be the foremost threat to 
peace and stability in the 21st century.
  Anything can happen, but the Pelosi bill would be a prudent step 
toward ensuring that this nightmare scenario does not occur.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for Pelosi.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
  (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pelosi 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to suggest that Ms. Pelosi's concerns are well-
founded but not well-advanced by the legislative prescription before us 
today.
  The questions advocates of a conditional MFN approach must examine is 
one of means, not ends, whether a policy premised on self-righteous 
indignation advances or undercuts a just cause.
  What is at issue is less a question of indignation than of judgment. 
If history is a guide, almost every effort to coerce China has not only 
failed to produce greater political openness but accentuated 
unpredictable xenophobic nationalism. On the other hand, almost every 
U.S. step toward civil dialog has been met with a liberalized response.
  Because denial of MFN would be such a profoundly self-destructive 
act, Ms. Pelosi has suggested fine tuning the MFN-human rights linkage. 
The trouble is that as preferably restrained as her new approach is, it 
is more effectively advanced by the Executive Branch than legislative 
fiat.
  But modifying MFN is a nonstarter: It will threaten to begin a new 
cold war in Sino-American relations; undercut the prospect of Sino-
American cooperation on North Korea and other important foreign policy 
issues; produce no demonstrable improvement in Chinese human rights 
behavior; and prove difficult if not impossible to enforce.
  My own view is that when confronted with the choice of high walls 
versus open doors in Sino-American relations, open doors are 
preferable.
  By way of perspective, several decades ago a group of French 
journalists interviewed the late Chou En-lai and asked what he thought 
the historical significance was of the French Revolution, to which he 
responded: ``It is too early to tell.''
  It strikes me that it may be too early to tell the exact 
ramifications of the profound socio-economic changes occurring in 
China. But those ramifications are of historic dimensions. They involve 
not only the near-total delegitimatizing of Marxist philosophy but a 
weakening of party as well as state authority and--despite continuing 
serious human rights abuses--far greater personal freedom for most 
Chinese than any time in Chinese history.
  These changes were not the result of external pressures, but external 
examples revealed by China's policy of reform and opening to the 
outside world.
  For those who believe--as I do--that free economics drives free 
politics, the most aggressive human rights policy we can pursue is to 
maintain free and fair trade with China. Can it possibly be rational to 
pursue a misguided policy that, through miscalculation or design, 
undercuts the stepchildren of Adam Smith and allows a tightening of the 
reins of political power by the discredited disciples of Marx, Lenin, 
and Mao?
  The administration's Executive order approach to China-MFN set up 
either Beijing or Washington for enormous international embarrassment. 
In this case, Washington was ultimately the party that flinched. 
Despite the administration's attempt to save face, its decision not to 
revoke was a flinch, but a flinch from a mis-designed policy is far 
better than plowing ahead with a demonstrably counterproductive 
approach.
  This administration and this Congress should stop playing games with 
MFN. It is time to stop toying with the linchpin of Sino-American 
relations and make decisions that advance the national interest of the 
American people as well as the humanitarian well-being of the Chinese 
people.
  The United States would be better advised to develop a bipartisan and 
bi-institutional approach that maintains the open door to China and 
with it a relationship which could be key to peace, stability, and 
prosperity in the 21st century than continue to play political 
brinksmanship on the House floor.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 4590, 
legislation to revoke most-favored-nation trading status for products 
produced by the Peoples Liberation Army, Chinese Government defense 
trading companies, and State-owned enterprises.
  I commend the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Pelosi, for her 
leadership and tireless efforts on behalf of democracy in China. She 
has earned herself a place as a recognized champion for freedom and a 
voice for those who suffer under tyranny.
  It is a great honor to serve with her.
  At Tiananmen Square 5 years ago, the Chinese military demonstrated to 
the world that it is an antidemocratic force of repression and the 
ultimate guarantor of Communist rule over the people of China.
  The Chinese military and related security agencies run a vast gulag 
with some 16 to 20 million prisoners who serve as slave laborers for 
its profit making ventures.
  China faces no external threat to its national security, but its 
military is engaged in a massive buildup of the most modern 
conventional and strategic forces threatening peace and security in 
Asia and the Pacific rim.
  Chinese military companies are helping to finance that nation's 
massive military buildup with arms sales to the Middle East and 
commercial product sales to the United States.
  It is the only military force in the world targeting the United 
States with nuclear weapons and China is the only nation still testing 
nuclear weapons.
  The Chinese military is the occupying force in Tibet, a country the 
size of Western Europe and the only nation in the world since the end 
of the cold war to still have a foreign Communist force within its 
borders.
  According to some of our senior Federal officials, Chinese military 
and civilian intelligence are the most active intelligence services in 
the United States collecting American technology.
  Chinese intelligence services are also extremely aggressive and 
active in suppressing the Chinese people both at home and abroad here 
in this country.
  The Chinese intelligence services are also engaged wholeheartedly in 
commercial cover ventures in the United States in order to be 
economically self-sustaining.
  Are we to believe that it is logical to continue United States 
financing the Communist Chinese military machine, the same one run by 
the very same people who fought us in Korea and Vietnam and who 
conquered Tibet--does that makes good sense?
  Do we truly believe that our national security will not be affected 
by directly subsidizing the People's Liberation Army?
  The answer of course is obvious. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to 
support the gentlelady's resolution to revoke MFN for China's military 
and state run enterprises.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, 15 years ago President Carter extended 
most-favored-nation trading status to China. President Carter's 
decision was the culmination of a long period of quiet diplomacy with 
the Chinese that had been initiated by the late President Nixon in 
1969. Today we are here to debate whether we should continue to embrace 
or reverse over two decades of successful American diplomacy toward 
China by removing or limiting China's trading status with the United 
States.
  When President Nixon decided to initiate 2 years of top secret 
negotiations with the Chinese in 1969, contacts between the United 
States and China basically did not exist. At that turbulent time in our 
world history, the United States was bogged down in Vietnam, the 
Cultural Revolution in China was in one of its most anti-democratic 
phases, China and the Soviet Union were engaged in terrible border 
clashes and war between the two countries was seen by many as 
inevitable. China, with one quarter of the world's population, was 
isolated in world affairs.
  The tactical advantages of a diplomatic initiative toward Beijing 
were obvious to President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger, despite the 
fact that things in China were anything but stable or democratic. Nixon 
and Kissinger were able to see past China's internal chaos to the 
danger that an isolated, xenophobic China posed to the world.
  Relations between the United States and China in the last 25 years 
have rarely been untroubled. United States-Sino relations have 
continued to expand despite numerous challenging events: American arms 
sales to Taiwan; disruptive surges of Chinese exports to the United 
States; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; the Cambodian peace 
process; Chinese nuclear proliferation policies and the tragedy in 
Tiananmen Square.
  Despite all of the challenges to United States-Sino relations, it was 
not until 1989 that legislative efforts to condition renewal of most-
favored nation status for China were linked to improvements in human 
rights in China. In 1989, Members in this body decided that we should 
move from diplomacy to punishment and that the bipartisan approach of 
five former Presidents was wrong.
  Although what happened at Tiananmen was deplorable and the Chinese 
leadership deserved the widespread condemnation that it received, it is 
time to declare a statute of limitations on Tiananmen Square. If we 
want a safer, more stable international community, we cannot allow one 
incident to determine our policy toward China for the next 25 years.
  The realities of the current situation in China and in the 
international community are far different and more complex than the 
unforgettable image of a lone man standing in front of a tank that CNN 
has indelibly printed on all of our minds.
  Since Tiananmen, the Chinese economy has grown at approximately 10 
percent a year and the market-oriented reforms started in 1980 have 
continued. United States trade with China has approximately doubled, to 
$40 billion in 1993, with China's total foreign trade reaching $200 
billion.
  Along with the People's Liberation Army are the armies of Avon ladies 
in China. Along with state censorship are MTV and CNN brought into 
China by satellite dishes, often installed and sold by the PLA.
  During the last 15 years, as Chinese economic reforms have 
progressed, the quality of life of the average Chinese has vastly 
improved. The continuing market-oriented reforms have dramatically 
changed the relationship of individuals to the state and reduced their 
reliance on Beijing for the basic necessities of life.
  Since 1978, changes which have taken place which affect average 
Chinese citizens include: a great expansion of internal travel, choice 
of residence, choice of job, shorter workweeks, higher paying jobs, and 
most importantly, access to information.
  Twenty years ago, the Chinese government had total control over what 
its people could know about the outside world. Today, there are now 
seven times as many newspapers and magazines in China as in 1978, and 
one in five people have access to a TV versus 1 in 300 in 1978. Over 
100 million Chinese have access to satellite dishes bringing in MTV, 
CNN and other western broadcasts.
  The past 16 years have been China's most sustained period of peace 
and stability in the past 150 years. From 1978 to the present is the 
only period of time since the opium war in 1839 that China has 
experienced a 15-year period without foreign invasion, civil war or 
widespread chaos.
  China's leaders have placed a high priority upon maintaining 
stability in China and avoiding at all costs a return to chaos and 
foreign domination.
  It must be remembered that China has over four times the population 
of the United States but less than 60 percent of America's tillable 
land. China's leaders face much different development choices than 
those faced by America's leaders.
  China must make a smooth transition from an economy based on 
agriculture to an economy centered on manufacturing. China needs 
continued strong economic growth in order to be able to provide the 
basic necessities for its ever-growing population. In order to prevent 
China from sliding back toward chaos, the world needs to participate in 
China's economic growth and development. Removing or limiting MFN for 
China would be the first step in China's slide backwards.
  Prior to 1989, there was little external pressure on China to improve 
human rights. The positive changes which have occurred in China over 
the last 15 years have occurred as a direct result of China's opening 
to foreign trade, investment and ideas from around the world. China's 
leaders were willing to allow the influx of foreign ideas in order to 
allow China to become a strong, prosperous world power.
  However, China's way is not our way. We urge China to move more 
deliberately toward true democracy, but we must understand that a 
chaotic China could destabilize the world economy and vastly complicate 
international stability. We must act responsibly today. I urge Members 
to vote against any attempts to remove or limit MFN for China.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, if I thought for one moment 
that extending most-favored-nation treatment to China would end our 
country's responsibility and involvement in the human rights struggle 
in that vast country, then I would support the Pelosi amendment. But I 
cannot, because I believe forcefully that the total involvement of the 
regional alliances continuing pressure on China, the United Nations, 
the Helsinki accords, the one-on-one contacts that America has with 
China, and all of the other private enterprises that are continuing 
their good pressure on china will mount in intensity, not end with 
granting the most-favored-nation status, and so we would have then not 
only the ongoing contact but that great tool of diplomacy, free trade, 
massive trade, Americans streaming into the mainland of China, talking 
with other merchants, talking with the people. That is the way to bring 
about human rights change and continue our American involvement.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I keep asking myself: Why are we here today? 
Everybody knows the Solomon amendment was soundly defeated. The Pelosi 
proposal, even if it were to pass, is going nowhere.
  If this were a debating society, I would say wonderful, we can stand 
here and debate this issue for 6 hours. But the fact is that I would 
think the House would have something else to do in trying to pass 
substantive legislation.
  The Clinton administration, through some very difficult efforts, 
finally came to the right conclusion, that is, delinking human rights 
with our efforts on MFN. That was the right decision. The Clinton 
administration got it right.
  Here we are several weeks later, still debating an issue whose time 
has clearly passed. The decision has been made by the administration, I 
think we should follow it.
  Economic growth is important for political change. I have been to 
China twice, most recently last December. We had an opportunity to look 
at the changes being made there, and I am impressed with what we can do 
in the future there with our trade.
  Let us defeat the Pelosi proposal. Let us pass the Hamilton proposal 
and get on with the business of the Nation.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi 
substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand today as a strong supporter of the Pelosi 
substitute. This proposal speaks to our longstanding linkage of 
favorable trade access to this Nation and respect for human rights. 
Breaking this link would be giving up something that is fundamental to 
this Nation--something that makes us unique and successful in the 
world. We would be sacrificing our principles for short-term economic 
gains.
  Tying trade to human rights has worked. A generation of Soviet 
emigres prospering in new homes around the world; the piece of the 
Berlin Wall I keep in my office; and the historic elections and new-
found freedoms celebrated in South Africa this year, all speak to the 
success of our Nation taking a stand. Using access to American markets 
has been a crucial tool to effect change abroad through peaceful means.
  There is a reason protestors in Tianamen Square carried a home-made 
statue of liberty. From our founding days the United States of America 
has been a beacon of freedom. Our Nation has held out hope to freedom-
loving people throughout the world. Time and again Americans have 
fought and died to protect freedom in this Nation and around the world.
  We should be proud of our leadership in human rights and we should 
support the Pelosi substitute.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to stress that this debate on 
most-favored-nation status for China is not over whether we want export 
opportunities for our workers and companies. We obviously do. However, 
there is an important principle at stake. By our vote today, we must 
clearly and decisively demonstrate that human rights matter. Commercial 
considerations must not be the sole factor determing American foreign 
policy.
  Who among us is not deeply suspicious of the present Chinese 
Government, especially since the tragic events in Tiananmen Square in 
1989? This action is not targeted at the Chinese people; it is targeted 
at the trade activities of a repressive government.
  In 1981, I was part of a 15-person delegation of university 
presidents to review 25 institutions of higher education in China. When 
students could get us aside outside of the ears of the secret police, 
they said then, as they do now, that they want freedom. Hopefully, 
increased trade will cause China's leaders to value political freedom. 
In the mean time, we cannot close our eyes to repression.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, and to vote for the 
bipartisan Pelosi amendment.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4590, a bill to 
apply unworkable trade sanctions to the People's Republic of China. The 
debate over trading with China is serious and difficult. Because of the 
tragic human rights situation in China, it is easy to stray from the 
central question of what is the most effective policy to achieve what 
we all want for the Chinese people--a better life. Setting up a 
unilateral policy of confrontation with the Chinese Government is not 
the answer.
  I urge my colleagues to support the President's policy of 
aggressively pursuing human rights objectives through economic and 
political engagement with China. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4590 and ``yes'' 
for the Hamilton substitute.
  I do not question the intentions of proponents of H.R. 4590, but I 
worry about the practical effects it would have. China, the most 
populous nation on earth, has an economy which is expanding at an 
astonishing pace. Chinese trade with the world grows by about 12 
percent every year, twice the growth rate of global trade overall. Asia 
will lead the world in economic growth during the next century, and to 
participate effectively, the United States needs a strong presence in 
China.
  Currently China is our 10th largest export market. The potential for 
substantial, additional exports is impressive. At this stage in its 
development process, China will be purchasing heavily in sectors such 
as capital goods, telecommunications, agriculture equipment and 
computers. I will include in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks, a letter to Mr. Archer from the business coalition for United 
States-China trade containing a list of 307 United States companies and 
associations who attest that their exports markets will be damaged 
severely by H.R. 4590.
  Poisoning our bilateral relationship with China would be a futile 
effort. Instead of joining us, our European and Japanese competitors 
would rush in to reap all the sales that we lose. I ask my colleagues, 
would passage of this bill put us in a better position to work with 
China to clean up the environment, or to control the development of 
nuclear weapons in the region? Clearly it would not. Three years before 
Hong Kong reverts to Chinese Communist control is not the time for the 
United States to be disengaging from a leadership role in the region.
  This bill purports to strike at state-owned companies in China, to 
the exclusion of more entrepreneurial enterprises. While an attractive 
idea, it is one which is manifestly unworkable. Matching a product that 
has made its way out of China with the arbitrary definitions of state-
ownership set out in this bill would be an unmanageable task for the 
Customs Service.
  The task would soon become impossible as firms worked to disguise 
their identify, in an attempt to avoid the sanctions in this bill--
something they do not do today. The further assignment of 
distinguishing which companies were recipients of government subsidies 
could not be administered given the murky line between free markets and 
state involvement in China. In the end, the legal issues involved in 
making these designations would virtually bring United States-China 
trade to a halt.
  I would agree with proponents of this bill that China is one of the 
most protectionist countries with which we trade. The answer is not 
unilateral legislated sanctions but solid, negotiated solutions to 
targeted market access problems. USTR should pursue aggressive 
enforcement of the intellectual property rights agreements and the 1992 
MOU on market access which addresses a broad range of sectors. 
Currently more needs to be done to implement these bilateral deals at 
the provincial level in China. The Chinese may indeed face sanctions 
under the special 301 intellectual property statute, for example, but 
these can be tailored to achieving a particular market opening measure, 
not a complete societal change.
  I support the President's policy because he has realized after a year 
in office that business plays a positive role in exposing the Chinese 
people to ideas and skills necessary to succeed in a free market. 
Prosperity and expanded contact with American citizens is the best way 
to nurture the growth of democracy in China. We need a China policy 
that recognizes the broad range of our interests in this enormous 
country. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4590.
  I submit the following letter from 307 American companies and 
associations to be included in the Record.
                                                Business Coalition


                                         for U.S.-China Trade,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1994.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Archer: We, the undersigned American 
     companies, farm organizations, consumer groups, and trade 
     associations, are writing to express our strong opposition to 
     H.R. 4590, which was introduced by Congresswoman Pelosi on 
     July 16. We are concerned that the Pelosi bill would 
     seriously undermine the President's China policy by revoking 
     MFN tariff treatment for certain imports from China and put 
     American trade and thousands of American jobs at risk.
       In announcing his new China strategy on May 26, President 
     Clinton noted that the real issue for the United States is 
     ``how we can best support human rights in China and advance 
     our other very significant issues and interests,'' including 
     securing China's cooperation on weapons proliferation and in 
     managing the North Korean nuclear crisis. The President 
     determined that the best way to advance U.S. objectives on 
     trade, human rights, proliferation, and security is to ensure 
     that ``our nations are engaged in a growing web of political 
     and economic cooperation and contacts.''
       As American firms doing business in China, we see every day 
     tangible proof that China's free market economic reforms have 
     led to expanded freedom and better living standards for the 
     Chinese people. Any American visitor can only be struck by 
     the dynamism of free markets and the underlying 
     entrepreneurialism of the Chinese people. We share the 
     President's conviction that America's engagement with China 
     must continue, and that U.S. trade and investment are 
     important long-term positive forces for human rights and 
     democracy.
       The Pelosi bill is not a compromise. It would undermine the 
     President's policy and cause serious damage to U.S. trade. 
     While taking aim at the Chinese government, the Pelosi bill 
     would harm Chinese reformers who support trade and investment 
     with the United States and Chinese workers and managers who 
     are employed by American companies. The bill invites a 
     protectionist trade war that would put at risk nearly $9 
     billion of U.S. exports and almost 180,000 high-wage U.S. 
     export jobs. The loss of China trade would also threaten 
     thousands of jobs in America's retail establishments, 
     financial institutions, ports, and services industries. It 
     would also lead to substantial increases in the retail prices 
     of many imported products familiar to American consumers.
       Because China is about to embark on a massive 
     infrastructure program, the loss of access to this rapidly 
     emerging market would deal a catastrophic blow to the future 
     global competitiveness of American companies. This would only 
     benefit our European and Japanese competitors. China is a 
     major customer for American aerospace, computers, 
     telecommunications, wheat, power generation, motor vehicles, 
     chemicals, and fertilizer products.
       Finally, U.S. companies regularly adopt principles for 
     business conduct on a company-by-company basis. By specifying 
     in legislation recommended principles of business conduct for 
     doing business in China, including principles that touch on 
     highly sensitive political activities, the Pelosi bill would 
     undermine individual company efforts and the President's 
     initiative to work with leaders of the business community. 
     The bill risks creating an appearance in China that U.S. 
     companies are acting as agents of a foreign government and 
     violating Chinese law. In today's highly competitive global 
     economy, the U.S. can ill afford actions which have the 
     effect of handicapping the ability of American companies to 
     compete and create jobs.
       On behalf of the American business community, we urge you 
     to strongly oppose the Pelosi bill. For U.S. companies 
     involved in U.S.-China trade, this is a potentially costly 
     vote. It will send important signals about America's 
     reliability as a trading partner and our nation's commitment 
     to competing in emerging global markets.
       We look forward to working closely with you to support the 
     President's leadership on China policy and to defeat the 
     Pelosi bill.
           Sincerely,
         ABB Inc.; A & C Trade Consultants, Inc.; The AES 
           Corporation; AM General Corporation; ATC International, 
           Inc.; AT&T Inc.; Abacus Group of America, Inc.; Abbott 
           Laboratories; Adidas America; Advanced Aquatic 
           Technology Associates, Inc.; Aerospace Industries 
           Association; Aetna Asia Pacific; Aetna Life & Casualty; 
           AlliedSignal Inc.; American Automobile Manufacturers 
           Association; American Cyanamid Company; American 
           Express Company; American Farm Bureau Federation; 
           American Forest & Paper Association; American Home 
           Products Corp.; American International Group; American 
           Pacific Enterprises Inc.; Ameritech; Amgen Inc.; Amoco 
           Corporation; Ascom Timeplex, Inc.; ASICS Tiger Corp.; 
           Applause, Inc.; Armstrong World Industries; Ashe 
           Associates; Associated Merchandising Corporation; 
           Atlantic Richfield Company; Avon Products, Inc.; B.H. 
           Aircraft Co. Inc.; Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations; 
           Bandai America Inc.; Bank of America; BBC 
           International; Bennett Importing; D. B. Berelson & 
           Company; Bethlehem Steel Corporation; Blue Box Toys, 
           Inc.; The Boeing Company; Bradford Novelty Co., Inc.; 
           Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Brown & Root, Inc.; Brown 
           Shoe Co.; The Business Roundtable; Buxton Co.; 
           California R & D Center, Inc.; Caltex Petroleum 
           Corporation; Cargill, Incorporated; Caterpillar Inc.; 
           Central Purchasing Inc.; Cherokee Shoe Co.; Chevron 
           Corporation; China Human Resources Group; China 
           Products North America, Inc.; China Trade Associates; 
           Chrysler Corporation; The Chubb Corporation; CIGNA 
           Corporation; CMS Industries; The Coca-Cola Company; 
           Cole Hann; C.O. Lynch; Commercial Intertech 
           Corporation; ConAgra, Inc.; CONCORD; Consolidated 
           Minerals Inc.; Consumers for World Trade; Continental 
           Grain Company; Cooper Industries; Coopers & Lybrand; 
           CSX Corporation; Cypress Enterprises; Daisy 
           Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Dakin, Inc.; Dana Corporation; 
           Davis Wright Tremaine; Dayton Hudson Corp.; Daytona 
           Inc.; Deere & Company; The Dexter Corporation; Diamond 
           Power Specialty Co.; Digital Equipment Corp.; R.R. 
           Donnelly & Sons Co.; The Dow Chemical Company; Dresser 
           Industries, Inc.; The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation; E. 
           I. du Pont de Nemours & Company; Duracell International 
           Inc.; Dynasty Footwear; EEI, Inc.; Eastern American, 
           Inc.; Eastman Chemical Company; Eastman Kodak Company; 
           Eaton Corporation; Eden Toys, Inc.; Edison Brothers 
           Stores; Elan-Polo, Inc.; Electronic Industries 
           Association; Endicott Johnson; The Ertl Company, Inc.; 
           Essex Group, Inc.; Excel Importing Corporation; 
           Emergency Committee for American Trade; Enron Corp.; 
           Exxon; The Fertilizer Institute; Fluor Corporation; FMC 
           Corporation; FOOTACTION USA; Footwear Distributors and 
           Retailers of America; Ford Motor Company; Foster 
           Wheeler Corporation; The Foxboro Company; Frequency 
           Electronics, Inc.; Fun World/Div. of Easter Unlimited, 
           Inc.; GenCorp; General Electric Company; General Motors 
           Corporation; Genesco, Inc.; The Gillette Company; The 
           Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company; Grand Imports, Inc.; 
           Great Eastern Mountain Investment Company; Guardian 
           Industries Corp.; Gund, Inc.; Hasbro, Inc.; HASCO 
           Components International Corporation; HMS Productions, 
           Inc.; Halliburton Company; Hallmark Cards, Inc.; R.A. 
           Hanson Company, Inc.; Harris Corporation; Hedstrom 
           Corporation; Henry Gordy International, Inc.; Hercules 
           Incorporated; Hewlett-Packard Company; H.H. Brown; Hawe 
           Yue/Rayjen Intl.; Hills & Company; Hoechst Celanese 
           Corporation; Honeywell, Inc.; Hongson; Hughes Aircraft 
           Company; Hull Corporation; IBM Corporation; Intel 
           Corporation; Inter-Pacific Corp.; International Seaway; 
           ITOCHU International Inc.; ITT Corporation; 
           International Development Planners; International 
           Insurance Council; Jack Guttman, Inc./Bakery Crafts; 
           Janex Corporation; J. Baker, Inc.; Jerry Elsner 
           Company, Inc.; Jimlar Corporation; Jirch Resources Co., 
           Inc.; Johnson Controls; Kinney Shoe Co.; K-Swiss, Inc.; 
           L.A. Gear; Laird, Ltd.; Leather Apparel Association; 
           Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc.; Liberty Classics; The Limited, 
           Inc.; Liz Claiborne; LJO, Inc.; Lockheed Corporation; 
           MG Trading & Development; M. W. International, Inc.; 
           The M. W. Kellogg Co.; Mangelsen's; Manley Toys, Ltd.; 
           Mattel, Inc.; Marine Midland Bank; McDermott 
           Incorporated; McDonnell Douglas; McGraw-Hill, Inc.; 
           Meldisco; Merck & Co., Ltd.; Mercury Int'l.; Merrill 
           Lynch & Co., Inc.; Midwest of Cannon Falls; Might Star, 
           Inc.; Mobil Corporation; Monarch Import Company; 
           Monsanto Company; Morrison Knudsen Corp.; Motorola 
           Inc.; Mustang International Groups Inc.; Nadel & Sons 
           Toy Corp.; National Association of Manufacturers; 
           National Foreign Trade Council, Inc.; National 
           Semiconductor; Natural Science Industries, Ltd.; 
           Nature's Farm Products, Inc.; NIKE, Inc.; Nikko 
           America, Inc.; Norman Broadbent International, Inc.; 
           North American Export Grain Association; Northern 
           Telecom Inc.; Nylint Toy Company; NYNEX Corporation; 
           The Ohio Art Company; Olem Shoe Corp.; Owens Corning; 
           Pacific Basin Economic Council; Pacific Rim Consulting; 
           Pacific Trade Institute, Inc.; Pagoda; Payless 
           ShoeSource; J.C. Penney Company, Inc.; PepsiCo, Inc.; 
           Perkin Elmer; Petroleum Equipment Suppliers 
           Association; Pfizer Inc.; Philip Morris Companies Inc.; 
           Phillips Petroleum Company; Pic'n Pay Stores; The 
           Portman Companies; Portman Overseas; Praxair, Inc.; 
           Premark International, Inc.; Pressman Toy Corporation; 
           Price Brothers Company; Processed Plastic Company; 
           Procter & Gamble Company; Reebok International, Ltd.; 
           Reeves International, Inc.; Revell-Monogram, Inc.; 
           Ridgewood Partners Ltd.; Riggs Tool Company Inc.; 
           Ripple Investments, Inc.; Rockwell International 
           Corporation; Rohm and Haas Company; Russ Berrie & Co., 
           Inc.; Safari Limited; Saint-Gobain Corporation; 
           Schering-Plough International; Scientific Design 
           Company, Inc.; Sea-Land Service, Inc.; Sears Roebuck & 
           Co.; Sega of America, Inc.; Shanghai Industrial 
           Consultants; Shelcore, Inc.; Shoe Town, Inc.; Shonac 
           Corp.; Sierra Machinery, Inc.; Southern Electric 
           International; Spectrum HoloByte, Inc.; Sporting Goods 
           Manufacturers Association; The Stride Rite Corp.; 
           Sundstrand Corporation; TRW Inc.; Tasco Sales, Inc.; 
           Tendler Beretz Associates Ltd.; Tenneco Inc.; Texaco 
           Inc.; Texas Instruments Incorporated; The Bee Gee Shoe 
           Corp.; The Butler Group; The Kobacker Co.; Thom McAn 
           Shoe Co.; Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.; 3M 
           Company; Time Warner Inc.; Topline Imports; Tradehome; 
           Trade Wind Imp.; Trans-Ocean Import Co., Inc.; Tomy 
           America, Inc.; Toy Manufacturers of America, Inc.; Toys 
           `R' Us, Inc.; Tyco Playtime; Tyco Toys, Inc.; USX 
           Engineers & Consultants, Inc.; US-China Industrial 
           Exchange, Inc.; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Council 
           for International Business; Uneeda Doll Company, Inc.; 
           Unicover Corporation; Union Camp Corporation; Union 
           Carbide Corporation; UNISYS; Uniroyal Chemical Company, 
           Inc.; United States Association of Importers of 
           Textiles & Apparel; United States-China Business 
           Council; United Technologies Corporation; Unocal Corp.; 
           Venture Stores Inc.; VTech Industries, Inc.; Waco 
           Products Corporation; Warner-Lambert Company; Western 
           Atlas; Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Weyerhaeuser 
           Company; Whirlpool Corporation; Wilsons The Leather 
           Experts; Windmere Corporation; Witco Corp.; Wm. Wrigley 
           Jr. Company; Xerox Corporation.

                              {time}  1720

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam 
[Mr. Underwood].
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, this Congress must consider matching our 
declarations with our dollars. We must decide if we will send a bold 
and meaningful signal to the Peoples' Republic of China or hide behind 
a veil of empty rhetoric.
  The bill introduced by the gentlewoman from California is a solid, 
pragmatic means of confronting the PRC's human rights abuses without 
disrupting the expanding private sector trade between our nations.
  No one in this Chamber disputes the PRC's abysmal human rights 
record. Amnesty International and Asia Watch have documented the PRC's 
lack of due process rights to a fair trial, the detention of prisoners 
of conscience, the repression of the right to peaceful assembly, and a 
crackdown against religious activity. In 1993, 77 percent of all the 
world's death sentences were carried out in the PRC, a role model for 
death penalty supporters, including for such nonviolent offenses as 
embezzlement. According to the International Campaign for Tibet, 
repression against Tibetan Buddhist nuns has increased. In 1993, 12 
nuns, including a 15-year-old girl, were sentenced to up to 7 years in 
prison.
  And we are expected to extend favors to this country.
  All these actions contradict customary international law which binds 
all nations. The universal declaration on human rights and the covenant 
on civil and political rights represent the international family's 
attempt to confront and combat human rights abuses, such as those found 
in the PRC. As a member of the United Nations and a permanent member of 
the security council, the PRC has a responsibility to uphold these 
international standards.
  The PRC also stands as a threat to modern nonproliferation efforts. 
Of the five recognized nuclear powers, it is the only one that will not 
observe a nuclear test ban. Questions remain about the PRC's alleged 
exports of chemical weapons munitions to Iran and its export of M-11 
missile technology to Pakistan.
  In addition to recognizing the PRC's human rights and proliferation 
records, no one in this Chamber denies the economic importance to the 
United States of our trade relationship with the PRC. Our nations have 
a $40 billion trade relationship, including $9 billion in U.S. exports. 
This trade relationship provides the best tool for us to make a 
statement about the behavior of the PRC.
  This bill strikes a delicate balance between confronting the human 
rights abuses and preserving a healthy trade relationship. It would 
only target trade with the PRC's military and other state-owned 
industries, leaving private industry free to trade with United States 
firms and the growth of private industry is readily acknowledged as a 
promoter of democratic reform.
  The PRC claims to have a relatively small defense budget of $22 
billion, but has engaged in budget smoke-and-mirrors, hiding funds in 
its police budget and elsewhere, and securing an annual defense growth 
rate of 10 percent per year. Many of the goods procured with these 
funds are made by slave labor.
  I believe we can put a wrench in the gears of China's war machine and 
human rights abuses, while allowing the engine of free trade to keep 
moving forward. It would be a bold foreign policy action and a smart 
economic protection. I urge support for the measure. We do not need to 
extend more favors to the PRC.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld], and thank her for her courageous leadership 
on human rights throughout the world.
  (Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. UNSOELD. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, some Members oppose the use of trade measures against 
China on the grounds that unfettered commercial exchanges will bring 
about political reform.
  Well, I have a few questions for them. Would these same members argue 
that the use of sanctions to press for the end to apartheid in South 
Africa was a mistake? Would they argue that the use of sanctions 
against the old Soviet Union was a mistake? Are they prepared today to 
argue the case for lifting sanctions against Iraq, Haiti, and Serbia? I 
doubt it.
  Let us be honest. Most of the resistance to the Pelosi amendment 
stems from the fact that large commercial interests have a stake in 
maintaining markets in China.
  Those of us supporting the Pelosi amendment are sensitive to that. I 
would remind Members that if this measure is adopted China would still 
enjoy a huge trade surplus with the United States. That surplus will 
provide plenty of leverage to forestall retaliation.
  So what will the Pelosi amendment do? It will go after goods produced 
by the Chinese military. They are the ones who drove tanks over 
protesters in Tiananmen Square. They are the ones guilty of imprisoning 
and torturing human beings in Tibet and China for their religious and 
political beliefs.
  If we end MFN status for goods produced by the very inappropriately 
named People's Liberation Army, we will be turning off the spigot that 
is financing their arms build-up and aiding the suppression of those 
who advocate freedom.
  The cause of human rights is about standing for the individual 
against a tyrannical government. One such courageous individual has 
been traveling our country, sharing her story. Tsultrim Dolma was a nun 
in Tibet arrested by the PLA for taking part in a political 
demonstration. While in custody she was raped and tortured. A device 
was rammed into her mouth sending volts of electricity through her 
body--volts so powerful that her teeth were knocked out and she was 
left unconscious. That is the PLA whose products now get more favored 
treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a great Nation because we have stood for 
certain principles. America's founding principle was most powerfully 
expressed by Thomas Jefferson: ``We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their 
Creator with certain unalienable Rights * * *''
  This House has the opportunity to answer whether those words still 
ring true for us today. I hope Members answer overwhelmingly that they 
do--that we are still a people willing to stand up for freedom. Support 
the Pelosi amendment.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me, and I rise in opposition to the Pelosi bill.
  Mr. Chairman, no one disagrees that China must improve its record in 
the area of human rights. China continues to fall far short of 
international standards. The United States must continue to publicly 
raise concerns about the detention of political prisoners, prison 
conditions, use of forced labor, and human rights violations in Tibet.
  However, I believe that through our business contacts with China, we 
are helping to develop an entrepreneurial middle class there--men and 
women whose lives will be improved and who will have the experience and 
the benefit of China's transition to a market economy. Delinking MFN 
and human rights conditions will promote a broad engagement between the 
United States and China, not only through economic contacts but also 
through cultural, educational, and other exchanges.
  In the long run, I believe this is the best approach to promoting and 
achieving real progress on human rights in China.
  The Pelosi bill would prohibit all imports from China that are a 
product of the Chinese Army or are goods produced, manufactured, or 
exported by state-owned Chinese enterprises. This targeted approach 
while well-intentioned is not workable.

  The Pelosi bill would force the U.S. administration into countless 
numbers of hearings and reviews to determine what products are 
prohibited and what products are not, what exactly is a state-owned 
enterprise and what is not.
  In addition, it would put in jeopardy hundreds of thousands of 
American jobs. The Pelosi bill is unworkable and counterproductive to 
achieving increased human rights protection in China because it will 
sever important cultural and economic ties.
  We should be resolute in our efforts to achieve progress on human 
rights while at the same time developing a fair trading system between 
the the United States and China.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Pelosi bill.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McCloskey].
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
this time to me, and I commend her for her leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, how can we look American working people in the eye and 
say we want to extend MFN protection to Chinese goods manufactured in 
slave labor factories and prison cmps?
  If we can not say ``no'' to this for fear of offense, what is our 
leverage to say ``no'' to anything?
  As to their $24 billion and growing surplus with us, why do we allow 
the Chinese market to remain rife with internal barriers crafted 
specifically to deflect United States exports?
  A memorandum of understanding between the United States and China in 
August, 1992, provided a mechanism for United States investigations of 
suspect slave labor facilities. More than a year after that agreement 
was signed, the Chinese had acknowledged only 16 of 31 United States 
requests to investigate factories suspected of using slave labor. They 
granted only one request during that visit, United States 
representatives were denied access to parts of the compound. The United 
States request to revisit that facility was denied. This is good 
intentions?
  I might say this is ridiculous and absurd. We see where their 
intentions are. Vote ``yes'' on Pelosi, vote ``yes'' for humanity and 
fairness.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding this 
time to me, and I thank her for her extraordinary leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi substitute to H.R. 4590 
which revokes most-favored-nation [MFN] status for products made under 
the control of the Chinese Government and its military.
  This substitute directs the Treasury Department to publish a list of 
military, state-owned, and defense industrial trading companies in 
China and urges the Treasury Department to encourage U.S. firms 
operating there to adopt a voluntary code of conduct which respects 
basic human rights.
  I have listened to and read what has been advanced by those who 
support delinkage. Their words ring hollow when we see Chinese citizens 
sent to forced labor camps where they must make goods for shipment to 
the United States.
  Our business community, particularly the high technology industry in 
my district, sees tremendous commercial opportunities in China. China 
is cited as the greatest market in history for United States exports. I 
share their view that we pursue new markets.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I also know the most valuable export our great 
Nation has is democracy. And the best lesson in democracy we can give 
the world is the standard we set for ourselves.
  That standard is this: We will not give special trade privileges to 
those who do not give basic human rights to their citizens.
  Will China learn democracy sooner or later if we all United States 
businesses to trade with China as a favored nation? Perhaps.
  But should the United States traffic in products made by Chinese 
workers wit bayonets held to their throats? No, Mr. Chairman, we do not 
need to be trading in that kind of work product.
  The Pelosi substitute provides a clear message to the Chinese 
Government. It says we respectfully inform you that there are 
consequences in failing to meet basic human rights standards we set for 
nations we grant special privileges to.
  Mr. Chairman, those standards were set by the President with the 
support of Congress and American business last year. I believe that not 
equivocating on those standards sends a clear and firm message to 
China's leaders which may be more beneficial to us than any short term 
economic benefits.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Pelosi substitute to H.R. 4590.

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi], for her rational and appropriate 
compromise on the issue of China MFN.
  Like Ms. Pelosi, all of us want to bring about freedom and democracy 
in China. Yet, none of us want to cut off trade with that nation, or to 
harm American companies that do business there.
  The real issue here is leverage. How can we use leverage with the 
Chinese Government to help bring about real change?
  Some say, ``Let market forces continue--and, change is inevitable.'' 
But, no leverage at all is hardly convincing to leaders who murder and 
imprison their citizens to prevent change.
  Some say, Cut off MFN entirely. But, such a blunt tool could spark a 
counterproductive trade war and prevent continued dialog with China's 
leaders.
  The real solution is H.R. 4590. It lets the United States stand up 
for human rights, while using our leverage to move China's leaders 
closer to respect for human rights.
  We all look forward to a day when sanctions are not needed--when 
freedom is a fact of life for the Chinese people.
  H.R. 4590 will bring that day closer, and that's why we should 
support it.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time at 
this moment so my distinguished colleague from California can make the 
concluding remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset I do want to pay tribute to a most 
gracious woman, and she has a firm commitment that I have recognized 
certainly and respect profoundly even though we have honest 
disagreements. So, I say to the gentlewoman, ``I salute you, Ms. 
Pelosi.''
  I simply want to reiterate a few things that were said earlier, and 
that has to do with the importance of an American presence in mainland 
China. The fact of the matter is we are there to set a positive 
example, amongst other things. The treatment of the work force by 
American employers in terms of worker safety, worker welfare, in terms 
of looking to environmental concerns, these set the kinds of positive 
examples that can have that rippling effect that will touch other 
people's lives in China that have never been exposed to that before. 
The United States has been in the vanguard in all of these areas, and I 
think it is important to remember Ben Franklin's counsel: ``A good 
example is the best sermon.''
  Mr. Chairman, the United States presence there provides that good 
example and that sermon, and it is for that reason that I think 
expanded U.S. participation and presence on mainland China serves to 
advance not just the economic interests of the United States or the 
economic interests of mainland China. It serves to advance the 
interests that we share and that are being expressed in the effort by 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] but which can be better 
achieved by having a continuing U.S. presence there and an expanded 
one.
  So, I urge Members, with all due respect, to defeat H.R. 4590 and to 
support the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think anyone here has suggested that we 
disengage in trading with China. The policy that we are now discussing 
is whether we should grant them MFN status. Everyone, and I think it is 
indisputable, knows that China is the worst as far as human rights 
violations in the whole world. This legislation merely asks that MFN 
status for China be denied in relationship to products produced by the 
People's Liberation Army, the Chinese defense industry companies and 
Communist state owned enterprises. I think it is important that we make 
that distinction, and I urge support for the Pelosi amendment.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes, which is all the 
time we have remaining, to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman], 
the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr GLICKMAN. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have to tell my colleagues 
a little bit about the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. She is 
one of the most persistent, doggedly tenacious people on the issue of 
human rights that I ever met. We were in China together about a year 
ago on a Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence trip. Wherever we 
went, from the highest government official down, she tenaciously raised 
the issue of human rights in a vigorous fashion, even in circumstances 
that probably they never thought it would be raised in their lifetime, 
and I think she made her point, and it was an important point, but I 
disagree with her on this issue and for a couple of reasons, and let me 
tell my colleagues why.
  Just a few months ago the President of the United States announced a 
major foreign policy initiative, the renewal of MFN to China, and, yes, 
there was some controversy about it, but can my colleagues imagine how 
indecisive America will now look in the world if today we cut not only 
his legs off, but cut American foreign policy legs off in terms of that 
position? We are being accused of being indecisive in Bosnia, of being 
indecisive in Haiti, of being indecisive in other parts of the world. 
We have one place where we have made a clear foreign policy decision. 
It is China. And now the U.S. Congress is going to say to this 
President, who has not had the most stellar record in the world of 
consistency in foreign policy, ``I'm sorry, Mr. President, you're 
wrong. We are going to do this one away from you.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very bad thing to do to this country, not 
just to this President, but to this country at a time when he has made 
a decision and one that we need to stand by.
  The second thing has to do with human rights, and it is no question 
that China has a much less than stellar record in human rights, but 
this is one of the most important countries in the world economically, 
diplomatically and militarily. China soon, with the United States, will 
probably be the two most economically powerful nations in the world.
  China is also a country that, believe it or not, was quite helpful to 
the United States during the cold war when our efforts were focused on 
containing Moscow. China was of extreme help to our country in making 
sure that the Soviets were contained.
  This is not a country that has been a constant adversary of the 
United States. Yes, it is a country that has a different standard for 
its people and the one that we have got to find the right leverage to 
change so that they improve their standard, but by adopting the Pelosi 
resolution, Mr. Chairman, we isolate China, we isolate them at a time 
that the North Korean Government has the potential, if not the reality, 
of developing nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver to Japan, to 
China and sell all over the world, and our only ace in the hole is 
China. We isolate them at a time when other countries in Southeast Asia 
are developing, and we need Chinese help in order to make sure that we 
have opportunity to influence those countries diplomatically and 
economically. We isolate them at a time when we need to improve their 
human rights record, and they will laugh at us when we try to cause 
their improvement without continuing the trade relationship.
  So, while I honor the commitment of the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi], I think she is wrong on this one. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Hamilton resolution.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel very privileged to rise today to close the 
debate on H.R. 4590. Of course I rise in support of my own legislation, 
and in doing so I want to thank my colleagues who have spoken here 
today, who have lent their names as cosponsors to the legislation: The 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Bonior], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and the list goes on and on to over a hundred 
Members, Democrats and Republicans alike.
  I believe that Wei Jing Jung, who has not been seen since he had a 
meeting with Secretary Shattuck, should be very pleased that so many 
Members of this House of Representatives have stood by him in this 
debate in the face of intense lobbying from those who, while certainly 
supportive of human rights, do not give it the priority that we do in 
our relationship with China, and I say that very forthrightly, Mr. 
Chairman.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. Chairman, one of our colleagues who use to be in this body, 
Representative Lindy Boggs from Louisiana, had a saying that she would 
say to us from time to time in the Women's Caucus especially. She would 
say: ``Know thy power.'' I say that to our colleagues here today. Know 
thy power. With your vote today, you can make a statement in support of 
the moderates and the reformers in China, and the succession there is 
very important to our national interests. It is important that it go in 
a more open politically reformed direction.
  With your vote, knowing thy power, you can make a great advance for 
the American worker. Because you can recognize the linkage, yes, the 
linkage that is there between the fate of the American worker and the 
promotion of human rights abroad.
  Human rights activists and labor activists abroad have said that what 
we are doing in Asia with our trade is racing to the bottom. Companies 
in countries compete for the worst laws, and the weaker the laws are, 
the better they like it. The American worker's job is dependent on 
workers' rights in other countries, because as long as those countries 
repress their workers and their rights, as well as other rights, the 
American worker is ill-served, because we cannot compete with no-cost 
labor for like-prison labor.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 4590 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4590

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``United States-China Act of 
     1994''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In Executive Order 12850, dated May 28, 1993, the 
     President established conditions for renewing most-favored-
     nation treatment for the People's Republic of China in 1994.
       (2) The Executive order requires that in recommending the 
     extension of most-favored-nation trade status to the People's 
     Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning July 3, 
     1994, the Secretary of State shall not recommend extension 
     unless the Secretary determines that such extension 
     substantially promotes the freedom of emigration objectives 
     contained in section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2432) and that China is complying with the 1992 bilateral 
     agreement between the United States and China concerning 
     export to the United States of products made with prison 
     labor.
       (3) The Executive order further requires that in making the 
     recommendation, the Secretary of State shall determine if 
     China has made overall significant progress with respect to--
       (A) taking steps to begin adhering to the Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights;
       (B) releasing and providing an acceptable accounting for 
     Chinese citizens imprisoned or detained for the nonviolent 
     expression of their political and religious beliefs, 
     including such expressions of beliefs in connection with the 
     Democracy Wall and Tiananmen Square movements;
       (C) ensuring humane treatment of prisoners, and allowing 
     access to prisons by international humanitarian and human 
     rights organizations;
       (D) protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural 
     heritage; and
       (E) permitting international radio and television 
     broadcasts into China.
       (4) The Executive order requires the executive branch to 
     resolutely pursue all legislative and executive actions to 
     ensure that China abides by its commitments to follow fair, 
     nondiscriminatory trade practices in dealing with United 
     States businesses and adheres to the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
     Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines and 
     parameters, and other nonproliferation commitments.
       (5) The Government of the People's Republic of China, a 
     member of the United Nations Security Council obligated to 
     respect and uphold the United Nations charter and Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights, has over the past year made less 
     than significant progress on human rights. The People's 
     Republic of China has released only a few prominent political 
     prisoners and continues to violate internationally recognized 
     standards of human rights by arbitrary arrests and detention 
     of persons for the nonviolent expression of their political 
     and religious beliefs.
       (6) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     not allowed humanitarian and human rights organizations 
     access to prisons.
       (7) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     refused to meet with the Dalai Lama, or his representative, 
     to discuss the protection of Tibet's distinctive religious 
     and cultural heritage.
       (8) It continues to be the policy and practice of the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China to control all 
     trade unions and suppress and harass members of the 
     independent labor union movement.
       (9) The Government of the People's Republic of China 
     continues to restrict the activities of accredited 
     journalists.
       (10) The People's Republic of China's defense industrial 
     trading companies and the People's Liberation Army engage in 
     lucrative trade relations with the United States and operate 
     lucrative commercial businesses within the United States. 
     Trade with and investments in the defense industrial trading 
     companies and the People's Liberation Army are contrary to 
     the national security interests of the United States.
       (11) The President has conducted an intensive high-level 
     dialogue with the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China, including meeting with the President of China, in an 
     effort to encourage that government to make significant 
     progress toward meeting the standards contained in the 
     Executive order for continuation of most-favored-nation 
     treatment.
       (12) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     not made overall significant progress with respect to the 
     standards contained in the President's Executive Order 12850, 
     dated May 28, 1993.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the Congress that, since 
     the President has recommended the continuation of the waiver 
     under section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 for the 
     People's Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning 
     July 3, 1994, such waiver shall not provide for extension of 
     nondiscriminatory trade treatment to goods that are produced, 
     manufactured, or exported by the People's Liberation Army or 
     Chinese defense industrial trading companies or to 
     nonqualified goods that are produced, manufactured, or 
     exported by state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic 
     of China.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY 
                   TREATMENT.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law--
       (1) if nondiscriminatory treatment is not granted to the 
     People's Republic of China by reason of the enactment into 
     law of a disapproval resolution described in subsection 
     (b)(1), nondiscriminatory treatment shall--
       (A) continue to apply to any good that is produced or 
     manufactured by a person that is not a state-owned enterprise 
     of the People's Republic of China, but
       (B) not apply to any good that is produced, manufactured, 
     or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China,
       (2) if nondiscriminatory treatment is granted to the 
     People's Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning 
     on July 3, 1994, such nondiscriminatory treatment shall not 
     apply to--
       (A) any good that is produced, manufactured, or exported by 
     the People's Liberation Army or a Chinese defense industrial 
     trading company, or
       (B) any nonqualified good that is produced, manufactured, 
     or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China, and
       (3) in order for nondiscriminatory treatment to be granted 
     to the People's Republic of China, and subsequent to the 
     granting of such nondiscriminatory treatment, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall consult with leaders of American 
     businesses having significant trade with or investment in the 
     People's Republic of China, to encourage them to adopt a 
     voluntary code of conduct that--
       (A) follows internationally recognized human rights 
     principles,
       (B) ensures that the employment of Chinese citizens is not 
     discriminatory in terms of sex, ethnic origin, or political 
     belief,
       (C) ensures that no convict, forced, or indentured labor is 
     knowingly used,
       (D) recognizes the rights of workers to freely organize and 
     bargain collectively, and
       (E) discourages mandatory political indoctrination on 
     business premises.
       (b) Disapproval Resolution.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the two 
     Houses of Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of 
     which is as follows: ``That the Congress does not approve the 
     extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the 
     Congress on ______________________ with respect to the 
     People's Republic of China because the Congress does not 
     agree that the People's Republic of China has met the 
     standards described in the President's Executive Order 12850, 
     dated May 28, 1993.'', with the blank space being filled with 
     the appropriate date.
       (2) Applicable rules.--The provisions of sections 153 
     (other than paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b)) and 
     402(d)(2) (as modified by this subsection) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 shall apply to a resolution described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (c) Determination of State-Owned Enterprises and Chinese 
     Defense Industrial Trading Companies.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall determine which 
     persons are state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic 
     of China and which persons are Chinese defense industrial 
     trading companies for purposes of this Act. The Secretary 
     shall publish a list of such persons in the Federal Register.
       (2) Public hearing.--
       (A) General rule.--Before making the determination and 
     publishing the list required by paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall hold a public hearing for the purpose 
     of receiving oral and written testimony regarding the persons 
     to be included on the list.
       (B) Additions and deletions.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     may add or delete persons from the list based on information 
     available to the Secretary or upon receipt of a request 
     containing sufficient information to take such action.
       (3) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of making 
     the determination required by paragraph (1), the following 
     definitions apply:
       (A) Chinese defense industrial trading company.--The term 
     ``Chinese defense industrial trading company''--
       (i) means a person that is--

       (I) engaged in manufacturing, producing, or exporting, and
       (II) affiliated with or owned, controlled, or subsidized by 
     the People's Liberation Army, and

       (ii) includes any person identified in the United States 
     Defense Intelligence Agency publication numbered VP-1920-271-
     90, dated September 1990.
       (B) People's liberation army.--The term ``People's 
     Liberation Army'' means any branch or division of the land, 
     naval, or air military service or the police of the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China.
       (C) State-owned enterprise of the people's republic of 
     china.--(i) The term ``state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China'' means a person who is affiliated with or 
     wholly owned, controlled, or subsidized by the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China and whose means of production, 
     products, and revenues are owned or controlled by a central 
     or provincial government authority. A person shall be 
     considered to be state-owned if--
       (I) the person's assets are primarily owned by a central or 
     provincial government authority;
       (II) a substantial proportion of the person's profits are 
     required to be submitted to a central or provincial 
     government authority;
       (III) the person's production, purchases of inputs, and 
     sales of output, in whole or in part, are subject to state, 
     sectoral, or regional plans; or
       (IV) a license issued by a government authority classifies 
     the person as state-owned.
       (ii) Any person that--
       (I) is a qualified foreign joint venture or is licensed by 
     a governmental authority as a collective, cooperative, or 
     private enterprise; or
       (II) is wholly owned by a foreign person,
     shall not be considered to be state-owned.
       (D) Qualified foreign joint venture.--The term ``qualified 
     foreign joint venture'' means any person--
       (i) which is registered and licensed in the agency or 
     department of the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China concerned with foreign economic relations and trade as 
     an equity, cooperative, contractual joint venture, or joint 
     stock company with foreign investment;
       (ii) in which the foreign investor partner and a person of 
     the People's Republic of China share profits and losses and 
     jointly manage the venture;
       (iii) in which the foreign investor partner holds or 
     controls at least 25 percent of the investment and the 
     foreign investor partner is not substantially owned or 
     controlled by a state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China;
       (iv) in which the foreign investor partner is not a person 
     of a country the government of which the Secretary of State 
     has determined under section 6(j) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) to have 
     repeatedly provided support for acts of international 
     terrorism; and
       (v) which does not use state-owned enterprises of the 
     People's Republic of China to export its goods or services.
       (E) Person.--The term ``person'' means a natural person, 
     corporation, partnership, enterprise, instrumentality, 
     agency, or other entity.
       (F) Foreign investor partner.--The term ``foreign investor 
     partner'' means--
       (i) a natural person who is not a citizen of the People's 
     Republic of China; and
       (ii) a corporation, partnership, instrumentality, 
     enterprise, agency, or other entity that is organized under 
     the laws of a country other than the People's Republic of 
     China and 50 percent or more of the outstanding capital stock 
     or beneficial interest of such entity is owned (directly or 
     indirectly) by natural persons who are not citizens of the 
     People's Republic of China.
       (G) Nonqualified good.--The term ``nonqualified good'' 
     means a good to which chapter 39, 44, 48, 61, 62, 64, 70, 73, 
     84, 93, or 94 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
     States applies.
       (H) Convict, forced, or indentured labor.--The term 
     ``convict, forced, or indentured labor'' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1307).
       (I) Violations of internationally recognized standards of 
     human rights.--The term ``violations of internationally 
     recognized standards of human rights'' includes but is not 
     limited to, torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment 
     or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, 
     causing the disappearance of persons by abduction and 
     clandestine detention of those persons, secret judicial 
     proceedings, and other flagrant denial of the right to life, 
     liberty, or the security of any person.
       (J) Missile technology control regime.--The term ``Missile 
     Technology Control Regime'' means the agreement, as amended, 
     between the United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal 
     Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and Japan, 
     announced on April 16, 1987, to restrict sensitive missile-
     relevant transfers based on an annex of missile equipment and 
     technology.
       (d) Semiannual Reports.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and the end of each 6-month period 
     occurring thereafter, report to the Congress on the efforts 
     of the executive branch to carry out subsection (c). The 
     Secretary may include in the report a request for additional 
     authority, if necessary, to carry out subsection (c). In 
     addition, the report shall include information regarding the 
     efforts of the executive branch to carry out subsection 
     (a)(3).

     SEC. 4. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.

       The President may waive the application of any condition or 
     prohibition imposed on any person pursuant to this Act, if 
     the President determines and reports to the Congress that the 
     continued imposition of the condition or prohibition would 
     have a serious adverse effect on the vital national security 
     interests of the United States.

     SEC. 5. REPORT BY THE PRESIDENT.

       If the President recommends in 1995 that the waiver 
     referred to in section 2 be continued for the People's 
     Republic of China, the President shall state in the document 
     required to be submitted to the Congress by section 402(d) of 
     the Trade Act of 1974, the extent to which the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China has made progress during the 
     period covered by the document, with respect to--
       (1) adhering to the provisions of the Universal Declaration 
     of Human Rights,
       (2) ceasing the exportation to the United States of 
     products made with convict, force, or indentured labor,
       (3) ceasing unfair and discriminatory trade practices which 
     restrict and unreasonably burden American business, and
       (4) adhering to the guidelines and parameters of the 
     Missile Technology Control Regime, the controls adopted by 
     the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the controls adopted by the 
     Australia Group.

     SEC. 6. SANCTIONS BY OTHER COUNTRIES.

       If the President decides not to seek a continuation of a 
     waiver in 1995 for the People's Republic of China under 
     section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974, the President shall, 
     during the 30-day period beginning on the date that the 
     President would have recommended to the Congress that such a 
     waiver be continued, undertake efforts to ensure that members 
     of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade take a similar 
     action with respect to the People's Republic of China.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except the amendments 
printed in House Report 103-673, which may be offered only by the 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall 
not be subject to amendment. Debate on each amendment will be equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the 
amendment. 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.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment numbered one in House 
Report 103-673.


    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. hamilton

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Hamilton:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``United States China Policy 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The economic, social, political, and cultural welfare 
     of the people of China, who constitute one-fifth of the 
     world's population, is a matter of global humanitarian 
     concern.
       (2) By virtue of its size, its economic vitality, its 
     status as a nuclear power, and its role as a permanent member 
     of the United Nations Security Council, China plays a 
     significant role in world affairs.
       (3) The United States policy toward China involves 
     balancing multiple interests, including promoting human 
     rights and democracy, securing China's strategic cooperation 
     in Asia and the United Nations, protecting United States 
     national security interests, controlling the proliferation of 
     weapons of mass destruction, promoting a peaceful and 
     democratic transition in Hong Kong, and expanding United 
     States economic contact with China.
       (4) United States policy toward China must include as a key 
     objective the promotion of internationally recognized human 
     rights. Specific priorities and methods should be appropriate 
     to the circumstances. Engagement with China rather than its 
     isolation is more likely to foster United States interests.
       (5) The opening of China to the West, the adoption of free 
     market economic reforms, the emergence of a strong and 
     entrepreneurial economy that ensures the rise of a Chinese 
     middle class; all have led to expanded individual freedom, a 
     weakening of state control over personal expression, access 
     to the media in the United States, Hong Kong, and the West, 
     and major improvements in living standards for the Chinese 
     people.
       (6) United States policies that encourage economic 
     liberalization and increased contact with the United States 
     and other democracies foster respect for internationally 
     recognized human rights and can contribute to civil and 
     political reform in China.
       (7) The President's policy statement of May 26, 1994, 
     provides a sound framework for expanding and extending the 
     relationship of the United States with China while continuing 
     the commitment of the United States to its historic values. 
     The United States must develop a comprehensive and coherent 
     policy toward China that addresses the complex and fast-
     changing reality in that country and promotes simultaneously 
     the human rights, diplomatic, economic, and security 
     interests of the United States toward China.
       (8) The United States has an interest in a strong, stable, 
     prosperous, and open China whose government contributes to 
     international peace and security and whose actions are 
     consistent with the responsibilities of great power status. 
     Whether those expectations are met will determine the 
     breadth, depth, and tone of the United States-China bilateral 
     relationship.
       (9) Peace and economic progress in East Asia is best 
     assured through a web of cooperative relations among the 
     countries of the region, including China and the United 
     States. The emergence of a militarily powerful China that 
     seeks to dominate East Asia would be regarded as a matter of 
     serious concern by the United States and by other countries 
     in the Asia-Pacific region.
       (10) Yet China's performance has been uneven on a number of 
     issues of concern to the United States. In particular, the 
     Chinese Government has failed to observe internationally 
     recognized human rights. In this regard the Congress makes 
     the following declarations:
       (A) The Chinese Government itself has made commitments to 
     observe universal human rights norms.
       (B) Human rights have universal application and are not 
     solely defined by culture or history.
       (C) Chinese policies of particular concern to the United 
     States are the criminalization of dissent, the inhumane 
     treatment in prisons, and the serious repression in non-Han-
     Chinese areas like Tibet.
       (11) Genuine political stability in China and greater 
     respect for internationally recognized human rights, as well 
     as continued economic growth and stability, will only occur 
     in China as a result of a strengthened legal system (based on 
     the rule of law and property rights), the emergence of a 
     civil society, and the creation of political institutions 
     that are responsive to public opinion and the interests of 
     social groups.
       (12) China has entered a major transition in its political 
     history which will determine the nature of the domestic 
     system, including respect for internationally recognized 
     human rights, and the Chinese Government's foreign policy. 
     The Chinese Government should accelerate the process of 
     reform of all aspects of Chinese society.
       (13) Existing official bilateral and multilateral 
     institutions provide useful venues for engagement with China 
     concerning the rule of law, civil society, respect for 
     internationally recognized human rights, and political 
     institutions that provide humane and effective governance.
       (14) American nongovernmental and business organizations, 
     in their various forms of engagement in China, have 
     contributed in that country to the initial emergence of civil 
     society, the strengthening of the legal system, and the 
     expansion of economic autonomy.

     SEC. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF UNITED STATES 
                   POLICY.

       Congress affirms the President's policy and makes the 
     following recommendations for the conduct of United States 
     policy toward China:
       (1) The United States should continue a steady and 
     comprehensive policy of pressing for increased Chinese 
     adherence to international norms, especially those concerning 
     internationally recognized human rights.
       (2) Of particular concern to the United States are the 
     following:
       (A) The accounting and release of political prisoners.
       (B) Access to Chinese prisoners by international 
     humanitarian organizations.
       (C) Negotiations between the Chinese Government and the 
     Dalai Lama on Tibetan issues.
       (3) The official dialogue with the Chinese Government on 
     human rights issues should continue and be intensified.
       (4) As he considers appropriate, the President should use 
     other available modes of official interaction with China to 
     pursue initiatives that are relevant to promoting increased 
     respect for human rights in China.
       (5) The United States should expand broadcasting to China, 
     through the Voice of America and Radio Free Asia.
       (6) The United States should work through available 
     multilateral fora, such as the United Nations Human Rights 
     Commission, to express concerns about human rights in China 
     and to encourage Chinese adherence to, and compliance with, 
     international human rights instruments. At all appropriate 
     times, the United States should work toward and support joint 
     actions to address significant problems. In particular, the 
     United States should seek to secure the participation of 
     other governments in overtures to secure the accounting and 
     release of political prisoners, to encourage access to 
     Chinese prisoners by international humanitarian organizations 
     and negotiations between the Chinese Government and the Dalai 
     Lama.
       (7) Where possible, the United States should take further 
     steps to foster in China the rule of law, the creation of a 
     civic society, and the emergence of institutions that provide 
     humane and effective governance.
       (8) To better carry out the recommendation in paragraph 
     (7), the Secretary of State should encourage United States 
     posts in China to increase reporting on the human rights 
     situation, the rule of law, civil society, and other 
     political developments in China, and to increase appropriate 
     contacts with domestic nongovernmental organizations.
       (9) United States non-governmental organizations should 
     continue and expand activities that encourage the rule of 
     law, the emergence of a civic society, and the creation of 
     institutions that provide humane and effective governance.
       (10) When considering the termination of the suspensions of 
     United States Government activities enacted in section 902(a) 
     of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 
     and 1991, the President should explore whether such 
     terminations could be used to elicit specific steps by the 
     Chinese government to enhance respect for internationally 
     recognized human rights or correct abuses of such rights.

     SEC. 4. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS SUPPORTING HUMAN 
                   RIGHTS IN CHINA.

       (a) Statement of Policy.--Concerning the promotion of human 
     rights in China, it shall be the policy of the United States 
     to promote the following objectives:
       (1) An effective legal system, based on the rule of law.
       (2) Respect for internationally recognized human rights.
       (3) The emergence of civil society.
       (4) The creation of institutions that provide humane and 
     effective governance.
       (b) Factors.--In determining how to carry out the 
     objectives stated in subsection (a), the President should 
     consider the following factors:
       (1) The circumstances under which it is appropriate to 
     provide support to organizations and individuals in China.
       (2) The circumstances under which it is appropriate to 
     provide financial support, including through the following 
     means:
       (A) Directly by the United States Government.
       (B) Through United States nongovernmental organizations 
     which have established a sound record in China.
       (3) The extent to which the objectives of subsection (a) 
     should be promoted through exchanges, technical assistance, 
     grants to organizations, and scholarships for advanced study 
     in the United States.
       (4) How to assure accountability for funds provided by the 
     United States Government.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1995.--
       (1) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     education and cultural exchange programs of the United States 
     Information Agency for fiscal year 1995, up to $1,000,000 is 
     authorized to be available for programs to carry out the 
     objectives of subsection (a).
       (2) In addition to such amounts as may otherwise be made 
     available for broadcasting to China for fiscal year 1995, of 
     the amounts authorized to be appropriated for international 
     broadcasting for fiscal year 1995, an additional $5,000,000 
     may be used for broadcasting to China .

     SEC. 5. INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATIONS.

       It is the sense of Congress that, in the event that 
     international humanitarian organizations undertake activities 
     in China related to the treatment of prisoners, the President 
     should make available an additional contribution to those 
     organizations to support such activities.

     SEC. 6. PRINCIPLES TO GOVERN THE ACTIVITIES OF UNITED STATES 
                   BUSINESS IN CHINA.

       (a) In General.--Congress endorses President Clinton's 
     efforts to work with the leaders of the United States 
     business community to develop voluntary principles that could 
     be adapted by United States companies doing business in China 
     to further advance human rights and commends United States 
     companies that have previously adopted such principles or are 
     considering taking such action.
       (b) Other Countries.--Congress urges the President to 
     encourage other governments to adopt similar principles to 
     govern the activities of their business organizations with 
     activities in China.

     SEC. 7. PERIODIC REPORTS.

       Not more than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and annually for the 2 subsequent years, the 
     President shall submit to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate, a report (in a classified form in 
     whole or in part as necessary) which reviews for the 
     preceding 12-month period those activities supported by the 
     United States Government to promote the objectives stated in 
     section 4(a).

     SEC. 8. COMMISSION ON LAW AND SOCIETY IN CHINA.

       The President is authorized to establish a United States 
     commission on law and society in the People's Republic of 
     China to undertake the following responsibilities and such 
     other duties as the President considers appropriate:
       (1) To monitor developments in China with respect to the 
     following:
       (A) The development of the Chinese legal system.
       (B) The emergence of civil society.
       (C) The development of institutions that provide humane and 
     effective governance.
       (2) To engage in an ad hoc dialogue with Chinese 
     individuals and nongovernmental organizations who have an 
     interest in the subjects indicated in paragraph (1).
       (3) To report to the President and to the Congress the 
     commission's findings regarding the subjects identified in 
     paragraph (1) and its discussions with Chinese individuals 
     and organizations concerning those subjects.
       (4) To make recommendations to the President on United 
     States policy toward China in promoting the objectives 
     identified in section 4(a).
       (5) To assess and report to the President and the Congress 
     on whether the creation of a United States-China Commission 
     on Law and Society would contribute to the objectives 
     identified in section 4(a).
       Amend the title to read as follows: ``Concerning United 
     States efforts to promote respect for internationally 
     recognized human rights in China.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] in opposition to the 
Hamilton amendment?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the question the House faces in consideration of HR 
4590, offered by my good friend, the gentlewoman, from California, is 
not whether human rights should be a central objective of the United 
States policy toward China. We both agree that it should.
  The question is how best to promote all United States interests in 
China. The choice is clear cut. Do we promote our security, economic 
and human rights interests in China through engagement, or through 
confrontation?
  The Pelosi bill represents a policy of confrontation. It continues 
the linkage between trade and human rights, and it will increase 
tariffs on half of China's exports to the United States.
  The Hamilton Amendment endorses a policy of engagement. It is the 
President's policy. It is a policy of engaging China in a web of 
cooperation. It de-links China's MFN status from its human rights 
record, and urges that we pursue our human rights objectives and other 
important interests through more effective means.


                pelosi approach: costs, but little gain

  Passage of the Pelosi bill would bring heavy costs but few benefits.
  First, it would seriously damage U.S. security and political 
interests. According to Secretary of Defense William Perry, it could 
have ``adverse consequences'' for the ``nation's security.''
  If we pass this bill, China could undermine our policy in North 
Korea, block sanctions resolutions at the United Nations, and increase 
tensions with Taiwan.
  Second, the Pelosi bill would seriously damage U.S. economic 
interests.
  If we denied MFN treatment for half of its exports to the United 
States, China would surely retaliate against United States exporters. 
Our exports would plummet. Our trade deficit would soar.
  According to Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, the Pelosi bill has 
``potentially devastating consequences'' for our current exports, for 
our future competitiveness in the Chinese market, and our global 
competitiveness in key high-tech industries.
  Besides jeopardizing current exports to China, the Pelosi bill will 
endanger follow-on United States exports totalling $12 billion. In 
telecommunications alone, China will require imports of $3 billion 
during this decade.
  Those are the costs of the Pelosi bill, and they are heavy. In 
return, we would get little. Human rights would not improve, and 
probably worsen.
  China's leaders would conclude that the goal of U.S. policy was to 
bring down their regime. They would have no incentive to release 
political prisoners or negotiate with the Dalai Lama.
  Chinese who favor political liberalization would be deprived of the 
freedoms they have.
  Make no mistake about it: those in China seeking more political 
freedom want the United States to extend MFN, not end it or restrict 
it.
  My amendment differs significantly from the policy of confrontation 
contained in the Pelosi bill:
  The Hamilton alternative reinforces the President's policy, rather 
than undermines it. The Administration supports the Hamilton amendment 
and ``strongly opposes'' the Pelosi approach.
  At a time of transition in China, my amendment promotes positive 
forces for change rather than provoking the negative elements of the 
Chinese regime.
  The Hamilton Amendment protects and promotes all United States 
interests--security, economic, and human rights interests--in China.
  The Hamilton alternative emphasizes a multilateral approach toward 
human rights in China instead of a go-it-alone approach.
  I urge Members to vote for the Hamilton amendment and to support the 
President's policy toward China.
  Members today have a clear choice. But they cannot have it both ways. 
Some have suggested it is possible to vote for the Pelosi amendment and 
the Hamilton amendment.
  These two approaches cannot be reconciled. We cannot confront China 
one day and engage China the next. Members have to choose. I believe 
the choice is clear, and simple.
  The Pelosi bill imposes severe costs on the United States, with 
little or no gain to the national interest.
  The President's policy, contained in the Hamilton amendment, advances 
our national security, our economic well-being, and our interest in 
human rights. It gives us maximum leverage at a critical time in China.
  The Hamilton Amendment:
  Emphasizes the importance of human rights as a goal of United States 
China Policy.
  Urges the Administration to work through international organizations 
such as the United Nations Human Rights Commission to press human 
rights concerns.
  Reallocates existing United States funds for programs to promote 
human rights in China and for increased international broadcasting to 
China.
  Urges American non-governmental organizations to dedicate more 
resources to human-rights-related activities in China.
  Endorses the President's effort to work with United States businesses 
to create a voluntary code of conduct to govern business activities in 
China.
  Authorizes the President to establish a United States commission to 
monitor human rights conditions in China.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4891, 
the substitute amendment introduced late last week by Chairman 
Hamilton. I am troubled by the fact that the Foreign Affairs Committee 
has not had an opportunity to address the issues in the Hamilton bill.
  The Hamilton substitute does not refer to the issues raised by the 
Pelosi bill. It does not concern itself with our Nation's subsidization 
of the People's Liberation Army. I ask my colleagues, how can we 
rationalize giving trade benefits to the very same military forces that 
fought us in Korea and slaughtered the young peaceful protesters in 
Tiananmen Square?
  I ask my colleagues to please consider--does it make any sense 
whatsoever to assist the only military force in the world that is still 
targeting the United States with nuclear weapons and is still testing 
nuclear weapons? The Hamilton bill does not address these problems that 
are so critical to our national security.
  Many of the workers for the Chinese military industrial plants are 
not even paid. They are prisoners who peacefully protested for 
democracy and now toil to produce products that are dumped on our 
markets. The profits go to supporting an offensive Communist military 
machine that results in our own defense budget allocating resources to 
contend with this threat. Where is the logic in that equation.
  Mr. Chairman, allow me to close by reminding our President of what he 
said in 1992 about President Bush's policy toward China and I quote:

       In China, the President continues to coddle aging rulers 
     with undisguised contempt for democracy, human rights, and 
     the need to control the spread of dangerous technologies. 
     Such forbearance on our part might have been justified during 
     the cold war as a strategic necessity, where China was a 
     counterweight to Soviet power. But it makes no sense to play 
     the China card now, when our opponents have thrown in their 
     hand.

  ``A Strategy for Foreign Policy.'' Delivered by Governor Bill Clinton 
to the Foreign Policy Association, New York, N.Y., April 1, 1992.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Hamilton substitute 
and to support the Pelosi bill.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, conditioning the annual renewal of MFN on 
human rights objectives is a foreign policy stick that failed to 
produce the progress which we all seek from the Communist Chinese 
Government. This approach, debated in the House every year since 1990, 
is counterproductive to our goals of fostering the growth of freedom 
and democracy in that nation.
  I welcomed President Clinton's decision on June 2 to extend MFN to 
China, and to formally delink human rights objectives from the annual 
extension of MFN. I will vote for the Hamilton substitute, H.R. 4891, 
because it affirms this policy and expresses my desire for the country 
to speak in unison on international problems.
  In making his announcement, the President said that a policy of 
engagement gives us the best chance to achieve success in all areas of 
interest to the United States--human rights, weapons proliferation, and 
market access for our exports.
  We need a strong and coherent policy which does not elevate a single 
United States interest above the others. We need a policy that is 
viewed with respect by China, and by our allies with whom we must 
cooperate if our pressure is to succeed.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Hamilton substitute.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman], a senior member of the Subcommittee on 
International Security, International Organizations and Human Rights.
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hamilton 
substitute, and in support of H.R. 4590.
  I support H.R. 4590 because I believe it will offer moral support at 
a critical moment to both Chinese dissidents and those arguing for 
reform within the system. Although I do not expect this legislation to 
survive a veto and be enacted into law, I believe that a strong vote in 
its favor today can actually strengthen the President's hand in dealing 
with the Chinese Government, even as he explores other means for 
promoting the cause of human rights in China.
  By the administration's own account, the human rights situation in 
China and Tibet remains deplorable. In announcing extension of MFN and 
delinking MFN from human rights, the President stated that ``China 
continues to commit very serious human rights abuses''.
  The Secretary of State, in his recommendations to the President, 
noted that ``Despite several significant prisoner releases, many more 
dissidents were detained, tried and sentenced during a nationwide 
crackdown on political and religious dissent.'' The Secretary also 
noted that new laws were codified which would abridge political and 
religious rights.
  One might conclude from this that, since linking MFN and human rights 
appeared to be so ineffective, we have little to lose from trying the 
administration's approach. That would ignore the effect of the 
administration's mixed messages to the Chinese Government in the weeks 
and months before the decision. It would also overlook the very real 
possibility that, if the mere threat of a sanction was insufficient to 
extract concessions from a hard-line dictatorship intent on calling our 
bluff, the natural next step might be to actually do what we had 
threatened to do.
  But most important is the obvious evidence of the Chinese 
Government's behavior in response to the new policy. The human rights 
situation has deteriorated as an immediate consequence of the 
President's decision.
  On July 14, the first major political trial since 1991 began in 
Beijing to try 14 persons whom Amnesty International has declared 
prisoners of conscience. This is the largest joint political trial in 
many years. The defendants had been in detention for more than 2 years, 
and the trial had been postponed several times since September 1993.
  In Tibet, Phuntsog Yangkyi, a 20-year-old nun, died from injuries 
sustained after she was severely beaten for singing nationalist songs. 
Her body was hurriedly cremated against the wishes of her family, 
making it impossible for them to arrange an independent medical 
investigation into the cause of death. Phuntsog Gyaltsen, a 36-year-old 
monk and prisoner of conscience, is reported to be seriously ill as a 
result of sustained beatings in Drapchi prison in Lhasa. According to 
unofficial sources, his body has become helpless, and he suffers from 
liver and stomach ailments. Nevertheless, he is compelled to continue 
hard labor such as digging, emptying toilets, and cultivating.

  Five Tibetans were sentenced recently to 12 to 15 years imprisonment 
and 4 to 5 years disenfranchisement for nothing more than destroying a 
name plate on a government building and pasting up proindependence 
slogans.
  What all this suggests is that the delinking of human rights and 
trade has had a negative effect on the position of reformists within 
the Chinese Government, and has emboldened the hard-liners. It is 
difficult under these circumstances to understand the administration's 
position that conditioning MFN on human rights was the right policy a 
year ago but is the wrong one now.
  Perhaps if we had never threatened to restrict MFN unless the issues 
of human rights was satisfactorily addressed, I might today be 
persuaded that the two matters should not be linked. However, to have 
conditioned a particular privilege on human rights improvements, only 
to have the Chinese Government defy our concerns about human rights, 
compels some indication from the United States Government of the 
seriousness of our resolve to use trade sanctions.
  If I felt that the administration is today considering adequate 
alternative instruments to promote our interest in human rights, I 
might still be persuaded that we ought not to use trade sanctions. 
However, I do not believe that adequate means are under consideration, 
and I see no alternative to the very precisely crafted approach of H.R. 
4590.
  Let me make clear at the outset that I am all for engagement with 
that great civilization. I accept that we must acknowledge the global 
importance of China, and the legitimacy of its people's aspirations to 
a better life. I also agree that our economic interests in the region 
suggest that we not fatally burden our trade relationship with China. 
However, our long-term interests are in siding with the Chinese people 
in their struggle against one of the most oppressive and violent 
governments in recent times.
  I believe that H.R. 4590 is an intelligent and precise instrument of 
United States policy in China. It would leave the vast bulk of United 
States-China trade entirely free to accomplish the economic and 
political benefits that are claimed for it. While I applaud the 
President's ban on import of munitions, I believe that to be 
insufficient. In any case, that was a measure we needed to take to make 
our streets safer. The voluntary code of conduct for United States 
businesses, proposed by the administration, can have no effect at all 
on the behavior of the Chinese Government, and is in any case opposed 
by United States business.
  H.R. 4590 would target for trade sanctions precisely those Chines 
exports to the United States which bolster the Chinese Government's 
capacity to repress its citizens and build up the strength of the 
military and the state. I have reviewed the administration's arguments 
against this modest approach, and I am not persuaded by them.
  The administration suggests that it is extremely difficult to assess 
exactly what products are covered by the act, but then proceeds to 
suggest that it estimates that the value of goods covered by the act 
would be $17 billion. I fail to understand how this estimate is arrived 
at if indeed there is such great doubt about the goods covered.
  In fact, the goods to be covered are quite specific, and procedures 
are provided for determining them. Products made by the Chinese armed 
forces or their subsidiaries, as determined by the Secretary of the 
Treasury, and specified classes of goods from a U.S. Tariff Schedule 
which are provided by State Owned Enterprises, also determined by the 
Secretary of the Treasury. While the administration argues the worst 
case that almost any company that received subsidized inputs could be 
defined as a state owned, H.R. 4590 provides a clear exception for 
collective, cooperative, private or foreign enterprises.
  Most significant of all is the provision of H.R. 4590 which allows 
the President to waive any restriction that he determines would have a 
serious adverse effect on the vital national security interests of the 
United States. Thus, the legislation would not hobble our nation's 
capacity to pursue other aspects of our relationship with China.
  Even were the Chinese Government to engage in fraud to evade the 
restrictions, we already have in place instruments and procedures for 
determining the origin of goods, for purposes of trade law enforcement.
  Reliable estimates of the value of defined types of imports suggest 
that approximately goods worth about $5 billion would be subject to 
higher tariffs. Given the fact that China would still have a trade 
surplus of approximately $20 billion with the United States, it defies 
credibility to suggest that they would retaliate against United States 
businesses, risk counter-retaliation, and kill the goose that lays the 
golden egg.
  Even if the goods at stake were worth the $17 billion inaccurately 
estimate by the administration, we would still the only major nation 
running a substantial trade deficit with China. I must note that the 
United States buys 40 percent of Chinese exports, while China buys 2 
percent of United States exports. Which nation depends more on this 
trade relationship?
  I believe that the approach of the substitute, which reflects the 
administration's policy, towards the promotion of human rights, is an 
ineffective instrument.
  The only substantive provision of the substitute relate to 
educational and cultural exchange programs of the United States 
Information Agency [USIA], broadcasting, and the Commission on Law and 
Society in China. The provision on USIA programs makes no new money 
available, and adds nothing to the President's existing authority to 
use existing funds for programs in China. The same is true of the 
broadcasting provision; whatever additional money was used for 
broadcasting to China would be at the expense of an already 
insufficient broadcasting budget. The Commission is a fine idea, 
although it is unclear how much force a private commission can add to 
the bilateral dialogue on human rights.
  Moreover, even a significantly expanded broadcasting capacity, while 
important as one instrument of policy among many, cannot be relied on 
too greatly. It is noteworthy that in noting improvements justifying 
the extension of MFN, the President pointed to Chinese cooperation on 
jamming of United States broadcasts. Recent developments suggest that 
hope was ill-founded and that the Chinese Government remains as 
intransigent as ever.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, as President Clinton stated in May, 
conditioning trade as a policy tool has outlived its usefulness--
particularly in our China policy. Instead, we must recognize--as this 
amendment does--that United States policies that engage China and 
promote economic liberalization, greater international trade, and 
increased contact with the West are the policies that contribute to 
civil and political reform in China.
  Our bill affirms those beliefs and does not condition trade with 
China on specific actions by the Chinese Government. It sets forth a 
policy supporting human rights in China as a key United States foreign 
policy objective, but which does not undermine our national security 
and economic interests in China and the rest of Asia.
  This debate is not about deals versus ideals. It is not about 
principle over profit. This debate is about constructing a United 
States foreign policy towards China and all of Asia that meets the 
diverse interests of the American and Chinese people.
  We all agree on the importance of promoting respect for human rights 
in China. U.S. foreign policy must be based on deeply held moral and 
political convictions that derive from 200 years of experience with 
American democracy and over 2,000 years of Western civilization and 
Judeo-Christian values. Such values are now nearly universally 
accepted, regardless of a nation's religious faith or culture.
  However, we should not use trade sanctions when sanctions will not 
achieve our interpretation of human rights in China and when the trade 
sanctions only hurt the very Chinese people we are trying to help. But 
do not listen to me, listen to what ordinary Chinese citizens are 
saying to the New York Times Beijing bureau chief. He says:

       Talk to Chinese peasants, workers, and intellectuals and on 
     one subject you get virtual unaniminity: Don't curb trade.

  For this reason, I encourage Members to vote yes on H.R. 4891.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, let me just stipulate that there are good and 
decent Members on both sides, and I believe that very deeply. And they 
both share the same goal.
  Let me just say, as I was thinking, siting out there, what would we 
be doing in the Congress today if we were debating MFN in 1933 for 
Germany? What would we be doing?
  We went back and got some telegrams and memos from Cordell Hull. On 
March 3, 1993, Cordell Hull reveals he had received reports that the 
entire Jewish population was ``living under the shadow of a campaign of 
murder'' scheduled to begin in a few days, but he ``paid no credence to 
them.''
  The second cablegram, March 21, 1933, although the State Department 
admits the United States press was reporting widespread mistreatment of 
Jews in Germany, ``telegrams thus far received from the embassy do not 
appear to bear out the gravity of the situation.''
  March 24, 1933, despite receiving pleas to take up the issue of the 
German Government, Cordell Hull was ``of the opinion that outside 
intercession rarely produced the results desired and that frequently 
aggravated the situation.''
  I am enclosing for the Record those cables and also the New York 
Times article that said, in it, he stated, ``in the opinion of the 
embassy, stabilization has been reached in the field of personal 
mistreatment, and there are indications that in other phases, the 
situation is improving.''

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Chairman, we all know what happened after that.
  Please understand that I am not suggesting that the People's Republic 
of China in the 1994 version of the genocidal Nazi Germany. But as in 
the 1930's, when there was an unwillingness to believe the human rights 
violations could be occurring, I fear the world today may be naively 
turning away from the ongoing brutal repression in the PRC. The world 
should not be silent in 1994 as it was 1933.
  If this bill fails, the issue of MFN for China may never come up 
again. The Chinese people will continue to be thrown into prison 
because if they dare to think independently, the Chinese military will 
continue to defy international pressure to improve its behavior, the 
Chinese martyrs will continue to believe that no one is there to 
comfort them, and the memories of Tiananmen will continue to fade.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say that my sense is that many of the 
businesses, although they are good businesses, will no longer speak 
out. I really have not heard of the business community, which I 
generally support in this speaking out on this issue. In fact, I have 
been getting cablegrams from our intelligence agencies that have been 
saying the business communities have been very silent when they meet 
with the Chinese Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support this, and hope 
that whatever we do, we will be vigilant on this issue from here on 
into the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record copies of telegrams and 
articles describing the situation regarding Jewish persecution in 
Germany:


                                          Department of State,

                                        Washington, March 3, 1933.
       The following appeared as an ASSOCIATED PRESS dispatch from 
     London today in the PUBLIC LEDGER, Philadelphia:
       ``London Daily Herald said today plans were complete for 
     Anti-Jewish program in Germany on a scale as terrible as any 
     instance Jewish persecution in two thousand years.''
       The paper ascribed its information to ``high source'' and 
     ``whole Jewish population of Germany totaling six hundred 
     thousand is living under shadow of a campaign of murder which 
     may be initiated within a few hours and cannot be postponed 
     for more than a few days''.
       While this Government is disinclined to lend credence to 
     this report, it is causing widespread distress among a large 
     section of the American people. You may, in your discretion, 
     talk the matter over with the German Government and acquaint 
     them with the apprehension and distress that is being felt 
     here.
                                  ____



                                          Department of State,

                                       Washington, March 21, 1933.
       Press reports indicating widespread mistreatment of Jews in 
     Germany, are causing deep concern and even alarm to a large 
     section of our population. This is showing itself not only in 
     press comment, but in a series of meetings and conferences, 
     the most important of which is to be a mass meeting scheduled 
     in New York for March 27. A delegation of important Jewish 
     leaders called at the Department this afternoon.
       Telegrams thus far received from the Embassy would not 
     appear to bear out the gravity of the situation reported 
     above. It is important, however, for us to have an exact 
     picture of what is taking place. Please therefore telegraph 
     us the facts as you see them, after consulting the principal 
     Consulates, by telephone if necessary, with a view to 
     ascertaining the situation throughout different parts of the 
     country.
                                  ____



                                          Department of State,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 1933.
       Public opinion in this country continues alarmed at the 
     persistent press reports of mistreatment of Jews in Germany. 
     We are under heavy pressure to make representations in their 
     behalf to the German Government. I am of the opinion that 
     outside intercession has rarely produced the results desired 
     and has frequently aggravated the situation. Nevertheless if 
     you perceive any way in which this Government could usefully 
     be of assistance, I should appreciate your frank and 
     confidential advice. On Monday next there is to be held in 
     New York a monster mass meeting. If prior to that date an 
     amelioration in the situation has taken place, which you 
     could report in form susceptible of release to the press, 
     together with public assurances by Hitler and other leaders, 
     it would have a calming effect.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Mar. 27, 1933]

         Nazis End Attacks on Jews in Reich, Our Embassy Finds

       Washington, March 26.--Mistreatment of Jews in Germany has 
     virtually ceased, according to Secretary of State Hull, who 
     conveyed this information today in telegrams to Dr. Cyrus 
     Adler of Philadlphia and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of New York, 
     who came to Washington last week to protest against German 
     treatment of Jews.
       Mr. Hull said Germans felt that such a far-reaching 
     political readjustment could not have taken place without 
     some delay in reaching a state of equilibrium. The situation 
     was improving, he asserted, largely as the result of demands 
     for discipline by Chancellor Hitler and also the reiteration 
     by Vice Chancellor von Papen of the necessity for a cessation 
     of individual depredations.
       The Secretary of State will continue to watch the 
     situation, he said, but felt hopeful that conditions would 
     soon become normal.
       Secretary Hull's telegram to Rabbi Wise and Dr. Adler 
     follows:
       You will remember that at the time of your recent call at 
     the department I informed you that, in view of numerous press 
     statements indicating widespread mistreatment of the Jews in 
     Germany, I would request the American Embassy at Berlin in 
     consultation with the principal consulates in Germany to 
     investigate the situation and submit a report.
       A reply has now been received indicating that whereas there 
     was for a short time considerable physical mistreatment of 
     Jews, this phase may be considered virtually terminated. 
     There was also some picketing of Jewish merchandising stores 
     and instances of professional discrimination. These 
     manifestations were viewed with serious concern by the German 
     Government.
       Hitler, in his capacity as leader of the Nazi party, issued 
     an order calling upon his followers to maintain law and 
     order, to avoid molesting foreigners, disrupting trade, and 
     to avoid the creation of possibly embarrassing international 
     incidents.
       Later, von Papen delivered a speech at Breslau in which he 
     not only reiterated Hitler's appeals for discipline but 
     abjured the victors of the last election not to spoil their 
     triumph by unworthy acts of revenge and violence which could 
     only bring discredit upon the new regime in foreign 
     countries. As a result, the embassy reports that the 
     authority of the regular police has been reinforced.
       The feeling has been widespread in Germany that following 
     so far-reaching a political readjustment as has recently 
     taken place, some time must elapse before a state of 
     equilibrium could be re-established. In the opinion of the 
     embassy, such a stabilization appears to have been reached in 
     the field of personal mistreatment, and there are indications 
     that in other phases the situation is improving.
       I feel hopeful, in view of the reported attitude of high 
     German officials and the evidences of amelioration already 
     indicated, that the situation, which has caused such 
     widespread concern throughout this country, will soon revert 
     to normal. Meanwhile, I shall continue to watch the situation 
     closely, with a sympathetic interest and with a desire to be 
     helpful in whatever way possible.
                                                     Cordell Hull,
                                               Secretary of State.
                                  ____


                         Leaders Reply to Hull

       The American Jewish Congress, through its officers, 
     announced last night that the organization had replied to 
     Secretary Hull's telegram. The text of the reply was as 
     follows:
       In the name of the American Jewish Congress we wish to 
     thank you for your prompt report on the situation in Germany, 
     which confirms our fears that there has been ``considerable 
     physical mistreatment of Jews, picketing of Jewish 
     merchandising stores, and instances of professional 
     discrimination.''
       The American Jewish Congress notes your statement that 
     Hitler ``has issued an order calling upon his followers to 
     maintain law and order, to avoid molesting foreigners, 
     disrupting trade and to avoid the creation of possibly 
     embarrassing international incidents.''
       We are deeply grateful for your assurances that you will 
     continue to watch the situation closely with a sympathetic 
     interest. For we feel that, in view of the official program 
     of the Nazi party and its record of thirteen years 
     disseminating hatred against the Jewish people, the Jews of 
     Germany are in great and imminent jeopardy of life and 
     property, of civil rights and religious liberty. Until the 
     status of the Jewish citizens of Germany is safeguarded and 
     the position of the non-national Jews is secured, the 
     enlightened opinion of America must watch with profoundest 
     anxiety the development of events in Germany.
       May we repeat what we emphasized in the course of our visit 
     to the State Department, namely, that we are moved by no 
     feeling of unfriendliness or ill will to the German 
     nation. Our concern is for the security of the Jews of 
     Germany and the safeguarding of their human and political 
     rights.
                                                  Stephen S. Wise,
                                               Honorary President.
                                               Bernard S. Deutsch,
                                                        President.
       The American Jewish Congress.
                                  ____


                         Neurath Denies Rumors

       Berlin, March 26.--Foreign Minister Constantine von 
     Neurath, ordinarily the Hitler Cabinet's silent man who 
     seldom receives journalists, broke his silence today to throw 
     the entire weight of his internationally known personality 
     against what he considers ``the deliberate, sudden rebirth of 
     the vilification campaign conducted during the World War 
     against the German Government.''
       Speaking quietly, but with an inner emotion that even his 
     composed attitude of a man of the world could not hide, he 
     declared:
       ``It is my duty, both because I must defend the honor of my 
     people and because I am a responsible statesman, to warn the 
     world against permitting the baneful spirit of calumny in 
     vogue during the war to flare up again.''
       To a general question regarding the Federal Government's 
     attitude toward news published in the foreign press or 
     alleged acts of terror committed against different-minded 
     persons, and especially Jews, Baron von Neurath replied:
       ``Even the best organized administrative apparatus would 
     not suffice to go to the bottom of each and every one of 
     these malicious false reports and deny them.
       ``I find no other explanation for the present propaganda 
     unloosed against the German Government than to consider it a 
     deliberate, sudden rebirth of the vilification campaign 
     conducted during the World War.
       ``Just as Belgian atrocity stories then mentioned chopped-
     off children's arms, so there is talk today of allegedly 
     gouged eyes and cut-off ears. One would really think that the 
     foreign public, which meanwhile realized the untruth of the 
     World War atrocity stories, would not so easily again be 
     deceived by a new dishing-up of similar fairy tales.


                       socialists found uninjured

       ``How absurd such propaganda is you yourself experienced 
     Tuesday. That very morning you could read of unbelievable 
     atrocities committed on Messrs. Breitscheld and Wels, but in 
     the afternoon you had the opportunity with your own eyes to 
     see these two gentlemen participate in the Reichstag session. 
     [Dr. Rudolf Breitscheld and Otto Wels are Socialist members 
     of the Reichstag.]
       ``It would seem to me that this one reference renders 
     unnecessary my dwelling on other details.
       ``If at the beginning of the national revolution certain 
     excesses may have been committed by isolated individuals, 
     then that is certainly regrettable. At the same time it 
     must be said that never in history did a revolutionary 
     upheaval occur like that which now is completed in Germany 
     without an accompaniment of certain hardships.
       ``According to my opinion, the German people gave proof of 
     their tremendous innate discipline by the fact that such 
     arbitrary individual acts took place only in a few cases, and 
     even then only in comparatively mild form.
       ``You will yourself have noticed that the energetic appeals 
     by the Reich's Chancellor and Minister Goering, who several 
     days ago decreed severest penalties for such like arbitrary 
     acts by individuals, were thoroughly and unqualifiedly 
     successful and that no more cases of unauthorized procedure 
     became known.
       ``As concerns Jews, I can only say that their propagandists 
     abroad are rendering their co-religionists in Germany no 
     service by giving the German public, through their distorted 
     and untruthful news about persecution and torture of Jews, 
     the impression that they actually halt at nothing, not even 
     at lies and calumny, to fight the present German Government.
       ``Why, even a prominent Jewish banker told one of your 
     American colleagues, `We reject all foreign interference. 
     German Jews are hemen enough to help ourselves.'
       ``Actually, every visitor must agree that when he walks 
     through the streets of Berlin even today he encounters Jews, 
     poor as well as elegantly dressed, who are attending their 
     business. Nobody has harmed them.


                          says press was duped

       ``It is most regrettable that not only the yellow press but 
     even some papers of the highest standing have permitted 
     themselves to be duped by this propaganda. For instance, a 
     big American sheet wrote several days ago that foreign 
     correspondents must submit their reports to a censor. You 
     must admit this was not the case.
       ``In those few instances where telegraph authorities, on 
     the basis of an international treaty, held up reports of 
     foreign correspondents, their news items were either untrue 
     or so distorted that their publication indubitably had to be 
     considered dangerous to the State.
       ``That in times like these steps were taken against them 
     can be considered by nobody who thinks impartially as an 
     arbitrary interference with the freedom of the press. 
     Amicable relations between peoples are not served if the 
     press degrades itself to an organ for irresponsible, 
     malicious rumor mongering.
       ``When, therefore, in this very frank talk I have spoken so 
     sharply against this sort of propaganda by the foreign press, 
     I did it not only because I must defend the honor of my 
     people but because as a responsible statesman I also have the 
     duty to warn the world against permitting the baneful war-
     time spirit of vilification to flare up again.''
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Valentine].
  (Mr. VALENTINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hamilton 
substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about whether or not the United 
States should promote human rights in China. Of course we should.
  We have a moral obligation to promote human rights in China. To turn 
our backs on more than a billion Chinese people would be to deny our 
own heritage and to dash the hopes of people around the world who have 
looked to the United States for inspiration.
  Our own interests also demand that we promote human rights in China. 
One in every five human beings on the face of the Earth is Chinese, and 
the course of human rights in that nation will have a profound effect 
on the rest of East Asia and indeed the world.
  This debate is about the best way to promote human rights in China. I 
readily admit that flexing our economic muscles by hitting the Chinese 
with immediate penalties is tempting. I have succumbed to that 
temptation in the past.
  But the satisfaction of slapping economic sanctions on the Chinese is 
likely to be transitory. The blunt reality is that the Chinese 
Government will respond by throwing up greater defenses rather than by 
giving in to outside pressure. In the end, we could punish American 
consumers, workers, and businesses without helping Chinese citizens.
  There is a better way--and it is already working. The greatest weapon 
in our democratic, free market arsenal is the example we set. By 
increasing our economic activity in China, we will be allowing the 
Chinese population to see firsthand how our system functions.
  American companies operating in China are already providing 
educational, health care, housing and other benefits to Chinese 
employees. What better way to build a movement toward a Western-style 
economy and political system among Chinese citizens?
  Those American initiatives, still in their infancy, will grow if our 
economic relations with China are allowed to grow. The result will be 
expansion of American businesses, more American jobs, a better deal for 
American consumers, and an example that the Chinese will not be able to 
ignore.
  If, on the other hand, we try to use trade to solve a problem that it 
cannot solve, everyone will lose. We should not encourage Chinese 
Government hardliners to crack down further to protect themselves. And 
we should not allow our competitors in Europe and especially Japan to 
expand unchallenged in the largest market in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, the time has come to replace a policy that will not 
work with one that will. The time has come to reach out to the Chinese 
people directly. Let us show some confidence in the power of our own 
system.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Hamilton substitute and oppose 
the Pelosi substitute.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hamilton amendment. I had 
prepared a substitute amendment of my own which I was prepared to offer 
today. However, I am pleased to say that Mr. Hamilton has incorporated 
into his amendment the main features of my proposal as well as those of 
other Republican Members.
  My substitute emphasized three principles which are now embodied in 
the Hamilton substitute. First, seeking areas where we can work to 
improve democracy in China right now. They include village reform, rule 
of law, and corruption. Second, expanding discussions with China on 
economic and trade issues. Finally, working with nongovernmental and 
multilateral organizations to raise the level of international concern 
about human rights in China.
  The Hamilton amendment gives this House the opportunity to 
demonstrate a commitment to human rights and democracy in China that 
does not have to resort to the tired, failed policy of constant 
confrontation.
  Mr. Chairman, no one in the House disagrees on the problems in China. 
Its human rights violations and predatory trade practices are well 
documented. Where we all appear to honestly disagree is in the approach 
we should take toward our goals in China
  I give Bill Clinton a lot of credit for his May 26, 1994, decision to 
renew most-favored-nation status for China and end its linkage with 
human rights.
  His decision recognized the fact that American policy toward China 
must be viewed within the context of many different issues and his 
decision provided a direction to address human rights and the other 
issues which divide our two countries.
  It is unfortunate the media decided to portray the President's 
decision as a victory for ``business over human rights.'' It is just 
not that simple. Human rights should continue as an important aspect of 
our policy toward China. But I also think we need to end this annual 
brinksmanship on MFN renewal.
  A large number of House Members share that view. In May, 104 House 
colleagues joined Jim McDermott and me in a letter to President Clinton 
supporting unconditional renewal of MFN to China and urging the 
President to consider the creation of a bilateral human rights 
commission with China.
  The Pelosi approach and the Hamilton approach are not complementary. 
The Pelosi approach proposes to sanction the Chinese but in a way that 
is both unworkable and detrimental to our efforts to enforce NAFTA and 
maintain our borders.
  The Hamilton amendment takes a long-term, realistic approach. It is 
not a policy which seeks immediate gratification, but it is a policy 
which will achieve results.
  I urge House Members to join us in this new direction by supporting 
the Hamilton amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of Members stand up on this floor 
and say that this is a matter of economic benefit for the United 
States. Let me remind my colleagues, to start our with, we are not 
talking about a $30 billion trade surplus for our workers. That would 
mean that we would be employing about 750,000 more workers with respect 
to trade than the other side. We are talking about a $30 billion trade 
deficit with China. That means if we talk about 25,000 jobs per billion 
dollars of economic activity, we have a jobs deficit with China, a jobs 
deficit which, if eradicated, would mean some $750,000 jobs for 
American workers.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to yield to the gentleman at 
this time. I am happy to meet with him in debate later.
  Mr. Chairman, let me remind my friends, we are talking about 750,000 
jobs that Americans could have if we did not have that deficit, Mr. 
Chairman. However, let us go to the heart of this issue. The heart of 
this issue is principle. An American President and an American 
candidate for the Presidency laid down a set of standards for the 
Chinese Government to follow, to hold the Chinese Government up to, and 
those standards we told them in no uncertain words would determine 
whether or not we would give MFN status to that government.
  They have failed to meet the standard. The credibility of American 
foreign policy will be on the line if we go ahead and give them this 
status in light of their failure, and we are going to see failures 
around the world with other countries in exactly the same situation if 
we do not discipline ourselves to hold ourselves to the standard that 
we set.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been said that if we give up this principle, in 
this case, we are going to get an economic benefit. I quarrel with 
that, but I think that any nation that gives up its principles to get a 
perceived economic benefit is going to end up with neither.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Indiana, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Hamilton 
amendment. When President Clinton announced his comprehensive China 
policy on May 26, he set forth a clear strategy to achieve the goal 
that we all share.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on my point that 
we have about a 750,000 job deficit on China? Maybe he would like to 
respond to that.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, what I was 
trying to ask my friend is would he claim that those 750,000 jobs would 
all be right here in the United States? They would not be in other 
countries, in Indochina, they would not be in Latin America?
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that they would be.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will let me answer, yes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would make a claim that 
that trade imbalance is all of a sudden going to create a tremendous 
number of jobs here in the United States, that is a tremendous amount 
of baloney.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, my answer is yes, if we had a well-reasoned 
trade policy, those jobs would be in the United States, and this vast 
ocean of people who are on welfare in the United States, those people 
would have jobs.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely 
ludicrous to believe that we in the United States would be creating or 
manufacturing the kinds of goods that are created in China and other 
low-wage countries, because American workers are not going to be doing 
them. That is why this whole argument of this trade imbalance is 
absolutely ludicrous.
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield, Americans have the right to 
buy from whoever they want to, if Americans want to buy from them.
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to further yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. HUNTER. If they have that particular policy, yes, those 750,000 
jobs that we are now in deficit to Red China on could be American jobs, 
my answer is yes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman if I could reclaim my time, the gentleman is 
absolutely wrong, but I thank him for his very helpful contribution.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hamilton amendment.
  When President Clinton announced his comprehensive China policy on 
May 26, he set forth a clear strategy to achieve the goal we all 
share--to foster better human rights in China.
  The Hamilton amendment incorporates that comprehensive strategy. It 
is unquestionably the best, most humane, most effective human rights 
policy.
  We face a choice between feeling good, and doing good. Trade 
sanctions make us feel better, but they hurt the very people we want to 
help.
  The Hamilton amendment will focus diplomatic resources on improving 
human rights in China. In addition, it will encourage the continued 
development of a market economy in China--the real hope for democracy 
and human rights.
  Nicholas Kristoff, NY Times Beijing bureau chief, reported in May 
that if you talk to ``Chinese peasants, workers and intellectuals, on 
one subject you get virtual unaniminity: Don't curb trade.''
  Those same peasants, workers and intellectuals would add: ``Support 
the Hamilton amendment.''
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the remainder of my 
time, 4\1/2\ minutes, to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York, the 
ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hamilton resolution. Before 
speaking in opposition to it, however, I want to correct some 
representations that were made about my legislation on this floor.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, in the remarks of the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], Mr. Hamilton said some damning remarks from 
Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, saying that if we issued these 
sanctions against China terrible things would happen, both political 
and economic.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that if we carry that to the next step, we 
are saying that we, the United States of America, cannot issue 
sanctions against China for trade violations as well. Right now we are 
giving China until the end of the year to deal with the gross 
violations and piracy of our intellectual property. If they do not 
comply, we in the United States will issue sanctions.
  Mr. Chairman, is the message that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton] and the Secretary of Commerce are making, is the message that 
they want to go forward that we will never issue sanctions for fear of 
retaliation, both political and economic? I certainly hope not.
  However, Mr. Chairman, if it applies to intellectual property, it 
should apply in terms of human rights. If we can apply sanctions in one 
case for intellectual property, we should be able to apply them to 
intellectuals who are under arrest for professing their religious and 
political beliefs.
  In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I want to correct 
misrepresentations that our bill is not implementable, and that the 
Comptroller of the Customs Office is incapable of figuring out what 
companies are fronts for the People's Liberation Army and the Chinese 
industrial companies.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Chinese military advertises. They send out 
catalogs. It would take a 7-year-old who knows how to read to know what 
many, many, many of the companies are. I have them here for Members' 
review. It would take too much time to go through all of the names of 
their export commodities and the companies that would be easy for the 
Comptroller of the Customs to identify.

                              {time}  1810

  In turn if this bill is implemented, the tens of millions of dollars 
that it would reap could go into customs for them to be able to control 
the customs, because clearly they are having a problem now. The Chinese 
have bribed, and the customs officer was convicted, of receiving over 
$1 million in bribes from the Chinese Communist government.
  Mr. Chairman, we have the names of the Chinese military industrial 
companies. The Defense Intelligence Agency produced a chart and the 
software to determine who these companies are. We did not issue this 
sanction frivolously, or put this in this legislation frivolously. 
Others have said it could apply to $18 billion. The legislation clearly 
uses the figure of $5 billion, \1/8\ of the products coming in from 
China to the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, fair is fair. Let us debate the issue. What priority do 
we give human rights in the scheme of things? How related to the fate 
of American workers are the human rights of others abroad? As I have 
said before, if countries repress their workers' rights, they will 
repress their workers' wages, putting our workers in unfair 
competition.
  I can assure Members that if the Hamilton amendment prevails today, 
in 2 or 3 years the United States will have a trade deficit with China 
which will surpass our trade deficit with Japan.
  Mr. Chairman, think about where we go from here. With all due respect 
to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, his 
legislation is nothing, it does nothing, and if that is what Members 
want to vote for, then I understand that. But let us not represent that 
it is part of any comprehensive China policy.
  It is what it is, it says that we are going to give money to human 
rights groups in China?
  People who speak out for human rights in China are in jail in China. 
As I said earlier, the last person who met with a U.S. representative 
of our Government, Wei Jingsheng, has not been seen since. He is under 
arrest and being discredited by the Chinese regime.
  Let me talk again about some other points. They talk about putting up 
to $5 million in Voice of America. Congress has already passed them by 
on this. We voted 318 votes in support of $10 million for Radio Free 
Asia, over the objections of the administration. The administration had 
said on the day of President Clinton's announcement that Radio Free 
Asia was going to be a priority of the administration. When the vote 
came to the floor, they said, ``We have other priorities.''
  Mr. Chairman, we have been down this road. The bill does very little. 
If Members want to do nothing, vote for Hamilton. If Members want to 
take a tax break from the Chinese military, vote for Pelosi.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the more difficult foreign 
policy issues the country and this Congress will face, difficult 
because perhaps the sentimental vote would be to vote for heavier 
economic sanctions. But after careful deliberation on the merits, and I 
have given this a great deal of thought, I do not see how we can 
isolate 1 billion people with economic sanctions. We cannot shut them 
out of the world economic or political community. We certainly cannot 
do it alone, and we will not do it alone. We will more effectively open 
up China and move that society toward openness through trade, 
integrating China into the world economic community.
  In the aviation sector alone, the United States has considerable 
access to this market. Last year one out of every seven aircraft Boeing 
produced was sold and delivered to China. The estimates are that China 
will need $40 billion in new aircraft by the year 2010. Mr. Chairman, 
45,000 American jobs have been generated from our aerospace industry 
trade with China.
  I think the way to continue opening up China is through trade that 
opens doors rather than closes them.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, to close the debate, I yield my remaining 
time to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley], the distinguished 
Speaker of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The distinguished Speaker is recognized for 4 minutes 
to close the debate.
  (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hamilton substitute 
to H.R. 4590. I believe we must improve human rights in China while at 
the same time preserving our common interests with China. The 
President's executive order on MFN for China is a good one, and the 
substitute reinforces the President's policy.
  I want to commend my colleagues for their serious and obviously very 
sincere attention to this important and understandably emotional issue. 
I want to particularly pay credit to the gentleman from New York and 
the gentlewoman from California who have such deep personal concerns 
and an abiding commitment to their belief of what is right in 
supporting human rights in China.
  This debate has been grounded in principles and convictions, and I 
think that makes it a good and important debate, but I believe, Mr. 
Chairman, that it is especially important for us to support the broad 
foreign policy interests of the United States as well as supporting 
human rights.
  The President of the United States has been criticized in some 
quarters for an inconsistent or vacillating foreign policy, but he 
faces, as all Presidents do, difficult and sometimes almost intractable 
problems. Certainly the most important and difficult problem we face 
today internationally is the potential problem of confrontation with 
North Korea, and here the support and assistance of China has been 
essential in moving forward to develop an international consensus of 
how to deal with this serious and potentially destructive problem.
  In addition, on issue after issue, China as a member of the Security 
Council is in a position to be of assistance in the orderly resolution 
of international concerns and problems, and we have had time and time 
again--from the Gulf war until recent days--the evidence of China's 
willingness to be cooperative. But that can change. We need not 
jeopardize our relationship with China in order to support human 
rights.
  The question is not whether we will support other issues, such as the 
issues of our interest in expanding trade and in reaching solutions 
with China on missile technology and proliferation as well as human 
rights. We do not have to sacrifice a lack of concern and a lack of 
influence with respect to China on human rights in order to obtain 
other objectives in our relationship.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that sanctions against trade will add 
to the protection of human rights in China. The fundamental problem is 
that it is by expansion rather than by retraction of trade that we are 
most likely to influence the Chinese in a positive direction toward the 
respect of human rights.
  What is our influence going to be if we were to take the draconian 
action of cutting or even severely restricting trade? Our word, our 
influence, our position , the position of our citizens will be less 
important in China than it will be if trade is expanded. If we give the 
ordinary Chinese worker and businessperson the opportunity to share in 
expanded trade, all of our recent experience has indicated that that 
rising economic interest, that expansion of trade, has broken down 
political resistance and restrictions on human rights in country after 
country.

                              {time}  1820

  Our experience in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, virtually 
everywhere, has been that where there has been expanding economic 
opportunity, there has been a greater respect for human rights.
  So the choice today is not between throwing away the interests and 
concerns that we rightfully have to advance human rights in China, but 
to do it in a way that is compatible with our other interests and 
concerns. We can do both. That is why the voluntary code of conduct 
embraced and applied by American business is such a good idea. That is 
why the Hamilton substitute is such a wise and I think important 
alternative today in this debate. Expanded trade will, I believe, take 
hold on fertile soil. The Chinese are yearning to participate in a 
broader economic opportunity. By expanding trade we will give ourselves 
the best change to influence them, their government, and their people 
toward expanded human rights.
  I urge the support of the Hamilton substitute. It is the right time, 
the right policy; it is the right strategy for our long-term goals and 
to maintain our essential relationships with China and advance, not 
restrict, the human rights movement in China so important to this 
debate and to all of us.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant 
opposition to the Solomon and Pelosi measures which disapprove the 
extension of most-favored-nation status to the Peoples Republic of 
China. In the past, I have traditionally supported the legislation 
before us today. While I am still very concerned about human rights 
abuse in China, I am no longer convinced that revoking MFN status 
provides the correct answer. In fact, the termination of MFN may lead 
to a substantial deterioration of human rights in the Peoples Republic 
of China.
  I certainly have strong reservations about granting MFN status to any 
nation that exhibits the current practices of the Chinese Government. 
However, I believe we can better improve the situation in China by 
exposing the Chinese people to free market principles and Western 
ideals. Historically, the Chinese have reacted negatively to 
isolationism.
  Revoking MFN, in my opinion, would be counter productive from a human 
rights standpoint. Economic sanctions would harm the emerging Chinese 
private sector. Sanctions would serve to weaken those individuals in 
China who are championing the cause of economic and political freedom.
  The United States currently has substantial economic interests in 
China. The United States currently exports about $10 billion in United 
States goods and services to the Peoples Republic of China. Revoking 
MFN status would seriously jeopardize one of the fastest growing export 
markets for United States manufactured goods. An export State like 
Connecticut would be devastated by passage of this legislation.
  It is important to view United States-China relations from a national 
security standpoint. China is a permanent member of the U.N. Security 
Council and a very influential member of the international community. I 
believe that maintaining strong relations with the Chinese Government 
is in the best interest of the United States.
  Again, I have come to the conclusion that increased trade and the 
continued presence of Western business is the best way to bring about 
reform. Many of my colleagues will try to suggest that supporting MFN 
for China represents opposition to human rights. As a strong advocate 
of human rights, I want to say that nothing could be further from the 
truth. There is not one Member of Congress that would not like to see 
an end to the human rights abuses in China.
  Since I have been on the other side of the fence on this issue, I 
certainly understand the arguments and rationale of the other side. 
However, after carefully reviewing this issue, I believe that promoting 
capitalism offers the Chinese people the best prospect for freedom.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to make the rough vote and do what 
is best for the Chinese people. Support the Hamilton substitute and 
oppose the Solomon and Pelosi resolutions.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hamilton 
Amendment to H.R. 4590 which would reinforce the President's decision 
to de-link human rights with most-favored-nation status for the 
People's Republic of China.
  Human rights violations in China and other developing nations have 
always concerned me. The citizens of the PRC face some of the most 
oppressive conditions in the world. Freedom of thought, expression, 
association, and religion are rights on which this country was founded, 
and rights which the Chinese still hope to achieve. Many of my 
colleagues have argued that such blatant abuses of human rights warrant 
the removal of MFN status.
  In fact, in the past I have voted against extension of MFN for China 
for these same reasons. However, as I have studied the issue more 
closely over the past year and consulted with many of my colleagues in 
Congress and academia, I have reconsidered my opposition.
  Since the Chinese Government enacted economic reforms in 1979, the 
PRC has begun an incredible transition. Premier Deng Xiaoping could not 
have imagined that in 1994 he would be presiding over the fastest 
growing economy in the world.
  As the Chinese people continue to gain affluence, I believe the 
Communist government will have a much more difficult time suppressing 
the desire for basic human rights. As history has shown, ideas follow 
trade. I believe economic and political engagement is the best course 
to promote democratic ideals, rather than by withdrawing our growing 
presence in China.
  The Hamilton alternative offers a realistic, multilateral means of 
promoting human rights, such as working through forums like the U.N. 
Human Rights Commission, rather than actions like economic sanctions 
which will be counterproductive. It also preserves the broad range of 
security, diplomatic, and economic interests that we share with China, 
rather than provoking the Chinese Government into retaliation against 
United States companies doing business there.
  Trade in China is a very difficult issue. However, as we attempt to 
settle this issue once and for all, Congress must carefully balance the 
interests of United States businesses which seek to take advantage of 
the enormous Chinese market with the desire to improve human rights in 
the world's most populous nation. I believe the Hamilton Amendment 
strikes that balance.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of continuing most-
favored-nation [MFN] trade status with China. I, therefore, oppose any 
legislation that attempts to overturn the President's decision to 
extend MFN status or that places economic sanctions on China.
  However, we should not remove the issue of human rights from the 
picture. We must continue to pursue human rights as an important 
foreign policy objective and implement new initiatives to strengthen 
the current focus. We must continue to engage the Chinese actively on 
human rights on a broad front through diplomatic, multilateral and 
nongovernmental means. These contacts, combined with aggressive efforts 
to promote human rights, are more likely to encourage constructive 
change in China.
  I firmly believe that the United States can do more to advance the 
cause of human rights and protect other American interests if we engage 
the Chinese in political and economic cooperation and contacts. Social 
freedoms are a direct result of economic liberalization. However, by 
placing restrictions on or removing all of China's trade privileges, we 
are isolating that country will lose any chance of improving human 
rights in China.
  Perhaps as much as $17 billion in United States imports from China 
might be affected by removing MFN privileges. Retaliation by China 
would place at risk the approximately $9 billion in annual United 
States exports to China, as well as nearly 180,000 United States jobs. 
This would in turn greatly affect the U.S. economy. In the end, 
punishing China would be counterproductive from all perspectives.
  I am supporting Representative Hamilton's substitute to maintain MFN 
trade status for China. This substitute would fund programs to promote 
human rights; authorize increased funding for broadcasting to China; 
urge United States businesses to adopt a voluntary set of principles to 
govern their activities; and authorize the President to establish a 
commission to monitor human rights conditions in China. Mr. Speaker, we 
must not isolate China, continue MFN trade status.
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to 
efforts to link extension of most-favored-nation trading status for 
China to human rights practices. I fully support President Clinton's 
position that human rights improvements can be made through other more 
effective means.
  China is becoming an increasingly important trading partner for the 
United States. While it is clear that human rights violations continue 
to be a problem in China, cutting off trade relations will not improve 
their situation. Instead, the United States needs to remain an active 
economic participant with China and keep communication open.
  There is no doubt that the Chinese government would retaliate against 
the United States for cutting off MFN status. With the United States 
becoming an increasingly important market for Chinese products, there 
is no doubt that retaliation would be severe. Efforts to increase 
United States exports to China would be damaged.
  The United States business community overwhelmingly supports 
extension of MFN-status for China because they recognize the importance 
of this large market for increased sales. The economic well-being of 
the U.S. lies in our ability to continue to build and maintain 
international markets. Severing relations with China is counter-
productive in this effort.
  The President has laid out a comprehensive plan to improve human 
rights practices in China. This plan includes increased international 
broadcasts to China, development of a set of voluntary principles for 
doing business in China, and expanded multilateral efforts to improve 
human rights in China.
  In closing, it would be easy to vote to deny MFN-status for China and 
think that we were making progress in addressing the very serious human 
rights problems in that country. However, that vote would not 
materialize into actual changes in China. By remaining engaged and 
renewing our commitment to work toward improved human rights conditions 
in China we are benefiting both the citizens of China and the United 
States. I urge my colleagues to vote to support the President's policy 
on China MFN.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I have the deepest and utmost respect 
for my colleagues the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for their leadership and concerns 
on the issue that is before us.
  Obviously, the question of granting MFN status for China is not one 
that can be easily labeled as black or white--there are many grey areas 
that just cannot be defined in simple terms.
  Yes, China has serious human rights problems--but so is the 
fundamental right to provide a basic meal for some 1.3 billion people 
living in the most populous nation on Earth.
  Mr. Chairman, since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 
1949, the population of that country was at 400 million--almost double 
the population of our country today--but some 45 years ago.
  If we are asking China to make improvements on its human rights 
record, are we also exacting the same expectations from other 
nondemocratic countries? Is this institution placing appropriate 
pressures on the State Department and the President to make sure that 
human rights issues are evenly applied against those countries with 
similar records?
  Mr. Chairman, my understanding in discussing the MFN issue with 
Chinese officials is simply this--if you, the Congress and President of 
the United States do not grant MFN status, obviously it will affect our 
economy, but we will continue to do the best we can under the 
circumstances. But it is your decision to make, not ours. And quit 
being so arrogant and self-righteous about human rights violations--
examine your own history and see how long it took for certain segments 
of your society to have their civil rights finally recognized and 
restored.
  Mr. Chairman, China several weeks ago did in fact explode an 
underground nuclear device, and much against the wishes of the nuclear-
club countries, including our own Nation. But, Mr. Chairman, let's 
examine the record. Since 1945, the United States conducted 215 nuclear 
explosions in the atmosphere, and 812 nuclear explosions underground. 
Since 1949, the former Soviet Union exploded 207 atmospheric tests and 
508 underground tests. France, since 1961, conducted 45 atmospheric 
tests and 147 underwater detonations. For China, since 1964, PRC has 
exploded 23 atmospheric tests and 17 underground detonations. Mr. 
Chairman, the record speaks for itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the President's policy on China and after 
careful examination of the legislation, I believe Chairman Hamilton's 
bill best provides a balanced focus not only of our fundamental foreign 
policy toward China, but to promote and enhance a market economy not 
only for China, but for as many countries throughout the world.
  Mr. Chairman, even the major dissidents in China support MFN status 
for China.
  Mr. Chairman, the Hamilton substitute works toward progress in human 
rights in China without exacting a terribly high price: the loss of 
face of the Chinese government, with the undermining of SINO-United 
States relations the net result.
  The Hamilton measure supports engagement with China by increasing 
funds for USIA exchange programs and radio broadcasting to the country, 
and reinforces the President's call on the United States business 
community in China to promote human rights with a voluntary code of 
conduct. The bill further encourages the establishment of a commission 
to monitor human rights advancement in China.
  These are good and constructive steps that will ensure that human 
rights progress shall continue in China, while fostering a strong and 
cooperative relationship between our nations to address the spectrum of 
interests we share. I cannot more strongly urge our colleagues to 
support the Hamilton substitute.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4590 which 
would provide conditions for renewing most-favored-nation treatment for 
the People's Republic of China.
  Let me begin with a story that might put this debate into context: 
The great American journalist, H.L. Mencken, used to receive a lot of 
mail from critics and supporters of his controversial views. Because of 
the great volume, he was unable to answer all of them individually. So 
he came up with an all-purpose answer which he sent to anyone who wrote 
to him, supporter or critic. This is what it said.

       Dear Sir or Madam: For all I know, you may be right. 
     Sincerely, H.L. Mencken.

  I feel the same way about the proposal offered by Ms. Pelosi. For all 
I know it may be right, but I don't think so. I disagree with the bill 
because I do not believe it will work. And I believe that if it were 
ever passed, the Chinese Communists would take its very passage as an 
unacceptable diplomatic rebuff.
  They would retaliate against American workers and employers, not to 
mention the Chinese who support free enterprise.
  But there is no way we can be certain of these things. Each of us has 
to look at the complicated issues and then make up his or her mind. 
There is no moral high ground in either position. Each side is trying 
to help human rights.
  I happen to believe the course followed by President George Bush and 
now by President Clinton is the right course, a course of engagement. 
The United States exported over $8 billion worth of goods to China last 
year. Those exports supported 150,000 American jobs.
  Why put those jobs at risk?
  In my view, we cannot risk walking away from our relationship with 
such an historically great and potentially powerful people as the 
Chinese. Equally important, the Chinese people can't risk it. Do the 
Chinese Communist leaders benefit by the current arrangement? Of course 
they do. No one denies that, but this benefit to the Communist leaders 
is, in my view, a short-lived one.
  It is a side-effect of a powerful medicine whose long-range effects 
can eventually cure the evil of human rights abuses in China. The name 
of that medicine is economic freedom. Taken in consistent large doses, 
over a long period of time, it can help to bring economic and political 
health to the Chinese people.
  So I urge our colleagues to vote no on this well-intentioned, but, in 
my view, ultimately unworkable bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the balanced 
approach to our policy with China encompassed in the Hamilton 
substitute and in opposition to the approach advocated by the 
gentlelady from California.
  The President has undertaken what I believe is a prudent and 
effective approach to our relations with the People's Republic of 
China. He has clearly indicated his intention to pursue our very 
legitimate concerns in areas such as human rights, arms proliferation, 
and unfair trade. At the same time he has chosen not to abandon 
constructive dialog with the most populous nation in the world. He 
concluded that ending direct linkage between trade policy and other 
foreign policy goals, including promotion of human rights and nuclear 
nonproliferation, will enhance the prospect for success on all fronts.
  The Hamilton substitute codifies the steps that the administration 
pledged to undertake in May to demonstrate its continued commitment to 
human rights issues in China. It includes increased authorizations for 
Radio Free Asia broadcasts. It enhances United States support for Red 
Cross prisoner visits in China. It endorses a code of conduct for 
United States businesses operating in China. And it establishes a 
United States Commission on Law and Society in China to act as human 
rights watchdog.
  But it does not jeopardize our overall political and economic 
relationship in a way that could well prove counterproductive for both 
nations and undermine our ability to cooperatively deal with real 
crises such as the situation in North Korea.
  Currently, there is a sizable trade imbalance between our nations. To 
some extent that reflects unfair trade practices that we have to 
resolve, just as is the case with Japan and other nations. But to a 
very large extent this is more a reflection of shifting trends among 
East Asian exporters since our overall trade picture with the region 
has not dramatically changed.
  But importantly, we are on the threshold of fully tapping the immense 
Chinese market for American exports. China's economy is expanding two 
and one-half times faster than the economies of North America and 
Europe. Economists estimate that the $9 billion in goods and services 
we exported to China in 1993 translate into 170,000 jobs. The impact on 
the financially strapped aerospace industry is especially significant. 
In 1992 China was the only commercial aircraft customer for McDonnell 
Douglas. For Boeing, China represented 17 percent of its total sales, 
nearly matching all its domestic sales. For the future, industry 
analysts put the China aerospace market at $40 billion.
  Because of this high leverage, and high visibility, the Chinese have 
made no secret that aerospace industry will be the first to bear the 
burden of retaliation. But there are also sizable potential markets for 
a wide range of American products, such as computers, medical 
instruments, power generating machinery, and even apples, which were 
shipped to China for the first time recently. This potential will never 
be realized if we slip into a full-fledge trade war.
  H.R. 4590, the Pelosi bill, purports to take a middle approach that 
focuses on enterprises most closely linked to the Chinese Government. 
But the Department of State has advised us that the definition of 
state-owned enterprises included in the bill ``can be read to encompass 
almost the entire industrial base of China.'' It is certain to 
precipitate a long list of legal challenges over which firms should be 
on the list, and which should not.
  In addition, frequently those products of township and village 
enterprises go through wholesalers or exporters who would fit the 
state-owned enterprise definition, and thus undermine the very kind of 
grassroots small businesses we would like to see nurtured in China. On 
the other hand, major firms can creatively reorganize the skirt the 
definitions in the act. The bottom line is that the mechanism that H.R. 
4590 seeks to establish is simply unworkable.
  President Clinton summed up the argument well in his August 4 letter 
to House Members:

       Legislation restricting MFN will isolate China, undermine 
     U.S. interests from nuclear security to human rights and cost 
     tens of thousands of Americans their jobs. Legislation 
     supporting the Administration's policy will place our 
     relations with China on sound footing and give us maximum 
     leverage to bring about the change we seek in China.

  I urge support for the Hamilton substitute.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I certainly concur with the thrust of the 
Hamilton substitute. The development of a civil society based on the 
rule of law is far more likely to advance human rights in China than 
the unilateral sanctions approach of the Pelosi bill.
  I would simply note that the administration crafted its initial 
Executive order approach precisely in order to obviate today's 
congressional action on China. That this body is again engaged in 
debate on China-MFN is an irony of extraordinary dimensions.
  In any regard, I want to turn to the most important issue in Sino-
American relations today: cooperation in peacefully resolving the North 
Korean nuclear crisis.
  North Korea is clearly the paramount national security challenge 
confronting the United States today. In stark contrast to other 
regional trouble-spots such as Haiti--where no vital United States 
interests are at stake and no convincing rationale has yet been 
advanced for an American invasion--our interests in stability on the 
Korean peninsula and nuclear nonproliferation are both compelling and 
in jeopardy.
  It is premature to suggest that ``the crisis is over,'' and that 
China's role may yet prove peripheral. Bilateral negotiations with the 
DPRK are proceeding in Geneva. All of us naturally hope that a 
breakthrough will soon occur.
  But given North Korea's history of ignoring its commitments, great 
caution is in order. We must fully expect that in the weeks ahead North 
Korea will again seek to test American leadership and resolve.
  In this context, Sino-American cooperation will likely be crucial to 
any credible multilateral strategy for peacefully resolving the North 
Korean nuclear crisis.
  The reasons are obvious: China is a permanent member of the U.N. 
Security Council, it is an important actor in Northeast Asia, and it 
maintains the most extensive--though not always decisive--leverage with 
North Korea of any outside power.
  China remains North Korea's most important bilateral relationship. 
The two Communist parties maintain ties. A 1961 defense treaty remains 
in force. China is also the DPRK's largest trading partner. According 
to the Hong Kong daily Ta Kung Pao, China provides the DPRK with about 
72 percent of all its grain imports, 75 percent of the petroleum, and 
88 percent of all coal.
  Nevertheless, the United States and China share an impressive 
identity of interests in Korea.
  China clearly favors a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. It helped get 
North Korea to reach a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. It has not 
obstructed action in the U.N. Security Council and in one case even 
sponsored a relevant statement on North Korea.
  The PRC also has an interest in maintaining peace and stability in 
Korea. It has extensive interests in northeast Asia that would be 
jeopardized by conflict in Korea. North Korea is also a close neighbor, 
and the gateway to Manchuria, where a large Korean minority lives just 
across the border from the North.
  One would presume that as early as March 1993, when North Korea 
announced its intent to withdraw from the NPT, a compelling priority of 
United States foreign policy would have been to achieve an 
understanding with China--in close consultation with South Korea and 
Japan--on the need for firm, concerted steps to defuse the North Korean 
nuclear challenge.
  But such has not occurred. In part this has been a function of 
Washington's badly misplaced foreign policy priorities and its fatally 
flawed approach to China-MFN. But it is also a function of Chinese 
perceptions, both about of United States intentions--a mistaken belief 
we may be seeking to destabilize China as well as North Korea through a 
policy of peaceful evolution--and the nature of the North Korean 
nuclear problem.
  This helps explain why Beijing has often appeared aloof and 
ambivalent--rather than engaged and committed--as others grapple with 
this crisis.
  China may doubt whether North Korea truly seeks to develop nuclear 
weapons. Senior Chinese leaders evidently attached great weight to 
pledges to this effect made by the late Kim II-Sung. In addition, PRC-
owned Hong Kong press reports suggest that Beijing does not believe 
there is any direct evidence that North Korea has developed an atomic 
bomb or bombs.
  That having been said, Pyongyang's actions in the weeks ahead could 
decisively affect key Chinese assumptions about the North Korean 
program.
  For example, China has genuinely angered and alarmed by Pyongyang's 
decision to defuel its 25mwt reactor. Beijing's objections were 
ignored. While China is relieved that diplomatic dialogue appears back 
on track, it could well be compelled to contemplate sterner 
alternatives if North Korea recklessly proceeds with nuclear 
reprocessing.
  China also does not believe that North Korea would launch a suicidal 
war of aggression to reunify the peninsula. The PRC is more concerned 
that external pressure on North Korea over the nuclear issue--
particularly in the context of leadership succession and rapid economic 
decline--may foreclose diplomatic options and prompt Pyongyang to 
resort to force.
  Tactically, therefore, Beijing prefers an incremental approach. Its 
preferred solution is to emphasize patient dialog and encourage North 
Korea to open up to the outside world.
  While China has so far failed to convince Pyongyang to emulate senior 
leader Deng Xiaoping's policy of reform and opening, it fears that 
without such reform the survival of the North Korean regime is in 
doubt.
  North Korea also presents China with a political problem. It puts 
China in the hot seat at the United Nations because in principle China 
is opposed to economic sanctions. Yet China faces international 
isolation if it blocks U.N. action and appears to align itself with 
Pyongyang. Hence it favors maintaining a low profile and the status 
quo.
  But events could soon compel China to take sides. Within weeks North 
Korea could declare that it intends to begin separating plutonium from 
recently discharged spent fuel. It may even do so with inspectors from 
the IAEA present.
  Although this would breach an understanding with the United States, 
it would not violate IAEA rules or the NPT. As long as there is no 
diversion, reprocessing is considered a peaceful nuclear activity. 
While the material would be under IAEA monitoring, the North could at 
any time complete its now-suspended withdrawal from the NPT or simply 
oust the inspectors.
  China must understand that if North Korea is allowed to proceed with 
reprocessing under any pretext, it could soon have enough plutonium to 
develop four or five nuclear weapons.
  Should that occur, pressure in South Korea and possibly Japan to 
develop an independent nuclear deterrent could well become 
irresistible. Any such development would of course be of profound 
concern.
  If Pyongyang proceeds with nuclear reprocessing, there will be no 
choice for China and the world community but to demonstrate 
conclusively to the North that they have no option but to comply with 
their NPT obligations and end their nuclear weapons program.
  For this Congress not to understand that North Korea is our highest 
national security priority--and to be threatening normal 
nondiscriminatory trade with a country whose cooperation is likely to 
be crucial to a resolution of the issue--is so foolhardy and 
counterproductive as to defy rational explication.
  I urge the defeat of the Pelosi bill and support for a bi-partisan, 
bi-institutional approach to Sino-American relations.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the people of China 
should be treated fairly. The extension of most-favored-nation trading 
status for China should be continued in order to ensure that America 
can improve the human rights situation in that nation through a 
positive working relationship with the people of China and the Chinese 
Government.
  During debate on the MFN status of China, statements were made on the 
floor of the House which claimed that although China needs us, we don't 
need them. We have needed them, and we continue to need China as a 
friend of the United States. President Richard Nixon needed China to 
drive a wedge in the Communist bloc. We need China now to help advance 
American interests on the Korean peninsula. In this globally 
interdependent economy, it is highly likely we will need China in the 
future.
  Many may be misled by the term most-favored-nation status, because it 
implies that China is getting some special treatment from the United 
States in our trade relationship. In fact, MFN is the standard way the 
United States does business around the world. China would be no more 
favored than any other nation around the world with whom we have a 
normal trade relationship.
  Obviously, human rights are a crucial concern with regard to 
America's foreign policy. But just as obviously, the use of trade 
sanctions is not an effective vehicle for influencing the human rights 
policy of foreign nations. Again and again, the use of trade sanctions 
to improve human rights in distant lands has been tried, and, again and 
again, the attempt has failed. Trade sanctions hurt the working class, 
not the wealthy leaders of nations. In Haiti, where America is using 
trade sanctions, small businesses are being destroyed, and the common 
citizen is being deprived of human and economic rights.
  On the other hand, the influence of America, properly applied, has 
been very successful in improving the human rights conditions of many 
nations around the world. South Korea and Argentina are but two 
examples of the achievement of the United States in improving human 
rights through interaction with the people and government of these 
nations. In China itself, fantastic changes have occurred since the 
opening of the nation in the early 1970's. This opening has allowed 
interaction between American and Chinese businesses, and American 
technology has allowed the people of China to improve their economic 
standing. With improvement in technology comes more access to 
information. The power of information will effect change in China, as 
it already has. Whose information? That provided by America and our 
allies, which, as long as we continue to trade with China, will 
continue to filter through to each and every Chinese citizen. American 
ideals, as always, can best be advanced by exposing others to our 
values and our successes.
  If we close down our trade with China, who profits? Not the citizens 
of China, whose economic freedoms will likely decline, and whose access 
to American information and ideals will be shut off. Not the American 
worker, who will no longer have access to the enormous Chinese market. 
We may feel a little better for a short time, and think that we have 
done what is right. But when China begins to fall backward in human 
rights, our brief good feeling will die.
  The common citizen of China, and his or her human rights, should be 
the focus of our human rights policy. What does that common citizen 
want? During my visits to China, I have talked to many of the citizens 
of China, and not once was I asked to revoke MFN status. Many, many 
times, however, I was asked to continue to work to improve the 
relationship between our two nations.
  This very point is what separates China and this situation from the 
past American policy toward South Africa. Essentially every South 
African who was not associated with the government of that nation cried 
out to the United States and to rest of the world to impose stringent 
economic sanctions against South Africa. This was the right thing to 
do, and I was proud to lead the effort in Texas to gain sanctions 
against South Africa. Our goal was to effect a total change in the 
governing body of the nation, and we succeeded. In so doing, we 
destroyed the economic infrastructure of the nation, which we are now 
helping to rebuild.
  In China, the circumstances are very different. Our goal, as stated 
by many Members, is to improve the situation of the common citizen of 
China, not to force a change in government. We do not have the support 
of the world. In fact, should we decide not to trade with China, many 
other nations will jump in to take our place. Then, high-paying 
American jobs will be lost as European aeronautical firms move into 
supply aircraft, and as other nations rush to supply China's 
technological needs. Human rights conditions will not be improved, and 
the ability of America to exert positive influence will be lost. This 
is not South Africa, and although Europeans agreed that ``We ain't 
gonna play Sun City,'' you can be sure that the European Union will be 
only to happy to play Beijing.
  My colleagues and I do agree that human rights policy is of utmost 
importance to this Nation, and America should do all it can to improve 
the way other nations treat their citizens. What we need to realize is 
that American can do more to help these people by interacting with them 
than by ignoring them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 280, 
noes 152, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 382]

                               AYES--280

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hoagland
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Tucker
     Valentine
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--152

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Baker (CA)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Byrne
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Klink
     Klug
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walker
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bentley
     Clyburn
     Gallo
     Herger
     Mollohan
     Ravenel
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Roukema

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. CLAY and Mr. LEWIS of Georgia changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by ms. pelosi

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

     Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms. 
     Pelosi: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``United States-China Act of 
     1994''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In Executive Order 12850, dated May 28, 1993, the 
     President established conditions for renewing most-favored-
     nation treatment for the People's Republic of China in 1994.
       (2) The Executive order requires that in recommending the 
     extension of most-favored-nation trade status to the People's 
     Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning July 3, 
     1994, the Secretary of State shall not recommend extension 
     unless the Secretary determines that such extension 
     substantially promotes the freedom of emigration objectives 
     contained in section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2432) and that China is complying with the 1992 bilateral 
     agreement between the United States and China concerning 
     export to the United States of products made with prison 
     labor.
       (3) The Executive order further requires that in making the 
     recommendation, the Secretary of State shall determine if 
     China has made overall significant progress with respect to--
       (A) taking steps to begin adhering to the Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights;
       (B) releasing and providing an acceptable accounting for 
     Chinese citizens imprisoned or detained for the nonviolent 
     expression of their political and religious beliefs, 
     including such expressions of beliefs in connection with the 
     Democracy Wall and Tiananmen Square movements;
       (C) ensuring humane treatment of prisoners, and allowing 
     access to prisons by international humanitarian and human 
     rights organizations;
       (D) protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural 
     heritage; and
       (E) permitting international radio and television 
     broadcasts into China.
       (4) The Executive order requires the executive branch to 
     resolutely pursue all legislative and executive actions to 
     ensure that China abides by its commitments to follow fair, 
     nondiscriminatory trade practices in dealing with United 
     States businesses and adheres to the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
     Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines and 
     parameters, and other nonproliferation commitments.
       (5) The Government of the People's Republic of China, a 
     member of the United Nations Security Council obligated to 
     respect and uphold the United Nations charter and Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights, has over the past year made less 
     than significant progress on human rights. The People's 
     Republic of China has released only a few prominent political 
     prisoners and continues to violate internationally recognized 
     standards of human rights by arbitrary arrests and detention 
     of persons for the nonviolent expression of their political 
     and religious beliefs.
       (6) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     not allowed humanitarian and human rights organizations 
     access to prisons.
       (7) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     refused to meet with the Dalai Lama, or his representative, 
     to discuss the protection of Tibet's distinctive religious 
     and cultural heritage.
       (8) It continues to be the policy and practice of the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China to control all 
     trade unions and suppress and harass members of the 
     independent labor union movement.
       (9) The Government of the People's Republic of China 
     continues to restrict the activities of accredited 
     journalists.
       (10) The People's Republic of China's defense industrial 
     trading companies and the People's Liberation Army engage in 
     lucrative trade relations with the United States and operate 
     lucrative commercial businesses within the United States. 
     Trade with and investments in the defense industrial trading 
     companies and the People's Liberation Army are contrary to 
     the national security interests of the United States.
       (11) The President has conducted an intensive high-level 
     dialogue with the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China, including meeting with the President of China, in an 
     effort to encourage that government to make significant 
     progress toward meeting the standards contained in the 
     Executive order for continuation of most-favored-nation 
     treatment.
       (12) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     not made overall significant progress with respect to the 
     standards contained in the President's Executive Order 12850, 
     dated May 28, 1993.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the Congress that, since 
     the President has recommended the continuation of the waiver 
     under section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 for the 
     People's Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning 
     July 3, 1994, such waiver shall not provide for extension of 
     nondiscriminatory trade treatment to goods that are produced, 
     manufactured, or exported by the People's Liberation Army or 
     Chinese defense industrial trading companies or to 
     nonqualified goods that are produced, manufactured, or 
     exported by state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic 
     of China.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY 
                   TREATMENT.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law--
       (1) if nondiscriminatory treatment is not granted to the 
     People's Republic of China by reason of the enactment into 
     law of a disapproval resolution described in subsection 
     (b)(1), nondiscriminatory treatment shall--
       (A) continue to apply to any good that is produced or 
     manufactured by a person that is not a state-owned enterprise 
     of the People's Republic of China, but
       (B) not apply to any good that is produced, manufactured, 
     or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China,
       (2) if nondiscriminatory treatment is granted to the 
     People's Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning 
     on July 3, 1994, such nondiscriminatory treatment shall not 
     apply to--
       (A) any good that is produced, manufactured, or exported by 
     the People's Liberation Army or a Chinese defense industrial 
     trading company, or
       (B) any nonqualified good that is produced, manufactured, 
     or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China, and
       (3) in order for nondiscriminatory treatment to be granted 
     to the People's Republic of China, and subsequent to the 
     granting of such nondiscriminatory treatment, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall consult with leaders of American 
     businesses having significant trade with or investment in the 
     People's Republic of China, to encourage them to adopt a 
     voluntary code of conduct that--
       (A) follows internationally recognized human rights 
     principles,
       (B) ensures that the employment of Chinese citizens is not 
     discriminatory in terms of sex, ethnic origin, or political 
     belief,
       (C) ensures that no convict, forced, or indentured labor is 
     knowingly used,
       (D) recognizes the rights of workers to freely organize and 
     bargain collectively, and
       (E) discourages mandatory political indoctrination on 
     business premises.
       (b) Disapproval Resolution.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the two 
     Houses of Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of 
     which is as follows: ``That the Congress does not approve the 
     extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the 
     Congress on ______________________ with respect to the 
     People's Republic of China because the Congress does not 
     agree that the People's Republic of China has met the 
     standards described in the President's Executive Order 12850, 
     dated May 28, 1993.'', with the blank space being filled with 
     the appropriate date.
       (2) Applicable rules.--The provisions of sections 153 
     (other than paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b)) and 
     402(d)(2) (as modified by this subsection) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 shall apply to a resolution described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (c) Determination of State-Owned Enterprises and Chinese 
     Defense Industrial Trading Companies.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall determine which 
     persons are state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic 
     of China and which persons are Chinese defense industrial 
     trading companies for purposes of this Act. The Secretary 
     shall publish a list of such persons in the Federal Register.
       (2) Public hearing.--
       (A) General rule.--Before making the determination and 
     publishing the list required by paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall hold a public hearing for the purpose 
     of receiving oral and written testimony regarding the persons 
     to be included on the list.
       (B) Additions and deletions.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     may add or delete persons from the list based on information 
     available to the Secretary or upon receipt of a request 
     containing sufficient information to take such action.
       (3) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of making 
     the determination required by paragraph (1), the following 
     definitions apply:
       (A) Chinese defense industrial trading company.--The term 
     ``Chinese defense industrial trading company''--
       (i) means a person that is--

       (I) engaged in manufacturing, producing, or exporting, and
       (II) affiliated with or owned, controlled, or subsidized by 
     the People's Liberation Army, and

       (ii) includes any person identified in the United States 
     Defense Intelligence Agency publication numbered VP-1920-271-
     90, dated September 1990.
       (B) People's liberation army.--The term ``People's 
     Liberation Army'' means any branch or division of the land, 
     naval, or air military service or the police of the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China.
       (C) State-owned enterprise of the people's republic of 
     china.--(i) The term ``state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China'' means a person who is affiliated with or 
     wholly owned, controlled, or subsidized by the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China and whose means of production, 
     products, and revenues are owned or controlled by a central 
     or provincial government authority. A person shall be 
     considered to be state-owned if--
       (I) the person's assets are primarily owned by a central or 
     provincial government authority;
       (II) a substantial proportion of the person's profits are 
     required to be submitted to a central or provincial 
     government authority;
       (III) the person's production, purchases of inputs, and 
     sales of output, in whole or in part, are subject to state, 
     sectoral, or regional plans; or
       (IV) a license issued by a government authority classifies 
     the person as state-owned.
       (ii) Any person that--
       (I) is a qualified foreign joint venture or is licensed by 
     a governmental authority as a collective, cooperative, or 
     private enterprise; or
       (II) is wholly owned by a foreign person,

     shall not be considered to be state-owned.
       (D) Qualified foreign joint venture.--The term ``qualified 
     foreign joint venture'' means any person--
       (i) which is registered and licensed in the agency or 
     department of the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China concerned with foreign economic relations and trade as 
     an equity, cooperative, contractual joint venture, or joint 
     stock company with foreign investment;
       (ii) in which the foreign investor partner and a person of 
     the People's Republic of China share profits and losses and 
     jointly manage the venture;
       (iii) in which the foreign investor partner holds or 
     controls at least 25 percent of the investment and the 
     foreign investor partner is not substantially owned or 
     controlled by a state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China;
       (iv) in which the foreign investor partner is not a person 
     of a country the government of which the Secretary of State 
     has determined under section 6(j) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) to have 
     repeatedly provided support for acts of international 
     terrorism; and
       (v) which does not use state-owned enterprises of the 
     People's Republic of China to export its goods or services.
       (E) Person.--The term ``person'' means a natural person, 
     corporation, partnership, enterprise, instrumentality, 
     agency, or other entity.
       (F) Foreign investor partner.--The term ``foreign investor 
     partner'' means--
       (i) a natural person who is not a citizen of the People's 
     Republic of China; and
       (ii) a corporation, partnership, instrumentality, 
     enterprise, agency, or other entity that is organized under 
     the laws of a country other than the People's Republic of 
     China and 50 percent or more of the outstanding capital stock 
     or beneficial interest of such entity is owned (directly or 
     indirectly) by natural persons who are not citizens of the 
     People's Republic of China.
       (G) Nonqualified good.--The term ``nonqualified good'' 
     means a good to which chapter 39, 44, 48, 61, 62, 64, 70, 73, 
     84, 93, or 94 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
     States applies.
       (H) Convict, forced, or indentured labor.--The term 
     ``convict, forced, or indentured labor'' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1307).
       (I) Violations of internationally recognized standards of 
     human rights.--The term ``violations of internationally 
     recognized standards of human rights'' includes but is not 
     limited to, torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment 
     or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, 
     causing the disappearance of persons by abduction and 
     clandestine detention of those persons, secret judicial 
     proceedings, and other flagrant denial of the right to life, 
     liberty, or the security of any person.
       (J) Missile technology control regime.--The term ``Missile 
     Technology Control Regime'' means the agreement, as amended, 
     between the United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal 
     Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and Japan, 
     announced on April 16, 1987, to restrict sensitive missile-
     relevant transfers based on an annex of missile equipment and 
     technology.
       (d) Semiannual Reports.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and the end of each 6-month period 
     occurring thereafter, report to the Congress on the efforts 
     of the executive branch to carry out subsection (c). The 
     Secretary may include in the report a request for additional 
     authority, if necessary, to carry out subsection (c). In 
     addition, the report shall include information regarding the 
     efforts of the executive branch to carry out subsection 
     (a)(3).

     SEC. 4. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.

       The President may waive the application of any condition or 
     prohibition imposed on any person pursuant to this Act, if 
     the President determines and reports to the Congress that the 
     continued imposition of the condition or prohibition would 
     have a serious adverse effect on the vital national security 
     interests of the United States.

     SEC. 5. REPORT BY THE PRESIDENT.

       If the President recommends in 1995 that the waiver 
     referred to in section 2 be continued for the People's 
     Republic of China, the President shall state in the document 
     required to be submitted to the Congress by section 402(d) of 
     the Trade Act of 1974, the extent to which the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China has made progress during the 
     period covered by the document, with respect to--
       (1) adhering to the provisions of the Universal Declaration 
     of Human Rights,
       (2) ceasing the exportation to the United States of 
     products made with convict, force, or indentured labor,
       (3) ceasing unfair and discriminatory trade practices which 
     restrict and unreasonably burden American business, and
       (4) adhering to the guidelines and parameters of the 
     Missile Technology Control Regime, the controls adopted by 
     the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the controls adopted by the 
     Australia Group.

     SEC. 6. SANCTIONS BY OTHER COUNTRIES.

       If the President decides not to seek a continuation of a 
     waiver in 1995 for the People's Republic of China under 
     section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974, the President shall, 
     during the 30-day period beginning on the date that the 
     President would have recommended to the Congress that such a 
     waiver be continued, undertake efforts to ensure that members 
     of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade take a similar 
     action with respect to the People's Republic of China.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member in 
opposition will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The Chairman. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, it is with great pride that I yield 3 
minutes to the Democratic majority whip, the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Bonior], a champion for human rights, a champion for workers' 
rights throughout the world, and, more importantly, in addition to all 
of that, a champion of American workers' rights.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, sometimes, I think we take a lot of things for granted 
in this country.
  Every one of us in this Chamber today has been doing something that 
the people of China would never dream of doing: We have openly debated 
the policies of our Government.
  We have questioned the direction our country should go.
  You cannot do that in China. If you speak out against the Government, 
you get arrested,
  If you actively work to build support to oppose a policy, you get 
thrown in jail.
  And if you say a prayer in public in some parts of China--like we did 
this morning--you might never be heard from again.
  I think that is part of the reason why those students in Tiananmen 
Square read from our Constitution and quoted Thomas Jefferson 5 years 
ago.
  It is the same reason why people in the most distant reaches of South 
Africa used to carry copies of the Declaration of Independence in their 
pockets: because they know America is supposed to stand for something.
  Because when tyrants around the world oppress their own people, they 
know the principals that this country was founded on are supposed to 
stand out like a beacon.
  And they hope that we will speak out on behalf of human rights and 
democracy in the world.
  That is all we are asking for today.
  We are not asking to end most-favored-nation trading status with 
China--because that issue has been decided for now.
  We are not asking to hang a keep out sign for Chinese products on the 
United States border--because we know that's not going to happen.
  And we are not asking to turn our backs on the China market--because 
we recognize the opportunities there.
  We are simply asking that we target the most egregious offenders of 
human rights in China today, and that we end the taxpayer subsidies for 
the very people who are doing the torturing, the abusing, the 
arresting, and the murdering in China today. Is that really too much to 
ask?
  Do you really think our trade with China is going to collapse if the 
Chinese Army loses its most-favored-nation status?
  We have a $23 billion trade deficit with China today.
  Do you really think they will abandon the U.S. market if we drop MFN 
for 5 billion dollars' worth of state-run enterprises?
  There is not a single industrialized nation in the world that gives 
them the same breaks we do.
  And you know why? Because they know it's not fair to ask their 
workers to compete with Chinese workers who are forced to work for 10 
cents an hour.
  Because they know they can not compete with products made in the 
prisons of the Chinese Army.
  And what about the budget of the Chinese Army--that increased by more 
than 20 percent last year thanks to their special trade status with the 
United States.
  What do you think that money is going for?
  More uniforms and desk chairs? Or more tanks, torture, and 
persecution of the Chinese people?
  It is interesting that during this entire debate, nobody has 
disavowed the fact that China's human rights record is getting worse.
  Nobody has said it is getting better.
  And that's really what this debate comes down to.
  The students who marched in China 5 years ago did not march for money 
or for power.
  They marched for the freedom of speech. They marched for the freedom 
to organize and the freedom to vote.
  They marched for the right to build a better life for their 
families--and for more opportunities than 10 cents an hour.
  And today, I hope that just once we will stand up for them, and for 
people like them in our country and all over the world.
  I hope we will vote to end MFN for the Chinese military.
  Not because it is the popular thing to do.
  Not because it is the political thing to do.
  But because it is right.
  Because we are the hope of the Chinese people. And we can not afford 
to turn our backs on them.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want you all to know that this is not my idea of a 
rule. I have never really come upon one exactly like this, but I do not 
want to prolong the agony.
  I think the House has demonstrated that it has made up its mind with 
that rather outstanding vote in favor of the Hamilton proposal just a 
few moments ago.
  Let me say that Ms. Pelosi has striven hard to do what she thinks is 
correct in this matter. I simply disagree with her position.
  First, her proposal would interrupt about half of the trade that we 
have with China. Second, all of us have a letter from the U.S. 
Commissioner of Customs who says it would be impossible to administer, 
and extremely costly to try to enforce, the restrictions that the 
gentlewoman outlines in her proposal. Commissioner Weise points out 
that it would take the investigation of about 100,000 companies in 
China in order to determine which products would be targeted by the 
sanctions authorized in H.R. 4590. The U.S. Customs Service would have 
to identify and report publicly on these companies controlled by the 
state in China or by the People's Liberation Army. The Commissioner 
notes that there is just no way to do that. The Customs Service does 
not have that many people who can speak Chinese. Customs Commissioner 
Weise doubts that the Chinese Government would allow his personnel the 
access necessary to carry out such investigations. Customs law is 
difficult enough without adding the impossible task of administering 
this bill.

                              {time}  1850

  So, as well intentioned as the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi] is, this measure would restrict trade with 
China, touch off a prolonged period of instability in U.S.-China 
relations, and most importantly, undercut the President's new 
comprehensive China policy. The President seeks to engage the Chinese 
on every front, and we need the Chinese to help us manage the North 
Korean nuclear threat.
  The Chinese have never had the kind of traditions on freedom, 
democracy, and human rights that we have had but I believe that they 
are moving closer to, rather than further from, internationally 
recognized norms in such areas. The people in China are freer today 
than ever before in my lifetime, and perhaps, in the entire 6,000 years 
of Chinese history.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we are making progress, and I think that the 
President has outlined a good policy for furthering such progress. I 
believe that disrupting trade would rupture our relations with China, 
and I would add that the United States would be the only industrialized 
society disengaging from China. None of our competitors in the 
industrialized world have any intention of doing what the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi] is asking us to do here today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Pelosi substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui], the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade who 
has just done a wonderful job in organizing and supporting all of this 
effort, may be able to control the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] who has been a champion on the issue of 
proliferation, especially in the case of China, and because of him at 
least we have the gun ban in the President's policy statement of last 
May.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi] very much, and I congratulate her on her amendment here 
today.
  Human rights violations, they continue unabated in China. Use of 
slave labor continues unabated inside of China. Even if, however, on 
balance one believes that it makes sense to turn a blind eye to that 
because we need this trade imbalance of $30 billion a year with the 
Chinese Government with their companies, how can we ignore the fact 
that this country is the No. 1 proliferater of nuclear materials on 
this planet? Over the last half-dozen years they have exported to North 
Korea, to Syria, to Algeria, to Iran, to Iraq, to Pakistan. Now out 
here on the floor on an ongoing basis we have to appropriate tens of 
billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money to then isolate these 
troublespots around the world. Why? Because China, the Kmart of nuclear 
materials, of other ballistic materials, continues to drop oil onto 
every trouble spot on this planet.
  Now I ask my colleagues why in the world should we spend tens of 
billions of taxpayers' dollars so that we can run up a $30 billion 
trade deficit, and turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the cries of the 
human rights dissidents sitting in this gallery today crying for us to 
stand up for their people?
  My colleagues, this is not a difficult decision. The Chinese 
Government needs us more than we need them. They are not helping us 
with North Korea, and, if they do, it is only out of their own national 
defense self-interest. We get nothing out of this but long-term trouble 
for this Government for our people.
  Vote for the Pelosi amendment and save this Government tens of 
billions of dollars in years ahead. We should have done this with the 
Shah of Iran. We should have done this in Iraq. We would have paid a 
much smaller price as a people if we had been wiser far in advance of 
the problems that we sowed by ourselves by our own actions here in the 
floor of this Congress.
  Vote for the Pelosi amendment.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of MFN and 
against the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi].
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hamilton amendment to H.R. 
4590, the U.S.-China Act of 1994.
  I strongly oppose terminating China's current trade status by 
revoking most-favored-nation [MFN] status or by imposing broad trade 
sanctions. Our current policy balances a host of concerns which have 
been voiced on the floor today, such as political and human rights 
concerns.
  Human rights progress must be achieved in China; however, it should 
be done through nontrade means such as expanding private and 
multilateral efforts, increasing international broadcasts to China and 
supporting Chinese businesses in developing voluntary principles on 
human rights.
  Renewing China's MFN status remains consistent with our goal of 
bringing China into the expanding world of free-market societies. 
Isolating China by cutting off MFN only serves to weaken the ties to 
the west and increase repression.
  There are also a number of economic arguments to support extending 
MFN status to China. Engaging China in a trade war will not only lower 
American exports, but will also effectively kill more than 150,000 
American jobs. Our constituents would feel the effects of this action 
through higher prices resulting from an increase in U.S. tariffs on a 
variety of Chinese products.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Hamilton amendment to 
maintain MFN trade status for China.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, in the past I have supported MFN with the 
People's Republic of China, but only with the most stringent conditions 
attached. I have little respect for the octogenarian administration of 
PRC and their abysmal human rights record.
  On a personal basis, I lived and worked with Tibetan refugees in 
Nepal as a Peace Corps volunteer. I have a great measure of love and 
respect for those people and their culture. Tibetan Lamaic Buddhism is 
among the world's great religious traditions. I was very fortunate to 
have witnessed and participated in some of the richest and most 
beautiful religious services I have ever seen. In the 1950's, the 
Communist Chinese set out to destroy this culture. They have not been 
successful, but the people have suffered great harm.
  Therefore it is with great difficulty that I face this decision 
today. Events of the past have changed my view. The opening of Eastern 
Europe to democracy began with economic reform. As Western culture, 
good and bad, flowed east, and information expanded exponentially, 
people were empowered. They knew what they were missing. They were 
freer to exchange ideas, challenge authority and enrich their lives 
materially. And once the door flew open they could not close it. Human 
rights violations were witnessed not be silent neighbors, but by an 
outraged world.
  Mr. Chairman, I have become convinced that this is the only way to 
open the Chinese doors and windows. They need to look out and we need 
to see in to make sure that another Tibetan pogrom cannot take place.
  Economics drives much of our foreign policy, and all of the economic 
arguments in favor of MFN are strong. But we must cope with the human 
condition these policies affect. The time has come to open China to 
trade, to information interchange, and to democratic ideas that, once 
introduced, should bring the desired result.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the Pelosi 
amendment and a yes vote for most-favored-nation status with China.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], a leader on this issue in the Congress.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Mr. Chairman, the issue before us is not isolating the People's 
Republic of China. The issue before us is trade with the People's 
Liberation Army. There is no sound reason that the military forces of 
Communist China should be granted any preferential trading status. How 
could we rationalize such a shortsighted policy?
  The Chinese military is the only armed forces in the world that still 
are targeting our Nation with nuclear weapons. Do we support that kind 
of policy?
  Our senior counterintelligence officials inform us that the Chinese 
military has the most active industrial espionage network here in our 
own country. Do we support that kind of a policy?
  The Chinese military is supporting the North Koreans. Do we support 
that policy?
  Where is our long-term foreign policy thinking?
  Bear in mind that our deficit in trade with China is more than $23 
billion.
  I say, ``Vote yes on the Pelosi bill to revoke MFN for the Chinese 
army. Support our American workers here at home by supporting the human 
rights abroad.''

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for our colleague, the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi], but on this issue, she is wrong. We need 
to divorce trade from foreign policy. We need China. If we are going to 
be able to do anything diplomatically to solve the problem with nuclear 
proliferation in North Korea, we need China.
  The oriental people, the Chinese in particular, are very sensitive to 
face. If they determine in any way that we are applying any kind of 
pressure, overt or covert, we will be totally unsuccessful. And who 
will suffer? Our farmers in the Midwest, our people in high-technology 
industries, our people in Seattle and other places with airplanes and 
other sophisticated products that the Chinese need.
  We need to divorce this situation, make trade, trade, and make 
foreign policy, foreign policy.
  The framers of our Constitution were right when they said the 
President shall set foreign policy.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for their attention today and for 
their participation in this important debate.
  Mr. Chairman, before I proceed I want to acknowledge the wonderful 
staff support of Eric Weiss, Mike Wessel, Miles Lackey, Karen Ann 
Feever, Carolyn Bartholomew, and so many other people on our staffs who 
worked so very hard on this issue for such a long time. I, too, would 
like to join the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] in 
recognizing the dissidents who are in the Chamber with us today.
  Mr. Chairman, why are we having this debate? Why are we here today? I 
contend that this debate is central and fundamental to how we proceed 
into the global and international marketplace. This is a debate about 
the American worker, it is a debate about human rights throughout the 
world, and, in this particular case, particularly in China, it is about 
how we are smart in our trade relationships and how they relate to the 
proliferation of weapons.
  Over the past 5 years, this House has demonstrated its concern about 
the trade deficit with China, which this year will be $30 billion, and 
I promise you if we do nothing today, it will surpass Japan. Second, we 
are concerned about the serious repression in China and Tibet, and, 
third, seriously concerned about the proliferation of weapons to 
unsafeguarded countries, including the sale of weapons to the Khmer 
Rouge.
  In the speaker's remarks, it was curious to me he made two points. He 
said first, China was cooperating with us on North Korea; the Chinese 
military is not. The military has pledged 82,000 troops in case of war 
to the North Korean armed forces, and also pledged food and energy and 
credit assistance in case of U.N. sanctions. So let us be straight 
about what China is doing.
  Why is it that people in our midst here wish to ignore the violations 
in our trade relationship, in our proliferation arrangements, and, yes, 
indeed, even on the question of human rights?
  I said earlier that I did not believe that the Hamilton amendment did 
that much. I do not think it does. So I think it is very possible for 
Members to vote for that. It does nothing to negate voting also for the 
Pelosi amendment. So I hope some Members will register their support 
also for my legislation.
  Why is that? Is it a difficult thing to ask our colleagues that they 
vote not to give a tax break to the Chinese military, the same Chinese 
military where these three issues converge, who are proliferating 
weapons, who are repressing people in China and Tibet, and flooding our 
markets with their products, many of them made by prison labor, because 
the Chinese military oversees a great deal of the prison labor camps 
itself?
  Is it too much to say the American taxpayer should not be subsidizing 
the proliferation of weapons into the Third World and to unsafeguarded 
countries? Is it too much to say do not subsidize the Chinese military 
when they are the oppressors in China?
  Well, we have heard all of that. I think that in 3 years, if we do 
nothing today, we will look back and say, how did this trade deficit 
get to this point?
  So I am asking my colleagues to vote in favor of the American worker, 
to get the American consumer off the hook for unwittingly subsidizing 
the Chinese military, and, as I said, help the American worker by 
promoting human rights abroad.
  Once again I want to thank my colleagues for their attention, both 
here today and their courtesies in the course of this deliberation.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, we are arriving at the last and the final 
twist in this debate, which has gone on for some time today, and which 
surely has taken a number of twists.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that the Pelosi amendment, the 
Pelosi bill, is in some ways a worse alternative than the Solomon 
approach which at least has the advantage of being a straightforward 
revocation of most-favored-nation status for China.
  Partial revocation, as this legislation would have us do, is in some 
ways the worst possible change that we could make. To try to limit 
most-favored-nation status to only those companies that are completely 
Simon pure in being privately owned, not having a government subsidy, 
not being owned in part by the People's Army, is an almost impossible 
task to administer, as I think most of us on reflection in this body 
would agree.
  Customs itself has said that it is almost impossible for them to 
determine what is and what is not owned by the government or by the 
People's Army. We can just imagine what would occur in terms of 
creating shall corporations that would be owned by somebody, but would 
still be owned by the army. It is going to be impossible to administer 
this.
  In the meantime we have had a vote, a positive vote, on the Hamilton 
substitute, which expresses our support for human rights, which 
recognizes that human rights can be promoted by involvement, by trade, 
by interaction, by staying engaged with another country.
  The House of Representatives and the Congress of the United States 
has traditionally been bipartisan on foreign policy and trade. This 
action today in support of Hamilton continues that tradition.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan approach that we 
have adopted here today, to say that we do support human rights, but we 
support human rights in China by continuing to be engaged in trade with 
China.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Pelosi 
substitute.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all commend the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi], certainly the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton], the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], and the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman], the ranking member of the Republican side. I think this 
debate was a very fruitful one, and I think everybody has gained from 
it. Certainly I think this is an issue of national import, and one that 
all of us well remember for some time to come.
  I want to divide my remarks very briefly into three areas on the 
issue of military and proliferation of weapons by the Chinese. What is 
very, very interesting is that since the United States has been 
engaging the Chinese, since the United States has been trying to get 
the PLA to move from a military-industrial base to a consumer-based 
economy, we have now seen over 50 percent of the former military-run 
companies now engaged in consumer goods.
  In fact, the Secretary of Defense has sent to every Member's office 
in the last 3 days a letter basically saying that he is embarking on a 
major military conversion effort with the Chinese. In October the 
Chinese military leaders will be coming to the United States for the 
purpose of talking about further conversion.

                              {time}  1910

  So if Members want to stop the proliferation of weapons, then vote 
down the Pelosi amendment.
  Second, let me talk about economic leverage, if I may, because 
everybody is talking, rightfully so, about the trade deficit. We have a 
$22 billion trade deficit with the Chinese at this particular time. It 
is growing and we know it could be $30 billion this year.
  The reason that we have not been able to engage the Chinese to open 
up their markets is because unfortunately, our entire relationship with 
the Chinese over the last year and a half has been defined by MFN and 
the issue of human rights. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say 
that we want to open their markets up and spend all the time arguing 
about human rights. We have to deal with the trade issue by trying to 
open up their markets, and then also we need a multilateral discussion 
with the Chinese by talking about human rights, by uncoupling the issue 
of trade.
  Let me last talk about the issue of human rights, because that is why 
we are really here, and I believe the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] has done a wonderful job heightening this issue with respect to 
the Chinese.
  There is no question the Chinese have over the years been very 
repressive in their government. At the same time, I think all of us 
will acknowledge that if Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter did not 
normalize relations with the Chinese, the dissidents sitting in the 
audience would not be sitting here today. We would never have the scene 
at Tiananmen Square because normalizing relations with the Chinese has 
opened up trade with the Chinese and commerce with the Chinese.
  In fact, Don Kennedy, the former President of Stanford University, 
said this three years ago, that we have over 45,000 students from China 
per year coming to the United States, visiting our universities and 
colleges. They are now exporting from the United States into China 
democracy and our way of life.
  If Members really want to improve human rights, they need to engage 
them, not isolate them from us and the rest of the world.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Pelosi amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton].
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Let me remind my colleagues, first, that we are proceeding under a 
king of the hill procedure, so I urge very strongly a no vote on 
Pelosi, even though we had a very solid vote a moment ago in support of 
the Hamilton amendment.
  Some have suggested that it is possible to vote for both of these. 
But I want to say that the two approaches in the Hamilton and in the 
Pelosi amendments cannot be reconciled.
  One approach is an approach of engagement. That is the President's 
policy. That is the Hamilton amendment. The Pelosi amendment is a 
policy of confrontation. The choice is simple and it is clear, and we 
cannot reconcile these two amendments.
  Let me say that I think the Pelosi amendment damages our national 
security interests, damages our economic interests, will do nothing to 
improve human rights in China and is unenforceable.
  Listen to the secretary of defense, and I quote him, ``in the context 
of the deteriorating relationship that would inevitably result from the 
passage of this bill,'' referring to the Pelosi bill, ``important U.S. 
security interests would be undermined.'' And he lists them: North 
Korea, sanctions at the United Nations, Taiwan and arms sales.
  The Pelosi confrontational amendment would seriously undermine our 
economic interests. Listen to the secretary of commerce, and I quote 
him, ``passage of Pelosi would have potentially devastating 
consequences on our current exports.
  And the secretary of state says that the Pelosi bill would create 
chaos in U.S.-China trade.
  If we adopt the policy of confrontation offered by the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi], we will not persuade the Chinese to ease 
up on human rights. We will not persuade the Chinese to cooperate more 
fully in stopping North Korea's nuclear program. We will not serve our 
economic interests. Confrontation will not help U.S. companies. It will 
not help U.S. workers. Confrontation will not give us the leverage that 
we need in the global community.
  The President's policy is one of engagement here. It would give us 
the leverage we need to press North Korea in the UN Security Council. 
It would give us the leverage we need to open Chinese markets. It would 
give us the leverage we need to encourage the liberalization of Chinese 
society.
  What we are trying to do with this policy of engagement is to draw 
China into a web of cooperation; that is one of the most difficult 
things to do in the conduct of foreign policy. Engaging China serves 
our interests economically and politically and strategically. And it 
will make us a key player in the most important question in China 
today; and that is the transition of leadership.
  I urge Members to support the President's policy of engagement, to 
reject the policy of confrontation, to vote ``no'' on the Pelosi 
amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the Democratic majority leader, 
a champion for workers rights in the United States and human rights 
abroad.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi] who has been the spiritual and real leader 
of this effort. I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman], who have been also great leaders on this 
subject.
  I rise today to ask my colleagues to support the Pelosi bill, to 
stand up for human rights in China and economic rights here at home.
  For more than 5 years, ever since the brutal state-sanctioned 
terrorism of Tiananmen Square, this debate has raged here in this 
Capitol. Make no mistake, this debate is about more than our wallets. 
It is about our will as a nation and as a people.
  Should America use its economic might to stand up for human rights? 
Should we demand for the people of China the basic rights and justice 
that we cherish for ourselves and our children? And when America says 
that we care about human rights, when we say that we care about a 
people who suffer physical torture and forced labor and political 
persecution, do we mean that we care only when it is convenient for us?
  In 1988, I traveled to China and met with many of the students and 
workers who asked for human and civil rights. Their feelings seemed to 
me to be irrepressible, undeniable. And just one year later we all 
watched as the tanks rolled across at Tiananmen Square. I returned to 
China with some Members this January and, believe me, when you tour the 
factories and walk the back alleys, you can feel, palpably feel the 
yearning of the people of that country for freedom and for civil 
rights.
  I sat with the president of their country and listened to him as he 
said, ``We know that America likes to threaten the removal of trade 
preferences,'' he said, ``but when push comes to shove, we know that 
you will never, ever do it.''
  Today, my colleagues, we are asking Members to prove him wrong. We 
are asking Members to send this message to the government of China: 
that when they refuse to even negotiate with the Dalai Lama on behalf 
of the people of Tibet, when they refuse to release even those 
political prisoners with grave medical conditions, and when they read 
the riot act to the young patriots who are fighting for freedom and 
workers rights, America is not going to pick up the tab.

                              {time}  1920

  I am asking you to send a message to the working people of America as 
well: That they should not have to compete with forced labor, prison 
labor. You see, this is a moral issue, but it is also an economic 
issue. How can the United States possibly compete with people who are 
working in prisons? How can we compete with a nation that refuses to 
adopt even modest, internationally recognized labor laws?
  Given these rampant abuses, is it any wonder that we have a trade 
deficit of $25 billion, on its way to $30 billion, probably on its way 
to $40 billion or $50 billion?
  I think this bill is reasonable and fair. By selectively removing 
trade preferences, by carefully targeting our aim at the people that 
have the power to change the policies, we stand the best chance of real 
progress.
  Mr. Chairman, some say it is the wrong approach. They say we need to 
tap into China's growing market of 1.2 billion people, that this will 
lift the people of China up, and it is the only way that we can get 
democracy.
  While we can never ignore the fact that development breeds democracy, 
neither can we abandon our commitment to democracy through development.
  Mr. Chairman, the notion of a ``trickle-down'' trade policy, one in 
which all political and social reforms flow freely from the 
marketplace, is not just simplistic, it flies in the face of history. 
Mr. Chairman, just think, just think of where we would be in South 
Africa today if America had not stood for the moral rights of the 
people of South Africa. Let me tell the Members where we would be. 
Nelson Mandela would be in a prison, he would not be the president of 
South Africa, if America had not stood for the moral and legal rights 
of the people of that country.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the question we have to ask is, if we will not 
stand for the rights of the people of China, who will. If we let down 
the people of China, what do we say to the nations that look to us for 
hope and inspiration and leadership? Do we say that our principles are 
still strong, they are just hiding for a while behind a sign called 
``For Sale''?
  Of course, international trade is about dollars and cents, but it is 
also about people and it is about principles. If we abandon our 
commitment to the freedoms that are the very foundation of free 
markets, then we trade away everything that our country stands for.

  Mr. Chairman, more than 170 years ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote that 
``this country remains to preserve and restore light and liberty'' for 
the nations of the world. ``The flames kindled on the fourth of July, 
1776,'' he wrote, ``have spread over too much of the globe to be 
extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they 
will consume these engines--and all who work them.''
  Vote for this bill. Vote to let the whole world know that when it 
comes to human rights, when it comes to human decency, the United 
States will always be the light of liberty--and in that endeavor, we 
yield for no purpose and we yield for no price.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, today as we debate whether to revoke or 
restrict most-favored-nation [MFN] trade status to China I think it is 
important that we understand the policy the United States has followed 
and why we are still debating MFN in 1994.
  The United States first granted MFN to China in 1980. At that time, 
China had shown that it was serious about implementing pro-democracy 
reforms. Commerce prospered. Human rights appeared to improve.
  Then, in 1989, the world watched in horror as a massive pro-democracy 
demonstration in Beijing's Tiananmen Square turned into a government-
led massacre. President Bush implemented sanctions against China to 
express the disapproval of the United States. But the true measure of 
disapproval was voiced by the Congress.
  As a result of the Tiananmen Square incident, I joined with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle three times over the past 4 years 
to try and revoke MFN. I believed strongly that revocation would help 
make China accountable for its actions in 1989 and to curb future 
abuses. Each time the House and the Senate succeeded in passing 
legislation to revoke MFN status, however, the President vetoed it.
  Today, Tiananmen is 4 years old and times have changed--few of us 
believe that a complete revocation would succeed in punishing China for 
its 1989 atrocities. Without a doubt, the expansion in United States-
China trade has had positive effects on many aspects of life in China. 
Unfortunately, measurable improvement in human rights is not one of 
them. In fact, in the last 6 months, human rights conditions in China 
have arguably deteriorated.
  President Clinton announced in June that the United States would 
extend MFN to China and de-link trade and human rights. At that time, I 
announced that I would support the President's decision to extend MFN 
unless China indicated it would not support United States security 
interests in the region. The direct motivation for my statement was the 
potentially explosive situation in North Korea. Recent press accounts 
have proven, however, that China has contributed to North Korea's 
military buildup by transferring advanced missile technology to North 
Korea. This action demonstrates that China is actively opposing United 
States security interests in the region. Consequently, I can no longer 
support the President's determination wholesale.
  If we continue business-as-usual with China, human rights may improve 
as personal income and personal freedoms improve. The most sure way to 
encourage human rights improvements, however, is to provide the 
Government with an incentive to actively change its human rights 
policy. And we must do so without compromising the substantial amount 
of trade which we conduct each year. In my opinion, we must find a 
middle ground approach--one that allows most trade to continue while 
attacking those enterprises that are guilty of the most severe abuses. 
I believe that the Pelosi alternative achieves that reasonable 
approach.
  The Pelosi approach focuses on sanctions where it will hurt most, on 
the military-run enterprises which manufacture military and civil goods 
and on certain state-run enterprises. These are the enterprises which 
fund the expansion and modernization of China's armed forces or which 
employ forced labor and engage in human rights violations. The Pelosi 
alternative also calls for the President to include an assessment of 
China's progress on human rights, exports which use convict, forced or 
indentured labor, unfair trade practices, and weapons proliferation.
  Most important, the Pelosi bill focuses on improving the lives of 
ordinary Chinese people that have fought for democracy in their 
country. Restriction of these goods will have a measurable effect on 
these Chinese industries, and also on the human rights record of the 
Chinese Government.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the Pelosi substitute to H.R. 4590, a bill to disapprove most-
favored-nation [MFN] status for products of state-owned-enterprises in 
China. I also want to take this opportunity to commend the gentlewoman 
from California, Representative Pelosi, for her steadfast 
determination, and tireless efforts to keep this issue before our 
Nation's leaders, and for bringing this legislation to the floor today 
for a vote. Many of us in the House of Representatives have come to 
rely on Representative Pelosi for her leadership on this issue over the 
past 5 years, and we look to her as our conscience and our guide. This 
gentlewoman deserves the thanks of all the Members of this House for 
her unwavering support of human rights and democratic reforms in China.
  It is absolutely imperative that this House insist that the United 
States Government not reward the Chinese regime which brutally 
massacred pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square just 5 years 
ago with carte blanche on the importation of their goods into our 
market. Granting most-favored-nation status to all Chinese products 
rewards the Chinese regime for its intransigence on human rights, and 
its refusal to engage in fair trade.
  The Pelosi substitute to H.R. 4590 is carefully targeted to send a 
strong message to the Chinese Government that continued suppression of 
human rights, production of export goods through forced prison labor, 
flaunting of international agreements on nuclear nonproliferation, and 
engaging in unfair trade practices cannot be tolerated, nor ignored, 
nor rewarded. Denying most-favored-nation status for products made by 
the Chinese military and state-owned-enterprises which rely on forced 
prison labor to produce their goods is a reasonable compromise to the 
continuing controversy over trade and human rights policy in regard to 
China.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the arguments of those who support totally 
unfettered trade with China, the fact remains that trade and human 
rights are inextricably linked. A nation that suppresses its peoples' 
human rights also suppresses their wages. This, in turn, leads to an 
unnatural advantage in trade, which adversely impacts American 
businesses and workers, and causes the loss of American jobs. In point 
of fact, the United States trade deficit with China is now over $30 
billion a year, second only to our trade deficit with Japan. Yet, 
despite the freedom we grant to Chinese imports to the United States, 
China does not grant most-favored-nation status to United States goods, 
and continues to bar certain United States goods from the Chinese 
market. For those who advocate free trade, it seems rather illogical 
and inconsistent to grant free access to our market to a country which 
denies free access to their market for our goods.
  Nearly 40 percent of China's total exports are to the United States, 
which means that most-favored-nation status for their goods is vital to 
the Chinese economy. Therefore, most-favored-nation status is logically 
the most effective tool for influencing the Chinese Government to 
improve their record on human rights. If the United States continues to 
grant most-favored-nation status to Chinese goods, without requiring 
improvements in human rights, than there is no incentive for the 
Chinese regime to alter their policies. I ask my colleagues who support 
unrestricted most-favored-nation status for China to identify what 
other means we have available to influence the Chinese Government? They 
cannot give me an answer, because they have no answer.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all my colleagues to insist that the 
United States stand up for the principles of human rights, and for the 
freedom of the Chinese people. Vote for the Pelosi substitute, and send 
he clear, unmistakable message to the dictators in Beijing, and your 
constituents, that you believe in freedom and democracy for people all 
over the world.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
bill and substitute amendment authored by my dear friend and respected 
colleague, Representative Nancy Pelosi. This reasoned and reasonable 
approach to United States-Chinese policy would promote respect for 
human rights without inadvertently punishing reformists.
  No one here can dispute that the government of the People's Republic 
of China must improve its repressive human rights record. Our decision 
today is how to achieve that goal.
  I side with those who believe that the worst offenders are not 
entitled to the privilege of most-favored-nation status which is 
afforded civilized trading partners. Unfettered access to the American 
market, the largest unified market in the world, is not the answer. 
Economic growth may help promote openness, but it is not the only 
factor or the only path to democracy. If it were, you can be sure that 
the Chinese would not allow economic reform.
  By denying MFN to official institutions, we can provide incentives 
for the government, particularly the military, to divest itself. This 
would further the interests of the United States which include 
promoting human rights, democracy, fair trade, livable working 
conditions, nuclear non-proliferation, regional stability and more. 
These are the goals we all share. These things will be more difficult 
to achieve if we do not use the leverage of targeted MFN denial.
  The Pelosi bill is workable. The list of targeted enterprises, in 
fact the concept of targeted denial of MFN, was drawn up by the 
administration before the undoing of our China policy.
  The alternative offered by my colleague from Indiana merely advocates 
doing what we ought to be doing already: protecting intellectual 
property, encouraging responsible business practices, and expanding 
broadcasting to tyrannized societies.
  Without the human rights violations, without the prison labor, 
without the missile proliferation, without the subjugation of Tibet, 
the Chinese would still be among the worst of our unfair trading 
partners. China does not afford the United States national treatment, 
the common denominator among trading partners that entitles countries 
to most-favored-nation status. China turns a blind-eye to industrial 
and intellectual piracy. China uses prisoners and laborers in near-
slavery to fuel its economic engine. Because of all this, the United 
States suffers a tremendous $24 billion trade deficit with China.
  Confucius said centuries ago, ``do not treat others as you would not 
have them treat you.'' The Golden Rule, as spoken by the venerable 
Chinese sage, applies.
  The Chinese Government must treat other nations as they would be 
treated. Perhaps even more importantly, the Chinese Government must 
respect the Chinese people if it is to deserve respect. We must stand 
up for the average Chinese, like the man before the tank, and help to 
put an end to repression. Support the Pelosi amendment, oppose the 
Hamilton amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Pelosi bill, which will revoke MFN for goods produced by the People's 
Liberation Army and China's defense trading companies.
  This is the principled approach. It is the pragmatic approach.
  As a strong supporter of free trade, I do not come to this position 
lightly. China is not only the world's largest country, but it also has 
the world's fastest growing economy.
  Our relationship with China is one of the most important issues that 
this Nation faces on the international scene in the years and decades 
ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, as we begin to face that challenge, a simple extension 
of most-favored-nation trading status--without regard to China's 
restrictions on imports, their export of missile technology and their 
performance in human rights--will not advance our values. It will not 
advance our interests.
  Targeted sanctions are justified for many reasons: the Chinese 
Government acknowledges holding more than 3,000 prisoners for counter-
revolutionary activities. This is a mere fraction of tens of thousands 
of political and religious detainees. They can be held for 3 years 
without a trial, and that is often extended for another 3 years.
  China continues to export products made with prison labor to the 
United States. Just this spring, the human rights group Asia Watch 
released a report documenting import to the United States of 100 tons 
of latex medical gloves inspected by prison labor.
  There has been no progress in negotiations between China and the 
Dalai Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader. There are hundreds of prisoners 
of conscience in Tibet, including 15 nuns arrested last year and 
sentenced to up to 7 years in prison.
  China has started discussions with the International Committee of the 
Red Cross [ICRC] about prison inspections, but to date, no prison 
visits have been allowed. 1993 was the worst year for political arrests 
and trials since mid-1990 in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square 
massacre.
  Mr. Chairman, the Pelosi bill strikes the right balance between our 
interests in expanding trade and in defending human rights.
  I thank my colleague from California for her leadership on this 
issue, and urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4590.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlelady from California 
for her constant and eloquent leadership for human rights for the 
Chinese people. Throughout the years since Tiananmen she has been the 
guiding light of the Congress on this issue and a beacon of hope for 
every Chinese person who yearns for freedom.
  The United States has emerged from the cold war the preeminent 
political, economic, military, and ideological power in the world. I 
believe we have the best opportunity in history to promote human 
rights, the rule of law, free markets, and democracy--the values on 
which our country is based--in the far corners of the globe. We must, 
however, implement the foreign policies that reflect this golden 
opportunity and advance it.

  The Pelosi bill recognizes the need to find a workable means for 
moving China toward a greater openness and respect for human rights. 
Our former policy of conditioning MFN on improvements in human rights 
ultimately failed because it was to broadly drawn and in the end so 
draconian we would not use it for fear we might well undermine the very 
influence toward greater economic and political freedom we wished to 
foster.
  The bill that the gentlelady from California offers today, however, 
is narrowly drawn to target the groups--the People's Liberation Army 
and the large state-run industries--that are the prime human rights 
abusers in China. Harry Wu has provided irrefutable evidence that 
state-run industries use slave labor, and the PLA, which has extensive 
mechanism used by the Chinese leadership for abuses like Tienanmen 
Square.
  I am cosponsor of the Pelosi bill because I believe it sends a well-
honed message to the Chinese that our concern for human rights in China 
is abiding and strong. I urge Members to support this targeted measure.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, taken together, the legislation offered by Ms. 
Pelosi and Mr. Hamilton represent a broad-based approach to promoting 
human rights in China that contains carrots and sticks which, I 
believe, is how we should be proceeding. I do not believe these two 
approaches are mutually exclusive, and I support them both.
  Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules has made it impossible for the 
two approaches to both pass today, which I believe is unfair to Members 
and particularly unfair to Mr. Hamilton, who has produced an excellent 
bill. I am particularly supportive of provisions in his bill that 
encourage the Chinese to enter meaningful negotiations with the Dalai 
Lama regarding the future of Tibet, Identify preserving the social and 
economic system of Hong Kong as a very high priority, and authorize 
additional funds for Radio Free Asia, for which the house expressed 
overwhelming support a few weeks ago.
  After we have completed action here today, I believe the Rules 
Committee should reconvene and produce another rule allowing the 
approach that does not prevail--either Pelosi or Hamilton--to be 
brought back to the floor for an up-or-down vote. The House should be 
given a fair opportunity to work its will on this very important issue.
  I will support both of these approaches today, which are offered by 
Members with a deep and earnest interest in improving conditions in 
China. I cast my votes, however, while protesting the convoluted rule 
that does not give Members flexibility and will result in the adoption 
of one approach or the other, and not both.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 270, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 383]

                               AYES--158

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Baker (CA)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Byrne
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King
     Klink
     Klug
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--270

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hoagland
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCandless
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Tucker
     Valentine
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bentley
     Clyburn
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallo
     Herger
     McCollum
     Ravenel
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Roukema
     Stark
     Whitten

                              {time}  1943

  Mr. JOHNSTON of South Dakota changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DORNAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substutite was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Skaggs] having assumed the chair, Mr. Sharp, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4590) to 
provide conditions for renewing nondiscriminatory--most-favored-
nation--treatment for the People's Republic of China, pursuant to House 
Resolution 509, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________