[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7265-H7272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2058, CHINA POLICY ACT OF 1995, 
 AND HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 96, DISAPPROVING EXTENSION OF MOST-FAVORED-
               NATION TREATMENT TO THE PRODUCTS OF CHINA

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 193 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 193

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2058) establishing United States policy toward China. The 
     bill shall be debatable for ninety minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on International Relations. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit. The motion to recommit may include instructions 
     only if offered by the minority leader or his designee.
       Sec. 2. After disposition of H.R. 2058, it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 96) disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory 
     treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) to the products of 
     the People's Republic of China. The joint resolution shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     Representative Wolf of Virginia and Representative Archer of 
     Texas or their designees. Pursuant to sections 152 and 153 of 
     the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     table, if offered by Representative Wolf or his designee. The 
     provisions of sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974 
     shall not apply to any other joint resolution disapproving 
     the extension of most-favored-nation treatment to the 
     People's Republic of China for the remainder of the first 
     session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson]. During the 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule was unanimously adopted by the Committee on 
Rules, and I am proud to say that the arrangement worked out by this 
rule was unanimously agreed to on a bipartisan basis by the principal 
parties involved with the legislation.
  What the rule does is to first make in order in the House the bill, 
H.R. 2058, the China Policy Act of 1995, as introduced by the gentleman 
from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  The rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate, equally divided 
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on International Relations. While we originally considered limiting 
this to 1 hour of debate, we expanded the debate time at the request of 
the bipartisan group that had negotiated a compromise with Mr. 
Bereuter.
  The rule further provides for one motion to recommit the bill, which, 
if containing instructions, may be offered by the minority leader or 
his designee. I would point out to my colleagues that this latter 
provision is in keeping with the new House rule adopted on January 4 of 
this year which guarantees to the minority the right to offer a motion 
to recommit with instructions, and I quote from rule XI, clause 4(b), 
``if offered by the minority leader or his designee.'' That is what is 
contained in the House rules.
  This is a guarantee we Republicans were denied on numerous occasions 
when we were in the minority but which we promised to give the minority 
if we became the majority.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule goes on to provide that after the disposition 
of H.R. 2058, the House may proceed to the consideration in the House 
of House Joint Resolution 96, introduced by the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf], disapproving the extension of most-favored-nation status to 
the products of the People's Republic of China.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, divided equally 
between the gentleman from Virginia and the chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
  Pursuant to the terms of the fast track procedures, the previous 
question is considered as ordered to final passage on the joint 
resolution, except that one motion to table the resolution is in
 order, if offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] or his 
designee.

  Finally, the rule provides that the fast track procedures of the 
Trade Act shall not apply to any other disapproval resolution relating 
to MFN for China for the remainder of this session of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, before I turn to the policy aspects of the measures 
before us, I just want to comment on the cooperation we have received 
from the parties on all sides of the issue involved here in crafting 
this rule. As I mentioned earlier, this was reported from the Committee 
on Rules on a unanimous vote, thanks to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Beilenson] who is managing for the minority. This was also due in 
no small part to the cooperation and compromise among all concerned 
that has taken place in crafting the legislative bill made in order by 
the rule.
  I especially want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Bereuter] for his open-mindedness and willingness to listen to other 
Members. I also commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] who have labored for so long 
in these vineyards, for their accommodating attitudes in reaching 
agreement on a consensus bill.
  I would be remiss if I did not single out the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer], and the ranking minority member of the committee, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], and the Committee on 
International Relations chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] for all their 
work on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule, a fair rule and a bipartisan rule 
that will enable us to debate the issues and vote on two distinct yet 
related propositions relating to the People's Republic of China. I hope 
that we will adopt this rule.
  Turning now, Mr. Speaker, to the substance of the issue itself, I 
cannot avoid making the observation that two things have remained 
constant since the House began having this annual 

[[Page H7266]]
China MFN debate 5 years ago. Those two constants are simply these: Our 
trade deficit with China keeps going up, and the conditions within 
China itself keep going down, keep getting worse.
  Is there a single problem that troubles the United
   States-China relationship which has gotten better in the last 5 
years? I ask all of my colleagues listening to this debate today to 
answer that question. Has anything gotten better since we debated this 
1 year ago? The Chinese Communists' brutal disregard for human rights, 
how about that? The severe restrictions on freedom of speech, press and 
assembly and association, have they gotten better? Members know the 
answer. The continued denial of prison visits by international 
observers, has that improved? No. The continued jamming of Voice of 
America, still going on. The ongoing sales of missiles and weapons of 
mass destruction to terrorist regimes, still going on. The unrestrained 
use of prison labor in the manufacture of export products, in 
competition to the shirt that I am wearing, made by Americans in the 
United States of America, has that gotten better? No, it has gotten 
worse, and the proof is out there.

  The massive military buildup, particularly in offensive weapons 
systems. I mention again, offensive weapons systems, which threaten the 
peace of the entire East Asian region.
  Do my colleagues know that the People's Republic of China has more 
than doubled its defense budget in the last 5 years while other 
countries, like the United States of America and all of our NATO 
allies, all countries around the world have decreased their military 
spending?

                              {time}  1040

  There is China's continued reliance on predatory trade practices, and 
I could just go on and on. To top it all off, the Chinese regime has 
arrested a man named Harry Wu, an American citizen, whose only crime 
was to tell the world the truth about China's gulag and the prison 
labor system. That is his only crime. Yet, he is being detained. God 
knows what is going to happen to him.
  Mr. Speaker, the list of abuses goes on and on and on. Every one of 
these problems has gotten worse during a period of time in which 
China's exports to the United States have gone up, listen to this, have 
gone up 233 percent. And our trade deficit against China has gone up by 
a staggering 377 percent since 1989, and we sit here and allow this to 
continue to happen, putting Americans out of work.
  That is what is wrong with giving an outlaw regime MFN status. The 
trade becomes a one-way street. In 1989, the year of Tiananmen Square, 
about 23 percent of China's total exports came to the United States, 23 
percent. By last year, that figure had risen to nearly 37 percent, and 
yet the Chinese Communist regime continues to thumb its nose at 
everything our
 country stands for. America, the leader of democracy throughout the 
world, they thumb their nose at us.

  I would just ask the proponents of MFN, when do the benefits start? 
When can we expect to see a change in Chinese behavior? The hometown 
newspaper of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] said it best.
  A recent editorial in the San Francisco Examiner said that our 
current approach to China proves that ``Once you get rolled, it's 
easier to get rolled again. The Chinese have little reason to think the 
United States will make good on any threat,'' because we never follow 
through.
  Continuing to read from the Examiner editorial: ``Instead of calling 
the shots, the United States is treated by the Chinese as a bothersome 
supplicant.'' Is that not something, this great Nation?
  Continuing to read: ``Such back-of-the-hand treatment should not come 
as a surprise. For years now the United States has seen how China 
treats its own citizens.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply close this portion of my remarks by 
noting that no Member of this body should be surprised by the current 
state of United States-China relations. If Members do not think about 
anything else today, I hope that they will at least ponder this: A 
China which is not at peace with its own people will not be at peace 
with the United States or any other country in the world. That is why 
human rights have to be at the center of the United States-China 
relationship, because American interests are ultimately inseparable 
from our American values. Anything and everything we do should be to 
promote those American values.
  Mr. Speaker, we will be conducting the MFN debate this year under a 
different format from what we have used in previous years. The whole 
point of what this House will be doing today is to send a united and 
unmistakable message to China that the freely-elected representatives 
of the American people are putting human rights and American values 
back into the central focus of the United States-China relationship.
  Reasonable men and women can have an honest disagreement over the 
relative merits of MFN, and there are good people on both sides of this 
argument, Republicans and Democrats alike. However, let there be no 
mistake about it, Members of this Congress are unanimous in our 
determination to see an end to the abuses that China's Communist regime 
is perpetrating on its own people and on the world at large.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all of the Members to think about this point as we 
debate this issue over the next 3 hours.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of July 19, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\...............                 46                 44                 36                 72
Modified Closed\3\..................                 49                 47                 12                 24
Closed\4\...........................                  9                  9                  2                  4
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 50                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or 
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A       
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only 
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the      
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of July 19, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              

[[Page H7267]]
                                                                                                                
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95) 
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95)     
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95)     
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95)     
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    A: voice vote (7/12/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
 95).                                                              Amendment.                 152 (6/28/95)     
H. Res. 176 (6/28/    MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
 95).                                                                                         192 (6/29/95)     
H. Res. 185 (7/11/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
 95).                                                                                         238 (7/12/95)     
H. Res. 187 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
 95).                                                              #2.                        195 (7/13/95)     
H. Res. 188 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1976...........  Agriculture Approps. FY    PQ: 242-185 A:     
 95).                                                              1996.                      voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 190 (7/17/    O...................  H.R. 2020...........  Treasury/Postal Approps.   PQ: 232-192 A:     
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 193 (7/19/    C...................  H.J. Res. 96........  Disapproval of MFN to      ...................
 95).                                                              China.                                       
H. Res. 194 (7/19/    O...................  H.R. 2002...........  Transportation Approps.    ...................
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
   Mr. Speaker, we support the rule. As my colleague on the other side 
of the aisle has indicated, this rule will provide for the debate on 
two measures, H.R. 2058, the China Policy Act of 1995, and House Joint 
Resolution 96, the resolution disapproving the extension of most 
favored nation treatment to the People's Republic of China. The rule 
allows 90 minutes of debate on the China Policy Act and also provides 
for 1 hour of debate on the resolution disapproving MFN to China.
  This is not an unusual rule for this legislation, which has critical 
implications for United States policy toward China. In the past, the 
Committee on Rules has brought two measures to the floor under one 
rule. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are in total agreement 
with the rules resolution, and many of my colleagues, including the 
distinguished author of the disapproval resolution, the gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Wolf, as well as the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Pelosi, and the gentleman from Nebraska, Doug Bereuter, have worked 
many hours to reach agreement on the proper legislative approach. They 
have done an excellent job. They deserve, as the gentleman from New 
York already has, they deserve to be commended. I am glad we will have 
a chance to debate this issue.
  The Chinese have one of the worst human rights records in the world. 
Individual rights of people are routinely repressed. Scholars and 
intellectuals are imprisoned, and women are often forced to have 
abortions if they try to have more than one child.
  In 1989 the world was horrified when the Chinese killed their own 
students at Tiananmen Square. Now, 6 years later, not much has changed. 
China continues to violate basic human rights of its own people, and 
those living in Tibet as well. It also routinely contributes to nuclear 
weapon and missile proliferation among terrorist states.
  Many of us in the Congress believe that tough economic sanctions by 
the United States is the only way to convince China to stop its human 
rights violations. By denying MFN status and reversing China's $30 
billion trade surplus, we may get some concessions. If the Chinese 
Government refuses to hear the protests of those who respect basic 
human dignity, perhaps it will listen if money is at stake.
  We are glad Mr. Speaker, that we will have a chance to debate this 
issue and to bring the bill of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Bereuter] to the floor, the so-called China Policy Act, which addresses 
some of the serious flaws in our current policy toward China. Again we 
reiterate; we support this rule, and we urge our colleagues to join us 
in voting for it. It is a fair and a good rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier], the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules. 
Even though he and I disagree on this matter, he is an expert, and I 
will be interested in hearing what he has to say.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules for his very kind remarks. As I look in the Chamber here, it was, 
believe it or not, exactly 1 year old today, July 20, 1994, that my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Pelosi, my colleague, 
the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, my colleague, the gentleman from 
New York, Mr. Solomon, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, our colleague, the 
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Kolbe, and the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 
Kopetski, our former colleague, joined in the first bipartisan, 
bicameral debate on a very important question that came forward. That 
question was, should U.S. trade policy be used to enforce human rights?
  I would say to my colleagues who participated in that, they remember 
very well that we had a difficult time determining exactly what the 
exact question was going to be. We all agreed, we all agreed that U.S. 
trade policy should be used to promote human rights, but we decided to 
take the negative position, that U.S. trade policy should not be used 
to enforce human rights. That is for a very simple and basic reason. I 
remain convinced that trade promotes private enterprise, which creates 
wealth, which improves 

[[Page H7268]]

living standards, which undermines political repression.
  If we look at the very serious challenges that lie ahead for the most 
populous Nation on the face of the Earth, a country which has five 
times the population of the world's only complete superpower, the 
United States of America, we clearly have an obligation to remain 
engaged.
  Right here in the United States, we know full well that there are 
thousands and thousands of jobs that depend on our exports to the 
People's Republic of China. In fact, 360,000 jobs hinge on our exports, 
so clearly, cutting off trade with China would jeopardize economic 
growth right here in the United States.
  Quite frankly, I believe that it is extraordinarily important for us 
to look at the gains which have been made in China over the past 
several years, since we worked to deal with this issue of engagement. 
As my friends here on the House floor know full well, I take a back 
seat to no one when it comes to demonstrating outrage at the issue of 
human rights violation.
  The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], and I
   joined with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and others in 
marching, following the Tiananmen Square massacre from right here in 
the Capitol up to the Chinese Embassy to protest the Tiananmen Square 
massacre. The fact of the matter is we have to realize that if we are 
going to continue to deal with the improvement of human rights, there 
is nothing, nothing that we could do to jeopardize it in a greater way 
than to bring to an end, bring to an end the engagement policies that 
we have had over the past several years.

  Mr. Speaker, last year I went with my father and traveled throughout 
China, and had fascinating experiences there. As I talked to people who 
worked, peasants and others, clearly they carried the strong message 
that as the old leaders of China fade from the scene, they do not want 
to see us leave their country economically devastated. It is for that 
reason that they encouraged us to maintain MFN with China.
  As we also look at the situation which exists there, it is very clear 
that there are many things that we as a country can continue to do to 
improve the quality of life of the people of China. Just this week we 
received a letter from Jack Valenti, our friend with the Motion Picture 
Association of America, in which he talked about that to near record 
crowds; the movie ``Forrest Gump'' is playing in China. Let us think 
about the movie ``Forrest Gump,'' that great American drama, set with 
the backdrop of 20th century American history. What an amazing message 
to have moving throughout the country of 1.2 billion people living 
today under political repression.
  My hometown newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, just this week had a 
very important article talking about individuals within China from all 
across the economic spectrum who are benefiting from the kind of 
engagement that we have going on today. The benefits have been very, 
very great: black and white TV's are even appearing in caves in China. 
When one thinks about that kind of exposure to the West, we are 
clearly, clearly on a path toward improving the situation there.
  I hope very much that we will be able to now move ahead in a 
bipartisan way. This is a new day, because there is recognition that 
while we can never tolerate the reprehensible human rights violations, 
the violation of Harry Wu's rights and others' rights, we need to do 
everything that we possibly can to move ahead with this very important 
policy of engagement. I thank my friends for working in a very close 
bipartisan way with the gentleman from California [Mr. Bereuter], and 
others to bring this about.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, that is music to my ears. I thank the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] from the Committee on Rules 
for being so generous in yielding, and also the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], for bringing this rule to the floor, and for his championing 
the cause of freedom throughout the world, and his relentless advocacy 
for human rights in China.
  It is with a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that I rise in 
support of the Bereuter legislation, H.R. 2058, which is designed to 
move United States-China policy in the right direction by sending a 
strong message to the Chinese Government that the United States 
Congress is concerned about human rights in China and Tibet.
  I have been pleased to work in this endeavor with my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. With all due respect 
to the previous speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], we 
should all take a back seat to the gentleman from Virginia as an 
advocate for human rights throughout the world, in his advocacy for 
human rights. Mr. Wolf is an inspiration to this Congress, and it is a 
privilege to work with him.
  I was particularly pleased that the leadership of this Congress, the 
office of the Speaker, and of the Democratic leader worked to help us 
merge our bills, forge a compromise under the leadership of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Bereuter], and I am grateful to him for 
his leadership and his receptiveness to our ideas.
  As many Members know, and I address the mechanics of this because we 
are on the rule, as many know, we had three options out there. We had 
the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for total 
revocation; we had the legislation of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Bereuter]; and we had the Wolf-Pelosi legislation, which we 
believed was the strongest possible message on human rights for this 
Congress. We have, I think happily, been able to merge the Bereuter 
bill and the Wolf-Pelosi bill into the product we have here.
  Indeed, we were very pleased to have many of the provisions in the 
bill of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the bill of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Bereuter], but I commend the gentleman 
from California for having initiatives that were even stronger than 
some of ours and with which we were very
 pleased to associate ourselves.

  As with any compromise, some people may not be happy with it, but as 
I say on this China issue, if it is good enough for the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] it should be good enough for the rest of us.
  Why is it that we need to come here again to discuss this issue and 
to present a policy for China in the Congress of the United States? Our 
colleagues who have spoken before me, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] taking the lead, have spoken of some of the concerns that this 
Congress has with China. They fall into three categories, by and large: 
human rights, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and, 
obviously, unfair trade practices; and MFN is related to trade. It is 
appropriate that we are here.
  The reason this debate comes up annually, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] said we were 1 year talking about this, 1 year 
to the day, is because the President must request a special waiver to 
grant MFN to China; hence, the proposed motion of the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] to deny the President's request.
  In those three areas of human rights, trade, and proliferation, in 
this past year there has been no progress. Indeed, the Chinese continue 
to violate international standards and norms, and the missile 
technology control regime, in transferring technology to Pakistan, to 
Iran, and making the Middle East a very dangerous neighborhood, as well 
as the world a less safe place.
  If there were no other consideration, the issue of the proliferation 
of nuclear technology to unsafeguarded countries would be enough reason 
for us to deal with this MFN issue on this floor. What is dismaying 
about all of this is that instead of addressing this issue, the Clinton 
administration on June 30--this notice was in the Congressional Record 
on June 30: ``Notice of termination of the suspensions of licenses for 
the export of cryptographic items to the People's Republic of China--
Message from the President.'' It is in the June 22, 1995, Congressional 
Record. I have it available for our colleagues.
  This is all to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a double standard with 
this administration when it comes to China. 

[[Page H7269]]
We have defined Iran as a rogue country. We have made a strong point of 
saying we will not trade with them. We have chastised, and more, Russia
 for their trade with Iran.

  We have looked the other way when China has done the same, and 
indeed, and indeed, in the same time frame, we have lifted--the 
President has gotten a blanket waiver against the prohibition of sale 
of encryption technologies to China. This is, I think, a big mistake. 
The human rights violations continue, highlighted, of course, by the 
arrest of Harry Wu, a champion of democracy, a scholar at the Hoover 
Institution at Stanford University, a distinguished American, an 
internationally recognized champion of human rights, and his release 
must be immediate, as the bill calls for.
  However, I would also like to say that Harry's plight is not only 
that of an individual, but representative of the thousands and 
thousands and thousands of people who are in prison labor camps in 
China who Harry's advocacy was for. He had been arrested for 19 years 
for criticizing the Soviet invasion of Hungary. He knew of what he 
spoke in terms of brutality in slave labor camps. It continues. His 
telling the truth about that has landed him in a Chinese jail. As an 
American citizen he deserves our fullest support. I urge our colleagues 
to avail themselves of our yellow ribbons on his behalf.
  He is not the only one, obviously, in prison that we are concerned 
about. There are thousands who are; in particular, Wei Jing Cheng, Bao 
Pong, Chen Zeming, some of the champions of Chinese democracy. Indeed, 
in the last few months, many leaders and intellectuals in China have 
been arrested for merely signing petitions asking for an end of 
corruption and more democratic reforms in China. Obviously, my 
colleagues know I could go on all day about the violations of human 
rights in China.
  On the subject of trade, when we first started this debate in 1989, 
for that year, for 1989, China had a $6 billion trade surplus with the 
United States. That means, as Members know, within our trade 
relationship they profited by $6 billion. This past year, it was $30 
billion. It went $6, $9, $12, $18, $24, $30. This year it will be 
closer to a $40 billion trade surplus, inching closer year by year to 
the same kind of deficit that we have with Japan, but absent the same 
kind of allowing of products into their markets that even Japan does. 
Then Members know what our complaint is with Japan.
  I do not want to bring up the issue of Taiwan in terms of 
recognition, but just in terms of this one figure. In China there are 
1.2 billion people. In Taiwan there are approximately 19 million 
people, and Taiwan imports from the United States twice as much as 
mainland China imports from the United States, so the trade issue must 
be addressed, not only in terms of slave labor and violations of trade 
agreements, but in addition to the lack of market access for American 
products into China, which is also a trade violation.
                              {time}  1100

  What does the administration do? The administration not only gave 
them MFN but this past January gave the Chinese the same trade 
privileges, reductions in tariffs, that World Trade Organization 
members have, even though China is not a member of the World Trade 
Organization and living up to any of the standards or requirements of 
the WTO.
  Again, our concern is with China. The disappointment is with the 
administration in the way they respond to human rights, trade and 
proliferation violations.
  This China Policy Act that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] 
has authored establishes a framework for diplomatic relationships 
between the United States and China. It calls upon the President to 
undertake intensified diplomatic initiatives to persuade the Chinese 
Government to unconditionally and immediately release Harry Wu.
  The provisions of the legislation are available to our colleagues, 
but since it is new I will just touch on a few:
  Adhere to prevailing international standards regarding proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction, including halting the export of 
ballistic missile technology and the provision of other weapons of mass 
destruction to Iran, Pakistan, and other countries of concern; respect 
internationally-recognized human rights--we know what they are--press, 
freedom of religion, assembly, et cetera; releasing all political 
prisoners and dismantling the Chinese gulag and forced labor system; 
ending coercive birth control practices; respecting the rights of the 
people of Tibet and ethnic minorities; curtailing excessive 
modernization and expansion of its military capabilities. It goes on to 
more on that.
  Adhere to rules of international trade regime; comply with the 
prohibition on all forced labor products coming into the United States; 
and reduce tension with Taiwan through dialog and confidence-building.
  The bill specifies the administration should undertake diplomatic 
initiatives bilaterally with China and multilaterally in the United 
Nations, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and in our 
bilateral relations with other countries.
  In order to hold the President accountable for
   undertaking these initiatives, the bill requires a report to 
Congress within 30 days of enactment and at least every 6 months 
thereafter.

  H.R. 2058 also places Congress firmly on the record in support of the 
pro-democracy movement in China. For the first time we commend the men 
and women working in the democracy movement, particularly those people 
who so bravely petitioned the Chinese government for the promotion of 
political, economic and religious freedom.
  Finally, the Bereuter bill requires the administration to get Radio 
Free Asia up and running. This important initiative has been stalled 
for too long. The bill mandates that within 90 days of enactment, Radio 
Free Asia shall commence broadcasting to China.
  I urge my colleagues to give a strong vote on the Bereuter bill, on 
the China Policy Act, because it will allow the United States Congress 
to send a unified message to the Chinese government that its continuing 
violations of internationally recognized human rights are not 
acceptable.
  The reason that I am pleased with this bill and one of the reasons I 
support the bill is because it does hold the President accountable. 
Last year when the President did not abide by the Executive order he 
had issued the year before, he instead proposed some initiatives, a 
code of conduct for businesses, funding for Radio Free Asia. The list 
goes on and on. The fact is that the adherence to it was zero.
  It is important, I think, for us to hold the administration 
accountable. A vote for the China Policy Act will do that. I think it 
is very important for this Congress. We have been engaged in advocacy 
for a long time. We will always be engaged in advocacy for the causes 
of concern to us. But absent a coherent China policy that maybe the 
State Department proposes, the Commerce Department appears to dispose, 
I think it then behooves the Congress to set forth a framework that 
will have a positive impact on our relationship with China.
  I think the message should be very clear that a prosperous, strong 
and democratic China is in the best interest of the United States. We 
look forward to a great future with the Chinese people, but in doing so 
we want to do it on the basis of recognition of international norms and 
indeed norms that the Chinese government has signed on to but has not 
abided by.
  By supporting the Bereuter bill, we can speak with one voice on 
behalf of those fighting for freedom in China. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for the bill.
  In closing, I wish once again to commend my colleagues on that side, 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf], and particularly in this case the gentleman from Nebraska 
[Mr. Bereuter] for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the 
floor. I once again thank the leadership of the House for accommodating 
our concerns.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am not here today to talk about Harry 
Wu or Tiananmen Square or human rights. Those issues should be 
addressed. But I 

[[Page H7270]]
think commerce and trade should be looked at in a little bit of a 
different vein here, folks.
  Let me say this: America does not need to go bankrupt trying to 
effect some social reforms in China.
  Let us look at the record. China has been convicted of dumping in 
American markets, placing phony ``made in America'' labels on cheap 
Chinese imports, violating international prison labor law, violating 
United States copyright law, closing Chinese markets, and that is only 
the tip of the iceberg. Their average wage is 17 cents an hour. They 
still employ slave labor.
  Let us look at some facts. Right now China enjoys a one-way street, a 
$37 billion trade surplus with America, second only to Japan. At least 
Japan makes us some promises. China makes us threats. China says if you 
mess with MFN, they will crack down on soybeans, corn, aircraft, grain. 
They will not tolerate it. Unbelievable, ladies and gentlemen.
  I believe that a Congress that will allow China to dictate trade 
terms is the same Congress that has destroyed many American jobs.
  Let us talk some business. How do you compete with foreign imports 
with a wage factor so limited and low? Then they rip off our markets 
illegally and we extend the red carpet treatment, talking about all the 
great business we are going to attain.
  This is a dream world. The Constitution is very clear on this: 
Congress shall regulate commerce with foreign nations. One of the main 
problems financially in America is the Congress of the United States 
talking about balanced budgets and all of these other sideline issues 
and missing the whole boat. You cannot balance the budget of the United 
States buying much more than you sell. That is what we are doing, and 
it is our trade problem, folks.
  I am going to oppose any more most-favored-nation trade status for 
China for one reason: They do not deserve it. It is time to regulate 
trade with China.
  One last thing, ladies and gentleman. We are either going to take on 
the trade issue in America or we will continue to have huge budget 
deficits and tremendous loss of jobs. You cannot separate them.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], another outstanding member of the 
Committee on Rules who formerly served on the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs and is certainly very knowledgeable on this issue.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our distinguished colleagues who have 
worked so diligently and so exhaustively on this issue: The gentleman 
from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]; of course the gentleman from Virginia, 
[Mr. Wolf], the tireless champion for human rights throughout the 
world; the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] who has 
distinguished herself in her career for her advocacy on behalf of 
democracy and human rights in China; the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], my chairman and dear friend; the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] who is here and who has worked so tirelessly on this issue 
as has the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and others.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. I rise in support of it. I would 
prefer today to see a vote on the denial of the extension of MFN to 
China. But I will support the Bereuter legislation. I think it is a 
fair, well-thought-out piece of legislation.
  What we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, here today on this issue 
really I think is related to the following question: What is the goal, 
or what should be the goal of our public policy? The maximization of 
profit for our businesses at all costs, even at the cost of ignoring, 
of not even mentioning the Orwellian nature of the Chinese regime?
  I know, Mr. Speaker, the geopolitics involved when we analyze China. 
I know that China is the historical adversary of Russia, and I know the 
size of China and the great number of human beings that reside there.
  May I recommend to our colleagues the book by our colleague, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk], written with regard to 
his experience when he was United States Ambassdaor to Romania under 
Ceausescu, his brilliant synthesis of how those rogue regimes look to 
most-favored-nation status as legitimization of their conduct. They 
know who they are, but they want to be told by the leader of the free 
world, the United States in effect, and we do that with MFN, ``You're 
normal. We are ignoring your rogue status. We are ignoring the nature 
of your brutality.''
  That is what MFN is. When we deny MFN, there are no tariffs involved. 
It is simply a political statement which tells rogue regimes, in this 
case the Chinese regime, that they are not what they really are. That, 
in effect, is what MFN is.
  I think that we have to realize and ask this question about 
ourselves: Are we willing to go through the trouble of at least 
mentioning, of at least telling the tyrants in China, ``We know who you 
are'' or ``We know your genuine nature.''
  ``We know that you murder prisoners and that you sell their organs. 
We know that you use slave labor. We know that you force women to have 
abortions.''
  By not extending MFN, we would simply be telling the Chinese tyrants, 
``We know who you are and we're telling the world who you are. 
Recognizing the geopolitics, which we are not ignoring, we're telling 
you who you are.''
  I wish that we would have that vote today. If not, I think we are 
making at least some progress with the well-thought-through and 
negotiated legislation presented by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Bereuter]. But this is an issue that will not go away until China truly 
is normal. Then we can tell the world community they are not a rogue 
regime. They are normal.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, we should not be timid in using trade with 
the United States to stand up for human rights. This Nation has stood 
tall, sometimes alone, for the rights of people around the world 
against some very strong governments.
  Some of the proudest moments in the history of this Nation were when 
we watched Soviet emigres settle in new homes around the world. We saw 
the destruction of the Berlin Wall, the historic elections in South 
Africa, knowing full well the role that we played in the United States 
to bring about these historic moments.
  Trade was a critical tool in those changes. MFN and denying it to the 
Soviet Union played a critical role in the actions of the Soviet Union 
in Eastern Europe. Trade sanctions against South Africa was a critical 
tool in bringing about the changes in South Africa.
  The current conditions in China, as it relates to respect for human 
rights, is outrageous. We should not be timid in taking economic action 
as it relates to China. It will work. China, as the Soviet Union of the 
pre-1990's before it, should not be granted unrestricted MFN. We should 
stand tall for human rights against these nations. It will work.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague 
for yielding me the time.
   Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule. I want to thank the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and 
the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for all their good work. We 
must send a very strong message to China.
   Mr. Speaker, we must send a strong message to China. We must let 
China know that if they want to join the community of nations, they 
must treat their people with respect and dignity. We must tell them 
that selling arms to Iran, a terrorist nation, is unacceptable.
  Harry Wu's arrest is only the most recent reminder of China's 
longstanding human rights abuses. We cannot forget the day the tanks 
rolled into Tiananmen Square. Terrible human rights abuses continue to 
this day.
  Political prisoners in China and Tibet are brutally tortured. 
Religious leaders are imprisoned. Democratic reformers are jailed. 
There is no freedom 

[[Page H7271]]
of speech, no freedom of press, no freedom at all.
  We have a moral obligation and a mandate to tell China to change its 
ways. As a Congress and as a nation, we cherish freedom, and we must 
speak out.
  We cannot stand by while China stifles dissent and disagreement. We 
cannot stand by while the Chinese Government tortures its prisoners. We 
cannot stand by while China exports goods made in slave labor camps. We 
cannot stand by while China detains an American citizen, Harry Wu, and 
threatens him with the death penalty.
  I truly believe that if you do not stand for something, you will fall 
for anything. We cannot have trade at any cost. We must not let the 
democracy movements in China and Tibet fall. We must stand with the 
people who are fighting for freedom. I urge my colleagues to support 
this Rule.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] who has been one of the leaders for human 
rights throughout this world for many, many years in this body, and we 
just admire and respect him so much.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, let me say that the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], especially on the issues related to China, 
has been a stalwart and it is so good to be working with him and the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi] and many others.
  China is one of the worst, most egregious abusers of human rights in 
the world today. In report after report issued by our own State 
Department, and numerous human rights organizations, examples of wide-
ranging abuses of human rights indicate that no aspect of human life is 
free from the repressive and the insidious control of the butchers of 
Beijing.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, a year and a half ago, I thought the 
President had it right. He issued an Executive order. He laid down very 
clear, nonambiguous markers. Significant progress in human rights had 
to be achieved or MFN was a goner. He stated this and made very, very 
much about it. As a matter of fact, during his race for the Presidency, 
he accused Mr. Bush of coddling dictators.
  But I am very sorry to say that as we saw a deterioration of the 
human rights situation in China and a significant regression, this 
President, Bill Clinton, blinked. He did a complete flip-flop, backed 
off a very principled stand, and then coddled the dictators, the very 
butchers of Beijing that he was so rightfully critical of during the 
campaign and during the early months of his Presidency.
  It is shameless. The situation in China on religious freedom has 
gotten significantly worse. Li Peng issued two sweeping decrees, 144 
and 145, to crack down on the house church movement and on the 
fledgling Catholic church in the People's Republic of China. One could 
be part of the officially government-sanctioned, government-run church, 
but if they dared to worship God and read their Bible in their home, or 
assemble to praise God, they are going to have their door broken down 
and the public security police are going to yank them off to prison for 
interrogation and for beatings.
  The situation of Harry Wu, I think, crystallizes what is going on in 
China today. Here is a man who spent 19 years in the Laogai, was in the 
gulag system, faced unbelievable repression, the use of hunger as a 
means of torture.
  He spoke at a subcommittee hearing. I am the chairman of the 
International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee, and Harry and 
other survivors of the Laogai system came forward and talked about 
their terrible experiences in that gulag system. Many of those products 
which end up in our stores. They are being sold in our supermarkets and 
in our stores across the country.
  We have what we call a memorandum of understanding with the People's 
Republic of China, to check out the use of gulag labor for export, and 
it is a farce. They do not allow us access to those. The gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I went to Beijing Prison No. 1 and saw socks 
and jelly shoes being made, but it was one of those rare instances when 
we were actually able to see what was being made with prisoners and 
other people who were held in incarceration.
  Harry Wu, Mr. Speaker, should tell us all what can happen when an 
American citizen traveling on a duly issued visa and passport, is held 
incommunicado and denied access by our own Embassy, against all the 
rules, and now continues to languish in China against his will. It 
tells us that the human rights situation is abysmal.
  He has been a tremendous witness to the sorriest state of human 
rights in China and, thankfully, we are today beginning to bring some 
focus on what is actually occurring there.
  On the issue of forced abortion, Mr. Speaker, which I know Members 
have heard me talk about since 1979 when it was first initiated in that 
country, just the other day I received a letter from a woman in China 
who heard me talking about it on Voice of America and she wrote me this 
letter: ``I've been hesitating to write you until today. At the end of 
May I heard a report on V.O.A. about your concern over China's cruel 
policy of forced abortion.''
  ``As a Chinese woman who has just been forced to have an abortion at 
that time, I really agree with you. What is a real woman without the 
personal right to have one more child, especially when she is expecting 
a baby and obliged by the state to kill that baby.''
  Mr. Speaker, she went on to say, ``Considering human rights in China, 
we suffer more than any other countries, if we don't have the right 
even to get birth to a baby. What's the use of any other rights? Please 
don't mention my name in public since I could be severely punished.'' 
And she went on in her letter to talk about what some of her friends 
have gone through.
  Mr. Speaker, on gulag labor, on religious repression, on forced 
abortion, all of these human rights abuses, the Tiananmen Square and 
other dissidents who continue to be rounded up. Wei Jing Cheng, who met 
with Assistant Secretary John Shattuck and 2 weeks later was dragged 
into prison. Here is the hero to the Democracy Wall movement who had 
the audacity to meet with the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights. He 
met with me 2 weeks earlier in Beijing and because he met, he was 
dragged off and we have not heard from him since.
  This is a very cruel regime, Mr. Speaker. To be dealing with the 
Chinese today, and to act as if there is nothing going on human rights 
wise, is like dealing with the Nazis back in the 1930's. This is a 
cruel dictatorship. Let us not forget that. Their people do not have 
rights.
  And when we talk about empowerment, empowerment has not worked. Yes, 
trains may run on time and we may be having this robust trading 
relationship, but they have had regression in human rights. They have 
gone in the opposite direction. Rather than liberalization, they have 
become more repressive.
  There is a compromise piece of legislation that will be offered. I 
think it is a good start. I would have hoped that we would have revoked 
MFN. The President shamelessly delinked it, after making all the right 
noises for months. He delinked it when human rights got worse in China. 
For years to come, that will be seen as one of the worst decisions this 
President has ever made and another indication of the vacillation of 
the Clinton Presidency.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote for the Bereuter legislation. I 
do think it makes a strong statement. Radio Free Asia is needed now 
more than ever and language in this legislation admonishes the 
President to do that. It is a good bill. We could have had better, but 
I urge support for it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut. [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, we have today an opportunity to take a 
small step forward on behalf of human rights for the people of China. 
In is a very small step. It takes very little courage on our part, for 
we risk nothing, either economically or our own personal freedom.
  There is must more that has to be done. For people listening to this 
debate, it must often be difficult to reconcile a country of a billion 
people with a focused discussion on only one 

[[Page H7272]]
or two individuals: Harry Wu, an American citizen who had all the 
proper documents to enter China, sitting in prison; a handful of others 
that are occasionally mentioned.
  What we do here today, and focusing on Harry or one or two others, it 
to try to get across to people what is going on today in China. I first 
met Harry Wu 3 or 4 years ago. He came to testify about slave labor and 
prison labor. He had with him a hidden camera as he met with Chinese 
officials.
  Posing as an American businessman, Harry asked how could he be 
guaranteed the quality that he wanted in his products being made in a 
prison. In a free market, in a factory where workers come voluntarily, 
their pay and benefits have an impact on the product. But he asked, how 
could he be guaranteed the product make by people who were enslaved by 
the Chinese government could have that quality? And the Chinese 
official, on camera, took her hands and said, ``We beat them. We beat 
them.''
  American consumers are out here today purchasing products made by men 
and women who are in prison and beaten to keep up the quality that 
international corporations demand of the products they sell across the 
globe.
  We are going to take a small step here today, but there is an 
opportunity for American citizens to take a much larger step in the 
message to the Chinese tyrants.
  When you buy something, take a look at where it is made. If you have 
an opportunity to buy something made in the United States or a country 
that respects human rights, make the purchase from that country. There 
are products at the same price. New Balance sneakers made in the United 
States cost the same as those sneakers made by people enslaved in 
China. Buy the American product.
  If the Chinese officials see their percentage of
   sales in the United States drop, we will not have to wait for a 
Congress or an administration to take sufficient steps to get that 
message across to the Chinese Government.

  We, as citizens in this country, together have the ability to have an 
impact on the policies within China. The tens of billions of dollars 
worth of products that are sold in this country each and every year 
provide the financing to sustain their system of government.
  Together, we can make that difference. Every time you go out to the 
store, take a look at where the product is made. If the product is made 
in a country that oppresses human rights, as China does, try not to buy 
that product. Maybe you cannot make it 100 percent of the time. If you 
do it once in a while, if you do it twice, whatever time you can do 
that, you will help people like Harry Wu who have risked their lives to 
take this action.
  When I grew up as a young man, I was told of an old Polish lady who 
saved my father's life. My father, a Lithuanian Jew at the time, was 
hiding from the Nazis. The borders have moved so often, it is hard to 
tell. It was Poland at that time; today it is Lithuania.
  She took this man in at risk of losing their eight children. When I 
think of courage, I think of this woman. To save an individual's life, 
not a family member, she risked not only her own life, but she risked 
the lives of her eight children.
  That courage that is asked of us here on this floor as American 
citizens does not come to the same chart even. We are protected by 
civil rights and civil liberties. We live in the greatest democracy in 
the world. But together we can help, without risk, the lives of those 
today imprisoned in China.
  Join us in boycotting Chinese-made products. Write to legislators and 
senators who oppose the Chinese Government's continued oppression, and 
we will make a small difference in the lives of Chinese citizens. A 
billion people in China have a right to expect that they can live with 
some dignity and without oppression from their own government.
  Today we in the Congress will make a small step in sending a message 
to the Chinese Government. The American citizenry together can send a 
much larger message. Let us not forget Harry Wu and the millions like 
him in China. Let us stand together for freedom and individual rights. 
Let us not forget the heroes of Tiananmen Square. Let us do our small 
part in fighting for freedom.


                          ____________________