[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7273-H7302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CHINA POLICY ACT OF 1995

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 193, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 2058) establishing United States policy toward China, 
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 2058 is as follows:
                               H.R. 2058

       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 ``China Policy Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The People's Republic of China comprises one-fifth of 
     the world's population, or 1,200,000,000 people, and its 
     policies have a profound effect on the world economy and 
     global security.
       (2) The People's Republic of China is a permanent member of 
     the United Nations Security Council and plays an important 
     role in regional organizations such as the Asia-Pacific 
     Economic Cooperation Forum and the ASEAN Regional Forum.
       (3) The People's Republic of China is a nuclear power with 
     the largest standing army in the world, and has been rapidly 
     modernizing and expanding its military capabilities.
       (4) The People's Republic of China is currently undergoing 
     a change of leadership which will have dramatic implications 
     for the political and economic future of the Chinese people 
     and for China's relations with the United States.
       (5) China's estimated $600,000,000,000 economy has enjoyed 
     unparalleled growth in recent years.
       (6) Despite increased economic linkages between the United 
     States and China, bilateral relations have deteriorated 
     significantly because of fundamental policy differences over 
     a variety of important issues.
       (7) The People's Republic of China has violated 
     international standards regarding the nonproliferation of 
     weapons of mass destruction.
       (8) The Government of the People's Republic of China, a 
     member of the United Nations Security Council, is obligated 
     to respect and uphold the United Nations Charter and 
     Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
       (9) According to the State Department Country Report on 
     Human Rights Practices for 1994, there continue to be 
     ``widespread and well-documented human rights abuses in 
     China, in violation of internationally accepted 
     norms...(including) arbitrary and lengthy incommunicado 
     detention, torture, and mistreatment of prisoners.... The 
     regime continued severe restrictions on freedom of speech, 
     press, assembly and association, and tightened control on the 
     exercise of these rights during 1994. Serious human rights 
     abuses persisted in Tibet and other areas populated by ethnic 
     minorities.''.
       (10) The Government of the People's Republic of China 
     continues to detain 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.
       (11) The Government of the People's Republic of China does 
     not ensure the humane treatment of prisoners and does not 
     allow humanitarian and human rights organizations access to 
     prisons.
       (12) The Government of the People's Republic of China 
     continues to harass and restrict the activities of accredited 
     journalists and to restrict broadcasts by the Voice of 
     America.
       (13) In the weeks leading to the 6th anniversary of the 
     June 1989 massacre, a series of petitions were sent to the 
     Chinese Government calling for greater tolerance, democracy, 
     rule of law, and an accounting for the 1989 victims and the 
     Chinese Government responded by detaining dozens of prominent 
     intellectuals and activists.
       (14) The unjustified and arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, 
     and initiation of criminal proceedings against Harry Wu, a 
     citizen of the United States, has greatly exacerbated the 
     deterioration in relations between the United States and the 
     People's Republic of China, and all charges against him 
     should be dismissed.
       (15) China has failed to release political prisoners with 
     serious medical problems, such as Bao Tong, and on June 25, 
     1995, revoked ``medical parole'' for Chen-Ziming 
     reimprisoning him at Beijing No. 2 Prison, and Chinese 
     authorities continue to hold Wei Jingsheng incommunicado at 
     an unknown location since his arrest on April 1, 1994.
       (16) The Government of the People's Republic of China 
     continues to engage in discriminatory and unfair trade 
     practices, including the exportation of products produced by 
     prison labor, the use of import quotas and other quantitative 
     restrictions on selected products, the unilateral increasing 
     of tariff rates and the imposition of taxes as surcharges on 
     tariffs, the barring of the importation of certain items, the 
     use of licensing and testing requirements to limit imports, 
     and the transshipment of textiles and other items through the 
     falsification of country of origin documentation.
       (17) The Government of the People's Republic of China 
     continues to employ the policy and practice of controlling 
     all trade unions and continues to suppress and harass members 
     of the independent labor union movement.
       (18) The United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 states 
     that Congress wishes to see the provisions of the joint 
     declaration implemented, and declares that ``the human rights 
     of the people of Hong Kong are of great importance to the 
     U.S. Human Rights also serve as a basis for Hong Kong's 
     continued prosperity,''. This together with the rule of law 
     and a free press are essential for a successful transition in 
     1997.
       (19) The United States currently has numerous sanctions on 
     the People's Republic of China with respect to government-to-
     government assistance, arms sales, and other commercial 
     transactions.

[[Page H7274]]

       (20) It is in the interest of the United States to foster 
     China's continued engagement in the broadest range of 
     international fora and increased respect for human rights, 
     democratic institutions, and the rule of law in China.

     SEC. 3. UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC INITIATIVES.

       (a) United States Objectives.--The Congress calls upon the 
     President to undertake intensified diplomatic initiatives to 
     persuade the Government of the People's Republic of China 
     to--
       (1) immediately and unconditionally release Harry Wu from 
     detention;
       (2) adhere to prevailing international standards regarding 
     the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction by, among 
     other things, immediately halting the export of ballistic 
     missile technology and the provision of other weapons of mass 
     destruction assistance, in violation of international 
     standards, to Iran, Pakistan, and other countries of concern;
       (3) respect the internationally-recognized human rights of 
     its citizens by, among other things--
       (A) permitting freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom 
     of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of religion;
       (B) ending arbitrary detention, torture, forced labor, and 
     other mistreatment of prisoners;
       (C) releasing all political prisoners, and dismantling the 
     Chinese system of jailing political prisoners (the gulag) and 
     the Chinese forced labor system (the Laogai);
       (D) ending coercive birth control practices; and
       (E) respecting the legitimate rights of the people of 
     Tibet, ethnic minorities, and ending the crackdown on 
     religious practices;
       (4) curtail excessive modernization and expansion of 
     China's military capabilities, and adopt defense transparency 
     measures that will reassure China's neighbors;
       (5) end provocative military actions in the South China Sea 
     and elsewhere that threaten China's neighbors, and work with 
     them to resolve disputes in a peaceful manner;
       (6) adhere to a rules-based international trade regime in 
     which existing trade agreements are fully implemented and 
     enforced, and equivalent and reciprocal market access is 
     provided for United States goods and services in China;
       (7) comply with the prohibition on all forced labor exports 
     to the United States; and
       (8) reduce tensions with Taiwan by means of dialogue and 
     other confidence building measures.
       (b) Venues for Diplomatic Initiatives.--The diplomatic 
     initiatives taken in accordance with subsection (a) should 
     include actions by the United States--
       (1) in the conduct of bilateral relations with China;
       (2) in the United Nations and other international 
     organizations;
       (3) in the World Bank and other international financial 
     institutions;
       (4) in the World Trade Organization and other international 
     trade fora; and
       (5) in the conduct of bilateral relations with other 
     countries in order to encourage them to support and join with 
     the United States in taking the foregoing actions.

     SEC. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       The President shall report to the Congress within 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, and no less 
     frequently than every 6 months thereafter, on--
       (1) the actions taken by the United States in accordance 
     with section 3 during the preceding 6-month period;
       (2) the actions taken with respect to China during the 
     preceding 6-month period by--
       (A) the United Nations and other international 
     organizations;
       (B) the World Bank and other international financial 
     institutions; and
       (C) the World Trade Organization and other international 
     trade fora; and
       (3) the progress achieved with respect to each of the 
     United States objectives identified in section 3(a).

     Such reports may be submitted in classified and unclassified 
     form.

     SEC. 5. COMMENDATION OF DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT.

       The Congress commends the brave men and women who have 
     expressed their concerns to the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China in the form of petitions and commends the 
     democracy movement as a whole for its commitment to the 
     promotion of political, economic, and religious freedom.

     SEC. 6. RADIO FREE ASIA.

       (a) Plan for Radio Free Asia.--Section 309(c) of the United 
     States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 
     6208(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Submission of Plan.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of the China Policy Act of 1995, the 
     Director of the United States Information Agency shall submit 
     to the Congress a detailed plan for the establishment and 
     operation of Radio Free Asia in accordance with this section. 
     Such plan shall include the following:
       ``(1) A description of the manner in which Radio Free Asia 
     would meet the funding limitations provided in subsection 
     (d)(4).
       ``(2) A description of the numbers and qualifications of 
     employees it proposes to hire.
       ``(3) How it proposes to meet the technical requirements 
     for carrying out its responsibilities under this section.''.
       (b) Initiation of Broadcasting to China.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, Radio Free Asia 
     shall commence broadcasting to China. Such broadcasting may 
     be undertaken initially by means of contracts with or grants 
     to existing broadcasting organizations and facilities.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hamilton] will each be recognized for 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, make no mistake about it. 
United States relations with the People's Republic of China have 
deteriorated to a very troubled level. Currently, United States-China 
relations are cool and formal, and are dominated by a series of 
disputes. In this environment, animosities and grievances--on both 
sides--could boil over and cause an irreparable breach. Indeed, a new 
cold war, this time with the PRC, is not entirely impossible--but it is 
avoidable. We must all approach this debate today with a deep sense of 
gravity and care regarding the long-term importance and fragility of 
Sino-American relations.
  Clearly, Mr. Speaker, a further, unnecessary deterioration in 
Chinese-American relations is not in the United States national 
interest. It would not serve our security goals; nor would it serve our 
human rights objectives. It would not advance our trade and economic 
objectives. Simply put, I emphasize to my colleagues today that what we 
do here today should not aim to isolate or demonize China or foster the 
attitude in this country that China is an enemy. They are not an enemy.
 We should have the objective of improving the Chinese-American 
relationship while, at the same time, always acting in our national 
interest. These goals are not incompatible.

  Having said that however, this Member steadfastly believes that the 
United States must remain engaged with China. This does not mean that 
we should ignore the many legitimate differences between our two 
nations. It is entirely proper that we make weapons proliferation, 
human rights, and the proper treatment of U.S. nationals, such as Harry 
Wu, our foreign policy objectives of the highest order. H.R. 2058, the 
China Policy Act of 1995, does precisely that. It fills a crucial gap 
by setting forth both clear policy objectives for the United States-
China relationship and appropriate directions to the executive branch.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member has carefully and painstakingly worked to 
draft legislation that accurately and comprehensively describes the 
House of Representatives' objectives and our concerns with regard to 
the Government of the People's Republic of China. With significant 
contributions from the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], and with the support of the 
House leadership as well as bipartisan staff assistance from the House 
International Relations Committee, we have crafted bipartisan 
legislation that nearly every Member, in good conscience, can support.
  The China Policy Act of 1995 concisely states the United States' 
foreign policy grievances with the People's Republic of China. This 
legislation very specifically calls upon the President of the United 
States to undertake the following diplomatic initiatives, to report on 
their progress, and to use every available diplomatic means to cause 
China to accomplish the following reforms:
  First, permit freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of 
press, and freedom of religion.
  Second, end arbitrary detention, torture, forced labor, and other 
mistreatment of prisoner.
  Third, release all political prisoners, including Harry Wu, and 
dismantle the Chinese gulag and forced labor system.
  Fourth, end coercive birth control practices.
  Fifth, respect the legitimate rights of ethnic minorities and the 
people of Tibet.
  Sixth, curtail excessive modernization and expansion of China's 
military capabilities.
  Seventh, halt provocative military actions in the South China Sea.

[[Page H7275]]

  Eighth, implement, and enforce international trade agreements.
  Ninth, comply with prohibitions on all forced labor exports to the 
United States.
  Tenth, reduce tensions with Taiwan.
  Finally, this legislation commends the petition and democracy 
movement in China of brave men and women who are committed to the 
promotion of political, economic, and religious freedom. And, it also 
attempts to assist them and all Chinese in their endeavors by requiring 
the speedy implementation of the already authorized Radio Free Asia 
initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is both an alternative to a damaging 
MFN denial for China and also a positive statement of congressional 
concerns. It is the beginning, hopefully, of a process of formulating a 
clearer and more comprehensive policy toward China. Since we don't have 
a clear statement of policy emanating from the executive branch, we 
will begin the U.S. effort here today.
  Of course, this legislation and the criticisms of China that it 
outlines, will not be welcomed by Beijing's leaders, but it will give 
hope to millions of Chinese who suffer from a denial of fundamental 
rights. Moreover, it states U.S. concerns forthrightly. Unlike a denial 
of normal trade status, which is really what MFN treatment entails, 
this legislation is not as likely to fuel the recent downward cycle of 
action and reaction that has gravely endangered U.S. interests.
  Mr. Speaker, China is in the midst of a prolonged succession 
struggle. This power struggle has enormous implications for China's 
future and its relations with the United States, and for global 
security and the world economy. Since the triumph of the Communists in 
1949 China had been dominated by two leaders, Mao Tse-tung and Dung 
Xiaoping. What leader or what collective leadership will next succeed 
to that mantle of power in the PRC? What will be their ideology, 
values, and policies? We cannot discern or determine that, but we can 
and must make sure that we do not give advantage to those who would 
take China backward economically or make it more aggressive and 
assertive internationally.
  By extending normal trade status while simultaneously stating and 
acting upon our serious concerns with the practices and policies of the 
People's Republic of China we are making several very important points.
  First, we want to see a prosperous Chinese people.
  The American system of free enterprise is the envy of the world, 
including China. In fact, many dissidents in China support extension of 
most favored nation or normal trade status to China because they know 
that economic freedom often precedes other freedoms as well. In Taiwan, 
for example many people will soon vote for a President for the first 
time. In other Asian countries, political freedoms following economic 
liberalization has been the norm rather than the exception.
  Second, we support the development of a Chinese Government that can 
protect the civil and political rights of its own people with stable 
and accountable institutions.
  Fragmentation or chaos of the Chinese Government is neither in the 
interest of the United States or the people of China. Human rights 
abuses occur in China not only because of failed official policies of 
the Chinese government but also because of the corruption and lack of 
respect for the rule of law. Stable institutions which abide by the 
rule of law are essential to provide the proper protection that the 
Chinese people necessarily demand and should enjoy.
  Third, we respect a China that can defend itself, but we must demand 
a China that adheres to its international commitments to coexist 
peacefully, respect international legal norms, and refrain from 
aggressive military action.
  As chairman of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee of the House 
International Relations Committee, this Member would note that 
cooperation with China has been an important key to preventing an 
explosive, perhaps nuclear, confrontation with North Korea. And while 
we have very grave concerns about a number of China's transactions with 
countries like Iran and Pakistan, it is important to note that we have 
been actively
 engaged with the PRC on proliferation issues. We have succeeded in 
preventing a number of dangerous sales, and we continue to press on 
other matters of concerns. I would tell my colleagues--no, I warn my 
colleagues--that if we disengage from China, we will have absolutely no 
influence over what China exports, or to whom.

  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pause for a moment 
to consider the importance of our long-term interests with China. Let 
me remind everyone, in all candor, that China will be one of the two or 
three most important strategic relationships this Nation will have in 
the coming decades. China will be one of the two or three most 
important countries in the world early in the next century. Quite 
simply, China is too big, and too dynamic, and too strategically 
important to ignore or push to an enemy status.
  I raise this point not to alarm this body, for we should never be 
intimidated from promoting human rights and market economies. At the 
same time, however, we must focus on building a positive relationship 
with the Chinese people and their Government. We must not let our very 
real and substantial current problems with the PRC damage the 
fundamentally friendly attitude of the Chinese people toward the United 
States. The people of China are favorably predisposed toward the United 
States, and they share a general desire to embrace our freedoms.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to speak out forthrightly about our 
concerns, but to do it in a fashion that will ultimately bring us 
closer to the desired goals of freedom and human rights for all people, 
and a growing rapport and trust between our two governments. It must be 
clear that we speak with deep and serious conviction, but with 
friendship and constructive ends.
  I urge adoption of H.R. 2058, the China Policy Act of 1995, and yield 
back the balance of my time.
                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise here to support the Bereuter proposal. I think it 
is a sound, constructive proposal. I want to commend the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and every Member, Democrat and Republican, who 
cooperated in putting together this sound piece of public policy.
  I love the stem winding, desk thumping speeches that some of our 
colleagues give, but when you ask yourself what is the solution, the 
solution really is the Bereuter proposal. We have a terrible condition 
in China, but let me let you in on a secret. It has been that way for 
6,000 years.
  When I first went to China shortly before we began any kind of 
relationship with them at all over a 40-year period, they were just 
finishing the cultural revolution, in which millions of Chinese had 
been displaced and rooted out of their families and their homes and 
transported around the country and hundreds of thousands of Chinese had 
been slaughtered. Fortunately, no Americans lost their lives in there 
because we did not have an American national in the whole country of 
China at that time.
  China has never experienced the types of freedoms that we in the 
Western world have developed so torturously over so many thousands of 
years. They have never had religious freedom or freedom of speech. They 
have never had the freedom of assembly or any of the freedoms we 
cherish. They need them, they want them, and they will eventually get 
them, but we have to lead the way, and we should never go to the same 
disastrous type of program that we carried out for about 40 years in 
which we threw ourselves out of China and isolated ourselves from 
China.
  Our trade situation with China is not good, but it is better than the 
terrible situation that we had in the past. It is going to improve. I 
love all this discussion about slave labor, and I hope some of the 
people are listening to this. I do 

[[Page H7276]]
not know of any State in the United States that does not have slave 
labor. All of us in our States produce goods that are sold in commerce 
that we Americans consume that were made by slave labor in our own 
prisons. It has been against the law so long as I can remember to 
import any of those kinds of goods in the United States.
  So we have tried to keep them out. I am sorry some of them slip in, 
but it is against the law and anybody that is convicted of importing 
those kinds of goods is going to be penalized. We are doing our best to 
penalize Americans for knowingly doing that kind of thing.
  But I doubt that there is a Member of Congress here that has not 
slept on a bed or sat at a desk or used a filing cabinet that was not 
made by prison labor in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my time is up, but support the Bereuter 
amendment. It is a good, constructive proposal.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona, Mr. Matt Salmon, a new member of the Committee on 
International Relations, who not only has lived in China for a 
substantial period of time, but speaks Chinese.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2058. I 
believe it is a big bold step in the right direction. I am really 
pleased that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has taken this 
initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk a little bit about my 
experience. I served a mission for my church in Taiwan from 1977 to 
1979. Most of the people that I became friends with over there were 
people that lived in mainland China and escaped the oppression of China 
under Mao Tse-tung. At that time they watched their families, many of 
them being killed, murdered before their very eyes. Many of them 
watched their parents be severely punished, sometimes beaten, sometimes 
even killed, for praying in public.
  As China engaged the Western world, I was heartened, I was 
encouraged, by her desire to become more open politically, economically 
and socially. But as with many Americans, much of that optimism was 
extinguished by Tiananmen Square, and part of me died that day. Since 
that day China has steadily marched backward, stifling freedom, 
flouting human rights, and demonstrating disregard.
  I do support doing business with China. I think it is a step in the 
right direction, but we need to make sure they understand we will be 
watching and the people that do business over there need to not be 
accepting, but step forward and do the right thing.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], who has been one of the prime 
movers on this matter of China.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate both the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hamilton], the two cosponsors of this legislation, and certainly 
to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi], who actually worked very closely with both 
cosponsors to put together this legislation in a way I believe that all 
of us will be able to support; second, what I believe is important, to 
send a signal to the Chinese that is unified that truly represents the 
true feelings of this Nation. So I would like to thank them for making 
this debate very comfortable for all of us in this House of 435 
Members.
  I would have to say, and I believe I will just reiterate what the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has said, that the United 
States-China relationship will probably be the most important 
relationship that the United States will have for the next 20 years. 
That is whether China is viewed by this country as our enemy, or 
whether this country views China as an ally, or perhaps something in 
between.
  China has 22 percent of the world population, 1.2 billion people. 
Their economic growth rate is over 10 percent per year, and probably 
will grow much greater than that. Lloyd Bentsen, before he left as 
Secretary of the Treasury, said that for the next 15 years China will 
be building an equivalent to 18 Santa Monica freeways per day, and that 
means the Japanese, the Europeans, and all other countries are moving 
into China now, trying to influence China's behavior.
  I have to say one of the experts that spoke on the rule perhaps has a 
little amnesia. President Clinton is basically following the policies 
of the Ford, Reagan, Bush, Carter, Nixon years in terms of our 
relations with the Chinese. That is because they all understood the 
permanence and importance of our relations with that country.
  Now, there is no question that what the Chinese have been doing over 
the past decade, now coming to light, is something that we all in this 
country abhor, and certainly we understand that there were certain 
universal principles that all major great nations must comply with. But 
the way to really do it is not to isolate the Chinese, but to engage 
the Chinese.
  That is what basically the Bereuter resolution does. It tells the 
Chinese that there are certain behaviors that we do not accept, but at 
the same time it attempts to normalize our relations with the Chinese. 
That is why this resolution, this bill, is so important for us, because 
ultimately it is the heirs of all of us in this room, the heirs of all 
of us in this country, that will benefit in terms of peace and 
understanding among nations and people of these nations, if in fact we 
can find some way with the United States, China, and other countries, 
to begin the normalization process with this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and ranking minority member 
of Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Berman, for 
bringing this important compromise resolution before us today. And I 
want to commend my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, and the 
gentlelady from California, Ms. Pelosi, for their hard work and 
participation in this issue. Their struggle on behalf of human rights 
in China is exemplary.
  It has been 6 years since the Tiananmen Square Massacre and a full 10 
years since his holiness, the Dalai Lama, visited the Congress and told 
us about the repression in Tibet. During this time period, whenever the 
Congress attempted to bring about a change in Beijing's egregious 
behavior we were admonished, in so many words, by State Department 
experts that ``now is not the time. There is a political transition 
period underway in China and if we took any substantive action we would 
be strengthening the hand of the hardliners in Beijing.''
  And so for the last decade whenever the Congress attempted to respond 
to China's use of slave labor, oppression of religious and political 
speech and thought, international property rights violations, unfair 
trade practices, arms proliferation, repression in occupied Tibet, 
threatening military exercises off the coast of Taiwan, a massive 
military buildup, the recent aggressive actions in the South China Sea 
and its obstruction to Taiwan's attempt to enter the United Nations, we 
were told to back off.
  Accordingly, I wonder when the State Department will recognize that 
its China policy is fundamentally flawed? It is currently a failure on 
trade. It is a failure on human rights. And it is a failure on arms 
proliferation.
  We all understand the necessity of constructively engaging China. But 
it is all too painfully obvious from the results that we are failing in 
our goals of encouraging pluralism, of respect for human rights, for 
trade, for regional security and for recognition of the wishes of the 
people of Taiwan.
  While I support the State Department's efforts to constructively 
engage China, we have yet to see positive results from the process. The 
State Department must find a way to overcome the debilitating flaw in 
its China policy that sweeps aside responsive action with broad brush 
stroke generalizations about transition periods.

[[Page H7277]]

  Until the State Department does that, the Congress must step in and 
respond to the many seriously unacceptable actions taken by the 
Communist Government in Beijing. Accordingly I urge my colleagues to 
support the Bereuter resolution. It is a balanced, good first step 
toward building a more productive China policy. It sets forth some 
significant goal posts in our relationship with the People's Republic 
of China.
                              {time}  1200

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I want to commend, first of all, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], and all the Members who 
worked so very hard on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate today really comes down to one very simple 
question: What does America stand for as a nation?
  Do we stand for democracy?
  Do we stand for human rights?
  Are those the values this Nation holds dear?
  Or do we just stand up for those things when they're convenient?
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that China is a nation that tortures, 
abuses, and imprisons its own people.
  A nation where freedom of speech and freedom of religion do not 
exist.
  A nation where people who speak out against the Government disappear 
without a trace.
  And by extending most-favored-nation status to China, by giving them 
special treatment, we put our stamp of approval on all of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think America should be in the business of 
licensing torture.
  But if we as a nation can't speak out against a Communist country 
that arrests and imprisons our own citizens, if we can't use our 
leverage to bring Harry Wu home, then we really have lost our way as a 
nation.
  Harry Wu's only crime is that he told the truth about what's 
happening in China today.
  He had the courage to tell the world about the torture and prison 
labor.
  He had the courage to stand up for democracy and human rights.
  And for that, he got arrested.
  Now he's looking to us to speak out for him.
  It's time we stand up for him.
  By passing the Bereuter resolution today, we will send a crystal 
clear message to the dictators in Beijing: Let Harry Wu go.
  But it's not enough for this Nation simply to stand up for human 
rights when our own people are threatened.
  For 200 years, we have been the beacon for democracy around the 
world.
  If we don't stand up for the rights of the Chinese people, if we 
don't stand up to the butchers of Beijing then nobody else will.
  This isn't just in our moral interests.
  This is in our economic interest as well.
  Today, China is running a $30 billion trade surplus with the United 
States.
  A good part of the reason is that China pays its people about 17 
cents an hour.
  They export products to America made with prison labor.
  By extending most-favored-nation status to China, we are taking jobs 
away from our own people.
  Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be afraid to use trade to promote democracy 
and human rights.
  MFN isn't a gift to be awarded. It's a privilege that must be earned.
  China has not earned the right to receive special treatment from the 
United States.
  I urge my colleagues: Support the Bereuter resolution.
  And let the world know that America stands for democracy and human 
rights.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith], a member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Subcommittee on 
International Operations and Human Rights, which I chair, finally got 
the opportunity to hear the real-life stories in open hearing from some 
of the Chinese women who have had their baby killed by forced abortion 
in the People's Republic of China.
  After having had to take the extraordinary step of issuing subpoenas 
to bring these women out of U.S. prisons where they have been held for 
2 years by the Clinton administration, which is trying to deport these 
women back to their tormentors, yesterday we heard these women describe 
the horror, the humiliation, the suffering, the pain and the loss of 
being subjected to both forced abortion and forced sterilization.
  Even though these and many other women like them have been found to 
be completely credible by the INS, these victims are poised to be 
forced back to their oppressors in China because the Clinton 
administration reversed a very human policy of the Bush administration, 
by providing asylum to women who have had a forced abortion or have a 
well-founded fear of force abortion or forced sterilization.
  Bill Clinton, Mr. Speaker, has turned his back on these victims, and 
he is trying to force them back. Hu Shu Ye broke down in tears 
yesterday as she described the pain and suffering of being dragged by 
the family planning cadres in China to the abortion mill to have her 
six-month-old unborn child destroyed. When she was able to regain her 
composure during the hearing, later in the hearing, she told us that 
she as bleeding so profusely that the Chinese officials were unable to 
involuntarily sterilize her. But 5 months later they were back at her 
door physically dragging her to be forcibly sterilized.
  These women, their tears that they shed yesterday at the hearing and 
their profound suffering is the reality of tens of millions of women in 
the People's Republic of China, in that terrible dictatorship.
  I have led two human rights missions to China, Mr. Speaker. Religious 
repression has intensified since the Clinton administration delinked 
MFN from human rights. Oppression of political dissidents has gotten 
worse. For every prominent dissident they have released, usually on the 
eve of some important decision in the United States, they have taken 
many, many others and many of those that we do not know about. And now 
they have taken a U.S. citizen, Harry Wu.
  Not only do these human rights problems get worse every single month 
that we continue to truckle to China, but they keep discovering new 
horrors. The PRC dictatorship times the executions, for example, of 
prisoners for the convenience of rich foreigners who pay for the 
harvest of the prisoners' organs. Now we learn that states who 
supported abortion clinics sell human embryos, and there are even some 
credible reports that late-term unborn children are actually being 
consumed as a new health food. Mr. Speaker, ideas have consequences, 
and the central organizing idea behind the PRC dictatorship is the 
utter devaluation of the individual human being. They have 
consequences.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude. There is no moral or practical 
difference between trading with the PRC dictatorship and trading with 
the Nazis.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:

                                                    July 18, 1995.

  [Primary Sources: The Pueblo Institute, Amnesty International, The 
                       Cardinal Kung Foundation]

            Roman Catholics Imprisoned and Detained in China

       1. Father Fan Da-Duo. A priest of Beijing Diocese. 
     Reportedly under house arrest and unable to administer 
     sacraments.
       2. Father Guo Qiushan: A priest of Fu'an, Fujian province. 
     Arrested July 27, 1990. Released in August 1991 for health 
     reasons. Currently under house arrest.
       3. Father Guo Shichum: A priest of Fu'an, Fujian province. 
     Arrested July 27, 1990. Released in August 1991 for health 
     reasons. Currently under house arrest.
       4. Bishop John Yang Shudao: Bishop of Fuzhou, Fujian 
     province. Arrested February 28, 1988. Transferred to house 
     detention in February 1991. Restricted to home village and 
     under close policy surveillance.
       5. Bishop Mathias Lu Zhensheng: Age: 76. Bishop of 
     Tianshui, Gansu province. Arrested late December 1989. 
     Released about April 26, 1990 for reasons of health. 
     Restricted to home village.
     
[[Page H7278]]

       6. Bishop Casimir Wang Milu: Age: 55. Bishop of Tianshui 
     diocese, Gansu province. Arrested April 1984. Released April 
     14, 1993. Activity is strictly monitored and restricted.
       7. Father John Baptist Wang Ruohan: A priest from Tianshui 
     diocese, Gansu province. Arrested June 16, 1994. Currently 
     detained in Tianshui jail.
       8. Father John Wang Ruownag: A priest from Tianshui 
     diocese, Gansu province. Disappeared December 8, 1991. 
     Resurfaced after a period of detention but movement and 
     activity are closely monitored and severely restricted.
       9. Father An Shi'an: Age: 81. A priest of Daming diocese, 
     Hebei province. Arrested late December 1990. Released 
     December 21, 1992. Current whereabouts unknown. Believed to 
     be under restrictions of movement.
       10. Father Chen Yingkui: A priest of Yixian diocese, Hebei 
     province. Arrested in 1991. Sentenced to three years' of 
     ``reeducation through labor.'' Reported to be released.
       11. Father Chi Huitain: Arrested April 17, 1995. Currently 
     being held at an unknown location.
       12. Father Peter Cui Xingang: Age: 30. A priest of Donglu 
     village, Qingyuan count, Hebei province. Arrested July 28, 
     1991. Reportedly released but activities are restricted and 
     monitored.
       13. Father Gao Fangzhan: Age: 27. A priest of Yizian 
     diocese, Hebei province. Arrested May 1991. Currently being 
     held without trial. Reportedly released but activities are 
     restricted and monitored.
       14. Father Peter Hu Duoer: Age: 32. Arrested December 14, 
     1990. Severely tortured during his detention. Reportedly 
     released but activities are restricted and monitored.
       15. Father Li Jian Jin: Age: 28. A priest of Han Dan, Hebei 
     Province. Arrested March 4, 1994. Currently being held in Ma 
     Pu Cun detention center.
       16. Father Li Zhongpei: Arrested December 1990. Sentenced 
     to three years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Although 
     Chinese authorities have reportedly released him, he has not 
     been seen since his release.
       17. Father Liu Heping: Age: 28. Arrested December 13, 1991. 
     Reportedly transferred to house arrest; actions restricted 
     and monitored.
       18. Father Liu Jin Zhong: A priest of Yixian, Hebei 
     province. Arrested February 24, 1994. Reportedly released but 
     activities
      are restricted and monitored.
       19. Father Lu Dong Liang: A priest of Feng Shi, Dong Ging 
     Liu, Hebei province. Reportedly released but activities are 
     restricted and monitored.
       20. Father Lu Gen-You: Arrested in 1994. Reportedly 
     released but activities are restricted and monitored.
       21. Father Ma Zhiyuan: Age: 28. Arrested December 13, 1991. 
     Reportedly released but activities are restricted and 
     monitored.
       22. Father Pei Guojun: A priest of Yixian diocese, Hebei 
     province. Arrested between mid-December 1989 and mid-January 
     1990. Reportedly released but activities are restricted and 
     monitored.
       23. Father Pei Xhenping: A priest of Youtong village, Hebei 
     province. Arrested October 21, 1989. Reportedly released but 
     activities are restricted and monitored.
       24. Father Shi Wande: A priest of Baoding diocese, Hebei 
     province. Arrested December 9, 1989. Reportedly released but 
     activities are restricted and monitored.
       25. Father Sun Hua Ping: Arrested June 30, 1994. Currently 
     held in a detention center of Lin Ming Guan, Shi Zhuang Cun, 
     Yong Nian Xian, Hebei province.
       26. Father Wang Jiansheng: Age: 40 Arrested May 19, 1991 
     and sentenced to three years' ``reeducation through labor.'' 
     Reportedly released but activities are restricted and 
     monitored.
       27. Father Xiao Shixiang: Age: 58. A priest of Yixian 
     diocese, Hebei province. Arrested December 12, 1991. 
     Reportedly released but activities are restricted and 
     monitored.
       28. Father Yan Chong-Zhao: A priest of Handan diocese, 
     Hebei province. Arrested September 1993. Currently held in 
     detention center in Guangping county, Hebei province.
       29. Father Zhou Zhenkun: A priest of Dongdazhao village, 
     Boading, Hebei province. Arrested December 21, 1992. 
     Reportedly released but activities are restricted and 
     monitored.
       30. Bishop Guo Wenzhi: Age: 77. Bishop of Harbin, 
     Heilongjiang province. Reportedly released but activities are 
     restricted and monitored.
       31. Father Joseph Jin Dechen: Age: 72. A priest of Nanyang 
     diocese, henan province. Arrested December 18, 1981. 
     Sentenced to 15 years in prison and five years deprivation of 
     rights. Paroled May 21, 1992 but confined to his home village 
     of Jinjiajiang where he remains under restrictions of 
     movement and assocation.
       32. Father Li Hongye (or Hongyou): Age: 76. Bishop from 
     Luoyang, Henan province. Arrested July 7, 1994. Conflicting 
     reports make his current status unknown. Diagnosed with 
     stomach cancer.
       33. Bishop John Baptist Liang Xishing: Age: 72. Bishop of 
     Kaifeng diocese, Henan province. Disappeared and presumed 
     rearrested March 18, 1994. Reportedly released but activities 
     are restricted and monitored.
       34. Father Zhu Bayou: A priest of Nanyang diocese, 
     province. Released on parole but restricted to the village of 
     Jingang, Henan.
       35. Father Jiang Liren: Age: 80. Bishop of Hohht, Inner 
     Mongolia. Arrested December 1989. Transferred to house arrest 
     in April 1990.
       36. Bishop Mark Yuan Wenzai: Age: 69. Bishop of Nantong, 
     Jiangsu province. Currently under the custody of the local 
     Patriotic Church bishop and forced to live at the church in 
     Longshan.
       37. Father Liao Haiqing: Age: 64. A priest of Fuzhou, 
     Jiangxi province. Arrested August 11, 1994. Released in
      mid-November. Currently under police surveillance.
       38. Father Xia Shao-Wu: Arrested December 30, 1994. 
     Currently held by Public Security Bureau officials Hebei.
       39. Bishop Zeng Jingmu: Arrested September 17, 1994. 
     Reportedly released but activities are restricted and 
     monitored.
       40. Father Li Zhi-Xin: A priest in the city of Xining, 
     Qinghai province. Arrested March 29, 1994. Reportedly 
     released but activities are restricted and monitored.
       41. Father Vincent Qin Guoliang: Age: 60. A priest in the 
     city of Xining, Qinghai province. Arrested November 3, 1994. 
     Sentenced to two years' ``reeducation through labor.'' 
     Currently detained at Duoba labor camp.
       42. Bishop Fan Yufel: Age: 60. Bishop Zhouzhi, Shaanxi 
     province. Arrested in spring 1992. Transferred to house 
     arrest in September 1992.
       43. Bishop Lucas Li Jingfeng: Age: 68. Bishop of Fengxiang, 
     Shaanxi province. Placed under house arrest April 1992. 
     Reportedly released but activities are restricted and 
     monitored.
       44. Bishop Huo Guoyang: Bishop of Chongqing, Sichuan 
     province. Arrested early January 1990. Reportedly released in 
     early 1991 and currently under police surveillance in 
     Chongqing City, Sichuan.
       45. Bishop Li Side: Bishop of Tianjin diocese. Arrested May 
     25, 1992. Exiled in July 1992 to a rural parish of Liang 
     Zhuang, Ji country and is forbidden to leave. Currently held 
     under house arrest.
       46. Bishop Shi Hongzhen: Auxiliary bishop of Tianjin 
     diocese. Activities severely restricted. One report states he 
     is under house arrest.
       47. Father Su De-Qien: A priest of Tianjin diocese. Must 
     report to Public Security once a month. Unable to administer 
     the sacraments since December 1993.
       48. Father Gu Zheng: Age: 50. Arrested October 6, 1994. 
     Released late November 1994 but remains under strict police 
     surveillance.
       49. Deacon Dong Linzhong: Deacon of Dongdazhao Village, 
     Baoding, Hebei province. Arrested December 21, 1992. 
     Reportedly released but activities are restricted and 
     monitored.
       50. Deacon Wang Tongshang: Deacon of Baoding diocese, Hebei 
     province. Arrested December 23, 1990. Sentenced to three 
     years of ``reeducation through labor.'' Reportedly released 
     but activities are restricted and monitored.
       51. Sister Wang Yuqin: Age: 23. Arrested April 25, 1995. 
     Although most of the 30-40 people arrested with her have been 
     released, she remains in detention. Also fined 900 Chinese 
     Yen, the equivalent of 3 months income.
       52. Wang (or Wong) Ruiying: Arrested June 1994. Currently 
     being held in a detention center in Cheng An Xian, Hebei 
     province.
       53. Zhang Guoyan: Age: 45. Sentenced in 1991 to three 
     years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Reportedly released in 
     March 1993.
       54. Cui Maozai: Age: 42. Arrested April 26, 1995. Released 
     but activities are restricted and monitored.
       55. Gao Jianxiou: Age: 46. Arrested April 26, 1995. 
     Released but activities are restricted and monitored.
       56. Gao Shuyun: Age: 45. Arrested April 1995. Currently 
     held at Chongren Sein detention center. Reportedly beaten so 
     severely that she cannot feed herself. Released but 
     activities are restricted and monitored.
       57. Huang Guanghua: Age: 43. Arrested April 1995. 
     Reportedly released but activities are restricted and 
     monitored.
       58. Huang Meiyu: Age 40. Arrested April 1995. Reportedly 
     released but activities are restricted and monitored.
       59. Lu Huiying: Age 51. Arrested April 1995. Reportedly 
     released but activities are restricted and monitored.
       60. Pan Kunming: Age 30. Arrested April 1995. Sentenced to 
     five years in prison.
       61. Rao Yanping: Age 18. Arrested April 1995. Sentenced to 
     four years in prison.
       62. Wu Jiehong: Age 46. Arrested April 1995. Released but 
     activities are restricted and monitored.
       63. Wu Yinghua: Age 30. Arrested April 1995. Released but 
     activities are restricted and monitored.
       64. You Xianyu: Age 42. Arrested April 1995. Released but 
     activities are restricted and monitored.
       65. Yu ChuiShen: Age 50. Arrested April 26, 1995. Sentenced 
     to three years in prison.
       66. Zeng Yinzai: Age 60. Arrested April 26, 1995. Released 
     but activities are restricted and monitored.
       67. Zeng Zhong-Liang: Arrested December 30, 1994. Released 
     but activities are restricted and monitored.
       68. Zhang Wenlin: Age 60. Arrested April 1995. Released but 
     activities are restricted and monitored.
       69. Zhu Changshun: Age 40. Arrested April 26, 1995. 
     Released but activities are restricted and monitored.
       70. Zhu Lianrong: Age 49. Arrested April 1995. Released but 
     activities are restricted and monitored.
       71. Wang Dao-Xian: Arrested April 21, 1994. Released but 
     activities are restricted and monitored.
       72. Xu Funian: Age 51. Arrested at the end of 1994 and 
     sentenced to two years' ``reeducation through labor.''
       73. Zhang Yousheng: Arrested in December 1990 or early 
     1991. Sentenced to three years' 

[[Page H7279]]
     imprisonment. Chinese authorities reported his release in June 1993. 
     Activities are restricted and monitored.
       74. Yu Qi Xiang: Age 19. Arrested April 26, 1995. Sentenced 
     to two years in prison.
                                                     July 3, 1995.

  [Primary Sources: Amnesty International, International Campaign for 
                                 Tibet]

        Buddhist Monks and Nuns Imprisoned and Detained in Tibet

       1. Apho: Age: 36. A monk of Bu Gon monastery. Arrested 
     January 13, 1994. Currently held in Chamdo prison.
       2. Bakdo: A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested May 1992. 
     Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       3. Buchung: Age 25. A monk of Sungrabling monastery. 
     Arrested July 4, 1993. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       4. Champa Choekyi: A nun of Shungsep monastery. Arrested 
     December 9, 1993.
       5. Champa Gyatso: Age: 20. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 9, 1993. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       6. Champa Tsondrue: Age: 17. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested June 19, 1994. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       7. Chigchen: Age 21. A monk of Palkhor monastery. Arrested 
     July 3, 1992. Currently held in Gyangtse jail.
       8. Chime: Age 25. A monk Dunbu monastery. Arrested May 30, 
     1993.
       9. Chime Drolkar: Age 18. A nun of Shungsep monastery. 
     Arrested October 1, 1990. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       10. Chimi: A nun of Garu monastery. Arrested June 16, 1993.
       11. Choede: Age: 20. A monk of Yamure monastery. Arrested 
     January 9, 1995.
       12. Choekyi Gyaltsen: Age: 24. A nun of Shar Bumpa 
     monastery. Arrested June 14, 1994. Currently held at Gutsa 
     prison.
       13. Choekyi Vangmo: Age: 20. A nun of Shar Bumpa monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1994. Currently held at Gutsa prison.
       14. Choekyi Tsomo: A nun of Bumthang monastery. Arrested 
     March 13, 1994.
       15. Choenyi Drolma: A nun of Shugsep monastery. Arrested 
     December 9, 1993.
       16. Choephel: A monk arrested October 20, 1993.
       17. Choezom: A nun of Chubsang monastery. Arrested August 
     12, 1992.
       18. Chung Tsering: Age: 30. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested May 13, 1994.
       19. Dakar: Age: 20. A nun of Nagar monastery. Arrested 
     August 17, 1993.
       20. Damchoe Gyaltsen: Age: 24. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 15, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held at Drapchi prison.
       21. Dawa: Age: 21. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     March 20, 1992. Currently held at Gutsa prison.
       22. Dawa: Age: 27. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     March 20, 1992. Currently held at Gutsa prison.
       23. Dawa: Age: 20. A monk of Phurchok monastery. Arrested 
     May 24, 1994.
       24. Dawa Gyaltsen: Age: 17. A monk of Tsepag monastery. 
     Arrested June 4, 1993. Sentenced to five years in prison. 
     Currently held at Drapchi prison.
       25. Dawa Norbu: Age: 19. A monk of Palkhor monastery. 
     Arrested July 3, 1992. Currently held in Gyantse jail.
       26. Dawa Samdup: A monk of Drepung monastery. Arrested 
     between October 16 and 21, 1993. Currently held at Gutsa 
     prison.
       27. Dawa Sonam: Age: 16. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested May, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       28. Dawa Tsering: Age: 22. A monk of Dralhaluphug monastry. 
     Arrested September 30, 1989. Sentenced to 8 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       29. Dekyi Nyima: A nun of Gura monastery. Arrested May 25, 
     1994.
       30. Delo: Age: 23. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     May, 1992. Current held in Gutsa prison.
       31. Dhundup Gyalpo: Age: 17. monk. Arrested June 26, 1993. 
     Sentenced to 3 years in prison. Currently held in Sangyyip 
     prison.
       32. Dondrup Gyatso: Age: 20. A monk of Dranang monestry. 
     Arrested June 6, 1993. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       33. Dondrup: A monk of Rabkung monestry. Arrested September 
     30, 1990.
       34. Dondup: Age: 17. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     May, 1992. Current held in Gutsa prison.
       35. Dorje: Age: 25. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     April 11, 1992. Sentenced to 6-8 years in prison. Currently 
     held in Drapchi prison.
       36. Dorje: Age: 15. A monk of Dunbu monastery. Arrested May 
     30, 1993.
       37. Dorje Tsomo: Age: 18. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested August 12, 1992.
       38. Dradul: Age: 23. A monk of Dunbu monastery. Arrested 
     May 30, 1993.
       39. Drakpa Tsultrim: Age: 41. A monk of Ganden monestry. 
     Arrested March 7, 1988. Sentenced to 8 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       40. Dunrup Yugyal: Age: 23 A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 3, 1993. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       41. Gokyi: Age: 23. A nun of Garu monastery. Arrested June 
     16. 1993. Sentenced to 3-5 years in prison. Currently held in 
     Drapchi prison.
       42. Gyaltsen Choedron: Age: 25. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested August 21, 1990. Sentenced to 9 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       43. Gyaltsen Choezom: Age: 24. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested August 21, 1990. Sentenced to 9 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       44. Gyaltsen Drolkar: Age: 22. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested August 21, 1990. Sentenced to 12 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       45. Gyaltsen Drolma: Age 16. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 9, 1991. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       46. Gyaltsen Kalsang: Age 22. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested March 21, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       47. Gyaltsen Kunga: Age: 23. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1990. Sentenced to 2 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       48. Gyaltsen Kunsang: Age: 22. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 2 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       49. Gyaltsen Kunsang: Age: 25. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested between June 5 and 22, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       50. Gyaltsen Lhagdron: Age: 26. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested August 21, 1990. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       51. Gyaltsen Lhaksam: Age: 25. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested August 21, 1990. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       52. Gyaltsen Lhazom: Age: 25. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 9, 1991. Currently held in Gusta prison.
       53. Gyaltsen Lodroe: Age: 17. A monk of Tsepak monastery. 
     Arrested June 4, 1993. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       54. Gyaltsen Lungrig: Age: 24. A nun of Michungri 
     monastery. Arrested August 12, 1990. Sentenced to 5 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       55. Gyaltsen Nyinyi: Age: 24. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested between June 5 and 22, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       56. Gyaltsen Pema: Age: 17. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 9, 1991. Currently held in Gutsa monastery.
       57. Gyaltsen Sangmo: Age: 24. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 2-3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       58. Gyaltsen Sherab: Age: 25. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested between May 10 and 16, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       59. Gyaltsen Sherab: Age: 19. A nun of Shar Bumpa 
     monastery. Arrested June 14, 1994. Currently held in Gutsa 
     prison.
       60. Gyaltsen Tengye: Age: 21. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested June 20 1994. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       61. Gyaltsen Tsultrim: Age: 22. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested between May 4 and 14, 1993. Sentenced to 4-5 years 
     in prison. Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       62. Gyaltsen Zoepa: Age: 20. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested June 21, 1994.
       63. Jamchok: Age: 28. A monk of Lithang monastery. Arrested 
     August 20, 1993.
       64. Jampa: Age: 26. A monk of Rame monastery. Arrested 
     July, 1992. Currently held in Tsethang jail.
       65. Jampa: Age: 30. A monk of Pomda monastery. Arrested 
     August, 1993.
       66. Jampa Choejor: Age: 16. A monk of Chamdo monastery. 
     Arrested February 8, 1994. Currently being held in Shritang 
     prison.
       67. Jampa Dedrol: Age: 15. A nun of Michungri monastery. 
     Arrested February 13, 1993. Currently being held in Gutsa 
     prison.
       68. Jampa Drolkar: Age: 21. A nun of Nagar monastery. 
     Arrested August 17, 1993.
       69. Jampa Gelek: Age: 18. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 9, 1993.
       70. Jampa Legshe: Age: 27. A monk of Phenpo Naland 
     monastery. Arrested July 3, 1993. Sentenced to 4 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       71. Jampa Rangdrol: Age: 21. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested April 11, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       72. Jampa Tashi: Age: 26. A monk at Serwa monastery. 
     Arrested March 29, 1994. Sentenced to 12 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Powo Tramo prison.
       73. Jampa Tenzin: Age: 20. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested May 6, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       74. Jampa Tenzin: Age: 22. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested May 13, 1992. Sentenced to 2 years in prison. 
     Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       75. Jampa Tseten: Age: 22. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested May 6, 1992. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       76. Jampel Changchub Yugyal: Age: 32. A monk of Drepung 
     monastery. Arrested March or April, 1989. Sentenced to 19
      years in prison. Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       77. Jampel Dorje: Age: 15. A monk of Dunbu monastery. 
     Arrested May 30, 1993. Sentenced to 2 years, 6 months in 
     prison.
       78. Jampel Gendun: Age: 31. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 20, 1992. Sentenced to 9 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       79. Jampel Losel: Age: 27. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested April 27, 1989. Sentenced to 10 years in prison.
       80. Jamyang: Age: 28. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     March 20, 1992. Currently being held in Gutsa prison.
       81. Jamyang Dhondup: Age: 29: A monk of Lithang monastery. 
     Arrested August 20, 1993.
     
[[Page H7280]]

       82. Jamyang Dolma: Age: 23. A nun of Shar monastery. 
     Arrested June 15, 1994.
       83. Jamyang Kunga: Age: 22. A monk of Dunbu monastery. 
     Arrested November 7, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       84. Jigme Dorje: Age: 27. A monk of Serwa monastery. 
     Arrested March 29, 1994. Sentenced to 15 years in prison. 
     Currently being held in Powo Tramo prison.
       85. Jigme Yandron: Age: 24. A nun of Shungsep monastery. 
     Arrested August 28, 1990. Sentenced to 12 years in prison. 
     Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       86. Jigme Yangchen: Age: 23. A nun of Shungsep monastery. 
     Arrested October 1, 1990. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       87. Kagye: A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested May, 1992. 
     Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       88. Kelsang: A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested May, 
     1992.
       89. Kelsang: Age: 16. A monk of Tsepak monastery. Arrested 
     June 3, 1993. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       90. Kelsang Chodak: Age: 20. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested December 15, 1990. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       91. Kelsang Dawa: Age: 21. A monk of Tsome monastery. 
     Arrested May 15, 1992. Sentenced to 3-5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       92. Kelsang Gyaltsen: Age: 25. A monk of Dingka monastery. 
     Arrested March 17, 1991. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       93. Kelsang Phuntsog: Age: 21. A monk of Sera monastery. 
     Arrested August 4, 1991. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       94. Kelsang Thutob: Age: 46. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested April 16, 1989. Sentenced to 18 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       95. Kelsang Tsering: A monk of Dakpo monastery. Arrested 
     January, 1992. Currently held in Medro jail.
       96. Khyentse Legrup: Age: 21. A monk of Chideshol 
     monastery. Arrested November 7, 1992. Sentenced to 3 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       97. Kunchok Tsomo: Age: 15. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 17, 1992. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       98. Kunsang Jampa: Age: 20. A monk of Dakpo monastery. 
     Arrested March 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       99. Legshe Phuntsog: Age: 23. A monk of Phenpo monastery. 
     Arrested July 3, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       100. Lhagyal: Age: 23. A monk of Samye monastery. Arrested 
     between June and September, 1991. Sentenced to 3-4 years in 
     prison. Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       101. Lhaga: Age: 23. A monk of Chideshol monastery. 
     Arrested August 27, 1993. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       102. Lhakpa: Age: 22. A monk of Draglhaluphug monastery. 
     Arrested between October 6 and 25, 1989. Sentenced to 8 years 
     in prison. Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       103. Lhakpa Tsering: Age: 20. A monk of Dunbu monastery. 
     Arrested May 30, 1993.
       104. Lhundrup Monlam: Age: 26. A monk of Palkhor monastery. 
     Arrested March 15 or 16, 1990. Sentenced to 4-5 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       105. Lhundrup Togden: Age: 24. A monk of Palkhor monastery. 
     Arrested December 1989. Sentenced to 14 years in prison. 
     Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       106. Lhundrup Zangmo: Age: 23. A nun of Michungri 
     monastery. Arrested between August 12 and 21, 1990. Sentenced 
     to 9 years in prison. Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       107. Li-Ze: A monk of Dakpo monastery. Arrested January 
     1992. Currently being held in Medro jail.
       108. Lobsang: Age: 28. A monk of Lithang monastery. 
     Arrested August 20, 1993.
       109. Lobsang: Age: 22. A monk of Dunbu monastery. Arrested 
     May 30, 1993.
       110. Lobsang Choedrak: Age: 19. A monk of Sera monastery. 
     Arrested February 23, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       111. Lobsang Choedrag: Age: 18. A monk of Nyemo Gyache 
     monastery. Arrested February 3, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       112. Lobsang Choedrag: Age: 18. A monk of Dakpo monastery. 
     Arrested March 11, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       113. Lobsang Choedrak: Age: 22. A monk of Drak Yerpa 
     monastery. Arrested September 15, 1993.
       114. Lobsang Choedron: Age: 17. A nun of Michungri 
     monastery. Arrested February 3, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa 
     prison.
       115. Lobsang Choedron: Age: 23. A nun of Michungri 
     monastery. Arrested August 22, 1990. Sentenced to 5 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       116. Lobsang Choedron: Age: 22. A nun of Michungri 
     monastery. Arrested August 22, 1990. Sentenced to 5 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       117. Lobsang Choedron: A nun of Bumthang monastery. 
     Arrested March 13, 1994.
       118. Lobsang Choejor: Age: 32. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 7, 1988. Sentenced to 9 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       119. Lobsang Choekyi: Age: 21. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested between June 5 and 22, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       120. Lobsang Choezin: Age: 17. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested June 20, 1994. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       121. Lobsang Dadak: Age: 23. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested September 1989. Sentenced to 9 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       122. Lobsang Dargye: Age: 27. A monk of Ragya monastery. 
     Arrested November 16, 1992.
       123. Lobsang Dargye: Age: 27. A monk of Serwa monastery. 
     Arrested March 29, 1994. Sentenced to 15 years in prison.
       124. Lobsang Dargye: Age: 23. A monk of Sangyak monastery. 
     Arrested between May 11 and 16, 1992. Sentenced to 7 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       125. Lobsang Dargye: A monk of Sangyak monastery. Arrested 
     December 7, 1994.
       125. Lobsang Dolma: Age: 24. A nun of Shar Bumpa monastery. 
     Arrested June 1994.
       126. Lobsang Donyo: Age: 19. A monk of Drak Yerpa 
     monastery. Arrested August 28, 1993. Currently held in Taktse 
     jail.
       127. Lobsang Dorje: Age: 20. A monk of Phurchok monastery. 
     Arrested May 16, 1992. Sentenced to 9 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       128. Lobsang Dradul: Age: 18. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested June 10, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       129. Lobsang Drolma: Age: 22. A nun of Michungri monastery. 
     Arrested February 3, 1992. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       130. Lobsang Drolma: Age: 18. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested between June 5 and 22 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       131. Lobsang Gelek: Age: 22. A monk of Sera monastery. 
     Arrested in November or December 1989. Sentenced to 12 years 
     in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       132. Lobsang Gelek: Age: 23. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested May 6, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       133. Lobsang Gendun: A monk of Sang-ngag monastery. 
     Arrested December 2 or 7, 1993.
       134. Lobsang Gyaltsen: Age: 22. A monk of Nechung 
     monastery. Arrested May 19, 1993.
       135. Lobsang Gyaltsen: Age: 22. A monk of Shelkar 
     monastery. Arrested June 14, 1993.
       136. Lobsang Gyaltsen: Age: 23. A monk of Nechung 
     monastery. Arrested May 19, 1993.
       137. Lobsang Gyaltsen: Age: 19. A monk of Tsepak monastery. 
     Arrested June 4, 1993. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       138. Lobsang Jampa: Age: 23. A nun of Shar Bumpa monastery. 
     Arrested June 1994.
       139. Lobsang Jampa: Age: 29. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 20, 1992. Sentenced to 8 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       140. Lobsang Jampa: Age: 44. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested July 6, 1991. Currently held in Seitru prison.
       141. Lobsang Kalden: A nun of Bumthang monastery. Arrested 
     March 13, 1994.
       142. Lobsang Khedrup: Age: 16. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 20, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       143. Lobsang Legshe: Age: 21. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 20, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prisons. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       144. Lobsang Lodrup: Age: 21. A monk of Phurchok monastery. 
     Arrested May 16, 1992. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       145. Lobsang Lungtok: Age: 23. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 20, 1992. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       146. Lobsang Ngawang: Age: 22. A monk of Dakpo monastery. 
     Arrested between March and May 1992. Sentenced to 8 years in 
     prison. Current held in Drapchi prison.
       147. Lobsang Palden: Age: 21. A monk of Phurbu Chog 
     monastery. Arrested May 16, 1992. Sentenced to 7 years in
      prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       148. Lobsang Palden: Age: 22. A monk of Shelkar monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993.
       149. Lobsang Palden: Age: 32. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 7, 1988. Sentenced to 10 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       150. Lobsang Phuntsog: Age: 22. A monk of Drepung 
     monastery. Arrested August 1991. Sentenced to 4 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       151. Lobsang Samten: Age: 18. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 3, 1993. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       152. Lobsang Sherab: Age: 18. A monk of Purchok retreat. 
     Arrested May 16, 1992. Sentenced to 8 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       153. Lobsang Tashi: Age: 41. A monk of Zitho monastery. 
     Arrested March 4, 1990. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in PoZungma prison.
       154. Lobsang Tengue: A monk of Sera monastery. Arrested in 
     1983. Currently being held in Gutsa prison.
       155. Lobsang Tenzin: Age: 21. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 20, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       156. Lobsang Tenzin: Age: 18. A monk of Sera monastery. 
     Arrested August 14, 1991. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       157. Lobsang Tenzin: A monk of Sang-ngag monastery. 
     Arrested December 2 or 7, 1994. Currently held in Taktse 
     prision.
       158. Lobsang Thargye: A monk of Sand Nak Kha monastery. 
     Arrested May 16, 1992.
     
[[Page H7281]]

       159. Lobsang Thupten: Age: 16. A monk of Purchok monastery. 
     Arrested August 5, 1992.
       160. Lobsang Thupten: Age: 32. A monk of Sera monastery. 
     Arrested July 6, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa monastery.
       161. Lobsang Trinley: A monk of Dakpo monastery. Arrested 
     January 6, 1992. Currently held in Medro jail.
       162. Lobsang Tsegye: Age: 27. A monk of Serwa monastery. 
     Arrested March 29, 1994. Sentenced to 15 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Powo Tramo prison.
       163. Lobsang Tsondru: A monk of Drepung monastery. Arrested 
     1990. Sentenced to 6-7 years in prison. Currently held in 
     Drapchi prison.
       164. Lobsang Yangzom: A nun of Bumthang monastery. Arrested 
     March 13, 1994.
       165. Lobsang Yarphel: Age: 20. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested between June 10 and 13, 1992. Sentenced to 7 years 
     in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       166. Lobsang Yeshe: Age: 18. A nun of Shar Bumpa monastery. 
     Arrested June 1994.
       167. Lobsang Yeshe: Age: 21. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 20, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       168. Lobsang Zoepa: Age: 19. A monk of Dakpo monastery. 
     Arrested August 22, 1992. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       169. Loden: Age: 51 A monk of Gyu-me monastery. Arrested 
     March 1993.
       170. Lodro Pema: A nun of Shungsep monastery. Arrested 
     December 9, 1993.
       171. Migmar: Age: 17. A monk of Dunbu monastery. Arrested 
     May 30. 1993.
       172. Migmar: Age: 27 A monk of Dunbu monastery. Arrested 
     May 30, 1993.
       173. Migmar Tsering: Age: 20. A monk of Dunbu monastry. 
     Arrested May 30. 1993.
       174. Namdrol Lhamo: Age 28. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested May 12, 1992. Sentenced to 12 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       175. Namgyal Ghoedron: A nun of Shungsep monastery. 
     Arrested December 9, 1993.
       176. Ngawang Bumchok: Age: 22. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested June 15, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi Prison.
       177. Ngawang Chendrol: Age: 18. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       178. Ngawang Chenma: Age: 24. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 5, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       179. Ngawang Chime: Age: 19. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       180. Ngawang Choedrak: A monk and Chant master. Arrested 
     April 1993.
       181. Ngawang Choedron: A nun of Choebup monastery. Arrested 
     June 28, 1993.
       182. Ngawang Choekyi: Age: 23. A nun of Toelung monastery. 
     Arrested May 14, 1993. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       183. Ngawang Choekyi: Age: 21. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       184. Ngawang Choenyi: Age: 20. A monk of Kyemolong 
     monastery. Arrested May 8, 1993. Sentenced to 4 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       185. Ngawang Choekyong: A monk of Sang-Ngag monastery. 
     Arrested between December 2 and 7, 1994. Currently held in 
     Taktse prison.
       186. Ngawang Choephel: Age: 29. A monk of Lithang 
     monastery. Arrested August 20, 1993.
       187. Ngawang Choeshe: Age: 24. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested May 13, 1992. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       188. Ngawang Choezom: Age: 22. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested March 21, 1993. Sentenced to 11 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       189. Ngawang Choglang: Age: 25. A monk of Sungrabling 
     monastery. Arrested June 28, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in 
     prison. Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       190. Ngawang Dadrol: Age: 17. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested between June 15 and 22, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years 
     in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       191. Ngawang Dawa: Age: 16. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested September 9, 1991. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       192. Ngawang Debam: Age: 24. A monk of Sera monastery. 
     Arrested August 8, 1991. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       193. Ngawang Dedrol: Age: 23. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested May 14, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       194. Ngawang Dedrol: Age: 24. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       195. Ngawang Dipsel: A monk of Drepung monastery. Sentenced 
     to 4 years in prison. Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       196. Ngawang Dorje: Age: 21. A monk of Shedrupling 
     monastery. Arrested August 12, 1992. Sentenced to 3 years in 
     prison. Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       197. Ngawang Drolma: Age: 18. A nun of Michungri monastery. 
     Arrested March 13, 1993. Currently held in Gusta prison.
       198. Ngawang Gomchen: Age: 20. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested August 1991. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       199. Ngawang Gyaltsen: Age: 21. A monk of Sera monastery. 
     Arrested May 3, 1991. A monk of Gutsa prison.
       200. Ngawang Gyaltsen: Age: 36. A monk of Drepung 
     monastery. Arrested April 4, 1989. Sentenced to 17 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       201. Ngawang Gyatso: A nun of Toelung monastery. Arrested 
     May 13, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       202. Ngawang Jamchen: Age: 24. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested September 27, 1991. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       203. Ngawang Jigme: Age 17. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested in September or October 1991. Sentenced to 6 years 
     in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       204. Ngawang Jigme: Age: 20. A monk of Medro monastery. 
     Arrested June 6, 1993. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       205. Ngawang Jinpa: A monk of Sang-Ngag monastery. Arrested 
     between December 2 and 7, 1994.
       206. Ngawang Keldron: Age: between 19 and 22. A nun of Garu 
     monastery. Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in 
     prison.
       207. Ngawang Kelsang: A nun of Nyemo Gyaltse monastery. 
     Arrested June 1993.
       208. Ngawang Kelzom: Age: 24. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 2-5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       209. Ngawang Kelzom: Age: 24. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 2 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       210. Ngawang Khedup: Age: 24. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested June 15, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       211. Ngawang Kunsang: Age: 26. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested in January or February 1990. Sentenced to 14 years 
     in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       212. Ngawang Kunsel: Age: 20. A nun of a Garu monastery. 
     Arrested May 25, 1994.
       213. Ngawang Kyema: Age: 23. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 22, 1993. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       214. Ngawang Lamchen: Age: 23. A monk of Sungrabling 
     monastery. Arrested June 28, 1993.
       215. Ngawang Lamchung: Age: 22. A monk of Kyemolung 
     monastery. Arrested December 12, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years 
     in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       216. Ngawang Lamdrol: Age: 19. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested May 25, 1994.
       217. Ngawang Ledoe: A monk of Sera monastery. Arrested 
     1983. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       218. Ngawang Legsang: Age: 22. A monk of Kyormolong 
     monastery. Arrested 28, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       219. Ngawang Legshe: Age: 22. A monk of Kingka monastery. 
     Arrested March 17, 1991. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       220. Ngawang Legyon: A monk of Sang-Ngag monastery. 
     Arrested December 2 or 7, 1994.
       221. Ngawang Lhaksam: Age: 24. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested May 13, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       222. Ngawang Lhundrup: Age: 22. A monk of Kingka monastery. 
     Arrested April 1991. Sentenced to 6 years in prison.
      Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       223. Ngawang Lhundrup: Age: 33. A monk of Drepung 
     monastery. Arrested May 16, 1991. Currently held in Gutsa 
     prison.
       224. Ngawang Lhundrup: Age: 19. A monk of Shedrupling 
     monastery. Arrested August 12, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa 
     prison.
       225. Ngawang Lobsang: Age: 23. A nun of Phenpo Namkar 
     monastery. Arrested July 16, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       226. Ngawang Lochoe: Age: 23. A nun of Toelung monastery. 
     Arrested May 14, 1992. Sentenced to 10 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       227. Ngawang Losel: A monk of Sang-Ngag monastery. Arrested 
     between December 2 and 7, 1994. Currently held in Taktse 
     prison.
       228. Ngawang Losel: A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     June 4, 1993.
       229. Ngawang Lungtok: Age: 19. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested May 13, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       230. Ngawang Namdrol: Age: 23. A nun of Toelung monastery. 
     Arrested May 14, 1992. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       231. Ngawang Namling: Age: 28. A monk of Drugyal monastery. 
     Arrested June 27, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       232. Ngawang Ngondron: A nun of Toelung monastery. Arrested 
     May 13, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       233. Ngawang Ngon-Kyen: Age: 19. A monk of Nyethang 
     monastery. Arrested between May 7 and 31, 1994.
       234. Ngawang Nordrol: Age: 23. A nun of Samdrup Drolma 
     monastery. Arrested May 14, 1992. Sentenced to 7 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       235. Ngawang Nyidrol: Age: 23. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested July 6, 1992. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       236. Ngawang Nyima: Age: 23. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested between June 5 and 22, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in 
     prison. Currently being held in Drapchi prison.
       237. Ngawang Nyima: Age: 22. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested May 14, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       238. Ngawang Oeser: Age: 22. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested April 16, 1989. 

[[Page H7282]]
     Sentenced to 17 years in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       239. Ngawang Palden: Age: 28. A monk of Dunbu monastery. 
     Arrested August 28, 1992. Sentenced to up to 10 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       240. Ngawang Palgon: Age: 33. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested June 15, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       241. Ngawang Palmo: Age: 22. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       242. Ngawang Palsang: Age: 20. A monk of Medro monastery. 
     Arrested June 6, 1993. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       243. Ngawang Pekar: Age: 29. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested March 1989. Sentenced to 8 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       244. Ngawang Pelkyi: Age: 18. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 22, 1992. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Trisam prison.
       245. Ngawang Pema: A nun of Bumthang monastery. Arrested 
     March 13, 1994.
       246. Ngawang Pemo: Age: 22. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       247. Ngawang Phulchung: Age: 34. A monk of Drepung 
     monastery. Arrested April 16, 1989. Sentenced to 16 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       248. Ngawang: Age: 21. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested May 15, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       249. Ngawang Phuntsog: Age: 22. A nun of Toelung monastery. 
     Arrested May 14, 1992. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       250. Ngawang Phurdron: A nun of Toelung monastery. Arrested 
     May 13, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       251. Ngawnag Rabjor: Age: 20. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested September 27, 1991. Sentenced to six years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       252. Ngawang Rigdrol: Age: 21. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested between June 5 and 22, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       253. Ngawang Rigdrol: Age: 22. A nun of Phenpo Namkar 
     monastery. Arrested July 17, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       254. Ngawang Rigzin: Age: 29. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested April 1989. Sentenced to 9 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       255. Ngawang Samdrup: Age: 18. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 17, 1992. Sentenced to 9 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       256. Ngawang Samten: Age: 20. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 5, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       257. Ngawang Samten: Age: 22. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested between March 9 and 11, 1991. Sentenced to 4 years 
     in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       258. Ngawang Sangden: A nun of Bumthang monastery. Arrested 
     March 13, 1994.
       259. Ngawang Sangdrol: Age: 18. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 17, 1992. Sentenced to 9 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       260. Ngawang Sangye: A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     March 9, 1993. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       261. Ngawang Shenyen: Age: 25. A monk of Kyemolung 
     monastery. Arrested March 18, 1989. Sentenced to 6 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       262. Ngawang Sherab: Age: 23. A monk of Kyemolung 
     monastery. Arrested June 16, 1993. Sentenced to 4 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       263. Ngawang Sherab: Age: 24. A monk of Jamchen monastery. 
     Arrested March 11, 1992. Sentenced to up to 10 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       264. Ngawang Sonam: Age: 21. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       265. Ngawang Songtsen: Age: 24. A monk of Jokhang 
     monastery. Arrested March 1989. Sentenced to 7 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       266. Ngawang Sothar: Age: 23. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested May 13, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       267. Ngawang Sungrab: Age: 20. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested September 27, 1991. Sentenced to 10 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       268. Ngawang Tendrol: Age: 18. A nun of Toelung Ngengon 
     monastery. Arrested May 14, 1992. Sentenced to 3 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       269. Ngawang Tengye: Age: 23. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested May 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. Currently 
     held in Drapchi prison.
       270. Ngawang Tenrab: Age: 37. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested March 16, 1992. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       271. Ngawang Tensang: Age: 21. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested September 14, 1991. Sentenced to 10 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       272. Ngawang Tenzin: Age: 23. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested May 16, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       273. Ngawang Tenzin: Age: 18. A monk of Kyemolung 
     monastery. Arrested February 19, 1992. Currently held in 
     Gutsa prison.
       274. Ngawang Tenzin: Age: 21. A monk of Kyemolung 
     monastery. Arrested March 18, 1989. Sentenced to 8 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       275. Ngawang Thoglam: A monk of Sang-Ngag monastery. 
     Arrested December 2 or 7, 1994. Currently held in Taktse 
     prison.
       276. Ngawang Thupten: Age: 18. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested May 29, 1993.
       277. Ngawang Thupten: Age: 19. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested September 10, 1991. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       278. Ngawang Trinley: Age: 27. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested May 13, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       279. Ngawang Tsamdrol: Age: 21. A nun of Toelung monastery. 
     Arrested May 14, 1992. Sentenced to a total of 10 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       280. Ngawang Tsangpa: Age: 21. A monk of Nyethang 
     monastery. Arrested between May 27 and 31, 1994.
       281. Ngawang Tsedrol: Age: 22. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested May 14, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       282. Ngawang Tsondru: Age: 23. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested June 1, 1993. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       283. Ngawang Tsondru: Age: 26. A monk of Dingka monastery. 
     Arrested March 17, 1991. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       284. Ngawang Tsultrim: Age: 24. A monk of Kyemolung 
     monastery. Arrested March 18, 1989. Sentenced to 6 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       285. Ngawang Tsultrim: A monk of Sera monastery. Arrested 
     May 1993.
       286. Ngawang Wangmo: A nun of Chubsang monastery. Arrested 
     May 14, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       287. Ngawang Woeser: Age: 28. A monk of Dingka monastery. 
     Arrested March 1991. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       288. Ngawang Yangchen: Age: 22. A nun of Chubsang 
     monastery. Arrested August 12, 1992. Sentenced to 3 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       289. Ngawang Yangdrol: Age: 23. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       290. Ngawang Yangkyi: A nun of Tsangkhung monastery. 
     Arrested August 21, 1990. Currently held at Drapchi hospital.
       291. Ngawang Yangkyi: Age: 22. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 4, 1993. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       292. Ngawang Yeshe: Age: 22. A monk of Serkhang monastery. 
     Arrested February 11, 1992. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       293. Ngawang Zangpo: Age: 20. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested August 1991. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       294. Ngawang Zoepa: Age: 25. A monk of Rong Jamchen 
     monastery. Arrested between September 11 and 19, 1992. 
     Sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. Currently held in 
     Drapchi prison.
       295. Ngawang Zoepa: Age: 28. A monk of Dingka monastery. 
     Arrested March 17, 1991. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       296. Norbu: Age: 20. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     March 9, 1993. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. Currently held 
     in Drapchi prison.
       297. Norbu: Age: 20. A monk of Yamure monastery. Arrested 
     January 11, 1995.
       298. Norgye: Age: 23. A monk of Rong Jamchen monastery. 
     Arrested September 19, 1992. Sentenced to 4-5 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       299. Norzang: Age: 15. A monk of Dunbu monastery. Arrested 
     May 30, 1993.
       300. Norzin: A nun of Shungsep monastery. Arrested December 
     9, 1993.
       301. Nyidrol: A nun of Chubsang monastery. Arrested May 14, 
     1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       302. Nyima: Age: 28. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     April 2, 1994.
       303. Nyima: Age: 18. A monk of Phurchok monastery. Arrested 
     May 24, 1994.
       304. Nyima Gyaltsen: Age: 23. A monk of Tsepak monastery. 
     Arrested June 4, 1993. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       305. Nyima Tenzin: Age: 27. A monk of Pangpa monastery. 
     Arrested December 29, 1993.
       306. Nyima Tsamchoe: Age: 25. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 22, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       307. Palden Choedron: Age: 19. A nun of Shungsep monastery. 
     Arrested October 1, 1990. Sentenced to 9 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       308. Pasang: Age: 24. A monk of Dunbu monastery. Arrested 
     May 30, 1993.
       309. Pasang: A monk of Dakpo monastery. Arrested January 
     1992. Currently held in Medro jail.
       310. Pasang: Age: 15. A monk of Tsepak monastery. Arrested 
     June 3, 1993. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       311. Passang: A monk of Drepung monastery. Arrested June 
     1993.
       312. Pema Drolkar: Age: 18. A nun of Michungri monastery. 
     Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       313. Pema Oeser: Age: 16. A nun of Nagar monastery. 
     Arrested August 17, 1993.
       314. Pema Tsering: Age: 23. A monk of Serwa monastery. 
     Arrested March 29, 1994. 

[[Page H7283]]
     Sentenced to 15 years in prison. Currently held in Powo Tramo prison.
       315. Pendron: A nun of Shungsen. Arrested December 12, 
     1993.
       316. Penpa: Age: 20. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     March 9, 1993. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. Currently held 
     in Drapchi prison.
       317. Penpa: Age: 19. A monk of Dunbu monastery. Arrested 
     May 30, 1993.
       318. Penpa: Age: 21. A monk of Sungrabling monastery. 
     Arrested July 4, 1993. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       319. Penpa: Age: 22. A monk of Sungrabling monastery. 
     Arrested July 4, 1993. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       320. Penpa Wangmo: Age: 20. A nun of Michungri monastery. 
     Arrested February 13, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       321. Pepar: Age: 21. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     May 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       322. Phetho: Age: 21. A nun of Chubsang monastery. Arrested 
     August 18, 1991. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       323. Phuntsog: Age: 21. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested May 13, 1992. Sentenced to 8 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       324. Phuntsog Changsem: Age: 18. A monk of Drepung 
     Monastery. Arrested September 14, 1991. Sentenced to 8 years 
     in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       325. Phuntsog Chenga: Age: 22. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       326. Phutsog Choedrag: A monk of Sang-Ngag monastery. 
     Arrested December 2 or 7, 1994.
       327. Phutsog Choejor: A monk of Sang-Ngag monastery. 
     Arrested December 2 or 7, 1994.
       328. Phutsog Choekyi: Age: 22. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 6-7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       329. Phuntsog Dadak: A monk of Drepung monastery. Arrested 
     May 13, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. Currently held 
     in Gutsa prison.
       330. Phuntsog Demei: Age: 22. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested May 13, 199?. Sentenced to 8 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       331. Phuntsog Dondrup: Age: 17. A monk of Drepung 
     monastery. Arrested September 10, 1991. Sentenced to 4 years 
     in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       332. Phuntsog Gonpo: Age: 19. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested September 14, 1991. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       333. Phuntsog Gyaltsen: Age: 26. A monk of Ganden 
     monastery. Arrested March 7, 1988. Sentenced to 12 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       334. Phuntsog Jigdral: A monk of Sang-Ngag monastery. 
     Arrested December 2 or 7, 1994. Currently held in Taktse 
     prison.
       335. Phuntsog Jorchu: Age: 26. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested August 1991. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       336. Phuntsog Legsang: Age: 21. A monk of Drepung 
     monastery. Arrested May 13, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       337. Phuntsog Lochoe: Age: 24. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested March 21, 1992. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       338. Phuntsog Lhundrup: A monk of Sang-Ngag monastery. 
     Arrested December 2 or 7, 1994.
       339. Phuntsog Namgyal: Age: 23. A monk of Drepung 
     monastery. Arrested May 13, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       340. Phuntsog Nyidron: Age: 23. A nun of Michungri 
     monastery. Arrested between October and December 1990. 
     Sentenced to a total of 17 years in prison. Currently held in 
     Drapchi prison.
       341. Phuntsog Nyimgbu: A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested October 1993. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       342. Phuntsog Pema: Age 23. A nun of Michungri monastery. 
     Arrested between October and December 1990. Sentenced to 8 
     years in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       343. Phuntsog Peyang: Age 27. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested May 25, 1994.
       344. Phuntsog Rigchog: Age 28. A monk of Nyethang 
     monastery. Arrested May 31, 1994.
       345. Phuntsog Samten: Age 24. A monk of Nyethang monastery. 
     Arrested September 4, 1991. Sentenced to 10 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       346. Phuntsog Samten: Age 23. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested May 13, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       347. Phuntsog Segyi: Age 22. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested May 13, 1992. Sentenced to 8 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       348. Phuntsog Seldrag: Age 17. A monk of Nyethang 
     monastery. Arrested May 31, 1994.
       349. Phuntsog Tendon: Age 14. A monk of Nyethang monastery. 
     Arrested May 31, 1994.
       350. Phuntsog Thoesam: Age 23. A monk of Nyethang 
     monastery. Arrested June 1, 1993. Sentenced to 7 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       351. Phuntsog Thrinden: Age 19. A monk of Nyethang 
     monastery. Arrested May 31, 1994.
       352. Phuntsog Thubten: Age 30. A monk of Rame monastery. 
     Arrested June 12, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       353. Thuntog Thutop: Age 20. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested September 14, 1991. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       354. Phuntsog Tsamchoe: Age 22. A nun of Chubsang 
     monastery. Arrested March 3, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       355. Phuntsog Tsering: Age 20. A monk of Nyethang 
     monastery. Arrested September 4, 1991. Sentenced to 5 years 
     in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       356. Phuntsog Tsomo: Age 19. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested May 25, 1994.
       357. Phuntsog Tsungme: Age 21. A monk of Sera monastery. 
     Arrested May 26, 1991. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       358. Phuntsog Wangden: Age 23. A monk of Nyethang 
     monastery. Arrested September 4, 1991. Sentenced to 5 years 
     in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       359. Phuntsog Wangdu: Age 25. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested June 18, 1993.
       360. Phuntsog Wangmo: Age 21. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested May 25, 1994.
       361. Phuntsog Zoepa: Age 19. A monk of Nyethang monastery. 
     Arrested May 31, 1994.
       362. Phurbu: Age 19. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     October 10, 1989. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. Currently 
     held in Drapchi prison.
       363. Phurbu: Age 23. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     September 30, 1989. Sentenced to a total of 9 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       364. Phurbu: Age 16. A monk of Tsepak monastery. Arrested 
     June 3, 1993. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       365. Phurbu Tashi: Age 15. A monk of Dunbu monastery. 
     Arrested May 30, 1993. Sentenced to 2 years, 6 months in 
     prison.
       366. Phurbu Tashi: Age. 20. A monk of Pangpa monastery. 
     Arrested December 29, 1993.
       367. Phurbu Tsamchoe: A nun of Tsangkhung monastery. 
     Arrested June 10, 1991. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       368. Phurbu Tsering: A monk of Tashi Lhunpo monastery. 
     Arrested June 15, 1993.
       369. Rigzin Choekyi: Age: 24. A nun of Shungsepmonastery. 
     Arrested August 1990. Sentenced to 12 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       370. Rigzin Tsondru: A nun of Shungsep monastery. Arrested 
     December 9, 1993.
       371. Rinchen Drolma: Age: 23. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993. Sentenced to 2-4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison. Currently held in Drapchi 
     prison.
       372. Rinchen Sangmo: Age: 20. A nun of Garu monastery. 
     Arrested June 22, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       373. Samten Choesang: Age: 20. A nun of Phenpo Namkar 
     monastery. Arrested July 16, 1993. Sentenced to 6 years in 
     prison.
       374. Samten Sangmo: Age: 20. A nun of Phenpo Namkar. 
     Arrested July 16, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       375. Seldroen: Age: 17. A nun of Shar Bumpa monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1994. Currently held in Guta prison.
       376. Shenyen Logsang: A monk of Kyemolung monastery. 
     Arrested June 16, 1993.
       377. Sherabl Drolma: A nun of Shungsep monastery. Arrested 
     December 9, 1993.
       378. Sherab Ngawang: Age: 12. A nun of Michungri monastery. 
     Arrested February 3, 1992. Sentended to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Trisam prison.
       379. Shilok: Age: 33. A monk of Dunbu monastery. Arrested 
     March 30, 1992. Currently held in Tsethang prison.
       380. Sodor: Age: 20. A monk of Lhoka monastery. Arrested 
     August 16, 1989. Sentenced to a total of 7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       381. Sonam: A monk of Drak Yerpa monastery. Arrested August 
     1994. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. Currently held in 
     Drapchi prison.
       382. Sonam Bagdro: Age: 24. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 20, 1992. Sentenced to Gutsa prison.
       383. Sonam Choephel: Age: 12. A monk of Cunbu monastery. 
     Arrested May 30, 1993. Sentenced to 3 years in prison.
       384. Sonam Drolkar: A nun of Dechen Khul monastery. 
     Arrested May 16, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       385. Sonam Gyalpo: A monk of Tashilhunpo monastery. 
     Arrested July 1, 1993.
       386. Sonam Tenzin: A monk of Dakpo. Arrested January 1992. 
     Currently held in Medro jail.
       387. Sonam Tsering: Age: 20. A monk of Yamure monastery. 
     Arrested January 11, 1995.
       388. Sotop: Age: 23. A monk of Sungrabling monastery. 
     Arrested March 1989. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       389. Tapsang: Age: 22. A nun of Sungsep monastery. 
     Sentenced to 5 years in prison. Currently held in Gutsa 
     prison.
       390. Tashi Dawa: A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested May 
     1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       391. Tendar Phuntsog: Age: 62. A monk of Potala monastery. 
     Arrested March 8, 1989. Sentenced to up to 10 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       392. Tenpa Wangdrag: Age: 49. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 7, 1988. Sentenced to 14 years in prison.
      Currently held in Powo Tramo prison.
       393. Tenzin: Age: 23. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     June 1, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. Currently held 
     in Drapchi prison.
     
[[Page H7284]]

       394. Tenzin: Age: 20. A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested 
     May 7, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. Currently held 
     in Drapchi prison.
       395. Tenzin: Age: 24. A monk of Bu Gon monastery. Arrested 
     January 13, 1994.
       396. Tenzin Choekyi: Age: 19. A nun of Michungri monastery. 
     Arrested March 11, 1993.
       397. Tenzin Choekyi: A nun of Choebup monastery. Arrested 
     June 28, 1993.
       398. Tenzin Choephel: Age: 16. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 9, 1993. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       399. Tenzin Dekyong: Age: 15. A nun of Michungri monastery. 
     Arrested March 13, 1993. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       400. Tenzin Dradul: Age: 18. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 9, 1993. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       401. Tanzin Drakpa: Age: 23. A monk of Dakpo monastery. 
     Arrested December 6, 1991. Sentenced to 8 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       402. Tenzin Dragpa: Age: 24. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested June 10, 1992. Sentenced to 8 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       403. Tenzin Kunsang: A nun of Bumthang monastery. Arrested 
     March 12, 1994.
       404. Tenzin Namdrak: Age: 23. A monk of Phakmo monastery. 
     Arrested August 13, 1993. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       405. Tenzin Ngawang: Age: 21. A nun of Michungri monastery. 
     Arrested between August 12 and 21, 1990. Sentenced up to 5 
     years in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       406. Tenzin Phuntsog: Age: 24. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 20, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       407. Tenzin Rabten: Age: 21. A monk of Shelkar monastery. 
     Arrested June 14, 1993.
       408. Tenzin Thupten: Age: 20. A nun of Michungri monastery. 
     Arrested between August 12 and 21, 1990. Sentenced up to 14 
     years in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       409. Tenzin Trinley: Age: 23. A monk of Dunbu monastery. 
     Arrested November 7, 1992. Sentenced to 3-4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       410. Tenzin Wangdu: Age: 19. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested between June 10 and 13, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years 
     in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       411. Thapke: Age: 17. A monk of Dunbu monastery. Arrested 
     May 30, 1993.
       412. Tharpa: Age: 17. A monk of Phurchok monastery. 
     Arrested May 24, 1994.
       413. Thupten Geleg: Age: 16. A monk of Nyethang monastery. 
     Arrested May 31, 1994.
       414. Thupten Kelsang: Age: 18. A monk of Phurchok 
     monastery. Arrested May 16, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       415. Thupten Kelsang: Age: 19. A monk of Lo monastery. 
     Arrested May 4, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       416. Thupten Kunga: Age: 70. A monk of Rong Jamchen 
     monastery. Arrested April 10, 1992.
       417. Thupten Kunkhyen: Age: 17. A monk of Chideshol 
     monastery. Arrested November 7, 1992. Sentenced to 3 years in
      prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       418. Thupten Kunphel: A monk of Drepung monastery. Arrested 
     March 20, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       419. Thupten Monlam: Age: 20. A monk of Dunbu monastery. 
     Arrested August 8, 1992. Sentenced to up to 10 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       420. Thupten Phuntsog: Age: 26. A monk of Rame monastery. 
     Arrested June 22, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in prison.
       421. Thupten Tsering: Age: 25. A monk of Sera monastery. 
     Arrested May 19, 1993. Currently held in Seitru prison.
       422. Thupten Tsondru: Age: 23. A monk of Chideshol 
     monastery. Arrested April 6, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       423. Topgyal: Age: 21. A monk of Bu Gon monastery. Arrested 
     February 1994.
       424. Trinley Choedron: Age: 18. A monk of Drepung 
     monastery. Arrested May 13, 1995. Sentenced to 3 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       425. Trinley Choezom: Age: 18. A nun of Michungri 
     monastery. Arrested February 3, 1992. Sentenced to 5 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       426. Trinley Gyaltsen: Age: 16. A monk of Tsepak monastery. 
     Arrested June 4, 1993. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       427. Trinley Gyamtso: Age: 24. A monk of Labrang monastery. 
     Arrested September 1994.
       428. Trinly Tenzin: A monk of Drepung monastery. Arrested 
     either May 12 or 13, 1992. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       429. Tsamchoe: A nun of Garu monastery. Arrested June 1, 
     1992.
       430. Tsamchoe: Age: 19. A nun of Nagar monastery. Arrested 
     August 17, 1993.
       431. Tsering: Age: 20. A monk of Dunbu monastery. Arrested 
     between September and November 1992.
       432. Tsering: A nun of Michungri monastery. Arrested March 
     11, 1993.
       433. Tsering: Age: 23. A monk of Lhodrak monastery. 
     Arrested June 28, 1993.
       434. Tsering Choedron: A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested May 14, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       435. Tsering Choedron: A nun of Shungsep monastery. 
     Arrested December 11, 1992.
       436. Tsering Choekyi: A nun of Sungsep monastery. Arrested 
     December 12, 1992.
       437. Tsering Donden: Age: 26. A monk of Dunbu monastery. 
     Arrested May 30, 1993.
       438. Tsering Dondrup: Age: 25. A monk of Nyethang 
     monastery. Arrested September 4, 1991. Sentenced to 5 years 
     in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       439. Tsering Phuntsog: Age: 26. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested March 20, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       440. Tsering Phuntsog: Age: 24. A monk of Palkhor 
     monastery. Arrested in July or August 1990. Sentenced to 13 
     years in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       441. Tsering Samdrup: Age: 21. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested June 19, 1994. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       442. Tsering Tashi: Age: 20. A monk of Sera monastery. 
     Arrested May 26, 1991. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       443. Tseten: Age: 22. A nun of Garu monastery. Arrested 
     January 1990. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. Currently held 
     in Drapchi prison.
       444. Tseten Ngodrup: Age: 19. A monk of Phagmo monastery. 
     Arrested August 13, 1993. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       445. Tseten Nyima: A monk of Ganden monastery. Arrested May 
     1992.
       446. Tseten Samdup: Age: 17. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested May 1992.
       447. Tsetob: Age: 28. A monk of Bu Gon monastery. Arrested 
     January 13, 1994.
       448. Tsetse: Age: 47. A monk of Bu Gon monastery. Arrested 
     January 13, 1994. Currently held in Chamdo prison.
       449. Tsultrim Donden: Age: 23. A monk of Drepung monastery. 
     Arrested May 12, 1992. Sentenced to 4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       450. Tsultrim Gyaltsen: Age: 23. A monk of Sungrabling 
     monastery. Arrested July 5, 1993.
       451. Tsultrim Nyima: Age: 21. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested May 1992. Currently held in Gutsa monastery.
       452. Tsultrim Sherab: Age: 19. A monk of Sungrabling 
     monastery. Arrested July 5, 1993.
       453. Tsultrim Tharchin: A nun of Shungsep monastery. 
     Arrested December 11, 1993.
       454. Tsultrim Topgyal: Age: 20. A monk of Sungrabling 
     monastery. Arrested June 28, 1993.
       455. Tsultrim Zangmo: Age: 23. A nun of Shar Bumpa 
     monastery. Arrested June 14, 1994.
       456. Tsultrim Zoepa: Age: 23. A monk of Sungrabling 
     monastery. Arrested July 5, 1993.
       456. Walgon Tsering: A monk of Qinghai monastery. Arrested 
     September 1994. Currently held in Hainan County prison.
       457. Wangdu: Age: 22. A monk of Jokhang monastery. Arrested 
     March 8, 1989. Sentenced to a total of 8 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       458. Yangdron: A nun of Shungsep monastery. Arrested 
     December 11, 1993.
       459. Yangzom: Age: 23. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested March 21, 1992. Currently held in Gutsa prison.
       460. Yeshe Choezang: A nun of Shungsep monastery. Arrested 
     December 11, 1993.
       461. Yeshe Dolma: Age: 28. A nun of Shar Bumpa monastery. 
     Arrested June 15, 1994.
       462. Yeshe Drolma: Age 24. A nun of Chubsang monastery. 
     Arrested August 12, 1992. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       463. Yeshe Dradul: Age: 24. A monk of Sungrabling 
     monastery. Arrested March 13, 1989. Sentenced to 5-6 years in 
     prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       464. Yeshe Jamyang: Age: 19. A monk of Serkhang monastery. 
     Arrested February 11, 1992. Sentenced to 3-4 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       465. Yeshe Jinpa: Age: 20. A monk of Sungrabling monastery. 
     Arrested June 28, 1993.
       466. Yeshe Kalsang: Age: 20. A monk of Gyaldoe monastery. 
     Arrested June 6, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       467. Yeshe Khedrup: Age: 20. A monk of Ganden monastery. 
     Arrested May 6, 1992. Sentenced to 6 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       468. Yeshe Kunsang: A nun of Shungsep monastery. Arrested 
     December 11, 1993.
       469. Yeshe Ngawang: Age: 22. A monk of Sungrabling 
     monastery. Arrested March 13, 1989. Sentenced to a total of 
     14 years in prison. Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       470. Yeshe Samten: Age: 22. A monk of Kyemolong monastery. 
     Arrested June 19, 1993. Sentenced to 5 years in prison. 
     Currently held in Drapchi prison.
       471. Yeshe Tsondu: A nun of Shungsep monastery. Arrested 
     December 12, 1993.
     July 3, 1995

                 [Primary Source: The Puebla Institute]

              Protestants Imprisoned and Detained in China

       1. Dai Gullang: Age: 45. Arrested August 25, 1993. 
     Sentenced without trial to three years' ``reform through 
     labor.'' Currently held in Xuancheng Labor Camp, Anhui 
     province.
       2. Dai Lanmei: Age: 27. Arrested August 25, 1993. Sentenced 
     without trial to two years' ``reform through labor.'' 
     Currently held in Xuancheng Labor Camp, Anhui province.
       3. Fan Zhi: Arrested after August 1991.
       4. Ge Xinliang: Age: 27. Arrested August 25, 1993. 
     Sentenced without trial to two years' ``reform through 
     labor.''
       5. Guo Mengshan: Age: 41. Arrested July 20, 1993. Sentenced 
     without trial to three years' ``reform through labor.'' 
     Reportedly held at Xuancheng Labor Camp, Anhui province.
       6. Jiang Huaifeng: Age: 61. Arrested late September 1994. 
     Sentenced to two years' ``reeducation through labor.'' 
     Currently detained at Xuancheng Coal Mine Labor Reform Camp 
     in southern Anhui.
     
[[Page H7285]]

       7. Leng Zhaoqing: Arrested after August 1991.
       8. Li Haochen: Arrested September 1993. Reportedly 
     sentenced to three years' ``reform through labor.'' 
     Originally held in Mengcheng county prison, but current 
     whereabouts are unknown.
       9. Liu Wenjie: Arrested July 20, 1993. Length of sentence 
     unknown. Reportedly detained in Xuancheng Labor Camp, Anhui 
     province.
       10. Wang Yao Hua: Age: early 30s. Arrested 1993. Sentenced 
     to three years' ``reeducation through labor.''
       11. Wang Dabao: Arrested after August 1991.
       12. Xu Hanrong: Arrested after August 1991.
       13. Yang Mingfen: Arrested after August 1991.
       14. Xu Fanian: Age: 51. Arrested late September 1994. 
     Sentenced to two years' ``reeducation through labor.'' 
     Currently detained in Xuancheng Coal Mine Labor Reform Camp, 
     southern Anhui.
       15. Zheng Shaoying: Arrested after August 1991.
       16. Zhang Guanchun: Arrested after August 1991.
       17. Zhang Jiuzhong: Arrested in 1993. Sentenced to two 
     years' ``reform through labor.''
       18. Zheng Lanyun: Arrested July 20, 1993. Reportedly 
     detained in Xuancheng Labor Camp, Anhui province.
       19. Gou Qinghui: Arrested June 3, 1994. Detained in 
     Beijing.
       20. Wang Huamin: Arrested June 3, 1994. Detained in 
     Beijing.
       21. Wu Rengang: Arrested June 3, 1994. Detained in Beijing.
       22. Xu Honghai: Arrested June 3, 1994. Detained in Beijing.
       23. Chen Zhuman: Age: 50. Arrested December 14, 1991. 
     Sentenced without trial to three years' ``reeducation through 
     labor.'' Reported detained in a prison in Quanzhou, Fujian.
       24. Han Kangrui: Age: 48. Reportedly detained in Longtian 
     town detention center.
       25. He Xianzing: Age: 53. Arrested December 23, 1993. 
     Reportedly detained in Jiangjing town detention center.
       26. Lin Zilong: Age: 81. Arrested December 23, 1993. 
     Reportedly held in administrative detention in Fuqing police 
     station jail.
       27. Yang Xinfei: Age: 67. Under police surveillance.
       28. Bai Shuqian: Arrested 1983. Sentenced to 12 years' 
     imprisonment. Reportedly detained in Kaifeng, Henan.
       29. Du Zhangji: Arrested 1985. Sentenced to eight years in 
     prison. Not known to have been released.
       30. Geng Menzuan: Age: 65. Arrested July 9, 1983. Sentenced 
     to 11 years in prison and five years deprivation of political 
     rights.
       31. He Suolie: Arrested 1985. Sentenced to five years in 
     prison. Not known to have been released.
       32. Kang Manshuang: Arrested 1985. Sentenced to four years 
     in prison. Not known to have been released.
       33. Pan Yiyuan: Age: 58. Arrested February 2, 1994. 
     Reportedly detained in Zhangzhou Detention Center.
       34. Qin Zhenjun: Age: 49. Arrested July 9, 1983. Sentenced 
     to nine years' in prison. Reportedly released but movement is 
     restricted and remains under police surveillance.
       35. Song Yude: Age: 40. Arrested July 16, 1984. Sentenced 
     to eight years' imprisonment. Released April 1992 but still 
     deprived of political rights.
       36. Wang Baoquan: Age: 67. Arrested July 9, 1983. Sentenced 
     to six years' imprisonment. Reportedly released but still 
     denied political rights.
       37. Wang Xincai: Age: 31. Arrested July 9, 1983. Sentenced 
     to 15 years' imprisonment. Currently held at Henan Provincial 
     Prison No. 3, Yuzian.
       38. Xu Yongze: Age: 52. Arrested April 16, 1988. Sentenced 
     to three years' imprisonment. Released May 20, 1991. Remains 
     under strict police surveillance and is reportedly forced to 
     report periodically to the local Public Security Bureau.
       39. Xue Guiwen: Age: 38. Arrested July 9, 1983. Sentenced 
     to six years' imprisonment and deprived of political rights 
     for 5 years. Released, but still deprived of political 
     rights.
       40. Zhao Donghai: Sentenced in 1982 or 1983 to 13 years' 
     imprisonment.
       41. Xu Fang: Age: 21. Arrested September 1993.
       42. Chen Xurong: Arrested in May or June 1992. Sentenced to 
     three years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Currently held in 
     Wangcun, Zibo, Shandong province.
       43. Fan Zueying: Arrested May or June 1992. Sentenced to 
     two years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Currently held in 
     Wangcun, Zibo, Shandong. Should have been released in 1994 
     but no release has been reported or confirmed.
       44. Li Qihua: Arrested May or June 1992. Sentenced to three 
     years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Currently held in 
     Wangcun, Zibo, Shandong.
       45. Li Cuiling: Arrested May or June 1992. Sentenced to 
     three years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Currently held in 
     Wangcun, Zibo, Shandong.
       46. Liu Limin: Arrested May or June 1992. Sentenced to two 
     years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Should have been 
     released in 1994 but no release has been reported or 
     confirmed.
       47. Liu Ping: Arrested May or June 1992. Sentenced to three 
     years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Currently held in 
     Wangcun, Zibo, Shandong.
       48. Qin Zingcai; Arrested May or June 1992. Sentenced to 
     three years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Currently held in 
     Wangcun, Zibo, Shandong.
       49. Sun Faxia: Arrested May or June 1992. Sentenced to two 
     years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Should have been 
     released in 1994 but no release has been reported or 
     confirmed.
       50. Sun Fuqin: Arrested May or June 1992. Sentenced to two 
     year's ``reeducation through labor.'' Should have been 
     released in 1994 but no release has been reported or 
     confirmed.
       51. Sun Jingxiu: Arrested May or June 1992. Sentenced to 
     two years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Should have been 
     released in 1994 but no release has been reported or 
     confirmed.
       52. Wang Guiqin: Arrested May or June 1992. Sentenced to 
     three years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Currently 
     detained in Wangcun, Zibo, Shandong.
       53. Wu Xiuling: Arrested May or June 1992. Sentenced to 
     three years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Currently held in 
     Wangcun, Zibo, Shandong.
       54. Yang Zhuanyuan: Arrested May or June 1992. Sentenced to 
     three years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Currently held in 
     Wangcun, Zibo, Shandong.
       55. Zheng Jikuo: Arrested June 1992. Sentenced to 9 years' 
     imprisonment. Held in an unknown location.
       56. Zheng Yunsu: Arrested June 1992. Sentenced to 12 years' 
     imprisonment. Reported held at the Shengjian Motorcycle 
     Factory labor camp near Jinan city.
       57. Zheng (given name unknown): Son of Zheng Yunsu (No. 
     56). Arrested June 1992. Sentenced to five years' 
     imprisonment. Held in an unknown location.
       58. Zheng (given name unknown): Son of Zheng Yunsu (No. 
     56). Arrested June 1992. Sentenced to five years' 
     imprisonment. Held in an unknown location.
       59. Zhou Wenxia: Arrested May or June 1992. Sentenced to 
     two years' ``reeducation through labor.'' Should have been 
     released in 1994 but no release has been reported or 
     confirmed.
       60. Pei Zhongxun: (Korean name: Chun Chul) Age: 76. Ethnic 
     Korean. Arrested August 1983. Sentenced to 15 years' 
     imprisonment. Currently held in Shanghai Prison No. 2.
       61. Xie Moshan: (Moses Xie) Age: early 70s. Arrested April 
     24, 1992. Released July 23, 1992 but movements are severely 
     restricted and he is required to report periodically to the 
     local Public Security Bureau. Mail is regularly intercepted 
     and read by local authorities.
       62. He Chengzhou: Reportedly had a bounty for his capture 
     (dead or alive) placed on his head in early 1992.
       63. Lalling (given name unknown): Reportedly being held in 
     the Yunan State Prison near the Burmese border.
       64. Nawlkung (given name unknown): Reportedly being held in 
     the Yunan State Prison near the Burmese border.
       65. Wang Jiashui: Reportedly had a bounty for his capture 
     (dead or alive) placed on his head in early 1992.

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. What the 
resolution does is, it enables us to voice our very serious concerns 
about various Chinese policies and actions, while at the same time 
underscoring our desire for a good Chinese-American relationship.
  I want to try to put this United States-China relationship into 
context. That relationship is of enormous importance to the United 
States and to international peace and security. It is a very complex 
relationship, and it is extremely difficult to manage. We have very 
tough disagreements and issues with the Chinese on human rights and 
nonproliferation and trade. It seems to me what we in the Congress 
ought to be doing is helping the President manage that difficult 
relationship. We should not make that relationship more difficult.
  Let me be very blunt about it. Good Chinese-American relations are 
very much in the interest of the United States for several reasons.
  China, already the largest country in the world, now possesses one of 
the world's largest economies as well. As a permanent member of the 
United Nations Security Council, China is not only a key country in 
Asia but has a significant impact on United States efforts to resolve 
an array of problems far removed from Asia. China is one of the world's 
five acknowledged nuclear weapons states. United States efforts to halt 
the spread of weapons of mass destruction can succeed only if China 
cooperates with us and the rest of the international community.
  China has the world's largest standing army whose capabilities have 
been significantly enhanced in recent years. Stability throughout East 
Asia depends in large measure on Chinese intentions and objectives 
which are themselves in part a function of Beijing's ties with 
Washington.

[[Page H7286]]

  On the economic front, American exports and American jobs are 
dependent upon good relations with China. Last year we sold $9 billion 
worth of goods to China. These exports supported 180,000 high-wage 
American jobs. We ignore the affairs of Asia and China at our peril. 
Three times in the past half century, young American men and women have 
laid down their lives in Asian wars. It is impossible to envision a 
coherent Asian policy for the United States without a policy of 
continual engagement with China. The United States will be greatly 
handicapped in promoting its interests in Asia unless we enjoy at least 
a decent relationship with the Chinese.
  That is what this resolution is all about. It is supported by both 
those who support MFN for China and those who oppose MFN. But for the 
first time in 6 years, this House is able to speak on China with a 
single voice, and that is a highly welcome development.
  When we frequently hear in this country conflicting signals about our 
views on China, there can be no misunderstanding how this House feels 
about China and the resolution puts it forward very clearly.
  We believe China is a terribly important country with a bright 
future. We hope to have cordial relations with the people of China and 
with their government. Nonetheless, there are a lot of actions by the 
Chinese Government that cause us grave concern. We must balance 
multiple interests when we deal with China: Promoting human rights and 
democracy, securing China's strategic cooperation in Asia and the 
United Nations, controlling proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, expanding United States economic ties. An engagement with 
China, rather than isolation, is most likely to promote those varied 
United States interests. That is the message this resolution conveys.
  I suspect none of us are pleased with every single clause in the 
resolution. But on balance, I believe this resolution does an admirable 
job reconciling the various points of view of Members.
  There are many in this Chamber who deserve high praise for their work 
on this: The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier], the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi], and many others. I commend them for their work.
  This resolution is good for America. It is good for American 
interests. It places the House of Representatives clearly on the side 
of economic and political reform in China, while recognizing that the 
best way to encourage that reform is through a policy of engagement.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Bereuter resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Indiana for his excellent statement and for his help.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], one of the great experts in the Congress of the 
United States.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, by now it is apparent that the United States-
China bilateral relationship is in the worst shape it has been in at 
least a decade and continues in a downward spiral. The Chinese--in the 
throes of a prolonged leadership transition--have done little to stem 
the deterioration. The prolonged detention of Harry Wu, an American 
citizen, is unwarranted and all of us condemn it. With our vote on this 
bill today, we have an opportunity to send a strong message to the 
Chinese that such actions are repugnant to the American commitment to 
human rights and our sense of justice. Thus, I enthusiastically urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 2058.
  This bill, the China Policy of 1995, condemns the actions of the 
Chinese Government on issues such as its continued violation of 
internationally-recognized standards of human rights and nuclear 
nonproliferation as well as its discriminatory and unfair trade 
practices. It directs the administration to pursue intensified 
diplomatic initiatives to persuade China to alter its policies.
  Just as important, and unlike the annual efforts to revoke China's 
most-favored-nation trade status, this bill does not jeopardize our 
political and economic relationship in a way that could well prove 
counterproductive for both nations and undermine our ability to 
cooperate with China on critical national security issues, such as 
nuclear proliferation issues in North Korea.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. It is 
important that we let Beijing know its abhorrent human rights, nuclear 
proliferation, and trade actions will not go unnoticed. However, at the 
same time, we must also help those within China intensify the pressure 
now building for political and social change.
  I believe that we can accomplish this and promote human rights in 
China by engaging them increasingly in trade and economic relations. 
This policy requires extension of MFN. That is not a contradiction of 
terms or of policy. The best foreign policy tools available to us to 
encourage political reform abroad are policies that promote capitalism 
and economic opportunity. Such policies are powerful levers for 
political change precisely because they are powerful levers for 
economic change. That is a policy that has worked successfully in such 
diverse countries as South Africa, Korea, Taiwan, and Chile.
  Our foreign policy toward China should embrace tools of reform and 
change--not condition them. These are precisely the tools we can use to 
promote the evolution of Chinese society so that its people can press 
for political reform from within. They are the tools to stimulate 
Chinese society to adopt a more pluralistic and democratic political 
process. That, in turn, will inevitably lead to a greater respect for 
human rights and personal liberty. There are examples previously 
mentioned that support this proposition. One concrete result of 
economic liberalization in China is the way that it has spawned a 
parallel civil justice system based on the rule of law, rather than 
rule by law. While some may question whether increasing the number of 
lawyers in China is true reform, I would argue that it is if the 
contract law that develops and other legal reforms lead to parallel 
development of law that protects human rights. Will it? None of us can 
say with certainty, but history suggests that it will.
  Revocation of trade with China would almost certainly retard--not 
promote--the cause of human rights in China. United States economic 
sanctions would harm the emerging Chinese private sector and the 
dynamic market-oriented provinces in southern China, which depend on 
trade. This would weaken the very forces in Chinese society pressing 
hardest for reforms. We must not undermine the brave efforts of reform-
minded Chinese who have come to depend on economic opportunity as a 
means of ultimately achieving political freedom in China. Lasting 
reform in China can only be driven from within. We must continue to 
work toward that end.
  The United States-China relationship is very complex. There is no 
country on this globe that has brought more fascination or caused 
greater aggravation to Americans than China, but none of us doubt the 
potential for good in this world that will flow from improved political 
and economic relations. Today, we agonize over how we can promote human 
rights in China, advance peace in Asia, and protect our own national 
security interests in that region. But, in this debate, let us not lose 
sight of the common goals which should unite all of us.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2058.
                              {time}  1215

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to my 
neighbor, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], a subcommittee 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
alternative bill offered by Mr. Bereuter and in opposition to House 
Joint Resolution 96.
  I think everyone agrees that improving human rights in China is a 
priority, and I know people on both sides of this issue are eager to 
see the end of human rights violations in China. But, while this is an 
important issue for the United States to pursue, it is not the only 
issue at stake and I firmly believe we will not and cannot improve 
human rights by revoking MFN.
  As you know, on May 26, 1994, President Clinton announced his 
decision to 

[[Page H7287]]
delink human rights issues in China from the extension of MFN. By 
Executive order, later endorsed by Congress, the President proposed a 
policy of broad, comprehensive engagement with China.
  The President's decision, which I fully support and applaud, 
recognizes the fact that denying China MFN status will not prompt 
Chinese leaders to improve human rights conditions. In the short term, 
it will only harm the economies of both the United States and China. In 
the long term it would give European and Japanese businesses a 
competitive advantage, allowing them greater access to the China's huge 
market of 1.2 billion people.
  Mr. Bereuter's bill offers a constructive alternative for all of us 
who have serious concerns about human rights, weapons proliferation, 
abuse of American citizens in China, and other critical issues between 
the United States and China. I am pleased to support this bill, and 
urge the administration to act quickly and earnestly to fulfill its 
requirements. If we treat China as an enemy, it will react as an enemy. 
Keeping our eye on the big picture is key to a successful relationship. 
A little tough love never hurt anyone.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a policy of frank and constructive 
engagement with China and its 1.2 billion citizens. I believe this 
policy can best be carried out both by renewing China's most favored 
nation trading status and by approving the legislation before us 
expressing strong disapproval of China's human rights abuses. I commend 
the Members involved in this debate for coming together for a policy 
which is good for the Chinese people and America.
  Like many of my colleagues, I am frustrated by the Chinese 
Government's lack of progress toward democracy and respect for the 
rights of its own people. I am angry about the detention of Harry Wu, 
and I join the administration and my colleagues in condemning the 
detention of this American citizen in the strongest possible terms, and 
demanding his immediate release.
  But I believe it would be a mistake to isolate China from the world 
community through actions such as denial of MFN. China is experiencing 
tremendous turmoil. Its government is in transition. Its market economy 
continues to expand, which I believe will lead to an inevitable clash 
between the freedom of the market and the lack of freedom in China's 
political system. We must do everything we can to ensure that when that 
clash occurs, freedom wins--freedom in the marketplace and freedom at 
the ballot box.
  I believe that constructive economic engagement with the people of 
China will encourage such freedom.
  But I also believe that we must be frank and forceful when we 
disagree with the policies of the Chinese Government. The bill put 
forth by Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Hamilton accomplishes both goals, and I 
urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2058, the Bereuter-
Wolf bill which sets forth a clear policy on China by the Congress, and 
requires the President to report back to Congress every 6 months on the 
progress China is making toward achieving democracy as we reward them 
with MFN status.
  It sets forth international standards of conduct on nuclear 
proliferation, international standards on human rights, and the lack of 
access to their markets.
  Last year Members of Congress were told that the provision of most 
favored nation [MFN] for China would give an incentive to Chinese 
leaders to be responsible with respect to how they treat their citizens 
and address the trade deficit.
  Since then, thousands of Chinese have been wrongfully imprisoned and 
persecuted and the Chinese leadership has continued to prevent freedom 
of association, speech, and religion.
  Although China is going through political and social changes, its 
leaders must know that the United States stands firm in our defense of 
the basic principles upon which our democracy was founded--freedom of 
speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of affiliation. The detention 
of Harry Wu, an American citizen and a Hoover Institute scholar from 
Stanford University, which I am privileged to represent, and a globally 
recognized human rights leader is the most recent example of how 
oppressive the Chinese Government is.
  This resolution addresses the significant economic inequities which 
exist between our two countries. In 1989 the trade deficit was $6 
billion; today it is closer to $40 billion. Our trade deficit with 
China will exceed our trade deficit with Japan in the next few years if 
we do not forge a clear policy to deal with it.
  But the most valuable export our great Nation has is democracy and 
the best lesson in democracy we can give the world are the standards 
upon which our democracy rests and celebrates.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Bereuter-Wolf bill, which will 
send a strong and clear message to the Chinese leadership that the 
Congress of the United States insists on these values in return for 
granting most-favored-nation status.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], who has been very active 
on trade issues.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Bereuter-Wolf bill, which sends 
a strong, and appropriate, message to China without jeopardizing United 
States national interests or United States workers.
  China's continued human rights abuses are an unavoidable issue in 
United States-China relations. We Americans care deeply about certain 
inalienable rights. However, linking trade policy to these concerns by 
new threats to withdraw MFN for China's shortcomings would be highly 
counter-productive to our long-term national interests and to the 
release of Mr. Harry Wu.
  Our Nation's trading practices and policies have been the subject of 
lively debate in America since the birth of our Nation. And on this 
particular question--MFN for China--we have wrestled for years.
  The China MFN issue has been hung up on two competing policy goals: 
Is our goal to maximize our own United States jobs? Or is it to make 
the cause of human rights primary as a means to achieving our best 
long-term interests?
  The answer, I believe, is both. The goals are not mutually exclusive.
  For instance, I believe all of us can agree that compassion for the 
suffering in China is useless if our policy has no effect other than to 
put our own people out of work. We have made no difference in the life 
of those suffering overseas while only increasing the numbers of those 
suffering here at home.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe, these criteria must become our compass. We 
should extend MFN to a nation if: They allow U.S. investors and 
advisors in, the rule of law is advancing in that country, a 
multilateral action is unattainable or unsustainable, or we have that 
nation's assistance on a critical geopolitical issue.
  Conversely, we should deny MFN status to governments abusing their 
people only if an effective multilateral action is doable and the U.S. 
can expect no help from that government on other critical geopolitical 
issues, if they do not allow U.S. employers or advisors into their 
country, and if they do not respect the rule of law.
  Mr. Speaker, the genius of the Bereuter-Wolf bill is that we give 
full voice to our American concerns for human rights without self-
defeating linkage to trade policy. That is the appropriate response, 
and I want to thank both Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Wolf for crafting this 
solution.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Bereuter-
Wolf-Pelosi bill. I commend these sponsors for their commitment to this 
issue and willingness to reach compromise language. H.R. 2058 sends a 
strong signal 

[[Page H7288]]
that this Chamber is deeply concerned about certain and specific 
activities currently occurring in the People's Republic of China. In 
addition to human rights issues, this bill addresses our diplomatic 
relationship and other pressing issues such as weapons proliferation 
prison labor and unfair trade practices.
  All of us on this floor today share deep concerns about the 
continuing problems related to the rights and treatment of Chinese 
citizens. I recently signed a letter with over 70 of my colleagues--
from both sides of the aisle--calling on China's Premier to immediately 
release Mr. Harry Wu.
  Each year we debate the issue of China and more specifically the 
extension of most-favored-nation status to China [MFN]. At this 
juncture, I have never believed that disapproving extension of MFN 
would improve conditions in China.
  For many years, it has been my fear that failure to extend MFN would 
significantly weaken our political and economic position with the 
central government in China. China's economic growth is booming. Its 
economy is expected to double by the year 2000 and will be the biggest 
economy into the next century. Recent growth has been driven by 
private- and foreign-owned enterprise surpassing state-run enterprises 
plagued by performance and financial problems. Economic reforms aided 
by foreign investment and expertise have rerouted economic power from 
state-run industry. Change is occurring everywhere. One can see clearly 
the successes of United States investment particularly in southern 
China and its spreading. Due to its high rate of growth, China will 
need to replace its aging infrastructure. The potential market for high 
technology and services, for example, is enormous. China will need to 
purchase power generating equipment, aerospace and telecommunications 
equipment to name a
 few. And we should be there.

  Already we have seen shifts in the dynamics of China's Government 
structure. Central government control over the daily lives of Chinese 
citizens is weakening as economic liberalization has led to greater 
autonomy, expansion of basic freedoms, and improved standards of living 
for Chinese citizens.
  China is currently undergoing domestic change both politically and 
economically. Furthermore, the United States-China relationship is 
clearly in transition. But that should not preclude us from pursuing 
engagement with the Chinese at all levels.
  Clearly, advancing human rights must remain a priority of U.S. 
foreign policy. The United States-China trade relationship has 
increased the exposure of the Chinese people to Western cultural 
influences and business principles. Trade and investment are part of a 
greater effort to promote long-term progress toward political pluralism 
and democracy in China. To revoke MFN would sever our economic 
relationship and would remove one of our most successful means of 
influence in China to date.
  Again, I commend my colleagues for reaching agreement and putting 
forth this language. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and 
maintain MFN for China.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk], a member of the 
Committee on International Relations and a former Ambassador.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, I may have to be the only person in the 
House to have to say this and do this, but having lived 6 years in a 
harsh Communist dictatorship, I cannot silently stand by and do 
nothing. When you have witnessed pastors and priests being killed, 
churches being bulldozed, and Bibles being turned into toilet paper, 
you learn how not to deal with Communist dictators.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is just what Beijing ordered. 
Here we have legislation filled with tough-sounding but meaningless 
threats. This has a laundry list of demands from the Beijing 
Communists, ranging from asking the President to undertake new 
initiatives to persuade the Chinese to treat their people humanely to 
asking them to stop their accelerating military expansion.
  I ask, Mr. Speaker, when has any Communist regime responded to 
friendly requests to change its behavior? Pass the Bereuter bill and 
all Members will hear from the Communist will be the laughs of 
doddering old rulers who will once again have put one over on Uncle 
Sam. This bill will not free one dissident, it will not close one slave 
camp, it will not stop the purchase of one new Soviet-made submarine. 
As the philosopher said, this is nonsense on stilts.
                              {time}  1230

  The deal worked out, with the possible exception of Radio Free Asia 
is meaningless. We ask, we request, we hope, we dream. Let's get real.
  Where is the enforcement mechanism? There is none. MFN aid goes to 
Communist elites who line their pockets. It never goes to the people. 
MFN perpetuates the Communist dictatorship in power. An engagement 
policy did not bring about the fall of communism. Engagement via MFN 
keeps the Communist elites in power and perpetuates persecution, 
murder, and gulags.
  It was building up U.S. defense and U.S. determination, peace through 
strength, SDI that won the cold war, not appeasement, not engagement, 
not stability, rhetoric. You do not stop dictatorships by preemptively 
caving in to their demands.
  Unfortunately, they do not talk or act tough at Foggy Bottom. As 
Senator Richard Russell said, we need an American desk at the State 
Department and in the U.S. Government.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is once again the time of 
year we discuss the renewal of MFN for China. In the past, we have 
attempted to link human rights to the renewal of MFN. Last Congress, we 
made the decision to renew MFN and to pursue other courses of action to 
improve human rights in China.
  At this point in time, it would be counterproductive to revoke MFN 
status for China. Economic liberalization is a key element for 
improving human rights. The opening of the markets in China will 
provide higher wages and a better way of life for Chinese citizens. 
Usually, improved economic conditions help improve human rights.
  American businesses conducting business in China should set an 
example. We need to be leaders on the issue of human rights. Our 
businesses need to be a model of excellence on human rights.
  Human rights is an extremely important issue. Basically, it is the 
dignity of an individual. I commend Congressmen Bereuter and Hamilton 
for introducing H.R. 2058. This legislation reminds China that we have 
not forgotten about their current human rights situation.
  This measure demands the immediate release of Harry Wu. In addition, 
the legislation recognizes various areas in which China has made human 
rights violations. This legislation requires the President to take 
action to improve the situation. The President will be required to 
report his progress within 30 days of enactment.
  I urge you to support this legislation. This legislation states that 
human rights is still a priority.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. White], who has already become very active on 
trade issues in the Congress.
  Mr. WHITE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, my district overlooks both sides of the shipping lanes 
of Puget Sound. It is one of the biggest trading districts in the 
United States. China is our biggest trading partner. Every year there 
are billions of dollars coming into my district because of trade with 
China.
  But, Mr. Speaker, that is not a good enough reason for me to vote for 
most-favored-nation status for China. We should not sell the Chinese 
people into slavery just to bring trading profits into our district.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason to vote for this bill is because it is the 
only way to bring the Chinese people out of slavery. We have seen 
plenty of examples of that in recent history. In Eastern Europe, in 
Tiananmen Square, it is only after expanded contacts with the West that 
we see the people themselves rising up and demanding human rights from 
their own governments.

[[Page H7289]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is the fax machine, not the trade sanction, that 
freed Eastern Europe, and it is the fax machine, not the trade 
sanction, that will free China.
  I ask my colleagues, do not vote for this bill because it is going to 
bring trading profits to the United States. Vote for this bill because 
it is the best way, really the only way, to bring freedom, human 
rights, and prosperity to the Chinese people.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, it is said that the definition of a 
successful life is helping one person breathe easier. In those terms, I 
think Harry Wu is a hero because he has breathed life into a nation, 
into China, with his courage to fight against the human rights abuses 
over there.
  As a strong supporter of MFN, I strongly condemn the Chinese 
Government for incarcerating Mr. Wu. I call on the Chinese to 
unconditionally and immediately release Mr. Wu from prison. This is 
important to strong supporters of MFN, to opponents of MFN, and to the 
American people. I hope the Chinese people and government are 
listening.
  We will continue to work on this for hours and days and weeks after 
this resolution. With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, it is important to 
note from Madison to Kissinger and Nixon, our foreign policy is not 
based upon one person but on 3 pillars: on human rights, on economic 
interests, and on national security interests.
  When we combine all three of those, I think we have a compelling case 
that we must continue to engage the Chinese, to push them and leverage 
them toward human rights improvements, toward opening their markets, 
because it is in our interests, our human rights interests, our 
economic interests and our middle-class job interests. Who is going to 
sell the next semiconductor computer chip to the Chinese? Are we just 
going to tell the Japanese they can have that market? Who is going to 
sell the next high-definition television? It is going to be an American 
high-definition television produced in America, and we are going to get 
the benefit by that.
  I thank the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]. My respect goes out to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Gallegly], a distinguished and active member of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as a cosponsor, and in strong support of 
H.R. 2058, the China Policy Act introduced by our colleague from 
Nebraska and the chairman of the East Asian Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter.
  With the end of the cold war in Europe and the transformation of 
Russia into a democratic government with an open market economy we must 
now turn our attention to China with the intent of achieving the same 
results.
  The emergence of China as a great political and economic force and a 
nuclear super-power poses an enormous challenge to this nation both 
strategically and economically. The need for the United States to 
develop an open, aggressive, cohesive, and consistent policy toward 
Beijing is of paramount importance.
  This is not to say we should close our eyes or turn a deaf ear to the 
unacceptable behavior of the regime in Beijing. Clearly, their poor 
human rights record, their recent military actions with respect to the 
Spratly Islands, their sale of M-9 missiles to Pakistan and perhaps 
Iran, their unwillingness to renounce the use of force against the 
Republic of Taiwan, and the recent jailing of American citizen,
 Harry Wu, defies every international norm and standard governing 
missile proliferation, the use of military force, and human rights.

  However, denying most-favored-nation status at this time is not the 
way to actively engage the Chinese and to encourage reform, openness 
and respect for international standards of behavior.
  The expression of our concern is what H.R. 2058 attempts to do. It 
says that we in this Congress do not accept China's current behavior 
and that we call on the President to intensify diplomatic efforts to 
encourage China to moderate its intolerable internal human rights 
policies and to respect external international norms.
  I believe open dialog and continued diplomatic and economic contact 
is the best way to provide the United States the opportunity to promote 
internal economic reform, political liberalization, and respect for 
human rights in China. Without this constructive engagement, China is 
less likely to move toward the role of the responsible world power we 
would like China to become.
  I urge the Members to vote for H.R. 2058 and against the resolution 
of MFN disapproval.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], who is chairman of the 
Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Nebraska for yielding 
me the time. I want to congratulate the gentleman in the chair for the 
great job he is doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this bill. This is a good bill. 
It is not a perfect bill, but I think it is the right approach. The 
question we hear often here in Congress is, just how long do we have to 
put up with the misguided conduct of the Chinese? How long? Well, just 
as long as we put up with it. We have all the leverage in our hands.
  We have a $29 billion trade deficit with China, the second largest 
trade deficit with any country in the world. This year we are having a 
huge trade deficit, the largest in American history. We buy most of 
their exports. In fact, half of the Chinese exports come right here to 
the United States, to the detriment, I may say, many times of our 
workers and to the detriment of our trade deficit.
  We have all the leverage. We have all the chips. The question is, do 
we have the will? Maybe if we had a little reciprocity before, a little 
tit-for-tat before, we would not have to pass this bill today. Mr. Wu 
would be here; an American citizen would be here in the United States 
where he belongs.
  This bill sets forth what we expect from China. The President will 
report, as I interpret this bill, every 6 months on the initiative in 8 
areas. We must be faithful to the goals and the commitments that we 
have as a Nation. I think this bill helps focus on that.
  I hear others tell us that China is a giant but that we are unwilling 
to confront a China today. I do not think that is the case. I think we 
are willing to stand up for what we believe in. I think this bill helps 
us do that.
  After all, we have to have the courage of our convictions. A great 
writer wrote, ``Hope is lost, much is lost. Courage is lost, all is 
lost.'' That is why I think this bill is the right approach. It is a 
measured approach.
  This bill sets forth, I think, the right temper, the right approach, 
and I would hope that other people would endorse it and vote for this 
bill because I think it is the best approach, the right direction for 
America to take in these times.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend 
and colleague the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos].
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Florida, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this House is united in wanting to have good relations 
with China. This House is united in recognizing how important China is. 
But this House is divided in deciding how we can see to it that China's 
abominable human rights policy, China's continued sale of weapons of 
mass destruction to highly questionable countries, and China's one-
sided trade policy with the United States come to an end.
  There is no dispute that China has one of the worst human rights 
records on the face of this planet. Since human rights were ``de-
linked'' from the issue of giving them most-favored-nation treatment 1 
year ago, human rights conditions in China have significantly 
deteriorated.
  Thousands of Chinese citizens are imprisoned in forced labor camps 
for nonviolent opposition to the regime. The 

[[Page H7290]]
repression of Tibet continues unabated. The Chinese Government enforces 
sickening and draconian birth control policies of forced sterilization 
and forced abortions.
  This bill has some redeeming features. It condemns these human rights 
violations, but unfortunately it does not have teeth. It does not do 
anything but admonish the Chinese.
  To give meaning to our condemnation, we have to give our action real 
teeth. The only way to make this condemnation meaningful is to deny MFN 
to the Chinese. If you vote for this bill, as I will, you should also 
vote for legislation to deny MFN to China.
  Only by taking strong and effective action do totalitarian 
governments change their policies. Economic sanctions against South 
Africa were the key element in bringing about the end of apartheid. We 
were urged by the previous administration not to enact sanctions, to 
engage the South Africans in constructive dialog.

                              {time}  1245

  But it was only after we put sanctions on South Africa that the 
sickening practice of apartheid ended. We got the attention of the 
Chinese when this House voted for my resolution calling for the Olympic 
games not be held in Beijing. We got the attention of the Chinese when 
this House voted for my resolution calling for our Government to issue 
a visa to President Li of Taiwan.
  China is now illegally holding an American citizen, Harry Wu, who was 
entrapped by the Chinese in going there. They gave him the visa, and 
when he arrived they arrested him. China is selling missile technology. 
China has a trade surplus of over $30 billion with the United States.
  There are plenty of other sources of textiles and Barbie dolls and 
Christmas tree lights. India and lots of other developing countries 
would like to sell those things to us, but the Chinese have a $30 
billion-plus trade surplus with us.
  I commend the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and all of my 
colleagues with whom I had the pleasure of working for improving human 
rights in China for this legislation. but we must not approve this 
legislation believing that this is China policy. This is a part of 
China policy. It lays out the problems with China. It provides no 
effective mechanism of enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, just as the apartheid Government of South Africa laughed 
at us until we provided economic sanctions, so the rulers in Beijing 
are capable of taking rhetoric from this body. What they are unwilling 
to take, and what we should force them to take, is economic sanctions. 
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, but I also urge my 
colleagues to vote for House Joint Resolution 96 to deny most-favored-
nation treatment to China.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], a member 
of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2058, the 
Bereuter amendment, which is legislation to symbolically stand for 
democracy and to make a statement about human rights. Unfortunately, 
statements and symbolism are not enough.
  We need to make tangible policy decisions, as well. And without 
tangible policy decisions, statements and symbolism, as are encompassed 
in H.R. 2058, lack meaning. So I will be supporting H.R. 2058, but we 
must insist, if we are sincere in this effort, on having some tangible 
action as well.
  In fact, tyrants assume that we do not even mean what we are saying 
when we make statements and there is no change in policy that follows. 
We are confronting today a regime that controls China, a dictatorial 
regime that now holds one of our own citizens, Harry Wu, as prisoner, 
but also smashes the human rights of its own people and is more and 
more becoming belligerent to its own neighbors.
  We are not talking about what we will do and what relations we will 
have with the people of China. All of us want to have good relations 
with the people of China. We reach out to them. We want good relations 
with all people of the world. The question is what
 will we do about this tyrannical regime, this monstrous oppressor that 
controls these people? Will we be on the side of the people of China, 
or will we be on the side of the oppressor?

  We will have to do more than symbolism and statements. We must follow 
this measure with an elimination of most-favored-nation status with 
this regime, because we should believe in free trade between free 
people, not free trade with tyrannies and dictatorships; a trade 
relationship that only bolsters those in power and does nothing to 
further the cause of democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen that in this debate over and over again 
where we have heard the argument that trade will improve democracy. 
That does not work. Let us put pressure on these people in Beijing to 
improve their democracy and to improve the respect for human rights and 
to release Harry Wu.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged at this time to 
yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi], who has coauthored the pending legislation and has continued 
to bring clarity to this issue.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and his 
kind remarks. I am only taking 1 minute now, because I had the 
opportunity to speak much longer earlier on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to once again commend the gentleman from Nebraska 
[Mr. Bereuter], for his leadership and working with the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and with me and with others, to bring together 
this compromise.
  The previous speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher], is a gentleman whose courage and relentless advocacy for 
human rights is well-known to this body and I respect him enormously. I 
would not be supporting this legislation, though, if I thought it was 
just a statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that even before we merged our two bills, Mr. 
Bereuter had strong language in his legislation addressing United 
States concerns with China and teeth in saying that there is a 
reporting requirement that the President must report to this body on 
issues regarding trade, human rights and proliferation.
  This is all very important. It is a step forward to us. I am pleased 
with the legislation and it comes at a time, a very critical time in 
China with the succession that might be likely soon, and also at a time 
when Harry Wu, an American citizen, a distinguished scholar, is being 
held by the Chinese.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that our colleagues will support this legislation 
and I hope that the Chinese will release Harry Wu soon.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], and she is correct in 
reminding about the reporting requirements and I could say Radio Free 
Asia.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf], the other gentleman that I worked with who has been invaluable 
in working with me.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], as I did before, and thank the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi]. Both were very good. The gentleman from 
Nebraska was very balanced and Ms. Pelosi was like Margaret Thatcher 
working for something in London; she never gave up.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support. I would hope that there would be a 
strong, large vote; that any Members who have any reservations on each 
side, I would hope that they would put those reservations aside so we 
can send a strong bipartisan message.
  Third, it puts the Congress on record for the first time in a united 
way. There are clear objectives. It calls for action by the 
administration. It calls that Radio Free Asia will be established 
within 3 months, whereby the people in China can hopefully hear what is 
happening in places like in the U.S. Congress.
  It calls for a Presidential report for the first time. If anyone is 
listening in China, it puts the Congress on record in support of the 
democracy movement in China. And is that not a great day for those who 
gave their life in Tiananmen Square and other places to know that the 
Congress now has given 

[[Page H7291]]
its official imprimatur on the democracy movement? And, as a 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] says, it makes a strong 
statement on Harry Wu.
  Mr. Speaker, it is our hope and prayer that the Chinese see that we 
have come together; that the one thing they can do to give a sign of 
reconciliation would be the release of Harry Wu.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2058, the China Policy 
Act of 1995 sponsored by the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Asia and the Pacific, Mr. Bereuter.
  H.R. 2058 is a compromise reached after several hours of discussions 
between the gentlewoman from California, Representative Pelosi, the 
gentleman from Nebraska, Representative Bereuter, and myself. It is a 
good bill because it garners support from both sides of the MFN issue 
and both sides of the aisle. I hope it will pass with an overwhelming 
majority. Passing H.R. 2058 with a unanimous vote will send a powerful 
message of concern to the Communist government in Beijing and a 
powerful message of support for the burgeoning Chinese democracy 
movement.
  I will say that the U.S. Congress is united in its deep concern about 
China's treatment of Harry Wu; its continuing human rights violations; 
its violation of international nonproliferation standards and its 
unfair trading practices. This is the toughest language on China to 
come out of Congress in a while and it will plow new ground.
  Personally, I think that the United States has no business giving 
nondiscriminatory trade status to the world's largest Communist 
government. I think revoking MFN is our strongest hook. However, I 
think it is more important for our ultimate goal of promoting democracy 
in China to speak with a united voice. That's why those of us on both 
sides of the issue have come together around this legislation.
  The Communist government in China maintains the world's largest 
system of slave labor camps--the laogai--which are used as the central 
cog of repression to harshly stifle dissent and break the human spirit. 
Harry Wu, who sits in a Chinese prison right now because of his 
commitment to exposing China's laogai system, has documented over 1,000 
forced labor camps in China.
  China's strict one-child-per-family policy has resulted in gross 
violations of human rights, including forced abortion and 
sterilization. In my office, I have a 40-minute video filmed by a crew 
from Channel 4 in Great Britain showing the dying rooms in China's 
state-run orphanages where baby girls who become ill are left to die of 
starvation and neglect. The video also shows the abhorrent conditions 
in China's orphanages where children, mostly girls, are forced to grow 
up almost totally devoid of nurture and attention because of China's 
one-child-per-family policy.
  We know that the Communist government in Beijing has sold nuclear 
weapons and technology to Iraq and Iran and M-11 missiles to Pakistan.
  We know almost conclusively that the Chinese Government takes the 
internal organs of executed prisoners without consent, young men around 
20 years old are the preferred donors, and sells them to foreign buyers 
for around $30,000 each. Harry Wu has documented it, the BBC has 
documented it, Human Rights
 Watch/Asia has documented it, Amnesty International has documented it, 
and a Hong Kong newspaper has documented it. I would be happy to share 
the BBC tape with any Member interested in viewing it. Even a Chinese 
Government official admitted it at a U.N. meeting several years ago. 
When asked now if this kind of despicable behavior occurs, the Chinese 
Government, of course, denies it. That is not surprising but it does 
not mean it doesn't happen.

  We know that Catholics and Protestants who dare to worship 
independently of government control are continually thrown in jail, 
harassed, and in some cases beaten by Chinese security officials. 
Estimates indicate that there are 20-50 million Christians in China who 
refuse to worship in China's Government-sanctioned churches. The 
official Protestant and Catholic churches in China, which combined, 
claim a membership of only 10 million, must use the Government-
sanctioned doctrine. As the Chinese Government becomes more wary of 
dissent and unrest in this uncertain period of transition, surveillance 
on Chinese Christians has been stepped up.
  In Tibet, conditions have worsened since we looked at the MFN issue 
last year. As of April 26 of this year, there had already been more 
political arrests in Tibet in 1995 than there were in all of 1994. 
Prisoners have died in the past year as a result of mistreatment while 
in prison including a 24-year-old nun. Tibetan monks continue to be 
thrown in jail or forced into exile. The Chinese Government has placed 
restrictive guidelines on Tibetan monasteries and refused repeated 
requests by the Dalai Lama for talks to work out a peaceful settlement.
  Now the Chinese Government is holding Harry Wu, a brave American 
citizen and human rights activist. He was detained just weeks after 
President Clinton renewed China's MFN status. He is being investigated 
for the simple crime of speaking the truth about China's laogai camps. 
This arrest is a clear indication that China thinks the U.S. Government 
is weak and more interested in appeasing business interests than 
speaking up for what is right.
  These kinds of abuses are not new in China. They have gone on for 
years while the U.S. Government pursues a weak policy, or perhaps no 
policy. President Clinton has been unwilling to speak out boldly and 
forcefully and instead has promised to promote our interests through 
engagement. So far, it's been an empty promise. Nothing has happened 
and I'm not convinced--and that's saying it nicely--the administration 
is doing anything to promote human rights in China.
  Congress as a whole has not spoken out boldly and forcefully--but 
that is about to change.
  H.R. 2058 sets a new standard for progress. It sets out clear 
objectives for U.S. policy.
  It demands the release of Harry Wu immediately and unconditionally.
  It requires the adherence to international nonproliferation standards 
and requires China to immediately halt the export of ballistic missile 
technology and weapons of mass destruction.
  It clearly and unequivocally calls on the Clinton administration to 
intensify diplomatic efforts to persuade the Chinese Government to 
respect the internationally recognized rights of its citizens and says 
specifically what Congress considers progress in this area.
  It also commends the Chinese people's internal democracy movement--
one of the most important provisions in the bill.
  H.R. 2058 has teeth. It requires Radio Free Asia to be on the air in 
China within 3 months of enactment. Radio Free Asia will promote 
democracy in China and will give democracy reformers and other 
interested listeners news and information they will not hear from the 
Government-controlled media. Radio Free Europe was a powerful force in 
the democratization of Eastern Europe and I am convinced it will have 
the same effect in China. Radio Free Asia has been authorized by this 
body force, but so far, the U.S. Information Agency has been slow in 
getting it on the air. This bill steps up the pace.
  Finally, the bill requires the administration to report to Congress 
every 6 months on the actions taken and the progress made in achieving 
the human rights and proliferation objectives outlined in the bill.
  Again, this is tough language that requires action. We will be able 
to look at this issue every 6 months and see exactly what has been 
tried and achieved. We will also see what has not been done.
  I support H.R. 2058 because it is a building block. It has the 
support of the major Chinese dissident groups and human rights 
organizations. If we pass H.R. 2058, next year we will be able to ask 
these questions:
  Has the Chinese Government taken concrete steps to dismantle the 
forced labor camps?
  Has the Chinese Government ended coercive birth control practices?
  Has the Chinese Government ended crackdowns on Catholics and 
Protestants?
  Has the Chinese Government begun to respect the rights of the people 
of Tibet?
  Does the Chinese Government allow totally free worship, free press, 
and freedom of associations?
  Have political prisoners been set free?
  Does China adhere to the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Treaty and the missile technology control regime?
  If the answer to any of these is no, Congress will be obligated to 
act. We will know where to look for progress.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Bereuter bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. I think 
everyone here on this floor should be proud that we are debating this 
issue of human rights in China. Indeed, if all the other democracies in 
this world were having this kind of a debate, I think this situation 
might be different.
  A major problem with the use of MFN in this instance is, and has 
been, that we have been alone and other nations have not followed suit. 
Indeed, they have simply stepped into the vacuum. And so, then the 
issue is this, I think: If we are not going to use MFN, how are we 
going to be sure that we do 

[[Page H7292]]
not leave a vacuum in several key areas; human rights, and the critical 
trade issue?
  In the human rights area, I think this country, the administration, 
has been taking steps in the right direction. For example, it forced a 
vote at the United Nations recently to condemn China's human rights 
record. That failed by 1 vote, as I understand it. And I think today we 
are calling on the administration to continue these efforts in the 
United Nations; indeed to intensify them.
  In the critical area of trade, as our trade deficit with Japan 
continues to grow, I understand the President is going to announce soon 
the appointment of a commission to look into Asian Pacific trade and 
investment policies. We need to confront, with China, trade issues as 
we did intellectual property. If not MFN, we have to find another 
method, other instrument, to make sure that there is free and fair 
trade with China.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as we join together to support this resolution, let 
us be sure that it is followed up by steps both on human rights and on 
trade policies.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], a member 
of the Committee on National Security.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Bereuter] for the hard work that he and Members on both sides of the 
aisle have been putting in; hours and hours of burning the midnight oil 
trying to remove us from the horns of a dilemma.
  Last night I watched ``Nightline.'' I saw Harry Wu, videotaped just 
weeks before he left on this last courageous journey where he has 
disappeared somewhere to the world's most populous nation, and I 
thought, if we pull away most favored nation, is it an execution order? 
Or even worse than execution, a disappearance, to slowly die as a 
missing person for 10, 15, 20 years in some Chinese gulag?
  This is as hard an issue as were sanctions over South Africa. I 
changed regularly on that issue, always toward the same goal as those 
who were liberals that wanted the most severe sanctions. But trying to 
listen to Buthelezi on one side, and listening to the self-serving 
voices of the white tribe on South Africa, I may have come down on the 
wrong side several times.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to be on the right side on this one and that is 
why during the vote I will be reading every word of Mr. Bereuter's 
well-crafted work product.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to put a statement in the Record 
about how the Republican Party was born. It was founded over one main 
issue, the terrible and horrific abomination of slavery. It was a 
travesty and gross belittlement of one class of people. It was a 
national disgrace, a dark sin upon our collective conscience, and it 
was removable only, as Lincoln predicted, through the subsequent 
shedding of precious American blood.
  This time, the people we must want to serve are locked up in China, a 
slave state. May we pray that what we do in this body serves the one 
goal we all want; liberty and freedom for the people in a slave state.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harmon].
  (Ms. HARMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2058, the China Policy 
Act, and in opposition to House Joint Resolution 96, the MFN 
disapproval resolution.
  I have often said that the next century will be the Asian century as 
China, the world's largest underdeveloped economy, takes off. American 
companies need to gain footholds in this market early. Our competition 
is already poised if we retreat.
  China is already an important market for America, and for California, 
which has exports valued at over $1.5 billion to China last year. In my 
congressional district, dozens of companies and thousands of jobs in a 
wide range of industries depend on the Chinese market. Small companies 
like Rainbow Sports, which produces golf equipment, and Contact 
Enterprises of Torrance, which manufactures industrial parts, depend on 
sales to China. A Hughes satellite project for China provides over 
1,000 jobs in my district. As the Chinese economy grows, more 
opportunities to create American jobs will grow as well.
  But United States interests in maintaining engagement and dialogue 
with China are not limited to jobs and trade. We have a strong interest 
in seeing China treat its people according to international human 
rights standards. China's trade links with the United States have 
resulted in economic liberalization, and a nation whose economy is 
increasingly free and open must afford its people rights and freedoms 
as well. Without such changes political upheaval is inevitable, 
regardless of the state of the economy.
  China's military might and weapons-export policies also present the 
United States with urgent security concerns. As a member of the 
National Security Committee, I am particularly concerned about nuclear 
and missile proliferation. It is my firm belief that maintaining strong 
economic and diplomatic links with China--links which the removal of 
MFN would threaten--is the key to bringing China's arms export policy 
in line with international goals and standards.
  Two consecutive administrations, with strong bipartisan support from 
Congress, have pursued a policy of engagement with China which has 
shown considerable success. China signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
Treaty in 1992 and agreed to join the Missile Technology Control 
Regime. It has also agreed to further discussions with the United 
States on all aspects of nuclear proliferation, including China's trade 
with Iran and Pakistan. We must assure China meets its international 
obligations. By contrast, cutting off MFN will merely isolate that 
country, ending a constructive dialogue and imperiling the progress 
that must be made. The China Policy Act strikes the right balance by 
letting China know how immensely important this issue is to United 
States-China relations, without ending MFN, the basis for those 
relations.
  Mr. Speaker, China has a long way to go toward recognizing the rights 
of its citizens. Harry Wu must be freed. But revoking MFN would not be 
a helpful step in achieving these goals. The China Policy Act, 
developed with bipartisan consultation, sends a strong and constructive 
message to China. I strongly urge its passage.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Hastings] for the generous grant of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there is broad agreement here on the problem: 
the egregious violations of human rights in China, the use of prison 
labor, the imprisonment of Harry Wu, a United States citizen, the 
unfair trade practices of China, those that make the Japanese look like 
proponents of Adam Smith and free trade, unfair trade practices that 
resulted last year in a $29 billion surplus with the United States, 
headed towards $40 billion trade surplus with the United States this 
year according to the Commerce Department. That means we are going to 
export 8 million United States jobs to China because of their unfair 
trade practices. We disagree over the solution.
  What does this resolution say? Intensify diplomatic initiatives. 
Well, we have been doing that every year now for about a decade. A 
report from the President. Well, we have been having reports from the 
President since the Reagan administration on the abuses in China. We 
know what they are, and it has not changed a bit, but there is one new, 
very serious, initiative. We are going to broadcast Radio Free Asia 
into China within 90 days. The geriatric oligarchy of China is quaking 
in their boots. Yes, they are quaking in their boots.
  We will not be allowed to vote on the resolution of disapproval. A 
quick sleight of hand is going to move to table it. Why is that 
happening? Because last night, for the first time, we saw a crack in 
the free-trade dogma that has dictated policy under both Democrats and 
Republicans in this institution in the vote on the bailout of 

[[Page H7293]]
Mexico, and suddenly, after the leaders, the Republican leaders and the 
Democratic administration, lost a vote on the bailout of Mexico which 
came to the floor, they do not want to allow a vote on the resolution 
of disapproval of MFN for China because they are afraid there might be 
an honest vote in this House where people would say we have been 
gumming this issue for years. The Chinese will take $40 billion in 
unfair trade practices and laugh all the way to the bank. They will 
only understand real action.
  Repeal MFN.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], my good friend and colleague.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Hastings] for yielding this time to me and rise with a heavy heart as 
we discuss this entire situation involving China, and I see--as the 
American birthright--the ideal that this Nation and others around the 
world are conceived in liberty and should be dedicated to the 
proposition that all people are created equal with certain inalienable 
rights. I think that is what our Nation is here for, as a beacon to the 
rest of the world, but what we see so often is that our foreign policy 
has been directed to certain financial interests, and in fact our 
foreign policy, rather than being a representation of the best ideals 
in us, has really become a kind of deal-making exercise.
  Mr. Speaker, we should probably call China MFN the Boeing MFN because 
supporters of MFN for China and keeping that special trade status 
protected say that exports to China will create jobs here. However 
Boeing, one of the chief beneficiaries of nearly $2 billion worth of 
airplane sales to China, recently announced over 5,000 people in our 
country are being laid off because they are going to replace that 
production with production in China, and I think what
 is so troubling is that China has done nothing to promote democracy. 
It has done nothing to stop China from selling missile technology to 
rogue nations like Pakistan. China has done nothing to end labor abuses 
in its own country affecting both men and women who are voiceless as we 
debate there today. They have done nothing to end human rights abuses 
like the detention and arrest of American citizen Harry Wu.

  But in fact our China policy not only does not stand up for 
democracy, but from an economic standpoint has led to a flood of cheap 
imports into our country--expected to reach over $32 billion this year 
alone--representing an increase over last year, and in fact since 
China's crackdown on democracy in 1989, our country has suffered a net 
loss of over $100 billion in China.
  Mr. Speaker, when we debated the crime bill, we talked about three 
strikes and you're out. It seems to me here we have got five strikes 
and you're out, and we ought to go back to the negotiating table and 
figure out what we stand for fundamentally as citizens of the freest 
nation on Earth.
  China MFN is just another smokescreen for the rights of capital 
surmounting the rights of people and the ideals of democratic freedom. 
Free trade can only exist among free people. When is the United States 
of America going to recall its own birthright?
  I am very upset that the Wolf amendment will not be offered here for 
a vote up or down in this Congress today. I stand here with a very 
heavy heart. I ask, ``Why don't we stand up for what our Constitution 
says we are here for?''
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the China Policy 
Act.
  I support the China Policy Act, because I believe that the time has 
come to quit coddling the tyrants in Beijing.
  It is time to say to the Chinese Government that ``Human rights 
abuses; forced abortions; and acts, such as imprisonment of an American 
citizen, Harry Wu, is not tolerable.''
  Mr. Speaker, we are Americans. We stand for freedom. We fight for 
democracy, and we have not forgotten Tiananmen Square.
  To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I want to remind you, 
this is not a partisan issue. This is an opportunity to do what is 
right. If you support democracy and human rights, vote for the China 
Policy Act.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Speaker, as I said before, China has millions more dissidents 
than those who openly brave the hard suppression of human rights. The 
one thing that unites the people in China with a narrow leadership 
clique, however, is the memory of the destruction of China's 
sovereignty during the last two centuries and the imposition of unequal 
treaties and other indignities on the part of first the Western powers 
and then Japan.
  I tell my colleagues a certainty, that as nothing else the denial of 
normal trade status will unite China's people behind their Government 
and identify the United States as hostile to their interests. On the 
other hand, the legislation before us today recognizes the importance 
of China while specifying the deep concerns of the American people 
about the PRC and then requiring diplomatic conduct from the 
Presidency, and reports and Radio Free Asia.
  A number of well-known China dissidents, for example, including Chi 
Ling and Won Won To have warned that the denial of MFN status will 
endanger China's current economic opening and close off current 
widening exposure of Chinese to the outside world. The dissident 
movement exists in China precisely because growing foreign investment 
and China's expanding foreign trade have created a fast burgeoning 
middle class with the same expectations as middle classes throughout 
the world. It thrives on a freer flow of information brought about by 
the introduction of Western telecommunications technology and access to 
the international media.
   Mr. Speaker, the denial of MFN will set back the democracy movement 
in China even more than it sets back the Chinese economy and chokes off 
the prosperity of Hong Kong.
   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a true consensus bill and in the nature of 
foreign policy. It has support of a broad range of individuals who have 
done extraordinary work in bringing the China Policy Act to this floor. 
Led by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the gentlewoman from 
California [Mrs. Pelosi], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] 
and others, we now come to the position of being able to at least speak 
very clearly with reference to a consensus that has developed in this 
House that will not be as exacerbating as perhaps some would like for 
us to put forward. It does not link China policy to trade. It 
incorporates key additional human rights language which is and was a 
continuing concern of many Members of this body. It sends a clear 
message regarding troubling China activities such as, as has been so 
often mentioned and justifiably so, the unjustified detention of Harry 
Wu, the violation of basic human rights that we all are concerned 
about, the sale of missile components in violation of nonproliferation 
commitment, and I personally yesterday had a visit from State 
Department officials because I shared immense concern with reference to 
the potential for sale of missile components to Pakistan and to Iran. I 
was assured that there are sanctions in the event these allegations 
come to fruition that will cover these matters. It also deals with the 
unfair trade practices that have been mentioned by so many Members 
here. In short, it establishes the United States policy objectives, 
will expedite the startup of Radio Free Asia, and we do, for the 
efforts that have been ongoing, commend China in spite of the fact that 
we recognize that there is much more that they should do in their 
movement toward democracy.
  It is very difficult for us to speak as clearly as we have in this 
measure, and I commend all of our colleagues for the extraordinary work 
that they have done in bringing to us a true consensus bill which, in 
my judgment, is how foreign policy should be made in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  
[[Page H7294]]

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I believe in open markets and in a 
vibrant international marketplace in which the United States is an 
active trading partner with all nations.
  But, I have some real problems with extending most favored nation 
trading status to a country like China where the people who produce the 
goods that China exports to us are not free.
  It is not much of an exaggeration to say that while we prohibit the 
import from China of goods made using prison labor, the harsh fact is 
that all the goods produced there are the products of prison labor.
  The country is so unfree that it claims that the Government of China 
owns all the labor of all Chinese people.
  When you want to hire a Chinese person to work for an American 
company, you pay the Chinese Government a lot of money, but the person 
who does the work never sees the money. The government pockets maybe 
$20 a day for a factory worker, while the worker gets less than a 
dollar of that.
  This is not free trade. This is slavery.
  The Chinese exported this system to Cuba, where the same thing 
happens. The Castro dictatorship is more than happy to sell the 
services of Cuban workers to unscrupulous foreign investors, and to 
keep all the money for itself while tossing a few pennies a day to the 
person who actually has to do the work.
  Both in Cuba and in China, the system is a moral outrage and reeks of 
the slave trade of the 19th century.
  Unfree labor is not the only problem with doing business with China.
  It is a country where there is no respect whatsoever for the human 
rights of its citizens--nor for the human rights of American citizens.
  The arrest of Harry Wu, an American citizen, is only one example of 
this. It is just one small element in an abysmal Chinese human rights 
situation.
  Forced abortion. We all know this issue. We know it happens and it 
happens a lot.
  And we know that there are many killings of born and unborn little 
girls.
  And, we know that these practices violate every known standard of 
human rights since God made Man.
  There are reports that aborted fetuses are sold and eaten.
  The trafficking in human organs that is practiced in China is another 
outrage. One hears rumors of condemned prisoners being executed 
according to the marketing needs of those who have sold their organs to 
wealthy foreigners needing a heart, liver, kidney or other transplant.
  I could go on and on and on with one outrage after another that is 
taking place in China.
  I thank the gentleman for highlighting these outrages.
                              {time}  1315

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stockman].
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the gentlewoman 
was making a point. She outlined some serious allegations and some 
serious charges. In 1930 we heard serious charges before, and we said 
we are not sure, and we did nothing. Now, 50 years later, we hear the 
same allegations, and, again, America is doing nothing. There is 
something wrong.
  What lessons have we learned from history? None, apparently. We 
should not trade with a barbarous nation such as China, and we should 
vote to cut their MFN.
  This is more than just a symbol. We cannot even purchase anything 
without the label ``China'' on it. I was offended July 4 when I took 
out of my pocket an American flag, and on it it said ``Made in China.'' 
That is an outrage. We need to stop trading with these guys. It is 
wrong, and America needs to stand up and say so.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], the distinguished gentleman who 
has worked very hard on Sino-American relations and trade issues.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). The gentleman from California 
is recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Nebraska, 
and rise in very strong support of the Bereuter resolution. The 
gentleman has worked long and hard on this issue, along with many of 
our colleagues, and I believe that this is a very important day in the 
history of the United States Congress and in world history.
  Mr. Speaker, speaking of history, when I look back on one of the most 
interesting years in the last quarter of a century, 1989 has to stand 
out. We observed that year the crumbling of the Berlin Wall. We saw the 
tremendous changes take place as we saw the first transition of one 
democratically elected government to another in El Salvador. We saw 
political pluralism emerge in Nicaragua. We saw great speeches made 
right here in this Chamber by Vaclav Havel from then Czechoslovakia, 
from Lech Walesa, the leader of Poland, an electrician from the Gadansk 
Shipyard. To me, one of the most moving speeches came from the first 
democratically elected President in the history of South Korea.
  Now, one of the arguments that I have made time and time again, and 
many of our colleagues have joined in this, is if we look over the past 
several years at countries where tremendous political repression has 
existed, we chose as a nation not to impose trade sanctions, countries 
like Taiwan, countries like Argentina, countries like Chile, and 
nations like South Korea.
  Well, on October 18, 1989, just a few months after the tragic 
Tiananmen Square massacre, President Roh Tae Woo stood right behind me 
here. He does not speak English at all, but he, out of respect to this 
body, delivered his speech in broken English. He phonetically delivered 
his statement to us. And there was an item in that which to me really 
demonstrates where we stand today and what it is that we are trying to 
do.
  He said:

       The forces of freedom and liberty are eroding the 
     foundations of closed societies. The efficiency of the market 
     economy and the benefits of an open society have become 
     undeniable. Now these universal ideals, symbolized by the 
     United States of America, have begun to undermine the 
     fortresses of repression.

  Mr. Speaker, that statement was made in 1989, right here in this 
Chamber, and we have seen tremendous changes take place in the ensuing 
6
 years. We proceeded during that 6-year period with engagement with 
China with most favored nation trading status. And my colleagues are 
right in talking about the fact that things have not necessarily gotten 
better. They have in many ways gotten worse. But it is important for us 
to look at some areas of improvement.

  Remember, we are talking about a nation that has a history that spans 
four millennia. Now, we cannot expect a change to take place overnight, 
but we do realize that exposure to western values has gone a long way 
towards improving things.
  We have seen the establishment of a stock market in Shanghai. The 
reports to come from that have been incredible. Obviously any economic 
visitor in Shanghai would love to have the opportunity to see how their 
stocks are doing. Well, how do they find those reports? It has to be 
printed in the newspaper.
  One of the things that the government of China is having a very 
difficult time doing is keeping any kind of political reporting out of 
that information that is disseminated through the free flow of economic 
activity in Shanghai. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we must realize 
that trade promotes private enterprise, which creates wealth, which 
improves living standards, which undermines political repression, and 
that is exactly what is happening here.
  We are not going to change things overnight. We have a long way to 
go. But if we believe for one moment that shutting the door with China 
will all of a sudden get Harry Wu released, that is preposterous. If we 
believe that closing the door will improve the plight of those many 
people in China who are seeking economic opportunity, we are crazy to 
believe that. The two southern provinces of Guangdong and Fujian see 
Chinese people literally clawing their way to get in there. Why? 
Because that 

[[Page H7295]]
is the place that they can find economic opportunity.
  So I believe that this is a very balanced approach that the gentleman 
from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] is taking, and I again congratulate him 
for all that he has done, the work of the Committee on International 
Relations, working closely with members of the Committee on Ways and 
Means. I believe that we have a positive solution to a very, very tough 
problem. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day. This is an historic day as 
we look towards the most important relationship between two countries 
on the face of the Earth.
  I support the Bereuter resolution.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2058, which 
condemns China's violations of human rights and calls for China to 
grant access to American exports. H.R. 2058 crafts a reasonable 
compromise between those who would want to extend most-favored-nation 
status to China unconditionally, and those who agree with me that 
denial of most-favored-nation status is the best means of influencing 
China.
  We must not forget the Tiananmen Square massacre or the Chinese 
Government's brutal suppression of student protestors. Rather, we must 
answer the Chinese peoples cry for freedom and democracy by continuing 
to press for adherence to international human rights standards.
  Under H.R. 2058, the Congress calls for the immediate release of 
United States citizen Harry Wu who was recently arrested by the Chinese 
Government; calls on the President to pressure China to adhere to 
international weapons nonproliferation agreements; calls on China to 
release political prisoners, respect the rights of Tibetans, and end 
the practice of coercive abortions. It is important to note that this 
legislation does not in any way disturb the President's decision to 
extend most-favored-nation status to China for the coming year.
  In addition to these human rights abuses, H.R. 2058 includes 
additional conditions that call on China to permit greater access by 
United States exporters to China's markets by ending that nations 
unfair trade practices. American working men and women deserve to have 
the support of the United States Government in the attempt to force 
China to adopt a fair trade policy.
  All of the objectives embodied in H.R. 2058 are reasonable standards 
which we should expect any nation wishing to acquire most-favored-
nation trading status to satisfy. Certainly no one could argue that the 
language of H.R. 2058 would impose too heavy a burden on the Chinese 
Government, or that the conditions are unduly harsh.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2058 is a fair and just bill which allows China the 
opportunity to reform their conduct, and make progress toward 
internationally recognized standards of human rights, without being 
punished. If there is no progress toward the goals established in this 
bill in China, then the denial of further favorable trade status will 
be necessary to convey the message to the Chinese Government that their 
conduct will not be tolerated by the international community. I 
strongly urge all my colleagues to take a stand for human rights, and 
vote for passage of H.R. 2058.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the H.J. 
Res. 96, a bill to disapprove most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment for 
China. H.J. Res. 96 is carefully targeted to send a strong message to 
the Chinese Government that continued suppression of human rights, 
flaunting of international agreements on nuclear non-proliferation, and 
engaging in unfair trade practices cannot be tolerated, ignored, or 
rewarded.
  Denying most-favored-nation status for China is a reasonable response 
to the continuing controversy over trade and human rights policy in 
regards to 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 
6 years ago, and continues to hold prisoner an American citizen with 
carte blanche on the importation of their goods into our market. 
Granting most-favored-nation status for all Chinese products rewards 
the Chinese regime for its intransigence on human rights, and its 
refusal to engage in fair trade.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 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 30 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, 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. Speaker, 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 H.J. Res. 96 and send a 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. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress former Congresswoman 
Helen Bentley of Maryland and I combined to pass into law Radio Free 
Asia, a new surrogate radio to be aimed at repressive regimes in China, 
in North Korea, in Laos, in Vietnam, in Burma, and other Asian nations. 
Today, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has focused his 
policy alternative to the withdrawal of Most Favored Nation tariff 
status from China on starting surrogate broadcasting to China. His is 
the proper way to go.
  Withdrawing MFN may seem an effective means of moving the Beijing 
Government away from repression and toward the norms of international 
human rights. But it only seems so. On further examination one can see 
that the results of such withdrawal would likely rather be retaliation 
against American companies doing business in China and no progress on 
the rule of law. Moreover, MFN is a one-shot gun. Once fired there is 
no further bullet. Once withdrawn, the tariffs rise, Chinese 
retaliation follows, and markets change.
  No, Mr. Speaker, this is not the approach that the United States 
should follow. Mr. Bereuter has it right. Beam a message of truth to 
China--tell them the truth about what is happening in their own society 
to their own people--and create the pressure for change from within. 
Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, the surrogate radios of the cold 
war, gave not only truth, but hope to millions in Eastern Europe and 
the former Soviet Union that ultimately helped to undermine and bring 
down their totalitarian, communist regimes. Radio Free Asia would play 
the same role.
  I am a great supporter and believer in the effectiveness of the Voice 
of America which beams to China and to societies across the world the 
message of our country to their people. It is among the most cost 
effective means of promoting American values to people everywhere. 
Surrogate radio is not the same. Surrogate radio is radio that 
broadcasts the messages of their own people to those societies. That 
relates to them not only in their own language but by their own people 
and in their own cultures. It reports the truth about what is happening 
not only around the world but, more importantly, within that society 
and not within the American idiom but within theirs. Surrogate radios 
are not to supplant the Voice of America--our voice to the world. 
Surrogate radios are not to provide an alternative to the VOA. 
Surrogate radios have always operated right along side VOA and 
complemented its good work. Both are extremely effective in their 
different missions, both spend the relatively small sums required to 
sustain them effectively as well, and both are necessary to advance the 
purposes of our foreign policy.
  Now VOA has, unfortunately, been sending a message that our radios 
are a zero sum game, that money put toward RFA is money taken away from 
VOA. I don't favor that and I don't know anyone that does. And yet it 
has been extremely difficult to get RFA up and running and this 
administration has spoken a good commitment to it without following its 
good words with action. It is my hope that the Bereuter amendment will 
receive an overwhelming vote and send a message to the White House that 
this is our policy of choice and that the President had better get 
aboard and start acting as the engineer of this train.
  Last year the question of funding and starting up RFA was faced in 
the appropriation for Commerce, State, Justice where the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], then the chairman, failed to fund RFA. I 
offered an amendment to ensure that the commitment to RFA was known to 
the then chairman and it passed overwhelmingly. I hope Congress will 
again today go on record to 

[[Page H7296]]
send the message strongly that RFA's time has indeed come.
  We should, in approving the policy choice in Bereuter, also make the 
commitment to provide sufficient funds to make FRA a reality. These 
funds should not come from VOA. But I would say, Mr. Speaker, if we 
continue to see from VOA the kind of effort to slow and side-track RFA 
start-up that has been all too evident, then, perhaps, we should, 
indeed, consider using VOA funds for this purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, Harry Wu, is my friend, the friend of all of us, the 
friend of every person who loves human freedom. He returned to China, 
the nation of his birth, and put himself at great risk to make the 
truth known about China's egregious labor prison camps and its heinous 
market in human organs. His is just the latest example of the 
oppressive practices of the Beijing regime. Since last year's vote not 
to withdraw MFN, which I supported, human rights violations by the 
Chinese Government have worsened not improved. The Chinese communist 
regime makes it easy to generate support in Congress for RFA. They are 
clearly their own worst enemy.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, they will argue, as they always do, that these are 
matters only of internal concern, that the United States is yet again 
intruding itself in Chinese matters, that what they do to their own 
people is none of our affair. Yet we need only remind them that they 
are signatory to the Universal Declaration, that they made a 
commitment--which has since rung hollow--to observe the tenents of 
basic rights for every human being. And I would say one thing further: 
that we are our brothers keeper; that the denial of Harry Wu's rights 
is the denial of my rights and yours and of every person in this 
chamber and on this Earth. That once we can convince China and the rest 
of the world that every person deserves respect, that every person has 
the right to worship and speak and write in the way he or she chooses, 
that governments must rule only through law created democratically by 
the people--then may China and other nations which deny these basic 
rights take their place among the nations of the world who will live in 
peace and harmony and work together toward a better life for all 
peoples. We all look forward with all the Harry Wu's--and there are 
hundreds of millions of them in China--to that day.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I support the China Policy Act, 
sponsored by my colleague from Nebraska, the distinguished chair of the 
Asia and Pacific subcommittee.
  I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that Congress 
must be concerned with the illegal and unjust arrest and current 
incarceration of American Harry Wu by Chinese officials. We must use 
all available diplomatic means to resolve this situation and see that 
Mr. Wu is returned to freedom.
  However, we must not be so short-tempered and short-sighted as to 
vent our frustration by revoking Most Favored Nation status for China. 
Revoking MFN status is not something the United States should do 
lightly in any situation.
  The recent deterioration of relations with China is indeed a cause 
for great concern. In today's Post Cold War world, the United States 
has many vital security concerns in Southeast Asia. In this region of 
the world where great strides are being made toward democratization, 
America must remain vigilant in our support of international human 
rights.
  Perhaps the time has come for the United States to be more 
circumspect with regard to Beijing's policies and reputation. Yet, one 
thing is sure--the time has not come to end MFN for China and ostracize 
this emerging nation, which may hold the ultimate key to peace and 
stability in Asia. We will never succeed in fostering real 
democratization for millions of Chinese tomorrow if we decide to impose 
an economic quarantine China today.
  It is possible to support MFN status for China and still fight for 
Harry Wu's return home--and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to do just that. I urge them to support H.R. 2058 to support the 
safe return of Harry Wu.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House 
Joint Resolution 96 that would deny Most-Favored-Nation [MFN] trade 
status to China.
  I can understand the reasons why the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] proposed an MFN disapproval resolution. But, I'm not convinced 
that an embargo--the effect of withdrawing MFN status--would punish 
China's use of prison labor, human rights abuses, and possible 
violations of arms control agreements.
  Taking away MFN will actually strip us of a powerful tool that we can 
use to push for change, while having a negligible effect on China. 
Denying MFN to China forces us to turn our backs on Chinese human 
rights abuses. But MFN gives us the leverage and access needed to 
encourage improvements in China's treatment of its citizens.
  Let's keep the lines of free ideas open through trade. Discussion 
between two friendly trading partners is more effective than criticism 
between nations involved in an embargo or trade war. Change is 
generated by communication and cooperation, not alienation.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the committee's position in 
opposing this measure and support the continuation of MFN status to 
China. I believe we can do what's best for trade while engaging the 
Chinese to produce change.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add to the Record an 
article from Business Week magazine that highlights how increased 
economic activity and Western contacts have improved overall human 
rights, especially in the southeastern provinces in China. Change 
sometimes comes too slowly for Americans but I am confident that the 
inevitable triumph of democracy and respect for human rights will 
happen one day soon in China just as it has in other parts of the 
world.
                   [From Business Week, June 6, 1994]

             China--Is Prosperity Creating a Freer Society?

       The contrast is stark. Chinese authorities continue their 
     crackdown on dissenting voices and put security forces on 
     alert in Tiananmen Square. At the same time, in the grimy 
     central city of Wuhan, a professor is bringing a new concept 
     to China's heartland: the rule of law. Armed with a Yale Law 
     School degree and a team of young associates, Wan Exiang runs 
     China's first public-interest legal center. From his bustling 
     offices, Wan takes on government officials--including members 
     of the much-feared national police, the Public Security 
     Bureau (PSB)--who have long ridden roughshod over individual 
     rights.
       Increasingly, Wan is winning. In one recent case, his 
     Center for the Protection of the Rights of Disadvantaged 
     Citizens came to the defense of an entrepreneur from Hangzhou 
     who left his job as a technician at a state-backed company to 
     start his own business. Accusing the man of taking company 
     patents, police put him in detention, ransacked his home, and 
     confiscated all his belongings. After a plea from the man's 
     wife, Wan dispatched two lawyers to represent him. They won--
     and got the PSB to pay damages of 500 yuan--the equivalent of 
     six weeks' salary. Altogether, the center, which is funded in 
     part by the Ford Foundation, has received 1,600 requests for 
     help.
       As the June 4 anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre 
     approaches, President Clinton is poised to make the 
     politically costly decision to renew China's most-favored-
     nation trading status (page 102). He is doing so even though 
     China has been cracking down hard on its most vocal 
     dissidents. It has re-arrested Wei Jingsheng, a leader of the 
     ``Democracy Wall'' movement of the late 1970s. Beijing has 
     imprisoned many other political activists and has rounded up 
     religious and labor leaders.
       But no matter what an increasingly jittery leadership does 
     to repress and control, a quiet revolution is taking place. 
     Across the Middle Kingdom, the glimmerings of a freer society 
     can be seen in the actions of Chinese such as Professor Wan. 
     China's contact with the U.S. and the rest of the world is 
     helping make that happen. Although Clinton's decision was in 
     part based on pure commercial reasons, it does reflect a 
     growing view among experts that the annual debate about human 
     rights in China has been overtaken by deeper, grassroots 
     change in the world's most populous nation.
       An explosion of information technology, for example, has 
     allowed the Chinese to link up to the world with fax 
     machines, telephone lines, satellite dishes, and personal 
     computers. Thanks to market-oriented reforms, millions of 
     Chinese can now decide where to work and live instead of 
     being told. A growing local media, aligning with regional 
     power brokers, is spotlighting tension between provincial 
     authorities and Beijing. And workers and peasants are 
     becoming more vocal about protesting corruption, layoffs, and 
     taxes.
       Two or three years ago, signs of people circumventing or 
     undermining totalitarian rule could be dismissed as 
     anomalies. But no longer. Just as China's economic boom has 
     brought increased prosperity to millions, so too is life for 
     ordinary Chinese becoming easier and freer. ``There has been 
     a substantial evolution--economic, social, and political--
     that makes the state less intrusive in people's lives,'' says 
     Kenneth G. Lieberthal, a China expert at the University of 
     Michigan.
       Indeed, the central judgment that Deng Xiaoping made 15 
     years ago now appears to be proving faulty. Deng reckoned 
     that by opening the door to the outside world, China could 
     absorb foreign investment, trade, and technology while 
     spurning the cultural and political influences, or 
     ``bourgeois liberalization,'' that would challenge Communist 
     Party rule.
       But years of double-digit economic growth are transforming 
     Chinese society itself, loosening Beijing's control over 1.2 
     billion people. In Guangdong, workers angered by dangerous 
     factory conditions have formed more than 800 illegal trade 
     unions. In Beijing, live talk shows allow radio listeners to 
     discuss once-taboo subjects, from urban pollution to 
     extramarital affairs. In a Shanghai factory, the subject at 
     mandatory Communist Party meetings is bonuses, not politics. 
     And in 

[[Page H7297]]
     coastal cities and interior villages, attendance at underground 
     churches is soaring. Virtually no one accepts the ideology 
     called communism anymore.


                             Shifting sands

       Many of these grassroots changes have frightened the 
     Communist Party leadership, which is already rattled by 
     Deng's deteriorating health and an inevitable power struggle. 
     Yet the earth continues to shift under the leadership's feet. 
     Beijing must encourage growth to stay in power, but that only 
     increase the potential for greater individual freedom. Only a 
     few years ago, the government could dictate where citizens 
     lived and worked, when they married, and when they could have 
     a child. But today, a rising middle class is quietly 
     challenging centralized control. ``Change is happening from 
     the bottom up, regardless of what happens with the Communist 
     Party,'' says David S. Goodman, a fellow at Murdoch 
     University's Asia Research Center in Perth, Australia.
       That doesn't mean China's transition to the post-Deng era 
     will be smooth. The party still maintains its monopoly on 
     power. Moreover, the state controls the media and arrests 
     whomever it wants. In Tibet and Xinjiang, ethnic minorities 
     face severe repression. Meanwhile, the tumultuous move to a 
     market economy has created a political and social powder keg. 
     The economy grew 12.7% in the first quarter, barely cooling 
     off from its 13% pace in each of the past two years. 
     Inflation is 24.6% in the big cities, and corruption among 
     officials is widespread. In 1989, that combination led to 
     large antigovernment demonstrations. If similar unrest breaks 
     out after the death of 89-year-old Deng, the leadership may 
     once again call in the troops.
       As the years after Tiananmen have shown, however, the 
     People's Liberation Army isn't interested in turning back the 
     clock. It's making too much money in its lucrative 
     businesses, ranging from toys to tourism. Likewise, the party 
     can be counted on to beat back outright challenges to its 
     rule, but its members are also making money in China's rush 
     to get rich.


                               new suits

       Where once the party and central government could dictate 
     just about anything, now they must compete for power with 
     provinces, cities, giant quasipublic corporations, and even 
     workers and peasants. As a result, China continues to evolve 
     away from the totalitarian model of the Maoist era and the 
     authoritarian regime of the Deng era. ``The system is losing 
     its central control,'' says M. Scot Tanner, an expert on 
     Chinese politics at Western Michigan University. He argues 
     that China is gradually becoming a ``soft authoritarian'' 
     regime like Taiwan or South Korea in the early 1980s.
       An unlikely arena for this clash of interests is the 
     nation's rudimentary legal system. As in Wuhan, a new set of 
     laws and property rights is evolving throughout China. In a 
     country where the rule of law has long been subordinate to 
     guanxi, or personal connections, the Chinese have started to 
     turn to the judicial system to resolve business and personal 
     disputes.
       Chinese citizens are suing almost everyone--from local 
     enterprises to the police. For instance, Zheng Chengsi, a 
     slender, bespectacled professor in Beijing, brought suit 
     against two of his former students last year after 
     discovering they had plagiarized more than 60,000 words from 
     his work on--of all things--intellectual-property rights. 
     Zheng's lawyers filed the case in Beijing's East District 
     court last year. The defendants tried, in vain, to persuade 
     Zheng to settle. But he insisted he didn't want damages. ``My 
     rights were violated,'' he says. ``I wanted these things to 
     be published.'' In August, Zheng got his wish: The judge 
     ordered the defendants to publish details of the case in 
     nationally circulated newspapers.
       Like Zheng, most Chinese plaintiffs are involved in 
     disputes with other civilians. But some citizens are 
     challenging government officials in court. In 1992, Liu 
     Benyuan, an entrepreneur in Sichuan province, sued local 
     cadres who tried to take away his mineral-water bottling 
     plant. They were upset because Liu refused to pay them off. 
     Besides his bottling plant, they also closed his chemical and 
     printing factories. Liu fought back. Last February, a court 
     ruled in his favor, giving him back his businesses.
       China's legal system is ill prepared to handle the growing 
     clamor for justice. As claims multiply, the number of lawyers 
     is expected to quadruple, to about 200,000, by the year 2000. 
     Many citizens continue to distrust the system's impartiality, 
     since local officials often treat courts as arms of their 
     governments. And when the courts do act independently, they 
     often have great difficulty enforcing their judgments. That 
     led editors of the official Legal Daily newspaper on May 23 
     to issue a daring call for an independent judiciary. ``The 
     idea of economic rights is spilling over into other areas 
     such as individual rights,'' says Helena Kolenda, a Beijing-
     based lawyer with the New York law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, 
     Wharton & Garrison. ``It has sparked a consciousness.''
       The demand for more rights is moving beyond individual 
     lawsuits and sparking organized, large-scale protests. Two 
     groups recently staged sit-down strikes in front of the 
     Shanghai municipal building, protesting government secrecy 
     and consumer ripoffs. The unrest has also spread to the 
     countryside, where 75% of China's population lives. Last 
     year, about 4,000 Guangdong villagers conducted a 
     demonstration on a main thoroughfare. They were upset that 
     local cadres had sold off prime farmland to Hong Kong real 
     estate developers.
       More worrisome to Beijing, unrest is spreading in 
     factories, where workers increasingly are organizing. That 
     has spooked the government, adding to worries that dissidents 
     and intellectuals are reaching out to disgruntled workers. 
     But as state-owned enterprises lay off employees, workers 
     throughout China are going on strike. In March, there were 
     270 strikes in Liaoning, Shaanxi, and Sichuan provinces, 
     several lasting as long as 40 days and involving 10,000 
     workers. In Tianjin last fall, laid-off workers marched on a 
     state-run factory, carrying signs asking: ``How can we feed 
     our children?'' Says Trini Leung, Chinese labor expert at the 
     University of Hong Kong: ``Labor unrest is bubbling very hot, 
     and the authorities are worried.''
       Like peasants in the countryside, urban Chinese workers are 
     furious about the rampant corruption and lawlessness among 
     some well placed officials. One day last fall, a Shanghai bus 
     driver found his way blocked by parked limousines in front of 
     a karaoke bar frequented by government and Communist Party 
     officials. When the bus driver told the chauffeurs to move, a 
     group of men fatally beat him. Shanghai's bus drivers 
     responded with a wildcat strike, refusing for several days to 
     drive on the busy route.
       The state hopes to prevent an explosion of labor unrest by 
     encouraging laid-off workers to find jobs in the growing 
     private and quasipublic sectors. But the unrest is not 
     limited to the public sector. Workers at foreign joint 
     ventures run by Taiwanese, Hong Kong, and other foreign 
     investors have struck to protest abysmal working conditions. 
     In Fujian province, where Taiwanese companies employ more 
     than 400,000 people, workers often spend 16 hours a day on 
     the job without overtime pay. Migrant workers in Guangdong 
     joint ventures typically make $35 a month, less than half of 
     what local residents make for the same work. Last fall, 49 
     workers died in fires at two factories run by investors from 
     Hong Kong and Taiwan.
       Even with its many problems, the private sector's growth 
     has made it much harder for Big Brother to keep tabs on each 
     citizen. Economic reform has vastly increased mobility for 
     ordinary Chinese. That has undercut the dang an, or personal 
     dossier, system. The dang an, which includes an employee's 
     family background, political leanings, and class status, once 
     was used by officials to retain workers, limit promotions, 
     and even ruin careers. But now, Chinese are going into 
     business for themselves, while foreign corporations don't 
     care about such dossiers.
       With the declining importance of the dossier, the party's 
     stifling presence in the workplace has been drastically 
     reduced. Party bosses are no longer the decision-makers. And 
     the political meetings that were once mandatory are no longer 
     held at wholly owned foreign ventures or at many joint 
     ventures. Even at state enterprises, less time is spent 
     mouthing Marxist mantras. At China Textile Machine Co. in 
     Shanghai, political meetings have been pared from an hour a 
     week to 20 minutes. ``The empty talk is gone,'' says Zheng 
     Bohua, the company's deputy general manager. ``Now we discuss 
     production.''
       U.S. companies, although anxious to defend their commercial 
     interests in China, argue that they, too, are changing the 
     thought processes of Chinese workers. Learning how to make 
     individual decisions does leave a deep imprint. And working 
     for a Western company almost automatically means a higher 
     standard of living, with better pay and benefits. ``If I were 
     asked to go back to a state enterprise, that would be hard to 
     deal with,'' says Ren Shouqin, 54, vice-president at China 
     Hewlett-Packard Co. in Beijing. hp sent him to the Monterey 
     Institute of International Studies for an mba.


                             soaps and cnn

       At HP's headquarters in Beijing, well-heeled young women 
     and men work at computer terminals, watch educational videos, 
     send electronic mail, and read foreign magazines. In the 
     Beijing area, 100,000 to 200,000 Chinese citizens work for 
     foreign companies in offices that increasingly resemble the 
     home office. Cai Ping, a 23-year-old manager in HP's 
     personnel department, regularly communicates with hp staffers 
     in Hong Kong and Palo Alto, Calif. ``It's as if we're in the 
     same building,'' she says. ``Right now, I'm in touch with the 
     trends of the world.''
       It's not just elite workers at foreign multinational 
     corporations who are in touch with the rest of the world. In 
     Guangdong, millions of people get their news from two Hong 
     Kong television stations. With a satellite dish, moreover, 
     they can get up to 18 other stations. Despite a ban on such 
     dishes, they are common fixtures in the Guangdong urban 
     landscape. Millions of Chinese who understand English will 
     soon be able to watch Cable News Network.
       Of course, the state-controlled media remain on a tight 
     leash, and authorities still strike out at individual 
     journalists who hit too-sensitive nerves. In April, Xi Yang, 
     a reporter for a Hong Kong newspaper who had written about 
     plans for an interest-rate increase, was sentenced to 12 
     years in prison for allegedly ``stealing state financial 
     secrets.''
       But commercial imperatives are creating the potential for 
     more reliable news. tv stations in wealthy coastal cities 
     have stepped up coverage of social and economic news. A 
     recent protest in Shanghai was covered by 

[[Page H7298]]
     one government station, despite efforts by city officials to black it 
     out. Most of the time, stations stick to more popular fare to 
     lure a broader audience--and advertisers. Taiwanese soap 
     operas are now common, as are news stories about prostitution 
     and corruption.


                               talk radio

       At the same time that local governments are opening 
     commercial tv stations and newspapers, party organs are on 
     the decline. The circulation of People's Daily dropped from 
     2.3 million in 1992 to 1.65 million last year. With the 
     government cutting back on press subsidies, the fight is on 
     for advertising dollars and for circulation gains. Some 
     papers have responded by printing fewer political screeds and 
     more alluring tales of sex and violence.
       Economic change has emboldened the business press. As 
     millions of Chinese have become stockholders for the first 
     time, the business press has become more aggressive in 
     shaking up China's corporations and shining a light on 
     corruption. An increasingly influential business paper is the 
     Shanghai Securities News. The paper warns of stock market 
     shenanigans and covers civil lawsuits involving companies. A 
     few weeks ago, the paper ran the first word of a lawsuit by a 
     widow who sued a securities firm after her husband committed 
     suicide. She claims the firm forced him to engage in illegal 
     insider trading. ``This paper really tells us the truth,'' 
     says one investor.
       Radio is also slowly moving away from the party line. Talk 
     radio abounds in the large cities, where people's 
     frustrations and desires anonymously spill out over the 
     airwaves. On Guangdong radio, callers regularly criticize the 
     government, sounding off on everything from police brutality 
     to trade policy. On one recent evening, crime is the big 
     concern, as listeners complain about robberies on buses, 
     highways, and city streets.
       American talk radio it's not. But this profusion of media 
     outlets has created a forum for the country's various power 
     groups to fight their battles. In the past, the powerful 
     Propaganda Ministry could homogenize the country's 
     newspapers. Now, as the decentralized economy has given more 
     power to regional chieftains, various factions are vying for 
     control. With conservatives and reformers wielding control of 
     media outlets, China has not one official press but several. 
     People's Daily, controlled by the conservatives, therefore 
     reports on strikes and rural unrest to demonstrate the 
     dangers of policies advocated by reformers such as Vice-
     Premier Zhu Rongji, while Shanghai papers report on 
     successful reforms.
       Even though China's media can hardly be called free, the 
     emergence of divergent voices means the center's ability to 
     control people's minds has vanished. The very values upon 
     which communism was founded are shifting. Since so few 
     Chinese believe in its ideology, the Communist Party's 
     leaders have no option but to press ahead with economic 
     modernization--even as it unleashes social changes. To 
     justify its existence, the party has to deliver prosperity, 
     not class struggle. These pressures can only mount as more 
     Chinese accumulate wealth.


                            the door is open

       To contain the damage, Beijing's leaders have adopted a 
     strategy of strategic retreats. By pulling back in certain 
     areas, the leaders hope they can limit popular unrest and 
     triumph in the end. But it's unlikely that 1.2 billion 
     Chinese will be content with just the beginnings of a legal 
     system, a freer press, and a trade-union movement. Having won 
     those gains in the past few years, they are pressing for 
     more.
       Faced with these demands, the Communist Party will be 
     confronted with tough choices. It can lash out, as it did in 
     1989. Or it can begin to transform itself, as did autocratic 
     parties in Taiwan and South Korea. A violent crackdown would 
     be a huge step backward and would be unlikely to work in the 
     long term. As the years after 1989 have demonstrated, hard-
     liners cannot repress an entire society and still preserve 
     economic reform.
       No one is arguing that China is about to blossom into a 
     multiparty democracy. The government's strategy is to co-opt 
     potential pressure groups before they become independent 
     political forces. The technocratic leaders who are gradually 
     taking over the reins of power from the old-time 
     revolutionaries are more willing to allow interest groups to 
     express their viewpoints--but only as long as they remain 
     within the confines of a single party.
       For now, many Chinese say they are too busy making money to 
     think about politics. Young Chinese, in particular, are 
     learning that wealth means the freedom to travel, to buy 
     foreign newspapers, to win a court case against a corrupt 
     government official. ``If you have money,'' says a taxi 
     driver in Fuzhou, ``then you can buy human rights.'' By this 
     reckoning, the best thing Washington can do to nurture 
     greater rights in China is to make sure its doors remain as 
     open as possible to investment and ideas. ``We have 
     confidence about the future,'' says Aven Yang, senior manager 
     for materials at Northern Telecom Ltd.'s joint venture 
     manager for materials at Northern Telecom Ltd.'s joint 
     venture in Shekou. ``There is bread, and the door is open. We 
     don't want the door to close.'' The rest of the world should 
     make sure it doesn't.
       By Joyce Barnathan in Shanghai, with Pete Engardio in 
     Guangzhou, Lynne Curry in Beijing, Dave Lindorff in Hong 
     Kong, and Bruce Einhorn in New York.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 96, legislation that would disapprove the President's 
decision to renew most-favored-nation [MFN] status for the People's 
Republic of China [PRC]. My reason for doing so is simple: While I 
share my colleagues concerns about the Chinese Government's actions 
regarding human rights, missile proliferation, and other bilateral 
matter, I do not believe that these issues should be linked to the 
basic foundation of trade between the United States and the PRC. I 
believe that there are more appropriate and effective means to address 
these important noneconomic concerns.
  The People's Republic of China [PRC] has been denied permanent MFN 
trading status since 1951, when Congress revoked MFN status for all 
Communist countries. However, under the provisions of the Trade Act of 
1974, the United States can grant temporary MFN status to China if the 
President issues a so-called ``Jackson-Vanik'' waiver.
  In June of this year, President Clinton exercised this option--as he 
has in each of the previous years of his administration--and extended 
the Jackson-Vanik waiver for China for an additional year. In 
considering House Joint Resolution 96, we must now decide whether to 
exercise our congressional prerogative to disapprove this waiver--and 
deny MFN status for China. Following this debate, I hope Congress can 
move forward on the consideration of granting permanent MFN status for 
China and putting an end to this annual source of Sino-American 
tension.
  In making this important decision, there are two questions that we 
must answer: First, is it in our national economic interest to continue 
MFN for China? Second, how does extending MFN for China influence our 
efforts to effectively address human rights and other bilateral 
problems between the United States and China?
  The answer to the first question is unequivocally yes. Extending MFN 
to China would clearly yield substantial economic benefits to the 
United States.
  China is our Nation's fastest growing major export market. America 
exported $9.8 billion worth of goods to China in 1994, an increase of 
5.9 percent over 1993. These exports supported approximately 187,000 
American jobs, many of which are in high-wage, high-technology fields.
  But these benefits are only the tip of the iceberg. With a population 
of more than a billion people--and a GNP that has grown at an average 
rate of 9 percent since 1988--and 12 percent last year--the future 
export potential of the Chinese market is enormous. In industries such 
as power generation equipment, commercial jets, telecommunications, oil 
field machinery and computers, China represents a virtual gold mine of 
economic opportunity for American businesses.
  The important of such a market is hard to understate: In a world 
where most existing major markets are saturated or are quickly 
maturing, it is critical that we find new and expanding markets for 
American products. China is just such a market. In fact, it represents 
one of the last reservoirs of raw economic potential left for American 
businesses to tap.
  In short, if cultivated properly, a vigorous trading relationship 
with China could be a badly-needed cornerstone of American export 
growth--and overall economic growth--over the next few decades.
  Denying MFN for China, however, would put that relationship at risk. 
I want to point out that MFN is a misnomer. MFN is not preferential 
treatment--it is equal treatment. By denying MFN for China, we would be 
denying China the same trading status that all but six of our trading 
partners have been granted.
  Even worse, we would actually be punishing China by placing 
exorbitant ``Smoot-Hawley'' tariff rates, established earlier this 
century on the Chinese goods. For example, with MFN, waterbed 
mattresses exported to the United States from any MFN country--
including China--would face a tariff of 2.4 percent. Without MFN, the 
tariff on this product would be 80 percent--an increase of 3,300 
percent. This kind of punitive tariff would, for all intents and 
purposes, close the American market to Chinese products.
  In other words, continuing MFN does not constitute special treatment 
for China--but rescinding MFN would deny China the trade status that we 
grant to virtually every other nation in the world.
  How would China be expected to respond to such a punitive action? 
There's no way to know for sure * * * but I suspect that the Chinese 
would retaliate by quickly closing their market to American goods and 
would take their business elsewhere--an event that our international 
competitors, especially the Japanese and the EC, would note with glee.
  And, even if a full-fledged trade war with China is avoided, there is 
still the risk of destroying all of the progress made so far on other 
United States-China trade issues.
  For example, the United States has recently reached an historic 
accord with the People's 

[[Page H7299]]
Republic of China on protection of intellectual property rights and 
market access. The accord contains a commitment on the part of the 
Chinese to crack down on piracy and to enforce
 intellectual property laws. It would also require China to finally 
open its markets to United States audio-visual products. Rescinding MFN 
for China would undermine this progress, and would eliminate any 
possibility of future progress on other trade related issues--such as 
full enforcement of the 1992 bilateral agreement prohibiting prison-
made goods.

  And there remain other serious trade problems between the U.S. and 
the PRC that need to be addressed.
  For example, despite signing the 1958 New York Convention on 
Recognition and Enforcement of Arbital Awards, China refuses to enforce 
any claims awarded against Chinese firms under this agreement. As a 
result, American businesses such as Revpower, which was granted a $6.6 
million arbital award for contracts that were violated and property 
that was unjustly expropriated, have never been able to collect what 
they are due. Such incidents raise questions about China's sincerity in 
enforcing such agreements and whether United States investments are 
safe in the PRC.
  There are also many trade disagreements associated with the PRC's 
accession to the World Trade Organization [WTO] that need resolution, 
including the issue of permanent MFN status--which I support.
  The fact is MFN provides the basic foundation to negotiate with China 
on these kind of trade issues. Without MFN, there is no trading 
relationship--and no reason for China to listen to us on trade related 
issues.
  Finally, American consumers--especially those with limited incomes--
are also penalized by denying MFN for China.
  Many of the low-cost goods that American consumers have become so 
used to buying come from China. If we deny MFN, we will raise prices 
dramatically on those goods and undermine competition that lowers the 
price on goods from elsewhere. The result is an implicit tax increase 
on average American consumers, especially low-income families. For 
example, an extra $5-$10 dollars on a shirt may not be much for a 
Member of Congress, but for an average working family, this cost 
increase directly affects their standard of living.
  In short, denying MFN for China can only have negative consequences 
for the United States. At a minimum, rescinding MFN would destroy the 
progress we have already made and would jeopardize future progress 
towards establishing an equitable trading relationship with the PRC. At 
maximum, denying MFN would cause a full-fledged trade war in which the 
Chinese market would be closed to American products.
  Either way, the end result would be that American companies would 
effectively be shut out of one of the most rapidly expanding export 
markets in the world--sending hundreds of billions of dollars of future 
American exports down the drain. And in addition to these lost jobs, 
the standard of living of average working families will be lowered due 
to increased prices of consumer goods.
  This scenario is easily avoidable. By continuing MFN status for 
China, we can take the next step toward promoting a strong economic 
relationship with this important trading partner--and put ourselves in 
position to reap the economic benefits that the Chinese market offers.
  It is clear then, that extending MFN for China is in our national 
economic interest. However, the United States should not make foreign 
policy decisions based solely on raw economic benefits. In this case, 
we must also consider the effect that today's decision will have on our 
efforts to promote human rights and regional security.
  I can understand the motivation of some of my colleagues who want to 
link MFN trade status to other issues like human rights, missile 
proliferation, the arrest of Harry Wu, population control activities 
and regional security. They are trying to fill the void on these 
important issues resulting from the Clinton administration's lack of a 
coherent, long-term China policy. I agree with them completely that 
this void must be filled--I disagree with the method. MFN linkage is 
not the way to promote progress on these other issues.
  First, I believe that continuation of MFN for China will help promote 
further economic development and reform in the PRC. In the long term, I 
believe this economic reform will result in political reform. That is 
the exact trend that happened in Taiwan and South Korea and is 
currently happening in Indonesia and Malaysia.
  Second, while perhaps having a short-term punitive effect on China, 
the denial of MFN makes it more difficult to address our long list of 
important non-trade concerns.
  What incentives is there for China to adhere to human rights 
standards, comply with agreements it voluntarily made regarding missile 
exports and the proliferation of other weapons of mass destruction, 
halt nuclear testing, release Harry Wu, ensure a smooth transition in 
Hong Kong, and engage in responsible negotiations on regional security 
issues if the United States denies MFN? MFN denial is considered a 
hostile action by Beijing.
  The struggle to succeed aged paramount leader Deng Xiaoping has 
already begun. Denying MFN would only exacerbate relations and play 
directly into the hands of the hardliners who are using tensions in 
Sino-American relations to bolster their position. The reformers--many 
of whom are dependent on further economic growth so sustain their 
popularity and reform program--would be undercut by the denial of MFN. 
And, it is these very reformers who will more likely address the human 
rights and proliferation concerns we have. So why give their opponents 
ammunition?
  Mr. Speaker, if the Clinton administration had a coherent China 
policy which could effectively and forcefully address these serious 
concerns, then Congress would not feel compelled to have to step-in and 
fill the void. Unfortunately, we must.
  However, in doing so, I urge my colleagues to do what is best for 
long-term American interests and not become sidetracked by short-term 
political expediency. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Resolution of 
disapproval.
  Therefore, it is my hope that we will look at MFN for China, not as a 
point of contention between our two nations, but rather as the 
beginning of change that will bring new understanding within China. 
Economic gains result in further progress on human rights which can 
only promote a new era of security cooperation between the United 
States and China.
  Thank you Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the China question has vexed American 
policymakers for over a century as we struggle to define our 
relationship.
  China is the most populous nation on Earth and offers an enormous 
market for United States products. In 1994 United States companies had 
$9.3 billion in sales to China. Last year, companies in my home State 
of New York sold China nearly $600 million in goods, and New York ranks 
fourth in the Nation in total export sales to that country. 
Importantly, exports to China support some 180,000 United States jobs.
  China remains the key to the balance of power in Asia, and is well on 
its way to being the leading player in the Asia-Pacific region. Many 
experts believe that the Chinese economy will someday be the largest in 
the world, larger than even our own.
  The United States Government cannot ignore such a geopolitical giant, 
and for us to deny China MFN status would be foolish and an unwise 
policy. China's cooperation is essential in dealing with global 
challenges of nonproliferation, the environment, refugees, and 
controlling narcotics traffic. Moreover, a unilateral trade embargo by 
the United States will have little effect since Japanese and European 
corporations will quickly move to fill the void. Importantly, we will 
lose the only leverage we have over China to bring about Democratic 
reforms and persuade them to conform with acceptable standards of 
international behavior. Without a strong economic presence in China, 
the United States will have little, if any, capacity to influence the 
evolution of the Democratic process in China.
  Of course, we have numerous problems with the Chinese Government. We 
are deeply troubled by: consistent human rights abuses; the unfair 
imprisonment of American citizen, Harry Wu; an unwillingness to adhere 
to international standards of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons; a 
refusal to recognize the legitimate rights of ethnic minorities; and 
provocative military measures in the South China Sea. These are issues 
which must be addressed.
  The Chinese Government should not feel that renewing MFN is a reward 
for its behavior, and we must keep the pressure on all fronts to push 
for Democratic reform. The pathway to democracy is through free and 
open markets, and renewing China's MFN status makes sense. It is good 
for our commercial and strategic interests, and it lays the groundwork 
for sustainable long-term progress in human rights as well as promoting 
many other important issues. Mr. Bereuter's China Policy Act, which I 
support, does this. It also sends an important signal to the Chinese 
Government that its continued violations of internationally recognized 
human rights are clearly unacceptable. Therefore, I urge my colleagues 
to support Mr. Bereuter's China Policy Act.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Mr. Bereuter's 
resolution.
  It is fully within our rights to criticize the Chinese Government's 
highly inappropriate behavior, underscored recently by the case of 
Harry Wu. There is no doubt in my mind that we cannot stand idly by 
while an American citizen is treated with such disregard. The 
imprisonment of Mr. Wu is an insult to every American.
  I also applaud Mr. Wolf's and Ms. Pelosi's support for the China 
Policy Act. Their efforts 

[[Page H7300]]
were instrumental in forming the final language of this bill. With that 
said, I must add that House Joint Resolution 96, revoking MFN for 
China, must be rejected. It is the wrong message to send, and if we 
insist on sending it, it will hurt us. It is legislation that will 
accomplish nothing politically.
  In that respect, what we are doing here is not symbolic. It is not 
kowtowing to China. It is not standing on the sidelines of the issue.
  In fact, we are sending a very strongly worded message to China's 
leaders that we are very unhappy with their conduct. In answer to those 
who question a lack of action, this bill would require regular reports 
from the administration to Congress detailing China's progress in those 
areas of concern to us--particularly human rights violations, nuclear 
proliferation, and unfair trade practices.
  We are not simply sending them a hint of our displeasure. We are 
actively pursuing a change in their policy. And we will be doing so 
without harming our own interests.
  Critics of extending MFN to China counter that revocation of this 
status is the only way that we can affect change in China. They claim 
that we can only make ourselves heard, and persuade the Chinese to 
adhere to international norms, by disengaging ourselves economically--
even at the expense of American industry. That is totally incorrect.
  It has been said before, and I will reiterate it. We do need to 
express our displeasure with the Government and ensure that our 
concerns are heard and understood. For that reason, we need to remain 
engaged in China--economically and politically. Without those avenues, 
we will not have the leverage to accomplish what all of us in Congress, 
and in the United States, deem to be of the utmost importance--securing 
the full observance of human rights, democratic reforms, economic 
liberalization, and preventing the proliferation of China's weapons of 
mass destruction.
  There is no argument here that we have many problems and concerns 
with China's internal policies and trade practices. We need to make it 
clear to the Chinese Government that their intolerable policies will 
not go unanswered. And in answering we will use all of the means 
necessary within our relationship to convey our views to them. However, 
we need to act within the construct of our established relationship, 
thereby working toward our goal of a free and democratic China. I 
commend Mr. Bereuter on his well-written and well-directed bill, and I 
urge its swift passage.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the Chinese Government, and the defense 
industrial companies through which it operates, has established itself 
as the arms supplier of choice for many of the world's rogue states. We 
have granted China most-favored-nation status, and Beijing has 
responded by becoming the most eager vendor in the international 
nuclear marketplace. While we, in Congress, have been appropriating 
billions of dollars to encourage peace and security around the world, 
Beijing has been selling weapons of mass destruction to the highest 
bidders, regardless of the consequences. Over the past several years, 
the Chinese Government has: Delivered missile guidance systems to Iran; 
sent M-11 ballistic missile technology to Pakistan and aided Pakistan's 
efforts to develop a covert nuclear weapons program; sold Silkworm 
missiles to Iraq; and provided nuclear technology to Algeria.
  In addition to sending sensitive technologies to outlaw nations, 
China continues to increase its military muscle at home by: Pursuing a 
secret program to develop biological weapons; continuing its 
underground nuclear test explosion program despite an international 
testing moratorium in effect since 1992; and conducting military 
exercises in the East China Sea just north of Taiwan.
  Mr. Speaker, Beijing has a rapsheet that would make any thug proud. 
But instead of getting 10 to 20, the Chinese Government keeps getting 
billions of dollars worth of tax breaks which have helped it run up a 
massive trade surplus with the United States.
  Over the years, I have stood in the well of the House to speak out 
against a Chinese regime which ignores international security rules, 
systemically oppresses it own people, and demands preferential trade 
status while refusing to provide equal access to its own market. Since 
last year, the Chinese Government record has deteriorated even further: 
American citizen Harry Wu has been detained, political prisoners are 
still being held in a Chinese ``Gulag Archipelego'' stretching across 
the country, and China's trade and proliferation policies remain 
dismal.
  I stand here today in support of H.R. 2058, the China Policy Act of 
1995, which I believe will send a message to Beijing's ruling clique: 
We're watching you. We'll be checking your progress in the 
nonproliferation, trade, and human rights. And it's time to clean up 
your act.
  I still however, support a complete cut-off of MFN status for China 
because I don't believe we should label as ``most favored'' the regime 
operating in Beijing. I hope that this bipartisan bill serves as a 
wake-up call for China's dictators.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the view that China's 
MFN trade status should be preserved. As the previous Bereuter bill 
makes clear, the Chinese Government is, in many ways, a brutal and 
anachronistic regime, intolerant of dissent and responsible for grave 
human rights abuses. Yet under this repression flourishes one of the 
world's largest and most rapidly growing economies.
  Free-market reforms taken in the name of ``Leninist Capitalism'' have 
dramatically increase in the well-being of Chinese citizens to the 
degree that per capita income in China now doubles every 6 to 7 years, 
United States commercial involvement in China has been an integral part 
of this dramatic change, contributing significantly to the improvement 
of living conditions in China.
  There are currently over 2,000 United States companies with $6 
billion invested in mainland China. A close look at these operations 
reveals countless separate contributions to Chinese well-being above 
and beyond basic employment. United States businesses offer management 
development programs, scholarships, on site medical clinics, and gifts 
to charitable causes in China. Operating under the strictest standards 
of safety, hygiene, and environmental protection, these firms, by their 
presence and example, spread United States values and ideals throughout 
the communities in China where they are located.
  As employees of United States companies, Chinese citizens are able to 
interact with their government on a more independent basis than would 
be possible absent United States support and employment. Pluralism and 
personal liberty also are enhanced through government to government 
contacts, scientific exchanges, personal travel, and increased 
international awareness of Chinese Government activities.
  While beneficial to the average Chinese citizen, United States 
commercial involvement in China also is critical to United States 
economic and strategic objectives. Since 1980, when MFN was first 
granted to China, United States exports have increased 438 percent 
compared to an overall increase in United States exports of 156 percent 
during the same time period. As other speakers will lay out, a policy 
that preserves United States interaction with Chinese society puts us 
in the best position to leverage the Chinese Government in the 
sensitive areas of weapons proliferation, North Korea, and market 
access for United States exports.
  House Joint Resolution 96, would set back all progress the United 
States is making with China. Such a policy of unilateral confrontation 
must be rejected in favor of a strategy that preserves United States 
leadership in Asia, and maintains our commitment to the people of 
China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, denying most-favored-nation status to China 
is not in the best interest of the United States.
  Because of its size and location China will be a pivotal nation in 
the Pacific rim well into the 21st century. The damage inflicted by 
revoking MFN to China will have serious consequences for our economy.
  China has one of the fastest growing economies and is one of the 
largest markets in the world. United States businesses have made 
significant inroads into the Chinese market. In 1993, Tennessee 
companies exported $58 million in goods to China. In 1994, Tennessee 
companies exported $384 million to China, a 567-percent increase. Just 
last December, Nashville hosted the first economic summit to help 
Tennessee businesses learn how to capitalize on the Chinese market.
  Denying MFN to China would surely result in retaliatory action 
against American goods, and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs 
across America which are dependent upon our future trade with China. In 
fact, a Chinese delegation will be visiting Tennessee to pursue joint 
venture projects with 30 Tennessee businesses. If we vote to deny MFN 
today we are voting to kill jobs, and we are robbing States such as 
Tennessee of millions of dollars in potential revenue.
  China is an extremely fertile market with tremendous possibilities. 
American businesses and the American economy need China. If U.S. 
companies are forced to pull out, you can be sure there are plenty of 
other nations that will be all too happy to fill that void. Most 
importantly, China needs America. The presence of businesses from the 
West have contributed greatly to the transition of the Chinese market 
from that of state-run to privately owned and operated establishments.
  I certainly understand my colleagues concerns about China's human 
rights record, and I join them in condemning these practices. I believe 
we should continue to push for human rights improvements in China. 
Trade has been the avenue which has allowed the West to make tremendous 
strides in bringing about a more open and free society in China.
  The United States is committed to being a leader in the international 
community. We have been very successful because we have 

[[Page H7301]]
led by example. It would be impossible for the United States to lead by 
example if we did not have a presence in China.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this resolution.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. 
Res. 96 that would deny most-favored-nation [MFN] trade status to 
China.
  I can understand the reasons why the gentleman from Virginia proposed 
an MFN disapproval resolution. But, I'm not convinced that an embargo, 
the effect of withdrawing MFN status, would punish China's use of 
prison labor, human rights abuses, and possible violations of arms 
control agreements.
  Taking away MFN will actually strip us of a powerful tool that we can 
use to push for change, while having a negligible effect on China. 
Denying MFN to China forces us to turn our backs on Chinese human 
rights abuses. But MFN gives us the leverage and access needed, to 
encourage improvements in China's treatment of its citizens.
  Let's keep the lines of free ideas open through trade. Discussion 
between two friendly trading partners is more effective than criticism 
between two nations involved in an embargo or trade war. Change is 
generated by communication and cooperation, not alienation.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the committee's position, in 
opposing this measure, and support the continuation of MFN status to 
China. I believe we can do what's best for trade while engaging the 
Chinese to produce change.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as we debate China's 
most-favored nation status, we must view American policy toward China 
with consideration of many issues.
  Those issues include human rights, trade, the peaceful transition of 
Hong Kong and weapons proliferation.
  Human rights must continue to be a vital consideration as America 
formulates its policy toward China, as well as policy toward other 
areas of the world.
  Obviously, we are all concerned about China's recent behavior, and 
the detention of American Harry Wu. Regardless of our action here 
tonight, Mr. Wu must be released, and we should continue to pursue that 
result.
  However, the United States must pursue policies which are specific to 
each of the issues which affect our relationship to China in order to 
achieve positive results.
  The continuation of China's most-favored-nation status is a necessary 
part of America's policy toward China.
  To be effective, to spread the word of freedom around the world, 
America must continue to be engaged in world events.
  Through American influence, positive changes can be made in other 
societies, including China. The transfer of information, which our 
trade relationship provides, is crucial to achieving change in China, 
without MFN, this change will not occur.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the China Policy 
Act contains no teeth, and I urge support of the resolution 
disapproving MFN for China.
  How long are we going to appease the murderous, nuclear 
proliferating, United States-citizen-arresting regime in Peking?
  Most of us have seen the movie, ``Schindler's List.'' What is going 
on in China is similar: factories churn out goods made with slave 
labor. By giving MFN to China, we give China a $37 billion trade 
surplus with us--and a lot of that is blood money. The world community 
failed to do the right thing 50 years ago. We are failing to do the 
right thing now. We should be ashamed.
  Yesterday, I nominated my constituent, Mr. Harry Wu, for the 1996 
Nobel Peace Prize for his determined efforts on behalf of human rights. 
I am saddened and disappointed that the Congress will not act with the 
same courage as demonstrated by Mr. Wu.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 193, the previous question is ordered.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416, 
nays 10, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 536]

                               YEAS--416

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer
     
[[Page H7302]]


                                NAYS--10

     Burton
     Chenoweth
     Funderburk
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Pickett
     Scarborough
     Seastrand
     Souder
     Stockman

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     DeFazio
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bachus
     Collins (MI)
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Owens
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1346

  Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. JONES, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, and Mrs. SEASTRAND 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________