[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7302-H7307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DISAPPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF MOST-FAVORED-NATION TREATMENT TO THE 
               PRODUCTS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  Mr. ARCHER. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, I call up the Joint 
Resolution (H.J. Res. 96), disapproving the extension of 
nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) to the 
products of the People's Republic of China, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 96 is as follows:

                              H.R. Res. 96

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Congress does not approve the extension of the authority 
     contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     recommended by the President to the Congress on June 2, 1995, 
     with respect to the People's Republic of China.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such times as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to an agreement between the 
minority, the majority, and the interested parties, the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], and 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], will each control 10 minutes to 
debate the motion to table, after which the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf] will be recognized to move to table the motion of 
disapproval.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the procedure, and I will be 
happy to handle our time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if I understand the majority leader, he 
said on a nondebatable motion, there was some agreement to debate it, 
10 minutes being allocated to two Members. I am wondering if that 
requires unanimous consent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. No, the allocation of debate time is in 
order under the rule.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The rule made specifically in order that a nondebatable 
motion to table be debatable, but not the resolution itself?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct that debate will 
precede the motion to table.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. LANTOS. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LANTOS. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, are both sides in control of 
the time in favor of tabling this motion?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would note that the rule, House 
Resolution 193, allocates debate time for consideration of the joint 
resolution and does not require that the time be divided between 
proponents and opponents.
  Mr. LANTOS. If I may continue my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, 
I believe House rules do. We have had precedent for that when there was 
both on the majority and minority side the determination to grant Most 
Favored Nation treatment to Romania. I objected on parliamentary 
grounds, and the Speaker at that time granted me part of the time to 
express the views of those who are opposed to the tabling motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state that the rule was 
adopted pursuant to the rules of the House, and the rule that was 
adopted by the House is the rule that is in effect for the 
consideration of this resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. May I continue my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may continue.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, is there any rule of the House which 
mandates that a portion of the time be allocated to opponents of a 
proposed legislation if both the majority and the minority are on one 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the case of a specific rule, the specific 
rule controls, and a specific rule has been adopted.
  Mr. LANTOS. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that those of us who are opposed to tabling this motion be 
allocated half the time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do feel 
constrained to object, because there has been agreement between the 
majority and the minority as to how this issue will be debated, so I am 
constrained to object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Chair would state that the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos] 
could ask anyone possessing time to yield to him.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, the majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin my comments by commending 
Members on both sides of the aisle for the professional manner in which 
they have worked together to write the resolution just passed by the 
House. Specifically, I would like to commend the minority leader, the 
chairman and ranking members of the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], all of whom 
made great efforts to ensure passage of this important resolution that 
sends a strong signal to the Chinese Government about the need for 
human rights reforms, while encouraging them to become a responsible 
actor in the world economy.
  I believe that continuing a trade relationship with China, including 
encouraging the Chinese to enter the World Trade Organization on a 
commercial basis, where they accept all the obligations as well as the 
benefits of membership, combined with other 

[[Page H7303]]
diplomatic initiatives, is the best way to move China toward human 
rights and democracy.
  I am concerned that escalating tensions between the two nations, if 
allowed to continue, and Mr. Speaker, if I may again, to emphasize this 
point, I am concerned that escalating tensions between the two 
countries, if allowed to continue, will further set back our ability to 
encourage the march of democracy and free market in China.
  The message sent by the House resolution, combined with granting MFN 
treatment, strikes the right balance. Accordingly, I commend the House 
for its action today and strongly urge my colleagues to support the 
following motion to table the motion of disapproval.
  Mr. Speaker, if I may just finish on a personal note, where I may 
dare speak for all the House in this action today, what we have done 
today, despite our many disappointments in the behavior with respect to 
human rights of the Chinese Government, is to express our hopes and 
dreams for the Chinese people. It is our belief that a world in which 
they are free to trade is a world in which they can find greater 
freedom, greater peace, greater prosperity.
  We are willing to accommodate the Chinese people's right to 
participate in that world, and we again emphasize on behalf of the 
Chinese people, on behalf of freedom throughout the globe, our 
encouragement to their government to observe human rights.
  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. AREMY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to voice my objections to my position 
on the last vote. If I would have known that the rule was set in such a 
way, and some of my colleagues over there, that we would not have the 
opportunity to debate House Joint Resolution 96, I would not have voted 
in the affirmative on H.R. 2058.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader, and I ask unanimous 
consent that he be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a troubling moment for the House of 
Representatives. I would say that 95 percent of this House believed 
that we were going to have the opportunity to vote on an actual 
resolution of disapproval for MFN for China because of their human 
rights record, because of their unfair trade practices, because of 
their acting in concert with nuclear terrorists and in violation of the 
nonproliferation treaty.
  For a whole host of reasons, a large number of Members of the House 
wanted to vote on a straight up-or-down resolution of disapproval. That 
will not be allowed, Mr. Speaker. A deal was cut, we were not informed 
of this deal, it was not explicit in the rule, but a deal was cut. I 
found out about it this morning in a meeting over on the Senate side. 
They knew about it, but it certainly was not provided to Members of 
this body.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to vote on a motion to table. 
Vote ``no'' on the motion to table. If Members want to vote up or down 
on MFN for China, if Members want to send something other than a 
meaningless message, they can paper it over all they want, but what did 
the resolution we just adopted do? Intensify diplomatic initiatives, 
for the 10th year in a row; a report from the President for the 10th 
year in a row about the abuse in China; but there is one new 
significant act, we are going to broadcast Radio-Free America into 
China, while they continue all the same unfair trade practices, the 
same repression of human rights, arresting of United States citizens, 
dealing with nuclear proliferation. That is all going to continue.
  All they want is the money. They do not care what we say. They do not 
care about empty words and gestures. They understand one thing: money 
and power. Did appeasement work in Bosnia? Do Members think appeasement 
is going to work any better with the oligarchy, the gerontocracy that 
runs China? No. We are going to get one vote. Vote against the motion 
to table. That is the only vote we will get on MFN.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as the debate here today has testified, the United 
States bilateral relationship with China is deeply troubled. Frankly, I 
do not see a time in the immediate future when relations between our 
countries will not be marred by difficult disputes. They arise out of 
authoritarianism, government repression, and vast cultural differences.
  My goal for the United States is to pursue democratic reforms in 
China by maintaining a strong United States presence. This is the only 
way to influence the turbulent change that is occurring there.
  House Joint Resolution 96 is the wrong approach because it would 
sever trade ties between United States citizens and the people in China 
we want to help the most. The commercial opportunities set in motion by 
MFN trade status have given Chinese workers and firms a strong stake in 
the free-market reforms occurring in China. Business relationships make 
possible the transmission of our values and beliefs. They put U.S. 
citizens in a position to lead by example.
  Denying MFN to China would inflict a high cost on United States 
firms. The 180,000 United States jobs which are supported by United 
States exports to China are at stake. More difficult to quantify is the 
damage we would do to the future competitiveness of United States 
companies. Shutting them out of the Chinese market will cripple their 
efforts to succeed in Asia over the long term.
  China's economy is now ranked as the third largest in the world, 
behind only the United States and Japan. Continuing to embark on 
massive infrastructure programs, China is spending billions of dollars 
annually in sectors where the United States leads--sectors such as 
high-technology equipment, aerospace, petroleum technology and 
telecommunications. With per capita income doubling every 6 or 7 years, 
the Chinese economy is expanding at an astounding pace.
  U.S. interests on questions of national security are also at stake in 
this debate. If the United States is to find common ground with China 
on issues such as North Korea, weapons proliferation and military 
expansion in the South China Sea, we need a functioning bilateral 
relationship.
  American policy toward China must continue to rest on a clear view of 
our long term interests, both economic and strategic. We can and should 
denounce human rights abuses, but without the tools of engagement, we 
make ourselves powerless to ease the vise of state control in China.
  I commend the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their hard work in 
achieving a unified House position on the message we need to send to 
the Chinese and the mechanism by which we have dealt with the 
legislation today. We need a tough but flexible approach to China that 
intelligently balances United States interests in this strategically 
important region of the world.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lantos].
  Mr. LANTOS. I thank my good friend the distinguished leader for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, what is at stake now is something far more important 
than MFN for China. What is at stake is the integrity of the workings 
of this House.
  Many of us voted for the earlier resolution under the assumption, 
which was made very clear to us, that we will have an opportunity to 
vote up or down on MFN for China. Many of us spoke on the previous 
resolution, indicating our willingness to support the rhetoric of that 
resolution but demanding the opportunity of expressing ourselves vis-a-
vis China in a way that China understands.
  I earnestly plead with my colleagues under present circumstances to 
vote against the motion to table. We are not 

[[Page H7304]]
dealing not just with the China issue. We are now dealing with the 
integrity of the procedures of this House.
  Many of us came in here seeing that the previous resolution was 
verbiage, very little teeth in it, practically none. That is why we got 
a practically unanimous vote. The feeling of the House is divided on 
MFN for China, and we should have an opportunity to debate most-
favored-nation treatment for China as we have had that opportunity 
every single year since I have served in this body.
  There is no reason why the 104th Congress will decline a vote on 
most-favored-nation treatment for China. It will go ahead, anyway, even 
if we win, because the President will veto our vote and we will not 
have the numbers to override it. But it goes to the integrity of our 
procedures. I am making a sincere plea on both sides to reject the 
motion to table so we can have an up-or-down vote on MFN for China.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to any Member who felt that 
this procedure was wrong, and any part that we took in setting the 
procedure was not meant to knock anybody out of expressing their view.
  I am going to vote to table. I am as troubled and frustrated as 
anyone in this country and in this body about what is happening in 
China. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], 
and the others who have talked on this issue and been vocal on this 
issue feel as strongly as anybody in this country.
  The truth is none of us know what to do to get China to change. We do 
not want it to be another Soviet Union and we do not want a 40-year 
cold war with the largest country in the world. We are all horribly 
frustrated that this country does not seem to be able to change, to 
give its people human rights.
  Whatever happens on this vote to table, and I believe we will have a 
vote, and probably we should have a vote, but whatever happens, China 
must get one message from this debate, and that is that this country 
will not stand by forever and have people's human rights violated to 
the extent this country is violating people's human rights. The day 
will come, if there is not change, when all 435 people in this body 
will say enough is enough, and we will not go forward with trading with 
people that will not give people basic human rights.
  Time is running out for our patience. We say to China with one voice, 
Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, and moderate, ``Please, 
come into the world of nations, give people human rights, give people 
basic human decency.''
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to 
control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi]. I know of no one who is better qualified 
in this entire body to speak on this subject.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words and 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to say to my colleagues that I hope that you will 
take the lead of our Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Gephardt], and of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] to let this 
motion to table pass. I think it is in the interest of promoting human 
rights in China, of addressing our concerns about unfair trade 
practices and the proliferation issue.
  I want to commend once again the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Bereuter] for his leadership in working with the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and with me to accommodate many of the provisions 
of our own Wolf-Pelosi bill into his bill.
  God knows over the years the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I 
have fought the fight on MFN in China. I still think an appropriate 
route to go might have been to condition or to target certain products 
for revocation of MFN. But the options that we have before us are to 
send a very clear, unified message of support and concern about those 
issues.
  Not only that, and I address my colleague the gentleman from Oregon 
because I know of his concern on
 these issues, the Bereuter bill has teeth. It has a reporting 
requirement for the President. We have not had that before.

  Let us be frank with each other about this issue. Part of the time in 
this body we have been trying to get leverage with the Chinese, and 
part of the time we have been trying to get leverage with the President 
of the United States to use whatever means at his disposal to improve 
human rights, eliminate the unfair trade practices, and address the 
proliferation issues. This legislation gives us leverage with the 
President because of the reporting requirement.
  I urge my colleagues to allow the motion to table to pass, I hope 
without a vote, because I think a small vote on the motion to table 
will send a wrong message to the Chinese Government that that is the 
measure of support for concern in China instead of the Bereuter bill. I 
urge our colleagues to do as our leader has requested.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to please follow the wise, 
enlightened, as well as passionate, work of the gentlewoman from 
California on this subject. I know of no one in this body, and I have 
followed this issue for 20 years, who has worked harder and more 
diligently and more intelligently on the very difficult problem.
  As she says, and let me reiterate it, let us not dilute the message 
to the Chinese Government and the Chinese people that is included in 
the bill that we just passed by an overwhelming vote here in the House. 
We do not want to dilute that. We want that message to get through very 
clearly.
  Please lay the motion to cut off MFN on the table, which is not going 
anywhere, will not pass, all of us know it is not going to ever become 
law, and let us act realistically on this. Let us act together, and 
follow the lead of the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the motion to revoke 
would not pass. It may not become law. But I will not concede that we 
did not have that leverage with this body.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I echo the remarks of the minority leader. 
Let us just tell everybody on this floor right now, this is the last 
time. Next year there is going to be a vote on a resolution of 
disapproval, and we are going to revoke most-favored-nation treatment 
for China unless that regime becomes a decent government in this world 
of ours.
  Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, when President Clinton severed the link 
between human rights and the annual renewal of China's MFN status, and 
the Chinese communist regime responded by issuing an official statement 
through its Foreign Ministry that called upon the United States to show 
sincerity and to take concrete action toward improving United States/
China relations.
  Can you imagine that? We hand them a $29 billion trade surplus in 
1994 alone and softpedal our other concerns, and still the dictators in 
Beijing call on us to demonstrate sincerity and to take concrete 
action.
  That is what they said. Here is what I said. On August 9, 1994, when 
the House debated whether or not to renew China's MFN, I listed all of 
the abuses that have taken place in China ``in the context of 14 
straight years of MFN treatment.''
  And I concluded, ``No, Mr. Speaker, appeasing China does not earn us 
their respect and their cooperation. It earns us their contempt.''
  Now listen to these words: ``Frankly, on the human rights front, the 
situation had deteriorated.'' That was Assistant Secretary of State 
Winston Lord last January 11--some 7 months after human rights 
considerations were delinked from MFN.
  What a shocker. ``On the human rights front, the situation has 
deteriorated.''

[[Page H7305]]

  But then Lord went on to say, ``China is a somewhat difficult partner 
these days.'' Well, hello?
  Few things in life are more unsettling than the sight of a 
crestfallen U.S. diplomat expressing his disappointment at the 
intransigent behavior of a communist regime.
  My only question is: Partner in what?
  Mr. Chairman, and Members, I actually do fear that we have entered 
into a kind of partnership with China, but certainly not the kind of 
partnership that Winston Lord had in mind.
  It is a partnership that reveals that some elements in the American 
business community are so anxious to make a quick buck in China, and 
their supporters in government are so anxious to curry favor with the 
dictators in Beijing, that there is no policy or practice carried out 
by the Chinese Communist regime that we are not prepared to tolerate in 
the interest of preserving business as usual.
  United States exports to China--which were already low to start with 
because China does not give MFN treatment to us--rose by 60 percent in 
the 5 years between 1989 and 1994.
  During that same period, since the Tiananmen Square massacre, Chinese 
exports to the United States rose by 223 percent. And our trade deficit 
with China has gone up by a staggering 377 percent--to a level of $29.5 
billion in 1994 alone.
  In 1989, about 23 percent of China's total exports came to the United 
States. By 1994, that figure had risen to nearly 37 percent.
  The trade deficit we are running with China will approach $40 billion 
this year and, within 2 years, it will be larger than the one we have 
with Japan.
  And what do we have to show for all this? More specifically, what 
progress can be pointed to by those who advocate trade or commercial 
engagement--to use the administration's term--as the means for getting 
the Chinese regime to modify and reform its course?
  The answer is already in as far as human rights are concerned.
  Things have gone from horrible to worse, if that was even possible.
  One effort after another to try to get China to open up has failed. 
That isn't me saying it--the State Department is saying it.
  Yes, China loves our money. China loves its access to American 
markets. It's our ideas that have made America so successful a 
democracy that the Chinese dictatorship cannot stand.
  But, today, I want to discuss a vitally important issue that is only 
now starting to get the international attention it deserves.
  China's defiance of the nuclear nonproliferation regime is well 
known.
  But only now is notice being taken of the rapid and unwarranted 
buildup of military power that China has been pursuing since 1989.
  As long ago as 1980, China successfully test-fired an ICBM capable of 
delivering a nuclear warhead to a target up to 8,000 miles away.
  But until 1989, most credible outside observers regarded the Chinese 
armed forces as being a rather cumbersome, bloated, politicized, and 
somewhat antiquated operation that might prove to be more of a 
hindrance to China's superpower ambitions than anything else.
  All of that has changed since 1989. The gradual decline in military 
spending that had been seen since the late 1970's was reversed 
decisively in the aftermath of Tiananmen Square.
  In 1994 alone, military spending in China rose by 22 percent over the 
previous year, which itself had seen a 13 percent increase over the 
year before that. All told, military spending has more than doubled 
since 1989.
  And these figures I have cited represent only the tip of the 
iceberg--they are the figures which the Chinese regime publishes 
officially.
  The true costs of research and development, procurement, and 
subsidies to the defense industry are evidently spread--and hidden--
throughout China's national budget.
  Along with this dramatic acceleration in military spending, China has 
totally revised its military doctrine since 1989.
  The historic reliance on a huge, land-based army has been replaced by 
new emphases on the building of an expanded and survivable nuclear 
strike capability and the development of a modern navy.
  Since the late 1980's, and aside from the rapid expansion in its 
fleet of surface ships, China has launched 11 submarines, each to be 
armed with 12 short-to-intermediate range missiles capable of 
delivering a nuclear warhead to a target up to 3,500 miles away.
  In preparing for this debate, I was astonished to learn that the 
authoritative Jane's Information Group, based in London, has estimated 
that if present economic trends in China continue, and if military 
spending continues to grow at its present rate, by the year 2000 China 
will have the second largest defense budget in the world--and it could 
total well over $100 billion a year.
  Mr. Speaker, all of this is taking place at a time when virtually 
every other country on earth is reducing its military spending.
  Moreover, it is coming at a time when China's borders have been more 
secure than at any time in at least the last 150 years.
  I sadly fear that the current sabre-rattling in the Spratly Islands, 
which are 900 miles from China and well within the territorial waters 
of the Philippines, is only a small taste of what it is to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe United States policy toward China is wrong-
headed and leading us to disaster. I believed this under President Bush 
and I believe it under President Clinton.
  When are we going to see the Chinese regime for what it truly is?
  A remorseless, ambitious, amoral, self-confident, even cocky, 
communist dictatorship that is bent on achieving regional dominance 
throughout the Far East--that's what it is.
  And the Far East isn't where China's ambitions stop. Believe me, a 
China which is not at peace with its own people will not be at peace 
with America.
  During the cold war, there were Members of Congress who criticized--
and rightly so, in certain instances--some of the unsavory characters 
and regimes with which our Government was pursuing a relationship in 
the interest of containing communism.
  But what is our excuse now? Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed, 
what is the urgency of maintaining business-as-usual with the likes of 
Beijing?
  From 1945 on, we were faced with the reality of Soviet power and 
ambition. It was there--we had no choice but to try to contain it.
  But in the 1990's, we seem bound and determined to do what ever we 
can to help give the Chinese Communist regime the means to realize its 
national ambitions.
  Not that the people of China will benefit. They will suffer the 
consequences of this folly just as surely as we will.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker and Members, I believe human rights and 
American values have to be put back into the central focus of the 
United States-China relationship.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore all Members to vote for the temporary cutoff 
of most-favored-nations-status to China until they abandon their rogue 
status that has no respect for human rights or human life itself.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I despise the Chinese Government as 
much as anybody in this body. Let me just back up before I say that and 
say, if there is any blame for the procedure today, it is my fault. If 
you blame, blame me.
  We met with the dissidents, we met with those who have family members 
in jail, we met with the Christians in China, and they said this would 
be the best procedure for them. They said if we could get a good, 
strong vote, and in the resolution that many of you maybe did not even 
read, do not denigrate the resolution. It for the first time puts the 
Congress on record in support of the democracy movement.
  Let me tell you, those of you who love MFN, it has put you on a spot, 
because next year if the Chinese have not stopped all they are doing, 
many of you are going to be morally obligated to take it away. This is 
good and this is what the dissidents in China said. This is what the 
people who are students have come and said. This helps them. And I 
wanted to do it.
  Second of all, Harry Wu is a friend of mine. I helped bring Harry to 
town. I feel responsible in some respects for Harry being in jail. I 
have been in touch with Harry's wife for the last few weeks. She has 
been by my office. We have set up all the meetings. I care about Harry. 
What happens to Harry is partially my responsibility.

                              {time}  1415

  My colleagues are men and women who are absolved from it. They did 
not bring him to town. They did not hold the hearings. They did not 
push Harry's organ transplant video out. I did, and he is my 
responsibility. And if I offended anybody, I apologize, but I take the 
full and complete responsibility for the procedure that we are doing.
  Go back into China. They are killing people in China 25 and under and 
using their kidneys for transplant. We know that. We know that because 
of Harry. We have been trying to get many of our colleagues to come and 
see the film; not many have come and seen the film.
  We also know that they have a forced population policy. The gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] has been a leader in that. We have a video, 
that we could not get many of our colleagues to come to see, that we 
showed 

[[Page H7306]]
the other day where there are dying rooms. They put baby girls in these 
rooms and they die. They die. They do not feed them.
  My colleagues say, ``What are you talking about?'' Come to my office. 
I will show you the video. That is what they do. We know they sold 
weapons. They sold weapons to Iraq that killed American men and women. 
We know that. We know they are selling chemical weapons. We know what 
they are doing with regard to their nuclear technology. They are 
selling weapons to the Khartoum Government in Sudan that are being used 
to kill black Africans in the Sudan.
  I know how bad they are. I know they are worse than many of my 
colleagues even think they are. Do I believe that business is 
necessarily going to change them? I don't believe it. I am not a 
mercantile Republican Cato libertarian. I don't believe business 
necessarily changes it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been to the Holocaust Museum and I saw the people 
that made the same argument with Nazi Germany in 1933 and 1935 and 
1937. Do a little more business and maybe it will change them. I do not 
believe it will.
  I have met with Li Peng, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
and I. He is a butcher. He has blood on his hands. The blood drips from 
his hands. And some day when Li Peng stands before the King of Kings 
and the Lord of Lords, he is going to have to explain what he did and 
how he killed all of those people.
  But what does that get us now? We can put our frustration and offer 
it, and I apologize and ask my colleagues' forgiveness. I beg their 
forgiveness if I offended anybody. But if we get a vote with 35 or 38, 
we will confuse the Chinese. They do not know what that means; they 
know what this means.
  And many of my colleagues, many of them voted for this really without 
reading it. This is tough. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] 
did a great job. And I take my hat off to the Speaker. The Speaker was 
involved in working this out. I do not think we could have done it if 
he had not put his personal prestige on the line. This was not some fly 
by night thing we did. This will help the democracy movement in China.
  As I made a note, as I commented the first time I debated it, I said 
every night I pray for China. I pray that China is free. I remember 
once I was at a town meeting several years ago and a lady asked me, 
``What happened? Why did communism fall?'' And you know what I said to 
her? I said what any Republican would say. I said, ``It fell because we 
had the B-1 and Ronald Reagan was tough and all.''
  And you know what she said? She said, ``Young man that is not why it 
fell. Maybe that helped, but'' she said, ``communism fell because many 
of us as little girls and boys have been praying for the defeat of 
communism.''
  Mr. Speaker, we should pray and we can pray for the defeat of 
communism in China and I believe it will come. We will all live to see 
it. We will live to see the day when they can sell Popsicles in 
Tiananmen Square and laugh and run and do all those things. Do my 
colleagues want that to happen? The resolution you passed is the right 
thing. Do not even have a vote to table, because it will confuse 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, my last comment is the Congress has been on record and 
my colleagues are going to have to deal with this next year. Unless the 
Good Lord takes me, I am coming back next year and if there has been no 
change, we are going to put in a motion to disapprove.
  The last thing I say to the business community, if they happen to be 
listening, I would have hoped that the business community would have 
taken the same attitude that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] 
and many Republicans and Democrats who have come together. The business 
community has been silent. They have been silent.
  It reminds me of the statement about selling the rope to hang 
themselves. They have been silent and that has been disappointing. I 
would have hoped that Boeing would have spoken out and I would have 
hoped that TRW would have spoken out, but they went silent.
  But the Congress did not go silent. We have a lot to be proud of. The 
message that I want the Chinese peasants to hear tomorrow morning when 
they listen to the little crystal set and they pick up the TV station 
or radio show, the United States Congress, the people's Congress, the 
Congress that the American people elect here, will send a message that 
we care deeply; that we commend, not condemn, the freedom movement; 
that we condemn slave labor; that we condemn the organ transplants; we 
condemn the forced population policy. We condemn all of them.
  Mr. Speaker, we require this administration, which has been equally 
bad as the Bush administration on this, to make reports, so next year 
when this comes out we have the reports that are due.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Radio Free Asia whereby when we go to Eastern 
Europe they would say that the Radio Free Europe made a difference.
  I want to thank those who were involved in this. Again, it is my 
fault for messing up, if we messed up. It was a mistake of the heart 
and not of the mind, if you will.
  Now, I would hope and pray that there be no vote, but I understand 
that Members would do it.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, and 
sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question is 
ordered.
                       motion offered by mr. wolf

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 193, I offer a 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Pursuant to House Resolution 193, Mr. Wolf moves to lay the 
     joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 96, on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] to lay the joint resolution on the 
table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LANTOS. 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 321, 
nays 107, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 537]

                               YEAS--321

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     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)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney

[[Page H7307]]

     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--107

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Cooley
     Cox
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Evans
     Fields (LA)
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Funderburk
     Gejdenson
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     King
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Markey
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Payne (NJ)
     Pombo
     Porter
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Royce
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bachus
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1444

  Messrs. DOOLITTLE, WAMP, WYNN, COBLE, LEWIS of Kentucky, Ms. WATERS, 
and Messrs. MEEHAN, SPENCE, PORTER, HEFNER, and GRAHAM changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SMITH of Michigan, WISE, ACKERMAN, CUNNINGHAM, BECERRA, 
RANGEL, RAHALL, REED, DICKEY, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. ORTIZ, and Mr. 
MEEHAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________