[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6950-H6963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 182, DISAPPROVING 
   EXTENSIONS OF MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS TO PRODUCTS OF PEOPLE'S 
   REPUBLIC OF CHINA, AND HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 461, REGARDING THE 
                       PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 463 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 463

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 182) disapproving the extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) 
     to the products of the People's Republic of China. All points 
     of order against the joint resolution and against its 
     consideration are waived. The joint resolution shall be 
     debatable for two hours equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means (in opposition to 
     the joint resolution) and a Member in support of the joint 
     resolution. Pursuant to sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act 
     of 1974, the previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening 
     motion. The provisions of sections 152 and 153 of the Trade 
     Act of 1974 shall not apply to any other joint resolution 
     disapproving the extension of most-favored-nation treatment 
     to the People's Republic of China for the remainder of the 
     One Hundred Fourth Congress.
       Sec. 2. After disposition of House Joint Resolution 182 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution, it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 
     461) regarding human rights abuses, nuclear and chemical 
     weapons proliferation, illegal weapons trading, military 
     intimidation of Taiwan, and trade violations by the People's 
     Republic of China and the People's Liberation Army, and 
     directing the committees of jurisdiction to commence hearings 
     and report appropriate legislation. The resolution shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     Representative Cox of California or his designee and a Member 
     opposed to the resolution. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption 
     without intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 463 is a rule providing 
for the consideration of two measures. The first measure is House Joint 
Resolution 182, a resolution disapproving the extension of most-
favored-nation treatment to the products of the People's Republic of 
China. It was introduced by

[[Page H6951]]

the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] on June 13, and it was 
ordered reported adversely by the Committee on Ways and Means on June 
18 by a vote of 31 to 6.
  Although the Trade Act of 1974 already provides procedures for 
considering such disapproval resolutions without a special rule, there 
are two principal reasons why this rule is necessary.
  First, the Trade Act provides for 20 hours of debate on such 
disapproval resolutions. This special rule narrows that down to 2 
hours, equally divided between a proponent and the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Archer, in opposition. The rule also 
provides for consideration in the House instead of the Committee of the 
Whole as it ordinarily would be.
  Second, the Trade Act does not waive points of order against he 
disapproval resolutions. This rule waives all points of order against 
House Joint Resolution 182 and its consideration. We are aware of only 
one need for a waiver, and that is the 3-day availability requirement 
for the committee report.
  Since the bill and report were only filed yesterday, Tuesday, by the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and today is only the first rather than 
the third day of its availability, this rule and waiver are necessary.
  Under the Trade Act procedures, disapproval resolutions are not 
subject to amendment or to a motion to recommit. This rule does not 
alter either of those provisions of the statute. Neither does the rule 
alter the statutory division of debate time between proponents and 
opponents.
  After the 2 hours of debate provided by the rule, the previous 
question is ordered to final passage without intervening motion, 
meaning there will be no amendments and no motion to recommit, 
consistent with the statutory provisions of the 1974 Trade Act. We live 
by the law.
  In addition to the two reasons I have cited for why this rule is 
necessary, the rule provides for the consideration of a tandem piece of 
legislation following the disposition of the disapproval resolution. 
That measure is House Resolution 461, introduced by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox] just yesterday.
  Under the terms of this rule, the Cox resolution will be debated in 
the House for 1 hour, equally divided between Mr. Cox or his designee, 
and a Member opposed to the resolution.
  As with the disapproval resolution, the rule orders the previous 
question on the Cox resolution to final adoption without intervening 
motion, meaning no amendments and no motion to recommit. In other 
words, on both resolutions this House will be given a straight up-or-
down vote, and that is the fair way to do it.
  The Cox resolution is a simple House resolution, meaning that it does 
not require Senate approval or Presidential signature for it to be 
effective. The resolution contains a number of findings in the preamble 
regarding human rights abuses, nuclear and chemical weapon 
proliferation, illegal weapons trading, military intimidation of 
Taiwan, and trade violations by the People's Republic of China and the 
People's Liberation Army.
  It then concludes with a single resolving clause that directs the 
various committees of jurisdiction, including the Committees on Ways 
and means, International Relations, and Banking and Financial Services, 
to hold hearings on the matters and concerns addressed in the preamble 
and, if appropriate, to report legislation addressing these matters to 
the House not later than September 30 of this year.
  Mr. Speaker, those are the provisions of this rule. I think they will 
provide the House with ample opportunity over the next 4 hours to fully 
debate the critical problem of Communist China.
  The Committee on Rules had a rather extensive debate on these issues 
last night before we reported this rule by a unanimous voice vote. I 
hope this rule will receive the same measure of bipartisan support we 
had in the Rules Committee.
  On the resolutions themselves, I would urge support for both of them, 
for one simple reason, and let me say this loud and clear: The policy 
of engagement with Communist China has failed, failed, failed.
  Despite what some proponents of business as usual will say today, all 
one needs to do is read the papers every single day to know that 
Communist China is a rogue dictatorship that is running amok and is 
absolutely contemptuous of our weak-kneed policy of appeasement. The 
examples of abhorrent and dangerous behaviors by this dictatorship are 
too numerous to even list. Here are just a few.
  First, as we speak there is a vicious crackdown on dissent taking 
place in Tibet, and we all ought to keep this in mind as we deliberate 
this issue. It is pathetic, Mr. Speaker, It is so sad.
  We must remember that we are talking about a Communist dictatorship 
that commits crimes against its own people every single day.
  Mr. Speaker, we also must remember that Communist China represents a 
growing threat to the national security interests of this country, and 
that will be brought out during the next 4 hours of debate. Backed by 
its rapidly growing military power, Communist China has begun to throw 
its weight around in East Asia, bullying our democratic friends in 
Taiwan and acting very aggressively in the Spratly Islands.

  Most of all, we should be very concerned about recent attempts by 
China to acquire SS-18 intercontinental nuclear missiles from Russia 
which could directly threaten the American people.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, turning to proliferation matters, well, here the 
proponents of appeasement have really got some explaining to do. Hardly 
a day goes by when we do not read about things like Chinese nuclear 
ring magnet shipments to places like Pakistan, chemical weapons 
technology transfers to Iran, cruise missile shipments to Iran, uranium 
processing technology to Iran, plutonium processing technology to 
Pakistan, and the list goes on and on and on. I could stand here for 20 
minutes and continue reading these kind of rogue activities by this 
government.
  Mr. Speaker, the real issue here today, though, is jobs, jobs, jobs, 
issues that our China policy really hits home on. Once again, our trade 
deficit with Communist China has surged, and now stand at $34 billion. 
I wish every one of the men here in this body would take off their 
shirts and show me the label in the collar on their shirts. I bet them 
dollars to doughnuts there is not one made in the United States of 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, Communist China does not grant fair access to our goods, 
period. Meanwhile, we continue to give China carte blanche in our 
markets with most-favored-nation trading status.
  Mr. Speaker, this so-called relationship with Communist China that 
some people are obsessed with maintaining destroys American jobs, and 
this has got to stop. We have the power, especially the economic power, 
with 250 million Americans with the highest standard of living in the 
world and that buying power to bring pressure to bear on these tyrants, 
and we ought to use that, without firing a shot. We do it economically.
  Terminating MFN is the 2 by 4 we need to get their attention. When 
the vast American market for Communist Chinese goods is shut off, even 
temporarily, these greedy dictators will start to show a little bit of 
flexibility. That is the only kind of language they understand.
  So let us use it today by voting ``aye'' on the Rohrabacher 
resolution of disapproval of most-favored-nation trading status for 
Communist China. It does not have to be for a year, it does not have to 
be for 6 months. It can be for only 30 days. We would see them sit down 
at the table and start negotiating fair trading practices with America.
  Mr. Speaker, after we pass the Cox resolution directing four 
committees of this House to hold hearings and report legislation on how 
to deal with this problem, those committees ought to report only 
substantive legislation which takes punitive measures against this 
outlaw regime which is in fact an enemy of the United States of America 
and certainly of every working American.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I include the following extraneous 
material for the Record:

                [From the Weekly Standard, June 3, 1996]

                 Most Favored Nation--or Most Appeased?

                           (By Robert Kagen)

       Bill Clinton's announcement last week that he will seek 
     unconditional renewal of China's most-favored-nation status 
     is the

[[Page H6952]]

     latest evidence of a metamorphosis remarkable even for this 
     president. Though he relentlessly attacked the Bush 
     administration's China policy as bereft of human-rights 
     concerns during his 1992 candidacy, in office Clinton has 
     become the spiritual godson of Henry Kissinger. After a very 
     brief flirtation with risky originality, Clinton has sought 
     safety in the conventional wisdom of the bipartisan foreign 
     policy and business elite, in which he stands shoulder to 
     shoulder with his presidential rival, Bob Dole.
       Incoherence on China is not unique to Bill Clinton's 
     foreign policy. It has been a problem for politicians of both 
     parties since the late 1980s. The collapse of the Soviet 
     Union and its Communist empire swept away the original 
     foundation on which the Sino-American rapprochement was built 
     in the early 1970s. America's interests and priorities have 
     shifted as policymakers must now grapple with how to manage a 
     world in which the United States is the sole superpower. At 
     the same time, China's place in the constellation of global 
     powers has shifted; from its position as the weakest side of 
     the Sino-Soviet-American triangle as recently as 10 years 
     ago, China seems poised over the coming decade to become the 
     principal challenger to American dominance of the world 
     order.
       The lack of clarity and resolve in American policy toward 
     China today is due to the failure of policymakers to 
     recognize these changes and reorient American strategy to 
     deal with them. The result has been worse than incoherence. 
     American policies these days are starting to look a lot like 
     the kind of appeasement that eventually leads to disaster.
       Twenty-five years ago, the logic of the U.S.-China 
     relationship was clear. At a time when American power seemed 
     in Vietnam-saturated decline, Richard Nixon and Henry 
     Kissinger were searching for quick and easy ways of 
     redressing the increasingly unfavorable U.S.-Soviet balance 
     while shoring up Nixon's political standing at home. Playing 
     the ``China card'' looked like a brilliant strategic gambit, 
     a simple matter, as Kissinger recalled in his memoirs, of 
     ``align[ing] oneself with the weaker of two antagonistic 
     partners, because this acted as a restraint on the 
     stronger.'' Kissinger did not share the view of State 
     Department Sinophiles that good relations with China were a 
     worthy end in themselves; he considered them a means to the 
     end of shaping Soviet behavior and inducing Soviet leaders to 
     accept the outstretched hand of detente. Indeed, as former 
     Kissinger aide Peter W. Rodman has noted, the real purpose of 
     ``triangular diplomacy'' was not to forge a permanent 
     strategic partnership with China against Russia but ``to 
     secure better relations with both.''
       The shift to a more enduring strategic partnership with 
     China came during the Carter administration under the 
     direction of national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. 
     Alarmed at the Soviet Union's increasing adventurousness in 
     the Third World from Africa to Southeast Asia, Brzezdinski 
     sought to involve the Chinese more directly on the U.S. side 
     in the worldwide anti-Soviet struggle. Kissinger aimed at 
     playing both Communist giants against each other, but 
     Brzezinski in 1978 traveled to Beijing to tell Deng Xiaoping 
     that the United States had ``made up its mind'' and had 
     chosen China. The price the Carter administration willingly 
     paid for this new strategic partnership was the completion of 
     the process of normalization Nixon had begun, including the 
     revocation of U.S. recognition of Taiwan. In American foreign 
     policy circles, Brzezinski's actions firmly established the 
     still-extant bipartisan consensus on the overriding strategic 
     importance of U.S.-Chinese relations.
       The world of the 1970s looked very different from today's, 
     however. The West was suffering from a paralyzing loss of 
     confidence in its institutions and its liberal values. 
     Communism still seemed to many around the world, and even to 
     some in the United States, a viable if not superior 
     alternative to capitalism. The great, resurgent successes of 
     liberal capitalism--the Reagan boom here, the rise of the 
     economic ``tigers'' in East Asia--lay in the future. The 
     policymakers of the 1970s could not even have begun to 
     imagine the worldwide democratic revolution that began in 
     the 1980s in Latin America and Asia and then spread to 
     Central and Eastern Europe and Russia. Instead, the United 
     States was surrounded by dictatorships in its own 
     hemisphere and maintained supportive relations with them 
     and many others around the world.
       In such a world, the strategic value of American 
     rapprochement and then partnership with a Communist China 
     seemed to outweigh the sacrifice of American ideals such a 
     relationship required. Churchill had been willing to ``sup 
     with the devil'' in order to defeat Hitler; few questioned 
     the logic of closer U.S.-Chinese ties in a world where 
     democracy and capitalism seemed to be imperiled by an 
     expanding Soviet empire. In a world filled with dictatorships 
     of both the left- and right-wing varieties, moreover, few 
     believed the United States could afford to be picky about how 
     its allies governed themselves.
       Which is not to say that everyone in the United States was 
     enthusiastic about the new partnership with Communist China. 
     Conservative Republicans, including the old ``China Lobby'' 
     with its bitter memories of 1949 and the ``betrayal'' of 
     Chiang Kaishek, opposed some elements of the new course--
     especially when it was conducted by the Democratic 
     administration of Jimmy Carter. Thus Robert Dole, although a 
     devoted supporter of Nixon, vigorously opposed Carter's 
     normalization of relations with China at the end of 1978. 
     After normal ties were established, as Jim Mann of the Los 
     Angeles Times has recently noted, Dole called on the White 
     House to invite the president of Taiwan to Washington. From 
     the floor of the Senate in 1979, he insisted that the Taiwan 
     Relations Act must not leave America's old ally undefended 
     against aggression by America's new ally. And when Carter 
     proposed extending most-favored-nation status to China in 
     1980, Dole led the opposition and introduced legislation 
     denying it to any nation that, like China, had not yet signed 
     the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
       Despite these efforts by its Republican allies, however, 
     the authoritarian regime in Taiwan had a difficult time 
     winning much support in the United States. The dominant view 
     of American policymakers in both parties was that holding the 
     prized China card was essential to America's strategic well-
     being and that other issues--like sentimental ties to Taiwan, 
     like the sharp ideological differences between China and the 
     United States--had to be set aside.
       The resurgence of American power and will under Ronald 
     Reagan ought to have changed this and many other 
     calculations. And to some extent during the 1980s, it did. 
     Reagan, who had achieved preeminence in the Republican party 
     partly by leading a crusade against the Nixon-Kissinger 
     foreign policy, did not share Kissinger's and Brzezinski's 
     strong attachment to the China card. Reagan himself was a 
     longtime supporter of Taiwan, and as Peter Rodman points out, 
     in the Reagan administration ``even the younger officials 
     making Asia policy . . . thought that the Nixon, Ford, and 
     Carter administration had all gone overboard in their 
     sentimentality about China.''
       There was also strategic logic to the Reagan 
     administration's de-emphasis of the relationships with China. 
     At a time when Reagan was determined to challenge the Soviets 
     directly on all fronts, both militarily and ideologically, a 
     China policy born in a time of strategic weakness was less 
     compelling. Reagan simply didn't believe he needed China as 
     much as Nixon and Carter had.
       The worldwide ideological offensive that Reagan launched at 
     the start of his second year in office, moreover, could 
     not fail to affect the nature of relations between the 
     United States and China. By the mid-1980s, much of the 
     world appeared to be moving steadily in the direction of 
     liberal economics and liberal government. The dire 
     circumstances that had given birth to the U.S.-China 
     strategic partnership in the 1970s were rapidly giving way 
     in the 1980s to a new international situation that 
     required a recalculation of the value of close ties 
     between the two global powers.
       Finally, the beginning of the collapse of the Soviet empire 
     in 1989 and the emergence of the United States as the world's 
     dominant military, economic, cultural, and ideological power 
     utterly shattered the original rationale for Sino-American 
     partnership. In the post-Cold War era it was ludicrous to 
     speak of playing the China card, as Kissinger had, to 
     convince Moscow to embrace detente; or as Brzezinski had, to 
     combat Soviet aggression in the Third World. It was no longer 
     possible to describe U.S.-China relations as ``align[ing] 
     oneself with the weaker of two antagonistic partners,'' given 
     the Soviet Union's free fall and China's explosive economic 
     growth.
       China itself had appeared to be part of the global trend 
     toward freedom throughout the 1980s. The ``Four 
     Modernization,'' begun under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping 
     in the late 1970s helped produce the Chinese economic miracle 
     we know today. A Chinese ``democracy movement'' soon emerged, 
     calling for a ``Fifth Modernization,'' free elections, and in 
     some instances openly praising American-style democracy. 
     Though it was subject to government harassment, the existence 
     of the democracy movement suggested to many American 
     observers that political reform in China was the inevitable 
     next step after Doug's economic reforms.
       The massacre at Tiananmen Square in 1989 and the subsequent 
     suppression of dissidents, which continues to this day, 
     dashed these hopes. It could hardly have been better timed to 
     force the United States to reconsider the unpleasant bargain 
     it had made with its conscience in the 1970s. At the same 
     time the old strategic rationale for the U.S.-China 
     partnership was vanishing, the Chinese government cast a 
     bright light on the acute ideological differences between the 
     two countries. Indeed, after Tianenmen, China emerged as the 
     most powerful opponent of American liberal principles in the 
     world.
       In the ensuing years, China would significantly increase 
     its military spending, even as both Soviet and American 
     defense spending declined, and with the clear aim of using 
     its growing military power to enhance its influence abroad. 
     the fruits of these efforts have been apparent in recent 
     years, as china, in the words of Sen. John McCain, has 
     increasingly been ``displaying very aggressive behavior''--in 
     the South China Sea, against a newly democratic Taiwan, and 
     in a growing propensity to make arms sales to many of the 
     world's rogue states.
       Under these new circumstances, it would seem to make little 
     sense to continue pursuing the old Cold War policies toward 
     China. Yet remarkably, that is just what the Bush 
     administration tried to do after 1989, and

[[Page H6953]]

     what the purveyors of the bipartisan consensus, including 
     most recently the Clinton administration, have been trying to 
     do ever since. Even after the Cold War, the United States 
     maintained ``overriding strategic interests in engaging 
     China,'' former secretary of state James Baker declares in 
     his memoirs, but nowhere does he explain exactly what those 
     ``overriding strategic interests'' are.
       In fact, the most common explanations of the strategic 
     importance of the U.S.-China relationship today are fraught 
     with contradictions. American business leaders, and their 
     supporters in the administration and Congress, constantly 
     point to China's potentially vast market for American goods. 
     But it is striking how unimpressive the economic numbers 
     really are. Last year, American merchandise exports to China 
     amounted to $12 billion, about 2 percent of overall exports. 
     By comparison, American exports to Taiwan, with a population 
     one-sixtieth as large as the mainland's, were $19 billion. 
     Meanwhile, China has amassed a $34 billion trade surplus with 
     the United States, enough to send Patrick Buchanan into fits 
     of protectionist hysteria. Well might the boosters of the 
     U.S.-China trade relationship insist, like Rep. Toby Roth, 
     that ``the key is not where China is today. What is important 
     is where China is headed.'' But how impressive does the 
     future look? Roth boasts that ``in just 15 years, China will 
     be our 13th largest export market.'' Now there's a strategic 
     imperative!
       In the late 19th century, many American businessmen 
     succumbed to what some historians now call ``the myth of the 
     China market.'' The businessmen, the politicians, and the 
     policymakers of the day could see only the unimaginable 
     bounty that lay in the future of such a populous country--
     even though earnings in the near-term proved minuscule and 
     businesses had to suffer losses in an effort to wheedle 
     their way into the good graces of the Chinese powers that 
     controlled foreign trade. A full century later, the bounty 
     is still elusive, but the myth is just as potent.
       And today's proponents of the China trade on strategic 
     grounds have adopted another 19th-century nostrum as well: 
     the conviction that increasing trade is the solvent for all 
     the problems of mankind. Nations that trade with one another, 
     the theory goes, will not let clashing strategic interests 
     get in the way of making a buck. After all, Rep. Roth 
     insists, ``Economic strength, not military might, determines 
     the world's great powers today.'' In testimony before 
     Congress recently, Clinton administration official Stuart 
     Eizenstat defended the renewal of most-favored-nation status 
     for China on the grounds that the ``commercial relationship 
     provides one of the strongest foundations for our 
     engagement.'' Argues undersecretary of state Peter Tarnoff: 
     ``Our economic and commercial relations increase China's 
     stake in cooperating with us and in complying with 
     international norms.'' Robert Dole, once the mainland's foe, 
     now agrees: In a May 9 speech, he argued that `'extension of 
     most-favored-nation status [is] the best way to promote our 
     long-term interests in China. . . . In China, continuing 
     trade offers the prospect of continuing change.''
       Is that true? Few Republicans and conservatives would say 
     that trade will reform Castro's Cuba. Nor would they be 
     likely to forget that during the Cold War, the Jackson-Vanik 
     restrictions on trade with the Soviet Union did not prevent 
     political liberalization. On the contrary, the denial of 
     most-favored-nation status to the Soviets may have encouraged 
     reform by forcing the Communist leaders in Moscow to 
     undertake political liberalization as the prerequisite for 
     economic growth.
       The view that economics is paramount while military, 
     strategic, and political issues are of declining importance--
     so-called Manchester liberalism--was rampant in the 19th and 
     early 20th centuries, right up until the outbreak of World 
     War I. It is as dangerous a misconception today as it was 
     then. Nevertheless, this assumption now lies at the heart of 
     American China policy. We need to engage so we can trade, say 
     the businessmen; yes, say the China experts, and we need to 
     trade so we can engage.
       In their search for a new rationale for preserving a close 
     relationship between the United States and China, the 
     adherents of today's bipartisan consensus have had to employ 
     such logic constantly. Indeed, the logic of the U.S.-China 
     relationship today has turned in on itself. In the 1970s, the 
     case for strategic partnership with China was that it was 
     necessary to meet the threat posed by the Soviet Union. 
     Today, it seems, strategic partnership with China is 
     necessary to meet the threat posed by China. Secretary of 
     State Warren Christopher put the case best in his speech on 
     May 17. He noted the ``importance of China to our future 
     security and well-being.'' And what, in addition to the lure 
     of the market, is that importance? The answer is that ``China 
     can tip the balance in Asia between stability and conflict.'' 
     In other words, we need a good relationship with China 
     because China is dangerous. Or as Eizenstat put it, ``It is 
     when China's policies are the most difficult that engagement 
     becomes the most essential.''
       It's a nice racket the Chinese have going. By the current 
     circular logic of American policy, the more trouble the 
     Chinese make--whether in Taiwan, or on trade, or in the South 
     China Sea, or in weapons sales to rogue states--the harder 
     the United States has to work to ``engage.'' There is no 
     dispute on this point now between the leading figures of both 
     parties. Henry Kissinger, in an op-ed piece a few weeks ago, 
     declared that ``after Chinese leaders had been pilloried and 
     threatened with sanctions for years,'' what was needed now 
     was ``a serious strategic and political dialogue, . . . a 
     sustained effort to define a common assessment of the future 
     of Asia.'' Christopher soon after announced his intention to 
     ``develop a more regular dialogue between our two 
     countries.'' The idea is that regular consolations will 
     ``facilitate a candid exchange of views, provide a more 
     effective means for managing specific problems, and allow us 
     to approach individual issues within the broader strategic 
     framework of our overall relationship.''
       We may be forgiven for doubting whether such candid talks 
     will make a big difference. After all, it's not as if efforts 
     at assiduous diplomacy haven't been tried. After the massacre 
     in Tiananmen Square in 1989, President Bush and his secretary 
     of state saw their man task as protecting the important 
     strategic relationship with China from American outrage at 
     Beijing's massive abuse of individual rights. According to 
     Baker, President Bush's first reaction upon hearing of the 
     assault at Tiananmen was: ``It's going to be difficult to 
     manage this problem.'' And indeed it was, as Baker's 
     memoirs amply demonstrate. Baker employed precisely the 
     negotiating style that the China experts insist is the 
     only kind capable of producing results--quiet 
     negotiations, no public threats, none of the ``spasmodic 
     harassment'' Kissinger finds so detrimental, and constant 
     attention to the fact that, as Baker writes, ``face is 
     unusually important to [the Chinese], so an interlocutor 
     must negotiate a delicate balance that nudges them toward 
     a preferred course without embarrassing them in the 
     process.'' Despite all this subtle diplomacy, the Chinese 
     gave Baker absolutely nothing for his troubles. Chinese 
     officials, Baker recalls, ``had no compunction about 
     asking for American concessions while simultaneously 
     ignoring my request for `visible and positive Chinese 
     steps' to make it easier to allay congressional and public 
     anger with Beijing.'' Throughout the four years of the 
     Bush administration, Baker acknowledges, ``the Chinese 
     relationship essentially treaded water.''
       Under present policies, in the years to come the United 
     States will continue to tread water, or worse. The truth is, 
     our posture today is, simply, plain old appeasement. One bit 
     of proof is that we are not supposed even to use the word 
     ``containment'' to describe our policy toward China lest we 
     suggest to the Chinese that in some way we may consider them 
     adversaries. The United States ``should not, and will not, 
     adopt a policy of containment towards China,'' declares 
     Undersecretary Tarnoff. Why not? Because ``we would gain 
     nothing and risk much if China were to become isolated and 
     unstable.'' In other words, even if it were necessary to 
     contain China, it would be too dangerous to attempt the task. 
     This is Kissinger's view, as well. Any attempt to pursue a 
     policy of ``containment'' of China, Kissinger has argued, is 
     ``reckless'' and a ``pipe dream.''
       Such a skittish approach to another world power might be 
     forgivable if our own nation were weak. But the same people 
     who fear a policy of ``containment'' often boast that China 
     needs the United States more than the United States needs 
     China. In a trade war, for instance, Eizenstat argues that 
     ``China has a lot more to lose than we do.'' Like that $34 
     billion trade surplus, for instance. According to Baker, the 
     Chinese ``need our help to sustain their economic growth.'' 
     And Baker, who got nowhere in four years if subtle diplomacy 
     with Beijing, even believes that the Chinese understand 
     toughness: ``Strength inevitably irritates the Chinese, but 
     they understand it. And the absence of resolve in dealing 
     with them can lead to serious miscalculation on their part.''
       And yet ``the absence of resolve'' would seem to be the 
     best characterization of the policy that the Bush 
     administration and now the Clinton administration have chosen 
     to pursue toward China. When Baker negotiated with the 
     Chinese during the Bush years, he always went out of his way 
     to make clear that the Bush administration was entirely 
     ``committed to maintaining the relationship,'' that it was 
     always ``seeking ways to reconcile our estrangement.'' Little 
     wonder that, according to Baker, the Chinese ``seemed utterly 
     oblivious to our concerns.'' It is axiomatic that if the 
     United States enters all negotiations with China with the 
     mutual understanding that ultimately American leaders will 
     not allow an estrangement in the relationship, then the 
     Chinese will win in most of the negotiations.
       In every relationship between nations there is a horse and 
     a rider, Bismarck once noted, and one should endeavor to be 
     the rider. American policy toward China today almost 
     guarantees that we will be the horse.
       How can the United States restore the resolve that James 
     Baker believes is so essential to effective dealings with 
     China? This week Congress is debating and voting on the 
     renewal of most-favored-nation status for China. It will 
     surely pass, and perhaps it ought to. The fact of U.S.-China 
     relations should not rest on this relatively narrow issue. 
     The problem with our China policy goes deeper than simple 
     trade rules. Dealing with an increasingly powerful and 
     ambitious China over the coming years will require a strong 
     and determined America willing either to engage or to contain 
     China, depending on Chinese behavior.
       Still, most-favored-nation status has become a symbol of 
     China's whip hand over us.

[[Page H6954]]

     Our unwillingness to pay what is still a relatively small 
     economic price in terms of lost trade opportunities; our fear 
     that any crisis in U.S.-Chinese relations that might result 
     from denial of most-favored-nation status is too dangerous to 
     risk; our concern that in any confrontation it is we, not 
     they, who will be most likely to blink--these are all sizable 
     cracks in our armor the Chinese can exploit, have exploited, 
     and, indeed, are exploiting.
       Thus one can only conclude that before we can conduct a 
     successful strategy of compelling China to ``play by the 
     rules of the international system,'' in the words of Bob 
     Dole, we will have to break our addiction to the China-market 
     myth. And that can only come about if policymakers, 
     economists, and businessmen begin to look at the hard truth 
     and stop allowing their dreams of a gold rush to outweight 
     more vital concerns--not only America's strategic interests, 
     but the basic liberties of more than a billion people living 
     beneath the yoke.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York, Mr. 
Solomon, for yielding me the customary half hour and I yield myself 
such time as I may use.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make two things clear at the beginning of this 
debate.
  First of all, the people's Republic of China has one of the worst 
human rights records in the world. The unconscionable mistreatment of 
the Chinese citizens is completely abhorrent. And we, the United States 
of America, need to do absolutely everything we can to change it.
  Second, most-favored-nation status is not special treatment. Most-
favored-nation trading status is the status this country accords to 181 
countries, nearly every country in the world.
  Only seven nations are not granted MFN trade status with the United 
States.
  Since February 1, 1980, China has received MFN status under the 1974 
Trade Act. The particulars of this law, the so-called Jackson-Vanik 
amendment, requires nonmarket economies--or communist countries--to 
have their trade status reconsidered each year.
  Jackson-Vanik passed in 1974 and is based entirely on an outdated 
cold war strategy--that was put into effect 22 years ago, Mr. Speaker.
  Today, Communism continues to crumble around the globe. Each time a 
country embraces democracy it is thanks entirely to our diplomatic 
efforts. And we shouldn't stop now.
  Because, Mr. Speaker, one quarter of the world's population live in 
China--1.2 billion people. And very single one of them deserves their 
chance at freedom and democracy. Just as other people enjoy.
  The choice is isolationism or direct engagement. And we accomplished 
very little with isolationism.
  So unless we maintain normal trade relations with China--we lose the 
chance to show those 1.2 billion people how great democracy is. We lose 
the chance to end the unspeakable human rights abuse and the horrifying 
population control efforts that take place in China.
  This is our chance to lift the iron curtain of oppression and show 
one quarter of our world what democracy is like.
  And, Mr. Speaker, we've tried it the other way. We tried isolating 
China 20 years ago. It didn't work then and I don't think it will work 
today. In fact, I would argue that it actually made the oppression 
worse.
  It's time to try something else. Because every day that these abuses 
take place; every day a baby girl is abandoned or worse; every day a 
student fighting for freedom is jailed--we share in some of the guilt. 
I for one believe we must do every thing we can to end these abuses and 
end them here and end them now.
  If we do not take this chance we wash our hands of the lives of the 
Chinese people. We pass on the opportunity to negotiate with them on 
human rights. We pass on the chance to negotiate on nuclear weapons.
  If we pass on the chance to talk to China, Mr. Speaker, we got no one 
to blame but ourselves when they don't listen.
  MFN status will help the people of China by bringing businesses into 
the country, increasing wages, and putting increased pressure on the 
Chinese Government to improve their human rights record.
  I think it's a good idea, It is a good rule, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.

                              {time}  2400

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Salmon], who is an outstanding freshman Member of this 
body. He has spent a lot of time in China and Taiwan.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me this 
opportunity. This is something that every one of us has struggled with. 
I know I have probably spent more time on this issue in the last 6 
months than I have any other issue, because it really cuts to the core 
of our values.
  Of course we decry the human rights abuses that have happened in 
China. They are terrible, they are vile. Of course we are very sick and 
saddened by the nonproliferation issues that continue to be violated in 
China. Of course we are saddened and we are upset by the fact that they 
are pirating our software and our music and we are losing billions of 
dollars because of that. Of course we are sickened and saddened, me 
especially; having served a mission for my church in Taiwan, nobody was 
angrier than I to see friends and loved ones over there that I worked 
so long with for the 2 years, that I was there being threatened by 
missiles in the Taiwan Strait when that occurred. When we look at all 
of these terrible, terrible atrocities that are being committed in 
China, I think the gut instinct is let us come down hard, let us show 
them that we mean business. Let us get back to what John Wayne would do 
and be tough with these guys and make them learn a lesson. But I fear 
that throwing the baby out with the bath water is the worst thing that 
we could possibly do.
  Think about it. Has there ever been any relationship in your life 
that you have improved upon or imparted your values to by walking away 
from that relationship? Severing MFN with China would be tantamount to 
a declaration of war, I believe, and would lead, I think, ultimately to 
a cold war, because relationships would quickly deteriorate and 
ultimately most sides would end up not communicating.
  We in our Western understanding of things believe that we know that 
the right thing to do is to be tough with these people, but let us look 
at the idea of saving face that is so important to the Chinese culture.
  I believe that the freedoms that we enjoy, the values that we hold 
dearly, will only come to pass in China when the people in China rise 
up and make it so. A great philosopher once said, more powerful than 
any invading army or any tactic is an idea whose time has come. I 
believe the idea of freedom is an idea whose time has come in China, as 
it was in Taiwan about 20 years ago.
  When I lived in Taiwan, it was an oppressive regime. You could not 
speak out against the government. Freedom of the press was nonexistent. 
But economic reform spurred political reform, and the same thing will 
happen in China. But we have got to be articulate in our values. I 
think the administration can do a better job, a much better job 
articulating our values, but we will not improve anything if we walk 
away from the table, and the very things that we care so deeply about 
will be harmed irreparably if we walk away from this relationship.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Mr. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me the time and rise in opposition to the rule, with all the 
greatest regard for the chairman of the Committee on Rules and our 
distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the following 
reason. This issue before the House of Representatives this evening is 
a very important one to the American people. Nothing less is at stake 
than our economic future, our democratic principles, and our national 
security. That is why I oppose this rule, because this rule says that 
tomorrow, while Members are away during a funeral and votes are not 
going to happen until 3 o'clock, we will have our chance to debate the 
rule while Members are not here. Then, after Members return, we will be 
given 15 minutes to make our case against MFN for China. I cannot 
support the

[[Page H6955]]

curbing of debate that is happening in the House of Representatives 
under this rule.
  I know the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee did his 
best, but I think that this rule is an arrogant act on the part of the 
Republican leadership to stifle debate here on this issue. What are 
they afraid of? Are they afraid of the truth? Are the afraid of the 
American people weighing in? Are they afraid, as we had hoped, that 
this debate would take place when it always has in July? Are they 
afraid of 100,000 young people who gathered in Golden Gate Park to 
promote freedom of expression in Tibet, who heard from a monk who had 
been imprisoned by the Chinese for 33 years describe his torture by the 
Chinese, and who was freed only by international pressure led by the 
Italian government? Are they afraid of those people?
  Why can we not have this debate while Members who here in Congress? 
Why can we not have the appropriate time, as we have always had, for 
the grassroots people to weigh in? They believe, and I hope they are 
always right, that their opinion makes a difference to their Member of 
Congress and that they should have the opportunity for public comment 
that the fast track of MFN allows, provides for, but that this 
leadership in this House of Representatives has decided to curtail. 
That is why I oppose the rule.
  Let us talk about what is at stake. The previous speaker talked about 
economic reform leading to political reform. Well, let us quote 
directly from not my word but this administration's own country report 
on China, on the subject of repression in China. The State Department 
country report says, ``The experience of China in the past few years 
demonstrates that while economic growth, trade and social mobility 
create an improved standard of living, they cannot by themselves bring 
about greater respect for human rights in the absence of a willingness 
by political authorities to abide by the fundamental international 
norms.'' It went on further to say that by year's end, this is 1995, 
almost all public dissent against the public authorities was silenced.

  Why is this important also in terms of proliferation? I said first 
about our democratic principles being at stake. We talk about 
democratic principles. We want to ban investment in Burma, no business 
going on there. But when it comes to China, we cannot even raise a 
tariff because some businesses might lose a profit on their bottom 
line, because it is certainly not about American jobs. This is a job 
loser for America.
  We can see by this chart, Mr. Speaker, maybe you cannot, the trade 
balance with China, when we started this debate in 1989, was reported 
for 1988 to be $3,479 million. In that time, it has increased 1,000 
percent. The trade deficit for last year as reported in this 7-year 
period is $34 billion. Yes, that gives us leverage. It is not about any 
country that has human rights abuses, dear ranking member. It is about 
a country that has a $34 billion trade deficit with the United States, 
which gives us leverage, which should give us leverage.
  Certainly we are not going to revoke MFN for China; the President 
will not allow it. We should certainly use our voices and our leverage 
on that issue to send a strong message from this Congress at least that 
we will stand for human rights. It is not enough to say they have merit 
or that even they have priority but they are important enough for us to 
use our muscle on them, our economic muscle on them.
  In addition to this trade deficit, we have the transfer of technology 
to China which businesses are doing. We are almost encouraging it so 
they can access the market. We have the ripping off of our intellectual 
property. That piracy is not even counted of the billions of dollars in 
the trade deficit. So it is a better economic future. Where are our 
jobs? If Boeing is transferring the production of the tail section of 
their planes to China to be produced by workers who make $50 a month, 
how can that be a job winner for us?

  On the issue of proliferation, I said it undermined our democratic 
principles, our moral authority to talk about human rights any place if 
we cannot talk about it where some business is at stake.
  Second, I talked about how this trade with China is robbing our 
economic future. You want to do business in China? You open up a 
factory there. You give your technology plans to the government, they 
open up factories with your technology plans and tell you to create an 
export plan for the products that you make in China.
  This isn't about United States products made in China. Only 2 percent 
of our exports are allowed into the Chinese market. Over one-third of 
China's exports flood United States markets. Is this going to isolate 
China? Where are they going to take one-third of their exports? Let us 
be reasonable to the American worker.
  The third issue is proliferation. I do not have too much time to go 
into all of that except to say that this administration and the 
administration before it has looked the other way on the proliferation 
of missile technology and nuclear technology to Pakistan, of missile 
technology, nuclear technology, biological technology and chemical 
technology to Iran, at the same time as we are having nice little 
resolutions about boycotting Iran and having a secondary boycott on 
companies that invest in petroleum in Iran until Iran stops its 
production of weapons of mass destruction. But we do not want to go to 
the source, the source of that technology to Iran, because some big 
businesses might lose a little bit of their access.
  So this, I repeat, undermines our democratic principles, threatens 
our economic future, and threatens our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote no on the rule and no on 
MFN for China.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui].
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the 
Committee on Rules for coming up with the rule they have. Obviously the 
vote on the motion to disapprove will be allowed tomorrow and, of 
course, the other piece of legislation will also be discussed, which 
will mandate that the four committees of jurisdiction that have 
jurisdiction over the issues that we are concerned about with China 
will report back by September 30 after holding hearings and possible 
legislation. I think it is a good solution in terms of crafting the 
rule. I think we will be able to get to the nub of the issue with that 
particular rule.
  China is the most important relationship that the United States will 
have over the next 25 years. China comprises 22 percent of the world 
population. We cannot isolate the Chinese. If we walk away from the 
Chinese, the Japanese, the Europeans, the Brazilians, every other 
country will go into China.
  So we have to engage the Chinese. I think, as the gentleman from 
Arizona said, if we cut off MFN, that is tantamount to declaring war 
with China. China then will become a very belligerent power. Right now 
they are not expansionary, as we saw with the Soviet Union. But if 
China should become expansionary and build up their armaments, then the 
Japanese, then the South Koreans, then the Indonesians, then all of 
Asia will build up arms and we will have a tinderbox in Asia for the 
next 10 to 20 years and it will be a threat to world peace and a threat 
to our children and grandchildren. That is why this issue is important.

                              {time}  0015

  Now let me address for a moment the issue of the trade deficit. If we 
can stop spending 6 months a year on the issue of Most Favored Nation 
status with China, we can then get to the issues of opening up the 
Chinese market. And we can do it by exercising section 301, just as we 
saw last week on the issue of intellectual properties. What we did 
there, if my colleagues will recall, is tell the Chinese we will impose 
$2.3 billion worth of sanctions against them unless they come to an 
agreement with us on the piracy of our intellectual property. They have 
agreed with us.
  Now, obviously, we are going to have to make sure that agreement is 
enforced. But the fact of the matter is that the only way we are going 
to be able to deal with the Chinese is by engaging them, not by trying 
to isolate them, because that will not work. And the key obviously is 
the fact that we must try to bring China into the civilized nations of 
the world over time.

[[Page H6956]]

  So I would support this rule. I would obviously vote against the 
motion that the gentleman of the Committee on Rules will offer, and 
certainly support the gentleman's resolution that will require the four 
committees to look into this matter, hold hearings and obviously pass 
legislation should it become necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Duke Cunningham, a member of the 
Committee on National Security.
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule and in 
opposition to MFN.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], another valuable member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Glens 
Falls, NY, and I rise in support of this eminently good and wise, 
noncontroversial rule, and I am asking to revise and extend my remarks 
in deference to my colleagues at this late hour, and I would suggest to 
the gentlewoman from California that the problem is scheduling, not 
rulemaking.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, the distinguished 
chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, a rule that will allow 
for the timely consideration of a bill to disapprove normalized trade 
relations with China. Or, in the archaic language of diplomacy, we are 
considering China's Most Favored Nation status, which the President has 
recently renewed. MFN for China has become a perennial issue--year 
after year we debate whether or not Congress should overrule the 
decision to renew normal trade relations--there are no special deals 
here--with China, the country with the largest population in the world. 
I welcome the debate, but I will again oppose raising additional trade 
barriers to one of the world's fastest growing economies. To do so 
would cost American jobs and ultimately diminish western democratic 
influence in this crucial region. I agree that China's leaders have 
acted in bad faith in areas of human rights, arms trades, and 
intellectual property. These problems must be addressed--and they will 
be --through the proper channels. We cannot ignore our leadership 
responsibilities in encouraging democratization and responsible actions 
in China, but this is exactly what we would be doing if we quit the 
field today. We must stay engaged in China in order to be a part of 
the--admittedly slow--process of reform, because many of the reforms in 
China that we have witnessed to this point have their roots in the free 
flow of commerce between that country and the United States. So, I urge 
my colleagues to support the rule, and oppose House Joint Resolution 
182.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to examine what confronts 
us here. It is not simply what the Chinese do, it is the magnitude to 
which they can do it. If China was a country of 50, 60, 100 million, 
even 200 million people, operating with the kind of system that they 
operate under, we might be able to survive it; 50, 100 million people 
working in a totally controlled economy, working in prison, slave 
wages, slave manufacturing, we might be able to, through contact and 
through constant pressures, make some progress here.
  This is a country with 1.2 billion people. Before they have an impact 
from our economic exchanges they will destroy the economic life of this 
country if we do not alter the trading practice.
  In the last 20 years we have seen the workweek wage of an average 
factory worker in America drop by $60, not go up, but go down by $60 a 
week. Sixty percent of Americans have lost ground on their paycheck as 
a flood of Chinese goods have come into this country.
  We talk about the French. The French would each have to buy $4,000 
apiece in goods to replace America's demand to China. Forty-five 
billion dollars of sales in this country does but one thing, it puts 
American families at risk, it depresses American wages, and it goes on 
to do damage to our environment.
  We can put scrubbers on our factories and clean up the rivers and the 
pollution that goes into the oceans. As China's economy grows, the 
pollution it puts into the air and the rivers will continue to 
devastate the environment of our globe: Missile technology, biotech 
weapons, chemical weapons proliferated by the Chinese to Iran and every 
other dangerous corner of the globe.
  We were all saddened and frightened by the scene of American 
personnel barracks in Saudi Arabia being hit by a traditional bomb. 
What will happen when our Chinese trading partners ship to the Iranians 
nuclear chemical and biological weapons? What kind of challenges will 
confront us for the safety of American personnel and indeed the people 
in this country as well?
  China, to be dealt with as a normal trading partner in this global 
community? Remember the Taiwanese elections a short time ago, as the 
Taiwanese citizens went to the polls to exercise their right to vote 
for a new congress and a new president? What did the Chinese government 
do? They brought their fire power to the straits of Taiwan and tried to 
intimidate the Taiwanese from a free election.
  We have to defend the principles we believe in and the families we 
represent. The only way to do that is to vote down MFN.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the 
rule.
  As the gentleman from New York, Chairman Solomon, pointed out, this 
MFN resolution should be given 20 hours of debate, guaranteed by 
statute. But in a phenomenal show of arrogance, the Republican 
leadership has said no.
  This MFN debate reminds me a little bit of the Medicare debate; 
Republicans choking off debate, the Gingrich leadership team cutting 
back-room deals with powerful interest groups, consideration of the 
legislation in the middle of the night.
  This bill will cost millions, will cost millions of American jobs. 
Our trade deficit with China, as my friend from California said, almost 
nonexistent only a few years ago, has climbed to $32 billion a year and 
rising. Within a couple of years it will surpass that of Japan.
  MFN is an economic loser for America. We sell more to Belgium. As a 
Nation we export more to Belgium than we do to China. Conversely, 40 
percent of all of Chinese exports are sold into the United States. 
Simply put, China needs us more than we need them.
  How much more can China do to its people and how much more can China 
do to rest of the world? How many more times can they stick their 
thumbs in the eyes of their people and the rest of the world before we 
in this body finally say to MFN? Massacring students in Beijing, 
selling nuclear technology to rogue nations, slave labor camps, 
illegally smuggling 2,000 AK-47s into the United States, forced 
abortions and sterilizations, forcible seizure of Tibetan children, 
forcing 12-year-old Chinese children to make toys for 12-year-old 
American children.
  It is time we say no to MFN. It is time we say no to the Chinese 
government. It is time we say no to those abuses. Vote no on the rule, 
vote no on MFN.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say to the previous speaker that the way to be effective on the 
floor of this Congress is to be as less partisan as we can.
  If the gentleman would notice, even the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], and 
myself and others have been critical of this administration and the 
previous administrations. We have been critical of both political 
parties. But when the gentleman stands up here and says the arrogance 
of the Republican Party by limiting this debate, which should have 20 
hours of debate, to 4 hours, let me tell him it was done on a 
bipartisan basis and it was done, the same thing, under 15 consecutive 
Democrat leaderships. So let us be bipartisan about this and keep it on 
a high plane.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr.

[[Page H6957]]

Wolf]. On the highest plane I know, this man has been a leader and 
advocate of human rights throughout the entire world for his entire 
career here.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I do not even know what to say. I feel so 
bound up inside about what we are doing tonight. This is fundamentally 
an evil group of people. This is the evil empire of modern times.
  They have Catholic priests and bishops in jail as we now speak who 
are being tortured. They are torturing Buddhist monks and raping 
Buddhist nuns. They have more slave labor gulag camps than they had 
when Solzhenitsyn wrote ``Gulag Archipelago.'' They were selling AK-
47's and shoulder missiles that could take 747s out of the sky in 
Boston, in Chicago, or in L.A.
  This is a fundamentally evil group of people, and I worry that 3 or 4 
years from now we will have to deal with those people on a military 
basis. I wish we had a better piece of tandem legislation. The piece of 
tandem legislation does not do. MFN? If they get it, fine, but we 
should have abolished the People's Liberation Army and done all these 
things that are important.
  The last thing is, having served here since 1980, no Member of 
Congress would have had the guts or the courage to come to this floor 
during the 1980s, when Scharansky was in Perm Camp 35 and Sakharov was 
under house arrest, no Member of Congress would have had the guts or 
the courage to stand up and say that we should have given the Soviet 
Union MFN. And now we are just clamoring to give it to a regime that is 
the evil empire number one of this world.
  I oppose the rule, but the rule is important. I just oppose MFN. I 
think all of us have to ask ourselves, and the gentleman from New 
Jersey, Chris Smith, said it better than anybody, what threshold do we 
have in our own conscience that will make us finally say enough is 
enough? If they continue to do next year what they have done this year, 
raping nuns and imprisoning bishops and priests, what will be enough is 
enough? Each person should ask their own conscience that because we 
will have to deal with this issue again.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and with all the admiration that I have, both in my head and in 
my heart, for the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] who are two very strong 
advocates of human rights, it just shows even more strongly what a 
tough issue this is for everybody.
  I am a strong advocate for MFN. I seem to disagree with Mr. Wolf and 
Ms. Pelosi on this particular issue, but it is not because I am not 
outraged about MFN, or that I am not upset with the Chinese Government 
for orphanages and abortion, or that I am not outraged at the Chinese 
for the kinds of things that they do in ring sales and foreign sales to 
the Pakistanis or into the Middles East. But I vote for MFN this year 
because I vote for the American principles of democracy and human 
rights, where we have as our pillar, in our foreign policy, that we 
stress human rights more than any other country in the world.
  Now, if we walk away from China, do we have confidence that the 
Japanese are now going to begin to turn around China? I do not. Korea? 
No. Europe? No. The United States, with President Carter and President 
Bush and President Clinton, each one of those individuals can and 
should do a better job in terms of future Presidents and bilateral 
relations, stressing our human rights, but we must engage, we must 
argue, we must debate this issue with maybe the most important country 
for our citizens in the next 25 to 50 years: 1.3 billion people, the 
largest standing army.
  So for our principles of human rights, I believe we should engage 
this country and not walk away.
  Second, it is because MFN is in our best interests. We are not doing 
a favor for the Chinese. We create American jobs by doing this. Not 
right away, not enough with the trade deficit that we have, but let me 
give Members a quick example.
  In Indiana we make brakes for Boeing and McDonnell Douglas commercial 
airliners. That market is not growing domestically. Our families that 
get $16 and $17 an hour making these brakes for these commercial 
airliners are not going to have these jobs if we just sell these 
airliners to Arizona and California and New Jersey.

                              {time}  0030

  But if we sell these airliners to Russia, to China, to Korea, to 
Japan, we will continue to see wages go up for our workers. We will 
continue to see better security for our work force, and hopefully it 
will not just be airliners, it will be computers, it will be 
manufacturing equipment, it will be a host of things. But I have 
confidence, Mr. Speaker, that Americans will stand up for human rights 
and will stand up and try to create better jobs for American families.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], one of the outstanding free traders in this 
Congress for the last, I guess, 16 years, vice chairman of our 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be on the same side of the 
issue with my chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], in 
supporting this rule. I happen to believe that it is a very fair and 
balanced rule. It has come up in a very timely manner and, as Chairman 
Solomon said earlier, it is following the procedure that we have gone 
through in the past.
  After 7 years of this debate, there is no question at all that the 
membership of this House, even if they have served here for only 18 
months, has had the chance to look at the issue of MFN for China. 
Cutting off MFN would clearly hurt the United States. It seems to me 
that, as we look at this question, ending normal relations with China 
would be devastating. We have all acknowledged that we very much want 
to do what we can to assist those who have been victimized by 
reprehensible human rights violations that we have seen for the past 
several years. Weapons transfers, saber rattling with Taiwan, 
intellectual property rights violations, Tibet, all of these things are 
priority concerns of ours.
  The fact of the matter is we need to recognize that over the past 
several years, while the situation was horrible on June 4, 1989, with 
the Tiananmen Square massacre and many other murders have taken place, 
we saw a video in our Republican conference yesterday showing that. But 
if we compare the Cultural Revolution that took place under Mao Tse 
Tung and the Great Leap Forward and the export of revolution as my 
friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], discussed that took 
place under Mao Tse Tung to the China of today, while it is not 
perfect, it is still horrible, it is better than it was. Why? Because 
today we are engaged.

  We disengaged from China with Chiang Kai-shek in 1949, left for 
Taiwan, up until the last several years, when Richard Nixon began that 
opening in the 1970's. I will tell my colleagues that, as we look at 
this issue, are we going to take a step backward and go back to the 
policies where under Mao Tse Tung 60 million Chinese people were 
starved, a million people during the Cultural Revolution were killed by 
the government? The answer is a resounding ``no''. What we need to do 
is we need to recognize that the single most powerful force for change 
is the one that my party stands strongly for, and that is the free 
market. We believe very strongly in the free market and the power of 
it.
  It is more powerful than any U.S. Government coercion that we could 
possibly apply. The fact of the matter is, we join together, very much 
wanting to address these concerns. This rule makes in order a 
resolution which will allow us to look at the concerns that we will 
allow us to look at the concerns that we all want to address. But to 
disengage would be preposterous. The United States of America is the 
third most populous Nation on the face of the Earth. Yet the People's 
Republic of China has almost five times the population of the United 
States.
  The gentleman from California, Bob Matsui, my very dear friend, said 
it perfectly. Over the next quarter century it is going to be the 
single most important relationship that we have. It

[[Page H6958]]

is very important that we maintain those ties. As I got on a plane, I 
was stuck in Pittsburgh the night before last. I happened to sit next 
to a Chinese American civil engineer from Iowa. He brought the issue up 
to me saying: I lived through the cultural revolution. It was very, 
very difficult. I saw friends who were victims of the human rights 
violations, and people were starving. Today when I talk to my family, 
things have improved. Let us not go back to those horrible times in the 
past. Let us address our concerns today and move forward.
  Support this rule and defeat the resolution of disapproval.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] has 12 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Miami, FL [Mr. Diaz-Balart], another very valuable member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, last week I finished reading a 
biography of a Father Maximillian Kolbe, now Saint Maximillian Kolbe. 
He died at Auschwitz. Pope John Paul has called him the patron saint of 
our century. In that biography, I learned the name of the company that 
in August of 1942 was given the contract to build 4 vast crematoria 
with gas chambers at Auschwitz. The name of the company was Topf and 
Sohne.
  The other company that I learned about, I.G. Farbenindustrie, shared 
in the profits with the Nazis from the slave labor in the concentration 
camps.
  I wonder if Hitler had not invaded Poland, maybe even afterwards if 
we had been willing to sit down and reach a peace agreement with him, 
whether we would not be having tonight's discussion perhaps each year 
with regard to MFN with the so-called Third Reich. Could we have 
stopped the construction of the crematoriums had there been engagement? 
Coexistence with Hitler? Probably not. But would it have been better 
for an American company to construct the crematoriums than a German 
company or a French company or a Canadian company? I do not believe so, 
Mr. Speaker.
  I recognize that each situation has its peculiarities in each nation 
that we deal with. I recognize that China is geographically distanced 
to the United States and economically very powerful. But I cannot and I 
will not vote to continue a normal economic relationship with that 
government that our colleague, Mr. Wolf, has so eloquently described, 
as well as Mr. Solomon, that government of opprobrium.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio, [Ms. Kapture] is 
recognized for 4 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlemen for yielding 
time to me.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule and certainly in strong 
opposition to MFN. This rule was concocted late last night in the wee 
hours, around midnight, when none of the Members were here except but a 
few of us who overheard that there might be a meeting up there in the 
third corner, none of the press was around.
  What we have here is merely another attempt by Speaker Gingrich and 
Mr. Armey to railroad debate in this House on a measure so vital to the 
American people as well as to the cause of liberty in China. Under 
normal circumstances, I guess it would be said, but I am so outraged 
that it is hard to be sad as we consider this here this evening. In 
Washington it is now nearly 1 a.m., and most of the membership has gone 
home. People here are bleary-eyed, and yet this is what we are 
subjected to.
  Tomorrow when most of our membership is gone, we will try to attempt 
to take up the merits of this.What disrespect we show to Bill Emerson, 
our dear colleague, by the manner in which this is being conducted.
  I also want to say to my good friend, the gentlewoman from 
California, Congresswoman Pelosi, and to the gentleman from Virginia, 
Frank Wolf, this Chamber should treat you better. Everyone of our 
colleagues who is here and who is a party to this deplorable rule and 
the manner in which it is being considered, shame on you. Shame on you. 
Shame on you, Speaker Gingrich, wherever you are. You were out here 
making noise a few minutes ago, and Mr. Armey, for not showing the 
courtesy to the Members who have worked so hard to represent the best 
values that we represent as a country.
  But do you know what? I have been at this podium before. I have the 
benefit of 14 years of seniority in this people's House. I remember 
when they railroaded GATT through here. Boy, do I remember that. I 
remember standing in this well and saying, American people, remember 
this one. I remember some of the Members in here snickered. Do you know 
what? They do. And I remember the NAFTA vote. I remember we almost 
carried it, and then 63 deals were made. And do you know what? The 
American people, they remember that, too.
  And now we have got China MFN. It is merely another battle in a war, 
but it is out there in the country because the country ultimately 
learns what happens here no matter how hard we try to muzzle debate. In 
this legislation, the United States becomes the most unfavored nation, 
the most unfavored nation.

  Take a look here. Every single year that we have had most-favored-
nation, what a misnomer that is, the United States has amassed growing 
trade deficits with China. Until this year, we are at a level of over 
$40 billion, which translates into an additional loss at home of 
800,000 jobs in this country. By names of companies you know: Nike, we 
have got Members here who are going to sell out for tennis shoes. We 
have got members in this Chamber, why, by golly, they are going to sell 
out for Wal-Mart, 700 sweatshops over in China that make that junk that 
they send in over to our shores. Well, Bill Clinton gets a lot of money 
from Sam Walton's family. I feel sad about that. But I care more about 
freedom and the way people are treated.
  We have got some Members here who are going to sell out for Barbie 
dolls when the vote comes up here tonight and tomorrow. How sad.
  You have an accounting to do in a higher life for the votes you will 
cast on this issue. Commercialism, that is what has become the basis of 
our foreign policy in the post-cold war world in which we are living.
  In fact, the words of democracy, the hope for democracy, respect for 
the rule of law, the dignity of working people, the promotion of a 
sustainable environment, those are all illusions as we stand here in 
this Chamber this evening.
  We have no evidence that China has done anything to warrant this 
favored treatment which will give them a 2 percent tariff level of 
goods into our market while they maintain a 30 percent to 40 percent 
tariff against our goods. And they now have the second largest amount 
of dollars reserves in the world, $70 billion, which they use to buy 
weapons pointed at us and at their neighbors. So that is what China MFN 
creates.
  What a shame. What a shame. Maintaining the status quo by voting for 
MFN is a disgrace.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the arguments over and over: 
by engaging with China, we can influence the behavior of the Chinese 
Government with regards to fair trade, human and labor rights, and 
proliferation. Members on both sides of the aisle have repeatedly 
expressed skepticism about this approach, and events continue to prove 
us right.
  Recently, a disturbing new rationale for denying MFN has come to 
light: China has become the major contributor to weapons proliferation 
and instability in Asia, with Pakistan being one of the major 
recipients of Chinese nuclear technology and delivery systems.
  As has been reported in the media recently, there is undeniable 
evidence from our own intelligence agencies that Pakistan has deployed 
nuclear-capable Chinese M-11 missiles, obtained through a secretive 
transfers that both countries have tried to cover up. Yet, incredibly, 
despite the overwhelming evidence, the administration seems unwilling 
to impose the tough economic that both nations clearly deserve.

[[Page H6959]]

  Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the dangerous, 
destabilizing transfers of advanced weapons and nuclear technology from 
China to Pakistan have gone unpunished. Earlier this year, we failed to 
punish China or Pakistan for the transfer of 5,000 ring magnets, 
devices used for the production of weapons-grade enriched uranium. We 
officially bought into the unbelievable Chinese Government explanation 
that they were unaware of the transfer. We also went ahead with the 
transfer of $368 million in United States conventional weapons to 
Pakistan.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time to get tough with China, Pakistan and other 
nations contributing to the spread of nuclear weapons. Denying MFN to 
China is a good place to start, an effective way to show that we're 
serious about nonproliferation.

                              {time}  0045

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], one of the Members of this Congress 
I love to listen to because he speaks right from his heart. He is one 
of the leading advocates for human rights in this entire Congress.
  Mr. ROHRABACKER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with Members of 
this body a notice that I just received in the mail. It seems that the 
Citizens for a Sound Economy are going to count my vote against most-
favored-nation status against me when they are trying to calculate 
whether or not they will present to me next year's Jefferson Award.
  How about that?
  As far as I am concerned, the Citizens for a Sound Economy can take 
their award, and they can take it back, and what they can do is they 
can rename it the ``Mao Award'' or they can rename it the ``Lenin 
Prize'' or the ``Goebbels Award,'' or whatever award they want, but 
they are insulting the Members of this Congress by calling it a 
Jefferson Award and then counting it against us for voting not to give 
world's worst tyranny an advantageous trading relationship with this 
country.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman would do me a favor, if he is sending 
his back, would he put mine in the same box?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is unbelievable.
  We have heard today the charge that those of us who are opposed to 
most-favored-nation status for China are talking about isolating and 
walking away from China. That is not the case. China is not a country 
to be ignored, but right now it is being run by tyrants and despots, 
and they are not a group of people that we should be providing 
advantageous trade relations with our own people.
  The question is whether or not Communist China should continue to 
enjoy the advantageous trade relationship that it has because it is 
enjoying the same trade relationship that we give to democratic 
countries. No one is talking about walking away, no one is talking 
about an embargo, no one is talking about isolating China, but does any 
one really believe we should give these dictators, these people who are 
bullying their own neighbors, who are stepping on the faces of their 
own people with their combat boots, we should give them advantageous 
trade relationship with our country?
  Every year since 1989, when the Tiananmen Square democracy advocates 
were massacred, we have seen the situation in China to continue to 
decline. The theory is, if we engage them, if we trade with them, give 
them this most advantageous trade relationship with us, things will get 
better. That is nothing more than a theory, and it is being proven 
wrong in practice. To continue to have our policies based on a theory 
that is not working is totally insane, and we will pay a price. In 
fact, the American people are already paying the price for that 
insanity.
  Granting most-favored-nation status to China while it is going in the 
wrong direction is exactly the wrong signal to send to these despots. 
What we are doing is encouraging those dictators to continue their 
repression, and we are demoralizing those elements in China that want a 
better world.
  Whose side are we on as we celebrate our fourth of July? Are we on 
the side of our own working people, on the side of those people who 
struggle for democracy, or are we just on the side of corporate 
profits? I do not believe that is what this country was founded on.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this Congress the Republican 
majority claimed that the House was going to consider bills under an 
open process. I would like to point out that 60 percent of the 
legislation this session has been considered under a restrictive 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following extraneous material for the 
record:
  The material referred to is as follows:
  


          FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Process used for floor   Amendments in
            Bill No.                    Title           Resolution No.         consideration           order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*........................  Compliance........  H. Res. 6            Closed................           None.
H. Res. 6......................  Opening Day Rules   H. Res. 5            Closed................           None.
                                  Package.                                                                      
H.R. 5*........................  Unfunded Mandates.  H. Res. 38           Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.J. Res. 2*...................  Balanced Budget...  H. Res. 44           Restrictive...........         2R; 4D.
H. Res. 43.....................  Committee Hearings  H. Res. 43 (OJ)      Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Scheduling.                                                                   
H.R. 101.......................  To transfer a       H. Res. 51           Open..................            N/A.
                                  parcel of land to                                                             
                                  the Taos Pueblo                                                               
                                  Indians of New                                                                
                                  Mexico.                                                                       
H.R. 400.......................  To provide for the  H. Res. 52           Open..................            N/A.
                                  exchange of lands                                                             
                                  within Gates of                                                               
                                  the Arctic                                                                    
                                  National Park                                                                 
                                  Preserve.                                                                     
H.R. 440.......................  To provide for the  H. Res. 53           Open..................            N/A.
                                  conveyance of                                                                 
                                  lands to certain                                                              
                                  individuals in                                                                
                                  Butte County,                                                                 
                                  California.                                                                   
H.R. 2*........................  Line Item Veto....  H. Res. 55           Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 665*......................  Victim Restitution  H. Res. 61           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
H.R. 666*......................  Exclusionary Rule   H. Res. 60           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reform Act of                                                                 
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 667*......................  Violent Criminal    H. Res. 63           Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Incarceration Act                                                             
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 668*......................  The Criminal Alien  H. Res. 69           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Deportation                                                                   
                                  Improvement Act.                                                              
H.R. 728*......................  Local Government    H. Res. 79           Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Law Enforcement                                                               
                                  Block Grants.                                                                 
H.R. 7*........................  National Security   H. Res. 83           Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Revitalization                                                                
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 729*......................  Death Penalty/      N/A                  Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Habeas.                                                                       
S. 2...........................  Senate Compliance.  N/A                  Closed................           None.
H.R. 831.......................  To Permanently      H. Res. 88           Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Extend the Health                                                             
                                  Insurance                                                                     
                                  Deduction for the                                                             
                                  Self-Employed.                                                                
H.R. 830*......................  The Paperwork       H. Res. 91           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reduction Act.                                                                
H.R. 889.......................  Emergency           H. Res. 92           Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Supplemental/                                                                 
                                  Rescinding                                                                    
                                  Certain Budget                                                                
                                  Authority.                                                                    
H.R. 450*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 93           Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Moratorium.                                                                   
H.R. 1022*.....................  Risk Assessment...  H. Res. 96           Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.R. 926*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 100          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Flexibility.                                                                  
H.R. 925*......................  Private Property    H. Res. 101          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Protection Act.                                                               
H.R. 1058*.....................  Securities          H. Res. 105          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Litigation Reform                                                             
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 988*......................  The Attorney        H. Res. 104          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Accountability                                                                
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
H.R. 956*......................  Product Liability   H. Res. 109          Restrictive...........         8D; 7R.
                                  and Legal Reform                                                              
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 1158......................  Making Emergency    H. Res. 115          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Supplemental                                                                  
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  and Rescissions.                                                              
H.J. Res. 73*..................  Term Limits.......  H. Res. 116          Restrictive...........          1D; 3R
H.R. 4*........................  Welfare Reform....  H. Res. 119          Restrictive...........        5D; 26R.
H.R. 1271*.....................  Family Privacy Act  H. Res. 125          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 660*......................  Housing for Older   H. Res. 126          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Persons Act.                                                                  
H.R. 1215*.....................  The Contract With   H. Res. 129          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  America Tax                                                                   
                                  Relief Act of                                                                 
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 483.......................  Medicare Select     H. Res. 130          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Extension.                                                                    
H.R. 655.......................  Hydrogen Future     H. Res. 136          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 1361......................  Coast Guard         H. Res. 139          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Authorization.                                                                
H.R. 961.......................  Clean Water Act...  H. Res. 140          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 535.......................  Corning National    H. Res. 144          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fish Hatchery                                                                 
                                  Conveyance Act.                                                               

[[Page H6960]]

                                                                                                                
H.R. 584.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 145          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fairport National                                                             
                                  Fish Hatchery to                                                              
                                  the State of Iowa.                                                            
H.R. 614.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 146          Open..................            N/A.
                                  New London                                                                    
                                  National Fish                                                                 
                                  Hatchery                                                                      
                                  Production                                                                    
                                  Facility.                                                                     
H. Con. Res. 67................  Budget Resolution.  H. Res. 149          Restrictive...........         3D; 1R.
H.R. 1561......................  American Overseas   H. Res. 155          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Interests Act of                                                              
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 1530......................  National Defense    H. Res. 164          Restrictive...........     36R; 18D; 2
                                  Authorization                                                      Bipartisan.
                                  Act; FY 1996.                                                                 
H.R. 1817......................  Military            H. Res. 167          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Construction                                                                  
                                  Appropriations;                                                               
                                  FY 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 1854......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 169          Restrictive...........       5R; 4D; 2
                                  Appropriations.                                                    Bipartisan.
H.R. 1868......................  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 170          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 1905......................  Energy & Water      H. Res. 171          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.J. Res. 79...................  Constitutional      H. Res. 173          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Amendment to                                                                  
                                  Permit Congress                                                               
                                  and States to                                                                 
                                  Prohibit the                                                                  
                                  Physical                                                                      
                                  Desecration of                                                                
                                  the American Flag.                                                            
H.R. 1944......................  Recissions Bill...  H. Res. 175          Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)...........  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 177          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*......  Interior            H. Res. 185          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 1977......................  Interior            H. Res. 187          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 1976......................  Agriculture         H. Res. 188          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)...........  Interior            H. Res. 189          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 2020......................  Treasury Postal     H. Res. 190          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.J. Res. 96...................  Disapproving MFN    H. Res. 193          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  for China.                                                                    
H.R. 2002......................  Transportation      H. Res. 194          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 70........................  Exports of Alaskan  H. Res. 197          Open..................            N/A.
                                  North Slope Oil.                                                              
H.R. 2076......................  Commerce, Justice   H. Res. 198          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 2099......................  VA/HUD              H. Res. 201          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
S. 21..........................  Termination of      H. Res. 204          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  U.S. Arms Embargo                                                             
                                  on Bosnia.                                                                    
H.R. 2126......................  Defense             H. Res. 205          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 1555......................  Communications Act  H. Res. 207          Restrictive...........     2R/3D/3 Bi-
                                  of 1995.                                                             partisan.
H.R. 2127......................  Labor/HHS           H. Res. 208          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 1594......................  Economically        H. Res. 215          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Targeted                                                                      
                                  Investments.                                                                  
H.R. 1655......................  Intelligence        H. Res. 216          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Authorization.                                                                
H.R. 1162......................  Deficit Reduction   H. Res. 218          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Lock Box.                                                                     
H.R. 1670......................  Federal             H. Res. 219          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Acquisition                                                                   
                                  Reform Act of                                                                 
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 1617......................  To Consolidate and  H. Res. 222          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reform Workforce                                                              
                                  Development and                                                               
                                  Literacy Programs                                                             
                                  Act (CAREERS).                                                                
H.R. 2274......................  National Highway    H. Res. 224          Open..................            N/A.
                                  System                                                                        
                                  Designation Act                                                               
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 927.......................  Cuban Liberty and   H. Res. 225          Restrictive...........          2R/2D.
                                  Democratic                                                                    
                                  Solidarity Act of                                                             
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 743.......................  The Teamwork for    H. Res. 226          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Employees and                                                                 
                                  Managers Act of                                                               
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 1170......................  3-Judge Court for   H. Res. 227          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Certain                                                                       
                                  Injunctions.                                                                  
H.R. 1601......................  International       H. Res. 228          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Space Station                                                                 
                                  Authorization Act                                                             
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.J. Res. 108..................  Making Continuing   H. Res. 230          Closed................  ..............
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 2405......................  Omnibus Civilian    H. Res. 234          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Science                                                                       
                                  Authorization Act                                                             
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 2259......................  To Disapprove       H. Res. 237          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Certain                                                                       
                                  Sentencing                                                                    
                                  Guideline                                                                     
                                  Amendments.                                                                   
H.R. 2425......................  Medicare            H. Res. 238          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Preservation Act.                                                             
H.R. 2492......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 239          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  Bill.                                                                         
H.R. 2491......................  7 Year Balanced     H. Res. 245          Restrictive...........             1D.
H. Con. Res. 109...............   Budget                                                                        
                                  Reconciliation                                                                
                                  Social Security                                                               
                                  Earnings Test                                                                 
                                  Reform.                                                                       
H.R. 1833......................  Partial Birth       H. Res. 251          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Abortion Ban Act                                                              
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 2546......................  D.C.                H. Res. 252          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1996.                                                                         
H.J. Res. 115..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 257          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 2586......................  Temporary Increase  H. Res. 258          Restrictive...........             5R.
                                  in the Statutory                                                              
                                  Debt Limit.                                                                   
H.R. 2539......................  ICC Termination...  H. Res. 259          Open..................  ..............
H.J. Res. 115..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 261          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 2586......................  Temporary Increase  H. Res. 262          Closed................            N/A.
                                  in the Statutory                                                              
                                  Limit on the                                                                  
                                  Public Debt.                                                                  
H. Res. 250....................  House Gift Rule     H. Res. 268          Closed................             2R.
                                  Reform.                                                                       
H.R. 2564......................  Lobbying            H. Res. 269          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Disclosure Act of                                                             
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 2606......................  Prohibition on      H. Res. 273          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Funds for Bosnia                                                              
                                  Deployment.                                                                   
H.R. 1788......................  Amtrak Reform and   H. Res. 289          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Privatization Act                                                             
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 1350......................  Maritime Security   H. Res. 287          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
H.R. 2621......................  To Protect Federal  H. Res. 293          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Trust Funds.                                                                  
H.R. 1745......................  Utah Public Lands   H. Res. 303          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Management Act of                                                             
                                  1995.                                                                         
H. Res. 304....................  Providing for       N/A                  Closed................         1D; 2R.
                                  Debate and                                                                    
                                  Consideration of                                                              
                                  Three Measures                                                                
                                  Relating to U.S.                                                              
                                  Troop Deployments                                                             
                                  in Bosnia.                                                                    
H. Res. 309....................  Revised Budget      H. Res. 309          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Resolution.                                                                   
H.R. 558.......................  Texas Low-Level     H. Res. 313          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Radioactive Waste                                                             
                                  Disposal Compact                                                              
                                  Consent Act.                                                                  
H.R. 2677......................  The National Parks  H. Res. 323          Closed................            N/A.
                                  and National                                                                  
                                  Wildlife Refuge                                                               
                                  Systems Freedom                                                               
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
                                   PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION                                   
                                                                                                                
H.R. 1643......................  To authorize the    H. Res. 334          Closed................            N/A.
                                  extension of                                                                  
                                  nondiscriminatory                                                             
                                  treatment (MFN)                                                               
                                  to the products                                                               
                                  of Bulgaria.                                                                  
H.J. Res. 134..................  Making continuing   H. Res. 336          Closed................            N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131...............   appropriations/                                                               
                                  establishing                                                                  
                                  procedures making                                                             
                                  the transmission                                                              
                                  of the continuing                                                             
                                  resolution H.J.                                                               
                                  Res. 134.                                                                     
H.R. 1358......................  Conveyance of       H. Res. 338          Closed................            N/A.
                                  National Marine                                                               
                                  Fisheries Service                                                             
                                  Laboratory at                                                                 
                                  Gloucester,                                                                   
                                  Massachusetts.                                                                
H.R. 2924......................  Social Security     H. Res. 355          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Guarantee Act.                                                                
H.R. 2854......................  The Agricultural    H. Res. 366          Restrictive...........       5D; 9R; 2
                                  Market Transition                                                  Bipartisan.
                                  Program.                                                                      
H.R. 994.......................  Regulatory Sunset   H. Res. 368          Open rule; Rule tabled            N/A.
                                  & Review Act of                                                               
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 3021......................  To Guarantee the    H. Res. 371          Closed rule...........            N/A.
                                  Continuing Full                                                               
                                  Investment of                                                                 
                                  Social Security                                                               
                                  and Other Federal                                                             
                                  Funds in                                                                      
                                  Obligations of                                                                
                                  the United States.                                                            
H.R. 3019......................  A Further           H. Res. 372          Restrictive...........          2D/2R.
                                  Downpayment                                                                   
                                  Toward a Balanced                                                             
                                  Budget.                                                                       
H.R. 2703......................  The Effective       H. Res. 380          Restrictive...........       6D; 7R; 4
                                  Death Penalty and                                                  Bipartisan.
                                  Public Safety Act                                                             
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 2202......................  The Immigration     H. Res. 384          Restrictive...........     12D; 19R; 1
                                  and National                                                       Bipartisan.
                                  Interest Act of                                                               
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.J. Res. 165..................  Making further      H. Res. 386          Closed................            N/A.
                                  continuing                                                                    
                                  appropriations                                                                
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 125.......................  The Gun Crime       H. Res. 388          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Enforcement and                                                               
                                  Second Amendment                                                              
                                  Restoration Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 3136......................  The Contract With   H. Res. 391          Closed................            N/A.
                                  America                                                                       
                                  Advancement Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 3103......................  The Health          H. Res. 392          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Coverage                                                                      
                                  Availability and                                                              
                                  Affordability Act                                                             
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.J. Res. 159..................  Tax Limitation      H. Res. 395          Restrictive...........              1D
                                  Constitutional                                                                
                                  Amendment.                                                                    
H.R. 842.......................  Truth in Budgeting  H. Res. 396          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 2715......................  Paperwork           H. Res. 409          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Elimination Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 1675......................  National Wildlife   H. Res. 410          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Refuge                                                                        
                                  Improvement Act                                                               
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.J. Res. 175..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 411          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 2641......................  United States       H. Res. 418          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Marshals Service                                                              
                                  Improvement Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 2149......................  The Ocean Shipping  H. Res. 419          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reform Act.                                                                   
H.R. 2974......................  To amend the        H. Res. 421          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Violent Crime                                                                 
                                  Control and Law                                                               
                                  Enforcement Act                                                               
                                  of 1994 to                                                                    
                                  provide enhanced                                                              
                                  penalties for                                                                 
                                  crimes against                                                                
                                  elderly and child                                                             
                                  victims.                                                                      
H.R. 3120......................  To amend Title 18,  H. Res. 422          Open..................            N/A.
                                  United States                                                                 
                                  Code, with                                                                    
                                  respect to                                                                    
                                  witness                                                                       
                                  retaliation,                                                                  
                                  witness tampering                                                             
                                  and jury                                                                      
                                  tampering.                                                                    
H.R. 2406......................  The United States   H. Res. 426          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Housing Act of                                                                
                                  1996.                                                                         
H.R. 3322......................  Omnibus Civilian    H. Res. 427          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Science                                                                       
                                  Authorization Act                                                             
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 3286......................  The Adoption        H. Res. 428          Restrictive...........         1D; 1R.
                                  Promotion and                                                                 
                                  Stability Act of                                                              
                                  1996.                                                                         
H.R. 3230......................  Defense             H. Res. 430          Restrictive...........      41 amends;
                                  Authorization                                                      20D; 17R; 4
                                  Bill FY 1997.                                                       bipartisan

[[Page H6961]]

                                                                                                                
H.R. 3415......................  Repeal of the 4.3-  H. Res. 436          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Cent Increase in                                                              
                                  Transporation                                                                 
                                  Fuel Taxes.                                                                   
H.R. 3259......................  Intelligence        H. Res. 437          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Authorization Act                                                             
                                  for FY 1997.                                                                  
H.R. 3144......................  The Defend America  H. Res. 438          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 3448/H.R. 1227............  The Small Business  H. Res. 440          Restrictive...........             2R.
                                  Job Protection                                                                
                                  Act of 1996, and                                                              
                                  The Employee                                                                  
                                  Commuting                                                                     
                                  Flexibility Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 3517......................  Military            H. Res. 442          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Construction                                                                  
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.R. 3540......................  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 445          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.R. 3562......................  The Wisconsin       H. Res. 446          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Works Waiver                                                                  
                                  Approval Act.                                                                 
H.R. 2754......................  Shipbuilding Trade  H. Res. 448          Restrictive...........             1R.
                                  Agreement Act.                                                                
H.R. 3603......................  Agriculture         H. Res. 451          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.R. 3610......................  Defense             H. Res. 453          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.R. 3662......................  Interior            H. Res. 455          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.R. 3666......................  VA/HUD              H. Res. 456          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 3675......................  Transportation      H. Res. 460          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.J. Res. 182/H.Res 461........  Disapproving MFN    H. Res. 463          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Status for the                                                                
                                  Peoples Republic                                                              
                                  of China.                                                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All 
  legislation 2d Session, 60% restrictive; 40% open. **** All legislation 104th Congress, 56% restrictive; 44%  
  open. ***** NR indicates that the legislation being considered by the House for amendment has circumvented    
  standard procedure and was never reported from any House committee. ****** PQ Indicates that previous question
  was ordered on the resolution. ******* Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which 
  can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified closed rules as well as completely closed    
  rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This       
  definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules      
  Committee in the 103d Congress. N/A means not available.                                                      


  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the outstanding 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], the next chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Now, that was a real introduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought the name of this game was how to get economic 
growth. I now find that this foreign policy, this trade policy, that 
normally set by the President with bipartisan support, is now dependent 
on just how much we hate these bums that are running China, and If I 
had only known that, I would not even know why we are doing business 
with Japan. I mean I wan younger then, but it seemed to me that they 
were not very nice people then. And Germany; my God, the atrocities 
that were committed then. And Italy; they were not considered friends 
of ours. My God.
  And when it comes to personal experience, those North Koreans, they 
were chasing me all around North Korea, and the Chinese shot me. And 
still we got sanctions against Cuba, and really they have not bothered 
me too much.
  But the truth of the matter is, what are sanctions, and what is most-
favored-nation treatment? It is not most favored nation. We are saying, 
if the United States does not get there first, then our so-called 
friends are going to get there. We also are saying if we get out of 
there, our great friends will be in there before we can pull out our 
equipment.
  And so this is not a question about who you like and who you do not 
like, because I am certain that this is not going to be an anti-
Communist type of thing with my friends supporting trade with North 
Vietnam, with my friends supporting trade with North Korea. My God, the 
Communists, all around us. They are just not shooting us, they are 
buying things from us, and they are creating jobs from us, and what 
choices do we have?
  If we apply sanctions against them and it is a unilateral sanction, 
how do we hurt them? We do not have any friends in the United Nations 
that can depend on our credibility. We now have already told the United 
Nations, ``Elect who you want for a secretary general, we're vetoing 
ahead of time.''
  We now told people that are doing trade with this little island in 
the Caribbean, ``You dare do trade with them,'' or, ``You do trade, 
have your companies any place where any Cuban says he has a piece of 
land, and we're going to take away your visas and have sanctions 
against you.''
  Who believes us any more? Why cannot the United States have 
credibility? Why cannot we believe in something and say what the name 
of the game is? Do we want to find atrocities? Answer: ``You bet your 
life.'' And we are doing business in Africa with countries. We say we 
are going to have sanctions against Nigeria. Who is joining us with the 
sanctions? If we are going to hurt somebody, make certain that we win 
and stop teasing around throwing out sanctions or we are not going to 
trade with them when other people are going to trade.

  I say, ``Don't hurt yourself just because you're dealing with a bunch 
of bums. You're dealing with 1.2 billion dollars' worth of good people 
led by a bunch of bums. Well, what's your option? You just going to 
say, `I quit; I am not going to play the game; you didn't pass the 
personality test'?''
  It is dollars and cents. It is hard bucks.
  They already said we have to balance the budget, and of course my 
President now finds it very convenient to adopt most of these ideas. He 
says balance the budget. He already said we have to cut revenues, and 
my President says, makes some sense, too: We have got to have tax cuts. 
He already said that we have to shrink Government. Well, my God, 
Government is being shrunk. But a strange thing is happening in this 
country, and that is that the old people are living older, and since 
they believe the answer to every social ill that we have are 
penitentiaries, they are building more jails.
  Oh, we are not going to spend on education; leave that to the local 
kids. Well, the local kids are failing, they are in the street, they 
are jobless, they are ignorant, they have no training, they end up with 
drugs, making kids, getting violent, going to jail.
  Oh, how are we going to deal with that? Well, the only name that we 
have in town is expanding the economy, and the only way we can expand 
the economy is not consuming everything that we make but by selling it 
to somebody even if we do not like the people we are selling it to.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be yielding myself the 
balance of the time, but in doing so I will yield up to a minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Glens Falls for 
yielding to me, and I do so simply to respond to the statement that was 
made about the Citizens for a Sound Economy and by my very dear friend 
from California who reminds me that we agree over 90 percent of the 
time on issues, as I do with many of my friends on this side of the 
aisle who disagree with me on this question.
  Citizens for a Sound Economy feels very strongly about the need to 
extend MFN because, if we were to cut off trade with China, we would 
clearly be hurting most the people we want to help here in the United 
States; the reason being, CSE opposes tax increases. They very much 
want to cut the tax burden on those working Americans who benefit from 
toys, shoes, and clothing, and what is necessary is for us to do 
everything that we can to maintain that. It would be a $600 million tax 
increase. CSE stands for free trade and lower taxes, and that is the 
reason they have taken the position that they have.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I was simply going to urge every Member of 
the House to come over here and vote for this rule. It is a fair rule. 
It is the kind of rule that we have had for 17 consecutive years when 
we continued to renew MFN for China all these years, so there is no 
reason for any of us to vote against it, and then I would urge my 
colleagues to vote for the resolution of disapproval for all of the 
reasons we have said before.
  But I just have to respond a little bit because, as I look at this 
little note that is going around from the Citizens for a Sound Economy, 
and I look at

[[Page H6962]]

what it says, it says that, ``We may not give you this Jefferson Award 
again if you vote against giving MFN for China.''
  As my colleagues know, to me that is intimidation at its worst. I 
wonder if they have PAC checks, and now they are not going to give 
Jerry Solomon a PAC check. Well, let me just tell them, ``If you have 
them, why don't you keep them? I don't want it; OK?'' And any other 
industry who does not want to give Jerry Solomon a PAC check because he 
is going to vote for this motion to disapprove MFN for China because he 
believes in human rights for decent people and American foreign policy 
through all Presidents, whether they be Republican or Democrat, has 
always been to promote democracies around the world and to encourage 
human rights for all people. That is what this is all about.
  I really resent this, and I am going to send mine back along with the 
gentleman's, but having said that, let us get back to what I think we 
all ought to vote for, this rule, and then take the bill up tomorrow, 
and let us vote to disapprove MFN for China, and then let us pass the 
resolution that talks about all of the rogue activities of this 
dictatorship with arms sales and with all of the activities that they 
undertake.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have serious concerns about this rule 
and about the bill it makes in order.
  I am strongly opposed to the protection that the rule provides for 
the legislative provision that freezes fuel economy, or CAFE, standards 
for the second year in a row. This is unwarranted protection for a 
controversial and major provision which should not be in an 
appropriations bill.
  This legislative rider is a blatant attack on the environment; 
support for the fuel economy standards freeze is, in fact, opposition 
to pollution reduction, national energy security, and consumer savings 
at the gasoline pump.
  By reducing oil consumption, CAFE standards have been enormously 
successful in cutting pollution. By preventing the emission of millions 
of tons of carcinogenic hydrocarbon into the air we breathe, the 
standards have improved air quality, including that in heavily polluted 
cities like my own of Los Angeles. But we have a long way to go before 
we have clean air.
  In addition, CAFE standards have proved to be successful in saving an 
estimated 3 million barrels of oil a day, thereby reducing U.S. 
dependence on imported oil. There is no doubt that, without these 
standards, we would be importing far more oil than we already do. Those 
imports account for 52 percent of U.S. oil consumption, while 
contributing $60 billion annually to our trade deficit.
  And, of direct importance to consumers, CAFE standards result in 
savings when they purchase gasoline. Because fuel economy standards 
doubled between 1975 and the late 1980's, a new car purchaser saves an 
average of $3,300 at the gas pump over the lifetime of a car. CAFE 
standards mean over $40 billion in consumer savings annually.
  By continuing this freeze, we are preventing full implementation of 
the law that was enacted in 1975. Specifically, the freeze is blocking 
improvements in the CAFE standards for light trucks. This means that 
our constituents who purchase the very popular minivans, sport utility 
vehicles, jeeps, and pickups are denied the benefits of existing fuel-
saving technologies.
  These vehicles have become the most prevalent example of the gas 
guzzlers we have sought to do away with--they now comprise over 40 
percent of the new vehicle market, increasing the demand for oil and, 
so, increasing pollution as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also disturbed by some of the other provisions of 
this important piece of legislation, which affects, in one way or 
another, all Americans.
  Specifically, many of us regret that the bill makes such drastic 
reductions in Amtrak's funding. Amtrak's capital improvement would be 
nearly halved; the fund for improvements in the Northeast corridor 
would be eliminated entirely. This is, Mr. Speaker, bad transportation 
policy.
  Instead of cutting in half this funding for Amtrak, we ought to be 
providing funds to improve and expand rail service in the United 
States. We are currently making an investment that is totally 
inadequate; our rail system is nowhere near so cost-effective or 
consumer oriented as it should be. But, instead of providing the funds 
to overcome those deficiencies, the action we are taking today 
represents a giant step backward.
  An effective, efficient rail system is essential to the quality of 
life and economic vitality of our Nation, and improving rail service 
should be a top priority; instead it has been sadly neglected. Trains 
run infrequently; the most popular ones are overcrowded; and passengers 
have well-founded fears about safety and the lack of good, reliable 
service.
  We should be trying to meet the demands of customers--and would-be 
customers--by improving our Nation's rail program. Rail service should 
not be relegated to the past, or to the bottom of our list of 
priorities; it should not be taking a back seat to the enormous amount 
of funding we continue to pour into our multibillion-dollar highway 
system.
  As the respected columnist, Jessica Mathews, pointed out in her 
recent Washington Post article, Amtrak has suffered from chronic 
underfunding; what it needs most is a guaranteed source of capital, and 
more than 3 percent of transportation funds it receives. We have a 
transportation system that heavily subsidizes travel by road and air--
but ignores rail--and by doing so, we have serious congestion both on 
the ground and in the air.
  A great investment in Amtrak would help us solve those serious 
problems. I urge my colleagues to consider that as we debate this 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the article by Jessica Mathews to my 
colleagues for their attention, and I include it at this point in the 
Record.

               [From the Washington Post, June 24, 1996]

                     Time to Make Plans--and Tracks

                           (Jessica Mathews)

       American visitors to Europe and Japan this summer will have 
     an experience you cannot have anywhere in America.
       They will fly to a major airport like Amsterdam, Paris or 
     Osaka, collect their bags, push their cart through customs 
     and a few steps farther, still inside the airport, be at the 
     doorway of an intercity train.
       What's special about this quick and easy connection that 
     non-Americans take for granted? First, of course, is the 
     existence of healthy, heavily capitalized rail service, seen 
     as integral to a national transportation system. Trains keep 
     air and highway traffic flowing, and nothing competes with 
     rail in an overall package of speed, cost, comfort, 
     convenience and use of energy and land for trips in the range 
     of 100 to 500 miles.
       Anyone who thinks that rail travel is a nostalgia trip 
     should take a look at the investment plans of the booming, 
     modernization-obsessed Asian economies. China, Taiwan, 
     Malaysia, South Korea and others are all investing heavily in 
     high-speed rail.
       That's the second characteristic missing for Americans: 
     existing and planned service is high-speed rail, not 
     futuristic magnetic levitation technology, but conventional 
     rails in the here-and-now. After decades of under-
     capitalization, ``high-speed'' in the United States means 
     only 100 mph to 125 mph, whereas France's 200 mph TGV would 
     make the Washington-New York trip, downtown to downtown, into 
     a one-hour commute.
       The third factor is more subtle. Money can't buy it, and 
     technology is no substitute. It is the connection: Air 
     connects to rail, rail to transit, transit to bicycle and 
     pedestrian options, and all of them are laid out to fit with 
     the road system. It sounds basic and it is, but such links 
     are so rare in this country that they're given a fancy name--
     intermodal connections. The missing element in the United 
     States is planning.
       Central planning is, of course, a dirty word here, but when 
     we are serious about doing something well on a national 
     scale, we plan just like everyone else. You can drive on one 
     good road from Maine to Florida because the interstate 
     highway system was laid out as a national system. To overcome 
     our aversion in the 1950s, we pretended that all this 
     planning was in the service of national defense (to move 
     missiles on the roads). In 1996, with tourism/recreation the 
     world's largest industry (and the United States' second-
     largest employer) and trade an ever-rising share of the 
     global economy, we can no longer afford the hangup.
       Missed connections persist at the state and regional level, 
     even when comprehensive planning is attempted, because 
     separate transportation trust funds with separate sources of 
     revenue pit the various modes of travel against each other. 
     The air, rail, transit and highway industries see themselves 
     as competitors, not colleagues serving a broader public 
     interest.
       ``That half-penny [of the federal gas tax] belongs to 
     transit,'' says transit's chief lobbyist. ``Why should we use 
     our money [air ticket-tax funds] on rail?'' asks an airline 
     spokesman. And so New York's once-great Kennedy Airport lies 
     gasping out in the suburbs, strangled by clogged highways, 
     for lack of rail service from downtown. It's not a New York 
     problem. It is obscenely difficult everywhere in this country 
     to spend transportation money according to self-evident, 
     local need.
       Two things need to change: the chronic underfunding of rail 
     and the separate pots of money that stand in the way of 
     sensible spending. Eventually, the airport and highway trust 
     funds and other appropriations must be combined into a single 
     source of money allocated by need rather than mode of 
     service. That will take some time. Meanwhile, urgent action 
     is needed to rebuild passenger rail.
       What Amtrak needs most of all is a guaranteed source of 
     capital to buy the rolling stock that will reduce heavy 
     maintenance costs on the antiquated equipment it inherited, 
     improve service and attract new passengers. A recent test 
     vote in the Senate approved a plan to allocate a half-cent of 
     gasoline taxes, about $500 million per year, for

[[Page H6963]]

     that purpose. Last week, both Senate Majority Leader Trent 
     Lott and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), in charge of transportation 
     spending in the House, gave the idea a cautious blessing.
       Approval is still far from certain, but it is essential. 
     Congress and the administration have previously decided that 
     Amtrak must operate free of public support by 2001--a status 
     that has no precedent anywhere in the world and 
     justification. All other modes of transport are subsidized, 
     roads and highways especially heavily. Why should rail alone 
     not be publicly supported?
       Whatever its wisdom, the goal has been set, at least for 
     the time being. If there is the slightest chance that it can 
     be met, capital funding of at least $2.5 billion over five 
     years is the bare minimum cost.
       The evidence is all around us that a transportation system 
     that pours money into roads and air travel and starves 
     everything else doesn't work. Spending for airports and 
     highways soared in the '80s, and now economic losses from 
     congestion on the ground and in the air are setting records. 
     In that same time, support for rail declined by a third. It 
     now gets a bare 3 percent of federal transportation funds.
       Undercapitalized businesses fail every day. That could 
     happen to Amtrak. Or it could succeed with payoffs in quality 
     of life and national competitiveness out of all proportion to 
     the federal cost. It's up to Congress.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________