[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6987-H7026]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will remind all 
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and 
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is a 
violation of the rules of the House.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``The only safe 
rule is to promise little and faithfully to keep every promise; to 
speak softly and carry a big stick.'' That is where that great 
quotation came from. Well, America's new policy seems to be one of 
empty promises and empty threats, a policy toward China where we speak 
softly and carry no stick whatsoever.
  My colleagues, we have the opportunity to send a message to the world 
that America will not support this rogue nation, that we will not 
condone terrorism, oppression, and intolerance. today we have the 
opportunity to effect a change in China's policies, and tell the rest 
of the world America allies itself with only those nations that advance 
and encourage fairness, those nations who foster democracy, and those 
nations who embrace freedom.
  We hold the power today, my colleagues, the power to help the people 
of China break the bonds of mass misery, not for their votes, not for 
their money, but because it is right. It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn], a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I come from the Nation's most 
trade-dependent State, so the question of United States-China trade is 
crucial to the people I represent in Congress. In fact, Washington 
State ranks first among all 50 States in exports to China.
  Contrary to what opponents of MFN suggest--trade with China does 
promote change. U.S. trade and investment teach the skills of free 
enterprise that are fundamental to a free society.
  Washington State exports a number of U.S. products, from aircraft to 
software. And every single airplane and every single CD carries with 
them the seeds of change. These products serve to further unleash the 
free-market desires of the Chinese people. And I am certain that 
everyone of my colleagues would agree that it is in our national 
interest to move China toward a free market.
  At the same time, we must make clear to the Chinese that their 
participation in the world economy and in international security 
arrangements can come about only with concrete evidence that China is 
abiding by norms of international behavior. Let me be clear: 
disengagement will not help us improve our relationship with China.
  I suspect that my colleagues who oppose MFN would have had a 
difficult time suggesting that disengagement would have been the better 
course of action in addressing intellectual property piracy in China. 
In fact, it was only through engagement that we have been so successful 
on this front.
  I propose that we use the following criteria to find the answer on 
difficult MFN cases like China's. We should extend normal trade status, 
or MFN, to a nation if: it allows U.S. investors and operators in; the 
rule of law is advancing; a multilateral action is unattainable; or we 
have that nation's assistance on a critical geopolitical issue.
  Conversely, we should deny normal trade status to governments abusing 
their people if: a multilateral action is doable; they will not help 
the United States on other geopolitical issues; they do not allow U.S. 
employers in; and they do not respect the rule of law.
  Indeed, I would go one step further by stating that the burden of 
proof is on those who deny normal trade status with China.
  They must prove that an act of protest--such as denying to China 
normal trade status--would demonstrably improve the human rights 
situation in China, or how it would address grinding poverty or lessen 
religious persecution.
  The only thing we know for certain is that an act of protest such as 
denying MFN would increase unemployment and suffering in the United 
States and result in a tremendous setback in our bilateral relationship 
with China.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution of 
disapproval.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues 
that China never was willing to deal with intellectual property rights 
until they were faced with the threat of trade sanctions.
  At this point I am delighted to yield 11 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi] who has been a leader in fighting for open 
trade, for human rights, and for bringing China

[[Page H6988]]

into the world of nations of human beings.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for being so generous 
in yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue of granting most-favored-nation status to 
China is a very important one for the American people. It is about 
nothing less than our economic future, our national security, and our 
democratic principles.
  As Members know, the debate in the House of Representatives and our 
disagreement on this issue has centered around the issues of trade, 
proliferation, and human rights. That is why I am so disappointed that 
we have so little time to debate this issue today and I can only ask 
the Republican leadership of this House and all of those who are so 
eager to move this along on both sides of the aisle, what are you 
afraid of? Are you afraid of the facts? Are you afraid over the Fourth 
of July break of constituents who cannot afford to travel to Washington 
who would have time to express their views to their Members of 
Congress? Are you afraid of 100,000 young people in Golden Gate Park 
gathered together to support a free Tibet?
  I wish our colleagues were here and not away to a funeral or, without 
votes, off of Capitol Hill, because they must hear the facts. Because 
today Members of Congress will be asked to set down a marker: How far 
does China have to go? How much more repression, how big a trade 
deficit and loss of jobs to the American worker, and how much more 
dangerous proliferation has to exist before Members of this House of 
Representatives will say, ``I will not endorse the status quo''?
  As I mentioned, it is about jobs, proliferation, and human rights. 
There are those who say we should not link human rights and trade and 
proliferation and trade. I disagree. But if we just want to take up 
this issue on the basis of economics alone, indeed China should not 
receive most-favored-nation status, for several reasons that I would 
like to go into now.
  I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to this chart on 
the status quo that the business community is asking each and every one 
of us to endorse today. Right now we have a $34 billion trade deficit 
with China, the 1995 figure. It will be over $40 billion for 1996. 
Since the Tiananmen Square massacre, this figure has increased 1,000 
percent, from $3.5 billion then to about $34 billion now.
  In terms of tariffs, I think it is interesting to note that the 
average United States MFN tariff on Chinese goods coming into the 
United States is 2 percent; whereas the average Chinese MFN tariff on 
United States goods going into China is 35 percent. Is that reciprocal?
  Exports. China only allows certain United States industries into 
China. Therefore, only 2 percent of United States exports are allowed 
into China. On the other hand, the United States allows China to flood 
our markets with one-third of their exports, and that will probably go 
over 40 percent this year, and it is limitless because we have not 
placed any restriction on it.
  In terms of jobs, this is the biggest and cruelest hoax of all. Not 
only do we not have market access, not only do they have prohibitive 
tariffs, not only are our exports not let in very specifically, but 
China benefits with at least 10 million jobs from United States-China 
trade. The President in his statement requesting this special waiver 
said that China trade supports 170,000 jobs in the United States, 
whereas our imports from China support at least 10 million jobs.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. The gentlewoman is saying that 170,000 jobs are 
created in the United States by the China trade but are there not many 
more jobs that are lost in the United States?
  Ms. PELOSI. That is the point I was getting to. I appreciate the 
gentleman focusing on that.
  The fact is that United States-China trade is a job loser for the 
United States. Our colleagues on the other side of this issue will say 
that exports to China have increased 3 times in the last 10 years. They 
have. But they fail to mention that imports from China have increased 
11 times, thereby leading to this huge trade deficit.
  It is a job loser for several other reasons. There is an important 
issue that we are all familiar with: Piracy of our intellectual 
property. It remains to be seen if China will honor the commitment it 
has made in the recent agreement. It has not honored the memoranda of 
understanding or last year's agreement and indeed there is a report in 
the press yesterday that one of the PLA, People's Liberation Army 
factories has resumed production. But, the other issue is technology 
transfer. If intellectual property is a $2 billion, $3 billion loss, 
technology transfer is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. If you 
want to sell to China, bring United States products into China, the 
Chinese insist that you open a factory there. They misappropriate your 
technology, open factories of their own and then say to you, ``Now we 
want to see your plan for export.'' That is as simply as I can say it 
briefly.

  But the fact is this is not about products made in America. The 
Chinese want American products that are made in China. The most serious 
of these transfers of technology are in the airline industry, where 
tail sections of the Boeing 737's were mostly made in Wichita, KS. Now 
they are made in Xi'an Province where workers make $50 a month and the 
transfer of the technology and the transfer of the jobs has taken 
place. General Motors, Ford, they are all fighting to get in to build 
factories there so they can make parts there. They want MFN so they can 
get those parts back into the United States. So we are exporting, not 
low-technology jobs and textile jobs, we are exporting our technology 
and high paying jobs. If you take a country the size of China with the 
very cheap and in some instances slave labor, the lack of market 
access, the ripoff of our intellectual property, the transfer of 
technology, a country that is not willing to play by the rules in any 
respect in this trade relationship, you have a serious threat not only 
to our relationship but to the industrialized world.
  If there is one message that I want our colleagues and our 
constituents to understand today is that on this day, your Member of 
Congress could have drawn the line to say to the President of the 
United States, do something about this United States-China trade 
relationship. It is a job loser for the United States.
  This brings us to the point that others have said, ``Well, we can't 
isolate China.'' Do you think for one minute that with at least 10 
million jobs and $35 billion in profit, and it will be over $40 billion 
this year in a trade surplus, all those billions of dollars in surplus, 
that the Chinese are going to walk away? Where are they going to take 
35 to 40 percent of their exports? Who is going to buy them? Their 
exports to the United States are what sustains the regime--the funding 
and the jobs. They cannot have those people out of work. They have to 
be at work exporting to the United States.
  So we have a situation where again I say human rights, while others 
think they should not be linked, I think they are linked. We all agree, 
China will be large, it will be powerful, it is in our interest that 
they be free. For those who say that economic reform will lead to 
political reform, I reject that notion of trickle-down liberty. It has 
not worked. In fact, even by the Clinton administration's own country 
report on China, it has said that economic reform, and the quote is in 
my full statement, has not led to political reform because the 
government has not allowed that to happen.
  I would like to quote from a China scholar, and I will read from 
this:
  David Shambaugh, editor of China Quarterly, the leading academic 
journal on Chinese affairs, recently wrote:

       Let us not deceive ourselves. China's political system 
     remains authoritarian and repressive. In fact, it has become 
     significantly more so in recent years. The Chinese regime is 
     one of the worst abusers of human rights and basic freedoms. 
     It maintains itself in power in part through intimidation and 
     coercion of the population. It tolerates no opposition.

  The third issue of concern is proliferation, the most dangerous issue 
of all. Both in the Bush administration and in the Clinton 
administration, our administrations have waived sanctions over and over 
for the proliferation of nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan and 
nuclear missile and chemical and biological technology to

[[Page H6989]]

Iran and all of the above other rogue States.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Speaker, how dangerous does the transfer of weapons technology 
have to be, I would ask my colleagues, to stop us from putting our seal 
of approval on this policy? We are not legislating here today. The 
President will call the shot on most-favored-nation status. But what we 
are doing is either putting our name down in support of the status quo 
or calling out for change.
  Mr. Speaker, as we approach our own Fourth of July, I hope that 
Members in this body will remember others who have studied the words of 
our Founding Fathers. Others who were inspired by them, who quoted 
those words in Tiananmen Square and were arrested for doing so, 
particularly Wei Jingsheng. He is the father of the democracy movement 
in China and is in jail for his second 14-year term because he has 
spoken out for freedom.
  My dear colleagues, today we will have a chance to make the world 
safer, the political climate freer and the trade fairer. I urge Members 
to vote ``no'' on MFN.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to President Clinton's 
request for a special waiver to grant most favored nation status to 
China.
  The debate over China MFN is an important one for the American 
people. Nothing less is at stake than our economic future, our 
democratic principles and our national security. That is why I regret 
that the Republican leadership has chosen to railroad this legislation 
through the House. This action deprives our constituents, who cannot 
afford to come to Washington, of expressing their views over the July 4 
break. That has always been the situation. This is a departure.
  What are the proponents of MFN for China afraid of? Are they afraid 
of the truth? Are they afraid that Members may have to answer to their 
constituents for siding with the multinational corporations? Are they 
afraid of the 100,000 young people who gathered in Golden Gate Park on 
June 15 and 16 to support a free Tibet?
  Today Members will be asked to give their seal of approval on the 
status quo in United States-China relations. The business community may 
overwhelm Capitol Hill, the President may tell you that he really needs 
you, but it is our vote and our constituents who will judge us on how 
we voted--not on who made us do it. Let us see what the business 
community is asking you to put your good name to:
  Let us start with the truth about the trade situation--the hoax that 
the United States-China trade relationship is a job winner for our 
country. The facts are to the contrary:


                                 trade

  China does not play by the rules. On a strictly trade-for-trade 
basis, China should not receive MFN because it does not reciprocate the 
trade benefits we grant to them with MFN. The average United States MFN 
tariff rate on Chinese goods is 2 percent. The average Chinese MFN 
tariff rate on United States goods is 35 percent. Despite the fact that 
over one-third of China's exports are sold into the United States 
market, China's high tariffs and nontariff barriers limit access to the 
Chinese market for United States goods and services. Only 2 percent of 
United States exports are allowed into China. The result is a $34 
billion United States trade deficit with China in 1995. Ten years ago, 
in 1985, our trade with China was only $10 million. The huge trade 
deficit, which is expected to exceed $41 billion in 1996, does not 
include the economic loss from China's piracy of United States 
intellectual property, which cost the United States economy $2.4 
billion in 1995 alone. It does not include the loss to our economy from 
Chinese insistence on production and technology transfer which hurts 
American workers and robs our economic future. And, it does not include 
money gained by China in the illegal smuggling of AK-47's and other 
weapons into the United States by the Chinese military.
  You will hear that trade with China is important for United States 
jobs. President Clinton's statement accompanying his request to renew 
MFN, claims that ``United States exports to China support 170,000 
American jobs.'' These jobs are important, but they must be seen in a 
larger context.
  Other trade relationships of comparable size to the United States-
China trade relationship support more than twice as many jobs in the 
United States as United States-China trade. For example, the United 
States-United Kingdom trade relationship, totalling $2 billion less 
than the United States-China trade relationship, supports 432,000 jobs. 
The United States-South Korea relationship, totalling $8 billion less 
than the United States-China trade relationship, supports 381,000 jobs.
  United States-China trade generates over 10 million jobs in China. 
Ten million jobs and a $34 billion and the business community says 
China will walk away. Where will they take one-third of their exports?
  We must also be concerned about the harm to our economy of the 
technology transfer and production transfer which is accompanying 
United States investment in China and United States sales to China.
  The Chinese Government demands that companies wishing to obtain 
access to the Chinese market not only build factories there, But also 
transfer state-of-the-art technology in order to do so. The Government 
then misappropriates that technology to build China's own industries. 
The companies have little choice, in light of the high tariffs for 
their products to reach the Chinese marketplace. This is a $100 billion 
problem.
  A recent Washington Post article, ``A China Trade Question: Is It 
Ready for Rules?'' May 19, 1996, outlines a number of serious questions 
about China's willingness to abide by the rules that govern 
international trade. On the critical issue of technology transfer, this 
article states that:

       As vital as the Chinese market is, the appropriation of 
     foreign technology by the Chinese poses a serious problem for 
     the industrialized world--``much more serious than CD 
     pirating,'' said Kenneth Dewoskin, a professor at the 
     University of Michigan and adviser with Coopers & Lybrand's 
     China consulting business. ``Think of telecommunications, 
     automotive, electronics, very high technology chemicals--
     there's enormous value in that technology. You're talking 
     hundreds of billions of dollars.''

Dewoskin continued:

       ``When you provide technology to your Chinese venture, it 
     has to be certified by one of these research and design 
     institutes,'' he said, ``but unfortunately, those are the 
     same institutes whose job it is to disseminate technology to 
     domestic ventures.''
  The Chinese Government is using our technology to build its own 
industries to the detriment of United States industries and we are not 
only letting them do this, our policies are encouraging them in this 
practice.
  Some people argue that trade should not be linked to violations of 
human rights and proliferation. I disagree. However, even if we 
consider the United States-China relationship solely on economic 
grounds, China should not receive unconditional MFN.


                             PROLIFERATION

  China does not play by the rules. China continues to transfer 
nuclear, missile and chemical weapons technology to unsafeguarded 
countries, including Iran and Pakistan, in violation of international 
agreements and yet the United States continues to hold them to a 
different standard.
  While Congress is in the process of passing legislation to implement 
a secondary boycott on companies doing business with Iran, the 
administration is ignoring China's sales of cruise missiles and other 
dangerous technology to Iran. China's actions make the Middle East, 
indeed, the entire world, a more dangerous place.
  In return for turning a blind eye to unacceptable Chinese Government 
actions, the administration has been rewarded only with an increase in 
the extent and the nature of the Chinese transgressions. During the 
Bush administration, Secretary Baker chose not to implement sanctions 
for China's violation of the missile technology control regime by its 
transfer of M-LL missile technology to Pakistan. Instead, he relied on 
a Chinese promise to halt such practices. As has been the norm with our 
relationship with China, that promise by the Chinese Government was 
broken.
  The Clinton administration, following the Bush administration 
pattern, has also accepted such promises, with the same result. instead 
of halting such practices, the Chinese Government has increased both 
the quantity and quality of its transfers. It has now gone beyond 
transferring only advanced missile technology and is providing nuclear 
and chemical weapons technology to non-safeguarded countries.
  In order to avoid implementing sanctions triggered by the recent 
transfer of Chinese nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan, the 
administration said the Chinese Government was neither responsible for 
nor knowledgeable about the transfer of this dangerous technology. If 
we continue to absolve the Chinese Government of responsibility for the 
actions of state-run industries, then how can we expect the Chinese 
Government to live up to the missile technology control regime, the 
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and other international arms control 
treaties? We cannot continue to allow China to violate the rules. 
Signatories must be expected to have responsibility for institutions 
within their control or their signatures are not worth the paper on 
which they are written.


                              HUMAN RIGHTS

  As the Beijing regime consolidates its power by increasing its 
foreign reserves through trade and the sale of weapons, China's 
authoritarian rulers are tightening their grip on

[[Page H6990]]

freedom of speech, religion, press and thought in China and Tibet.
  According to the State Department's Annual Country Reports on Human 
Rights Practices for 1995, as well as Amnesty International and Human 
rights Watch, repression in China and Tibet continues. The State 
Department's own report documents the failure of ``constructive 
engagement'' to improve human rights in China, and notes that, 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. David Shambaugh, 
editor of the China Quarterly, the leading academic journal on Chinese 
affairs, recently wrote:

       Let us not deceive ourselves--China's political system 
     remains authoritarian and repressive. In fact, it has become 
     significantly more so in recent years . . . the Chinese 
     regime is one of the worlds worst abusers of human rights and 
     basic freedoms . . . it maintains itself in power in large 
     part through intimidation and coercion of the population. It 
     tolerates no opposition.

  Today we hear comparatively little about those fighting for freedom 
in China not because they are all busy making money, but because they 
have been exiled, imprisoned, or otherwise silenced by China's 
Communist leaders. According to the State Department's report, ``by 
year's end almost all public dissent against the central authorities 
was silenced.'' Our great country is ignoring the plight of China's 
pro-democracy activists. In the process, we are not only undermining 
freedom in China, but we are also losing our credibility to speak out 
for freedom and human rights throughout the world.
  The past few months have seen China act to intimidate the people of 
Taiwan in their democratic elections, diminish democratic freedoms in 
Hong Kong, crack down on Freedom of religion by Christians in China and 
Buddhists in Tibet, and smuggle AK-47s into the United States via its 
state-run companies.
  The MFN vote provides us with the only opportunity to demonstrate our 
concern about United States-China policy and our determination to make 
trade fairer, the political climate freer and the world safer.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California has touched 
on a lot of issues that are important to our colleagues: trade, jobs in 
this country, intellectual property. She somehow has missed a point or 
two that I am concerned with, and if I voted against this resolution, 
would I not, in effect, be supporting the thousands of children that 
have died in China's orphanages, where girl orphans have been selected 
for dying rooms, where they are tied up and left to die from neglect 
and starvation after they have been sexually assaulted?
  If I voted against this resolution, would I not really be voting to 
support the practice of taking prisoners and executing them and selling 
their organs to the highest bidder, which goes on in China today?
  And would I not be supporting, if I oppose this amendment, the fact 
that religious freedom does not exist and that harsh crackdowns of any 
unofficial religion, which is all religions except the State, the 
religious leaders are subject to physical abuse and prison terms? Would 
that not be the effect of my voting against this resolution?
  Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman, that 
would be the effect. I spent my time on the economics. I am so pleased 
the gentleman brought up the point, because the National Conference of 
Bishops opposes MFN.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
  (Mr. HAMILTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are to vote on one of the most important 
foreign policy issues Congress will face this year: whether to extend 
China's most-favored-nation status for another year. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support MFN renewal by voting against the Rohrabacher 
resolution of disapproval. Any other course will seriously damage 
crucial U.S. interests and undermine important American values.


                           Two Misconceptions

  Let me at the beginning address two misconceptions about this vote. 
This vote is not a referendum on China's behavior. This is not a vote 
on whether we approve or disapprove of Chinese actions. This is a vote 
on how best to protect U.S. interests and promote American ideals. That 
should be the sole criterion for Members as they cast their vote today: 
What serves U.S. interests and values?
  Let me turn now to misconception No. 2: the idea that MFN means 
preferential treatment for China. That's simply wrong. MFN does not 
denote special or privileged status. MFN simply means that we accord 
China the same treatment we give our other major trading partners. This 
is worth repeating: MFN does not constitute an American seal of 
approval. Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya all have MFN status, despite the 
fact that we have fundamental differences with these governments.


                        A Difficult Relationship

  Mr. Speaker, the Chinese-American relationship is a complex one 
involving many tough issues: human rights and democracy, 
nonproliferation, Taiwan, Tibet, trade, and intellectual property 
rights. Managing this relationship is difficult even in the best 
circumstances.
  At the same time, it is important to remember that sound Chinese-
American relations are very much in the interest of the United States.
  China, with one-fourth of the earth's population, is the world's 
largest country. A generation ago we tried to isolate this immense 
country. It didn't work. As a permanent member of the United Nations 
Security Council, China is not only a key country in Asia, but has a 
significant impact--for good or ill--on United States interests around 
the world. China has the world's largest standing army, which has a 
direct bearing on peace and stability in East and Southeast Asia. 
United States efforts to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction 
in North Korea, South Asia, and the Middle East can succeed only if 
China cooperates with us and the rest of the international community. 
Without China's cooperation, we will be severely handicapped in our 
fight against narcotics trafficking, alien smuggling, and environmental 
degradation.
  On the economic front, American exports and American jobs depend on 
decent relations with China. Last year, we sold $12 billion worth of 
goods to China. These exports supported 170,000 high-wage American 
jobs.


                          MFN and Human Rights

  These realities lead me to conclude that engagement with China will 
best promote our many interests--including our interest in protecting 
human rights. A decision to revoke MFN and isolate China, on the other 
hand, would eliminate whatever modest influence we now have on Chinese 
behavior, including its human rights practices. Do not misunderstand 
me. Even with MFN, China will remain, for the foreseeable future, an 
authoritarian state which routinely abuses the rights of its people. 
But the lesson of the past two decades in China--and the lessons of 
South Korea, Taiwan, and other authoritarian countries which have 
evolved into vibrant democracies--is that the best way to promote human 
rights is to stay engaged. Those who would have us retreat from China 
do the Chinese people no favors. Withdrawing from China will undermine 
the position of those Chinese we most want to support--entrepreneurs, 
reformers, students, and intellectuals. Revoking MFN will strengthen 
the hand of reactionary elements in China such as the army, central 
bureaucrats, and hardline Communists.


                       Wdespread Support for MFN

  Within China, political dissidents are split on the question of MFN. 
But many of China's most prominent dissidents, including Wei Jingsheng 
and other leaders of the pro-democracy movement at Tiananmen Square, 
have publicly called for renewal of China's MFN status.
  Our friends in Hong Kong, who live under the shadow of China, have 
urged

[[Page H6991]]

us to renew China's MFN. Christopher Patten, the Governor of Hong Kong, 
recently warned that revoking China's MFN would badly hurt Hong Kong. 
Martin Lee, Hong Kong's best known democratic politician, has said the 
same thing.
  Our friends in Taiwan also see MFN renewal as the best way to 
safeguard Taiwanese interests.
  In other words, those on the front lines, who have most reason to 
fear China, believe that their position would be undermined if Congress 
were to revoke China's MFN status. The argument is often made that 
revoking MFN will force China into more acceptable behavior.


                   MFN in the U.S. National Interest

  But the most important reason to renew MFN is that it is in the U.S. 
national interest.
  MFN is not about doing China a favor. It is about doing the United 
States a favor. It is about supporting our security, political and 
economic interests. It is about standing up for important U.S. ideals 
and values
  Renewing MFN for China will enable us to address our very real 
concerns about nuclear and missile proliferation. It will give us an 
opportunity to influence China's security policies in East Asia. It 
will help in our efforts to maintain peace on the Korean peninsula. It 
will give us at least a bit of influence on China's human rights 
behavior. It will enhance our efforts in the fields of 
counternarcotics, alien smuggling, and the environment. And it will 
provide the markets that translate into high-paying jobs for American 
workers.


                      consequences of revoking mfn

  Revoking MFN for China will also have consequences. It will greatly 
unsettle our friends and allies in the region. It will have an 
especially adverse impact on our friends in Taiwan and Hong Kong, who 
have pleaded with us not to take this step. It will undermine the pro-
market, reformist elements in China we seek to assist. It will lessen 
our ability to make our influence felt on a whole range of issues--
proliferation in South Asia, security on the Korean peninsula, 
stability in the South China Seas, Taiwan. It will make our task of 
securing U.N. Security Council approval for our initiatives in other 
parts of the world far more difficult. It will sever our economic ties 
with the world's largest market. And it will be seen by the Chinese, 
and the rest of Asia, as a declaration of economic warfare and an 
American attempt to isolate China.
  These are serious penalties--penalties we will inflict upon ourselves 
if we revoke China's MFN.
  Mr. Speaker, many of us are angry at China over its behavior and 
actions across a wide range of issues. Cutting off MFN would make us 
feel better. But it will not advance our interests nor promote our 
principles. The way to do this--the only way to advance important U.S. 
interests and promote fundamental American values--is to remain engaged 
with China. And this requires that we vote to renew MFN.


                       china will not be coerced

  Finally, let me address the argument that revoking MFN will force 
China into more acceptable behavior. Where is the evidence of this? 
Unfortunately, there is none. China is an old and proud country that is 
highly sensitive to perceived coercion by foreigners--and no more so 
than at this moment of political transition in Beijing.
  We would not dream of buckling before foreign intimidation. Why would 
anyone think that China would do so? To the contrary, threats may cause 
Beijing to dig in its heels, producing the very behavior we are trying 
to discourage.
  MFN opponents have said: But China needs us; it needs our markets.
  Yes, China benefits by trading with us and hopes to continue that 
trade. But China can, if necessary, do without the U.S. market. It has 
in the past, before our opening to Beijing 25 years ago. And it can 
today--both because it has the ability to force its people to accept 
economic discomfort and because the world is filled with other 
countries eager to take our place in trade with China. History gives 
little evidence that China can be coerced into better behavior.


                               conclusion

  The choice is clear-cut. Isolating China will neither advance United 
States interests nor promote American principles. Our interests require 
engagement with China. That means MFN. Please join me in voting to 
extend China's MFN for another year. Vote ``no'' on the Rohrabacher 
resolution.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution of disapproval.
  I see no reason to continue extending most-favored-nation trading 
status to China, and I commend Mr. Rohrabacher for introducing the 
resolution before us today.
  Every summer when the House wrestles with this issue, MFN supporters 
tell us we need to continue giving most-favored-nation status to China 
and how expanded commerce with Beijing is changing China for the 
better.
  We hear that China is improving upon its pitiful human rights record, 
and that it is finally going to exorcise the ghosts of Tiannamen 
Square.
  But, every year when MFN renewal comes before the House, I am 
reminded of the old saying, ``The more things change, the more they 
stay the same.''
  MFN supporters keep telling us how continuing most-favored-nation 
trading status is changing China for the better.
  But nothing really changes at all.
  Since we visited this issue last year, China has not changed its 
brutal one-child-per-family policy of forced abortion and 
sterilization.
  China hasn't stopped persecuting Christians or the Tibetan monks, and 
it still uses slave labor to produce commodities for export to the 
Unites State.
  China continues to menace Taiwan and tried to undermine the recent 
elections with its thinly veiled threats of invasion.
  It has not stopped smuggling AD-47's and other weapons to gangs in 
America, and only recently claims to have stopped exporting missiles to 
Iran and nuclear bomb-making materials to Pakistan.
  Since the MFN debate last year, I can not see any hard evidence that 
China has begun mending its ways.
  In fact, if Beijing is headed in any direction, it is backward.
  Mr. Speaker, when dealing with China, I think that we should probably 
just put a new twist on the old adage and just say, ``The more things 
change, the more they get worse.''
  I can think of no reason to support MFN or to further encourage trade 
with China.
  I urge support for the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
extending MFN to China and I rise as somebody who is deeply aware of 
China's growing importance and the inevitable rise of China in the 21st 
century. That is why I believe we have to stand firm today.
  I, quite frankly, am getting a little tired of people telling us that 
the only way that we can change China, the only way we can promote 
American ideas, is to ignore what happens in China. That is what we 
heard from a Republican administration in 1989 after Tiananmen Square. 
Then we had a Democrat run for President and attack the butchers of 
Beijing. Then he got elected and kept ignoring what went on.
  Mr. Speaker, we are told to ignore Tiananmen. We are told to ignore 
technological piracy. We are told to ignore the murderous orphanages. 
We are told to ignore infanticide and 9-month abortions. We are told to 
ignore nuclear proliferation and nuclear trade secrets to Pakistan.
  And I just heard somebody stand up here today, telling us that we 
have to cooperate with China because they can actually help in nuclear 
matters. How can we depend on a country that is trading nuclear 
technology and secrets to Third World countries to help us on the issue 
of nuclear proliferation? But it seems like we gear that every year.
  People are willing to turn, throwing their logic out the window, 
simply to continue kowtowing to a murderous regime, and they continue 
to fool themselves into believing that we can deal with a country that 
has murdered 60 million of their own people in the past 50 years. These 
people do not think like us. These people do not share our values. The 
only thing they understand is that the United States continues to 
kowtow and the United States continues to be fearful to say no to 
China. If we do not say no to China today, then we send another message 
that we continue to kowtow to them in the future. Say no to extending 
MFN.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] who has spent so much productive and worthwhile 
effort into trade issues.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H6992]]

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Earlier the gentlewoman from California was talking about the trade 
deficit with China, and we will probably see a chart up here on the 
floor very shortly on this. There it is, sure enough that green line. 
Members can see the trade deficit going up. What Members will not see 
on that other chart is the trade deficit with the Asian tigers; that 
is, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea. They won't see it 
because that deficit is going down. It is pretty clear there is a 
correlation. We have import substitution. As these countries have 
gotten richer, they are buying more of our expensive goods, China is 
producing more of the textiles and footwear and toys. As China grows 
richer, they too will buy more of our goods. It is important to keep 
that in mind.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our relationship with China is one that 
is extraordinarily important, and as everybody here acknowledges, 
extraordinarily complex. There is no doubt we have a lot of contentious 
issues that surround our relationships. We just heard about some of 
them: Nuclear proliferation, intellectual property, political and 
economic freedom for the Chinese people.
  Mr. Speaker, no one minimizes the difficulties of those issues, but I 
believe today we can take a great step, perhaps the first real step in 
years, toward resolving some of these problems. This resolution for the 
first time acknowledges that most-favored-nation status for China 
cannot bear the entire burden of the bilateral relationship between the 
United States and China, and that is an important milestone.
  The destructive debates that we have had here, that we pursue every 
year over MFN, keep this Congress from addressing the serious 
challenges that we do face in our relations with China. MFN simply is 
not the right tool to do that. Complex problems are not solved through 
this kind of a solution. We have to continue to work for open markets 
for American exporters. We have to continue to push for greater 
cooperation on nuclear proliferation. We have to seek Chinese accession 
in the world trade organization to ensure that they trade fairly and in 
accordance with international rules, and we have to continue to fight 
for the right of the Chinese people to live in freedom and democracy, 
using every avenue and every institution that is available to us to 
achieve those goals.
  But, Mr. Speaker, cutting off MFN is not going to accomplish any one 
of those worthwhile goals. Denying MFN drives China into the camp of 
every rogue nation in the world, Iraq, Iran, Libya, opening the door to 
even more Chinese weapons sales to these countries, eliminating what 
leverage we may have on these issues.
  Cutting off MFN will not solve our bilateral trade problems. It will 
only shift the source of our Chinese imports from China to other low-
cost producers such as India and Pakistan. Meanwhile, much and perhaps 
all of our $13 billion in exports would be lost through retaliation. 
This would result in the loss of many high-paying good jobs that are 
good for American workers. We would find ourselves locked out of the 
world's fastest-growing market in the world, abdicating our economic 
leadership in Asia to Europe and Japan.
  Nor would cutting off MFN help the Chinese people. As a time when we 
need to encourage more trade, more economic freedom, more prosperity, 
we would mire the Chinese people in poverty and economic chaos. 
Unemployment, hunger, and hopelessness is not a formula for improved 
human rights, only for increased repression.
  One only need to look at the political repressiveness of the Mao 
Zedong era--a period in history where countless millions of Chinese 
were killed--to know this is true.
  Today I call for the beginning of a new era in United States-Chinese 
relations. An era where we can move beyond this destructive yearly 
debate over MFN for China. The choice today is simple--do we retreat 
from the challenges facing United States-Chinese relations and begin an 
era of hostility and isolationism by denying MFN--or do we being an era 
of real engagement, working at every level, bilaterally and 
multilaterally, to solve the complex and divisive problems we face.
  I urge you today to make the right choice.
  I urge you to vote ``no'' on the resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Kaptur].

                              {time}  1345

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, a vote not to disapprove China's favored 
trade status is a vote to rubber stamp a political relationship devoid 
of Democratic principles, an economic relationship whose benefits will 
be siphoned off by the powerful few at the expense of the many, and a 
military relationship that monetizes the growing trade deficit dollars 
into new Chinese weaponry.
  That vote will give China a 2-percent tariff rate in our market while 
they maintain a 30- to 40-percent tariff rate against our goods, which 
is the reason for this vast and growing trade deficit we have 
experienced over the last decade and a half.
  There are hundreds of thousands and millions of jobs affected in this 
country. Just take a look at Nike closing down all U.S. production. The 
gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Pelosi, talked about Boeing 
and how it had moved its production out of Wichita into China. A vote 
not to disapprove will signify a triumph of commercialism over balanced 
foreign policy and a triumph of fascism over liberty.
  Our terms of engagement with China, which gives them the right to 
send a third of their goods into our market, should be conditioned on 
greater freedom. Move toward freedom, not oppression.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel].
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of treating China like any 
other trading nation. They call it most favorable treatment, but 
actually what we are talking about is free trade and trying to see how 
we can best improve the economy of the United States and create more 
jobs here.
  That does not mean that I have any less sensitivity to human rights. 
How more sensitive can I be? These Chinese, these Communist bums, shot 
me over there in 1950. I do not like them worth a darn. I do not like 
any Communists. I do not like the North Koreans, I do not like the 
North Vietnamese, but I do not know whether the United States of 
America has to have a litmus test with who we trade with.
  The Cubans, my God, I know they are vicious people, Communists, and 
violate human rights, and we look like the village clowns at the United 
Nations. Every one of our partners that trade with us are now suing us 
because they say we cannot have secondary boycotts against them. We say 
Iraq, Libya, Iran, you name it, we get sick and tired, by our standards 
of disliking someone, so we give sanctions.
  Hey, I like sanctions, if we are going to win. I like feeling 
powerful. The United States of America, we have a code. If countries do 
not live up to our code, they do not have a democracy, then we do not 
play the game with them. But somehow we have different standards for 
different countries. Is there any difference between the Communists in 
China and the Communists in Cuba or the Communists in North Korea? I do 
not like any of the Communists, so why are we picking them out?

  And we talk about human rights. Do my colleagues know that some of 
these scoundrels believe that we violate human rights here? Do my 
colleagues know some of them have checked out the jail population and 
found out we have a million and a half poor folks in jail, most of whom 
did not commit any crimes of violence? Do my colleagues know that some 
of these scoundrels are critical of this great country?
  At our worst we are better than all the rest of them, and yet they 
are talking about the number of minorities that all of a sudden find 
themselves not even being able to be elected to the Congress. Do my 
colleagues know that? For 200 years they found out how to gerrymander 
and cut the blacks. Out comes a law and they say do not do that any 
more. And now the Supreme Court has said do not take color into 
consideration. We are now colorblind.
  I just think they do not understand our American way of life, and I 
darn

[[Page H6993]]

sure do not understand them. What I do understand is this: That there 
are millions of people in jail, more millions of people without jobs, 
without education, and without hope, and I do not have any hope that 
this Congress is going to support tax money for education. Oh, we 
believe in it, we just do not want to pay for it.
  I do not believe that this great Nation can keep up with 
international competition unless we make that investment. If we are not 
prepared to do it, then I am not prepared to allow local school boards 
to determine the level of education and job training that we have in 
this country. The only way to get this money is to expand our economy, 
the only market is outside of our borders, and this is the only way to 
go.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friends for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, when the People's Liberation Army massacred, maimed and 
incarcerated thousands of peaceful prodemocracy activists in June 1989, 
the well intentioned but wishful thinking that, somehow, the People's 
Republic of China was turning the page on repression was shattered.
  The brutal crackdown on the reformers was not the end, however, it 
was the beginning of a new, systematic campaign of terror and cruelty 
that continues still today.
  Each year since Tiananmen Square--the savagery has gotten worse and 
the roster of victims grows by the millions.
  It is my deeply held conviction that in 1989 and by the early 1990's, 
the hardliners in Beijing had seen enough of where indigenous popular 
appeals for democracy, freedom, and human rights can lead. The 
Communist dictatorships in control in Eastern and Central Europe--and 
even the Soviet Union--had let matters get out of hand. And Beijing 
took careful note as, one by one, tyrants like Nicolae Ceausescu of 
Romania, Erich Honecker of East Germany, and Wojciech Jeruzelski of 
Poland were ousted.
  Everything Beijing has done since Tiananmen Square points to a new 
bottom line that we ignore and trivialize at our own peril--and that is 
democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights won't happen in the 
PRC any time soon. The dictatorship's not going to cede power to the 
masses, especially when we fail to employ the considerable leverage at 
our disposal. We are empowering the hardliners. We are standing with 
the oppressors, not the oppressed.
  Accordingly, stepped up use of torture, beatings, show trials of well 
known dissidents, increased reliance on the hideous and pervasive 
practice of forced abortion and coercive sterilization and new, 
draconian policies to eradicate religious belief, especially 
Christianity, have been imposed. Genocide is the order of the day in 
Tibet. Repression on a massive scale is on the march in the PRC.
  Some have argued on this floor that conditions have improved, citing 
the excesses of the cultural revolution as the backdrop to measure 
improvement. But that's a false test. The depths of depravity during 
that period has few parallels in history--and the Chinese leaders knew 
themselves that such extreme treatment of its people could not be 
sustained.
  But the real test is the post-Tiananmen Square reality--and the jury 
is in--China has failed miserably in every category of human rights 
performance since 1989.
  Mr. Speaker, I chair the International Operations and Human Rights 
Subcommittee. Since the 104th Congress began my subcommittee has held 9 
hearings on human rights in China and an additional half dozen 
hearings, like a hearing on worldwide persecution of Christians, where 
China's deplorable record has received significant attention. I have 
led or co-led 3 human rights delegations to the PRC. On one trip, 
Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia and I actually got inside the 
laogai prison camp and witnessed products being manufactured for export 
by persecuted human rights activists.
  Mr. Wolf and I met with Le Peng--who responded to our concerns with 
disbelief, contempt, and arrogance.
  Mr. Speaker, each representative of the most prominent human rights 
organizations made it quite clear--things have gotten worse in China 
and current United States policy has not made a difference for the 
better and has sent the wrong message to the Chinese Government and 
other nations in the region and around the world.
  Last week at my subcommittee's hearing Dr. William Schulz, the 
executive director of Amnesty International testified that ``the human 
rights condition in China has worsened since the delinking of human 
rights and MFN. Despite rapid economic changes in recent years in 
China, which has led to increased freedom and some relaxation of social 
controls, there has been no fundamental change in the government's 
human rights practices. Dissent in any form continues to be 
repressed.''
  While Amnesty International takes no position on MFN, it is 
significant to note, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. Schulz reported that ``the 
delinking has given a clear signal to the Chinese government that trade 
is more important than human rights considerations'' and that ``the 
message is clear, good trade relations in the midst of human rights 
violations is acceptable to the U.S.''
  Nina Shea, the director of the Puebla Program on Religious Freedom at 
Freedom House testified that ``China ranks at the bottom of the 1996 
Freedom House Freedom in the World survey among the `18 Worst Rated 
Countries' for political and civil liberties.''
  And if I might be allowed one more example of what my subcommittee 
heard, Mr. Speaker, Mike Jendrzejczyk, the Washington Director of Human 
Rights Watch/Asia testified that--

       In recent months, Chinese authorities have ordered 
     increased surveillance of so-called ``counter-
     revolutionaries'' and ``splittists'' (Tibetans, Uighurs and 
     other national groups) and given even harsher penalties for 
     those judged guilty of violating its draconian security laws. 
     China has silenced most, if not all, of the important dissent 
     communities including political and religious dissent, labor 
     activists, and national minority populations. Their members 
     have been exiled, put under house arrest, ``disappeared,'' 
     assigned to administrative detention, or subjected to 
     economic sanctions and systematic discrimination in schooling 
     and employment. Dissidents also continue to suffer criminal 
     charges, long prison sentences, beatings and torture.

  Mr. Speaker, I've met with Wei Jingsheng in Beijing, before he was 
thrown back into jail, and was deeply impressed with his goodness, 
candor, and lack of malice towards his oppressors. It is unconscionable 
that this good and decent democracy leader is treated like an unwanted 
animal by the dictatorship in Beijing. For Wei--for countless others 
who have been brutalized by a cruel and uncaring dictatorship. Vote to 
take MFN away from this barbaric regime.
  Each year, Mr. Speaker, as the time approaches for Congress and the 
President to review the question of most-favored-nation status for the 
Government of the People's Republic of China, Members of Congress are 
approached by representatives of business interests to support MFN. 
Their argument is that constructive engagement is the best long-term 
strategy for promoting human rights in China.
  The biggest problem with this strategy is that it has not yet 
succeeded in the 20 years our Government has been trying it. Our 
Government has been embroiled in a 25 year one-way love affair with the 
Communist regime in Beijing. There is no question that increased 
contact with the West has changed China's economic system--but there is 
little or no evidence that it has increased the regime's respect for 
fundamental human rights.
  I have made an honest effort to try to understand why this is--if, as 
we Americans believe, human rights are universal and indivisible, then 
perhaps the extension of economic rights should lead to inexorable 
pressure for free speech, democracy, freedom of religion, and even the 
right to bring children into the world. And yet it has not worked. One 
possible reason is that although there has been economic progress in 
China, this has not resulted in true economic freedom. In order to stay 
in business, foreign firms and individual Chinese merchants alike must

[[Page H6994]]

have government officials as their protectors and silent or not-so-
silent partners. Yes, there is money to be made in China--and every 
year at MFN time, we in Congress get the distinct impression that some 
of the people who lobby us are making money hand over fist--but this is 
not at all the same as having a free economic system. Large 
corporations made untold millions of dollars in Nazi Germany. Dr. 
Armand Hammer made hundreds of millions dealing with the Soviet 
Government under Stalin. Yet no one seriously argues that these 
economic opportunities led to freedom or democracy. Why should China be 
different?
  For 20 years we coddled the Communist Chinese dictators, hoping they 
would trade Communism for freedom and democracy. Instead, it appears 
that they have traded Communism for fascism. And so there is no 
freedom, no democracy, and for millions of human beings trapped in 
China, no hope.
  Another reason increased business contacts have not led to political 
and religious freedom is that most of our business people--the very 
people on whom the strategy of comprehensive engagement relies to be 
the shock troops of freedom--do not even mention freedom when they talk 
to their Chinese hosts. After the annual vote on MFN, the human rights 
concerns expressed by pro-MFN business interests often recede into the 
background for another 11 months.
  During those 11 months, Mr. Speaker, the United States trade deficit 
with China continues to grow. In 10 years China rose from being our 
70th largest deficit trading partner to our second largest. The deficit 
has grown from $10 million to over $33 billion. One-third of all of 
China's exports come to the United States and are sold in our markets. 
If China did not have the United States as a trading partner they would 
not have a market for one-third of their goods. China needs us, Mr. 
Speaker, we do not need China.
  Our State Department's own Country Reports on Human Rights Conditions 
for 1995 make it clear that China's human rights performance has 
continued to deteriorate since the delinking of MFN from human rights 
in 1994. In each area of concern--the detention of political prisoners, 
the extensive use of forced labor, the continued repression in Tibet 
and suppression of the Tibetan culture, and coercive population 
practices--there has been regression rather than improvement. And every 
year we find out about new outrages--most recently the ``dying rooms'' 
in which an agency of the Beijing Government deliberately left unwanted 
children to die of starvation and disease.
  Since February 1994, just 1 month into the Clinton administration the 
United States has been forcibly repatriating people who have managed to 
escape from China. Some, although not all, of these people claim to 
have escaped in order to avoid forced abortion or forced sterilization. 
Others are persecuted Christians or Buddhists, or people who do not 
wish to live without freedom and democracy. Still others just want a 
better life. For over 3 years now, over 100 passengers from the refugee 
ship Golden Venture have been imprisoned by the U.S. Government. Their 
only crime was escaping from Communist China. In the last few months, 
several dozen of the Golden Venture passengers have been deported to 
China--some by force, some voluntarily because they were worn down by 
years in detention.
  A few days ago I received an affidavit signed by Pin Lin, a Golden 
Venture passenger who through the intervention of the Holy See has been 
given refuge in Venezuela. He has received information from families of 
some of the men who have returned. The Chinese Government had promised 
there would be no retaliation. Contrary to these promises, the men who 
returned were arrested and imprisoned upon their return to China. Men 
who had been mentioned in U.S. newspapers or who had cooperated with 
the American press were beaten very severely as an example to others. 
The men and women remaining in prison--the men in York, PA, and the 
women in Bakersfield, CA are terrified by these reports. And yet they 
are still detained, and they are still scheduled for deportation to 
China.
  I ask the Clinton administration, please, let these people go. They 
have suffered enough. And I hope this House will send a strong message 
today to the totalitarian dictatorship in Beijing, to the enslaved 
people of China and Tibet, and to the whole world, that the time has 
come to say enough is enough. It is clear that most-favored-nation 
status and other trade concessions have not succeeded in securing for 
the people of China their fundamental and God-given human rights. Now 
we must take the course of identifying the Beijing regime for the rogue 
regime that it is, a government with whom decent people should have 
nothing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to send a clear and 
uncompromising message to China and to the rest of the world: Human 
rights are important, human lives are more valuable than trade, the 
people of the United States do care more about the people of China than 
we do about profit. Now is the time to disapprove MFN.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would advise Members 
that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has 20 minutes remaining; 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] has 22 minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has 11 minutes remaining; 
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] has 16 minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has the right to close, 
immediately preceded by the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark].
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
continuation of normal tariff status for the People's Republic of China 
and oppose the Rohrabacher resolution.
  We have a whole range of sanctions that are used now for 
proliferation, human rights abuse, and a whole range of trade practices 
that are inappropriate. Many of those sanctions are now in place with 
respect to the PRC. This denial of so-called MFN is not the place to 
have our impact.
  We should remember that China is a 4,000-year-old culture. They have 
no tradition of democracy. They have real problems on which we have had 
a full recitation of here today, but we need to approve MFN. It is in 
our vital national interest to do so, both in the short and long term.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to unequivocally support extending 
normal tariff status to the People's Republic of China. Furthermore, 
this Member proposes abolishing this annual process because the 
imposition of Smoot-Hawley type tariffs on China is contrary to our 
national interest and because this futile annual debate undermines our 
leverage to deal constructively with that country.
  Justifiably disturbed by reports of China's weapons proliferation 
policies, it's military aggressiveness, human rights abuses, and unfair 
trade practices, many Members of Congress argue for sending China a 
signal by voting against so-called MFN status. However, the Chinese 
Government knows our own national interest precludes such a draconian 
step and both Republican and Democrat administrations have long 
recognized that abolishing China's normal tariff status will only 
prohibit us from exerting a positive influence on that country.
  Therefore, we have chosen to rely on targeted sanctions against 
China. For example, we currently prohibit United States companies from 
selling defense articles or not-so-fast computers to the Chinese. We 
scrutinize China's satellite purchases and we have suspended military 
exchanges. We oppose multilateral development bank lending to China 
except loans for humanitarian reasons and we prohibit some indirect 
United States aid. We impose special procedures on the United States 
Export-Import Bank and we deny United States firms all other export 
financing. Recently, we banned the importation of munitions and 
ammunition from China, and we have long prohibited United States 
contributions to the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA] from being 
used there.
  While some claim that the United States has not been tough enough on 
China, this partial laundry list of United States sanctions suggests 
the opposite is true. Perhaps we have erratically imposed too many 
unenforceable sanctions on China. Many of my colleagues probably need 
to recognize that we do not have sufficient influence to alter China's 
behavior by acting unilaterally. Presumably, for example, European 
nations care about human rights abuses in China, and presumably China's 
neighbors are seriously concerned about

[[Page H6995]]

China's assertive territorial claims. However, it is no secret to 
United States companies that our allies businesses gleefully steal 
American business when the United States engages in a principled 
disagreement with China over, for example, intellectual property 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, today's procedure reinforces the view that normal tariff 
status for China is clearly in our national interest and that 
maintaining it enables us to positively influence China. However, this 
process also permits consideration of a separate resolution which 
requires us to further evaluate our overall foreign policy relationship 
with China.
  During this period, we should examine why no other nation in the 
world engages in a similar annual trade debate over China. Let us 
discuss why we deny United States companies Government assistance in 
one of the world's fastest growing markets. Most important, let us 
examine why President Clinton and Secretary Christopher have abdicated 
their responsibility to routinely engage the Chinese in direct meetings 
to seek constructive ways to improve our mutual understanding and our 
overall relationship.
  Perhaps we should also examine the ridiculous assertion that nothing 
has changed in China. We should listen to the Chinese jurists, 
scholars, and students who are optimistic about the legal reforms and 
village elections budding throughout China and determine how we can 
assist them in their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, despite very real limitations on our influence and our 
inept foreign policy, no country in the world has more influence on the 
course of events in the People's Republic of China than the United 
States. Already, the lure of our huge market has caused that country to 
pursue dramatic economic reform in a miniscule fraction of that 
country's 4,000-year history. However, we cannot expect to end China's 
unfair trade practices without European cooperation and the support of 
the Pacific Rim nations. Today's vote for normal tariff status for 
China is a tacit acknowledgment of our enormously positive influence on 
that country. It is also an acknowledgment that we cannot, alone, 
maintain that positive influence.

  Mr. Speaker, in listening to the heated rhetoric during debate on the 
rule for considering the resolution which would reject normal tariff 
status for the People's Republic of China--all but eight countries in 
the world have such status--I was appalled by at least two particular 
remarks. First, one of our colleagues asked at what level is our 
threshold of conscience regarding the human rights abuses and various 
outrages in the PRC. This kind of sanctimonious comment about those, 
like this Member, who believe it is unwise, counterproductive, and 
contrary to our vital national interest to end normal tariff status for 
the PRC.
  Such remarks and the tone and substance of similar remarks by many 
other colleagues, self-proclaimed paragons of virtue, violate the 
dignity and proper civility of the House. This Member and a very large 
share of Members of the House disagree with those who would deny normal 
tariff status to the PRC. Many of us believe that a decision to deny 
that trade status to the PRC does great harm to the short- and long-
term vital national interest of the United States of America, but we do 
not ascribe improper motives or objectives to those with whom we 
disagree. We do not ask them to check their threshold of conscience 
when it comes to the impact of their actions on our country.
  Second, I was appalled and saddened to hear one of our very esteemed 
colleagues--perhaps only because the heat of debate--refer to China as 
our enemy. China is not our enemy but our vacillating, inept foreign 
policy actions and the continued ill-advised rhetoric and actions of 
the congress--especially in the distorted and counter-productive annual 
debate on extending so-called MFN--can push China to unnecessarily 
become an enemy or adversary. That would undoubtedly prove to be one of 
the truly momentous tragedies in American and world history. The 
financial consequences of a cold war with China are staggering and the 
costs of an eventual overt conflict with the PRC are unimaginably 
tragic for the two countries and mankind.
  Mr. Speaker, it must be emphasized that what Members do here today on 
this issue, what we have done in the past, and what we do in the 
future, taken altogether, does have very important consequences. Our 
actions over time, in combination with the inept handling of Sino-
American relations, actually can move our two countries to an 
adversarial status with all the consequences which follow. Members 
should be reminded that they are not free to cast irresponsible votes 
for purely political reasons or to appease interest groups without 
recognizing the damage they do and the consequences that follow.
  Mr. Speaker, while I speak as chairman of the Asia and the Pacific 
Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, I do not 
claim to be an expert on China. Indeed, it might be said that there are 
no experts on China--only degrees of ignorance. Yet I would hope that 
my colleagues would make a sincere and urgent effort to learn more 
about the PRC, the Chinese people, and their culture. They would better 
understand how this nation--with a 4,000-year history in which its 
people understandably take great pride, with a huge percentage of the 
world's people, with no democratic traditions that resemble our own--
will not easily change its ways. They understandably see our own 
erratic, grossly ineffective foreign policy toward China as consisting 
primarily as a constant, ad-hoc badgering on an issue-by-issue basis 
and believe it to be a heavy-handed effort to impose our practices, 
ideals, and cultural standards. Many of our actions and emphases in our 
foreign policy and in the Congress are also seen as direct threats to 
their sovereignty.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member's first visit to China was, I believe, in 
1988 or thereabouts. At that time I was struck by the warmth of the 
Chinese toward Americans and the United States. Some of the older 
citizens were apt to comment about America's help to the Chinese 
against our common enemy in World War II. It seemed that everyone 
wanted to learn English because of their friendship for America and 
their expectations that we were going to see a closer, friendlier, 
Sino-American relationship, which went beyond business opportunities.

  In August 1995, this Member returned to China and noticed that the 
good will toward America among the average Chinese citizen had 
deteriorated markedly if in fact it had not totally disappeared. Now 
they ask, ``Why do Americans hate us so much?'' Some of my esteemed 
House colleagues believe the Congress was instrumental in blocking the 
PRC from having the Olympics in the year 2000 and they are proud of 
that fact, but at least in Beijing each man or woman on the street 
really felt that loss of the Olympics and they emphatically blame 
America for it. Undoubtedly, too the government of the PRC is 
manipulating the views and emotions of their citizens with anti-
American media campaigns and whatever is the latest controversy in the 
relations between our two governments.
  Yet, if you spend time among the average Chinese citizens in the 
coastal cities--in crowded department stores, noodle lunch shops, or 
other places, as did this Member, one couldn't help but be struck by 
the changes in the population. A huge and growing consumer class 
enjoying a whole range of personal freedoms has been created. The pace 
of physical development and change in the lifestyles of a large share 
of China's citizens is literally unmatched in the history of the world. 
Economic prosperity and a greater exposure to Western ways is 
inevitably liberalizing despite repressive governmental policies. 
Chinese leaders probably would not attempt another Tiananmen Square 
confrontation today and it certainly wouldn't be possible in 5 or 10 
years unless America and the West turn its back on China and pushes it 
to become a more suspicious, aggressive, and isolated regime. Chinese 
leaders, this Member is convinced, know they have their hands full in 
pushing internal economic and physical development sufficiently fast to 
keep up with the impatient massive population who have had the 
appetites whetted by the economic benefits and personal freedom that 
have accompanied their amazing economic progress. America and the 
developed democracies, while watchfully protecting our own interests, 
warily observing Chinese military modernization efforts, and 
collectively counteracting any external Chinese aggression that might 
appear, must also avoid giving the kind of undue provocation to the 
People's Liberation Army which would further enhance modernization 
efforts or its influence on top Chinese policymakers.
  Finally, this Member cannot help but observe that the demands for 
reform, the criticism of the PRC, and the overt hostility toward it by 
so many in this Congress and in the American public has intensified 
dramatically since the collapse of the Soviet Union as a superpower 
adversary to the United States. Unfortunately, I don't think this is 
coincidental. Intentionally or subconsciously, I believe that some 
people, some politicians, and some special interests find it convenient 
to have a national enemy. Shortly after the disintegration of the 
U.S.S.R., the Japanese economic and trade practices caused that nation 
to become the focus of many Americans' acute anxieties, fanned by the 
latest leading polling or opinion articles. Now the focus is squarely 
on the People's Republic of China. There is no reason this Congress, 
the national media, or anyone else should push or elevate China into 
being our next enemy. Too many million people's lives are placed at 
risk and too much of our public and private resources will be 
needlessly spent.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the Rohrabacher 
resolution and support the continuation of normal tariff status for the 
People's Republic of China. It is in both the short- and long-term 
vital national interest of the United States that we continue our 
engagement with China through this and other means.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from

[[Page H6996]]

Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a respected freshman on the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  (Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to this resolution of disapproval of normal trade relations for China. 
In my view, we need to renew China's MFN status as part of a long-term 
commitment to the United States-China relationship.
  China is the world's largest and fastest growing market, experiencing 
exponential growth as its rulers slowly reverse generations of statist 
economic policies.
  If we fail to renew MFN for China, it will uncouple our economy from 
this fast growing trading partner, it will place U.S. companies at a 
competitive disadvantage with other international firms, and it will 
cost American workers jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not condone China's human rights abuses. I do not 
condone China's military adventurism and aggressive behavior in its 
region or its poor record on nuclear proliferation. I do not condone 
China's failure to enforce intellectual property rights or its unfair 
trading practices. But, Mr. Speaker, the advocates of this resolution 
have made no credible argument that ending normal trade relations with 
China will lead to reforms in any of these areas. Instead, trade with 
China by America is an essential catalyst to move China toward greater 
economic freedom and a liberalization of their economy and their 
institutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the best way for America to influence Chinese 
society is to pursue a policy of constructive and comprehensive 
engagement.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, every year China promises to open its market to American 
products. Every year Congress grants most-favored-nation status to 
China, yet nothing seems to change, and we are about to do it again.
  MFN is a job killer for America. MFN is a job killer for America 
because China refuses to open its markets. MFN is a job killer for 
America because China uses slave labor and prison labor camps. MFN is a 
job killer for America because China uses child labor to make things, 
like this Mattel Barbie doll and this Spalding softball.
  Twelve-year-old Tibetan boys and girls in Chinese slave labor camps 
making these softballs for 12-year-old American boys and girls to use 
on America's playgrounds, Chinese children making these Barbie dolls in 
sweatshops so American children can play with them in their bedrooms.
  When will this stop? When will we in this Congress say enough is 
enough? Kill MFN.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution of disapproval, 
in spite of the fact that I have some major concerns about our 
relationship with China.
  The issue that concerns me and a large segment of my constituency, 
which we may not hear very much about today, is China's treatment of 
the textile and apparel industry. There are over 1.5 million Americans 
employed in the textile and apparel industry in the United States.
  Fifty thousand of those workers are my constituents. Their struggle 
to compete in a highly competitive global market is being made much 
more difficult by China as it violates its agreements with the United 
States and illegally ships textiles and apparel through other countries 
in order to exceed their agreed-upon quotas. This is a $4 billion 
problem for this industry. It costs Americans thousands of jobs, and it 
must stop.
  I do not believe, however, that treating China like that handful of 
rogue countries that do not now receive MFN treatment is the answer to 
this problem and other problems we have with China.

                              {time}  1400

  China has the world's fastest growing economy and is expected to be 
the world's largest economy by sometime early in the next century. This 
a fact that cannot be overlooked. It is an important fact that both our 
citizens and China's citizens must realize. Economic engagement with 
China benefits America because a prosperous and dynamic China will be a 
better customer for American products generating thousands and 
thousands of American high-wage jobs.
  Economic engagement with China also benefits China because the rise 
of trade and economic linkage serves as an important force for 
continued economic and political liberalization for expansion of human 
rights and encouragement of global peace. I believe revoking MFN serves 
only to isolate China, not to advance any other worthy goals that we 
have heard about today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution 
of disapproval.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of House 
Joint Resolution 182, legislation revoking MFN to China. I commend my 
good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], for 
offering it, along with a number of our colleagues.
  Recently the PRC spokesman said that the Congress, and I quote: hurt 
the Chinese people's feelings, and we further quote, aggravated 
tensions over the Taiwan Straits, close quote, by passing a resolution 
stating that the United States should come to the defense of Taiwan. He 
also stated that what we did at that time was detestable.
  It is difficult to imagine what might be detestable to a Communist 
Chinese Government official. Just a few weeks ago officials of a 
Communist Chinese Government military industry tried to sell silencers, 
stinger missiles and some 2000 machine guns to street gangs in Los 
Angeles. The government spokesman denied it in the same manner that 
they denied previously the sale of cruise missiles and poison gas 
factories to Iran, nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan and the 
severe repression of religion throughout China and occupied Tibet.
  Beijing's military provocations off the coast of Taiwan were not the 
result of our Nation allowing President Li to visit Cornell. The 
military threats were the result of the administration's failure to 
take action when Beijing violated MOU's and agreement regarding weapons 
proliferation, human rights and trade. Beijing knows a paper tiger when 
it sees one.
  If China violates an agreement, it should be held accountable. The 
administration must stop sweeping aside Beijing's violations of 
agreements on these matters and dispensing enforcement as an attempt to 
isolate or contain China. This is not any constructive approach to a 
serious problem. Ignoring their serious infraction is simply 
appeasement. Appeasement has led to our serious trade deficit with 
China. In 1985 it was $10 million. Today it is up to $34 billion. 
Appeasement has led to our business people being bullied into sharing 
technology with Beijing in order to receive their contracts. 
Appeasement has led to Iran obtaining cruise missiles that threaten our 
troops and Israel. And appeasement has led to the potential sale of 
stinger missiles to street gangs.
  There are even fewer words to describe administration officials who 
make up one excuse after another for Beijing's behavior and try to 
shift the blame whenever another outrageous deed is done.
  The bare minimum that the administration policy geniuses can do is to 
send a strong signal that they care about American businesses, about 
American jobs and about American security, and it is for them to stop 
claiming it would isolate or contain China by asking them to live up to 
their agreements with us. Accordingly, I

[[Page H6997]]

urge my colleagues to revoke MFN and vote for the resolution.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Portman].
  (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I have listened to the concerns expressed this afternoon and I share 
them. I have heard about human rights violations, heard about the 
inability of the Chinese to properly be concerned about Hong Kong's 
future and Taiwan, the access to the Chinese market. We have heard a 
lot about nuclear proliferation. We just heard about arms sales. So I 
have just a very practical question; how will revoking MFN address any 
of these concerns? How will it help?
  I think that a disengaged China is less likely to care about basic 
human rights, less likely to care about Hong Kong's economic liberties, 
less likely to care about living within accepted international norms. I 
think we only have to look back to the Cultural Revolution to see that. 
Instead we should be engaging.
  Among other things, they think we should be doing all we can, using 
what leverage and influence we have, to get China into the World Trade 
Organization, the successor organization to GATT. By that we force 
China to live by the international trading rules, to ensure that we 
have access to the Chinese market and improve the very conditions we 
all implore. That is the approach we ought to be taking as a 
Government, not revoking MFN status.
  I think voting against MFN may make people feel better, but that is 
not a good enough reason. It is not the right tool to use. I urge 
Members not to follow this course of action and instead to do the other 
things we need to do by engaging China to advance the interests we 
share.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the People's Republic of China routinely 
violates international trade laws, arms sales restrictions, human 
rights conventions. China continues to illegally export goods made by 
prison and child labor into the United States. China's domestic markets 
are effectively closed to our products, even as we open our doors wide 
for Chinese-made goods, many of them produced by United States 
companies that have moved jobs into the People's Republic. China is 
also one of the world's leading pirates of copyrighted software.
  Our trade deficit with China swelled from $10 billion in 1990 to $33 
billion last year, projected to be $41 billion this year. That is more 
than half a million American jobs lost in their unfair trade practices. 
Some people call this policy constructive engagement. I call it 
appeasement. The aging dictators in Beijing know that they can count on 
our Government's spineless response to their provocations. They 
understand only too well how effectively their big corporate allies can 
influence our elected representatives.
  Our trade policy ought to work for American workers. Instead, the 
game has been rigged to benefit a new world order in which corporate 
investments and family-wage jobs flow downhill toward the world's 
lowest wages, worst working conditions and least restrictive 
environmental standards.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to support continuation 
of most-favored-nation treatment for the People's Republic of China. We 
cannot afford to ignore China's emergence as a global power, even 
though clearly it has not yet learned how to act like one. I am 
appalled by the human rights conditions in China, Chinese willingness 
to export weapons of mass destruction and their flouting of 
international trade agreements. But somewhere, someone in this debate 
has to explain for me the link between achieving those goals and the 
revocation of MFN.
  That is not a policy; engagement is not a policy. Containment is not 
the alternative. We need a strategy that targets specific objectives, 
sets priorities, imposes sanctions when those objections are not 
complied with and those agreements are not met and promotes human 
rights.
  I urge continuation of MFN for China not because I believe in what 
China is now doing, not what they are doing is right or because China 
is changing in the right way but because I believe we cannot end MFN 
and then expect to change China. I urge a no vote on this resolution.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about a little bit today on 
what the Constitution says, Congress shall regulate commerce with 
foreign nations. The Constitution does not say that Congress shall 
moderate the behavior of our trading partners.
  The facts are clear. China steals American technology. China dumps 
their products in our markets. China denies access to American 
products. In addition, China uses false made-in-America labels on their 
cheap products deceiving American consumers.
  To boot, China usually opposes Uncle Sam at the United Nations. China 
sells nuclear technology to our enemies. Is it any wonder China enjoys 
a $40 billion trade surplus? All this talk about jobs, we are a net 
700,000 job loser.
  The American people have done all they could. They elected a Democrat 
President. There has been no change. They elected a Republican 
majority, there has been no change. I commend the Republicans who have 
taken this effort.
  The bottom line is, the American people are apathetic, they do not 
see much difference between either party, and this is a defining issue. 
It is completely evident to me, very clear, the Congress of the United 
States will not do anything about trade until there are two Japanese 
cars in every garage and a Chinese missile pointed at every American 
city.

  How many more welders do we retrain? How many more minimum wage jobs 
do we create?
  I might understand this program if someone finally confessed and told 
me Jack Kevorkian was running our trade program. We are losers. Now, 
for all of the workers in Ohio that write to me and write to other 
Members, I want to make the following recommendation today: No. 1, I 
want you to invade West Virginia; No. 2, I want you to threaten 
Columbus and Harrisburg. And maybe then the Congress of the United 
States will take a look at your plight.
  But let me say one last thing, what both of the Democrat and 
Republican Parties are doing with trade is a defining issue of our 
times. We have no economic program. We are a bunch of losers. I predict 
there will be a major third political party in our country. So help me 
God, I think the country needs it desperately.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] for the 
time. I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] 
for his effort. I understand the positions of everyone on the other 
side of the line; but, while you are involved with all this free trade, 
we are getting our assets ripped off left and right.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in May 1994, President Clinton de-
linked human rights considerations from our trading relationship with 
China. He told us then that an improving economy in China would be 
accompanied by an improvement in Beijing's respect for human rights and 
would make China a more responsible member of the family of nations.
  Today, China's human rights record is worse, and its growing economy 
has served to underwrite an enormous military expansion and to enrich 
the Chinese Communist party elite.
  President Clinton was wrong to de-link our China trade policy from 
human rights just as George Bush was wrong in not cutting off MFN after 
the Tianamen Square massacre. If we had stood up for our principles 
then, we would likely be re-extending MFN to a freer and less 
threatening China today.

[[Page H6998]]

  This vote is not a litmus test on free trade. I believe in free trade 
among the free people of the world. This is a litmus test about 
American jobs and human rights. China has 6 to 8 million people in over 
100,000 labor camps making products for export. I am a free trader, but 
slave trade isn't free trade. And how can be expect American workers to 
compete with Chinese slaves?
  We are losing over $30 billion in our bilateral trading relationship 
with Beijing in spite of billions of dollars in loans to China 
sponsored by the World Bank and our own Export-Import Bank.
  Over $4.3 billion of international loans and guarantees went to China 
in 1995. $800 million in loans and guarantees came from the U.S. 
Export-Import Bank. I would like to submit for the Record a list of 
international loans to China.
  The justification for these handouts, we are told over and over 
again, is that China's market is so big and full of such incredible 
potential that we must close our eyes to the more distressing things in 
China.
  China's American apologists claim that Beijing fears the United 
States is trying to contain China. That is not true. The Chinese know 
it isn't true. Everyone knows it isn't true. If anything, we are 
bending over backwards to engage China. No, the real threat here is 
that China may threaten Asia--all of Asia. The PRC's actions in the 
Spratlys, Taiwan Strait, Burma, and the South China Sea, and its 
accelerating military buildup indicates that China is seeking a 
hegemonic role for itself in Asia. The implication is that Beijing 
eventually intends to challenge United States naval power in Asia--that 
means conflict--almost certainly initiated by Chinese aggression 
against a democratic neighbor. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for 
the Record an analysis which outlines possible Chinese ambitions in 
Asia, and a report by the Republican Policy Committee on Communist 
China's invasion threat against Taiwan.
  So China is building up its military and threatening its neighbors, 
and we are financing this threat to Asian stability through our 
trade relationship. China's apologists shrug off these threats, but 
they are real.

  Just last week China initiated a door-to-door campaign in Tibet to 
confiscate photographs of the Dali Lama. Reports indicate that those 
who refuse are jailed, beaten, tortured, even murdered. This isn't some 
account from the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward, this is 
happening now. The Chinese are undertaking a campaign of ethnic 
cleansing which would make even the most hardened Serb Chetnik wince. 
Chinese officials routinely inject pregnant Tibetan women to induce 
birth. They then inject the newborn in the head killing it in front of 
the mother. The third procedure is to sterilize the women. Another 
popular practice of the Communist Han Chinese is to simply rape Tibetan 
women.
  Muslims in Sinkiang Province, or East Turkistan, are also being 
repressed.
  Where do the arguments we heard last year to justify MFN for China 
differ from the ones we hear today? Does it matter that China tried to 
undermine Taiwan's democratic elections, or broke international 
agreements on nuclear proliferation, or bilateral agreements on 
intellectual property rights? Does it matter to those of you who are 
voting for MFN that China kills its infants in its state-run 
orphanages?
  Where does that enter into a moral person's calculations? Where does 
torture of Catholic priests or repression of Christianity enter into 
the picture? In voting to ignore the crimes of the Communist regime we 
demoralize the democratic forces in China? We are turning our backs on 
the very people we should be supporting, people who believe in our 
values, in liberty and freedom and democracy. These are the people we 
defeat by renewing MFN.
  It's Harry Wu, the Panchen Lama, and Wei Jingshen we turn our backs 
on by renewing MFN. We ignore the threat to attack Los Angeles, the 
recent nuclear weapons test, and the seizure of 2,000 fully automatic 
machine guns by U.S. Customs officials which were being smuggled into 
the United States by People's Liberation Army-owned firms.
  But even on purely economic grounds, MFN should be opposed. Giving 
away American jobs to bolster a rogue regime like this is not 
beneficial for America. We hear about U.S. sales of commercial 
jetliners to China--and I come from an area heavily dependent on 
aerospace--but most of our exports to China are unfinished goods or raw 
materials.
  China's tariffs on United States products entering China's market--
especially finished products or high technology consumer goods--are, on 
average, dramatically higher than our tariffs on Chinese goods--even 
without MFN, their tariffs on us would still be higher than ours on 
them. For those with eyes, it is easy to see that any industry that 
China wants to develop is closed off to American manufactured goods.
  Meanwhile, China has launched deliberate efforts to open private 
front companies in America whose mission is to steal American 
technology our firms here. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the 
Record an article that appeared in the Denver Post which discusses this 
issue. I would also like to submit for the Record an article which 
discusses China's other covert intelligence operations, referred to as 
``political action work'' by the Chinese. Chairman Floyd Spence is 
investigating this issue, and I commend him for that oversight effort.
  This year's debate has to go beyond the notion of China's large 
market justifying our accommodation of China's rogue status. Why do we 
permit U.S. dollars to finance the military buildup of a repressive 
dictatorship that is likely to be our enemy? Mr. Speaker, I would like 
to submit for the Record two papers, one concerning China's arms 
exports and the other addresses China's military modernization. Lord, 
grant that our sons never go to war with this Asian Godzilla, armed to 
the teeth with high technology weapons bought with the currency of MFN.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a series of 
articles which appeared in the January 11, 1996, edition of the Far 
Eastern Economic Review which discuss questions surrounding the 
Pentagon's effectiveness in controlling sensitive technology being 
transferred from America to Red China. Mr. Chairman, I would also like 
to submit for the Record a paper by Greg Mastel and Gregory Stanko 
which discusses China's deliberate policy of stealing America's 
intellectual property.
  The American people should know that MFN is worth about $10--12 
billion a year to China. Why should the American people reward China's 
bad behavior with a $10 billion benefit? Some of our military service 
chiefs are already talking about uncertainty in Asia as a partial 
justification for billions dollars in defense spending. Another cost to 
the American taxpayer of our current China policy.
  America's domestic programs shouldn't reward bad behavior, and our 
international policies should be no different.
  A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again 
and expecting the results to be different. Well, by that definition, 
another year of MFN for an increasingly belligerent, more heavily 
armed, more repressive, Communist-run China is insanity times ten on 
our part.
  We are here to do God's work and the work of the American people. 
Disapprove MFN for China and do both. Vote ``yes'' on my resolution of 
disapproval.

                 Chinese Strategy in Asia and the World

                     (By Prof. June Teufel Dreyer)


                  the chinese view of china's strategy

       The view of its strategy that the People's Republic of 
     China (PRC) presents to the international community was 
     expressed metaphorically to a U.S. military attache in terms 
     of an ant hill. Somewhat isolated, tribal, and mistrustful of 
     others, the colony is mainly focussed on internal concerns. 
     Members are sometimes sent outside in search of needed items, 
     but the colony is basically self-sustaining. Only when others 
     encroach too closely or attempt to kick the ant hill will the 
     millions of ants of the Chinese People's Liberation Army 
     (PLA) come charging out of the colony to bite them.\1\
       Chinese commentators have been at pains to deny that their 
     country is strategically ambitious. A deputy director of the 
     Beijing-based Center for Chinese Foreign Policy Studies 
     attempted to quell fears that the PRC's impressive economic 
     growth would lead to an increase in military strength that 
     would pose dangers to the international community. Since, he 
     argued, economic construction remains the government's 
     priority, ``its security strategy is to maintain a favorable 
     environment for the economy and make utmost efforts to 
     prevent military confrontation, whether within or outside its 
     borders.'' \2\
       Another approach is to define the possibility of an 
     aggressive strategy out of existence. For example, the 
     commandant of the PLA's National Defense University stated 
     that ``China's socialist character ensures that it positively 
     will not strive for hegemony.'' \3\ The commandant does not 
     address the question of why other socialist countries such as 
     the former Soviet Union had not been inhibited from seeking 
     hegemony. Since, he continues, China has committed itself to 
     economic development as a priority, a peaceful and stable 
     international environment is necessary. Having thus 
     established that ``China's socialist system ensures that 
     China will unswervingly pursue a defensive national defense 
     policy and military strategy,'' the author outlines a broader 
     and less peaceful-sounding agenda: the arms forces exist to * 
     * * consolidate national defense, withstand aggression, 
     protect the ancestral land, protect the peaceful work of its 
     people, defend the country's territorial sovereignty and 
     maritime rights and interests, and safeguard national unity 
     and security * * * we adhere to a self-defense position of, 
     if others do not attack us, we will not attack them; if 
     others do attack, we will certainly attack them. We adhere to 
     a strategy of gaining mastery by letting others strike 
     first.\4\
       In support of the contention that its strategy is peace and 
     economic development rather than confrontation, PRC sources 
     point to

[[Page H6999]]

     the country's very low defense budget. According to 
     statistics presented by former PLA deputy chief of staff Xu 
     Xin, the PRC's defense budget has risen by only 6.2 percent 
     over the past ten years when an average inflation rate of 7.7 
     percent is factored in. As a proportion of gross national 
     product (GNP), defense expenditures have fallen over the same 
     period: in 1985, the figure was 2.8 percent; in 1994, it was 
     1.3 percent. Meanwhile, the United States spent 4.3 percent 
     of its GNP. Moreover, China's military expenditure per 
     soldier is less than one-sixtieth of that of Japan's Self 
     Defense Forces and a mere one-seventieth of that of the 
     American military.
       Even so, Xu continued, the majority of this modest per-
     soldier expenditure is used for such purposes as the basic 
     necessities of daily life for its soldiers, plus the costs of 
     administration, routine training, equipment maintenance, and 
     the like. So little remains after these expenditures have 
     been made that it would be impossible to purchase large 
     quantities of equipment. ``It is thus obvious that the claims 
     that China is intending to buy an aircraft carrier and is 
     expanding its military armaments clearly are made by people 
     who have an axe to grind.''\5\


                   foreign views of china's strategy

       Skeptics find these explanations unconvincing. The ant hill 
     metaphor falls short because the ants' understanding of the 
     territorial limits of their colony does not necessarily 
     coincide with that of others, so that someone this particular 
     group of ants may regard as encroaching on their hill or 
     kicking it may believe that the area in which he is walking 
     does not belong to the colony. Moreover, despite the efforts 
     of the Chinese ant elite to moderate the breeding habit of 
     the hill's members, the population of the colony continues to 
     grow. This may lead the elite to extend to the maximum degree 
     possible the space available to the colony. And, finally, 
     there are other ant colonies in the area who are as sensitive 
     to what they consider encroachment on their turf as the 
     Chinese ants.
       The contention that the PRC will never attack unless 
     attacked first comes athwart the fact that China attacked 
     Vietnam in February 1979 without having been attacked first. 
     Presumably the author of the article cited above would point 
     out, as China definitely did at the time, that the action was 
     not an attack but rather a ``pre-emptive counterattack.'' A 
     February 1996 article in the PLA's official newspaper 
     Jiefangjun bao (Liberation Daily) describing the advantages 
     of the pre-emptive strike in limited, high-technology war 
     suggests that the Chinese leadership continues to value the 
     concept.\6\ Beijing's warning that it would attack Taiwan 
     were the island's government to declare itself independent 
     mentions nothing about a prior attack on the mainland by 
     Taiwan. A 1992 law passed by China's National People's 
     Congress gives the PRC the right to enforce by military means 
     its claim to the territorial waters around islands whose 
     ownership is disputed. Again, no prior attack on the PRC need 
     take place. When Filipino president Fidel Ramos arranged a 
     guided tour of Chinese installations on islands claimed by 
     the Philippines, the PRC warned that if it happened again, 
     forcible means would be employed. No one suggested that the 
     Philippines might have to attack China first.
       With regard to defense expenditures, skeptics point out 
     that looking at the military budget as a percentage of 
     China's GNP may show a decline, but that it is a slightly 
     declining share of a rapidly growing pie. Moreover, the 
     published defense budget is not the same as the actual 
     defense budget, which is estimated to be anywhere from two to 
     five times the budget that is officially reported. The higher 
     figures typically include costs for the People's Armed Police 
     (PAP), which contains many demobilized regular army members. 
     The PAP has primarily domestic functions, but could be used 
     transnationally if the need arose.
       A comprehensive study done by the U.S. General Accounting 
     Office in 1995 which excludes PAP costs concludes that the 
     Chinese defense budget is three times that officially 
     reported.\7\ It notes that many expenditures that would be 
     considered under the defense category if it were calculated 
     according to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
     standards appear under other categories in the PRC's budget. 
     Demobilization costs, for example, are the responsibility of 
     the Ministry of Civil Affairs. And expenditures for nuclear 
     research and development costs, which are believed to be very 
     large, are not included in the defense budget. The costs for 
     recent sizable acquisitions of equipment from Russia, 
     including 72 Su-27 fighter planes and at least four Kilo 
     class submarines, came out the State Council's budget rather 
     than that of the PLA.
       These expenditures are not small: the first batch of 26 Su-
     27s alone was purchased for U.S. $1 billion, or almost $40 
     million per plane. While the purchase price of the submarines 
     has not been made public, Russia has sold other Kilo-class 
     submarines for approximately $240 million apiece, indicating 
     that the bill for four, plus associated expenses, will add up 
     to another $1 billion.\8\ The cost of a recent acquisition of 
     Russian radar to equip 100 Chinese-built J-8 II jet fighters 
     was reportedly $500 million.\9\ There have also been major 
     purchases from Israel. Researchers at the Stockholm 
     International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimate the 
     price of Israeli arms transfers to China since the early 
     1980s at $2 to $3 billion.\10\ While the actual impact of 
     these purchases on the Chinese economy will be somewhat 
     softened by the fact that a portion of it is in barter rather 
     than hard cash, they nonetheless represent huge expenditures.
       These, of course, are just foreign purchases, which 
     represent only a fraction of total spending. The military 
     correspondent of a respected Hong Kong newspaper placed the 
     cost of each domestically-produced M-class missile fired into 
     the Taiwan Strait at $2 million, and estimated the total cost 
     of the PRC's seven war games and missile testing in and near 
     the strait between July 1995 and March 1996 at a billion 
     dollars. The final round of missile testing, he noted, took 
     place while the National People's Congress was in session. 
     While the NPC was not discussing the wisdom of the tests, 
     this topic apparently having been declared off limits, NPC 
     deputies from central and western provinces were complaining 
     publicly \11\ about the central government's failure to route 
     development funds to them. And, in internal meetings, 
     deputies from the coastal provinces were complaining bitterly 
     about the loss of revenue and foreign investment that the 
     missile tests were having on their economy.\12\ None of this 
     lends credence to the picture of a PRC so budget-conscious 
     and focussed on economic development that it has neither the 
     will nor the wherewithal to pursue ambitious strategies.
       Since the strategy this increasingly capable force 
     structure is intended to support is not consonant with 
     China's public statements, analysts must try to ascertain it 
     from other evidence. The years from 1989 through 1991 appear 
     to have been a watershed for the Chinese leadership. The 
     bloody suppression of peaceful demonstrators at Tiananmen 
     Square and elsewhere in China in the spring of 1989 tarnished 
     the international image of Deng Xiaoping's era as one of 
     benign communism. It increased the sense of isolation of the 
     Chinese leadership, even as foreigners continued to visit the 
     PRC in large numbers and more Chinese than ever were 
     travelling abroad.
       When, only a few months later, the Soviet Union began to 
     crumble, the PRC elite's sense of dwelling in a hostile 
     international environment deepended still further. Elation 
     over the conservative coup against Gorbachov was short-lived, 
     since the plotters were quickly arrested and the republics 
     that comprised the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 
     became independent, non-communist states. The repercussions 
     that this could have for China were all too clear to the 
     PRC's octogenarian powerholders. They interpreted publicly-
     expressed Western hopes that the PRC would undergo a gradual 
     transition toward liberal democracy as harboring malicious 
     intent. This ``sinister plot of peaceful evolution'' was 
     believed to be aimed at overthrowing the socialist government 
     of China and repeatedly denounced in the official press. 
     ``International splittists'' were believed to aim at 
     dismantling the People's Republic of China in the same manner 
     that the USSR had disintegrated.
       While certain of the above-mentioned views seem overdrawn, 
     there was abundant evidence of foreign collusion with 
     national splittists. Tibetans have been especially successful 
     in mobilizing international sympathy in support of their 
     desire to be free of Chinese rule. In 1989, the Norwegian 
     Nobel Prize Committee announced that the Dalai Lama, Tibet's 
     long-exile spiritual and temporal leader, had won its annual 
     award for peace. The world-wide publicity attendant on the 
     award and the prestige that accrues to recipients were very 
     upsetting to Beijing. Many countries have Tibet Houses to 
     serve as foci for Tibetan culture abroad, and a highly 
     unusual but exceptionally motivated multinational coalition 
     of film stars, rock bands, politicians, scholars, and 
     individuals seeking spiritual enlightenment through Tibetan 
     Buddhism support the cause of independence.
       When the Mongolian People's Republic was replaced by the 
     republic of Mongolia, Tibetan Buddhism, which had been 
     suppressed under the MPR, quickly reappeared. Young Mongols 
     were reportedly learning Tibetan in preference to Russian. 
     They, too, appeared to favor independence for Tibet. More 
     worrisome to the Chinese leadership with regard to Mongolia 
     was the possibility that China's ethnic Mongols, most of whom 
     live in Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region that borders the 
     new republic, would want to join it. In the far northwest of 
     the PRC, a variety of Muslim groups ranging from the 
     fanactically religious Hamas to secular Turks were aiding 
     local Turkic Muslims in efforts to recreate an East Turkestan 
     Republic free of Chinese domination.
       Coastal provinces, while evincing no interest in 
     declarations of independence, were nonetheless behaving in 
     ways that indicated that they were making decisions 
     independently of Beijing. Foreign investment was an important 
     factor in their ability to ignore the central government's 
     wishes. Hong Kong money was more instrumental to the 
     development of Guangdong province than funds from Beijing, 
     and Taiwan investment in Guangdong and neighboring Fujian far 
     exceeded transfer from the central government to those areas. 
     Similarly, the cities of the northeast attracted funding from 
     Japan and South Korea. The dollar amounts of these 
     investments are huge. According to official statistics 
     provided by the government of the Republic of China on Taiwan 
     (ROC), the small island-state has invested $1.7 billion in 
     Guangdong's Shenzhen Special Economic

[[Page H7000]]

     Zone alone.\13\ These are the figures reported to the 
     government by its citizens, and are believed to substantially 
     understate the actual amounts.
       America's reaction to Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's 
     invasion of Kuwait heightened China's sense of international 
     threat. U.S. president George Bush quickly put together a 
     multinational coalition to force Saddam Hussein to relinquish 
     Kuwait. Bush also expressed the wish that the Iraqi people 
     would overthrow Saddam. Already on the defensive, the Chinese 
     leadership saw ominous portents for itself, perhaps with 
     regard to its desire to absorb Taiwan, by force if necessary. 
     Foreign ministry spokespersons explained that, although China 
     opposed the use of force against another nation, the PRC had 
     long adhered to the Five Principles of the People, one of 
     which was non-interference in the affairs of other states. 
     Therefore, the ``principled stand'' of the PRC was to remain 
     aloof from Saddam Hussein's differences of opinion with 
     Kuwait. It is possible that Bush influenced China's eventual 
     decision to abstain from the United Nations Security Council 
     vote through promising to renew the PRC's controversial Most 
     Favored Nation status a few months later.
       In any case, the Chinese press tended to portray U.S. 
     behavior in the Gulf War as bullying. In its view, the 
     world's only remaining superpower, now that it was no longer 
     checked by the Soviet Union, was attempting to force other 
     countries to accept American values and the American social 
     system, regardless of how inappropriate they might be to the 
     countries they were being forced on. The PRC was particularly 
     sensitive to U.S. pressures with regard to human rights, 
     which had sharpened after the events at Tiananmen in 1989. 
     China's own interpretation of human rights, spokespersons 
     explained, had nothing to do with a system of checks and 
     balances or the right to criticize the socialist system. 
     Rather it focussed on the right to earn a living and the 
     ability to obtain needed social services.
       Co-existing with this view of the United States as an 
     arrogant bully was the impression that the United States was 
     a declining superpower. Government-affiliated think tanks 
     held symposia on Paul Kennedy's imperial overstretch and 
     Samuel Huntington's clash of civilizations, with participants 
     predicting the eventual decline and fall of the American 
     imperium. When asked about the apparent contradiction between 
     these two views, a researcher at the Institute of American 
     Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences explained 
     to the author that ``we think the United States is a 
     declining power, but a dangerous declining power.''


                       Chinese Strategic Actions

       Confronting an international environment that it perceived 
     as hostile and a domestic environment in which its own 
     prestige and legitimacy seemed to be eroding, the leadership 
     appeared to fall back on nationalism. Official spokespersons 
     stridently reiterated ``China's principled stand'' on a 
     variety of international issues, and declared that the 
     Chinese people would not be bullied. Actions taken in 
     conjunction with these declarations included:
       Establishing close ties with Burma's State Law and Order 
     Restoration Commission. This has been described as an 
     alliance between two pariah governments. At the time that 
     close relations began, the Chinese leadership was widely 
     criticized internationally for killing unarmed civilians at 
     the spring 1989 demonstrations. Similarly, many countries 
     shunned the SLORC when it put Aung San Suu Kyi under those 
     house arrest after she won the country's 1988 presidential 
     election. The PRC has built several roads from its southern 
     border which Burmese patriots feared might be used as 
     invasion routes by the Chinese military. China also sold an 
     estimated $1.5 billion of weapons to the SLORC, thereby 
     enabling the Burmese military to more efficiently quash 
     popular opposition to the SLORC's rule. Additionally, the 
     Chinese constructed a naval base on Burma's Cocos island, 
     facing the Indian Ocean, including radar installations, and 
     other bases at Hainggyi Island and Mergui. This upset India, 
     which has regarded itself as guarantor of stability in the 
     area. These fears were magnified when, in August 1993, the 
     Indian navy captured three Chinese trawlers in the Bay of 
     Bengal. \14\
       Passing a law in February 1992 unilaterally claiming 
     ownership of the Spratly, Senkaku, and Paracel Islands as 
     well as Taiwan, and asserting the right to ``adopt all 
     necessary measures to prevent and stop the harmful passage of 
     vessels through its territorial waters [and for] PRC warships 
     and military aircraft to expel the invaders.'' \15\
       Announcing that it would not take part in sanctions against 
     the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) when it was 
     discovered in 1991-92 that the DPRK either possessed or was 
     about to possess nuclear weapons. Because China borders on 
     North Korea and has many rail, air, and land connections with 
     the country, it was deemed unlikely that the sanctions would 
     be effective without the PRC's participation.
       In early 1995, constructing bunkers and radar installations 
     on islands whose ownership is contested with the Philippines, 
     and placing boundary markers meant to demarcate the PRC's 
     territorial waters less than fifty miles from the 
     Philippines' Palawan Province.
       In spring 1995, circulating a map showing the Natuna 
     Islands as part of China's exclusive economic zone. The 
     Natunas, which contain rich gas deposits, are administered by 
     Indonesia.
       Selling 5,000 ring magnets to a state-run nuclear-weapons 
     laboratory in Pakistan in 1995, as well as continuing to 
     secretly export nuclear, chemical, and missile technology to 
     Iran and Pakistan. \16\
       Beginning oil-exploration in the Senkaku Islands, despite 
     Japan's continuing claim to the island. \17\
       Conducting five sets of missile launches and war games in 
     the Taiwan Strait between July 1995 and March 1996. Taiwan's 
     president Lee Tenghui had angered China with his efforts to 
     raise the island's international profile, and the PRC wished 
     there to be no doubt about its dislike of Lee before Taiwan's 
     voters went to the polls for the island's presidential 
     election on March 23, 1996.
       Announcing that Hong Kong's democratically elected 
     legislature would be abolished after China takes over the 
     colony in July 1997 and setting up a provisional legislature 
     to begin governing before that date. The only member of 
     Beijing's carefully chosen preparatory committee to vote 
     against the provisional legislature was immediately told that 
     he would not be part of the new group.\18\
       Postponing a vote on a United Nations resolution which 
     would extend the UN peacekeeping force in Haiti for an 
     additional six months and threatening to use its veto in the 
     UN Security Council if necessary to block the action. The PRC 
     became angry with Haiti because it invited Taiwan's vice-
     president Li Yuan-zu to attend the inauguration of president 
     Rene Preval in February 1996.\19\
       Continuing nuclear testing despite repeated requests to do 
     so. With France having declared an end to its testing, the 
     PRC is now the only state which continues to detonate fissile 
     material.


                           Foreign Reactions

       These actions, when combined with the substantial weapons 
     purchases discussed above, were consonant with a strategy of 
     China bent on playing the role of hegemon in Asia, as well as 
     exercising substantial influence outside of Asia. Questions 
     of whether or not this is inevitable and how advantageous a 
     strong China would be to global stability have been hotly 
     debated. A columnist for The Manila Chronicle applauded the 
     idea of a strong China, writing:thank God that, with the 
     Soviet Union's disintegration and Russia now an American 
     lackey, there is one nation--and an Asian nation at that--
     that will not be cowed by the U.S. and will stand up to 
     American arrogance and bullying. Thank God for other 
     countries like Iran, Iraq, Cuba and Libya. Otherwise the 
     Americans, who consider themselves a superior race, one of 
     the great hoaxes of our times, would hold all of us hostage 
     to their nuclear arsenal and grind all of us under their 
     heels . . . But China should be able to strike at some 
     American cities with its own intercontinental ballistic 
     missiles, and it is this danger that may stay the bullies' 
     hand and counsel caution and prudence.\20\
       Less emotional responses tended to focus on the theme that 
     the sum total of the PRC actions cited above was less hostile 
     than it seemed. For example, many analysts consider the 
     Philippines' claim to the Spratly Islands to be weak. Indeed, 
     Corazon Aquino's administration had planned to renounce the 
     country's claim until an upsurge of nationalism made it 
     politically impossible to do so. It is therefore possible to 
     view China's actions as an effort to challenge a weak 
     adversary, and perhaps to issue a warning to other claimants. 
     An Australian analyst goes so far as to state that since 
     China [both PRC and ROC]'s claim to the Spratlys is well-
     established, the PRC's plans to take the Spratlys by force 
     ``is probably consistent with international law and 
     international practice.'' \21\
       As for Taiwan, those sympathetic to China's actions believe 
     that, in seeking a higher international profile for the 
     Republic of China on Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui knew he was 
     courting disaster. Moreover, the United States should never 
     have granted Lee a visa to visit its territory. Lee used the 
     occasion to make a speech lauding his country's 
     accomplishments. Hence, not the PRC but the ROC, in collusion 
     with the United States, was responsible for the crisis in the 
     Taiwan Strait.
       With regard to nuclear testing, China has on several 
     occasions indicated its willingness to participate in the 
     nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). It is in favor of the 
     eventual complete destruction of all nuclear weapons.\22\ 
     However, to join in a moratorium on testing before the 
     Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) goes into effect would 
     be to freeze the People's Republic of China in a position of 
     permanent inferiority to the advanced Western powers whose 
     ranks it desires to join. China's goal in its current rounds 
     of testing is the successful miniaturization of nuclear 
     weapons. This should be completed by the time the CTBT goes 
     into effect. At this point, the PRC will ratify the treaty 
     and abide by its provisions.
       Nor are the roads and bases in Burma necessarily as 
     menacing as they have been portrayed. China may want an 
     outlet to the Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean for commercial 
     purposes rather than because of military considerations. 
     Given Burma's rickety infrastructure, road construction and 
     port development are absolutely necessary before this 
     outlet for Chinese goods is feasible. Therefore, it is in 
     China's best interest to help the Burmese government to 
     improve that infrastructure. Deng Xiaoping's economic 
     development policies had the unintended effect of

[[Page H7001]]

     advantaging the industrial growth and income levels of 
     coastal provinces while disadvantaging those of inland 
     provinces, thus creating ill-will between the two areas 
     and exacerbating regional tensions. Being able to export 
     the products of nearby Yunnan and Sichuan through Burma 
     has the potential to mitigate some of these tensions.
       A deep-water port on Hainggyi Island could provide Chinese 
     manufacturers with an outlet to markets in the Indian Ocean 
     and beyond. Moreover, neither the hydrography nor the 
     topography of Hainggyi is suited to the construction of a 
     major naval installation. The seaward approaches include 
     several shoals, and the main shipping channel is both narrow 
     and subject to heavy silting. Water levels vary substantially 
     in accordance with the yearly monsoon, and there are strong 
     tides. These factors would complicate the berthing and 
     navigation of large vessels. If armed conflict were to break 
     out, a naval base at Hainggyi would be vulnerable to mining 
     and attack from the sea.\23\
       Reports of intelligence surveillance activities based on 
     the Cocos Islands are, in the opinion of some, overdrawn. If 
     China wants to collect intelligence on India, the task could 
     be better carried out from a facility on the Burmese mainland 
     that is located closer to India's missile launch facilities. 
     Such a location would encounter fewer logistical difficulties 
     as well. Moreover, according to reports from India, China 
     already conducts electronic and other surveillance in the 
     Indian Ocean from trawlers.\24\
       As for Korea, the same issue of state sovereignty that made 
     China reluctant to endorse a U.N. Security Council resolution 
     condemning Iraq's annexation of Kuwait made it refuse to 
     participate in sanctions against the DPRK. Moreover, since 
     North Korea's economy is believed close to collapse, 
     sanctions might prove the death blow, and China might be 
     invaded by millions of starving refugees and be burdened with 
     an unstable regime on its borders. The PRC hence has sound 
     security reasons for wanting to avoid any actions that would 
     cause the demise of the DPRK.
       While there is a certain degree of validity to these 
     arguments, they fail to convince in many ways. If the PRC's 
     claim to sovereignty in the Spratlys is strong, then why has 
     China been unwilling to submit it to adjudication? It has, 
     moreover, been unwilling to enter into multilateral 
     discussions with the other claimants. This gives the 
     impression that the PRC intends to use its large size to 
     intimidate individual claimants in a way that would be more 
     difficult in a multiple forum. The negative publicity from 
     maintaining an intransigent stance in a bilateral context 
     would also be less than in a larger gathering. Hence, shrewd 
     calculations of self-interest rather than a ``principled 
     stand'' based on respect for international law is the PRC's 
     real motivation.
       As for the argument that China's construction activities in 
     Burma have commercial rather than military motives since the 
     areas chosen are not the best ones for large ships and other 
     military platforms, the same arguments could be made about 
     commercial vessels. It seems unlikely that such extensive 
     facilities would be being constructed for the use of small 
     commercial ships. The products of China's southwest could 
     more efficiently be transported to market by larger 
     vessels. The high costs of construction would not appear 
     to be justified by the expected commercial returns, and 
     there are better alternative uses of the funds.
       Those who plan bases in Burma may not be applying the same 
     standards of logic and efficiency as foreign analysts. They 
     may also have information and/or motives not available to 
     these analysts. Were logic alone to be applied to China's 
     relations with Burma, it would probably tell the PRC not to 
     become so closely identified with the SLORC at all. The 
     regime is much disliked by ordinary Burmese; should it be 
     toppled from power, the SLORC's successor might well ask the 
     Chinese to leave.
       With regard to Taiwan, China's stand also seems unduly 
     belligerent. Even if Lee's efforts to maintain a higher 
     profile for the island convinced PRC leaders that he meant 
     independence despite the fact that Lee has never publicly 
     stated that he is in favor of independence, raining missiles 
     off its coasts and moving troops and equipment into menacing 
     positions near the island seems an overreaction. In the past, 
     the PRC was able to achieve much by threatening economic 
     boycotts of countries who sold weapons to the ROC or gave its 
     diplomats a degree of respect that the PRC thought offensive. 
     One imagines that the proponents of the tough line on Taiwan 
     were feeling increasingly desperate on noticing that 
     countries who continued to publicly endorse a one-China 
     policy had privately come to terms with the reality that two 
     sovereign states existed. The direct popular election of the 
     ROC president, the capstone of the island's impressive 
     democratization process, symbolized to the mainland leaders 
     Taiwan's desire to determine its own future and was therefore 
     the catalyst for the PRC's belligerent posture.
       China's reasons for going ahead with nuclear testing while 
     declaring its ``principled stand'' on the eventual complete 
     destruction of all nuclear weapons also seem disingenuous. If 
     the PRC does intend to sign and abide by the Comprehensive 
     Test Ban Treaty and eventually destroy all its nuclear 
     weapons, one must question the need for expensive, ongoing 
     research and development of products that are slated for 
     destruction. There is certainly no nuclear threat to the PRC 
     in the interim period. Also, given China's stands in certain 
     aspects of the negotiation process, there is some possibility 
     the PRC will not actually sign the CTBT. For example, it has 
     continued to maintain that the CTBT should allow peaceful 
     nuclear explosions, which China claims it needs for purposes 
     of resource extraction. There is little support for this 
     position elsewhere. Arms control experts point out that 
     peaceful nuclear explosions are also unsafe, and that it is 
     more difficult to determine whether a test is for peaceful 
     purposes or military purposes than the Chinese allege. 
     Furthermore, using nuclear explosions to extract resources is 
     highly uneconomical.\25\


                           counter-strategies

       Although there is a school of thought which argues that 
     other countries can have little influence over the PRC's 
     behavior, with the generally unspoken conclusion that 
     therefore it is useless to try, empirical evidence indicates 
     otherwise. While not all attempts to induce China to modify 
     its stands have been successful, it has happened in several 
     instances.
       After the NPC passed a law in February 1992 unilaterally 
     asserting China's sovereignty over several islands including 
     the Senkaku/Diaoyutai group which is claimed by Japan, Tokyo 
     quietly informed the PRC's foreign ministry that this patent 
     affront to Japanese sovereignty would strengthen right-wing 
     sentiment in the country as well as right-wing calls for 
     rearmament. Moreover, the visit of the emperor and empress to 
     China would be jeopardized. The PRC's elderly leadership, 
     with its vivid memories of Japanese cruelty during World War 
     II, fears the re-militarization of Japan. Chinese leaders 
     also very much wanted the imperial visit to proceed on 
     schedule since they were hoping it would include a long-
     awaited official apology for Japanese aggression against 
     China during the war. Thus, barely a month after the law was 
     passed, a spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry 
     explained that the NPC's decision ``was part of a normal 
     domestic legislative process, did not represent a change in 
     Chinese policy, and would not affect the joint development of 
     the islands with countries involved in the dispute.'' \26\
       Indonesia despatched its foreign minister to Bejing 
     immediately after learning that a Chinese map showed the 
     Natuna Islands as part of the PRC's exclusive economic zone. 
     He was told by Chinese foreign minister Qian Quichen that the 
     PRC considers the Natunas to be under Indonesian 
     jurisdiction, and has never claimed them.\27\
       Confronted with an unusual unity of Latin American states, 
     including Cuba, who denounced China's playing of cold-war 
     games on their continent, the PRC cast its security council 
     vote in favor of extending the UN peace-keeping force in 
     Haiti for four more months with a maximum of 1,200 troops. 
     The resolution was introduced by China, which subsequently 
     described its ``adherence to principles and flexibility'' as 
     having been ``hailed by the international community.'' \28\
       China's belligerence in the Taiwan Strait calmed down after 
     two U.S. carrier battle groups were despatched to the area in 
     mid-March 1996. The PRC even declared that Lee Teng-hui's 
     resounding victory in the March 23 election was actually a 
     triumph for its point of view, since Lee's major opponent had 
     been an outspoken proponent of independence.
       One should not draw unduly optimistic conclusions from the 
     instances cited above. The Chinese foreign ministry's attempt 
     to soften the impact of the 1992 law does not mean that the 
     law has been withdrawn; the claims made in it can be advanced 
     again at any time. Qian Quichen's telling his Indonesian 
     counterpart that China does not claim the Natunas does not 
     explain how the map placing it in the PRC's exclusive 
     economic zone came to exist. Qian's promise was apparently 
     oral, and might be re-interpreted in the future. And the 
     mainland could seize on any of a wide variety of 
     happenstances to resume its menacing posture with regard to 
     Taiwan.
       There are also examples of efforts to induce the PRC to 
     modify its behavior having no results at all, or results that 
     might even be interpreted as worse than before. For example, 
     the PRC continued nuclear testing despite Japan's repeated 
     entreaties that it stop. The Japanese government responded by 
     suspending grants-in-aid to China until the testing stopped. 
     The PRC then began conducting research activities in the 
     Senkakus, with a Chinese source telling a Tokyo newspaper 
     that the action had been taken as an act of reprisal for the 
     suspended aid.\29\
       The strategy that the PRC seems to be employing is one of 
     probing: where a rival claimant or potential adversary seems 
     weak, apply pressure. Where expedient, back down, at least 
     temporarily. Where public opinion in the rival claimant or 
     potential adversary seems to waver in its support for 
     applying retaliatory pressure, ignore the pressure from that 
     country to back down and seek to exploit the divisions. The 
     fact that most of these countries have freedom of the press 
     and outspoken citizens with differing opinions facilitates 
     the PRC's task. As a case in point, Japan's attempts to 
     modify China's behavior are not helped when Japanese 
     newspapers report that ``most government officials are averse 
     to freezing the loans, saying that yen-based loans are one of 
     the bases of our policies toward China.'' \30\
       Similarly, Chinese officials are well aware that both the 
     Bush and Clinton administrations have been reluctant to apply 
     the sanctions that U.S. law enjoins them to, fearing

[[Page H7002]]

     adverse effects on American corporations that do business 
     with the PRC. In 1991, when the U.S. Central Intelligence 
     Agency (CIA) revealed that the PRC had shipped missile 
     components to Pakistan, the Bush administration suspended 
     U.S. missile technology sales to the two Chinese state-
     affiliated companies that shipped the components. The ban was 
     lifted less than a year later, after China pledged to follow 
     the multilateral Missile Technology Control Regime.
       However, In 1993, the CIA reported that the PRC had resumed 
     shipping the components. Washington then blocked the sale of 
     $500 million of communications satellites and related 
     technology to Beijing. The sanctions were lifted on February 
     7, 1996, the same day that administration officials announced 
     that China had secretly sold to Pakistan ring magnets used to 
     refine bomb-grade uranium. Intelligence sources had actually 
     revealed the sale the year before, but the State Department, 
     fearing that making the information public would antagonize 
     the PRC, at first maintained that the evidence was not 
     sufficiently clear-cut.\31\ Aware that the U.S. president is 
     reluctant to disadvantage American businesses by enforcing 
     the penalties specified for proliferation, the PRC has little 
     incentive to modify its behavior. Clinton will probably 
     announce selective sanctions on selected PRC factories,\32\ 
     more because it will enable him to deflect his domestic 
     critics' accusations that U.S. behavior encourages China to 
     violate agreements than because he believes that the 
     sanctions will encourage China to modify its behavior. 
     Unfortunately, since it demonstrates that the U.S. has 
     written laws with sanctions that it dares not put into 
     practice, this sort of behavior reinforces Mao Zedong's long-
     ago characterization of the United States as a paper tiger. 
     While able and willing to roar loudly, the American tiger is 
     highly unlikely to use its teeth.
       The PRC has shown that it will back down when confronted 
     with determined and united resistance, as it did in the case 
     of the UN peacekeeping force in Haiti. Neither determination 
     nor unity have characterized either the United States' or 
     Asian countries' policies. While Asian nations quietly 
     supported the U.S. decision to send carrier battle groups to 
     the Taiwan area,\33\ their public stance was so low-key as to 
     become the focus of criticism in their own countries. For 
     example, an editorial in Bangkok's The Nation described the 
     Thai government's response as ``flaccid diplomacy'' and 
     warned that ``Thailand gains little by appearing so 
     unimaginatively obsequious to Beijing.'' \34\ Similarly, the 
     Tokyo daily Sankei Shimbun accused Japan's Ministry of 
     Foreign Affairs of being ``weak-kneed'' and ``showing 
     consideration only for relations with China, as usual.'' \35\
       Although this kind of response was common, it was not 
     universal. Fears about the implications of China's actions 
     against Taiwan for its own territory and concerned with the 
     fate of the thousands of Filipino guest-workers on Taiwan 
     notwithstanding, the major concern of the Filipino press was 
     whether their country could be dragged into a conflict 
     between China and Taiwan if it allowed United States ships to 
     dock at ports in the Philippines.\36\
       There are signs that this attitude of fatalistic passivity 
     may be changing. The Asian Regional Forum (ARF) was 
     established in July 1994 to provide a high-level consultative 
     group on security matters within the area, though it has yet 
     to show any concrete results. ARF has created no dispute 
     resolution mechanisms, and other members have so far been 
     disinclined to put pressure on China to discuss the issues 
     causing the most tension. Conversely, the PRC has 
     successfully pressured ARF members not to allow the ROC to 
     participate, even as an observer, and has also blocked the 
     island from membership in the Asia Pacific Parliamentary 
     Forum (APPF.\37\ The Asia-Pacific Security Dialogue, held in 
     March 1996 against a backdrop of missile tests in the Taiwan 
     Strait that, as one Bangkok newspaper phrased it ``unnerved 
     the region, but this issue did not make the agenda . . . the 
     three-member Chinese delegation at the seminar said they had 
     no intention of allowing what Beijing considers to be an 
     internal affairs be brought up for discussion at the forum.'' 
     \38\
       Individual and bilateral responses the China's behavior 
     have also occurred. For example, the Japanese cabinet has 
     submitted a bill to the Diet that would establish a 200-
     nautical mile economic zone around the country's coastline 
     which will include the Senkakus,\39\ and the Liberal 
     Democratic Party (LDP)'s Policy Research Council began ''in-
     depth study on measures to cope with a possible situation 
     seriously affecting Japan's security, including introduction 
     of emergency legislation.'' \40\ The LDP's instructions to 
     its research council made it clear that this threat was 
     expected to emanate from the PRC.
       Also to China's annoyance, Vietnam and the Philippines 
     concluded a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea governing 
     the two countries' conduct with regard to the disputed 
     Spratly Islands. The PRC's position is that, since it alone 
     holds indisputable sovereignty over the Spratly, such 
     declarations by other countries amount to infringing on 
     China's rights.\41\ The Philippines embarked on a force 
     modernization program immediately after the confrontation 
     with China in the Spratlys.\42\ And the Five Power Defense 
     Arrangement (FPDA), involving Australia, Malaysia, New 
     Zealand, Singapore, and the United Kingdom, was reactivated. 
     In late March 1996, the FPDA members held an eight-day 
     exercise designed to repel an air attack against Singapore 
     and Malaysia.\43\ Taiwan has also made large arms purchases, 
     though it has frequently been prevented from buying the kinds 
     and models of equipment it desires because supplier countries 
     fear risking their business interests with the PRC if they 
     sell weapons to the ROC.
       These are small steps, and it remains to be seen whether 
     more substantive consensus on settling outstanding disputes 
     with the PRC can be achieved. If the parties to the dispute 
     over the Spratlys agree to China's demands that they 
     negotiate bilaterally, then the position of all is weakened. 
     One is reminded of Benjamin Franklin's advice to the 
     fractious colonies that were attempting to resist Great 
     Britain: we must all hang together, or most assuredly we will 
     hang separately.


                               END NOTES

     \1\ Cited by Larry M. Wortzel, ``China Pursues Traditional 
     Great-Power Status, Orbis, Spring 1994, p. 158.
     \2\ Yan Xuetong, ``China Security Goals Do Not Pose a Threat 
     To World, Analyst Says,'' China Daily (Beijing), March 4, 
     1996, p. 4.
     \3\ Xing Shizhong, ``China Threat Theory Can Be Forgotten,'' 
     Quishi (Seeking Truth; Beijing), February 1996, p. 16.
     \4\ Ibid., p. 17.
     \5\ Fang Zhi, ``Who Threatens Whom After All?--Interview with 
     Xu Xin,'' Liaowang (Beijing), February 19, 1996, pp. 48-49, 
     in United States National Technical Information Service, 
     Foreign Broadcast Information System: Volume I, China; 
     hereafter FBIS-CHI, March 21, 1996, pp. 34-37; quote is from 
     p. 35.
     \6\ Lu Linzhi, ``Preemptive Strikes Crucial in Limited, High-
     Technology Wars,'' Jiefangjun bao (Liberation Army Daily; 
     Beijing), February 14, 1996, p. 6, in FBIS-CHI, February 6, 
     1996, pp. 20-21.
     \7\ Barbara Starr, ``China Spends Treble the Official Defense 
     Budget,'' Jane's Defence Weekly, July 8, 1995, p. 14.
     \8\ Robert Karniol, ``China To Buy Russian Kilo Submarines,'' 
     Jane's Defence Weekly, November 19, 1994, p. 1.
     \9\ Kyodo (Tokyo), quoting Canadian sources, March 16, 1996, 
     in FBIS-CHI, March 18, 1996, p. 45.
     \10\ Bates Gill, ``Russia, Israel Help Force Modernization,'' 
     Jane's Defence Weekly (London), January 31, 1996, pp. 54; 56.
     \11\ See, e.g., Liu Weiling, ``China To Unlock Potential In 
     the West,'' China Daily Business Weekly (Beijing), March 24-
     30, 1996, p. 7. The author quotes one deputy as saying that 
     ``unbalanced policy toward the east and central-west are 
     chiefly to blame for the wide gap.''
     \12\ Willy Wo-Lap Lam, ``Relentless Expansion of Army Power 
     Viewed,'' South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), March 20, 
     1996, p. 21.
     \13\ Li Feng and Lilian Wu, ``Taiwan Invests US$ 1.7 Billion 
     in Shenzhen,'' Central News Agency (Taipei), via Internet, 
     April 1, 1996.
     \14\ William Ashton, ``Chinese Bases in Burma--Fact or 
     Fiction?'' Jane's Intelligence Review, February 1995, p. 123.
     \15\ The law was promulgated by Xinhua, February 25, 1992; a 
     translation appears in FBIS-CHI, February 28, 1992, pp. 2-3.
     \16\ Tim Weiner, ``Atom Parts Sold To Pakistan By China, U.S. 
     Says,'' New York Times, February 8, 1996, pp. A1; A6.
     \17\ Hiroyuki Sugiyama, ``PRC Likely To Increase Activity in 
     Japanese Waters,'' Yomiuri Shimbun (Tokyo), January 4, 1996, 
     p. 3, in FBIS-EAS, January 23, 1996, pp. 7-8.
     \18\ Rain Ren and Leo Law, ``Patten Attacks Beijing's 
     `Caretaker' Decision,'' Eastern Express (Hong Kong), March 
     25, 1996, p. 1; Edward A. Gargan, ``Hong Kong Tense As 
     China's Pledges Appear To Fade,'' New York Times, April 1, 
     1996, pp. A1; A7.
     \19\ Barbara Crossette, ``Latin Nations At U.N. Insist China 
     Change Stand On Haiti,'' New York Times, February 24, 1996, 
     p. 6.
     \20\ J.V. Cruz, ``U.S., Taiwan Provoked the Current Crisis,'' 
     The Manila Chronicle, March 12, 1996, p. 4, in FBIS-EAS, 
     March 25, 1996, p. 63.
     \21\ Greg Austin, ``China's Ocean Limits--Time To Settle,'' 
     paper prepared for discussion at the U.S. Institute for 
     Peace, Washington, D.C., September 4, 1995, p. 2.
     \22\ Xinhua, May 15, 1995.
     \23\ Ashton, p. 124.
     \24\ Ashton, p. 125.
     \25\ These points are made in Alastair Iain Johnston's 
     ``Prospects for Chinese Nuclear Force Modernization: Limited 
     Deterrence Versus Multilateral Arms Control,'' China 
     Quarterly (London), June 1996, forthcoming.
     \26\ Ma Baolin, ``Legislation Doesn't Mean Policy Change,'' 
     Beijing Review (Beijing), March 30-April 5, 1992, pp. 10-11.
     \27\ Antara (Jakarta), July 25, 1995, in FBIS East Asia and 
     the Pacific, hereafter FBIS-EAS, July 24, 1995, p. 75.
     \28\ The original suggestion had been for six months and 
     ``about'' 2,000 troops and police officers, allowing China to 
     save face. See Crossette, op. cit., and ``China's UN Vote On 
     Haiti Shows `Principles, Flexibility, `Zhongguo xinwen she 
     (China News Bureau, Beijing), March 1, 1996, in FBIS-CHI, 
     March 5, 1996, pp. 3-4.
     \29\ Sugiyama, op. cit., pp. 7-8.
     \30\ (no author), ``Article Views Government's Stance Toward 
     PRC, Taiwan,'' Nihon Keizai Shimbun (Tokyo), March 24, 1996, 
     p. 4, in FBIS-CHI, March 25, 1996.
     \31\ Weiner, op. cit., p. A6.
     \32\ Steven Erlanger, ``U.S. Set To Impose Limited Trade 
     Sanctions on China, Administration Says,'' New York Times, 
     February 27, 1996, p. A5.
     \33\ Nayan Chanda, ``Winston Lord: `Asians Laud Us 
     Privately,' Far Eastern Economic Review, April 4, 1996, p. 
     17.
     \34\ (no author), ``Government Needs To Be More Imaginative 
     on Taiwan,'' The Nation (Bangkok), March 18, 1996, p. A4, in 
     FBIS-EAS, March 21, 1996, pp. 57-58.
     \35\ Akihiko Ota, ``The Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Handling 
     of the China-Taiwan Tension Is Questioned--a Wrong Signal to 
     China,'' Sankei Shimbun, March 18, 1996, p. 2, in FBIS-EAS, 
     March 21, 1996, pp. 8-9.
     \36\ (no author), ``Philippines Military Analysts on U.S. 
     Navy Use of Ports,'' Business World (Manila), March 25, 1996, 
     (no page number: received via Internet).
     \37\ Saranyu Samakratkit, ``China Opposes U.S. Proposal to 
     Grant Taiwan APPF Membership,'' Thailand Times (Bangkok), 
     January 18, 1996, p. A2, in FBIS-EAS, January 25, 1996, p. 7.
     \38\ Micool Brooke, ``Security Dialogue: A Step Forward,'' 
     The Sunday Post (Bangkok), March 31, 1996, p. 24, in FBIS-
     EAS, April 2, 1996, pp. 88-90.
     \39\ ``Cabinet Considering Adopting 200-Mile Economic Zone 
     Package,'' Kyodo, March 25, 1996, in FBIS-EAS, March 26, 
     1996, pp. 6-7.

[[Page H7003]]

     \40\ Ota, op. cit., p. 8.
     \41\ Jean Magdaraog, ``PRC `Very Concerned' About Manila-
     Hanoi Pact,'' Malaya (Quezon City), November 16, 1995, pp. 
     1;6 in FBIS-EAS, November 21, 1995, pp. 61-62.
     \42\ Dario B. Agnote, ``Reports on Planned Military 
     Purchases,'' Kyodo, August 31, 1995, in FBIS-EAS, August 14, 
     1995, pp. 79-80.
     \43\ (no author), ``FDPA 8-Day Air Defense Exercise Under 
     Way,'' The Straits Times (Singapore), March 23, 1996, p.3, in 
     FBIS-EAS, March 25, 1996, p.3.

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House 
Joint Resolution 182.
  MFN status is not a concession and does not mean that China is 
getting preferable trade treatment--there really is no most favored in 
MFN. MFN means China and the United States grant each other the same 
tariff treatment that they provide to other countries with MFN status--
which is everyone except a few rogue states such as North Korea.
  Revocation of MFN would be a lose-lose situation for the American 
people. It would cause substantial harm to the U.S. economy. Trade with 
China has provided American businesses with a tremendous economic 
growth opportunity.
  And as we have seen in other areas of the world, trade restrictions 
are successful in changing behavior only when they are universally 
observed. Unilateral action won't work. China will have little reason 
to change since Beijing can simply take its business elsewhere.
  I ask you to vote against House Joint Resolution 182. Only by 
fostering economic prosperity can we hope to see the changes in China 
that we all want. Vote ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 182.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, China has enjoyed most-favored-nation 
trading status for many years. I have supported MFN for China for the 
past 3 years with the hope that the United States and China would both 
benefit from a cooperative relationship. In fact, the opposite has 
happened. China has engaged in unfair trade, pirated intellectual 
property, proliferated nuclear weapons, acted with belligerence toward 
Taiwan, smuggled arms into the United States, and engaged in human 
rights violations. Because of China's actions, I will regrettably 
oppose MFN status.
  China's trade status with the United States gives us leverage. We 
must use it to further American interests, interests affecting trade, 
foreign policy, American exports, and American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I am voting against MFN for China because it is time to 
send a message to the Chinese and to our trade leaders, and I emphasize 
our own trade leaders, that more of the same from China is not 
acceptable. If our Government wants support for free trade, then it 
must insist on fair and equal standards and compliance with our trade 
laws. When that happens, there will be broader support for MFN.
  Mr. Speaker, China has enjoyed most-favored-nation trading status for 
many years. I have supported MFN for China for the past 3 years with 
the hope that the United States and China would both benefit from a 
cooperative relationship. In fact, the opposite has happened. China has 
engaged in unfair trade practices, pirated intellectual property, 
proliferated nuclear weapons, suppressed democracy, acted with 
belligerence toward Taiwan, smuggled arms into the United States, and 
engaged in human rights violations. Because of China's actions--I will 
regrettably oppose MFN status.
  China has gladly profited from MFN while continually flaunting 
international agreements and standards of conduct. China sends more 
than one-third of its exports to the United States while only 2 percent 
of American exports can crack the Chinese market. The result: we now 
have a $34 billion trade deficit with China.
  China's trade with the United States gives us leverage. We must use 
it--to further American interests--interests affecting trade, foreign 
policy, American exports, and American workers.
  I applaud recent efforts to win an intellectual property agreement to 
protect American products from state-sponsored piracy in China. I hope 
it will yield results. But more than that, the IPR agreement 
demonstrates how the United States can and should use its enormous 
leverage to protect American interests and further a genuine global 
trading community.
  The United States must not give China a pass on the tough issues. We 
need to use our trade laws to pressure China for greater access for 
American companies and goods. We need to take action when China 
knowingly aids in the proliferation of weapons and weapons technology. 
And we need to take steps to shield American workers from unfair and 
inhumane prison labor.
  I am voting against MFN for China because it is time to send a 
message to the Chinese and to our trade leaders, and I emphasize our 
own trade leaders, that more of the same from China is not acceptable. 
If our Government wants support for free trade, then it must insist on 
fair and equal standards and compliance with our trade laws. When that 
happens--there will be broader support for MFN.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 182.
  Perhaps no international relationship is more complicated than that 
of the United States with China. Our vastly different cultures and 
histories, and particularly China's appalling record on human rights 
and democratization make reaching out and understanding each other 
profoundly difficult.
  Yet difficult as it is, it must be done. Profound economic change is 
sweeping China. This means not only jobs for Americans here at home. In 
1995 alone more than $68 million in goods produced in Connecticut went 
to China. It also means improved living conditions, improved wages, and 
employee benefits for some Chinese, because of the practices introduced 
by American companies.
  Like many of my colleagues, I believe that our policy toward China 
must go beyond MFN. Trade is only part of a larger dialogue. It is time 
to stop treating the annual debate on MFN as the lens through which we 
examine all facets of our relationship with China. Extension of MFN, in 
my view and in that of many of my colleagues, in no way condones 
China's policies. Instead, it is a way of keeping the window open and 
keeping the dialogue going.
  Revoking MFN would significantly weaken our political and economic 
position. It would weaken our ability to improve human rights. It would 
weaken our efforts to promote fair world trade. And it would weaken our 
position in the world arena.
  Revocation is simply the wrong message and the wrong action. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, could you please give us the 
time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer] has 15\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] 
has 17\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] has 2\1/
2\ minutes, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has 10 
minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] has 13 minutes.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard time and time again today several 
arguments in favor of keeping the current trade policy toward China. 
One is that if we change the trade policy that we currently have, that 
it is tantamount to walking away or tantamount to no trade at all, or 
tantamount to an embargo against China. I hope those who are listening, 
I hope those who are reading the Congressional Record, will note no one 
on our side of the aisle or our side of the debate, I guess I should 
say, especially myself, who is the author of the resolution, is 
advocating any of that. That is not what this debate is about. As far 
as I am concerned, that is not a legitimate part of the debate, 
although we hear it time and time again expressed. The fact is we are 
talking about the current trade status.
  Now, those who are opposed to my resolution accurately say that we 
are not talking about most-favored-nation status because it sounds like 
it is something more than our current trade status, but what I am 
suggesting is our current trade status is immoral, it is

[[Page H7004]]

wrong both economically and strategically for the United States; in 
other words, that it does not benefit the United States to have the 
current trade status.
  Also let us note that during this debate, over and over again we have 
heard the other argument presented by the other side, which the main 
argument is that if we continue with our current trade status, it will 
mean a more prosperous China and a more prosperous china will be a 
freer and less threatening China. That is a theory. That theory has 
been proven, in reality for the last 9 years, to be absolutely 180 
degrees opposite from what reality is. That theory is wrong, and I hope 
those people who are reading the Congressional Record will note that 
those making that argument are making it in the face of overwhelming 
evidence that it is wrong.
  China is becoming more repressive and has become more repressive, has 
become more belligerent and more threatening to its neighbors even 
though we have the current trade policy and we have renewed it since 
the massacre at Tiananmen Square in 1989.
  So the opposition to my suggestion that we change current trade 
policy is based on an incorrect analysis of reality, a theory that is 
not working and a straw-man argument that just does not hold water 
because that is not what we are advocating in terms of an embargo or 
walking away from China.
  What we are suggesting is that the current trade relationship with 
China hurts the American people, first. It hurts the American people. 
It costs us jobs. The argument that there are 170,000 jobs created by 
our trade relationship with China, that holds some water until we 
realize that our trade relationship with China costs the American 
people hundreds of thousands of more jobs, that our trade relationship 
with China is an attack on the well-being of the American working 
people.
  Now, certainly some major corporations benefit from our current 
trading relationship. There are some people making a profit, and there 
are some jobs being created. But clearly, but clearly when we talk 
about representing the interests of our people, the overall effect of 
our trading policy with China is to attack the well-being. We are 
putting our own people out of work by the hundreds of thousands so that 
a few corporate interests can make a big profit and a few other jobs 
will be created. So it is wrong, wrong, wrong economically.
  We are supposed to represent the interests of our people. If we are 
not here to represent the interests of our people, who is? Who is going 
to argue their case?
  Now, what does it represent as well economically? It means a $35 
billion drain on capital from the United States which would be here for 
our people to build factories and such that now goes to China because 
they have a net benefit of $35 billion every year from their trade 
relationship with us. What do they do with that money? They spend that 
$35 billion producing a modern weapons arsenal that some day may be 
used to kill Americans. That makes absolutely no sense.
  They are stealing our technology, they are belligerent against their 
neighbors, they are in fact the worst human rights abusers on the 
planet today, and we are giving them a trade relationship that nets 
them a $35 billion benefit every year. This makes no sense; it is 
insane.
  And my last argument is it is morally wrong. As we celebrate our 
Fourth of July and as we celebrate those words of Thomas Jefferson and 
our Founding Fathers that put our country on a higher plane than just 
those people who would be making policy based on the self-interests of 
the economic elite of their country, we stand for freedom, we stand for 
liberty, and as long as we do, the people in China who will try to 
build a better China and try to build a more peaceful and prosperous 
China, they are being demoralized by our lack of respect for our own 
principles.
  Let us change the trade policy with China. To vote for most-favored-
nation status is a morally bankrupt position.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter from 881 
American companies and associations for the Record.

                                                Business Coalition


                                for United States-China Trade,

                                                    June 20, 1996.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Unconditional renewal of China's MFN 
     trading status is in our nation's interest. We urge the 
     Executive Branch and the Congress to work together on a 
     bipartisan basis to ensure unconditional renewal of MFN and 
     to defeat any legislation that would restrict or condition 
     future expansion of U.S-China trade. We welcome recent 
     statements by you and by former Senate Majority Leader Dole 
     expressing support for unconditional renewal of MFN.
       America's prosperity rests on our continued leadership in 
     the global economy. In the last five years, China has become 
     the fastest-growing market in the world for American exports.
       In 1995, exports of U.S. goods and services to China rose 
     by 26 percent, reaching nearly $14 billion annually. These 
     exports support over 200,000 high-wage American jobs. Our 
     exports were led by rising demand for U.S. aerospace 
     products, computers, grains, chemicals, telecommunications 
     technology, power generation equipment, electronics, and 
     financial services.
       Last year, China imported $2.6 billion of U.S. farm 
     products, making it the sixth-largest market in the world for 
     American agriculture. While many of our other leading farm 
     customers are mature Asian and European markets, China has 
     vast potential. To reap the historic promise of the ``freedom 
     to farm'' bill, America's farmers need continued access to 
     export markets.
       U.S.-China trade also supports hundreds of thousands of 
     jobs in U.S. consumer goods companies, ports, transportation 
     firms, and retail establishments.
       These exports and jobs would be put at risk if MFN is not 
     renewed or if restrictions and conditions are imposed on 
     future expansion of U.S.-China trade. America's reputation as 
     a reliable supplier would be called into question again by 
     our customers around the world if we revert to a failed 
     policy of using U.S. trade as a foreign policy weapon.
       In the last decade, China's market-oriented reforms, which 
     U.S. trade and investment help to support, have contributed 
     to vast improvements in the lives of hundreds of millions of 
     Chinese by raising incomes, expanding economic freedom, 
     improving access to information, and fostering increased 
     support for the rule of law. Cutting off U.S. trade would end 
     the positive influence of American companies in the Chinese 
     workplace and set back the entrepreneurial forces that offer 
     the best hope for freedom and democracy in China.
       We have urged the Chinese Government to fully adhere to its 
     negotiated agreements. We have also urged China to undertake 
     the far-reaching commitments required to join the WTO on a 
     commercially acceptable basis.
       The ultimate goal of U.S. policy should be to move beyond 
     the divisive annual struggles over China's MFN trading status 
     to a stable and mature relationship that advances American 
     jobs, prosperity, and security. We believe such steps are in 
     our nation's interest. We look forward to working closely 
     with you and the Congressional leadership in the coming weeks 
     to achieve the goal of stabilizing and improving this vital 
     bilateral relationship.
           Sincerely,
       3M Company; A & C Trade Consultants, Inc.; AAI Corporation; 
     Aaron Ferer & Sons Co.; AATA International, Inc.; Abacus 
     Group of America, Inc.; ABB, Inc.; Abbott Laboratories; ACCEL 
     Technologies; AccSys Technology Inc.; Acme Foundry Inc.; ACTS 
     Testing Labs, Inc.; adidas, AMERICA; Advanced Controls; Aero 
     Machine Co. Inc.; Aerospace Industries Association of 
     America, Inc.; Aerospace Products Inc.; Aerospace Services 
     and Products; AES China Generating Co., The; AES Corporation, 
     The; Agribusiness Assn. of Iowa; Agri-Chemicals Corp.; 
     Agricultural Retailers Association; Agrifos L.L.C.; Air 
     Products & Chemicals Inc.;.
       Airguage Company; Airport Systems International, Inc.; 
     Albany International Corporation; Allen-Edmonds; Allied 
     Signal Inc.; Alta Technologies Incorporated; Alto Findley 
     Inc.; AM General Corporation; Amber, Inc.; Amer-China 
     Partners Ltd.; American Accessories International, L.L.C.; 
     American Applied Research; American Association of Exporters 
     & Importers; American Automobile Manufacturers Association; 
     American Bangladesh Economic Forum, The; American Chamber of 
     Commerce--Korea, The; American Chamber of Commerce in 
     Australia, The; American Chamber of Commerce in Guangdong, 
     The; American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, The; American 
     Chamber of Commerce in Indonesia, The; American Chamber of 
     Commerce in Japan, The; American Chamber of Commerce in 
     Okinawa, The; American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei, The; 
     American Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines, The; 
     American Chamber of Commerce in Vietnam--Ho Chi Minh City 
     Chapter, The; American Chamber of Commerce People's Republic 
     of China--Shanghai, The; American Chamber of Commerce 
     People's Republic of China--Beijing, The; American Crop 
     Protection Association; American Electronics Association; 
     American Express Company; American Farm Bureau Federation; 
     American Financial Services Association; American Forest & 
     Paper Association; American Home Products Corporation; 
     American International Group, Inc.; American Malaysian 
     Chamber of Commerce, The; American Pacific Enterprises Inc.; 
     American

[[Page H7005]]

     President Lines, Ltd.; American Seed Trade Association; 
     American Shorthorn Association; American Soybean Association; 
     American Standard Inc.; American White Wheat Producers 
     Assoc.; Ameritech International; Amiran Zaloom;
       Amoco Corporation; AMP Incorporated; Amway Corporation; 
     Andersen Worldwide; Anderson Roethle, Inc.; Andersons, Inc., 
     The; Andros, Inc.; Angel-Etts of California, Inc.; Ann 
     Taylor, Inc.; APEX Broaching Systems; Apoly Industrial 
     Limited; Aptek, Industries; Arbiter Systems, Inc.; ARCO 
     International; Argo Oil & Gas Corporation; Arizona Chamber of 
     Commerce; Armstrong World Industries; ARR/MAZ PRODUCTS, L.P.; 
     ASICS TIGER CORPORATION; Asmara Inc.; Associated Company 
     Inc.; Association for Manufacturing Technology, The; 
     Association of Business & Industry (Oklahoma State Chamber of 
     Commerce); AT&T ATC International, Inc.; ATSCO Footwear 
     Inc.; Audre, Inc.; AXTOM Training Inc.; Axis Corporation, 
     The; B & B Machine & Tooling Inc.; B&S Steel of Kansas, Inc.; 
     B.H. Aircraft Co. Inc.; Baker & Daniels; Baker, Maxham, 
     Jester & Meador; Bakery Crafts; Bandai America Incorporated; 
     Barbara Franklin Enterprises; Barclays Bank PLC/New York; 
     Baron-Abramson Inc.; Bartow Steel, Inc.; BBC International 
     Ltd.; BCI; Bechtel Group, Inc.; Belk Brothers; Bell South 
     Corporation;
       Bennett Importing; Berelson & Company; Best Products Co., 
     Inc.; Beta First Inc.; Beta/Unitex, Inc.; Black & Veatch 
     International; Blue Box Toys, Inc.; BNL Corp.; Boatmans/Bank 
     IV; Boeing Company, The; Bomamza Enterprises, Bombay Company, 
     Inc., The; Bradbury Co., Inc.; Brahm & Krenz International 
     Ltd.; Breslow, Morrison, Terzian & Associates; Bridgecreek 
     Development Co.; Bridgecreek Realty Company; Bristol-Myers 
     Squibb Company; Brite Voice Systems; Brittain Machine, Inc.; 
     Brookstone, Inc.; Brown & Root, Inc.; Brown Shoe Company; 
     Broyhill Inc.; Brunswick River Terminal, Inc.; Budd Company, 
     The; Buffalo Technologies Corporation; Bunge Corporation; 
     Burnett Contracting & Drilling Co., Inc.; Business 
     Roundtable, The; BUTLER GROUP, THE; C&J CLARK AMERICA; C.J. 
     Bridges Railroad Contractor, Inc.; Cadaco, Inc.; Caldor 
     Corporation, The; California Chamber of Commerce; California 
     Microwave, Inc.; California R & D Center; California Sunshine 
     Inc.; Caltex Petroleum Association; Cape Cod Chamber of 
     Commerce; Capital-Mercury Shirt Corp.; Caplan's; Cargill 
     Detroit Corporation; Cargill Fertilizer, Inc.;
       Cargill Flour Milling; Cargill, Inc.; Carroll, Burdick, 
     McDonough LLP; Carson Pirie Scott & Co.; Caterpillar Inc.; 
     The Cato Corporation; Celestair, Inc.; Cels Enterprises; 
     Center Industries Corp.; Central Maintenance & Welding, Inc.; 
     Central Purchasing of China, Inc.; Centurion International 
     Inc.; Cessna Aircraft Company; CF Industries, Inc.; CHA 
     Industries; Chadwick Marketing, Ltd.; The Chamber of Commerce 
     of Hawaii; Chance Industries; Chapin, Fleming & Winet; 
     Charles Engineering Inc.; The Chase Manhattan Corporation; 
     Chemical Manufacturers Association; Chevron Corporation; 
     Chief Industries, Inc.; China Products North America, Inc.; 
     China Trade Development Corp.; China-American Trade Society; 
     Chrysler Corporation; The Chubb Corporation; CIGNA 
     Corporation; Citicorp/Citibank; Clark Manufacturing Inc.; 
     Claude Mann & Associates Inc.; Clubhouse Marketing; Coalition 
     of Service Industries; Coastcom; The Coca-Cola Company; 
     Coffeyville Sektam Inc.; Coleman Company, Inc.; Colorworks; 
     Commonwealth Toy & Novelty Co., Inc.; Compaq Computer 
     Corporation; Compressed Air Products, Inc.; Computalog, USA; 
     Computer & Communication Industry Association;
       Computing Devices International; ConAgra, Inc.; Conoco; 
     Continental Grain Company; Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.; Corn 
     Refiners Association; Cornhusker Bank; Corning Incorporated; 
     Coudert Brothers; Countrymark Cooperative Inc.; CPC 
     International, Inc.; Craft Corporation; Crate & Barrel; 
     Creative Computer Solutions; CSX Corp.; CSX Transportation; 
     CTL Distribution, Inc.; Cumberland Packing Corp.; Cybercom; 
     Daggar Group Ltd.; Daisy Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Dale C. 
     Rossman, Inc.; Daniel Valve Co.; DAN-LOC Corporation; Darling 
     International Inc.; Dawahare's, Inc.; Dayton Hudson 
     Corporation; Deere & Company; Dekalb Chamber of Commerce; 
     Diamond V. Mills, Inc.; Digital Equipment Corp.; Direct 
     Selling Association; D-J Engineering Inc.; Dodge City Chamber 
     of Commerce; Donnelley & Sons Company; Dothan Area Chamber of 
     Commerce; The Dow Chemical Company; Dow Corning; DPCS 
     International; Dresser Industries, Inc.; DuPont Company; 
     Duracell International Inc.; Dynasty Footwear; E.S. 
     Originals; Eagle Eyewear Inc.;
       Eaglebrook, Inc.; Easter Unlimited/Fun World; Eastman 
     Chemical Company; Eastman Kodak Company; Eaton Corporation; 
     Ebisons Harounian Imports; Eckerd Corporation; Ed Wheeler & 
     Associates; Eden L.L.C.; Edison Brothers Stores, Inc.; Edison 
     Mission Company; Edison Mission Energy; EDS; EG&G, Inc.; 
     Elan-Polo, Inc.; Electronic Industries Association; Eli Lilly 
     and Company; Elicon Endicott Johnson; Emergency Committee for 
     American Trade; Emeritus, Holland & Knight; Emerson Electric 
     Co.; Empire of Carolina, Inc.; Endicott Johnson Corporation; 
     Enercon Industries Corporation; Epperson & Company; Erie 
     Chamber of Commerce; Ernst & Young L.L.P.; The Ertl Company, 
     Inc.; Essex Group, Inc.; Everbrite Inc.; Excel Manufacturing 
     Inc.; Excelled Sheepskin and Leather Coat Corp.; Export 
     Specialists, Inc.; Exxon Corporation; Family Dollar Stores; 
     Farmland Hydro, L.P.; Farmland Industries, Inc.; Federated 
     Department Stores, Inc.; Feizy Import and Export Company; The 
     Fertilizer Institute; Fife Florida Electric Supply, Inc.; 
     FILA USA; Fingerhut Companies, Inc., First Chicago NBD 
     Corporation; Firstar Bank;
       Fischer Imaging Corporation; Fisher-Price, Inc.; Flight 
     Safety International; Florida Phosphate Council; Flour 
     Daniel, Inc.; FMC Corporation; FMC-Crosby Valve Inc.; FMH, 
     Inc.; FOOTACTION USA; Footwear Distributors and Retailers of 
     America, Inc.; Ford Motor Company; Forec Trading Inc.; Forte 
     Cashmere Company, Inc.; Forte Lighting, Inc.; Foster Wheeler 
     International; Foxboro Company; Frank L. Wells Company; 
     Freeman International Inc.; Freeport-McMoRan Inc.; Frio 
     Machine Inc.; GT Sales & Manufacturing Inc.; G.A. Germenian & 
     Sons; Galamba Metals Inc.; Galt Sand Co.; Galveston-Houston 
     Company; Gap, Inc., The; GEC Precision; Genencor 
     International, Inc.; General Dynamics Corporation; General 
     Electric Co.; General Motors Corporation; GENESCO, Inc.; 
     George Giocher, Inc.; Gingles Department Stores; Global 
     Construction; Global Group; Global Rug Corp.; Goodyear Tire 
     and Rubber Company; Gordy International; Gottschalks, Inc.; 
     Graham & James LLP; GRAND IMPORTS, INC.; Great American Fun 
     Corp.; Great Eastern Mountain Investment Corp.; Great Plains 
     Industries;
       Great Plains Manufacturing; Great Plains Ventures, Inc.; 
     Greater Hartford Chamber of Commerce; Greater North Fulton 
     Chamber of Commerce; Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce; 
     Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce; Guardian Industries 
     Corporation; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation; Gund Inc.; 
     Halliburton Company; Hallmark Cards, Inc.; Hallum Tooling 
     Inc.; Harlow Aircraft Manufacturing; Harris Company, The; 
     Harris Corporation; Harris Laboratories Inc.; Harry Sello & 
     Associates; Harsco Corporation; Harvest States Cooperatives; 
     Hasbro, Inc.; Hays Area Chamber of Commerce; Heart Care 
     Corporation of America; HEICO Corporation; Henry Company; 
     Hercules Incorporated; Hewlett-Packard Company; Hill and 
     Knowlton Public Affairs Worldwide Co.; Hills & Company; Hills 
     Pet Nutrition; Hoechst Celanese; Holland Pump & Equipment; 
     Holland Pump MFG, Inc.; Holt Company The,; Homecrest, Inc.; 
     Honeywell; HSQ Technology; Hub Tool & Supply Inc.; Hufcor, 
     Inc.; Hughes Electronics Corporation; Hurd Millwork Company, 
     Inc.; Hydril Company; IBM; IBM Greater China Group; IBP, 
     Inc.; IES Industries Inc.;
       IMC Global Inc.; IMC-Agrico Company; Imperial Toy 
     Corporation; Indiana Agribusiness Assoc.'s; Infra-Metals Co.; 
     Ingelbert S. Corp.; Ingersoll-Rand Co.; Interconnect Devices, 
     Inc.; Interex Computer Products; International Development 
     Planners; International Mass Retail Association; 
     International Sea Star, Inc.; International Seaway Trading 
     Corp.; International Trade Services; INTER-PACIFIC CORP.; 
     Intertrade Ltd.; Iowa Beef Packers; Irving Shoes; Irwin Toy; 
     ISCO, INC.; ITOCHU International Inc.; ITT Corporation; ITT 
     Industries; J. Baker, Inc.; J.C. Penney Company, Inc.; J.H. 
     Ham Engineering, Inc.; Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.; Janco 
     Corporation; Janex Corporation; Japan & Orient Tours, Inc.; 
     JBL International; Jerry Elsner Company, Inc.; JIMLAR 
     CORPORATION; Johnson & Johnson; Johnson Worldwide Associates; 
     Jolly U.S.A. Inc.; Jonathan Stone, Ltd.; J-TECH ASSOCIATES; 
     Juice Tree Inc.; JuNo Ind Inc.; K Mart Corporation; K X Metal 
     Inc.; Kalaty Rug Corporation; Kamen Wiping Materials Inc.; 
     Kansas Association for Small Business;
       Kansas City, KS Area Chamber of Commerce; Kansas Farm 
     Bureau; Kansas Livestock Association; Kansas State Chamber of 
     Commerce & Industry; Kansas State University; Kansas World 
     Trade Center; Karman, Inc.; Kasper Machine Company; Kids 
     International Corp.; Knitastiks; Koch Materials; Kohler 
     Company; Koll Asia Pacific; KSK INTERNATIONAL; K-SWISS, INC.; 
     L & M Enterprise; L & S Machine Co., Inc.; L D Supply Inc.; 
     L.A. GEAR; LAIRD, LIMITED; Lampton Welding Supply Co., Inc.; 
     Lane Piping & Equipment Company; Lear Corporation; Learjet; 
     Learning Curve Toys; Leather Apparel Association; LeFebure; 
     Leo A. Daly Company; Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc.; Liberty 
     Classic, Inc.; Lillian Vernon Corp.; Limited, Inc., The; 
     Lindsey Manufacturing Co.; Liquidynamics, Inc.; Litton 
     Engineering Laboratories; Litton Systems & Guidance Control; 
     Livernois Engineering; Liz Claiborne, Inc.; LJO, INC.; Local 
     Knowledge; Lockheed Martin Corporation; Loctite Corporation; 
     Lone Star Steel Company; Lorenzo, Inc.; Louis Dreyfus 
     Corporation;
       Lubbock Chamber of Commerce; Lucas-Milhaupt, Inc.; Lucent 
     Technologies; Lyons Manufacturing Company; M.W. 
     International, Inc.; Magnatek National Electric Coil; 
     Mandarin Pacific Bridge; Manitowoc Equipment Works; Manley 
     Toys USA Ltd.; Marcella Fine Rugs; Marjan International 
     Corp.; Marriott Lodging, International; Mars, Incorporated; 
     Martin-Decker/Totco Instrumentation, Incorporated; Masco 
     Corporation; Matlack Systems, Inc.; Mattel, Inc.; May Company 
     Stores, The; McClurkans; McDermott/Babcock & Wilcox; McDonald 
     & Pelz; McDonald Construction Corporation; McDonnell Douglas 
     Corporation; McGraw-Hill Companies, The; Mead Corporation; 
     Melder International Trade Inc.; Meldisco; Memcon 
     Corporation; MEPHISTO, INC.; MERCURY INTERNATIONAL; Meritus 
     Industries Inc.; Mesa Laboratories, Inc.; Metal Forming Inc.; 
     Metalcost Inc. of Florida; M-I Drilling Fluids L.L.C.; 
     Michaelian & Kohlberg; Micro Motion, Inc.; MIDAMAR

[[Page H7006]]

     CORPORATION, Mid-Central Manufacturing Inc.; Middle East Rug 
     Corporation, Midland Chamber of Commerce; Midland Furnigant 
     Company, Inc.; Midwest of Cannon Falls; Mighty Star, Inc.; 
     Millers' National Federation.
       Milling Precision Tool Inc.; Mine & Mill Supply Company; 
     Mini-Mac Inc.; Mires Machine Company, Inc.; Mize & Company; 
     Mizuno Corporation of America; Mobil Corporation; Momeni 
     Inc.; Monsanto Company; Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.; Morgan 
     Stanley Group; Motorola; Mount Sopris Instruments; Moussa 
     Etessami & Sons Corp.; Mulberry Motor Parts, Inc. (NAPA); 
     Mulberry Phosphates, Inc.; Mulberry Railcar Repair Co.; 
     Mustang International Groups Inc.; MWI Corporation; NAK, 
     Corp.; National Association of Chain Drug Stores; National 
     Association of Manufacturers; National Association of 
     Purchasing Managers; National Barley Growers Association; 
     National Broiler Council; National Corn Growers Association; 
     National Cottonseed Products Association; National Council of 
     Farmer Cooperatives; National Foreign Trade Council, Inc.; 
     National Grain and Feed Association; National Grain Sorghum 
     Producers; National Grain Trade Council; National Nuclear 
     Corporation; National Oilseed Processors Association; 
     National Plastics Color; National Retail Federation; National 
     Sporting Goods Association; National Sunflower Association; 
     National Turkey Federation; Natur's Way, Inc.; Natural 
     Science Industries, Ltd.; Nazdar; Nebraska Corn Growers 
     Association; Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation; Nebraska 
     Soybean Association.
       Nebraska Wheat Board; New Basics, Inc.; New England 
     Securities; Nexus Corp.; NIKE, Inc.; Nikko America Inc.; 
     Norand Corporation; Nordstrom Valves, Inc.; Norman Broadbent 
     International, Inc.; Normart Enterprises, Inc.; NORTEL 
     (Northern Telecom); North American Export Grain Association 
     Incorporated; North Shore Chamber of Commerce; Northridge 
     Travel Service; Northrop Grumman Corporation; Northwest 
     Horticultural Council; Norton McNaughton; Notations, Inc.; 
     NOURISON; Nylint Corp.; NYNEX Corporation; Ohio Art Company, 
     The; Ohsman & Sons Company; Oil Capital Limited, Inc.; Oil 
     States Industries Inc.; Oklahoma Fertilizer & Chemical 
     Association; Oklahoma Grain & Feed Association; Oklahoma 
     State Chamber of Commerce; OLEM SHOE CORP.; Orchid Holdings, 
     L.P.; Orient Express Rug Co.; Oriental Rug Importers 
     Association, Inc.; Overland Park Chamber of Commerce; Owens 
     Corning; Pac Am International; Pacific Bridge, Inc.; Pacific 
     Northwest Advisors; Pacific Rim Resources, Inc.; Pacific 
     Tradelink Inc.; PAN PACIFIC DESIGNS; Panamax; Parisian, Inc.; 
     Parker Majestic Inc.; Paul Harris Stores; Payless ShoeSource, 
     Inc.
       PC LTD.; PCS Phosphate--White Springs; PE/Koogler & 
     Associates; Peebles, Inc.; Peninsular Group, The Pennfield 
     Oil Company; Pepsico Food & Beverage Int'l.; Perigee 
     Technical Services, Inc.; Petroleum Equipment Suppliers 
     Association; Pfizer, Inc.; PhF Specialists Inc.; Philip 
     Morris International; Phillips Petroleum Company; Phoenix 
     Products Company, Inc.; Phoschem Supply Company; PIC'N PAY 
     STORES, INC.; Pick Machinery; Pico Design, Inc.; Pioneer 
     Balloon Company; Piscataway/Middlesex Area Chamber of 
     Commerce; Pizza Hut; Plastic Fabricating Co., Inc.; Play-
     Tech, Inc.; Polaroid Corporation; Polk Equipment Company, 
     Inc.; Polk Pump & Irrigation Co. Inc.; Porta-Kamp 
     Manufacturing Co. Inc.; Portman Holdings; Power Link Inc.; 
     PPG Industries, Inc.; Praxair, Inc.; Precision Manufacturing 
     Inc.; Pressman Toys; PREUSSAG Int'l Steel Corp.; Price 
     Waterhouse LLP; Processed Plastic Co.; Procter & Gamble; 
     PROFESSIONAL Machine & Tool; PTX-Pentronix Inc.; Puritan-
     Bennett Aerospace Systems; Quality Petroleum Corporation; 
     Quality Tech Metals; Quantum International; Racine Federated 
     Inc.; RACKESdirect
       Rail Safety Engineering; Rainbow Technologies; Rainfair, 
     Inc.; Ralston Purina International; Rays Apparel, Inc.; 
     Raytheon Aircraft Company; Raytheon Appliances, Inc. (Amana); 
     Raytheon Company; Reebok International, Ltd.; Regal Plastics 
     Company; Regent Intl. Corp; Reid & Priest LLP; Reliance Steel 
     & Aluminum Co.; Renaissance Carpet; Revell-Monogram, Inc.; 
     Reynold's Bros., Inc.; Richfield Hospitality Services, Inc.; 
     Riggs Tool Company Inc.; RIGHT STUFF, THE; Robin 
     International; Robinson Fans; Rockwell; Rohm and Haas Co.; 
     Ross Engineering Corp.; ROTO-MIX; Rubbermaid Speciality 
     Products, Inc.; Russ Berrie and Company, Inc.; RXL Pulitzer; 
     Ryan International Airlines; S. Rothchild & Co., Inc.; S.R.M. 
     Company, Inc.; Safari Ltd.; Salant Corporation; Salina Area 
     Chamber of Commerce; SALLAND INDUSTRIES LTD; Samad Brothers, 
     Inc.; Samsonite Corporation; Sand Livestock System, Inc.; 
     Sansei Hawaii, Inc.; Santa Barbara International Film Fest; 
     Sauder Custom Fabrication Inc.; SBC Communications Inc.; 
     Scarbroughs; Scarlett/Dalil Fashions; Schering-Plough 
     Corporation
       Scienfic Design Company, Inc.; Scranton Corp.; Sea-Land 
     Service, Inc.; Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Security DBS; SEEMA 
     International, Ltd.; Semiconductor Industry Association; 
     Shanghai Centre; Shanghai Industrial Consultants; SHONAC 
     CORP.; Smith Bros. Oil Company; SmithKline Beecham; SMS Group 
     Inc.; Snap-on Tools; Soilmoisture Equipment Corp.; Soleimani 
     Rug Company; Southwest Paper Co., Inc.; Southwestern Bell; 
     Sperry Sun Drilling Services; Spiegel, Inc.; SPM Flow 
     Control; Standard Parts & Equipment; STRIDE RITE CORP., THE; 
     Strombecker Corporation; Suman Technology International; 
     Sundstrand Aerospace; Superior Coatings, Inc.; Sweeney; 
     Sweepster Inc.; Symbios Logic; Tacoma-Pierce Co. Chamber of 
     Commerce; Tai-Pan International, Inc.; Takenaka & Company; 
     Tampa Armature Wks; Tampa Electric; Tampa Port Authority; 
     Teck Soon Hong Trading Inc.; Tekra Corporation; 
     Telecommunications Industry Association; Teledyne, Inc.; 
     Tennessee Association of Business; Terra Industries Inc.; 
     Texaco Inc.; Texas Instruments; Texas Pup, Inc.;
       Textron Inc.; Thom McAn Shoe Company; Thomas H. Miner & 
     Associates; Time Warner Inc.; Tomy America Inc.; TOPLINE 
     CORPORATION, THE.; Toy Biz, Inc.; Toy Manufacturers of 
     America. Inc.; Toys `R' Us; TRADE WINDS.; Tradehome Shoe 
     Stores. Inc.; Trans-Ocean Import Co., Inc.; Trans-Phos, Inc.; 
     TRI-STAR APPAREL, INC.; Triumph Controls, Inc.; TRW Inc.; 
     Tube Sales Inc.; Tuboscope Vetco International Inc.; Tucker 
     Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Turner Electric Works; Tyco 
     Preschool; Tyco Toys, Inc.; Tystar Corp.; U.S. Agri-Chemicals 
     Corp.; U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel; 
     U.S. Canola Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S. 
     Council for International Business; U.S. Feed Grains Council; 
     U.S. Sprint; U.S. Trading & Investment Company; Uneeda Doll 
     Co. Ltd.; Union Camp Corporation; Union Carbide Corporation; 
     Union Pacific Railroad; Unirex Inc.; Unison International; 
     United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association; United Machine 
     Co. Inc.; United Parcel Service; United Retail Group, Inc.; 
     United States-China Business Council, The; United 
     Technologies Corp.; USA Rice Federation; US-China Industrial 
     Exchange, Inc.;
       USX Engineers & Consultants, Inc.; Varian Associates; 
     Vector Corporation; Venture Stores; VICPOINT (USA) LIMITED; 
     Virginia Crop Production Association; VTech L.L.C.; Vulcan 
     Chemicals; W.H. Smith Group (USA), Inc.; Waldor Products, 
     Inc.; WAL-MART; Walnutron Industries, Inc.; Waltham West 
     Suburban Chamber of Commerce; Warnaco; Warner-Lambert 
     Company; Weatherford Enterra; Weaver Manufacturing Inc.; 
     Weaver's Inc.; Web Systems. Inc.; Wellex Corporation; Western 
     Atlas Inc.; Western Digital; Western Resources; Westinghouse 
     Electric Corp.; WESTVACO CORPORATION; Weyerhaeuser Company; 
     Whirlpool Corporation; Whittaker Corporation; Wichita Area 
     Chamber of Commerce; Wichita Machine Products Inc.; Wichita 
     State University; Wichita Tool; Wichita Wranglers; WiCON 
     International Ltd.; Wilson The Leather Experts; Windmere 
     Corporation; Wippette International Inc.; Wisconsin Agri-
     Service Assn, Inc.; Wisconsin Fertilizer & Chemical 
     Association; WJS Inc.; Wm F. Hurst Co., Inc.; Wm Wrigley Jr. 
     Company; Woodward-Clyde International; Woolworth; World Trade 
     Center Denver; World Trade Center of New Orleans; World Trade 
     Center, Sacramento; Worldports, Inc.; Xerox Corporation; Yuan 
     & Associates; Zero Zone, Inc.; Zond Corporation;
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished 
colleague the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I come here as a Representative of thousands 
of small people that the last speaker missed. Those people are the 
farmers of America to whom trade with China is extremely important. It 
is indeed the fastest growing market.
  My colleagues may think that just serves American farmers. It does 
not. I firmly believe that when we are involved in China, we can 
improve conditions in China.
  I also know when we are growing corn here in America to send to 
China, they are not pawing up sensitive, environmentally sensitive, 
land and putting it to production.
  My colleagues, there are many good reasons why we need trade with 
China, and we must defeat this resolution. But it is good for jobs in 
America, it creates thousands of jobs in the heartland, it is good for 
our agricultural economy, it is good for our trade balance, it is good 
for the environment.
  Vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleagues on the 
other side of this issue starting off by kind of putting on the table 
that China is a country that massacres its own people, that tortures 
its own people, that puts them in slave labor camps, that proliferates 
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Put that all aside; this is 
a good deal for America.
  Let us go to the good deal for American part.
  We lose 700,000 jobs in our trade with China. It is a net loss of 
700,000, a minimum.
  Now let us take a look at specifics. I come from the State of 
Connecticut.

[[Page H7007]]

We used to have a city outside my district called the hardware capital 
of the country. They still call it Hardware City. Guess what? They do 
not make those products in New Britain any more. Why? Because somebody 
in New Britain wants a dollar for what a Chinese worker will do for 2 
cents or gladly make in jail.
  Remember the film with Harry Wu, when Harry asked the Chinese 
official, ``How do you maintain quality when you got workers in 
prison?''
  The Chinese officials said, ``We beat them, we beat them.''
  That is who my colleagues want to give MFN to, not a normal country 
with normal practices, a tyrannical power that oppresses its own 
people.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
  (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I stand her today to voice my 
opposition to the disapproval resolution for MFN. Once again, the House 
is going through it annual summer ritual of debating MFN for China. 
Each year this is a difficult decision for me. I decided last Congress 
that we should renew MFN and continue to pursue other course of action 
to improve human rights in China. I continue to believe at this time it 
would not be the right approach for the United States to revoke MFN for 
China.
  The relationship between United States and China is complex and 
involves many issues: human rights and democracy, nonnproliferation, 
Taiwan, Tibet, trade and intellectual property rights. This 
relationship is very fragile and a balance needs to be struck. This 
relationship is like walking a tightrope. One missed step could throw 
the entire relationship off balance permanently.
  A sound relationship with China is in our national interest. China is 
the world's largest country. Years ago, we tried to isolate China and 
that policy failed. We should not repeat mistakes of the past. 
Engagement with China is the best solution. We cannot isolate China. We 
need to continue engaging China in a dialog to promote our interests, 
especially human rights.
  The behavior of China in the past few months has been far from 
exemplary. Human rights abuses continue. Commitments to intellectual 
property enforcement were broken. Aggressive military actions toward 
Taiwan occurred. Communist military, Chinese military industries 
attempted to sell AK-47 rifles to United States law enforcement 
officers conducting a sting operation. These are important issues that 
should be addressed in another manner than revoking MFN.
  Revoking MFN would punish the United States more than it punishes 
China. Revoking MFN would harm our security, political and economic 
interests. American exports and jobs depend on decent relations with 
China. In 1995, $12 billion in exports to China supported 170,000 high-
wage United States jobs. Many of China's most prominent dissidents 
including leaders of the pro-democracy movement at Tiananmen Square do 
no support revoking MFN for China.
  Recent actions by China made many of us angry, but revoking MFN is a 
knee-jerk reaction which might provide instant gratification, but over 
the long run we would regret our actions. The repercussions of revoking 
MFN are great.
  President Clinton stated:

       We have to see our relations with China within the broader 
     context of our policies in the Asian Pacific region. I am 
     determined to see that we maintain an active role in this 
     region . . . I believe this is in the strategic interest, 
     economic, and political interests of both the United States 
     and China . . . I am persuaded that the best path for 
     advancing freedom in China is for the United States to 
     intensify and broaden its engagement with that nation.

  I completely agree with the President's statement, United States 
interests are best served by a secure, stable, open and prosperous 
China. We need to encourage China to embrace international trade and 
proliferation rules. We need to pursue improving human rights through 
diplomatic contacts and with the assistance of the United Nations Human 
Rights Commission. The Clinton administration issued voluntary 
principles for the conduct of American business globally, including 
those conducting business in China. The Clinton administration has 
pressed for the release of political dissidents and religious 
prisoners. These are the type of actions we need to be taking.
  We need to improve our relationship with China. Complex areas of the 
United States-China relationship can and should be addressed. House 
Joint Resolution 461 offered by Mr. Cox provides an opportunity for 
these issues to be addressed by the House. Revoking MFN would make this 
impossible. Engagements is our best approach.
  Mr. Speaker, these are issues that cannot be swept under the rug, but 
the question is how best to resolve them, how best to speak to them, 
and that is to engage the Chinese.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton], a champion of liberty.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like say to my colleague who just spoke, he 
made my case. He made my case. They thumb their nose at the rest of the 
world. They sell chemical biological weapons to the rest of the world, 
they sell military equipment to street gangs in the United States of 
America. They violate the security of Taiwan by trying to interfere in 
their elective process, by starting war games.
  There are 10 million people, count them, 10 million people in 
Communist gulags that are slave laborers, that are making products they 
are selling to the rest of the world, and we are concerned about the 
almighty dollar to such a degree that we say, oh, we are not going to 
pay any attention, we are going to grant them MFN.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to send Communist China a message and let the 
rest of the world know very clearly that those kinds of actions will 
not be tolerated by this country. If they want to do business with the 
free world, they have to act like a democratic society.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague and 
neighbor, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  (Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, every day millions of Americans get up, 
pack their lunch, send their kids off to school, and go to work. 
Denying normal trade relations with China hurts these families. These 
Americans have no idea the products they make end up in China. Denying 
normal trade status for China jeopardizes the long-term survivability 
of these high-paying jobs.
  For example, in addition to 600 Neons shipped directly from 
Belvidere, IL, to China, Chrysler Corp. purchased $1.3 million in parts 
from six automotive parts makers spread throughout the 16th District of 
Illinois to supply their Jeep plant in Beijing.
  Sunstrand Corp. and Woodward Governor sell industrial and aerospace 
products to China. Ingersoll Milling Machine of Rockford sells 
electrical generating machines to China worth $3.5 million. Honeywell 
in Freeport expects to sell 5 percent of their total production to 
China by the year 2004. Motorola of Schaumburg sold roughly 1.2 billion 
dollars' worth of goods to China in 1994. They are building a factory 
in the district I represent that will employ 5,000 new people making 
cellular phones to ship to China.
  It is not just large companies. RD Systems of Roscoe landed a $1.7 
million contract to build four machines for a Chinese manufacturer of 
cell phone batteries. That is 30 percent of the business for a company 
with only 30 employees. The list goes on. T.C. Industries of Crystal 
Lake supplies blade tips to Caterpillar.
  Mr. Speaker, MFN for China means jobs for America.
  Mr. Speaker, every day millions of Americans get up, pack their 
lunch, send their kids off to school, and go to work. Denying normal 
trade relations with China hurts these families. These Americans are 
forgotten in this debate. They have no idea that the products they make 
end up in China. Denying normal trade status for China jeopardizes the 
long-term survivability of their high-paying jobs.
  For example, in addition to 600 Neons shipped directly from 
Belvidere, IL, to China, Chrysler Corp. purchased over $1.3 million in 
parts from six automotive parts makers spread throughout the 16th 
District of Illinois to supply their Jeep plant in Beijing.

[[Page H7008]]

  Sundstrand Corp. of Rockford and Woodward Governor sell industrial 
and aerospace products to China.
  Ingersoll Milling Machine of Rockford sell electrical generating 
machines to powerplants in China worth $3.5 million each.
  Honeywell in Freeport expects to sell 5 percent of their total 
production to China by 2004.
  Motorola of Schaumburg sold roughly 1.2 billion dollars' worth of 
goods to China in 1995. Their rapid expansion in Asia is one reason why 
Motorola is building a 5,000 employee factory in Harvard, IL, to 
manufacture cellular telephones for the iridium system.
  And, it's not just large businesses. RD Systems of Roscoe landed a 
$1.7 million contract to build four machines for a Chinese manufacturer 
of cell phone batteries, representing one-third of the total annual 
sales for their 30 employee company.
  T.C. Industries of Crystal Lake supplies blade tips to Caterpillar 
tractor, which has a vast interest in China. Clarcor of Rockford has a 
joint venture in China to manufacture heavy duty engine filters for 
heavy equipment. Reed-Chatwood sells textile machinery directly from 
Rockford to China.
  And Illinois farmers are jumping at the opportunity to sell 
agriculture products to China. In 1995, United States agricultural 
sales to China doubled from the previous year to $2.6 billion.
  It is expected that China will account for 37 percent of the future 
growth in United States exports. Thus, trade with China is a 
cornerstone for resolving the most pressing problem in the minds of the 
forgotten American--stagnant wages and job growth.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I also yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHOOD). The gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] is recognized for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose most-favored-nation status for 
China. It is not in the best interests of China, not its people nor its 
despotic rulers, not in the best interests of the United States.
  I oppose MFN for China for three reasons. First, China has no sense 
of trade reciprocity. It accounts for the second largest share of the 
U.S. trade deficit, the largest export of textiles and apparel to the 
United States. But what did China do with its $34 billion surplus last 
year? They used our $34 billion of hard currency to buy capital and 
consumer goods from Europe and Japan and the rest of Asia, not from the 
United States.
  No country enjoys more open access to our textile and clothing 
markets than Japan, than China, and last year they sold us $9 billion 
in clothing and fabrics. Despite this liberal access to our markets, 
they egregiously cheated. They mislabeled and transshipped up to $44 
billion in goods through other countries in order to avoid our quotas. 
By voting against MFN, we are telling China that we do not favor 
countries that flout the rules of fair trade with us.
  Second, China denies its people the human rights which we regard as 
fundamental to a civilized society. We have a moral role here, to say 
to China: You have to pay a price for treating your people so 
oppressively.

  Third, China brazenly sells nuclear and missile technology to non-
nuclear nations. They know they are in violation of the law. There is 
ample evidence that the PRC has helped nations such as Pakistan and 
Iran develop weapons of mass destruction.
  I know that many countries enjoy MFN status, so many that it means a 
lot less than the name implies, but I take the name literally. I 
bristle at the notion of calling a country like China, guilty of abuses 
we all acknowledge, a most favored nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize this resolution is likely not to pass, but by 
voting for it we can send a stern message to China and we can stiffen 
the resolve of our administration to resist China's accession to the 
World Trade Organization without major reforms in the way China deals 
with its own people, its neighbors like Taiwan, and its trading 
partners.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dooley].
  (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for 
continued normal trade relationships with China. I have been amazed by 
some of the comments by some of the opponents of China MFN. One speaker 
earlier said that granting China MFN poses a threat to the 
industrialized world. What nonsense. The truest threat to the 
industrialized world is in fact to adopt the trade policies of the 
opponents of China MFN. The truest threat to the industrialized country 
of the United States, the truest threat to the jobs which are so 
dependent on international trade in the United States, is once again to 
adopt a trade policy that builds walls around this country.
  History has taught us that improving the human condition of people, 
enhancing the human freedoms of people, is best achieved by improving 
the economic condition of people. That is what we are doing by 
maintaining normal trade relations with China. China represents a great 
potential market for United States exports. China has 1.2 billion 
consumers who are living in a country that has experienced a GDP growth 
rate of 10 percent over the last 4 years. It is the United States who 
is accessing a lot of that increased market share. We have seen a rise 
of over 200 percent in the United States exports of telecommunications 
equipment to China. As a representative of one of the major 
agricultural regions in the country, I can state that we are benefiting 
greatly in the agriculture sector. We have seen it increase 175 percent 
of United States agriculture sales to China. China MFN is good economic 
policy for this country, and is in the best interests of the Chinese 
people.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], who is on the short 
list for Vice President.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] is 
recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of my colleagues for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, much of the debate has centered around whether most-
favored-nation trade status is capable of addressing issues beyond 
trade. The implicit notion is that once we stop talking about things 
like theft of intellectual property, once we stop talking about facts, 
such as that the average tariff levels on United States goods 
maintained by Communist China are more than 15 times higher than United 
States tariffs on Communist Chinese imports to our country, that we 
have gone beyond trade qua trade, that we therefore have extended into 
the realm of something else; perhaps national security, perhaps 
international relations, but surely not MFN.
  Mr. Speaker, it is true that we do have a great deal of concern with 
China's policies that apparently deal not with trade but other things, 
like the torture of religious figures. Chen Zhuman was hung upside down 
in a window frame as his personal torture. The brutal occupation of 
Tibet is not apparently about trade. The fact that Communist China is a 
one-party state which is capable of imprisoning for 28 years now a 
democracy activist like Wei Jing Sheng is not, I suppose, technically 
about trade.
  Maybe even the Laogai forced labor camp system, the Chinese gulag 
that comprises over 3,000 such camps, maybe that is not technically 
about trade. Maybe the live shelling of Taiwan's shipping lanes earlier 
this year when Communist China sought to intimidate the nascent 
democracy on Taiwan, which was then holding the first Presidential 
election, democratic Presidential election, not only in Taiwan's 
history but in 4,000 years of Chinese history, maybe that was not 
exactly about trade.
  Maybe even the sale of M-11 missiles illicitly, capable of delivering 
unclear warheads, to Pakistan, or the sale to the same country of ring 
magents for the purposes of enriching uranium, or of selling the 
ingredients for chemical weapons to Iran, maybe that is not trade, 
although clearly it is trade in illicit arms.

[[Page H7009]]

  But in fact, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about trade in the usual 
sense. We think of trade as independent commercial entities acting with 
a profit motive and responding to market forces. The People's 
Liberation Army is not such an independent entity, but the People's 
Liberation Army is engaged in trade. How much? The People's Liberation 
Army controls, according to not just the China Business Review, which 
printed this, but the Defense Intelligence Agency of our country, over 
50,000 companies, commercial fronts generating moneys for the largest 
armed forces on Earth. They are into pharmaceuticals, real estate, 
bicycles, cleaning supplies. When we trade with these entities, we are 
in fact benefiting the very Peoples Liberation Army that is responsible 
for the internal oppression and the external proliferation of nuclear 
and chemical weapons.

  This is not trade, it is not commercial activity. It is off-budget 
financing for the Peoples Liberation Army. So MFN is not just about 
trade, either. It is about financing communism. Let us stop pretending 
otherwise.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Matt Salmon, the only colleague in this 
body who is fluent in Mandarin Chinese and who did 2 years of 
missionary work in China before coming here.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I do not think this phrase was ever more 
appropriate than it is now: So much to say, so little time. This is 
probably the most gut-wrenching issue that I have faced since I have 
been in Congress just a short tenure of almost 2 years.
  When I served a mission in Taiwan from 1977 to 1979, I got to know 
and to love the Chinese people deeply. I got to know several people who 
had escaped from China and escaped the persecution there several 
decades ago. When the Chinese started launching missiles in the Taiwan 
Strait earlier this year, there was nobody in this Congress that was 
more angry than me, that wanted to stand by Taiwan's side more than me, 
because I have loved ones and friends there that I was deeply concerned 
about and fearful for their lives.
  Clearly, the impassioned messages against human suffering and misery 
are heartfelt and sincere, and the leaders in the opposition to MFN, 
the gentleman from California, Dana Rohrabacher, the gentlewoman from 
California, Nancy Pelosi, the gentleman from New York, Jerry Solomon, 
and on and on, they really care deeply about the issues they talk 
about. Nobody will question that. We all want the evil to stop.
  But let us not confuse our tactics with our objectives. It is for 
precisely the same reasons that they care about these issues that we 
have to preserve MFN. Let us think about it. If we cut off MFN, what is 
the next likely thing that will happen? Trade relations will 
deteriorate. We will have trade wars. Diplomatic ties are severed. What 
is the end result? A cold war. Then what kind of influence do we have? 
Do we think those countries like France, Germany, Japan, that will jump 
in and fill that niche, do we think they will be raising those 
objectives, those issues? They never have before.
  If we really care about the human suffering and misery, we will 
continue engagement. But we are not silent about the things we care so 
deeply about. Let us continue to use every other sanction we possibly 
can. Let us continue to look for other opportunities, but let us not 
completely take ourselves away from the table. Let us be smart about 
this.
  That is why the people that really understand this, people like 
Martin Li, are saying we have to keep it. Talk to the people who have 
much more of an axe to grind than we do. We are righteously indignant 
about what is happening there, rightly so, but how about the people who 
stand to lose a lot more, their lives and freedom and everything they 
hold dearly? What about people like Martin Li, who have led the 
opposition to the violation of human rights in Hong Kong, and who was 
the father of the Bill of Rights for Hong Kong? He wrote us a letter 
yesterday and said the absolute worst thing we could do would be to 
revoke MFN.

                              {time}  1445

  Listen to what the dissidents said, listen to what people like Teng-
hui Li, the President of Taiwan said; he has more of a stake in this 
than anybody. It would be foolish to revoke MFN. It will hurt the 
things that we care about.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot 
of speeches about why we should not have trade relations, MFN with 
China because of the poor relations on trade where we would lose $34 
billion a year in terms of trade revenues.
  On proliferation, on the idea that the Chinese are out selling 
weapons of nuclear destruction, of mass destruction to enemies of this 
country such as Iran where we see them selling nuclear technology to 
the Pakistanis. We are going to hear arguments about human rights in 
China and about the denial of the ability of individuals to stand up 
for freedom in that country.
  However, I do not think that this is an issue about just China. I 
think that this is an issue about the United States of America. It is 
an issue that allows the people of this Chamber to stand up and talk 
freely about the issues that we are concerned about, and it is about 
the fact that this country has been the leader of the free world. Yes, 
other countries will move in and try to take advantage of this 
country's stand for those principles of freedom.
  The truth of the matter is that, if the Germans and the Japanese or 
other countries want to move in and take advantage, I say that the 
people of the world will recognize the leadership, the fundamental 
moral leadership that this country stands for. As a result of that, as 
a result of what this country means to people throughout the rest of 
the world, this country will continue to be able to thrive economically 
and socially.
  We should not abandon the principles that let blood of our brothers 
and sisters and our parents bleed on the face of this planet because 
the principles of democracy go by the wayside for the principles of the 
almighty dollar and Chinese trade.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of MFN for China. 
Changing China's human rights policy is going to be like turning a 
blimp around in an alley. It is going to be very difficult, very slow, 
very painful. The process is going to take idealism and commitment to 
human rights. It is not going to be done by the Japanese; it is not 
going to be done by the South Koreans or the Europeans. It is going to 
be done by the United States of America. We have that commitment. We 
have those beliefs. We can help in small ways change the policy in 
China.
  Now, what is the cost if we do not do this? What is the cost if we do 
not do this in the best economic interests of the United States? The 
cost is probably, one, China starts to build on their already biggest 
standing army in the world; there is more volatility in this region of 
the world; the United States spends more and more on our defense. We 
lose jobs in this country, the deficit continues to go up. There is a 
real cost for the United States not to do this.
  What do some people say about the answer? Pat Buchanan says, let us 
build walls. Not a Great Wall in China, let us build walls across the 
United States so that Indiana can trade with Arizona.
  I say to the people of this body, that is not the answer. If we 
believe in the American dream, if we believe we have the best workers, 
if we believe we make the best products, if we believe we stand up for 
human rights, do what is right, not for the Chinese, do what is right 
for America and support MFN.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Lightfoot].
  (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the resolution of 
disapproval.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us share the same fundamental goals with respect 
to China. We all want to see China develop not only as an economic 
force,

[[Page H7010]]

but also evolve in its views on human rights and the value of free and 
open democratic government. We just need to pursue these goals in the 
ways most likely to produce success.
  And although I agree that China has pursued policies which are not in 
the best interests of the United States and other Pacific Rim nations, 
we must ask ourselves: does the proposed policy, to revoke China's 
trade status, the correct policy prescription?
  While it may feel good in the short term to try to force China to 
change; ultimately it is counterproductive. Revoking normal trade 
relations, or MFN, would merely kick the legs out from under those in 
China we seek to support, the hard reality is that revoking China's 
trade status is unlikely to mitigate China's behavior and will harm 
American businesses as they are replaced in China by other companies.
  The best way for us to encourage democratization, free enterprise, 
and respect for human rights, is by maintaining as close contact with 
the Chinese as possible. A policy of engagement helps maintain a 
constructive environment within which to influence Chinese policy.
  It would also be damaging here at home. The State of Iowa--as with 
many others--exports billions of dollars worth of products to China 
each year. Even more is sent to China through Hong Kong. China is also 
projected as one of the most important growth markets for U.S. 
agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to take the responsible, constructive 
approach today for the United States and China, for the advancement of 
democracy and human rights, and for our constituents.
  Please vote down this resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, when the House considered most-favored-
nation status for China last year, supporters of cutting off MFN 
privileges were told over and over again, be patient, that things in 
China would get better if we were just patient. Basically we were urged 
to adopt a wait-until-next-year philosophy, familiar to fans of losing 
sports teams everywhere.
  Wait until next year, we were told, and China will stop selling 
nuclear weapon-related equipment to the world's troublemakers. Wait 
until next year and China will stop choking off America's imports and 
running up a massive trade deficit. Wait until next year and China will 
stop prosecuting and persecuting its own people.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, next year has arrived, and China has not only 
failed to improve its nonproliferation trade and human rights record, 
but the Chinese behavior in each one of these areas has deteriorated 
since last year.
  First is nuclear weapons proliferation. Earlier this year the CIA 
confirmed that China sold to Pakistan nuclear-capable M-11 missiles and 
equipment which is important in the production of nuclear weapons. Over 
the last decade it has been demonstrated that China has a nuclear rap 
sheet as long as our arms. Let us not kid ourselves about their 
attitude about selling nuclear weapons-related materials into the 
global economy. China has sold cruise missiles to Iran and is 
cooperating with the Iranians on their civilian nuclear programs which 
our arms control and disarmament agency believes is just a cover for 
Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. speaker, there are deeply felt reasons to vote for 
this disapproval resolution. Issues of human rights, issues, for 
example, and important ones of trade. China presents vital questions on 
how America competes with a low-wage economy. But I have asked myself, 
where would a vote for disapproval lead?
  First of all, it would be vetoed. Second, even more importantly, even 
if it were to become law, what would we do next? What issues would we 
negotiate with the Chinese? What would our demands on each of these 
issues be? What would we settle for?
  In a word, I have concluded we need a policy, not a protest. We need 
to go beyond an annual skirmish over an action we are unlikely to take. 
We need to do the difficult work of hammering out a year-round policy, 
and Congress needs to participate. We have to engage ourselves, which 
we have not done, year round. We have to engage our legislative 
counterparts in Asia and in Europe. We need to have an active role in 
the question of China's accession to the World Trade Organization, and 
we in this country need to develop allies in Europe and Asia so we 
simply do not go it alone on all of these issues.
  The administration deserves credit for its recent success in the 
issue of intellectual property piracy, and I favor the use of sanctions 
against China. But it is time for all of us in both the Government and 
the private sector to put these endeavors in the context of a larger 
long-range blueprint. I want not a message but a program. I am going to 
vote against disapproval.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the engagement with 
China and against the resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Telecommunications and Finance of the Committee on Commerce in this 
Congress, the person charged with developing and promoting 
telecommunication policy in this country, I rise in strong support of 
most-favored-nation trading status for China.
  I have been to China on four occasions. Each time I have seen 
significant and positive change. I believe that our positive engagement 
in the business sector is enhancing this positive change. This change 
is occurring because we have been a friend and not just strictly a 
critic.
  When I was there in April, Vice Premier Li-teh Hsu said American 
telecommunications companies are late, and he paraphrased a Chinese 
proverb saying sometimes those who are late actually do better.
  Mr. Speaker, we will do better with telecommunication trade and, with 
that, we will have a more positive engagement with the Chinese. Trade 
is positive, information technology is liberating. I urge my colleagues 
to support most favored trading status for the Chinese.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues who support extending most-favored-nation 
status to China claim that the importance of trade should be the only 
issue considered.
  While I would also look at the murder of 1 million Tibetans, the 
selling of missile technology to rogue nations, the human rights 
atrocities committed against Chinese citizens, and the military 
intimidation of Taiwan, I will only discuss trade-related reasons why 
we should not extend MFN.
  First and foremost, MFN for China isn't working. In 1995 our 
worldwide trade deficit was $111 billion. Almost one-third of this 
amount was our growing deficit with China. In addition, they are 
notorious for printing American intellectual property. Last year United 
States companies lost $2.4 billion because China refused to enforce its 
intellectual property laws.
  Mr. Speaker, China's crimes against humanity and against America's 
business interests can no longer be tolerated.
  China does not deserve, and has not earned most-favored-nation 
status.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].
  (Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I find myself in significant agreement 
with the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. This is a 
confused and misleading concept, MFN. It certainly implies no approval; 
otherwise, we would not have extended it to

[[Page H7011]]

184 nations, including such paragons of virtue as Syria and Burma.
  It is true that this is an important economic relationship to my 
State of Oregon. It means thousands of jobs in areas like technology 
and agriculture. But I do view China as being a threat to the world, 
primarily in a war on our environment, a war on the environment that 
frankly we in Oregon and in this country are poised to help the Chinese 
wage to protect it by the sale of products and services.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, 33,652 Americans lost their lives in the Korean war in 
no small measure because we misjudged the Chinese and their intentions.
  I cannot agree more strongly with the gentleman from Michigan's hope 
that this is the last year we go through this exercise, and instead we 
work to manage our relationship with the world's most populous nation 
in a thoughtful and constructive fashion. The disapproval of this 
resolution and the continuation of MFN is an important step in that 
direction.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members that the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] has no time remaining; the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has 2 minutes remaining; 
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  To close, so Members will know, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] will begin, followed by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons], followed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], and 
the chairman of the committee or his designee will have the final 
close.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, after a great deal of thought I have come 
to the conclusion that today I will oppose the extension of China's 
current most-favored-nation trading status.
  Fundamentally, I do believe that trade with China helps encourage 
private enterprise there, providing the citizens of China with a level 
of financial independence that lessens the power of their government. 
Ultimately, there is an effective argument to be made that it is trade 
and other contact with the outside world, rather than seclusion, that 
will propel China toward the freedoms and observance of international 
law that we all support.
  In that light, I would frankly have preferred to support strong but 
targeted sanctions against China, as opposed to denying most-favored-
nation status. For example, H.R. 3684, a bill introduced by 
Representative Gilman to disallow the importation of products made by 
the People's Liberation Army, makes a great deal of sense to me. The 
PLA operates much of China's industrial capacity, and H.R. 3684, which 
I have cosponsored, represents strong and appropriate punishment.
  Unfortunately, we will not have the opportunity to vote on H.R. 3684 
or similar legislation today. This is very troubling to me, because I 
have become so concerned about many of the Chinese Government's 
practices that I can no longer look the other way when they pursue 
unacceptable behavior.
  This behavior includes China's weapons sales, including the sale of 
nuclear technologies, to rogue regimes in clear violation of China's 
international commitments; its gross violations of human rights, 
including the brutal practices it has pursued in Tibet, the detention 
or pro-democracy activists and imposition of forced labor upon them in 
its prison system, and coercive abortion policies; its repeated 
violations of intellectual property agreements; its belligerent and 
indefensible actions toward Taiwan; and most recently, the illicit sale 
of Chinese weapons in our country.
  Last year I supported passage of H.R. 2058, which put China on notice 
that the Congress could not countenance continued misbehavior on 
China's part. In so doing, we gave China the opportunity to correct its 
unacceptable practices. Nothing, however, has changed, and in fact, an 
argument can be made that China's misdeeds have gotten more severe.
  Under the circumstances, I think a strong message must be sent today. 
The targeted sanctions that I would most prefer are not an option 
available to the Congress today. Accordingly, I will oppose MFN this 
afternoon.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not just about human rights 
in China, it is also about jobs in America and the conditions under 
which the United States does business with the undemocratic nations of 
the world. After a decade of engagement with China, what do we have to 
show for it?--forced abortions, human rights violations, flouting of 
our intellectual property rights, violation of nuclear nonproliferation 
accords * * * the list goes on and on.
  MFN is about trade and jobs. Whose jobs? Over one-third of China's 
exports are sold in the United States, but only 2 percent of United 
States exports are sold in China. Our trade deficit is now at $34 
billion. Why? Because China does not reciprocate the trade benefits we 
grant to them with MFN. It continues to issue high tariffs and 
nontariff barriers, and insists on production and technology transfer--
all of which hurt American jobs.
  There are only four tools of peaceful diplomacy available to us: 
providing U.S. aid, opening U.S. trade, international opinion, and 
denying U.S. aid and trade. We have tried the first three, and yet, 
China is resilient to change. The time has come to do the right thing. 
The only thing this regime understands is power. We have great power--
the power of the American purse.
  I urge my colleagues to disapprove MFN for China. Let's send a clear 
and unmistakable message to the Chinese leadership--the United States 
will not stand for discriminatory and predatory trading practices. We 
will not stand for violations of international agreements. Most 
important, we will not stand idly by while people are exploited. We 
will stand up for human rights, freedom, and democracy.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I take second to no one in this Chamber in 
my concern for human rights and the feeling that many of the abuses in 
China are as abysmal, as threatening to the human condition as events 
happening anywhere in the world at any time.
  I also will take second to no one in my concern about what the 
Chinese are doing to the island of Taiwan in terms of their missile 
launches over the straits of China prior to the election, a clear 
violation of international law. I was supportive, along with most 
Members of this body, in terms of trying to prevent that activity.
  Even with those statements, we as this Congress have a choice of how 
to try to change those policies. It really is a choice of one or two 
things. We have a choice of engagement, of normal trading relations. As 
has been pointed out on this floor, trading relations, that we trade 
with rogue nations, nations whose human rights conditions are on par 
with China, whether it is Syria or Burma or Indonesia. We can find 
abuses in many locations around the world that we, in fact, grant what 
is inappropriately described as most-favored-nation status.
  We have that choice before us today, whether we want to engage China 
or whether we want to isolate China. Unfortunately, I think history 
tells us that by isolation the results of the change in human rights 
and other things will not occur. I urge the defeat of the resolution.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  (Mr. BROWNBACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, there are people with pure motives and 
different ideas on both sides of this issue. However, I rise in 
opposition to the resolution of disapproval.
  I have worked in the trade field before, and I can tell my colleagues 
that this is not the way to improve our

[[Page H7012]]

trade imbalance and it is not the way for use to try to change China. 
MFN, as we have heard time and again, is the basis for trade. It allows 
our companies, our farmers, our businesses, our people to be able to 
engage and build long-term relationships with China. That is what MFN 
is allowing us to be able to do.
  If we are worried about the trade imbalance, we should force them to 
lower their tariffs and open their borders through other trade 
negotiations or as they seek to join the World Trade Organization, and 
force them to abide by international trade rules. If we are worried 
about human rights, as all of us are, we should keep engaged and 
encourage them through that engagement to do the right thing as they 
grow as a country, and not go in an isolationist mode.
  For those reasons I urge disapproval of the resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, supporters or MFN for China are trying to 
portray this debate in very simple terms: Are you for or are you 
against free trade?
  That, I might say, is a false choice. This debate is not about free 
trade. It is about fair trade. It is about whether or not we are going 
to use the leverage we have as a nation to open up markets in a way 
that is fair to American workers and fair to American jobs.
  Supporters of MFN for China are asking American workers to compete 
not on the quality of the products we trade with China but in many ways 
on the misery and suffering of the people who make them.
  Henry Ford was right. If you want to sell products, you have to pay 
people enough so that they can buy the products that they make. 
Seventeen cents an hour is no way to build a trade relationship. If we 
continue to turn our backs on the abuses in China today, the China 
market will never live up to its potential as a American trading 
partner.
  Free trade does not exist in this kind of world, and protectionism 
offers us no solution either. We have got to be able to find a middle 
ground that promotes our values at the same time that it promotes our 
products.
  Today we are running a $34 billion trade deficit with China. China 
accepts just 2 percent of United States exports and routinely puts 
tariffs of 30 to 40 percent on our products.
  Let us not kid ourselves. China needs America's markets. We always 
seem to underrate our potential as a market in our trading 
relationships. Not only are we one-third of China's export market, we 
buy more products from China than anyone else.
  We must let China know that MFN is not a gift to be awarded. It is a 
privilege that must be earned. China has not earned the right to 
receive special treatment from the United States.
  Let us work together to find a middle ground but let us not pretend 
that countries like China, who control their own markets, who ravage 
their environment, who abuse their workers and who ignore international 
calls for human rights practice free trade. Because we all know, there 
is nothing free about it.
  I urge my colleagues, insist on freedom, insist on democracy, insist 
on human rights, insist on fair trade, and support my colleagues, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf], the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], and 
others, who have stood up on this floor and urged us as country to 
engage in free trade and fair trade.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have very, very 
respected colleagues on both sides of this issue. I am certain that 
there might be questions about why I would stand here firmly in support 
of MFN. I ask my colleagues to oppose the resolution before us.
  Many Members of the House are concerned about the human rights record 
of the People's Republic of China, and rightfully so. Clearly I have 
many concerns about human rights. The questions for those of us with 
these concerns is how can we improve the situation in China?
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that a policy of engagement in China gives us 
the best opportunity to influence the Chinese Government and the 
Chinese people in a positive manner. Ideals of freedom will be 
experienced by the common man in China. Free trade encourages 
interaction between the Americans doing business in China and their 
Chinese counterparts. Additionally free trade with China will allow the 
average Chinese citizen to develop more of his or her own wealth, and 
the accumulation of personal wealth is the only way people can be 
independent. An improved standard of living in China will encourage 
free market principles in that nation and will assist the citizens of 
China in their effort to gain more freedom.

                                                    June 24, 1996.
     Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Johnson: I write to thank you for your 
     support of President Clinton's decision to renew MFN for 
     China this year. On my recent trip to Washington, I met with 
     a number of your congressional colleagues to explain the 
     threats to democratic institutions, human rights and the rule 
     of law in Hong Kong and to urge them not to unintentionally 
     compound the difficulties for Hong Kong in their efforts to 
     punish China for failure to adhere to international norms in 
     a wide range of areas, particularly human rights.
       I am grateful to Congress for its continued interest in 
     Hong Kong and for the deep concern members have expressed 
     about human rights violations in China. I too have serious 
     concerns about the human rights situation in China and the 
     prospects for safeguarding human rights in Hong Kong after 
     1997. However, as an elected representative of Hong Kong 
     people, I cannot ignore the damage to Hong Kong that will 
     occur if China's MFN status is not renewed. Because the 
     United States and China are our two largest trading partners, 
     disruptions in trade have a direct impact on Hong Kong's own 
     economy. In the best of times it would be difficult to ride 
     out the storm of a trade dispute between our two largest 
     trading partners, but with the transfer of sovereignty barely 
     a year away, the revocation of China's MFN status would deal 
     an even more serious blow to our economy.
       Many of Hong Kong's friends in the international community 
     are gravely concerned about China's recent decisions to 
     abolish Hong Kong's elected legislature and replace it with 
     an appointed one, to effectively repeal Hong Kong's Bill of 
     Rights and to erode the independence of our judiciary and 
     civil service. Indeed, many who wish to help Hong Kong by 
     promising China through MFN, were unaware of the devastating 
     effect non-renewal of MFN would have on Hong Kong's economy--
     at a time when confidence in Hong Kong is already badly 
     shaken.
       When explaining the effect of non-renewal of China's MFN 
     status on Hong Kong, I often give the example of a father 
     beating a child. Your first instinct may be to stop such 
     brutality by punching the father in the nose. But when you 
     approach, the child stands in the way, defending father. Do 
     you knock over the child to teach the father a lesson? Hong 
     Kong is like that child. Revoking MFN would hit Hong Kong 
     first--and badly. At a time when Hong Kong people could least 
     recover from such a blow.
       As you and your congressional colleagues debate China's MFN 
     status in Congress, I hope you will take Hong Kong into 
     account. I thank you once again for your consideration and 
     continuing support for Hong Kong.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                       Martin Lee,
                                   Chairman, The Democratic Party.

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have sat here patiently and attentively and listened 
to this discussion today and I frankly have heard nothing new.
  I went to China in the 1970's. I was shocked at what I saw, appalled, 
and knew it would be extremely difficult to ever integrate China into 
the world community of nations. I do not condone anything that is going 
on in China today that has been pointed out here as being shocking to 
my sensibilities and to my sense of fair trade. But I do say we have 
made progress and we will continue to make progress unless we make the 
mistakes we have made in the past again.
  China came out of 100 years of degradation at the hand of the 
Europeans or the Japanese. About 50 years ago here in this body, we 
began to isolate ourselves from the Chinese who wanted to be friends of 
ours and wanted to work with us. What has been the result of all of 
that? China turned inward. China became a very mean nation. China 
doubled its population in that period of time.

[[Page H7013]]

                              {time}  1515

  China, frankly, educated all its people in what I would think are 
hostile environments of the USSR and of Eastern Europe. They escaped 
all of the better things that we think they would have gotten from our 
civilization had we stayed engaged with them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Chinese dictatorship knows that it is getting a $35 
billion net surplus from their current trade relationship with the 
United States. That is $35 billion worth of jobs that they have got 
here that we do not have because they have got it over there. They know 
that they have got that $35 billion surplus because they flood our 
markets with all kinds of goods, putting our people out of work because 
we charge them a 2-percent tariff under the current rules of trade and 
they charge our products a 30 and 35-percent tariff as we send our 
goods over there. Thus, our people lose their jobs and they gain $35 
billion to build their military to repress their people.
  This current trading relationship is a sham. It is not to the benefit 
of the United States of America. Do not expect those bloody-fisted 
tyrants in Beijing to listen to us about human rights or listen to us 
about not threatening their neighbors if we do not have the guts to 
change that relationship that puts $35 billion of hard currency in 
their pockets.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, we are going to lose the vote, but to those 
Members who are going to give MFN to China, do what our colleagues say: 
Be engaged. Be engaged. When the Christians are arrested next week and 
all this next year, be engaged. When they come into town, meet with 
them. When the human rights groups come here, be engaged, meet with 
them. When the business community does nothing, speak out, send Dear 
Colleague letters. All I see is a handful of Dear Colleague letters. Be 
engaged all year. Do not just be engaged for 2 weeks up to the vote. Be 
engaged all year. If we vote to give the evil group of people MFN and 
our colleagues are going to win, then do what the Members said all 
during this debate. Be engaged. Meet with the Catholic church. Meet 
with the Tibetans. Meet with the human rights people. Meet with Asia 
Watch, meet with Amnesty International. Prod the business community. Do 
not be afraid to criticize a business group in your area. Speak out.
  Our colleagues are going to win. I just want to know that they are 
going to be engaged, they are going to do everything they said. Be 
engaged all year, not just for 2 weeks before the vote.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson said, two thinking 
individuals can be given the exact same set of facts and draw different 
conclusions.
  I would like to say that I have very high regard, of course, for my 
full committee chairman, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, and 
for the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Pelosi, and the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Stark, and others and, of course, the gentleman 
from California, Dana Rohrabacher, and the gentleman from California, 
Chris Cox, and those who have opposed this. I have to say that it has 
been great to work in a bipartisan way with my very good friend, the 
gentleman from California, Bob Matsui, and the gentlewoman from Texas, 
Eddie Bernice Johnson, and the gentleman from Indiana, Tim Roemer, and 
others and, of course, with the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman 
Crane, who has done a great job on this. And the gentleman from 
Arizona, Matt Salmon, and so many who are committed to this.
  The fact of the matter is, it seems to me we need to do everything 
possible to ensure that we proceed with recognition and strong support 
for China. We have come to the point where we as a nation are in fact 
the beacon of hope and opportunity.
  Last Monday we had a very difficult weather day here, and I was stuck 
in Pittsburgh and got on an airplane to fly into Washington. I happened 
to sit next to a man who was a civil engineer, a professor from Iowa, 
and he lived through the terror, the terror of the Cultural Revolution 
in China.
  He looked to me as I was reading some information about China, and he 
said, my family is still there and I am regularly talking with them 
about how things are improving in China. Things are improving. They are 
not perfect.
  Everything that has been discussed here is very important for us to 
address. Human rights violations are horrible. Weapons transfers, 
horrible. We must, as my friend the gentleman from Virginia, Frank 
Wolf, said, maintain engagement. I and many others here are regularly 
and consistently engaged in this issue throughout the year.
  But we cannot simply do what makes us feel good. We must do good. We 
must do the right thing. There are jobs that are being lost to China, 
but guess where they are coming from. Not the United States of America. 
We know they are coming from Taiwan, from South Korea, from Singapore, 
from Malaysia, from Hong Kong, other nations in the Pacific ripple. 
That shift is taking place. So we are not losing jobs here, as the 
people who are supporting this disapproval motion have been claiming.
  We, in fact, as a Nation, stand for freedom and opportunity, and I am 
convinced that the free market is the strongest possible force for 
change in this century. It has been in China. Trade promotes private 
enterprise which creates wealth, which improves living standards, which 
undermines political repression. The Cultural Revolution was a horrible 
time. The great leap forward was a horrible time. A million people were 
killed during the Cultural Revolution--60 million people starved under 
Mao Tse-Tung. The Tiananmen Square massacre was a horrible, horrible 
day for the entire world.
  I take a back seat to no one on the issue of human rights. I marched 
up to the embassy to demonstrate my outrage obvious that issue. But I 
came to the conclusion that disengaging will, in fact, hurt the people 
we want to help most. That is why it is very important for us to do 
everything that we possible can to maintain that association. Vote 
``no'' on this resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui].
   Mr. Speaker, may I say that no one in this Chamber has been more 
diligent and more constructively helpful in this engagement that we 
have here than the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui].
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Florida, really, truly one of the outstanding leaders in America on the 
issue of international trade, and one who we will miss when he leaves 
the Congress at the end of this year, and I thank him for all the 
expertise he has imparted to me and other Members of this body over the 
years.
  Of course, to all my colleagues who oppose the continuation of MFN, I 
know how sincere they are and how strongly they feel about this issue, 
but I think as the gentleman from California [David Dreier] has said, 
we who favor the continuation of MFN are just continuing the bipartisan 
support we have had to engage the Chinese since Richard Nixon opened up 
China in 1978.
  In fact, all the Presidents since Richard Nixon favor the 
continuation of MFN. Every Secretary of State, every Secretary of 
Commerce, every United States Trade Representative favors the 
continuation of most-favored-nation status with China.
  We have heard a lot of horrible things that the Chinese and the 
Chinese Government have done, and many of it and much of it is true. 
But the fact of the matter is, China, China is 22 percent of the world 
population. Almost one out of every five persons on this Earth lives in 
China and can claim Chinese citizenship; one out of every five.
  Do our colleagues think for a minute that we can isolate the Chinese? 
Do we think for a minute that cutting off MFN status, which is 
tantamount to a declaration of war, will further the cause of human 
rights, intellectual property, trade? Of course not.
  In fact, the great fear that all of us have with respect to China is 
the fact that the Chinese may decide to become

[[Page H7014]]

the most powerful military country that this world has ever known. 
Should they do that, the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Indonesians 
with 180 million people, they will begin to rearm, and then Asia will 
become a tinder box in 5 or 6 or 10 years from now.
  We have to do this for our children and our grandchildren. This is 
not an issue of trade. This is an issue of international security and 
peace in our country and our world.
  I would like, however, to talk a little bit about the trade issue 
because that has been brought up and up and up by many of my 
colleagues, the $33 billion trade deficit with the Chinese. First of 
all, in the last 24 months, the last 2 years, much of the deficit has 
been because of transshipment to Hong Kong. In fact, the Commerce 
Department has said that about 40 percent of the $33 billion is due to 
transshipment, and therefore the trade deficit is somewhat inflated.
  In addition, the four tigers, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and 
Taiwan, they are moving much of their production offshore back into 
China, and as a result of that, the trade deficit with those four 
countries has gone down while the trade deficit with China has gone up. 
So we have not lost all those jobs that the opponents of MFN have 
stated.
  But, most importantly, and in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what is really 
important here is for the United States to stabilize our relationship 
with the Chinese. We are attempting to do that now. We made progress on 
the issue of the ring magnet sale to Pakistan. We made progress on the 
piracy of the Chinese of our intellectual property. But it is going to 
take time. China is 3,000 years old and it is going to take time.
  But for the sake of the world, for the sake of our people, for the 
sake of this great Nation, we have an obligation to deal and to engage 
the Chinese.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] who has worked so hard for 
human rights and open trade throughout the world.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXX, I object to the 
Member's use of the exhibit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Shall the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. pelosi] be permitted to use the exhibit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 419, 
nays 0, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No 283]

                               YEAS--419

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

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     LaHood
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Collins (IL)
     Davis
     Diaz-Balart
     Flake
     Gephardt
     Hall (OH)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Moran
     Peterson (FL)
     Stockman
     Wilson

                              {time}  1547

  Mr. LIPINSKI and Mrs. CUBIN changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  Mr. EVANS changed his vote from ``present'' to ``yea.''
  So the gentlewoman was permitted to use the exhibit in question.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 283 
on House Joint Resolution 182 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``Yes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members that the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] will close the debate with 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, we have a very important choice to make here 
today. But that choice is not between engagement or isolation. 
Certainly we will continue engagement with China. But that engagement 
must be constructive.
  The current engagement called constructive engagement is neither 
constructive nor true engagement. It has produced a situation where 
each of us is being asked today to put our good

[[Page H7015]]

name, our seal of approval on the status quo with China. That status 
quo includes very serious repression, which continues in China. In 
fact, it has worsened in recent years, the status quo includes very 
dangerous proliferation of nuclear missile, biological, and chemical 
weapons to Pakistan and rogue states like Iran and, on the issue of 
trade, includes a situation where we have very little market access, a 
huge trade deficit and theft of our intellectual property.
  Some Members say we should not mix trade and proliferation and human 
rights. On the basis of economics and trade alone, the lack of 
reciprocity on the part of the Chinese says that we should not grant 
most-favored-nation status to China. Of course, they will get it.
  But the vote today for Members of Congress is to say to the 
President, use the tools at your disposal. Bring down the great wall of 
China's high tariffs to products made in America, reduce this huge 
trade deficit. Give us opportunity for our products to go there. Stop 
the theft of our intellectual property and really stop it and, most 
importantly, stop the technological transfer which is undermining our 
economy.
  China, it has been said, is a huge country. It is, indeed, very 
populous. China is a big country. It will be a great power. All the 
more reason for us to want it to be free. But in terms of the trade 
issue alone, there is no reciprocity of the Chinese to the United 
States.
  What we have to decide and what we will have to answer to our 
constituents for is how we address this trade deficit, which is a job 
loser for the American people. China is a big country, as we have said. 
Because of the trade barriers, the theft of intellectual property, the 
transfer of technology, which is a couple hundred billion dollar 
problem, the use of prison labor and the fact that China refuses to 
play by the rules. We will have to answer for this vote China is going 
down a path that is a threat to the economies of the industrialized 
nations of the world.
  This debate is about nothing less than our national security, our 
democratic principles and our economic future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Rohrabacher 
resolution and thank them for their attention.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of MFN 
for China.
  MFN simply provides China the same trade status possessed by other 
nations. There is nothing most-favored or preferential about MFN 
status. MFN is the normal trading status.
  The United States must maintain a policy of engagement with China--
lest one day we find ourselves forced into a policy of containment. 
Whether and how we engage China today will have enormous consequences 
for United States national interests in the future.
  Denying normal trade relations would undermine U.S. economic 
interests for trade is crucial to the growth of our economy, good jobs 
for our people, and international prosperity. United States exports to 
China, growing at a rate of 20 percent a year, support 170,000 American 
jobs. Chinese retaliation would seriously threaten these jobs and 
United States companies expanding in China.
  Market economies naturally evolve into democracies. Entrepreneurship 
and invention, breed personal confidence, individualism, and the values 
that underlie democracy in the evolutionary process in Taiwan.
  China is one of the fastest growing economies in the world--with a 
population of 1.2 billion--and past growth rates in the double digits. 
Since establishing relations in 1979--trade between the United States 
and China has risen from $2 billion in 1978 to nearly $60 billion last 
year making China our 6th largest trading partner.
  Normal trade relations promote human rights. Should MFN be denied, 
the influx of democratic political and economic ideals would cease.
  Normal trade relations promote environmental reforms. Working with 
China on sustainable development in areas of pollution prevention, 
agriculture, and energy will greatly benefit the global environment.
  Normal trade relations better the lives of the Chinese people. By 
providing higher wages, opportunities for travel and study abroad, and 
other basic benefits, American companies in China open Chinese society 
from within.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 182. Because of the tragic human rights situation in China, 
it is very easy to stray from the central question of what is the most 
effective policy to achieve what we all want for the Chinese people--a 
better, more humane life. This resolution, however, would set up a 
policy of unilateral confrontation with the Chinese Government in which 
our Government would disengage from a leadership role in the region. 
That is not the answer to China's problems, and it will serve only to 
worsen the condition of the Chinese people. One has only to recall the 
cultural revolution and the widespread famine of the 1970's in China to 
understand that an isolated Chinese Government is the most dangerous.
  It is a proven fact that business plays a positive role in exposing 
the Chinese people to ideas and skills necessary to succeed in a free 
market, to the opportunities of economic liberalization, and to the 
promise of expanded political freedom. Simply put, prosperity and 
expanded contact with American citizens is the best way to nurture the 
growth of democracy in China.
  Motorola, one of my constituents, is a prime example of the 
importance of improving the conditions in China by setting a good 
example in several ways. Motorola has generously volunteered to develop 
grammar schools throughout China, giving children opportunities that 
they would not have otherwise had. In addition, Motorola has 
established a program permitting its Chinese employees to own their own 
apartments after a period of time.
  The performance of this one company is ample proof that the presence 
of American business in China has had a positive influence on the 
Chinese people it touches by fostering and encouraging the values we 
embrace so strongly. I challenge proponents of this resolution to show 
me a United States-owned firm in China that is not far out in front of 
its competitors in promoting health and safety standards, workers' 
compensation, and nondiscrimination in the workplace.
  We also cannot ignore the fundamental fact that under the repressive 
Chinese regime flourishes one of the world's largest and most rapidly 
growing economies. If my colleagues would ask their constituent firms 
about the future of U.S. trade policy, and what our priorities should 
be, as I did at a hearing I held in my Illinois district earlier this 
year, they will emphasize the strategic importance of developing the 
Chinese market, over any other trade issue.
  Illinois exports to China grew 25 percent last year. What is striking 
is the fact that these exports came predominately from small and 
medium-sized firms employing 500 people or less. These firms realize 
that competing successfully in China and Pacific Rim countries makes 
them strong. We know that job security in terms of tenure and job 
turnover is much higher in exporting firms. Levels of job creation in 
plants that produce for export is 17 to 18 percent higher than in 
plants that do not. According to new research, pay in companies 
competing in the world market place is 15 percent higher, and benefit 
levels, a remarkable 37 percent higher.
  Rest assured, I would agree that China is one of the most 
protectionist countries with which we trade. For example, securing 
access to China's services market, adherence to fair phytosanitary 
rules for the agriculture products, and elimination of a wide range of 
restrictive import quotas are key United States objectives. But this 
positive agenda, I am afraid, is disabled by the annual exercise of 
condemning the Chinese Government and society on a wholesale basis 
through the MFN process. Instead, developing solid, negotiated 
solutions to targeted market access problems is the best way to deal 
with these issues.
  The disapproval resolution we are considering today would set back 
all the progress that the United States and our businesses are making 
in China. Such a policy of unilateral confrontation must be rejected in 
favor of a strategy that preserves United States leadership in Asia and 
maintains our commitment to the people of China,

[[Page H7016]]

Hong Kong, and Taiwan. I urge my colleagues to vote a strong ``no'' on 
this resolution.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I approach the podium today ready to 
support the continued extension of most-favored-nation [MFN] status to 
the People's Republic of China. However, I want to be clear from the 
outset that my vote should not be construed as an endorsement of the 
current Chinese regime. I doubt if there is a Member of this body that 
is not appalled by some aspect of China's record on human rights. It is 
not acceptable. There is no doubt that the Chinese are overly 
protectionist in their trading practices, have been lax in enforcing 
agreements on the protection of intellectual property, and have 
exported nuclear technology. These situations also are not acceptable. 
The question before us is, how do we best change these unacceptable 
scenarios? How does the greatest country in the world help educate the 
Chinese on internationally accepted norm of behavior? By not sharing 
the traditions and institutions that have made the United States the 
beacon of hope for oppressed peoples everywhere? I do not think so. By 
keeping an American presence in this equation we can continue to make a 
difference. I believe we must embrace this Nation--embrace the people 
that have gained a greater sense of prosperity, decency, and Western 
values with every passing day since their leadership began to implement 
economic reforms in 1978.
  And let there be no mistake that the United States has played a vital 
role in this transformation. We speak of human rights, but we must not 
ignore the inescapable fact that the life of the average Chinese 
citizen is better due to economic reform, and that there is a 
commitment from the Chinese to pursue this path further. The 
continuance of this relationship is critical to segments of the 
American economy, such as agriculture. Earlier this year Congress 
passed a farm bill that promised America's farmers the ability to 
compete on a global scale. How can we then, barely 3 months later, deny 
them access to the world market with the largest potential? My home 
State of Illinois ranks second in the Nation in commodities exports to 
China, first in feed grains and soybeans. MFN for China is a necessity 
for these hard-working farm families that represent the backbone of our 
country. Likewise, the estimated $750 billion in needed infrastructure 
improvements in China will enable American manufacturers to create 
high-paying jobs here in the United States for our workers, in fields 
such as nuclear energy, and electrical machinery.
  However, the benefits to America of MFN for China must not overshadow 
the essential improvements that must be made in our existing trade 
relationship. We must continue to insist on the dismantling of trade 
barriers and that the use of prison labor ceases. I have taken a strong 
stand on Chinese dumping practices, pressuring their bicycle industry 
to disavow this behavior while endorsing retaliatory United States 
responses. I urge my colleagues to do the same. We must stand firm in 
this endeavor, and that means tailoring different means to meet this 
challenge other than the blunt instrument of MFN. For this reason, I 
endorse the Cox resolution that will seek more efficacious ways to 
achieve our goals in regard to the Chinese. We must do all we can to 
make sure this relationship is working for the best interests of the 
United States, while not crippling important domestic interests in the 
process. For all of these reasons I will vote for the continued 
extension of MFN to China, but at the same time we must remain vigilant 
in pressuring the Chinese to meet their commitments.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint 
Resolution 182. I want to commend the efforts of my good friends, Ms. 
Pelosi and Mr. Wolf, who have worked tirelessly since the Tiananmen 
Square massacre in 1989 to focus this body on the human rights 
atrocities in China, which continue today.
  While it is true that most-favored nation status is nothing more than 
the normal trading scheme that we have with most nations throughout the 
world, let me suggest that China is not typical of America's normal 
trading partners. In fact, despite the arguments of my colleagues who 
insist that engagement with the Chinese is the best policy to achieve 
improvements in human rights, nuclear nonproliferation, and 
intellectual property rights, China has been unrelenting in its 
defiance of international law and bi-lateral trade agreements with the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, it is extremely troubling to me that each year since 
1989, China MFN supporters have come to the floor and insisted that the 
status quo and continued normalized trade with China will address our 
many areas of concern.
  Despite the continued and very admirable efforts of the Clinton 
administration to address many of these issues on an individual basis, 
the Chinese have continued to send the United States and the world a 
very clear message: Despite the rhetoric, the Chinese Government 
doesn't want to be a part of the global community, nor does it intend 
to abide by the very international agreements which set the standards 
that link hundreds of nations worldwide.
  Each and every year, I take to the floor to discuss the conditions 
under which millions of children are forced to work in slave labor 
camps, the continued proliferation of nuclear-capable technology, and 
the violations of intellectual property rights. Many of my colleagues 
insist that there are alternative approaches to MFN revocation that 
would address these issues, yet another year has gone by and China 
continues to deny basic human rights to all of its citizens. Moreover, 
they continue to sell and transfer missile technology to Iran and 
Pakistan, and tighten their grip on freedom of speech, press, and 
thought in China and Tibet.
  Over the past 3 years this Congress has been, in my opinion, lenient 
toward China and clearly, the time has come to send a clear and strong 
message to President Zemin and the National People's Congress that the 
United States will no longer participate in business as usual with a 
nation whose actions are contrary to internationally accepted norms.
  The bill before us is very simple. It sends a very clear, strong 
message to the Chinese that it is time to back up the words that fill 
their statements and promises with action.
  As we have learned in country after country in Europe, the United 
States develops its strongest alliances and ensures its lasting 
security when we stand firmly and unequivocally for the principles upon 
which our own Nation was founded.
   Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. I agree that we must engage the 
Chinese. I recognize the billions of dollars of American exports to 
China and the thousands of American jobs associated with those products 
and services. However, our vision of a world focused on and committed 
to democracy must not be impaired by economic bottom lines.
  We all recognize that the best China policy is one which advocates a 
prosperous, strong, and democratic China. However, despite over $4 
billion in multilateral loans, $800 million in Export-Import Bank loans 
and guarantees, and relaxed controls on sensitive exports in the past 
year alone, there has been little, if any, progress in the many areas 
that we continue to press the NPC on.
  Recognizing this fact, we must change our course of engagement with 
China. Mr. Speaker, I will also support House Resolution 461 today and 
I hope that the House will act quickly and decisively in implementing 
additional policies which seek to address the very serious and critical 
issues that we are discussing today.
   Mr. Speaker, if China desires to be a true world power enmeshed in 
the global marketplace then they must lead responsibly and seek 
democratic reforms. Only then should we embrace China as a true global 
partner worthy of total and unrestricted United States engagement. I 
urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 182.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the best hope of encouraging 
democracy in the world's most populated country is by maintaining 
normal trade relations and exposing the Chinese people to American 
people and culture. Therefore, I have reluctantly voted in support of 
renewing most-favored nation status for the People's Republic of China.
  Removing MFN from China will not address our trade deficit while we 
allow other countries in this world to undercut our companies by 
ignoring labor, health and safety and environmental standards, and 
offering starvation wages. Precipitating the expulsion of our companies 
from China will only open a vacuum hole into which our competitors from 
Europe and Asia will gladly step. This will hurt, not help, American 
workers.
  That said, Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the continued 
good faith and patience of the American people are rewarded by China's 
unequal and nonreciprocal treatment of our products, China's pirating 
of intellectual property, the proliferation of dangerous weapons of 
mass destruction and, of course, the Chinese dictatorship's abysmal 
human rights record. I am growing weary of this annual exercise in 
which we are forced to gain further assurances from the Chinese 
Government that their behavior will warrant its being recognized as a 
member of the civilized world, and worthy of a normal trade 
relationship with this country. MFN is a courtesy offered by the United 
States to all but a handful of the nations of the world. To remove it 
would represent the recognition that we have no hope of a productive 
relationship with the Chinese. This year, I am still unable to abandon 
hope that we can help the Chinese people. However, without significant 
improvements in the behavior of the Chinese Government on human rights, 
bilateral trade, weapons proliferation, and peace and stability in the 
Asia Pacific, I fear that I will be unable to support renewal next 
year.
  I offer this, not as a threat to the Chinese, but as a plea for their 
Government's recognition of the rights of her people and the value

[[Page H7017]]

of the relationship between our nations. Mr. Speaker, Americans are a 
giving and patient people. Our good will, however, is not open-ended 
and should not be taken for granted.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, today, Congress is faced with an important 
question: How should the United States utilize its economic power and 
trade relations to influence other nations' policies. The question 
before us today is whether to extend most-favored-nation trading status 
to China or to withhold most-favored-nation status in hopes that China 
will change its ways. Opponents of MFN claim the United States should 
not place human rights second to economic benefit. Advocates of MFN 
claim that continued exposure to Western traditions and ideals will 
help promote democracy.
  First, let's get the facts. Most-favored-nation treatment is far from 
most favored. In fact, only seven nations do not receive MFN. By 
extending MFN to China, we merely provide the same trading status 
enjoyed by nearly every other U.S. trading partner. The United States 
continues to enter into, and negotiate, bilateral and multilateral 
trade agreements, such as NAFTA and GATT, which provide signatory 
nations with preferential trade treatment. By extending MFN, the United 
States does not give up the right to impose sanctions on a nation or 
pursue other trade penalties. The United States would still have at its 
disposal a variety of options to punish rogue nations.
  China's human rights record is poor. It has historically suppressed 
freedom of speech and expression and pursued policies of abortion and 
extermination. Today, they continue to implement policies that we as 
Americans loathe. But extending MFN is not an expression of approval of 
these policies, it is merely a vote to continue trade relations in 
hopes of strengthening ties between our nations so that we may improve 
China's human rights record. The economic power of the United States 
should be used as a light to expose China's violations. By turning our 
back on China, however, we turn off the light of exposure and allow 
China to continue its violations free of examination.
  U.S. companies continue to export and invest in China. The Chrysler 
Corp. which has manufacturing plants in China, pays their employees 
nearly five times the average worker's wage, provides employees with 
housing, day care for their children, and training in Western 
management practices. By exposing Chinese citizens to Western ways, we 
provide the education and enlightenment for them to help change China's 
ways from within. We must use the powerful tool of public scrutiny to 
highlight China's transgressions and utilize our existing relationships 
to educate the Chinese people. Only through a policy of engagement, not 
isolation, can we help highlight China's human rights violations, 
educate its citizens about human rights and correct the egregious 
government policies.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of continuing most-
favored-nation trading status for China.
  Each year, the President of the United States must renew China's MFN 
status. And each year, some Members of Congress, motivated by a desire 
to punish China for bad behavior, attempt to block this renewal.
  Mr. Speaker, I too believe China must change. China must respect the 
human rights of its citizens, respect intellectual property rights, and 
respect the sovereignty of its neighbors. As a member of the National 
Security Committee, I am particularly concerned about China's role in 
contributing to nuclear and missile proliferation.
  But the sledgehammer approach of denying MFN to China is not the 
answer. In the first place, most favored nation is a misnomer: MFN 
simply indicates normal trade relations. Every country in the world 
except Afghanistan, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam enjoys MFN 
status. We even grant MFN to Iraq, Myanmar, and Libya. Putting the 
world's largest nation in the same category as a few rogue states is 
folly.
  Second, revoking MFN won't work, and is likely to backfire. 
Terminating MFN will be perceived by the Chinese as an entirely 
confrontational policy, negating the economic and diplomatic ties which 
allow us to influence their behavior. Removing MFN will devastate the 
American commercial presence in China, ending the exposure of the 
Chinese people to American values of democracy and freedom.
  Third, American jobs, including thousands in my district, depend on 
trade with China. California exported over $1.5 billion worth of goods 
to China last year. And jobs related to trade with China don't just 
come from exports. Imports provide jobs at airports and seaports; in my 
district, trade to and from China already represents over 13.7 percent 
of the Port of Los Angeles's business, and trade with China is growing 
rapidly. Denying MFN would sacrifice these jobs for the sake of a 
largely symbolic and ineffective policy. I have often remarked that the 
next century will be the Asian century as China, the world's largest 
underdeveloped economy, takes off. American companies need to gain 
footholds in this market early. Our foreign competitors are poised to 
take advantage if we retreat.
  Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that MFN for China should be made 
permanent, so that we can end this annual ritual, and instead focus on 
more effective and positive ways to influence China's behavior. I urge 
my colleagues to look to the long term and reject this resolution.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the renewal of 
China's most-favored-nation [MFN] status. I am deeply concerned about 
China's human rights record, but I feel the only way to work toward 
improving human rights in China is to have an open dialogue between our 
two countries. Ending most-favored-nation status is an empty gesture 
that would sever political and economic relations between Washington 
and Beijing and ensure no improvement in human rights.
  Now is a crucial time in Chinese history. We must support China's 
emerging market. We can help China to continue to make progress toward 
an open market and adoption of international norms and laws, or we can 
isolate China and watch as they become an increasingly destructive 
force in the world community. In truth, trade teaches the skills which 
are crucial to an open market and a free society. How can we expect the 
Chinese to adopt our democratic ideals if we dissolve our political 
relationship?
  Ending most-favored-nation status means a loss of U.S. jobs and 
increased expenses for American families who rely on inexpensive 
Chinese products. Over 170,000 Americans jobs are dependent on trade 
with China and hundreds of thousands more and indirectly supported by 
our trade relationship. Chinese retaliation would endanger these jobs 
and would exclude American companies and workers from one of world's 
most dynamic markets.
  In the past few months, China has shown initiative by closing 15 
plants which were violating international property rights and turning 
them over to the police force to make sure they stay closed. 
Furthermore, China has created a special task force to deal with 
intellectual property rights violations. Both of these are steps in the 
right direction. We must not forget that our Government would never 
have been able to sit down with Beijing to discuss the issue of 
intellectual property if we had dissolved our political ties by ending 
MFN.
  In short, revoking MFN would lead to a political standoff between 
Washington and Beijing which would hurt the American people and do 
nothing to help the Chinese victims of human rights violations. Instead 
of making an empty gesture by revoking MFN, lets sit down with the 
Chinese and use MFN as leverage to improve their human rights record.
  I agree with President Clinton's rationale which is contained in the 
attached letter.


                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 1996.
       Dear Member of Congress: I am writing to express my strong 
     support for unconditional renewal of Most-Favored-Nation 
     (MFN) trade status for China. I favor renewal because--like 
     every other President who has faced this issue--I believe 
     that it advances vital U.S. interests. When it comes time to 
     cast your vote, I hope you will support renewal of MFN.
       Far from giving China a special deal, renewal of MFN 
     confers on it a trading status equal to that enjoyed by most 
     other nations. Simply put, it gives China normal trade 
     status.
       I favor renewal because it is in the best interests of the 
     United States. China is at a critical turning point. How the 
     United States and the world engage China in the months and 
     years ahead will help shape whether it becomes a 
     destabilizing or constructive force in Asia and in the world. 
     Revoking MFN would raise tariffs on Chinese imports 
     drastically, effectively severing our economic relationship 
     and seriously undermining our capacity to engage China on 
     matters of vital concern, such as non-proliferation, human 
     rights, trade and Taiwan relations. MFN renewal is critical 
     to our ability to engage China to promote vital U.S. 
     interests. Revocation of MFN would reverse three decades of 
     bipartisan China policy and would seriously weaken our 
     influence not only in China, but throughout Asia.
       Revoking MFN would also undermine America's economic 
     interests. U.S. exports to China support over 170,000 
     American jobs and have been growing at a rate of 20% a year. 
     Chinese retaliation would imperil or eliminate these jobs, 
     exclude American companies and workers from one of the 
     world's most dynamic markets and give an open field to our 
     competitors.
       Revoking MFN would not advance human rights in China. 
     Continued engagement with China, including through renewal of 
     MFN, is a major engine of change, exposing the country to 
     democratic values and free market principles. Revoking MFN 
     would cut those links and set back a process that is feeding 
     China's evolution for the next century.
       Revoking MFN would have a serious adverse impact on Hong 
     Kong, as Governor Patten and Martin Lee have explained during 
     their recent visits. It would also harm Taiwan's economy.

[[Page H7018]]

       Engagement does not mean acquiescence in Chinese policies 
     and practices we oppose. We must remain prepared to use 
     sanctions and other means at our disposal to promote 
     America's interests, whether it is protecting U.S. 
     intellectual property rights, combatting the proliferation of 
     weapons of mass destruction or promoting human rights. These 
     are the right tools to use in advancing U.S. interests. 
     Revocation of MFN is not.
       This vote is about what approach best promotes U.S. 
     interests. It is not a referendum on China's policies. We 
     disagree with many Chinese policies. The issue is whether 
     revoking MFN is the best way to serve U.S. interests. I 
     believe it is not. When you cast your vote, I ask you to vote 
     for America's interests by voting against the resolution of 
     disapproval.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to 
House Joint Resolution 182, a resolution to deny most-favored-nation 
[MFN] status to the People's Republic of China.
  I am mindful of and sympathetic to the concerns raised by proponents 
of the resolution. There is no disputing that China has an abysmal 
record on the protection of human rights, the sale of nuclear and 
missile technology and the protection of intellectual property rights. 
Furthermore, China's aggressive military spending and posture against 
Taiwan and in the Spratly Islands is disturbing. China's record on any 
one of these issues is reason to be concerned and outraged. These are 
serious issues that merit careful consideration by this Congress.
  We all want greater democracy and political freedom in China, but it 
is not clear that revoking MFN is an effective tool in this process. 
Many will argue that it is exactly opposite.
  As Congress begins debate on this issue once again, it has become 
clear that using MFN to affect China's behavior is ineffective. Since 
1980, China's MFN status has been continuously maintained through 
waivers to the Jackson-Vanik amendment. For every year since the 
Tiananmen Square incident in 1989, Congress has threatened to withdraw, 
substantially limit or make conditional China's MFN status. When 
Congress first threatened to revoke China's MFN status, the threat was 
credible and China responded with limited concessions and released some 
political prisoners.
  I believe Congress needs to consider the consequences of such an 
action and ask ourselves what our goals are in a China policy and how 
we want to achieve those goals. It is not altogether clear what the 
specific consequences of revoking China's MFN status would be. One 
concern is that it could strengthen hard-liners who are opposed to 
economic and political reforms and those in favor of taking a stronger 
military posture toward the United States. This could in fact result in 
greater restrictions on personal, political and economic freedoms. With 
such considerations, the potential consequences of revoking China's MFN 
are too serious to ignore.
  What then is the alternative to revoking MFN? What other tools does 
the United States have to achieve our desired goals?
  It has been reported that one of the biggest fears of the Chinese 
leadership is that a ``peaceful evolution'' will take place in China. 
This phrase refers back to an expression developed a few decades ago. 
In the 1950's, Chinese officials were convinced that the United States 
was plotting to undermine the regime through exposure to American 
culture and democratic ideas. Reportedly, such an evolution is still of 
serious concern to PRC leaders.
  Some have said that Taiwan is an example of the results of a 
``peaceful evolution.'' Over a decade ago, Taiwan was experiencing an 
economic miracle with phenomenal economic growth and investment. Some 
of the concerns about Taiwan at the time mirror today's debate on 
China. We must only look to the most recent election in Taiwan, the 
first fully democratic Presidential election in its history, to see how 
far Taiwan has come on its reforms.
  China is slowly following a similar path that moves from economic 
freedom to political openness. President Lee Teng-hui of Taiwan could 
not have put it more succinctly than he did in an interview earlier 
this year. President Lee argued:

       Vigorous economic development leads to independent 
     thinking. People hope to be able to fully satisfy their free 
     will and see their rights fully protected. And then demand 
     ensues for political reform * * * The fruits of the Taiwan 
     experience will certainly take root on the Chinese mainland. 
     In fact, the mainland is already learning from Taiwan's 
     economic miracle. The model of [Taiwan's] quiet revolution 
     will eventually take hold on the Chinese mainland.

  A more constructive approach than simply revoking china's MFN status 
would be to target sanctions at some of the specific problems. The 
Clinton administration proved the merits of this approach with the 
recent agreement on intellectual property rights [IPR]. A similar 
approach could be tailored toward other problems such as China's sale 
of nuclear and missile technology and sanctions against products 
produced by the People's Liberation Army. Each of these sanctions would 
be targeted toward the specific problems and, as the recent agreement 
on IPR demonstrates, be much more effective.
  Addressing China's human rights violations through sanctions is a 
little more problematic. While political freedom in China has improved 
at the margins, gross violations continue to occur. I am not so 
convinced that engagement without other forms of pressure will improve 
China's record on human rights. Engagement by itself has not produced 
the degree of improvement that we have sought. Perhaps engagement 
combined with diplomatic pressure could result in a more effective 
outcome.
  However, the solution proposed through House Joint Resolution 182 
could have an adverse impact on our goals. Revoking MFN for China will 
not necessarily improve human rights and may perhaps worsen the 
situation. The unforeseen consequences of revoking China's MFN status 
is too great a concern to me to support this resolution today.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 182. Businesses succeed in China when they first develop a 
good relationship with their Chinese counterpart before discussing the 
details of the transaction. It is time for the United States to do the 
same. In what is becoming an annual ritual, every summer the House of 
Representatives has this debate over renewal of China's most-favored-
nation trading status. I think everyone's time would be better spent 
developing a China policy that establishes a constructive framework for 
dialog and includes permanent extension of MFN. Annual grandstanding 
and political bickering over this issue does nothing to improve our 
relations with China. Threatening withdrawal hurts our credibility with 
the Chinese on other issues, and if carried out, would hurt our economy 
and turn China into an enemy.
  Today, MFN trading status is a pillar in the United States trading 
relationship with China. Without continued MFN, United States firms 
will be denied opportunities to sell and invest in China and in turn 
prevented from bringing United States values and United States ways of 
doing business to China. The involvement of United States businesses in 
China not only provides numerous benefits for the United States 
economy, but it has also brought improved health, safety and training 
standards to the Chinese firms and people with whom American companies 
do business.
  My State, Washington, has benefitted enormously from trade with 
China. Washington State ranks first among the 50 States in exports to 
China. In 1994, Washington State exports accounted for almost a quarter 
of total United States exports to China. China is the single most 
important and exciting market for the Pacific Northwest for the 
foreseeable future. Trade with China is beneficial not only to large 
companies located in my State, but also to hundreds of small companies 
in the State whose China trade accounts for an ever-growing portion of 
their business.
  Cutting off China's most-favored-nation status, which will 
immediately result in Chinese retaliation on American exports, is 
neither sound nor effective policy. The strategic implications of 
removing MFN from China and isolating it from the United States are 
serious and against our interests. Our relationship with China in not 
perfect. I would like to see improved human rights in China. But 
isolating China is not the way to achieve our goals. The United States 
need to take the step which is in the best interests of our country and 
renew MFN for China.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 182, legislation that would disapprove the President's 
decision to renew most-favored-nation [MFN] status for the People's 
Republic of China [PRC].
  My reason for doing so is simple: While I share my colleagues' 
concerns about the Chinese Government's actions regarding human rights, 
missile proliferation, and other bilateral matters, I do not believe 
that these issues should be linked to the basic foundation of trade 
between the United States and the PRC. I believe that there are more 
appropriate and effective means to address these important non-economic 
concerns.
  The People's Republic of China [PRC] has been denied permanent MFN 
trading status since 1951, when Congress revoked MFN status for all 
Communist countries. However, under the provisions of the Trade Act of 
1974, the United States can grant temporary MFN status to China if the 
President issues a so-called Jackson-Vanik waiver.
  In June of this year, President Clinton exercised this option--as he 
has in each of the previous years of his administration--and extended 
the Jackson-Vanik waiver for China for an additional year. In 
considering House Joint Resolution 182, we must now decide whether to 
exercise our Congressional prerogative to disapprove this waiver--and 
deny MFN status for China. Following this debate, I hope Congress can 
move forward on the consideration

[[Page H7019]]

of granting permanent MFN status for China and putting an end to this 
annual source of Sino-American tension.
  In making this important decision, there are two questions that we 
must answer: First, is it in our national economic interest to continue 
MFN for China? Second, how does extending MFN for China influence our 
efforts to effectively address human rights and other bilateral 
problems between the United States and China?
  The answer to the first question is unequivocally yes. Extending MFN 
to China would clearly yield substantial economic benefits to the 
United States.
  China is our Nation's fastest growing major export market. America 
exported $9.8 billion worth of goods to China in 1994, an increase of 
5.9 percent over 1993. These exports supported approximately 187,000 
American jobs, many of which are in high-wage, high-technology fields.
  But these benefits are only the tip of the iceberg. With a population 
of more than a billion people--and a GNP that has grown at an average 
rate of 9 percent since 1978--the future export potential of the 
Chinese market is enormous. In industries such as power generation 
equipment, commercial jets, telecommunications, oil field machinery, 
and computers, China represents a virtual gold mine of economic 
opportunity for American businesses.
  The importance of such a market is hard to understate: In a world 
where most existing major markets are saturated or are quickly 
maturing, it is critical that we find new and expanding markets for 
American products. China is just such a market. In fact, it represents 
one of the last reservoirs of raw economic potential left for American 
businesses to tap.
  In short, if cultivated properly, a vigorous trading relationship 
with China could be a badly-needed cornerstone of American export 
growth--and overall economic growth--over the next few decades.
  Denying MFN for China, however, would put that relationship at risk. 
To understand why this is true, it is important to realize that MFN is 
a misnomer. MFN is not preferential treatment--it is equal treatment. 
By denying MFN for China, we would be denying China the same trading 
status that all but six of our trading partners have been granted.
  How would China be expected to respond to such a punitive action? 
There's no way to know for sure * * * but I suspect that the Chinese 
would retaliate by quickly closing their market to American goods and 
would take their business elsewhere--an event that our international 
competitors, especially the Japanese and the EC, would note with glee.
  And, even if a full-fledged trade war with China is avoided, there is 
still the risk of destroying all of the progress made so far on other 
United States-China trade issues.
  For example, the United States has recently reached an historic 
accord with the PRC on protection of intellectual property rights and 
market access. The accord contains a commitment on the part of the 
Chinese to ``crack down'' on piracy and to enforce intellectual 
property laws. It also would require China to finally open its markets 
to United States audio-visual products. And, if China fails to live up 
to this agreement, there are more effective IPR-related trade actions 
that could be taken instead of revoking MFN.
  In short, rescinding MFN for China would undermine the progress we 
have made so far, and would eliminate any possibility of future 
progress on other trade related issues--such as full enforcement of the 
1992 bilateral agreement prohibiting prison-made goods.
  The fact is, MFN provides that basic foundation to negotiate with 
China on trade issues. Without MFN, there is no trading relationship-
and no reason for China to work with us to guarantee fair market access 
for American products.
  In other words, denying MFN for China can only have negative 
consequences for the United States. At a minimum, rescinding MFN would 
destroy the progress we have already made and would jeopardize future 
progress towards establishing an equitable trading relationship with 
the PRC. At maximum, denying MFN would cause a full fledged trade war 
in which the Chinese market would be closed to American products.
  Either way, the end result would be that American companies would 
effectively be shut out of one of the most rapidly expanding export 
markets in the world--sending hundreds of billions of dollars of future 
American exports down the drain.
  This scenario is easily avoidable. By continuing MFN status for 
China, we can take the next step towards promoting a strong economic 
relationship with this important trading partner--and put ourselves in 
position to reap the economic benefits that the Chinese market offers.
  So it is clear, that renewing MFN for China is in the best interests 
of the United States economy. Opponents of MFN for China argue, 
however, that our economic interests should not be our sole concern in 
deciding whether to extend China's MFN status. They argue that we 
should use MFN status as leverage to punish China for its abysmal 
record on human rights and regional security issues--and to force China 
to change its ways.
  Let me say that, in part, I agree with those who would make this 
argument. Almost no one would argue that China's record on human rights 
and other issues is unacceptable--and that inducing change in these 
areas should be a priority of United States foreign policy. I believe 
that the United States has a responsibility to do whatever it can to 
promote human rights and democracy in the PRC.
  In short, I don't disagree with the goals of MFN opponents. I just 
disagree with their methods.
  The premise of the MFN opponents' argument is simple: That full 
access to the United States market can somehow be used as a tool to 
force China to act responsibly. Unfortunately, this view simply does 
not reflect reality.
  The fact is, China simply cannot be bludgeoned into submitting to the 
will of the United States. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, China 
is a powerful, proud and independent nation. The idea that such a 
nation would undertake massive internal reforms because of economic 
threats from the United States is ludicrous. It is more likely that, in 
response to the hostile act of denying MFN, China would simply write 
off the United States market, close off its own markets to United 
States products and turn its attentions elsewhere in the world--like 
our competitors in the EC and Japan.

  If that happens, what would we have accomplished? We will not have 
made any progress on human rights or regional security issues. In fact, 
we might make things worse by reducing the flow of Western values and 
ideas into China and undercutting those in the Chinese Government who 
support closer ties to the West.
  In short, we would have accomplished nothing--and thrown billions of 
dollars in U.S. exports--and thousands of U.S. jobs--down the drain in 
the process. To me, this makes no sense.
  Fortunately, there is an alternative approach to bringing about 
change in China: Positive engagement. I believe that a strengthening--
not undermining--our economic relationship with China is the best way 
to make progress on the many issues of bilateral concern between the 
United States and the PRC. In the end, it will be economic 
interdependence--not hostile threats--that creates the incentive for 
China to work with us on human rights, regional security and other 
issues.
  In fact, this approach has already borne fruit: Chinese cooperation 
has already yielded significant progress in key areas, such as stopping 
aid to the Khmer Rouge, helping curtail the activities of North Korea, 
and securing a commitment from China not to export certain ground-to-
ground missiles. These accomplishments are in addition to the progress 
we have made on important trade issues, such as intellectual property 
rights. And, while I agree that more progress is needed, they are 
certainly a good start.
  In sum, Mr. Chairman, we are deciding today between two very 
different policy approaches in dealing with China. The choice is clear: 
We can deny MFN and adopt a policy of saber rattling and hostile 
threats. Or, we can engage China and attempt to use the leverage 
provided by mutual economic interest to bring about real--albeit slow--
change.
  I believe that we should choose the latter and renew MFN for China. 
The fact is, engaging China through international trade is the only 
chance we have to make a difference in how China treats its people and 
how China interacts with the world community. Conversely, denying MFN 
might make us feel good about ourselves in the short run--but in the 
long run we will have failed to make any difference in how China treats 
its people or how it behaves in the world community. And, we will have 
cost American jobs in the process.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is with concern that I cast my vote in 
favor of most favored nation status for China. Without MFN, I believe 
much would be lost, not only in the area of trade, but in our ability 
to continue to coerce China to address its labor and human rights 
violations. For this reason, I will be following China's progress in 
the coming year. If advancements are not made by China in these areas, 
I will be considerably less likely to vote as I did today.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this resolution of disapproval revoking normal trading relations with 
China. The extension of most-favored-nation trading status with China 
simply provides China the same trade status possessed by other nations. 
There is nothing most-favored or preferential about MFN status.

[[Page H7020]]

  The discontinuation of normal trade relations will only subvert our 
capacity to influence Chinese policy, including trade, weapons 
proliferation, and other security matters. Our actions today will be a 
key factor in Chinese calculations about their future. Asia is one of 
the most dynamic regions of the world and the one with the greatest 
potential to threaten world peace. Stability in this region is most 
likely if China and the United States participate constructively 
together. The United States cannot send mixed signals regarding its 
commitment to regional and global stability. Rather, this is precisely 
the time when a clear, consistent American policy is needed. The United 
States must maintain a policy of engagement with China lest one day we 
find ourselves forced into a policy of containment. Whether and how we 
engage China today will have enormous consequences for United States 
interests in the future.
  Moreover, denying normal trade relations with China will undermine 
United States economic interests. With a population of 1.2 billion, and 
past growth rates in the double digits, United States exports to China 
support 170,000 American jobs. Since establishing relations in 1979, 
trade between the United States and China has risen from $2 billion in 
1978 to nearly $60 billion last year making China our sixth largest 
trading partner.
  Market economies promote a better standard of living by evolving into 
democracies. Through normal trade and diplomatic relations, the United 
States can continue moderating and influencing Chinese actions. Normal 
trade relations promote human rights. Should MFN be denied, the influx 
of democratic political and economic ideals would cease. Normal trade 
relations promote environmental reforms. By working with China on 
sustainable development in areas of pollution prevention, agriculture, 
and energy, United States companies operating in China influence 
Chinese environmental policy. Normal trade relations significantly 
better the lives of the Chinese people. By providing higher wages, 
opportunities for travel and study abroad, and other basic benefits, 
American companies open Chinese society and influence it from within.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution of disapproval. Only 
through continued normal trading relations will the United States be 
capable of influencing future Chinese actions.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to extending most-
favored-nation [MFN] status for China. In the past, I have been 
supportive of extending MFN for China. Many companies in my district do 
business with China, and have urged me to support continuing normalized 
trade relations with them.
  This has been a very difficult decision for me to make. But, in 
making my decision, I simply asked myself this question: What will best 
serve the interests of the American people?
  The answer: Protecting this country's national security will best 
serve Americans. China's actions have threatened our national security, 
and this must stop. All Americans should be concerned over China's 
sales of nuclear ring magnets to Pakistan, sales of cruise missiles to 
Iran, nuclear processing technology transfers to Iran and Pakistan, 
chemical weapons technology transfers to Iran, and the testing of 
missiles in the seas off Taiwan just before Taipei's historic election. 
These are not minor matters. Most of them directly violate several 
international arms control agreements. Terrorist countries are 
acquiring weapons of mass destruction through their deals with China.
  Nor must we ignore China's record of violations of the human rights 
of China's people. The Clinton administration's policy against china is 
not advancing human rights in China. Chinese children die in orphanages 
because they are not fed or given proper medical care. China's one-
child policy results in forced abortions and sterilizations. Forced 
labor thrives. Christians are persecuted.
  Nor has China honored its commitments under intellectual property 
rights agreements, a grave concern for many employers in California. It 
is crucial that copyright-based industries, such as software and 
entertainment, are treated fairly by all participants in the global 
marketplace. This cannot be accomplished when China continues piracy.
  The Clinton administration has failed to lead with a realistic China 
policy. Its weakness and vacillation turns a blind eye to communist 
Beijing's disregard for freedom, for peace, and for fair trade. The 
burgeoning American trade deficit with China can and should be laid at 
President Clinton's feet, which have never even once touched the soil 
of the world's most populous country.
  What we can do is revoke MFN for China. I encourage my colleagues to 
join me in sending a strong message, and change United States policy 
toward China for the better, for America, and for the Chinese people.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, the human rights and other abuses 
perpetrated by the Government of the People's Republic of China 
comprise a series of ongoing and outrageous assaults on international 
comity and basic human decency. China's unacceptable behavior has been, 
and continues to be, egregious as measured by any reasonable standard 
of international conduct. Perhaps of greatest concern, China shows no 
sign of abating in its misdeeds but, rather, seems compelled to follow 
a course of worsening behavior. China's actions are so egregious that 
they cry out for a response.
  Day after day we hear reports regarding Chinese human rights abuses. 
Last December, after being under arrest for 21 months without charge, 
prodemocracy activist Wei Jingsheng was sentenced to 14 years in prison 
despite repeated international pleas for his release. The imprisonment 
of those who attempt to freely express themselves is common practice in 
China. In January and February, worldwide outrage turned on China when 
it became public knowledge that innocent children in Chinese orphanages 
were routinely starved to death as part of a program to rid society of 
its unwanted, and most fragile citizens.
  China's aggressive and harsh policies have extended beyond the 
mainland. This past fall, when Hong Kong voters demonstrated their 
commitment to democracy by repudiating most legislative candidates 
allied with Beijing and handing an overwhelming victory to advocates of 
democracy, China responded by vowing to dismantle the Hong Kong 
Legislature upon Hong Kong's return to Chinese control on July 1, 1997. 
When Taiwan's voters went to the polls to freely and fairly elect their 
leaders, China once again tried to thwart democratic advancement and 
fired missiles across the Straits of Taiwan in an act of blatant 
intimidation and raised tensions to an unprecedentedly dangerous level. 
And if we ever thought of looking to China to help promote peace and 
cooperation in Asia, we should look again. China, by engaging in the 
illegal sale of nuclear weapons to the Government of Pakistan and 
fostering nuclear proliferation elsewhere, shows no commitment to 
reducing the number of nuclear weapons worldwide. China's blatant 
interference with the selection of Tibet's Pachen Lama, and its ongoing 
efforts to repress the reasonable aspirations of the Tibetan people, 
represent one of the most egregious examples of religious repression on 
the globe.
  In addition, China continues to dump products at below cost on the 
United States marketplace, in violation of United States and 
international trade law. This dumping undermines other developing 
nations that are playing by the rules and endorsing free market and 
free government principles. Countries such as the Philippines and India 
suffer greatly when they lose United States market share to Chinese 
manufacturers who do not play by the rules.

   To all of this, our President has said to this Congress and the 
American people only what he will not do--he will not rescind most-
favored-nation treatment for China. I am basically in agreement with 
the President in this assessment. MFN is an extremely blunt instrument 
by which to attempt to influence Chinese policy. Its greatest weakness 
is that it harms those within and without the People's Republic whom we 
are most desirous of helping, especially Hong Kong and the emerging 
markets of Guangdong Province. For that reason, I essentially do not 
favor retracting MFN status for the People's Republic of China.
  The great and troubling difficulty with this is that, to the immense 
frustration of the American people and many Members of Congress, the 
President has utterly failed to articulate what he will do about 
China's outrageous conduct. There is an extremely disturbing failure on 
the part of this administration to provide any leadership in speaking 
out against, and acting against, fundamental violations of human 
rights, international comity and democratic principles by China. We 
know only what this administration will not do. In this regard, I find 
it extremely disappointing that the administration provides little 
support for Radio Free Asia.
  And, it is distressing to note, that this seems to be a pattern with 
this administration that goes well beyond our bilateral relations with 
China. In other areas of the world, this administration's response to 
human rights abuses and disregard for norms of civilized conduct is 
simply lacking. The Turkish Government wages a military campaign 
against its Kurdish minority. This war has taken the lives of more than 
20,000 people including women and children, displaced more than 3 
million civilians, and destroyed more than 2,650 Kurdish villages. And 
what is the United States Government's response--to provide the 
Government of Turkey with United States military equipment so that they 
may continue waging this 12-year conflict. Too often, our 
administration talks a big game but fails to follow through on its 
rhetoric with action. In Cyprus, former Ambassador Holbrooke promised 
to make 1996 the year of the ``big push on Cyprus.'' Yet, half

[[Page H7021]]

way through 1996 there has been no effort. I fear we will never see a 
resolution to the Cyprus situation. In Bosnia our administration admits 
that conditions do not exist for the holding of free and fair 
elections, but tells us that elections will nevertheless be held this 
September. What type of results can we expect from elections that we 
know will be corrupt?
  The absence of United States leadership in the face of ongoing human 
rights abuses in the People's Republic of China undermines the values 
and democratic principles that we as American hold dear. The difficulty 
that this nonpolicy presents is that it gives those of us in the 
Congress who object vociferously to Chinese behavior but are 
uncomfortable with denying MFN no choice. All options become 
unacceptable in the absence of Presidential leadership and the failure 
of this administration to articulate a China policy that amounts to 
anything more than acquiescence. We can only either support MFN for 
China or attempt to vent our outrage through support of the resolution 
of the Gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

  I will therefore support the resolution to disapprove MFN for China. 
But it is a poor substitute for an articulate, proportionate, and 
aggressive administration policy toward China that Members of Congress 
can support. And In doing so, I recognize and understand that the final 
outcome of this process is that China will without question continue 
its MFN status. And Beijing will interpret this result as tacit United 
States approval of its current course. To me however, China must 
understand that its behavior must change and, in the absence of an 
administration willing to forcefully drive that message home, I feel 
compelled to express this in the only way I can.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, as agricultural subsidies 
decline, we must allow and encourage expansion of markets for U.S. 
agricultural commodities. MFN to China leaves important trade avenues 
open, benefiting family farms, ranches, and businesses.
  China has the potential to becomes the largest importer of American 
agricultural products. Currently, China is the largest importer of 
American wheat. During 1995, agricultural sales to China totalled $2.6 
billion, more than double the 1994 sales.
  Mr. Speaker, we all detest China's notorious human rights record. 
But, if we don't extend MFN to China, we may lose all positive leverage 
we now have. As well, United States companies in China set a high 
standard of management practices--benefiting their employees as well as 
changing the management strategies of other companies competing in the 
labor market.
  If we don's extend MFN to China nobody wins. United States farmers, 
ranchers, and businesses lose, and the people of China lose as well.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, free and fair trade is an important element 
in the global economy and in U.S. trade relations with other countries. 
Benefits flow from most-favored-nation status [MFN], and we must 
acknowledge that the Chinese market represents a tremendous trade 
opportunity. But our trade relations also reflect American policy, 
values, and principles, both nationally and internationally. On many 
fronts, we have followed the policy of engagement with China but have 
seen few changes in return. Whether due to human rights abuses, unfair 
trade practices, the proliferation of technology for non-nuclear and 
nuclear weapons or theft of intellectual property, the United States 
should not grant MFN status for China. China does not merit such status 
as China has repeatedly misrepresented and violated both the spirit and 
letter of almost all accords related to these fundamental issues. I 
oppose efforts to grant MFN status to China.
  Regarding human rights, the Chinese people are repeatedly denied the 
opportunity to voice their views on labor abuses or exercise political 
rights. Documented cases of child and prison labor indicate that 
conditions are not improving in China. The abuse of Tibet and war games 
around Taiwan raise serious questions. The U.S. State Department in its 
1995 report on human rights indicates the absence of elemental rights 
and the unwillingness of the Chinese leaders to abide by international 
norms.
  Even when negotiations lead to agreement, China hesitates to 
implement such measures. China has failed to live up to its obligations 
under the 1995 intellectual property rights agreement with the United 
States. Pirate factories continue to produce illegal copies of 
software, CD's, and video recordings--costing the United States 
billions of dollars annually in lost sales. How can we extend MFN 
status to a country that fails to honor its obligations?
  Destabilizing international actions by the Chinese Government 
indicate their unwillingness to cooperate in the global community. 
Whether sabre-rattling to influence democratic elections in Taiwan, 
selling nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan and Iran, or 
illegally smuggling assault weapons into the United States, Chinese 
actions illustrate the gulf between their words and their deeds.
  As if the lack of performance wasn't enough, the predictable result 
in dollars and cents is negative. In 1995, the United States trade 
deficit with China topped $33 billion. I have serious concerns about 
this growing deficit and where our current trade policy may lead. China 
maintains high tariffs and numerous nontariff barriers. The situation 
in Japan has shown how difficult overcoming protectionist policies and 
reducing trade deficits can be. It is in our interest to avoid similar 
problems with China, which potentially will represent a far larger 
market than Japan or the European Union. It needs to be corrected now.
  I support actions which send a strong message to China that current 
Chinese policies are not acceptable and will not be tolerated by the 
United States. During the Bush years these problems were left to 
flourish, now the task to resolve them is more difficult but imperative 
to address. The best way to send this message is to vote ``yes'' on 
this resolution denying MFN status for China.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Rules Committee for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him for 
his leadership in crafting a fair and balanced rule that carefully 
addresses both sides of the MFN issue.
  First, let me say that I am a strong proponent of extending MFN trade 
status for China, and that I intend to oppose the disapproval 
resolution. But having said that, I think even the strongest proponents 
of renewing MFN recognize that there are problems in China.
  During this debate, we will hear accounts of egregious human rights 
abuses, proliferation of nuclear technology, intimidation of Taiwan, 
and piracy of intellectual property. That is why the companion measure 
to be offered by our colleague from California is so important.
  Under this fair rule, Members can vote to renew MFN and at the same 
time send a strong signal to Beijing that Congress will not turn a 
blind eye to China's trade practice, human rights record, and other 
very legitimate concerns.
  But while the Cox resolution is sure to put pressure on China, I 
continue to believe that an even stronger, more effective tool to 
induce change in China can be found in a trade policy that engages 
China. Why? Because market forces promise the kind of economic freedom 
that gives birth to lasting democratic reforms.
  Our own economic and national security interests also require us to 
maintain a productive relationship with China. We cannot ignore that 
country's potential as the world's most populous nation, as a member of 
the U.N. Security Council, and as a regional power with nuclear 
technology. And, let's not forget our friends in Taiwan and Hong Kong 
who would most certainly be hurt by the revocation of China's MFN 
status.
  The bottom line is that we cannot write off a market with 1.2 billion 
people. We have to stay engaged and we have to work to see that our 
policy concerns are addressed productively--and that means leaving MFN 
in place.
  So again, I congratulate our chairman for his efforts in writing a 
balanced rule that allows us to achieve both objectives--a clear vote 
on renewing MFN and a clear vote that sends a strong message to the 
Chinese Government. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and support for 
the extension of MFN for China.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House 
Joint Resolution 182, the resolution disapproving the continuation of 
most-favored-nation trading status for the People's Republic of China.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe to cancel MFN for China would be a penny-wise, 
pound-foolish measure to take.
  First, as a Representative from Connecticut, one of our Nation's 
leading exporting States, I know of the high rate of employment that 
our trade with China creates. Mr. Speaker, the $12 billion of goods and 
services we sell in our trading relationship with China provides for 
over 200,000 high-paying jobs, nationwide, while thousands of other 
jobs and also supported by our business with China indirectly.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, opponent of our present trading status with China 
would have us dissolve MFN, thus throwing these good, high-paying, 
quality jobs out the window. Mr. Speaker, are we so naive to think that 
if we dissolve MFN, the Europeans and the Japanese will not try to move 
in and take this business. I do not think so, but the opponents of MFN 
for China need to realize that by abandoning MFN trading status with 
China, we will, in effect, be abandoning our workers who depend on 
these exports for their livelihood and we would be surrendering this 
large, fertile market to our global competitors.
  Mr. Speaker, there are those Members of the House who claim that we 
must dissolve MFN because of various incidents of misconduct 
perpetuated by China. But I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if we now cut off MFN 
from China, what likelihood will there be that we can promote a better 
way of life to the Chinese? If we nip our trading relationship with

[[Page H7022]]

China in the bud, thus stunting the growing Chinese private sector, 
what leverage will we have in creating social change? The answer to 
both questions is none.
  Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is, if we are going to change China for 
the better, we need to economically engage her. Economic engagement 
means we can help nurture China into a freer, more market-oriented 
society which depends less on her centralized government and more on 
her burgeoning private sector.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that there are great advantages to 
maintaining our MFN status for the People's Republic of China. We need 
to defeat this resolution and continue the endeavor of discourse and 
interaction with China for the benefit of the peoples of both nations.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak out against 
granting most-favored-nation status to China. Many of my colleagues 
have discussed the various aspects of China's MFN status; I am going to 
concentrate on the issue of exporting forced labor manufactured 
products to the United States. The Chinese Government has not complied 
with the memorandum of understanding on prison labor between the United 
States and China also known as the MOU.
  In the MOU, the Chinese acknowledged that exporting forced labor 
products to the United States is illegal. Key provisions of the MOU 
state that China will promptly investigate companies or enterprises 
suspected of violating relevant regulations; they will furnish 
available evidence and information regarding suspected violations; and 
they will allow United States officials to visit the respective 
enterprises or companies.
  This violation should be important to any working American. Importing 
products made by convicted, forced or indentured labor in Chinese 
prison camps takes jobs away from Americans. The United States should 
not continue granting MFN status to China while it is exporting prison 
labor products. There are many examples of Chinese and United States 
companies deliberately violating the law.
  For example, the Customs Bulletin and Decisions published in the 
Federal Register on April 23, 1996, reports that certain iron pipe 
fittings are made using prison labor at the Tianjin Malleable Iron 
Factory also known as the Tianjin Tongbao Fittings Co., also known as 
the Tianjin No. 2 Malleable Iron Plant, also known as the Tianjin 
Secondary Mugging Factory, also known as the Tainajin No. 2 Prison. I'm 
sure you noticed that the prison goes by many names and is only one 
example of how the Chinese Government tries to mislead companies and 
countries on where exported manufactured products are being made.
  The March 1996 State Department report entitled ``China Human Rights 
Practices,'' states that cooperation with United States officials has 
stalled since mid-1995. ``As of the end of 1995, the authorities had 
not granted access to a prison labor facility since April 30th. * * * 
As in many Chinese workplaces, safety is a low priority. There are no 
available figures for casualties in prison industry.''

  Another example of exported prison labor can be found by examining 
the Chinese expandable graphite exports. The only mine in China which 
produces expandable graphite for export is a forced labor camp called 
the Beishu Laogai Detachment, also known as the Shandong Province 
Beishu Prison, the Shandong Province Beishu Shengjian Graphite Mine, 
the Beishu Graphite Mine, and recently the Qingdao Graphite Mine. 
Producing expandable graphite is dangerous because it involves the 
extensive use of sulfuric and chromic acid. Shipping records from 1992 
to 1995 show that two major customers of the expandable graphite in the 
United States were the Asbury Graphite Company and China Enterprises.
  Let me refresh some of my colleagues' memories in the case they don't 
remember watching the June 1995 Tom Brokaw interview with Steven 
Riddle, CEO of the Asbury Graphite Co. in New Jersey. During the 
interview, Mr. Riddle admitted that his company was purchasing 
expandable graphite from Qingdao Mines, a forced labor camp. In 
addition, Mr. Riddle admitted that he sometimes worried that his 
company, Asbury Graphite was violating the law, but ``everybody tends 
to look the other way.'' We need to stop looking the other way. United 
States companies should not feel comfortable purchasing forced labor 
products from China. The U.S. Customs Agency needs to put its foot down 
and enforce the law.
  An interesting side note: The Beishu Laogai Detachment was 
unexpectedly visited on Christmas Day, 1994, by a reporter from the 
London Sunday Times, named Nick Rufford. He reported that ``Evidence of 
the use of forced labor was abundant. Inmates marched in double file. 
Trucks with `Beishu prison' stenciled on the sides in Chinese 
characters were parked inside the factory gates. Behind the plant stood 
a walled compound with watchtowers and guards.'' Mr. Rufford reported 
3,500 tons of graphite from the mine was shipped to Britain last year.
  As many of my colleagues know, Amnesty International and other 
sources have provided ample documentation of the cruel and abusive 
practices common in Chinese prisons. That abuse, the restricted 
journals clearly show, is translated directly into hard currency earned 
in the export trade.
  For example, in a journal whose readership is restricted to prison 
officials, a writer laid out the brutal logic of using prison labor for 
export production: ``Prisoners have become commodity producers. they 
are cheap and concentrated. They produce labor intensive products.'' It 
is precisely the goods which fall into the labor intensive category 
that form the bulk of Chinese exports to the United States.
  The article also shows that it is common practice in China to 
forcibly retain so-called labor reform prisoners for indefinite periods 
beyond the expiration of their terms. the industrial advantages are 
explained clearly to prison administrators: ``Prisoners retained for 
in-camp employment * * * can not join labor unions, do not enjoy 
retirement benefits when they become old, and their wages and living 
standards are low.''
  These abuses seal the case against granting China MFN status. China 
does not play by the rules. China does not reciprocate the trade 
benefits we grant to them. Despite the fact that over one-third of 
China's exports are sold into the United States market, China's high 
tariffs and non tariff barriers limit access to the Chinese market for 
United States goods and services. Only 2 percent of United States 
exports are allowed into China. The result is a $34 billion United 
States trade deficit with China in 1995. This doesn't include any of 
the stolen intellectual property of the illegally smuggled guns. I 
strongly urge my colleagues that we no longer reward China's constant 
violations of agreements. Vote against granting MFN status to China.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, when the People's Liberation 
Army massacred, maimed, and incarcerated thousands of peaceful pro-
democracy activists in June 1989, the well intentioned but wishful 
thinking that, somehow, the People's Republic of China was turning the 
page on repression was shattered.
  The brutal crackdown on the reformers was not the end, however, it 
was the beginning of a new, systematic campaign of terror and cruelty 
that continues still today.
  Each year since Tiananmen Square the savagery has gotten worse and 
the roster of victims grows by the millions.
  It is my deeply held conviction that in 1989 and by the early 1990's, 
the hardliners in Beijing had seen enough of where indigenous popular 
appeals for democracy, freedom, and human rights can lead. The 
Communist dictatorships in control in Eastern and Central Europe--and 
even the Soviet Union--had let matters get out of hand. And Beijing 
took careful note as, one by one, tyrants like Nicolae Ceausescu of 
Romania, Erich Honecker of East Germany, and Wojeiech Jeruzelski of 
Poland were ousted.
  Everything Beijing has done since Tiananmen Square points to a new 
bottom line that we ignore and trivialize at own peril and that is 
democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights won't happen in the 
PRC any time soon. The dictatorship's not going to cede power to the 
masses especially when we fail to employ the leverage at our disposal. 
We are empowering the hardliners.
  Accordingly, stepped up use of torture, beatings, show trials of well 
known dissidents, increased reliance on the hideous, and pervasive 
practice of forced abortion and coercive sterilization and new, 
draconian policies to eradicate religious belief, especially 
Christianity, have been imposed. Genocide is the order of the day in 
Tibet. Repression on a massive scale is on the march in the People's 
Republic of China.
  Some have argued on this floor that conditions have improved, citing 
the excesses of the Cultural Revolution as the backdrop to measure 
improvement. But that's a false test. The depths of depravity during 
that period has few parallels in history and the Chinese leaders knew 
themselves that such extreme treatment of its people could not be 
sustained.
  But the real test is the post-Tiananmen Square reality--and the jury 
is in--China has failed miserably in every category of human rights 
performance since 1989.
  Mr. Speaker, I chair the International Operations and Human Rights 
Subcommittee. Since the 104th Congress began my subcommittee has held 
nine hearings on human rights in China and an additional half dozen 
hearings, like a hearing on worldwide persecution of Christians, where 
China's deplorable record has received significant attention. I have 
led or co-led three human rights delegations to the People's Republic 
of China. On one trip, Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia and I 
actually got inside the Laogai Prison Camp and witnessed products being 
manufactured for export by persecuted human rights activists.

[[Page H7023]]

  Mr. Wolf and I met with Le Peng, who responded to our concerns with 
disbelieving contempt and arrogance.
  Mr. Speaker, each representative of the most prominent human right 
organizations made it quite clear--things have gotten worse in China 
and current United States policy has not made a difference for the 
better and has sent the wrong message to the Chinese Government and 
other nations in the region and around the world.
  Last week at my subcommittee's hearing Dr. William Schulz, the 
executive director of Amnesty International testified that ``the human 
rights condition in China has worsened since the delinking of human 
rights and MFN. Despite rapid economic changes in recent years in 
China, which has led to increased freedom and some relaxation of social 
controls, there has been no fundamental change in the Government's 
human rights practices. Dissent in any form continues to be 
repressed.''
  While Amnesty International takes no position on MFN, it is 
significant to note, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. Schulz reported that ``the 
delinking has given a clear signal to the Chinese Government that trade 
is more important than human rights considerations'' and that ``the 
message is clear, good trade relations in midst of human rights 
violations is acceptable to the U.S.''
  Nina Shea, the director of the Puebla Program on Religious Freedom at 
Freedom House testified that ``China ranks at the bottom of the 1996 
Freedom House Freedom in the World survey among the `18 Worst Rated 
Countries' for political and civil liberties.''

  And if I might be allowed one more example of what my subcommittee 
heard, Mr. Speaker, Mike Jendrzejczyk, the Washington Director of Human 
Rights Watch/Asia testified that ``in recent months, Chinese 
authorities have ordered increased surveillance of so-called `counter-
revolutionaries' and `splittists' (Tibetans, Uighurs and other national 
groups) and given even harsher penalties for those judged guilty of 
violating its draconian security laws. China has silenced most, if not 
all, of the important dissent communities including political and 
religious dissent, labor activists, and national minority populations. 
Their members have been exiled, put under house arrest, `disappeared,' 
assigned to administrative detention, or subjected to economic 
sanctions and systematic discrimination in schooling and employment. 
Dissidents also continue to suffer criminal charges, long prison 
sentences, beatings and torture.''
  Mr. Speaker, I've met with Wei Jingsheng in Beijing--before he was 
thrown back into jail--and was deeply impressed with his goodness, 
candor, and lack of malice toward his oppressors. it is unconscionable 
that this good and decent democracy leader is treated like an unwanted 
animal by the dictatorship in Beijing.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration's celebrated delinking of 
most-favored-nation status from human rights in 1994 was a betrayal of 
an oppressed people of breathtaking proportions. Unfortunately, it was 
only the worst example of a broader policy, in which the U.S. 
Government has brought about an almost total delinking of human rights 
from other foreign policy concerns around the globe. As a candidate, 
Bill Clinton justly criticized some officials of previous 
administrations for subordinating human rights to other concerns in 
China and elsewhere. He called it ``coddling dictators.'' But the 
Clinton administration has coddled as few have coddled before.
  Each year, as the time approaches for Congress and the President to 
review the question of most-favored-nation status for the Government of 
the People's Republic of China, members of Congress are approached by 
representatives of business interests to support MFN. Their argument is 
that constructive engagement is the best long-term strategy for 
promoting human rights in China.
  The biggest problem with this strategy is that it has not yet 
succeeded in the 20 years our Government has been trying it. Our 
Government has been embroiled in a 25-year one-way love affair with the 
Communist regime in Beijing. There is no question that increased 
contact with the West has changed China's economic system, but there is 
little or no evidence that it has increased the regime's respect for 
fundamental human rights.
  I have made an honest effort to try to understand why this is, if, as 
we Americans believe, human rights are universal and indivisible, then 
perhaps the extension of economic rights should lead to inexorable 
pressure for free speech, democracy, freedom of religion, and even the 
right to bring children into the world. And yet it has not worked. One 
possible reason is that although there has been economic progress in 
China, this has not resulted in true economic freedom. In order to stay 
in business, foreign firms and individual Chinese merchants alike must 
have government officials as their protectors and silent or not-so-
silent partners. Yes, there is money to be made in China, and every 
year at MFN time, we in Congress get the distinct impression that some 
of the people who lobby us are making money hand over fist, but this is 
not at all the same as having a free economic system. Large 
corporations made untold millions of dollars in Nazi Germany. Dr. 
Armand Hammer made hundreds of millions dealing with the Soviet 
government under Stalin. Yet no one seriously argues that these 
economic opportunities led to freedom or democracy. Why should China be 
different?
  For 20 years we coddled the Communist Chinese dictators, hoping they 
would trade communism for freedom and democracy. Instead, it appears 
that they have traded communism for fascism. And so there is no 
freedom, no democracy, and for millions of human beings trapped in 
China, no hope.
  Another reason increased business contacts have not led to political 
and religious freedom is that most of our business people--the very 
people on whom the strategy of ``comprehensive engagement'' relies to 
be the shock troops of freedom--do not even mention freedom when they 
talk to their Chinese hosts. After the annual vote on MFN, the human 
rights concerns expressed by pro-MFN business interests often recede 
into the background for another 11 months.
  During those 11 months, Mr. Speaker, the United States trade deficit 
with China continues to grow. In 10 years China rose from being our 
70th largest deficit trading partner to our second largest. The deficit 
has grown from $10 million to over $33 billion. One-third of all of 
China's exports come to the United States and are sold in our markets. 
If China did not have the United States as a trading partner they would 
not have a market for one-third of their goods. China needs us, Mr. 
Speaker, we do not need China.
  Our State Department's own country reports on human rights conditions 
for 1995 make it clear that China's human rights performance has 
continued to deteriorate since the delinking of MFN from human rights 
in 1994. In each area of concern--the detention of political prisoners, 
the extensive use of forced labor, the continued repression in Tibet 
and suppression of the Tibetan culture, and coercive population 
practices--there has been regression rather than improvement. And every 
year we find out about new outrages, most recently the ``dying rooms'' 
in which an agency of the Beijing government deliberately left unwanted 
children to die of starvation and disease.

  Since February 1994--just 1 month into the Clinton administration--
the United States has been forcibly repatriating people who have 
managed to escape from China. Some, although not all, of these people 
claim to have escaped in order to avoid forced abortion or forced 
sterilization. Others are persecuted Christians or Buddhists, or people 
who do not wish to live without freedom and democracy. Still others 
just want a better life. For over 3 years now, over 100 passengers from 
the refugee ship Golden Venture have been imprisoned by the U.S. 
Government. Their only crime was escaping from Communist China. In the 
last few months, several dozen of the Golden Venture passengers have 
been deported to China--some by force, some voluntarily because they 
were worn down by years in detention.
  A few days ago I received an affidavit signed by Pin Lin, a Golden 
Venture passenger who through the intervention of the Holy See has been 
given refuge in Venezuela. He has received information from families of 
some of the men who have returned. The Chinese Government had promised 
there would be no retaliation. Contrary to these promises, the men who 
returned were arrested and imprisoned upon their return to China. Men 
who had been mentioned in U.S. newspapers or who had cooperated with 
the American press were beaten very severely as an example to others. 
The men and women remaining in prison--the men in York, PA, and the 
women in Bakersfield, CA--are terrified by these reports. And yet they 
are still detained, and they are still scheduled for deportation to 
China.
  I ask the Clinton administration, please, let these people go. They 
have suffered enough. And I hope this House will send a strong message 
today--to the totalitarian dictatorship in Beijing, to the enslaved 
people of China and Tibet, and to the whole world--that the time has 
come to say enough is enough. It is clear that most-favored-nation 
status and other trade concessions have not succeeded in securing for 
the people of China their fundamental and God-given human rights. Now 
we must take the course of identifying the Beijing regime for the rogue 
regime that it is, a government with whom decent people should have 
nothing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to send a clear and 
uncompromising message to China and to the rest of the world: Human 
rights are important, human lives are more valuable that trade, the 
people of the United States do care more about the people of China than 
we do about profit. Now is the time to disapprove MFN.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, debates over how to deal with 
China have raged

[[Page H7024]]

in this House for better than a century, and this year is no exception. 
The challenge of defining a relationship with this Asian giant has 
frustrated American policymakers for over a century.
  The issue before us is not the record of the Chinese regime but 
whether the denial of MFN is the appropriate vehicle for influencing 
Chinese behavior. Of course, we continue to be troubled by China's 
human rights abuses, its failure to adhere to intellectual property 
agreements and its practice of violating international standards of 
nuclear non-proliferation. But denying MFN will not solve these 
problems.
  The denial of MFN will significantly limit our economic interaction 
with China and in so doing will limit our ability to influence Chinese 
behavior. To be able to change China, we must maintain a significant 
and sustained trade relationship. A country the size and strength of 
the PRC is difficult enough to influence at our current level of trade. 
To deny MFN would be to eliminate any opportunity to modify Chinese 
behavior.
  The most appropriate and effective way to exert influence is through 
consistent diplomacy and military preparedness. America must remain a 
visible beacon on the Chinese horizon. It is only through maintaining a 
strong and stable presence in Asia that we will be able to promote 
democratic reforms in China and in Asia generally.
  We have much at stake in China. The Chinese alone sold China nearly 
$711 million in goods, with an additional $1.5 billion going to Hong 
Kong, which will become a part of China next year. Importantly, some 
180,000 United States jobs rely on exports to China.
  A United States unilateral trade embargo on China will not have the 
effect we desire. But it will cost American jobs because Japanese and 
European companies will quickly move to fill the void. Already there is 
talk in Brussels and Tokyo of playing the ``China card'' against the 
United States.
  MFN simply is not the way to influence China. And that government 
should not feel that renewing MFN is a reward for its behavior. We must 
keep the pressure on all fronts to push for democratic reform. The 
pathway to democracy is through free and open markets, and renewing 
China's MFN status makes sense. We must not hold our trade policy 
hostage to the vehicle of MFN.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives today will 
decide whether to extend most-favored-nation status on China. There are 
grave issues to be considered relative to this decision.
  Trade.--On a strictly trade-for-trade basis, China does not 
reciprocate the benefits we grant to them with MFN. Only 2 percent of 
United States exports are allowed into China and the result is a $34 
billion United States trade deficit with China in 1995. Ten years ago 
this figure was $10 million.
  Piracy of U.S. Intellectual Property.--This issue represents a cost 
to the U.S. economy of $2.4 billion in 1995 alone, and does not include 
the loss to our economy from Chinese production and technology 
transfers which hurt our workers and diminish our economic future.
  Proliferation.--China continues to transfer nuclear, missile and 
chemical weapons technology to unsafeguarded countries including 
Pakistan and Iran in violation of international agreements.
  There is more. Human rights violations, the smuggling of AK-47's and 
other weapons into the United States by the Chinese military, the 
pointing of missiles at the democratic elections of Taiwan, and the 
occupation of Tibet.
  While it can be said that these issues are not technically about 
trade, we must, in my view, work to resolve them as we trade. With this 
heavily weighted case against the Chinese, what we need today more than 
ever before is a policy, not a protest.
  There must be a stiffening of the resolve of the administration to 
address the imbalance of trade and the balance of trade tariffs.
  The private sector together with the Government must speak up and 
help forge not just a message but a policy.
  My vote today to extend MFN is cast with the concern for the dangers 
of isolationism. One billion two million people cannot be ignored or 
isolated.
  We paid, in my view, an enormous price in dollars and decades by 
isolating the Soviet Union.
  I cast this vote with reservations--strong reservations which I've 
stated.
  My hope is that the next time an administration seeks congressional 
approval of MFN status for China, that a policy will have been stated 
and carried forward, that China's record will be one of fairer trade, a 
freer political climate and a safer world.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, we all want to see a China that cooperates 
in regional and global peacekeeping. We all want to see a China that 
follows international proliferation and trade rules. And we all want to 
see a China that respects human rights.
  We can all agree on these goals.
  The question is--How do we best reach them?
  We have two China measures before us today. One measure, introduced 
by Mr. Cox of California condemns China and instructs several House 
committees to hold hearings and to prepare legislation that will 
address serious and growing concerns with Chinese human rights abuses, 
nuclear and chemical weapons proliferation, illegal weapons trading, 
military intimidation of Taiwan, and trade violations.
  This is a constructive measure which I will support.
  A second measure seeks to isolate China. By disapproving renewal of 
so-called most-favored-nation [MFN] trading status for China, it would 
at best severely damage the already-troubled economic and political 
relationship between the United States and China. I call it ``so-called 
most-favored nation status'' because MFN simply confers on China the 
same trading status we give to all but seven other countries. MFN is 
not a special deal for China.
  I will not support this measure, because I believe it would be 
counterproductive. Cutting off MFN would hurt the Chinese economy and 
put thousands of Chinese out of work. Given recent Chinese behavior in 
several areas, I admit there's a certain emotional appeal to this 
consequence. But, cutting off MFN would also hurt our economy and put 
thousands of Americans out of work. And it would also forfeit one 
element of leverage--however modest and problematic--we now have to 
influence the behavior of the Chinese Government.
  If I thought revoking MFN would effectively bring the kind of change 
we want to see in China, I'd come down differently. But I don't believe 
it would.
  Cutting off MFN would all but shut the door on the exchange of goods 
and services between the United States and China. It would subject 
Chinese imports to tariff levels set by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act 
just before the Great Depression. Tariffs would rise up to 70 percent 
on some Chinese goods. This would cost American consumers up to $29 
billion per year. (Alternatively, other low-wage countries would take 
over in sectors where the Chinese were priced out.) The Chinese would 
certainly retaliate cutting off our imports and costing the jobs of 
perhaps 200,000 Americans currently making goods sold in China.
  Cutting off MFN means that we lose the opportunity we now have to 
expose China to free market principles and values. China cannot 
participate in the global trading system without being increasingly 
integrated into the international community. To finance their expanding 
trade, the Chinese need foreign capital and foreign investment. This 
will eventually compel China to accept an international framework based 
on accepted rules. Yes, it's painful and often offensive to live 
through the period until that occurs. But that has to remain the 
objective.
  Cutting off MFN also means that we will lose many of the person-to-
person contacts that exist between American and Chinese businesspeople, 
diplomats, and students. These contacts are the most direct way we have 
to influence the way China evolves.
  Finally, cutting off MFN means that we will take away the tools that 
the United States Government now has to deal with Chinese actions that 
harm our national interests. Just this month, the Clinton 
administration got the Chinese to enforce an intellectual property 
rights agreement by threatening sanctions of $2 billion of targeted 
Chinese exports. Earlier this spring, the administration used 
diplomatic pressure and the threat of economic sanctions in the ring 
magnets case to secure a commitment by China not to assist 
unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. In both instances, admittedly, the 
proof will be in long-term adherence to commitments. But, again, I 
believe it would be a worse and more dangerous relationship to deal 
with absent MFN, when these initiatives to shape Chinese behavior in a 
more positive way would not have been possible.

  China's human rights record is still an abomination. But we do 
nothing to improve the situation by isolating China. I have long 
advocated improved human rights in China. After the 1989 massacre in 
Tiananmen Square, I organized a protest march of more than 2 dozen 
Members of Congress who walked across Washington from the U.S. Capitol 
to the Chinese embassy, where we met with their ambassador and 
presented in the strongest possible terms our view that the Chinese 
Government needed to change its ways.
  Since that time progress has been far too slow. Chinese repression in 
Tibet, arbitrary detentions, forced confessions, torture and 
mistreatment of prisoners, along with restrictions on freedom of 
speech, of press, of religion, and of assembly, remain unacceptable. We 
must continue to expose Chinese atrocities and to demand expansion of 
universally recognized human rights. I hope that the resolution 
introduced by Mr. Cox will contribute to this goal.
  To date, we have pursued our human rights interests in China largely 
through bilateral diplomatic contacts. It will not be possible to

[[Page H7025]]

pressure the Chinese Government to release political dissidents and 
religious prisoners and to expand civil rights if we initiate a trade 
and diplomatic war by voting to disapprove MFN renewal.
  Engagement does not work as quickly as we would all like. It will 
take time for trade, investment and foreign enterprise to break down 
the iron grip of power that the Chinese Communist Party holds over its 
people. But American trade and the products we send to China--fax 
machines, televisions, satellite dishes, cellular telephones, 
computers, books, movies--carry the seeds of change. Ultimately, China 
cannot sustain the economic liberalization supporting its trade with 
the United States without seeing an inevitable erosion of its political 
isolation and its authoritarian regime.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Cox measure and I urge a 
``no'' vote on the measure to disapprove MFN status for China.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the disapproval resolution of most-favored-nation [MFN] status for the 
People's Republic of China.
  Opponents of MFN have legitimate grievances with China, and I share 
them. But quite simply, despite having the right reasons, this is the 
wrong tool.
  I do not dispute the fact that China has a poor track-record on human 
rights. I cannot overlook that China has sold nuclear ring magnets to 
Pakistan. Moreover, the $33 billion trade deficit with China is 
undisputable.
  Many of my colleagues believe that denying MFN status will send a 
strong signal to the Chinese Government that America is ready to play 
hardball. Quite frankly, I think the whole idea behind annual review of 
MFN status needs to be re-evaluated. Only six countries in the world--
including Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam--do not enjoy MFN status. Even 
Iran, Iraq, and Libya are considered Most-Favored-Nations.
  Targeted trade sanctions are the best way to get the attention of the 
Chinese--not the hollow-threat of revoking MFN.
  Recent trade negotiations by Ambassador Barshefsky to stop the 
production of pirated software and compact discs prove that the threat 
of sanctions is the way to wrest compliance from the Chinese. Had MFN 
not been in force, she would never have had the opportunity even to 
address the problem.
  There is too much at stake to throw away our 25-year investment in 
building a United States-China relationship by declaring a trade war. 
Trade with China is too important for the American economy--last year, 
over $1 billion worth of wheat and cereal were exported to China. In 
fact, China is the world's second largest importer of rice and the 
sixth largest market for grain.
  Trade with China is too important to Californnia and my congressional 
district. California has exported over $1.4 billion worth of goods to 
China, and 25,000 jobs directly attributed to exports.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this disapproval resolution if they 
are concerned about China. We cannot expect the Chinese to listen to 
the concerns of the international community if we drive them away. It 
is only by engaging in constructive communication can we address the 
many grievances that exist between our two countries. China is poised 
to become an economic and military rival in the next century--continued 
dialog between Beijing and Washington is vital to protect our national 
interests.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.
  Today we are confronted with a very difficult decision.
  China is one of our Nation's most important trading partners. China 
contains one-fifth of the world's population and is the fastest growing 
market in the world for American goods and services. Trade with China 
creates jobs here at home and stimulates economic growth in the United 
States.
  Yet we also know that the Chinese Government abuses the civil rights 
of its citizens. It violates international trade laws. And China 
continues to harass Taiwan and violate nuclear proliferation treaties.
  Our Government must never tolerate these actions. We must hold the 
Chinese Government responsible for its behavior and convince them to 
change it. We must continue to pressure China to improve its record.
  Mr. Speaker, revoking China's MFN status will not accomplish these 
goals.
  In fact, I believe that continuing our free trading relations with 
China is the best hope we have of bringing real progress there. If we 
cut ourselves off from China we lose any leverage we have over the 
Chinese Government. The United States must remain engaged in China to 
promote our ideas, to promote democracy, and to promote human rights. 
Renewing MFN allows us to shine a flashlight on China's problems and 
change them.
  And approaching China with a policy of engagement also has rewards 
for United States foreign policy beyond the borders of China. China has 
played an active and constructive role in securing the Asia Pacific 
Economic Cooperation forum's commitment to free trade and investment in 
the entire Asia Pacific region. China has also played critical roles in 
United States efforts to secure a nuclear-free Korean peninsula and the 
historic four-party peace proposal announced by Presidents Clinton and 
Kim in April.
  Mr. Speaker, MFN does not extend any special treatment for China. 
Indeed, all but six nations in the world have MFN status. Rather, MFN 
is about engagement. MFN status will pressure China to improve its 
behavior and encourage China's integration into the world economy 
through exposure to United States values. The United States must also 
continue to pressure China through diplomacy and ongoing trade talks. 
We can get results from the Chinese without revoking their MFN status.
  Of course, revoking MFN would also jeopardize thousands of American 
jobs and billions of dollars in United States exports to China.
  At least 170,000 American jobs are supported by United States exports 
to China, and that number rises every year. Exports to China increased 
27 percent last year alone, bringing total United States exports to 
nearly $12 billion. My home State of New York alone sent over 368 
million dollars' worth of machinery, transportation equipment, 
fabricated metal products, and other goods to China last year.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate over China's most-favored-nation status 
cannot bear the weight of the entire bilateral relationship between the 
United States and the People's Republic of China. We have serious 
disagreements with China, but we cannot turn our back on the world's 
most populous nation. Cultivating and engaging trading partners must be 
the cornerstone of our economic and foreign policies. I urge the 
resolution's disapproval.

                              {time}  1600

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 463, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 141, 
noes 286, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 284]

                               AYES--141

     Abercrombie
     Baker (CA)
     Barr
     Barton
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Cardin
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Fields (LA)
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Greene (UT)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Longley
     Markey
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Porter
     Rahall
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walker
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--286

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis

[[Page H7026]]


     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coleman
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     English
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Flake
     Hall (OH)
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Stockman

                              {time}  1619

  Mr. DICKEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. STUPAK changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the joint resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
_______________________________________________________________________
                              N O T I C E
                Incomplete record of House proceedings.
 Today's House proceedings will be continued in the next issue of the 
                                Record.
_______________________________________________________________________