[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.
_______________________________________________________________________