[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7027-H7040]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H7027]]



                REGARDING THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 463, 
I call up the resolution (H. Res. 461) regarding United States concerns 
with human rights abuse, nuclear and chemical weapons proliferation, 
illegal weapons trading, military intimidation of Taiwan, and trade 
violations by the People's Republic of China and the People's 
Liberation Army, and directing the committees of jurisdiction to 
commence hearings and report appropriate legislation, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 461

         Whereas the People's Republic of China has long enjoyed 
     most favored nation trading status with the United States 
     notwithstanding significant policy and security issues in our 
     bilateral relationship;
         Whereas, despite the positive influence that United 
     States trade with the People's Republic of China has had in 
     encouraging the abandonment of state control over all aspects 
     of the economy by the Communist government, serious human 
     rights, trade, security, and weapons proliferation issues 
     have remained and often worsened during the period of this 
     trade policy;
         Whereas this experience has made clear that of itself, 
     the extension of most favored nation trading status (and the 
     potential of its annual non-renewal) has been inadequate to 
     address the many policy and security issues that characterize 
     our bilateral relationship;
         Whereas these policy and security issues include, with 
     regard to the economic activities of the People's Liberation 
     Army--
         (1) according to the Defense Intelligence Agency, the 
     People's Liberation Army of Communist China is in fact 
     engaged, through controlled enterprises, in government-
     controlled and subsidized trade overseas;
         (2) the General Staff Department of the People's 
     Liberation Army owns and operates Polytechnologies, which is 
     the weapons trading arm of the People's Liberation Army. 
     Polytechnologies has a representative office in the United 
     States;
         (3) the General Logistics Department of the People's 
     Liberation Army owns and operates a large international 
     conglomerate known as Xinxing Corporation, which has a 
     representative office in the United States;
         (4) the People's Armed Police, which is partially 
     controlled by the People's Liberation Army, is responsible 
     for the occupation and suppression of dissent in Tibet and 
     the execution of prisoners throughout China, provides guards 
     for the forced labor camp system in Communist China, and owns 
     and operates China Jingan Equipment Import and Export, which 
     has a representative office in the United States;
         (5) the export of products by these entities allows the 
     People's Liberation Army to earn hard currency directly, 
     which in turn can be and is used to modernize its forces 
     without being reflected in official reports of military 
     spending;
         (6) consumers in the United States are ordinarily unaware 
     that revenues from the products they are purchasing from or 
     through such entities contribute to the financial benefit of 
     the People's Liberation Army;
         (7) trade with the People's Liberation Army effectively 
     is a subsidy of military operations of the People's Republic 
     of China that is inconsistent with our national security; and
         (8) free trade in world markets is based on the 
     assumption that the import and export of goods and services 
     are conducted by independent enterprises responding to profit 
     incentives and market forces, and commercial activities by 
     the People's Liberation Army are fundamentally inconsistent 
     with these precepts;
         Whereas, with regard to Communist Chinese military 
     activity and weapons proliferation--
         (1) it has been reported that United States intelligence 
     has estimated that Communist Chinese military industries have 
     become a leading supplier of illicit precursor chemicals for 
     use in Iran's chemical weapons program;
         (2) in contravention of Communist China's commitment to 
     the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the 
     China National Nuclear Corporation, a Communist Chinese 
     military industry, sold materials critical to the production 
     of enriched uranium to a non-NPT signatory, Pakistan;
         (3) China National Precision Instrument Import-Export 
     Company, a Communist Chinese military industry, sold nuclear-
     capable missiles to Pakistan;
         (4) China Great Wall Industry Corporation, a Communist 
     Chinese military industry, sold nuclear-capable missiles to 
     Pakistan;
         (5) Poly Group, a People's Liberation Army owned company, 
     sold $1,200,000,000 worth of arms to the military rulers of 
     Myanmar (Burma);
         (6) In contravention of the United Nations embargo, China 
     North Industries Corporation (Norinco), a Communist Chinese 
     military industry, sold chemicals critical to the manufacture 
     of nuclear weapons to Iraq;
         (7) Poly Group and Norinco, Communist Chinese military 
     industries, attempted to sell 2,000 AK 47 rifles, 20,000 AK 
     47 bipods, 4,000 30 round ammunition magazines, and 2 
     machinegun silencers, and offered for sale 300,000 silenced 
     machineguns and ``Red Parakeet'' missiles (stingers), RPGs 
     (rocket propelled grenades), 60mm mortars, and handgrenades 
     to United States law enforcement authorities conducting a so-
     called ``sting'' operation;
         (8) according to the May 21, 1996, United States Customs 
     Service affidavit against the Communist Chinese 
     representatives of Norinco and Poly Group, at paragraph 96, 
     one of the Communist Chinese representatives bragged that a 
     ``Red Parakeet'' missile--which he was offering for sale in 
     the United States--``could take out a 747'';
         (9) these and other enterprises owned by the People's 
     Liberation Army and the Communist Chinese military industries 
     regularly export a variety of products to the United States, 
     including clothing, toys, shoes, hand tools, fish, minerals, 
     and chemicals;
         (10) the People's Liberation Army implemented an 
     unprovoked, dangerous, and aggressive campaign to intimidate 
     Taiwan in July of 1995, and again before Taiwan's first 
     direct presidential election in March of 1996, with military 
     maneuvers, live-fire exercises, and missile tests in close 
     proximity to that island democracy; and
         (11) the People's Liberation Army seized territory 
     claimed by the Philippines and threatened the United States 
     Navy's right of free passage in the South China Sea;
         Whereas, with respect to human rights--

[[Page H7028]]

         (1) according to the United States Department of State's 
     Country Reports on Human Rights for 1995, the Government of 
     Communist China ``continued to commit widespread and well-
     documented human rights abuses, in violation of 
     internationally accepted norms, stemming both from the 
     authorities' intolerance of dissent and the inadequacy of 
     legal safeguards for basic freedoms. Abuses included 
     arbitrary and lengthy incommunicado detention, forced 
     confessions, torture, and mistreatment of prisoners. . . . 
     The Government continued severe restrictions on freedom of 
     speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, privacy, 
     movement, and worker rights'';
         (2) in April 1996, the Communist Chinese Government 
     launched a major anticrime campaign called ``Strike Hard'' 
     carried out nationwide by the Public Security Bureau (PSB), 
     and in Tibet and Xinjiang (East Turkestan) also by the 
     People's Armed Police, which has included large scale 
     arbitrary arrests, detentions with minimal legal protection, 
     and swift executions;
         (3) the current anticrime campaign has targeted 
     political, religious and labor activists in addition to 
     common criminals in Tibet, Xinjiang, and in the whole of 
     Communist China;
         (4) the Communist Government has ordered a crackdown on 
     unofficial religious believers by the Religious Affairs 
     Bureau and the Public Security Ministry, requiring all local 
     congregations to register with the Religious Affairs Bureau 
     or risk the legal dismantling of the congregation and 
     official harassment, fines and arrest;
         (5) according to Asia Watch, the Communist Chinese 
     authorities in Tibet have launched a repressive campaign 
     against religious practice and the Public Security Bureau and 
     PLA have been involved in violent suppression of dissent in 
     Tibet and Xinjiang, resulting in the death or imprisonment of 
     over one thousand Tibetans and Uighurs this year;
         (6) the Ministry of Public Security has imposed new 
     regulations to strengthen controls over Internet use, the 
     State Council must approve ``interactive'' networks, and the 
     official Communist Chinese news agency (Xinhua) has been put 
     in charge of supervising all foreign wire services selling 
     economic information to Communist China, censoring their 
     reports for ``false economic news and attacks on Communist 
     China'';
         (7) Wei Jingsheng, the leading Chinese pro-democracy 
     activist, was sentenced on December 13, 1995, to a second 14-
     year prison term, after a sham trial in which he was denied 
     access to counsel of his choice and given access to the 
     actual charges against less than two days before trial;
         (8) on November 21, 1995, the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China announced the arrest of Wei Jingsheng and 
     its intention to try him for ``attempt[ing] to overthrow the 
     government'';
         (9) the government had previously imprisoned Wei from 
     1979 until 1993 on a charge of ``spreading 
     counterrevolutionary propaganda'' for his peaceful 
     participation in the Democracy Wall movement;
         (10) during his long imprisonment Wei was subjected to 
     torture and other ill treatment which left him in extremely 
     poor health;
         (11) far from advocating an ``overthrow'' of the 
     Government of China, Wei has been a strong advocate of 
     nonviolence and a peaceful transition to democracy; and
         (12) Wei was regarded as a leading contender for the 1995 
     Nobel Peace Prize, having been nominated by parliamentarians 
     throughout the world, including 58 members of the United 
     States Congress;
         Whereas, with respect to Communist Chinese trade and 
     economic policy--
         (1) the United States Trade Representative's 1996 
     National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers 
     notes that ``China continued to use standards and 
     certification practices which the United States and other 
     trading partners regard as barriers to trade'';
         (2) the report indicates that ``Despite its commitment 
     under the 1992 market access Memorandum of Understanding to 
     publish all laws and regulations affecting imports, some 
     regulations and a large number of directives have 
     traditionally been unpublished, and there is no published, 
     publicly available national procurement code in China'';
         (3) the report finds that ``China's market for services 
     remains severely restricted'';
         (4) these practices limiting American access to Communist 
     China's market have contributed to an increase in the United 
     States trade deficit with China from $10 million in 1985 to 
     $33,807,000,000 in 1995, according to the United States 
     Department of Commerce;
         (5) these unfair trade practices and tariff and non-
     tariff barriers result in lost opportunities for American 
     companies and lost jobs for American workers, and harm the 
     United States economy;
         (6) the failure of Communist China to stop the piracy of 
     intellectual property, including music, videos, books, and 
     software required by the January 16, 1992, agreement on 
     intellectual property rights, is evidenced by the necessity 
     of further agreements (signed on March 11, 1995 and June 17, 
     1996), and the threat of over $2,000,000,000 in sanctions as 
     a means of achieving as yet hoped-for compliance with the 
     agreements;
         (7) according to the United States Trade Representative's 
     1996 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade 
     Barriers, investment restrictions by Communist China are 
     ``abundant'';
         (8) under so-called ``export performance requirements,'' 
     Communist Chinese authorities frequently force foreign 
     manufacturers operating in Communist China to export 50 to 70 
     percent (and sometimes more) of their goods to other markets, 
     as a condition of approving the investment;
         (9) two-thirds of Communist China's exports are, in fact, 
     manufactured by foreign firms operating in Communist China;
         (10) the export performance requirements imposed on 
     foreign investment by the Communist Chinese government serve 
     to undercut domestic producers employing millions of 
     Americans;
         (11) Communist China has failed to liberalize its foreign 
     exchange market, and to make the Yuan fully convertible;
         (12) Communist China maintains two exchange rates for the 
     Yuan, an official rate for Chinese citizens and a swap rate 
     for foreigners, and regularly manipulates the exchange rate 
     to the advantage of domestic exporting industries;
         (13) even with the establishment of currency swap 
     markets, this gap between the official and swap rates serves 
     as (a) a subsidy for Communist China's exporters to the 
     United States, totaling nearly $15,000,000,000 in 1993, and 
     (b) a nontariff barrier to United States exports, 
     artificially raising the price of exports in Communist 
     China's market;
         (14) Communist China received over $4,000,000,000 in 
     multilateral loans from the World Bank and the Asian 
     Development Bank;
         (15) the United States is the largest shareholder in 
     these banks, and thus can exercise considerable leverage over 
     loans to Communist China; and
         (16) Communist China has continued to insist that Taiwan 
     not be admitted to the WTO unless it is admitted 
     simultaneously, notwithstanding the differences in the status 
     of their compliance with the criteria for WTO membership;
         Whereas given the number and gravity of these issues, the 
     debate over Communist China's most-favored-nation trade 
     status cannot bear the weight of the entire bilateral 
     relationship between the United States and the People's 
     Republic of China; and
         Whereas these issues should be promptly addressed by 
     appropriate legislation: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, The Committee on International Relations, the 
     Committee on National Security, the Committee on Ways and 
     Means, and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services 
     will each hold hearings on the matters described in the 
     preamble to this resolution insofar as those matters fall 
     within their respective jurisdictions and, if appropriate, 
     report legislation addressing these matters to the House of 
     Representatives not later than September 30, 1996.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 463, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and a Member opposed each will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result of the vote we have just taken, the question 
we are faced with is, if not MFN, then what? What is our policy? Our 
current policy towards China, if it can be called a policy at all, is 
woefully out of date. Blind tolerance of Chinese communism comes from 
an era of Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev, when the Government of the 
United States played the China card as a check against Soviet 
communism. Embracing communism in China was a superior alternative, 
because Chinese communism in that era was not expansionist. It did not 
have global designs.
  But today the Soviet Union is no more. In place of the generals who 
served under Brezhnev, we have General Alexander Lebed, who says that 
he would permit Chechen independence, who says that NATO expansion is 
not a threat to Russia, who says that he would not oppose the United 
States assisting Taiwan in constructing an anti-missile defense to 
protect against attack from Communist China. Where is the policy for a 
Lebed instead of a Brezhnev? Where is the policy for a newly 
expansionist China that has arisen in the wake of the collapse of the 
Soviet Union?
  Mr. Speaker, since we voted ``yes'', I did not, the House did, to 
continue most-favored-nation status for China, is our intended message 
that this is a reward for China's Communist rulers? Is the message 
that, on balance, their offenses against human rights, global peace and 
security, and the international norms of behavior are tolerable? Or, to 
put it the other way, if we

[[Page H7029]]

had just now denied MFN, would we even then have believed that our 
security problems are solved, that the Communist government would 
permit a free press all of a sudden; that they would stop brutalizing 
Tibet; or perhaps, because we were to deny MFN, they would let the 
Tibetans select their own Panchen Lama, in accordance with religious 
custom and law?
  Maybe then we might think they would honor their agreements on 
nuclear nonproliferation, on trade tariffs and trade barriers, on the 
theft of intellectual property. But I do not think so. I do not think, 
independent of how we might vote here on MFN, that the result would 
cause the Communists in Beijing to let Wei Jing Sheng go free, or in 
any way to permit democracy in place of a one-party state. I do not 
think that they would renounce the use of force against Taiwan.
  A carefully tailored policy toward China, suited to the 1990's and to 
the next century, must do more than simply turn on the light switch of 
MFN, a binary choice, yea or nay, on or off, we love you--we hate you. 
We should reward progress and resist military aggression, trade 
violations, and human rights abuses.

  For example, if Taiwan is merely part of China, then we should reward 
that part of China for ending its human rights abuses, for permitting a 
free press, for holding free and fair and democratic elections for 
Parliament and for President, and for lowering its tariff barriers.
  Taiwan should be admitted to the World Trade Organization forthwith. 
They are willing to meet its requirements. Keep in mind that membership 
in the WTO does not connote sovereignty. Hong Kong is already a member 
of the WTO, and when it is absorbed by Communist China next year, it 
will retain its independent membership, because it was admitted only as 
a special customs region, the same basis on which Taiwan is now 
applying.
  The People's Republic of China, which does not meet the requirements 
for WTO admission and is not near to doing so, should not be allowed to 
keep Taiwan out. Another example, we should end the charade of so-
called trade with the People's Liberation Army. We all know that the 
Peoples Liberation Army is the largest military force on Earth. 
Communist China's military budget has more than doubled since the 
collapse of the Soviet empire. They have been buying SS-18 
intercontinental ballistic missiles from Moscow. They have fired 
nuclear-capable missiles toward Taiwan, seizing territory from the 
Philippines, and expanding into the South China Sea.
  Where does the money come from for all of this military expansion? It 
comes from what the Washington Post has referred to as ``PLA, Inc.''; 
the People's Liberation Army, Inc.: over 50,000 companies controlled by 
the Peoples Liberation Army as commercial fronts, with combined 
earnings in excess of 5 billion U.S. dollars annually.
  If the People's Liberation Army were judged in this capacity as a 
commercial enterprise, it would fit neatly into the top fifth of the 
Fortune 500. Money from huge illegal arms deals is laundered by PLA 
commercial fronts which are subsidized by the Communist government, in 
violation of every rule of free trade, to make more money through 
nominally commercial enterprises for even more off-budget financing for 
more threatening arms for the People's Liberation Army.

                              {time}  1630

  This is not defense conversion, my friends. This is not turning 
swords into plowshares, this is turning swords into golf clubs and 
shoes and circuit boards so that the People's Liberation Army can make 
more money to buy more weapons. The two most notorious are the People's 
Liberation Army's commercial fronts, Poly Technologies and Norinco. 
Poly Technologies, you remember, has sold over 1 billion dollars' worth 
of arms to the military thugs who dictate Burma. Norinco has sold the 
chemicals necessary to construct chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in 
Iraq, and in my home State of California these two outfits, Poly 
Technologies and Norinco recently had their representatives indicted 
for seeking to smuggle into the United States not just AK-47's, as we 
read, but also over 300,000 silenced machine guns, 60-millimeter 
mortars, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles capable of taking out 
of the sky a 747.
  The United States should not embrace money laundering by the People's 
Liberation Army. We should pass the Gilman bill, sponsored by the 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and end this 
dangerous policy of so-called trade with commercial fronts of the 
Communist Chinese military.

  We should pass the Solomon bill that would end United States taxpayer 
subsidies for China through the World Bank and the Asian Development 
Bank until the so-called loans to China no longer subsidize the arms 
buildup that I have just described.
  Finally, we should enunciate an explicit and clear vision for our 
policy toward China. We should state clearly and the President should 
state clearly that we oppose communism in China. We seek an end to 
Communist one-party rule, and an institution of democracy, a 
restoration of human rights, an observation of the rules of free 
enterprise.
  This we can do. When we pass this resolution, the committees of 
jurisdiction, not just Ways and Means, but Banking, International 
Relations, and National Security will be instructed to hold immediate 
hearings on the issues that I have raised and all of the issues spelled 
out in this resolution, and to report out responsible legislation 
promptly; in any event, no later than September 30, so that we can deal 
with these problems directly on the House floor.
  It may well be that today's vote marks a watershed. Yes, we have once 
again permitted MFN to go forward, but this time the debate will not 
stop there. This time, in recognition of the fact that MFN can no 
longer bear the weight of all our policy disagreements in our bilateral 
relationship with the People's Republic of China, we will move on and 
do the right thing and create a new China policy for the next century.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Cox amendment, but 
reluctantly so. I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cox] for his thoughtful approach to the dilemma that the United States 
faces. It is a big challenge. I wish that this resolution was 
amendable, because there are many things that need to be added to it to 
make it a workable resolution and to give it depth and to give it 
direction. However, under the circumstances, I must oppose it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I applaud my colleague from California [Mr. Cox], and I stand in 
support of his amendment and for offering this resolution, calling for 
hearings on China's trade policies, human rights record, military 
policy, and arms sales.
  I was one of those that voted for most-favored-nation status a while 
ago, and I think that was the correct vote. I do not want to go back to 
the dark ages. I remember the time when the United States did not 
recognize China. I remember the time that we ignored them. I do not 
know how you ignore 1.2 billion people. We need to do everything we 
possibly can to bring about improved relations. I have always believed 
all of my life on a personal basis, professional basis, political 
basis, do not fight with anyone that has nothing to lose.
  Well, if China keeps prospering and keeps getting stronger 
economically, it will bring about better relations among people, and I 
think that is what we want, because we do not want to go through 
another terrible war like we did with World War I and World War II.
  Congressional hearings, diplomatic negotiations, and threatening 
sanctions are the way to handle our differences with China, not 
revoking MFN. Rest assured, I will continue to encourage the 
administration and China to continue to work together for fair, 
ethical, and increased trade.
  The best way to change China is to continue to engage China, not to 
deny most-favored-nation status. Denying normal trade relations is to 
undermine U.S. economic interests and jeopardize the jobs of thousands 
of hard-working Americans.

[[Page H7030]]

  Mr. Speaker, please look at the big picture. I firmly believe that 
without MFN human rights abuses will worsen and the dream of achieving 
democracy in China will dim. Denying MFN status to China would be the 
equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Vote ``yes'' 
for House Resolution 461.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution, House 
Resolution 461. I commend my good friend, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cox] for his stellar work in crafting this legislation, along with 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, for acting swiftly in bringing it before us 
at this time.
  The Clinton administration's China policy has been a failure. It has 
failed to stop Communist China's proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction to such rogue nations as Iran and Iraq. It has failed to 
stop Communist China's unfair trading practices and piracy of 
intellectual property rights. It has failed to stop Communist China's 
persecution of Catholics, of Protestants, of Tibetans and human rights 
activists.
  During the past year since President Clinton delinked trade to human 
rights and refused to adequately respond to Beijing's weapons 
proliferation, trade and human rights violations, things have become 
much worse in all of those areas. Just 2 weeks ago, Chinese Government 
officials were named in a Customs Department sting operation trying to 
sell 2,000 fully automatic machine guns, machine gun silencers, and 
stinger-type missiles to the Los Angeles street gangs.
  How does the administration respond to these attacks? Instead of 
admitting something is radically wrong, it makes excuses for Communist 
China's behavior, and deflects criticism by trying to kill the 
messenger. We are told that any firm response would isolate or contain 
China and that we must remain engaged as if holding a party to a treaty 
that they signed is some sort of an unforgivable breach of ethics.
  The administration's smokescreen has been designed to duck the hard 
questions of how to deal pragmatically and effectively with the 
totalitarian regime, a regime that is causing havoc on our economy, on 
our national security interests, and among our democratic friends and 
allies. Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, and Australia are all duly 
concerned by China's sword rattling and the building up of its military 
personnel. Just last week Communist China refused to grant the German 
foreign minister a visa into China unless his nation would forbid a 
conference on Tibet from being held on German soil. How arrogant can a 
nation become?
  Beijing invades and occupies a country much like Russia invaded and 
occupied Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and then tells other nations 
that the invasion is an internal matter and must not be discussed. 
Tibet, a country the size of Western Europe, remains the only nation 
still occupied by foreign Communist military forces.
  If Communist China signs an agreement on weapons proliferation, or 
trade or human rights and then violates those agreements, then we must 
respond in such a manner that causes them not to violate agreements 
again and again. Because the administration appears incapable of even 
admitting to a problem, it is important now that the Congress step 
forward and take appropriate measures.
  Accordingly, I am urging my colleagues to support this resolution 
directing the Congress to conduct hearings in the appropriate 
committees and to report proper legislation back to the Congress by 
September 30.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will put my record on the line for standing up for 
America's workers against anybody in here. I voted against NAFTA 
because I thought it was a bad deal. I voted against the GATT treaty 
because I thought that the World Trade Organization presented too many 
problems and not enough benefits. But I rise today to support 
continuing most-favored-nation status for China, but, an important but, 
while at the same time guaranteeing stricter congressional monitoring.
  Yes, I am aware of the problems that China presents. Nuclear 
proliferation, arms sales to hostile nations, military incursions, 
including spurious claims on the Spratly Islands and other areas of the 
Asian continent, human rights violations, unfair trade practices, 
whether in intellectual property or in other areas such as child labor.
  Yes, I am aware of all of these, but I notice something very basic, 
that we have to remember also what most-favored-nation status connotes. 
It is not some kind of glorified treatment, it is not some kind of 
special privilege, it is simply saying to China as we have said to 100, 
at least, other nations around the world, of all stripes and colors, 
you only get a seat at the table. It does not guarantee you what you 
get, it just gets you in the door.
  We have to remember this, that the United States, even by giving 
most-favored-nation status, does not give up its most basic punitive 
measures. We still have section 301 sanctions that we can impose 
unilaterally, such as almost occurred 2 weeks ago on China, where you 
can put tariffs on their goods when they are not engaging in free 
trade. We can deny China what it most wants, and that is entry into the 
World Trade Organization. That is the key, the golden key that the 
Chinese want, and we stand in the way of that until they comply with 
basic standards.
  Now, what does cutting off MFN status do? What it would mean, cutting 
off most-favored-nation status with China is simply saying, we are 
going to step out and meanwhile permit all of our competitors, our 
Asian competitors, our European Union competitors, all of our 
competitors to take that market without us there. They are not making 
the same statements about human rights and military concerns and unfair 
trade practices. So what we will do is to abandon 1.2 billion people, 
that field to our competitors; we will not be engaged, they will.
  Instead, I think a better policy is to be involved in bringing them 
along. The fact of the matter is that until Japan, until Germany, until 
Great Britain, until France, until a lot of other nations recognize the 
concerns that China presents to them, we do not have to worry as much 
about the Pacific rim as Japan does, as those ASEAN nations have to. 
Until they realize the concerns to them and we can engage in a 
concerted approach, that is the answer with China, and then China 
understands it has to come around.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. Speaker, there are some areas of hope. The German Bundestag just 
recently passed a resolution deploring Chinese human rights violations 
in Tibet. That is the first sign that we have seen from a nation in 
that direction. There are others as well.
  Granting most-favored-nation status only lets us get to the table but 
it does not guarantee us any results. We are going to keep engaged, but 
we have got the clubs in the closet to use when we need to. That is why 
I support the Cox resolution that says we will grant most-favored-
nation status but there will be congressional review with a timetable 
for reporting back on human rights violations, on military arms sales, 
and other matters of great concern about China.
  Once again, we are with most-favored-nation status only continuing a 
practice that has been in effect for a number of years. We are still 
engaged but we are letting them know that we have the clubs in the 
closest and, yes, we have to be willing to use those, but staying 
engaged with China at this point is a lot better than staying away. 
That is why I support most-favored-nation status but with tight 
congressional monitoring.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague the gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. 
Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, unlike the last speaker that voted 
against

[[Page H7031]]

NAFTA and GATT, I voted for them because I believed that they had a lot 
of interest and that if this country does not get involved in trade in 
the future, I think we are going to be in big trouble. But I think that 
under both Republican and Democrat administrations, that the week link 
in our trading policy has been our State Department. I do not believe 
that either Republican or Democrat State Departments have had the spine 
to enforce the policies with our trading nations.
  A very famous gentleman once said that we need to walk softly and 
carry a big stick, but our policy in the past is to walk softly and 
give our trading partner the stick. In every case, whether it is an Ak-
47 or a Stinger missile or 300,000 machine guns that are silenced being 
sold to our inner cities, and I ask my colleagues on the other side, 
the things that we have fought against, assault weapons, here is a 
country that is dumping assault weapons and Stinger missiles into our 
country, into our inner cities.
  Habeas corpus reform and the death penalty, some do not believe in 
capital punishment. I do. But China has no problem with that. They just 
shoot people. And habeas corpus reform, there is not any.
  Look at every issue. How many of this Nation's problems has China 
helped us with in Haiti, in Somalia, in Bosnia? None. Yet we are 
bending over backwards to help them, and they hit us with that stick 
every time.
  All the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] is asking for is to set 
forth a policy that protects our workers, protects our system, and sets 
a policy where U.S. workers in this country would benefit for a change. 
Let us speak from a strong position, not a weak position, with China.
  I remember with my mom and dad, I used to be afraid when the light 
would go off and I would do anything, clean my room even, if they would 
leave that light on. I was much more willing after they turned that 
light off to do those things. I think sometimes we maybe need to turn 
that light off for a little bit with China.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I come to this podium with a 
slightly different perspective. I respect the position of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox]. I would hope as I rise to support his 
resolution that we would recognize that our approach to China is not a 
Congress versus the President or a President versus the Congress. It is 
the American people standing up together to acknowledge both their 
disdain and outrage for human rights violations.
  We recognize what China is today, 1.1 billion citizens, an object, an 
entity that cannot be ignored. However, we do a disservice to point 
accusatory fingers at an administration which is struggling and a 
Congress which has struggled as well. We must seize new economic 
opportunities, but we must also exercise responsibility of a world 
leader collectively, this Congress, this body, and this administration. 
We must find common ground on affirming human rights and pursuing 
economic prosperity.
  Our Nation was founded upon the democratic ideal of freedom of speech 
and the right to petition your government for the redress of 
grievances. As we debate this issue, the People's Republic of China 
continues to hold numerous prisoners without reason, estimated by human 
rights organizations to be several hundred thousand. Arbitrary 
detention in China can be politically, religiously or, increasingly, 
economically motivated. Officials have detained Chinese nationals and 
foreigners alike for perceived personal affronts to a determination to 
prevent political or economic leaks. And, yes, imported or smuggled AK-
47's continue to assault our youth and children by killing citizens in 
America.
  Hearings, yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it is important that we say to 
China that we have a backbone and we have a memory, and that we review 
the trade imbalance, review the question of military balance so that as 
Taiwan struggles to be a neighbor to China, threatening military 
maneuvers are not utilized to intimidate. And certainly human rights, 
the whole question that wraps itself around the flag of the United 
States of America, emphasizing that we all are created equal.
  Yes, we must recognize that isolationism is not the right direction 
on many occasions. That it is important, to recognize China's economic 
role in this country, the enormous amount of jobs, 19,000 in the State 
of Texas, $1.3 billion goods produced in Texas exported to China. 
Considering the fact that China represents such a sizable economic 
opportunity.
  But the almighty dollar should not be our guide, and we must stand 
with a sense of equality and we must have a consistent and singular 
policy for China. We must work with the United Nations and other 
countries to monitor and improve human rights conditions in China and 
set a target of deadlines for that progress. Human rights hearings will 
help us do that.
  We must help China stick to legal reforms that are to be implemented 
in January 1997, especially presumption of innocence, improved access 
to legal counsel, and more stringent limits on time and detention 
before formal arrest. Continue to work on a case-by-case basis, as done 
by the U.S. Trade Representative, and next year when the time comes to 
review MFN for China we should hold them accountable to a higher 
standard. We should have our facts, we should know what is going on, we 
should have a unified policy between the administration and the 
Congress.
  We are Americans. We believe in the dignity of humankind. yes, we 
must dwell on the issue of our economic viability, and we must open the 
doors to China in an extension to say, ``We are ready to help 
you change,'' but we should never forget those who are in need of our 
backbone to ensure that human rights is held up to the standard which 
we have come to respect and acknowledge.

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed feelings about the difficult 
choice that we have before us. We must seize new economic opportunities 
but we must also exercise the responsibility of a world leader. We must 
find common ground on affirming human rights and pursuing economic 
prosperity. Our Nation was founded upon the democratic ideal of freedom 
of speech and the right to petition your Government for redress of 
grievances. As we debate this issue, the People's Republic of China 
continues to hold numerous prisoners without reason--estimated by human 
rights organizations to be several hundred thousand. Arbitrary 
detention in China can be politically, religiously, or increasingly, 
economically motivated, and officials have detained Chinese nationals 
and foreigners alike for perceived personal affronts to a determination 
to prevent political or economic leaks. In addition the continued 
insult of smuggling in AK-47 assault weapons to kill more of our 
citizens.
  International attention has been most clearly focused on cases such 
as Wei Jingsheng, currently serving a 14-year term for speaking out on 
democracy and human rights during the brief 6 months of freedom he had 
between September 1994 and April 1995, or on Boa Tong, a senior Chinese 
official Released in May 1996 after serving an unwarranted 7-year term 
and immediately redetained in a so-called government guesthouse. But 
businesspeople, bankers and Chinese representatives of overseas firms 
are increasingly becoming victims of the arbitrary exercise of power 
and the absence of rule of law.
  The Chinese Government's new crackdown on crime or strike hard 
campaign that began in April has already resulted in more than 500 
death sentences and executions across the country. This kind of 
crackdown is nothing new. The Chinese Government has periodically 
engaged in anti-crime campaigns that sweep up tens of thousands in 
their wake. Intended to instill a sense of security in a public 
concerned about the crime that has accompanied economic growth, these 
campaigns often result in the unlawful arrest and wrongful execution of 
large numbers of people.
  In addition to showing little regard for the civil and human rights 
for people within its borders, China has made Asia, the Middle East and 
indeed the entire world less safe by continuing to transfer nuclear, 
missile, and chemical weapons technology to unsafeguarded countries, 
including Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Pakistan, in violation of 
international agreements. And as the recent seizure in California 
reminds us, the Chinese Government has been involved in selling AK-47's 
and other military assault weapons on American streets, often ending up 
in the hands of violent street gangs.

  During recent elections in Taiwan, China fired missiles and practiced 
military maneuvers in the Strait of Taiwan as forms of intimidation in 
order to disrupt Taiwan's free and open political process. And the 
Chinese Government has already taken several steps to curtail or 
threaten civil liberties in Hong Kong just a year before the territory 
returns to Chinese rule.
  As I list this long litany of human rights concerns, the question 
remains whether these problems prevent us from renewing the most-
favored-nation trade status with China. Let us examine the other side 
of the issue. China is an immense country with over 4,000 years of 
continuous history and a deep sense of cultural identity and pride. 
China is a nation of deeply entrenched social, economic, and 
administrative and political institutions developed over the millennia 
and profoundly reshaped during three decades of Marxist-Maoist rule 
before 1979. How can we hope to affect

[[Page H7032]]

change in such a vast and complex society through a policy of 
isolation?
  The simple truth of the matter is that we are already involved 
economically in China. Since 1979, American business has become a major 
player in China, both as a leading source of foreign direct investment 
and a major trading partner.
  In 1995 China was the 13th largest destination for United States 
exports. Between 1992 and 1995, United States exports to China grew 
nearly 57 percent, reaching $11.7 billion in 1995, which does not 
include the approximately 8 billion dollars' worth of goods and 
services exported first to Hong Kong then into China. In 1995 my home 
State of Texas exported over $1.785 billion of goods and services to 
China and Hong Kong.
  Considering that approximately $1 billion in trade is equivalent to 
19,000 jobs in the Untied States, this is not just a one-way street. 
Stripping China of most-favored-nation trading status will result in 
reciprocal action by the Chinese, increasing tariffs and trade barriers 
on American products in China, thus greatly reducing, if not 
eliminating American exports and jobs relating to China.
  Many critics will point to our unfavorable balance of trade with 
China as a negative. However, the products we import from China, such 
as low-end clothes and footwear, have not been produced in the United 
States for 30 years. Five years ago, we imported these from Taiwan, 10 
years ago from Japan. If we did not get these products from China, we 
would buy them elsewhere at a higher cost.
  The opportunity for involvement in China has by no means peaked. 
China's expanding aviation industry could purchase as much as 100 
billion dollars' worth of jetliners over the next 20 years. China needs 
and wants to expand its power production capacity by 15,000 megawatts 
per year through the early 21st century. This will require technology 
and equipment imports that could total between $6 to $8 billion 
annually.

  All this economic involvement has exported more than goods and 
service to China. Seldom mentioned in press reports are the many 
nonbusiness activities United States companies pursue at the local 
level in China, much as they do in any country in which they set up 
operations. These firms bring with them fundamental American ethical 
and operational views that shape the way they run their factories and 
officers, interact with employees, and join in local community 
activities. For example, on average, United States companies with 
facilities in China pay their employees at least 20 percent more than 
local standards. A number of U.S. firms have established profit-sharing 
plans or voluntary savings plans, in which companies match employee 
contributions.
  Many U.S. companies provide medical facilities and free or subsidized 
medical care on site for employees. Typically, United States companies 
go above and beyond Chinese Government requirements by adhering to the 
workplace standards of the United States Food and Drug Administration 
and Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA].
  Where do we go from here? I argue that Congress should be on record 
with recommendations for improving human rights in China. Reducing 
intellectual property rights violations, and eliminating Chinese sale 
of nuclear and chemical technology if the Congress decides to affirm 
the President's decision to continue most-favored-nation trading status 
with China. These recommendations should include:
  First, work with the United Nations and other countries to monitor 
and improve human rights conditions in China, and set target deadlines 
for progress;
  Second, help China stick to legal reforms that are to be implemented 
in January 1997, especially presumption of innocence; improved access 
to legal counsel; and more stringent limits on time in detention before 
formal arrest;
  Third, continue to work on case-by-case basis, as done recently by 
the Unites States Trade Representative, to improve enforcement of 
intellectual property rights in China, and
  Fourth, next year, when the time comes to review MFN for China, we 
should hold them to a higher standard of review with respect to human 
rights and monitor carefully how the transfer of Hong Kong to China is 
proceeding.
  This resolution should help be the underpinnings for a real China 
policy that lifts the human rights crisis to the level it should be, 
where ultimately China will understand without doubt the real 
importance Americans, businesses, and citizens alike place on the human 
dignity for all humankind. If China continues as is, more than its MFN 
may be at stake--China should pay heed.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], the distinguished chairman of the Congressional Human Rights 
Caucus.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution that was just rejected--that would have 
cut off MFN for China--will be interpreted in Beijing to say that it is 
OK to threaten free elections in Taiwan; that it is OK to undermine the 
elected legislature and the free press of Hong Kong; that it is OK for 
the Chinese to commit cultural genocide in Tibet; that it is OK to sell 
nuclear armaments to Pakistan; that it is OK to dump products in the 
United States on our markets that take away the markets from those 
countries that have been friendly to the United States, like the 
Philippines and India. The people in Beijing will interpret that it is 
OK to continue to torture, to continue to crush dissent, to engage in 
slave labor, to starve orphans, to tell their people how many children 
they can have.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to cut off MFN because I know that if we 
can make certain that economic freedom proliferates in China, that 
ultimately it will in fact lead to political freedom. But, Mr. Speaker, 
I voted for the Rohrabacher resolution because I did not want to send 
those messages that Beijing would interpret that way, because it is not 
OK to do those things because in this world we are our brother's and 
sister's keepers.
  The American people value--and the Chinese people must understand 
this--human rights perhaps above all else, value democracy and human 
freedom like no other country on Earth. We believe that China today 
ranks with countries like Sudan, Nigeria, and Burma, and Turkey, among 
the worst human rights abusers in the world. If China wants a solid 
relationship with the United States, these things must change.
  Unfortunately, this administration gave this Congress absolutely no 
alternative. They said, ``We do not want to use the MFN lever. We want 
to encourage economic freedom and economic growth in China.'' But they 
said nothing else.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say right here and now that this 
administration has been absolutely bankrupt in supporting human rights 
around the world, like perhaps no administration we have seen in a 
long, long time. They have not given us an alternative to MFN, but the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] is giving us some alternatives and 
I commend him for doing so.
  We need to send a strong message to the people in Beijing that these 
things are not OK, and that we must see progress on human rights 
matters and democracy in China and if they are going to go the opposite 
way, they will never have a solid relationship with this country. Mr. 
Speaker, I encourage the Members to vote for the Cox resolution.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I feel like the old saying 
about closing the door after the cow has run out of the barn. The real 
vote was taken a few moments ago. With that vote, the flame of liberty 
and the flame of democracy and the flame of human rights that we set 
forth in the world, the beacon that we send forth from the Statute of 
Liberty and from our Constitution, from our Declaration of 
Independence, from this body and our system of government, all grew a 
little bit dimmer for those nations who look to us for leadership.
  As the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] said in her closing 
statement, one of the real questions we have to ask ourselves and that 
we will be held accountable for with respect to our constituents with 
the vote just taken was whether or not China plays by the rules. The 
record today is overwhelming and compelling that they do not play by 
the rules.
  They do not play by the rules of most of the rest of the 
international community, and they certainly do not play by the rules 
that we believe should be in place with respect to free trade and fair 
trade, with respect to human rights, to the promotion of democracy, to 
the protection of intellectual properties and ideas, nuclear 
proliferation, and how important that is to the future of this world, 
to the stealing of people's

[[Page H7033]]

technology, of nations' technologies. No, they do not have to play by 
those rules. That fact was ratified in the previous vote.
  In fact, what we told them is they can continue to play by a very 
different set of rules, a set of rules that they design, that they 
ratify and that they invoke on their own citizens and on their trading 
partners, rules that suggest that over the short time we have had this 
relationship, America continues to lose.

                              {time}  1700

  America's workers continue to lose. Our trade deficit continues to 
lose. Our self-esteem about what we stand for continues to lose and be 
eroded. Unfortunately, this administration and now this Congress have 
been the great enablers of this policy, because we have always 
suggested that tomorrow, tomorrow we would have resolve about Tibet. 
Tomorrow we would have resolve about the trade deficit. Tomorrow we 
would have resolve about use of slave labor. Tomorrow we will get 
tough. That is why they have a 12-step program; because you have to 
deal with it today.
  Now, unfortunately, we are left with this good-faith effort by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], but wrong with respect to the 
problem; that is, if we were doing our job and this administration was 
doing its job, what would the verdict have been over the last year? But 
if we ignore these issues, if we turn the other way when they threaten 
democracy, if we turn the other way and enter into agreements where it 
is done on a wink and a nod, what they did not say, what we can say 
publicly they did say, they did not say but we will say they did say, 
how does that ensure people's rights? How does that keep nuclear 
weapons from going to people who threaten us as a Nation?
  No, this is a very sad day. It is a very sad day for the people of 
China who aspire to democracy, to freedom, and it is a very sad day for 
the people of this Nation who pride ourselves that we send forth that 
beacon of fair play and democracy and liberty.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very sad that the House chose to say tomorrow. 
Perhaps the President and many Members of this House should try out for 
the Play Annie, because tomorrow, only tomorrow will they deal with 
China in the serious and constant and engaged way that is demanded if, 
in fact, we are going to have a reliable partner for the future of this 
world, for the future of our trade, for the future of democracy, and 
the future in terms of national security. But that was not accomplished 
here today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would announce the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox] has 11\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr.. Gibbons] has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona, [Mr. Koble], a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget, and a 
distinguished member of the policy committee.
  (Mr. KOBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I rise in support of the resolution offered by the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], my friend and the chairman of the 
policy committee on which I serve.
  Mr. Speaker, I would take some issue with some of the language that 
is in this resolution. I would disagree with some of the clauses. I 
might question whether some of the issues raised in this resolution 
have been substantiated. But I think the important point is that this 
resolution begins us down a path that we should be taking; a path we 
should have been taking a long time ago. That is, it specifically 
directs the committees of jurisdiction, the Committee on Ways and 
Means, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and other committees that have jurisdiction in this area, to 
focus on ways in which we can change the behavior of China, to 
determine how we can truly begin to deal with problems of market 
access; to focus on the tremendous human rights abuses which we all 
know and which we all deplore; to deal with the problems of nuclear 
proliferation which threaten the security of the world; and to deal 
with the other regional security issues. It directs these committees to 
hold hearings to look for the kinds of tools, the kinds of legislation, 
the kinds of resolutions that can actually change China and bring them 
into the family of nations.
  What this resolution recognizes, in the context of the vote we just 
had, is that the MFN, the most-favored-nation trade status, is not the 
way to bring about those changes. Most Americans, maybe even many in 
this body, would be surprised that we grant MFN status to Iran, to Iraq 
and some of the countries that my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, 
Mr. Porter, mentioned: Burma, Turkey, and Sudan. All of those countries 
have MFN status with the United States. But what we have found is there 
are other ways to deal with the problems of Iran and Iraq, and we deal 
with them on a multilateral basis with our other allies and those using 
the kinds of techniques that work. We have used selective embargoes. We 
have worked with our partners to try to secure the kinds of changes 
that we want to bring about in those countries.
  So what we are saying here today is let us begin this process. With 
this resolution, we tell China we do not condone their policies, we do 
not accept their human rights abuses, but we do intend to begin an 
engagement with China on these issues that are so important to our 
relationship. I urge support of the Cox resolution.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I know of no one in this Congress who has worked harder 
on this subject than the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. She 
is very intelligent and a very fine person, and I know that she feels 
these things very deeply, and I join her in many of her feelings. I 
think if we have any differences, it is just on how we solve this 
problem, not about the problem but how we solve it. So it is with great 
pleasure that I yield to her, and I know her and respect her for what 
she stands for.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
[Mr. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for recognizing 
me, giving me this time, and for his kind words.
  This is probably our last MFN fight together, Mr. Chairman. As I said 
on the day we had our special order for the gentleman, he is truly a 
gentleman from Florida and we have all benefited greatly by his service 
here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of what the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller] referred to as the well-intentioned resolution presented 
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox]. I call it the fig leaf. I 
said if there were ever a national flower specific to the Congress of 
the United States, it would be the fig tree, because we just have fig 
trees all over the place. It is beginning to be Mediterranean around 
here. This fig leaf is even a transparent one, but it could be 
something if everyone has the resolve of the gentleman from California. 
Mr. Cox has been a great leader on human rights throughout the world 
and on this China issue. If the leadership of this House is serious 
about this resolution and it is not just using it as a fig leaf, it is 
a fig leaf until it is something else in my view, then this could make 
the real difference, I would say to the gentleman. Once again, he will 
have provided a service.
  One of the joys of working on the most-favored-nation status with 
China, human rights issues in China, trade, proliferation, et cetera, 
is the bipartisan coalition that we have formed, the relationships that 
have developed to help us solve other problems as well in the House. 
And the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith], I see over there, and you know the list, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf], the list goes on and on, it has been my pleasure to work with 
all of these gentlemen.
  I want to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker. Of course I support the 
amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I think we 
have to make sure that it has teeth and it is real. But the fact is 
that those of us who have been working together all this long time on 
this issue did not

[[Page H7034]]

start with using MFN as a tactic. We started with World Bank loans, we 
started with conditional renewal or targeted sanctions or every 
possible kind to relationship that we have with China in a financial 
institution or a financial relationship. So it would be interesting to 
see what the committees of jurisdiction come up with, which has not 
already been rejected over and over again by this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the focus will be on a prohibition on 
products made by the People's Liberation coming into the United States, 
or raising the tariffs at least on those products. The People's 
Liberation Army occupies Tibet, crushes dissent in China and Tibet, 
proliferates nuclear, biological, chemical, and missile technology to 
rogue countries. The PLA has been for many years selling and now 
smuggling AK-47's and all kinds of other more dangerous weapons into 
the United States for use here or to be transshipped to other 
countries.
  With all due respect to those who have talked about human rights here 
today, and with great respect, as I have said, for the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], he said he knows I feel very strongly and he 
shares some of those feelings. Yes; I feel strongly, but I think about 
it a lot, too, and I make a distinction there. This is not about 
feeling. It is about analyzing what our options are and giving them 
priority. Yes; we all care about human rights. Let us stipulate to 
that. Who cares enough to give it some priority? Who cares enough to 
say to a country like China, repressing its people, and that repression 
has increased since President Clinton delinked trade and human rights, 
that this is important in our relationship.

  The administration does not really talk about it much anymore. They 
talk about larger issues. In fact, the more time goes by, the older 
their thinking is on how we deal with China. We must insist that in all 
of our relationships we make the trade fairer, the political climate 
freer, and the world safer. The Clinton policy is doing just the 
reverse.
  I also want to make a comment about our colleagues who have said 
well, we give MFN to Iran and Iraq. We have an embargo on Iran and 
Iraq. We do not trade with them. Not only that, we have a secondary 
boycott on countries that would invest in petroleum in Iran. So this 
whole thing of we give MFN to everyone, so why not China. If we have a 
special situation as China is, where the President must request a 
waiver, and that is what gives us standing on the floor, and that 
country represses its people, violates our trade relationship, does not 
allow, by and large, most of our products in, does not play by the 
rules, uses prison labor for export, steals our intellectual property, 
misappropriates our technology and copyrighted items for use for 
manufacture to their own, industries with our copyrights. If a country 
does all of this, and at the same time has a $35 billion trade deficit 
with us, that is an opportunity where we can use our leverage.
  To those who say well, some of that trade deficit came from other 
countries, those jobs used to be in other Asian countries, well, they 
are in China now and that is why we have leverage. It does not matter 
where they were before, it is where they are now. The Chinese 
Government cannot afford to lose 10 million jobs that spring from 
United States trade. They cannot afford to lose $35 billion, trade 
surplus that will be over $40 billion this year.
  In my final minute, Mr. Speaker, in putting some of these thoughts on 
the Record, I do want to put a couple letters in the Record. One is a 
letter from Adam Yauch. Adam is with the Beastie Boys. He has been 
working very hard, lobbying Members to vote against MFN for China. A 
couple of weeks ago in San Francisco, he had 100,000 people gathered to 
support Chinese and Tibetan human rights and to oppose the brutal 
oppression of the Chinese Government. Maybe the leadership of this 
House is afraid of what is going on out there, that people are catching 
on to this issue.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention as we go into the Fourth 
of July, a great champion of human rights and of liberty, hopefully 
inspired by the United States, certainly his thinking is in line with 
our Founding Fathers', Mr. Wei Jingsheng. Nothing drives the Chinese 
crazier than our talking about Wei Jingsheng, because he speaks the 
truth. He served a 14-year sentence. They let him out for a few months 
because they wanted the Olympics. As soon as he spoke up again, they 
arrested him for another 14 years.
  And here is what he said to get arrested:

       From the moment he is born, a human being has the right to 
     live and the right to strive for a better life. These are 
     what people call God-given rights, for they are not bestowed 
     by any external thing. They are bestowed by the fact of 
     existence itself. Without equality, human rights must lose 
     their real meaning. Without the protection of human 
     rights, equality can only be an empty slogan.

  In the spirit of our Founding Fathers, as we approach the Fourth of 
July, I want to commend to our colleagues the plight of Wei Jingsheng 
and hope that one of our priorities is to tell the Chinese that we 
insist upon his freedom. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter referred to 
previously.
  The information referred to is as follows:
                                                    June 26, 1996.
       Dear Member of Congress: I am currently in Washington, DC 
     where I have been lobbying Congress not to renew Most Favored 
     Nation trading status with China.
       Last weekend I participated in the Tibetan Freedom Concert 
     where over 100,000 people gathered to support Chinese and 
     Tibetan human rights and to oppose the brutal oppression of 
     the Chinese government. Twenty of America's most influential 
     bands took the cause to heart and spoke about it on stage. 
     30,000 of the participants signed a letter to President 
     Clinton demanding that he not renew Most Favored Nation 
     status to China. The concert also helped to spread the word 
     of a rapidly growing boycott of all Chinese goods. This 
     boycott is endorsed by over 150 organizations including the 
     AFL-CIO. This is a small example of a rapidly growing 
     awareness amongst youth about our US government and US 
     corporations' direct involvement and perpetuation of human 
     rights abuses by continuing to trade with the Chinese. By 
     investing US money we are financing the Chinese government's 
     continued genocide of the Tibetan people.
       As world leaders your responsibility is to all of humanity, 
     not just your constituency, not just the Republicans or the 
     Democrats, not the people from your state, not even just all 
     Americans. You represent and affect all of humanity and are 
     thereby responsible for your actions. It is your 
     responsibility to cut through the bureaucratic rhetoric that 
     has perpetuated the most unimaginable suffering and human 
     rights violations that are still occurring today.
       Because the Tibetan struggle is non-violent it exemplifies 
     the most clear-cut distinction between brutal violence and 
     compassion that exists in the world. We must all join 
     together and use the freedom that we have as American 
     citizens to bring freedom to the rest of the world.
       The lies that having US business in China will help to 
     change their policies on human rights have gone on too long. 
     Many people are asking the question if the US takes a stand 
     will other countries follow us. It is our responsibility to 
     act first and other countries will follow. Regardless of what 
     other countries do we must act in the interest of humanity 
     and not our greed motivated corporations. We the people of 
     America call on you as our world leaders to act now. Do not 
     renew Most Favored Nation status to China.
                                         Adam Yauch--Beastie Boys.

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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, I rise in strong support of the resolution 
offered by the gentleman from Newport Beach, CA [Mr. Cox], my friend. 
By an overwhelming bipartisan majority, better than 2 to 1, 286 to 141, 
the House has gone on record stating what I have been arguing for the 
past 7 years, and that is the annual debate on trying to cut off MFN 
with the People's Republic of China is not the way to deal with the 
very serious problems that are outlined in this resolution.

                              {time}  1715

  What this resolution calls for is our looking into, through this 
process of hearings, the serious problems that we have discussed over 
the past several hours: Human rights violations, O-ring transfer, the 
saber rattling with Taiwan, the treatment of Tibet, intellectual 
property rights violations, those very serious things.
  That is why I believe the right thing for us to do is to continue 
trade, obviously, and this House has made that statement, but to move 
ahead with this

[[Page H7035]]

resolution that will call for committees to look into the very serious 
questions that we all very much want to address.
  As a strong supporter of most-favored-nation trading status with the 
People's Republic of China, I join in supporting this resolution and 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hunter].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends for yielding me this 
time, and I also want to rise in support of this resolution and commend 
the author, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], one of our 
brightest and most eloquent Members.
  This is a very, very important resolution from my perspective as a 
Member of the Committee on National Security, because I, along with my 
friend, the gentleman from California, Duke Cunningham, and other 
members of the committee, received testimony from the Clinton 
administration representatives with respect to China and its 
participation in arms sales and the sales of chemical weapons 
components to nations which may be in some cases unstable and in other 
cases are considered to be adversaries of the United States.
  We have just now started, really, this investigation. And when we 
asked the representatives of the Clinton administration whether or not 
there had been sales of the M-11 missiles to, for example, Pakistan, 
the answer was it appears that that did take place. When we asked about 
the ring magnets in open session, systems that are used to enrich 
uranium for the nuclear weapons construction process, the answer was 
yes, that probably did take place. It appears that also there have been 
transfers of chemical weapons components to Iran. That has taken place.

  So we see a couple of things happening. We live in an age of missiles 
right now, in which a number of Third World nations are acquiring 
missile technology, the ability to deliver a payload to another country 
300, 400, 500 miles away, and also to develop the warhead components 
that may be nuclear components or they may be biological or chemical 
components.
  We see China now taking a very important role in that proliferation 
of deadly technology to other nations, and we do not see any hesitancy 
on their part as a result of America's entreaties to stop it. We have 
asked them to stop it. They will not stop it just because we have 
talked to them.
  We do need to acquire points of leverage, that was the point we made 
in the MFN debate, that we missed an important point of leverage, but 
in the ensuing months we will work in the Committee on National 
Security, and I know the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, 
[Mr. Spence], finds this to be an important issue, and we will try to 
develop both the facts as to what China is doing with respect to 
proliferating mass destructive components and weapons to Third World 
nations and what we can do in the United States to stop it.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and thank the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for giving me this time, and I 
look forward to working on this very important project.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the Federal Trade 
Commission had jurisdiction over our legislative processes, I think 
that this would probably be cited as a bait and switch proposition.
  I read the resolution and it consists largely of a number of very 
good reasons why we should not do favors for and make concessions to 
and trade on these terms with the Chinese People's Republic. It is a 
long list of the great grievances which we have against the Chinese 
People's Republic. Then we come into the last page, in which, having 
shaken our fist at them and listed all the terrible things we do, we 
unleash our weapon: Hearings.
  Now, I appreciate the fact that hearings can sometimes be a nuisance 
if you are the Secretary of an American Cabinet department. The notion 
that we are going to have hearings might be a problem. but the threat 
of hearings in this situation seems to me to be of quite minimal effect 
on the Chinese.
  So I would have to say, and I will yield to the gentleman if he would 
yield me some of his time, because I only have 2 minutes and he had 8 
and some odd minutes left, but at this point I would say it does appear 
to me that any resemblance between this and a serious piece of 
legislation is entirely coincidental.
  The notion that the Chinese, having compiled this very long record of 
violating agreements and abusing people and getting the better of us 
economically, would really be upset because we are going to have 
hearings seems to me to be quite minimal.
  If the gentleman wants to yield some time, I will be glad to have a 
colloquy with him, but apparently he does not, so I will simply say 
that this may ease the conscience of those who voted for MFN. If in 
fact Members agree with everything in this resolution, I do not know 
how they could have voted to give the Chinese Most-Favored-Nation 
treatment.
  There is certainly nothing, I will say in closing, in the behavior, 
in the record, in the composition of the People's Republic of China 
that ought to give anybody the slightest inclination to believe that 
the Chinese will pay any more attention to this than they have anything 
we ever did before.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to say in response to my colleague and friend from 
Massachusetts, who normally is one of the most attentive during debate, 
that he must have missed the debate earlier on this because no one who 
has spoken in favor of this resolution, from the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
to myself, in any way meant for this resolution to be a substitute for 
the previous vote.
  To the contrary, I voted, as perhaps did the gentleman, I do not know 
how he voted, but certainly as did Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Miller, and the 
others who have spoken, as did the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, as did the chairman of the Committee on 
National Security, and that is to be serious in the one and only way we 
were given an opportunity to be serious, and that is with the 
resolution offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
  What we now have an opportunity to do, having faced obvious defeat on 
the scoreboard, having seen the vote tally, is what we have not done 
before, and that is to go beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, to the Committee on National Security, to the Committee 
on International Relations, to the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, and again to the Committee on Ways and Means, and have not 
only hearings, because that is not all this resolution says, but also 
legislation dealing with the very topics laid out in the resolution so 
that we are on the floor here no later than September 30.
  I have spoken personally with the chairmen of these committees, and 
this is not just a hortatory injunction resolution. These chairmen are 
committed to bringing legislation forward. The chairman of the 
Committee on National Security was himself here on the floor, the 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations was himself here 
on the floor.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the sponsor of this 
resolution, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox]. It is a good 
strong step in the right direction and I strongly support it.
  Mr. Speaker, having just extended MFN for Communist China for the 
17th year in a row, it is time for the advocates of MFN to step forward 
and promote a viable alternative for dealing with the problem of 
Communist China, and they can start by supporting the Cox resolution. 
This resolution directs four committees of this House to study this 
issue and allows them to come up with these alternatives.
  If we pass this resolution, the onus will be on those committees and 
the advocates of

[[Page H7036]]

MFN to propose only substantive proposals, not just mere words of 
condemnation. Why? Because, for years, we have pursued a policy of 
unmitigated appeasement of Communist China, and as we know from 
history, appeasement doesn't work.
  Mr. Speaker, it is truly breathtaking the degree to which every 
instance of Communist Chinese duplicity or misbehavior is dismissed, 
explained away, ignored or apologized for. We can't even enforce our 
own nonproliferation laws! They are in violation of every one of them. 
It's a joke!
  And just listen to this: In addition to 17 years of MFN and a free 
pass on our sanctions laws, look what else China gets from us: $4 
billion a year in taxpayer funded loans from multilateral development 
banks, and $800 million in loans and guarantees from the Export-Import 
Bank in 1995!
  We can shut this taxpayer ripoff down, Mr. Speaker, right here in 
this Congress.
  And then we have the unrestricted access to our market for companies 
owned and operated by the Communist Chinese military.
  Why are we trading with the Chinese military, when they are building 
up their defense, threatening Taiwan, and attempting to acquire 
missiles that can destroy American cities? We can shut this down as 
well, Mr. Speaker, by passing legislation that embargoes Chinese 
military companies. The committees named in this bill have the 
jurisdiction to tackle these matters, and they should.
  Mr. Speaker, the era of appeasement of the rogue Communist regime in 
Beijing has got to end. We know it can only lead to disaster. In the 
1930's Hitler was appeased, and the result was World War II and the 
Holocaust. During the war, Stalin was appeased and the result was the 
enslavement of Eastern Europe and the cold war.
  In the 1970's, we appeased the Soviets with detente and the result 
was their running amok in Africa, Central America and Afghanistan. Now 
appeasement of Communist China has led to today's outrageous and 
dangerous situation, chronicled here today by so many of my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 1980's we reversed appeasement and pursued Ronald 
Reagan's policy of peace through strength. For those who haven't 
noticed, it worked.
  The Cox resolution is a place to start us back on the road to peace 
through strength.
  I urge adoption of the measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] is 
recognized for the balance of his time, which is 2\3/4\ minutes, as I 
announced before.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of work ahead of us as far as 
bringing the Chinese people and their government into the modern world. 
A lot of mistakes have been made in the past. As I see our mistakes, 
the biggest mistake we have ever made so far as dealing with China is 
to disengage from them. And to the extent that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox] seeks to reengage with them, I support what he is 
trying to do.
  I think his time limitation on this makes it a futile effort. The 
Chinese are far different than we are. They have a far different set of 
guiding stars on which they guide as far as principles are concerned. 
We are going to have to help change them and to bring them into a more 
modern frame of reference. That is going to require quite some effort 
on the part of the United States. Mr. Cox is aiming in the right 
direction, but he does not give himself nearly enough time to 
accomplish what his goal is.
  First of all, I think every Member of this Congress should visit 
China as soon as they can and stay as long as they can and try to learn 
something about the Chinese, not that we want to emulate them, but we 
ought to know who we are dealing with and the problems that they face 
in trying to bring themselves into a more modern time.
  Second, we are going to have to make some sacrifices. We are going to 
have to do some things, positive things, about engaging the Chinese.
  Now, if we look at the resumes of most of the Chinese leaders, we 
will find that they were either educated in Chinese schools or they 
were educated in Russian schools or Eastern European schools. Most of 
them missed all opportunity to have any education in the Western ideas. 
We should be offering them that opportunity and encouraging them to 
participate, to bring their students here and to give them an 
opportunity to learn about what the modern world is all about.
  Third, we should be sending our people there to try to teach in their 
own institutions something about what we stand for. We should engage 
them at every point. I do not like their trade practices, I do not like 
the fact that they discriminate against us, but they do and we are 
going to have to work with them and confront them all along the way, 
just as we recently confronted them on the piracy of intellectual 
property, and we were able to be successful in that because we had some 
leverage and we used it.
  We must continue to do all that with the Chinese. So my real concern 
with all of this is I do not want to see America back off and disengage 
again. We did it once, it was a terrible mistake, we are paying the 
penalty for it now, and let us not repeat that bad history again.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, 7 
minutes, to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the 
distinguished chairman of the Helsinki Commission on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
International Operations and Human Rights, who has held nine hearings 
on China's abuse of human rights and the national security issues that 
the military buildup by the Communist Chinese poses to the United 
States.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox] for yielding me this time and for the 
privilege of closing debate on this extremely important legislation 
that he has offered today. Mr. Cox is deeply committed to human rights 
and has fashioned an approach today that will lead to meaningful 
sanctions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administrations absolute delinking of trade 
from human rights in 1994 was a betrayal of an oppressed people of 
breathtaking proportions. The Clinton administration flip-flopped on 
promoting human rights in China. After issuing a comprehensive 
Executive order that laid out a number of threshold items that had to 
be reached in order to confer MFN on China. The bottom line was 
performance--``significant progress in human rights'' was the clear 
standard that had to be met. When the Chinese regressed and human 
rights violations increased, the President turned tail and backed down. 
The dictatorship won. And the courageous Chinese democracy advocates 
were sold out and abandoned.
  I led a human rights trip to China midway through the Executive order 
review period and met with numerous leaders of the dissident community. 
I met with business leaders. I met with high government officials. And 
every single Chinese Government official told me and our delegation 
that human rights would be delinked from trade. It was astonishing. 
They believed the Clinton order to be bogus. They were totally cynical 
about it and viewed it as a joke. They thought it was window dressing, 
appealing to a domestic audience rather than a sincere effort to try to 
really rein in on the abuses of the People's Republic of China.
  Unfortunately, the Clinton policy is only the worst example of a much 
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.
  I think Members will recall that as a candidate, Bill Clinton justly 
criticized some officials of previous administrations for subordinating 
human rights to other concerns in China and elsewhere and he called it 
coddling dictators. I would submit to you this evening that Bill 
Clinton has coddled as few have coddled before.
  The important legislation offered by my good friend and colleague 
from California, Mr. Cox, provides us with a sincere opportunity to 
seriously reconsider our trading relationship with the People's 
Republic of China in light of their deplorable human rights record and 
their ongoing and flagrant empowerment of rogue regimes with weapons of 
mass destruction.

  In the coming weeks, the PRC should be put on notice, this Congress 
is going to insist on scrutinizing China's record as never before. Yes, 
over the last 18 months my subcommittee held numerous hearings on 
China's human rights practices. The full committee has held hearings on 
nuclear proliferation. Others have held hearings on the Senate side. 
But now, four major committees of the House of Representatives will 
draw a bead and bring blazing light to bear on these deplorable 
practices. And

[[Page H7037]]

I hope, we will leave no stone unturned in our probe.
  Last week, Mr. Speaker, I held a hearing on the human rights 
consequences of Mr. Clinton's misguided policy. Human Rights Watch, 
Freedom House, Amnesty International, and Harry Wu--among others--all 
testified how abuses had actually increased since delinking MFN and 
human rights. Amnesty International testified, that the Clinton 
administration's human rights policy towards China is ``confusing and 
weak''. The administration is ``aggressive only in a trade war with 
China. Amnesty International is unaware of any human rights war waged 
by this administration despite the worsening human rights situation in 
China.''
  Amnesty also testified that the human rights conditions in China, had 
``worsened since the delinking of human rights and MFN in 1994.''
  Mr. COX's legislation gets us back into the ballgame. A bipartisan 
group of lawmakers will produce legislation, and I do believe that the 
various committees of Congress, including the one that I serve on, 
International Relations, will come forward with new policy proposals. 
Mr. Gilman's bill is a good place to start. In the coming weeks, we 
will craft legislation--perhaps a hybrid designed to mitigate these 
egregious abuses. It's time to plan hardball.
  Let me also point out that Amnesty testified, that so-called economic 
progress in China has not resulted in observance or respect for human 
rights. That's really not that surprising. After all the Fascists in 
Italy made the trains run on time. The Nazis knew how to run a factory. 
Like those dictatorships, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest 
that the Chinese dictatorship has been tamed by economic growth. It has 
only become a glutton for more power and control. As a matter of fact, 
the evidence suggests that the PRC dictatorship is today stronger, more 
repressive, and more determined to retain the reins of power.
  The Clinton policy is empowering a repressive military by feeding it, 
gorging it, with dual-use-capable items and sophisticated technology. 
Our businesses are beefing up two PLA's offensive capabilities and 
making them more effective in controlling the people--and neighboring 
countries.
  Amnesty told our committee that despite rapid economic changes in 
recent years in China, there has been ``no fundamental change in the 
Government's human rights practices.''
  Mr. Speaker, the Cox legislation suggests that with the revocation of 
MFN no longer a viable option, for this year at least, that other means 
of registering our utter disgust with the dictatorship's cruel 
mistreatment of its own citizenry will be forthcoming, and we have a 
date certain by the end of September to produce those proposals and 
enact them.
  We have leverage, I say to my colleagues, we need to use it and use 
it prudently and wisely. For those, my friends and colleagues who 
advocate the status quo and no linkage, I have a simply question: Is 
there anything a government, in this case a cruel dictatorship could 
do, is there anything so gruesome, so barbaric that the United States 
should say enough is enough. In light of China's barbaric and cruel 
treatment to its people can we pretend we just don't see and go on as 
if it is business as usual? Consider the inhumane practices of the 
Beijing Government that are ongoing, pervasive, and getting worse by 
the day. The use of slave labor--or the laogai--the prison camps--where 
many of our products that find their way on the shelves in our stores 
are being produced by prisoners of conscience. The statement of the 
status quo say, no problem, the United States and China signed a 
memorandum of understanding during the previous administration. The MOU 
looks splendid on paper. But it's a farce. The Chinese contrive to 
obstruct and prohibit access to prison camps and have erected so many 
barriers so to make the MOU meaningless.
  In the early 1990's Congressman Frank Wolf and I got into one gulag 
after much persistence and tough negotiations. We discovered that 
Beijing prison No. 1 contained more than 40 dissidents from the 
Tiananmen Square crackdown. We were witnesses to the making of girls 
jelly shoes and socks for export by convict labor. One of the problems 
with the MOU is that the U.S. side has to give significant advance 
notice prior to an inspection. The U.S. side has to demonstrate cause 
for the inspection to occur--another difficult hurdle in a closed 
society. And then there is a long time period from the request to when 
our Customs people make a visit--and there have been very few visits. 
And you know what happens then? U.S. personnel inspect the prison camp 
and are shown a Potemkin village--sanitized and free of any possible 
violation of the MOU.

  Let me also say that my subcommittee had the first hearing in the 
Congress ever on the laogai or prison camp system in China. We heard 
from six survivors, including Harry Wu, that great, courageous defender 
of human rights and former prisoner of conscience. We heard chilling 
testimony from Katharine Ho and from a Buddhist monk who demonstrated 
how the Chinese torturers inflict pain on religious and political 
prisoners with cattle prods. He told us how they used these terrible 
implements to force compliance and to break a prisoner's will and 
resolve.
  Mr. Speaker, civilizations can be judged by how they treat women, 
children, old people and strangers. Vulnerable people bring out the 
kindness in every society, but also regrettably the cruelty. Every so 
often they do become the object of practices so violent they cause 
people to recoil in horror across the centuries. One such practice is 
the practice of forced abortion.
  The Government of China routinely compels women to abort their 
``unauthorized'' unborn children. The usual method is intense 
``persuasion'' using all of the economic, social and psychological 
tools a totalitarian State has at its disposal. When these methods 
fail, the woman is taken physically to the abortion mill. Forced 
abortions are often performed very late in pregnancy, even in the ninth 
month. Sometimes the baby's skull is crushed with forceps as the baby 
emerges from the birth canal. Other times the baby gets an injection of 
formaldehyde or some other poison into the baby's cranium. Either the 
woman or her husband is then forcibly sterilized.
  Forced abortion was properly considered a crime against humanity at 
the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. It is employed regularly with 
chilling effectiveness and unbearable pain upon women in the People's 
Republic of China. Women in China are required to obtain a birth coupon 
before conceiving a child. Chinese women are hounded by the population 
control police and even their menstrual cycles are publicly monitored 
as one means of ensuring compliance.
  The New York Times has pointed out in an expose recently that the 
authorities, when they discover an unauthorized pregnancy, an ``illegal 
child,'' normally apply a daily dose of threats and browbeating. They 
wear the women down. Eventually, if the woman does not succumb to the 
abortion, she is physically forced to submit.
  The central government also issued a law on eugenics which is now 
taking effect and which nationalizes discrimination against the 
handicapped. In a move that is eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the 
Communist Chinese Government is implementing forced abortion against 
handicapped children and forced sterilization against parents who 
simply do not measure up in the eyes of the State. Despite all of this, 
the United Nations Population Fund continues to provide funds, 
materiel, people on the ground and what no money could buy, the sort of 
shield of respectability that the PRC program so desperately wants.
  I would just say parenthetically that the head of the UNFPA, the U.N. 
Population Fund, time and time again has defended the program in China 
as totally voluntary. This is unmitigated nonsense and a big lie. 
Degrading a few men, women and children may be of no great matter for 
the Chinese Communist regime which has long regarded homicide and 
torture as among the basic tools of statecraft.
  The Cox legislation represents hope. I truly believe that this 
Congress will work hard to fashion legislation designed to mitigate 
China's egregious abuses. We have a moral obligation to help our 
suffering friends in the PRC.
  I urge strong support for the Cox bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support, but somewhat 
reluctant support, for House Resolution 461. This Member

[[Page H7038]]

voices reluctant support not because he opposes the notion of 
articulating United States concerns with the People's Republic of 
China. Indeed, it is extremely important to convey in specific detail 
the objections the United States has regarding PRC behavior with regard 
to human rights, proliferation, and questionable trade practices.
  However, when this body raises concerns, it must be careful to speak 
with a high degree of accuracy. While the distinguished gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox] did yeoman's work in compiling a list of concerns 
on extremely short notice, there unfortunately are a number of 
inaccuracies in the legislation. For example, on the whereas clauses 
related to commercial trade, the United States did not conclude, as 
alleged in House Resolution 461, a formal agreement with the People's 
Republic of China on intellectual property rights on June 17, 1996. 
Instead, the United States merely decided not to impose sanctions.
  Also, regarding the convertability of the People's Republic of 
China's currency, House Resolution 461 is outdated and does not 
recognize recent reforms.
  In addition, the legislation states that the current anticrime 
programs has targeted political, religious, and labor activists in 
addition to common criminals in Tibet, Zinjiang, and in the whole of 
Communist China. In information available to me indicates, Mr. Speaker, 
that the campaign seems to have targeted only ordinary criminals.
  The resolution also states that actions by the People's Liberation 
Army in the South China Sea have threatened the United States Navy's 
right of free passage in those waters. But the right of free passage of 
the U.S. Navy has never been challenged by anyone, either the PLA or 
the forces of other nations vying for control of the disputed islands 
and atolls.
  To the extent that this body is not wholly and completely factual in 
its representation of events, our message is undermined. It is quite 
possible that the People's Republic of China will react to House 
Resolution 461 simply by pointing to the inaccuracies. If that happens, 
they will be able to subvert the important message that their overall 
international and domestic behavior must improve.
  Mr. Speaker, this body should be very cautious in considering 
legislation critical of any nation; we must be as accurate as possible. 
That is the reason that under normal legislative practice this body 
moves legislation through committees with specific expertise. When this 
body uses the existing committee structure as designed, it is far less 
likely that inaccuracies will find their way into legislation. Mr. 
Speaker, while this Member will vote for House Resolution 461, it is 
essential that this body can return to the practice of permitting the 
committees and subcommittees of jurisdiction to exercise their rightful 
role in the legislative process. By passing the authorizing committees, 
even to provide a last minute tandem resolution to assure the defeat 
the Rohrabacher resolution to deny normal tariff status to the People's 
Republic of China is not a good practice.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I oppose renewing most-favored-nation status 
[MFN] for China at this time.
  I have supported MFN for China in the past. My support has been 
predicated upon the assumption that there would be certain improvements 
in China's conduct as a member of the international community.
  The County Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1995 published by 
the U.S. Department of State states that ``During the year the 
Government continued to commit widespread and well documented human 
rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms, stemming 
both from the authorities intolerance of dissent and the inadequacy of 
legal safeguards for basic freedom''. This statement comes 7 years 
after the 1989 crackdown in Tiananmen Square.
  Further, we have a trade deficit with China of $34 billion that 
suggests less than an open Chinese market to United States goods. In 
1986 the United States had a trade deficit of $1.7 billion with China; 
that deficit now stands at $33.8 billion. We hear from representatives 
of three important sectors of the United States economy that China's 
policy in the auto, aerospace sector, and steel are working against the 
interest of the United States.
  Representatives of three unions, the International Union, UAW, the 
International Association of Machinists, and the United Steel Workers 
state that their worker realize that there is a relationship between 
international trade and improvement of living standards. These 
representatives state however, that

       . . . this will not occur while Chinese workers are 
     prevented from exercising basic rights and the Chinese 
     government uses discriminatory policies to keep out the world 
     class products made by (U.S. workers).

  In April 1996, the United States Trade Representative designated 
China as a priority foreign country for failing to implement an 
agreement on intellectual property rights, This problem goes back at 
least to August 1991, and it did not end with the recent agreement 
between China and the United States.
  The United States has other problems with China that are enumerated 
in great detail in House Resolution 461 and I do not intend to 
enumerate them again here. However, the action called for in the 
resolved clause of the resolution should be implemented before we renew 
MFN to China, or under the present circumstances, we should extend 
conditional MFN to China contingent upon action by the committees of 
jurisdiction as called for in House Resolution 461.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as we move ahead into the 
post-cold-war world, we find ourselves increasingly challenged to 
better understand the People's Republic of China which remained for so 
long closed to us, and to foster new relationships that will enable us 
to ensure our economic and national security.
  The United States has greatly enhanced its trade, cultural ties, and 
influence on this once closed society. In fact, United States trade 
with China has increased from $4.8 billion in 1980--when we first 
extended most favored nation trading status to China--to $57.3 billion 
in 1995. These numbers reflect growing American economic influence on 
China--a stabilizing factor to a nation whose government has frequently 
demonstrated erratic, extreme, and inexcusable behavior.
  It is in our interest to build on our relationship with PRC. We want 
to encourage increased trade for our own economic benefit, and we want 
to bring the benefits of our thriving and open society to the Chinese 
people. While we should strive to foster stronger relations, we should 
never do so at the expense of our own national interests.
  There is no need to provoke disputes just for the sake of flexing 
national muscle, but we cannot continue to ignore China's egregious 
violations in the area of arms control and basic human rights. If we 
want agreements and accepted international standards to have any teeth, 
we must be willing to risk dispute when our resolve is tested.
  In the case of China, that has unfortunately happened on too many 
occasions. Perhaps the most compelling example of this is the repeated 
transfer of M-11 missiles and technology to Pakistan, despite China's 
repeated pledge to adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime. 
China has also sold cruise missile technology to Iran in violation of 
MTCR and transferred chemical weapons production equipment there in 
violation of its commitments to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Then 
there's the transfer of ring magnets to Pakistan for the purpose of 
uranium enrichment, which is a violation of the Nuclear Non-
proliferation Treaty.
  Compounding the problems posed by these transfers, the administration 
refuses to sanction China for the violations. Each time China pledges 
not to sell missile technology, the administration claims credit for a 
breakthrough. Then, China again proceeds to sell the forbidden items. 
And the administration ignores--or when too much evidence piles up. 
downplays--the transfer and refuses to sanction China. And what does 
China learn? That arms control agreements can be violated with 
impunity.
  Sadly, this administration's arms control policy is like a movie set 
facade: It looks great from afar, but once you get behind it there's 
nothing inside to back it up. While the bill before us today will not 
ensure arms control compliance and enforcement, we would be remiss if 
we did not note the violations and insist on accountability from China 
and when necessary, the administration. Fortunately, there are 
appropriate mechanisms outside of the MFN process that allow the 
administration to deal with the violations, and we must insist that 
they do so.
  As we proceed with MFN, we must raise these concerns. House 
Resolution 461 recognizes the flaws in current United States-China 
policy and it seeks to adjust them by developing the precise 
legislation needed to influence China's inadequacies in trade 
practices, its terrible human rights record, its erratic military 
policy, and its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. House 
Resolution 461 calls on the House Committees on Banking and Financial 
Services, International Relations, Ways and Means, and National 
Security to commence hearings and report appropriate legislation by 
September 30, 1996 to address these concerns.
  In the past, I have consistently opposed extending MFN for China 
because I did not agree with Chinese policy on many different fronts. 
While I am still committed to changing China's ways, I believe MFN is 
not the best tool to influence Chinese policy. I feel that with the 
guidance of House Resolution 461, legislation can be tailor-made to 
bring about these long sought-after changes in Chinese policy.
  As Chairman of the House National Security Subcommittee on Research 
and Development, and as cochairman of the Congressional Missile Defense 
Caucus, I will be diligent in formulating ways that we can make China 
comply with international nuclear test-ban and

[[Page H7039]]

nonproliferation agreements. Meanwhile, we must continue to foster new 
economic opportunities that will give them the tools and resources that 
support alternative export opportunities for China. I believe that 
passage of MFN will do just that, and I urge others to join me in 
support of its passage.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of engagement with China, 
in support of China MFN, and against the resolution of disapproval.
  As I have said on this floor on other occasions, Ohio is one of 
America's top exporters of manufactured goods. China is not only the 
world's most populous country, but also one of the world's most rapidly 
expanding marketplaces. In fact, Ohio Governor George Voinovich has 
established a permanent office in Beijing to support the State's 
commercial interests there.
  Ohio's farmers, especially the corn and soybean farmers found in my 
district, are exporting to China and hope to increase their presence in 
this burgeoning market. Ohio employers such as Whirlpool, the Limited 
and Harris Corp. have contacted me in support of MFN treatment. Indeed, 
numerous United States companies have joint ventures in China and are 
using cooperative efforts to gain access to China and other Asian 
markets.
  Mr. Speaker, MFN merely gives China the same trade status possessed 
by the vast majority of nations. Frankly, the phrase ``most-favored'' 
is something of a misnomer, which opponents of engagement use to 
distort the nature of our trading relationship with the People's 
Republic of China.
  Ending normal trade relations with China would undermine United 
States economic interests in China and the rest of Asia. It would cost 
American jobs and sacrifice a great opportunity for American business 
interests.
  If United States farmers and United States companies are denied the 
chance to do business with China, other countries--many with a weaker 
commitment to human rights and democracy--will gladly fill the void. A 
great deal will be lost, and nothing, in my view, will be gained.
  The subcommittee I chair held a hearing on May 9 in which we heard 
testimony regarding the importance for our economy and our citizens of 
opening the world's markets to international telecommunications 
services. It is critical that we bring China into this process.
  Failing to grant MFN status will send China an inconsistent signal in 
terms of our dedication to opening markets and breaking down tariff and 
nontariff barriers in international telecommunications.
  China is a critical market for American telecommunications companies. 
There are over a billion Chinese, but relatively few have telephones. 
This is the world's largest potential market for telecommunications 
equipment, line construction and services.
  The United States is a leader in telecommunications technology. We 
cannot afford to miss out on the hundreds of thousands of high-tech, 
high-pay telecommunications jobs the construction of the Chinese 
information infrastructure will create.
  I urge all my colleagues to support American workers and U.S. 
interests in Asia and oppose the resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend all of my 
colleagues, regardless of position, for their heartfelt commitment on 
the issue of most favored nation [MFN] trade status renewal for China--
clearly the most pressing issue now facing relations between Washington 
and Beijing.
  Although I have the greatest respect for those Members in Congress 
that sincerely believe that denial of MFN is necessary to prod China 
into complying with its international obligations and for progress in 
human and political rights, I feel that they are misguided. Thus, I 
reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose adoption of House Joint 
Resolution 182 and to support House Resolution 461.
  I have long been a supporter of maintaining broad and comprehensive 
ties with the Peoples' Republic of China--a policy of China engagement 
that has been upheld in a bipartisan fashion by five previous 
administrations.
  It is in America's national interest to have a productive 
relationship with a China that is strong, stable, open and prosperous--
a China that is increasingly integrated into the international 
community and global marketplace as a responsible and accountable 
partner.
  Over the past two decades, we have seen tremendous strides forward in 
China on several fronts. Although China still has significant problems 
in several areas--such as human rights, nuclear and missile 
proliferation, and fair trade--can anybody seriously question whether 
today's China is fundamentally different from the Communist China that 
existed before President Nixon's triumphal opening.
  Due to vigorous trade and the concomitant expansion of contacts with 
the West, China has evolved into a more open society with a government 
that is increasingly sensitive to international opinion. It is 
absolutely vital that the United States support the continued opening 
of China to the world via the medium of trade--not close the door.
  Denial of MFN to China achieves nothing while forcing American 
businesses to unnecessarily pay a great sacrifice. Moreover, the 
inevitable trade war to erupt between China and the United States over 
MFN denial would also adversely impact all of the economies of the 
Asia-Pacific nations. Is it any wonder that Hong Kong, Taiwan, and 
other Asian governments have begged the United States not to deny China 
MFN--a unilateral economic sanction that is clearly useless without 
multilateral support. Mr. Speaker, we cannot isolate China by applying 
trade sanctions but, ironically, that action would result in the 
isolation of America, both economically and politically.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge our Members to support renewal of MFN trade 
status for China, as it is in America's national interest to maintain 
productive and positive relations with China--a nation that is destined 
to be the leader of Asia in the 21st century. United States engagement 
with China. Oppose adoption of House Joint Resolution 182 and support 
House Resolution 461.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 461, the Cox resolution 
concerning China, outlines a number of bilateral problems with China 
and expresses the sense of Congress that the committees of jurisdiction 
should examine these issues closely and report, if appropriate, 
legislation to address these matters. This nonbinding resolution will 
allow us to examine appropriate mechanisms, outside of the context of 
the annual review of the most-favored-nation relationship with China, 
to assure that our trade agreements are effectively implemented and new 
market opportunities are created for United States firms and workers.
  The Committee on Ways and Means has always been willing and ready to 
address these difficult issues, especially improvements in economic 
relations and the enforcement of our bilateral agreements. The 
committee also intends to work closely with the administration 
concerning China's accession to the World Trade Organization to assure 
that accession takes place only upon commercially acceptable terms, 
when it is ready to take on the obligations of the multilateral trading 
system.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this nonbinding resolution and urge my 
colleagues to express their concerns about certain unacceptable 
practices of the Chinese Government by voting ``yes'' on House 
Resolution 461.

                              {time}  1730

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
463, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COX of California. 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 411, 
nays 7, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 285]

                               YEAS--411

     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
     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
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse

[[Page H7040]]


     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     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 (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
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     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
     Moran
     Morella
     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
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--7

     DeFazio
     Johnson (CT)
     McDermott
     Murtha
     Pickett
     Stark
     Velazquez

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

     Frank (MA)
     Scarborough
     Slaughter

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brewster
     Chapman
     Flake
     Gibbons
     Graham
     Hall (OH)
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Stockman
     Torricelli
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1759

  Mr.5 MURTHA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BEREUTER and Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  Ms. SLAUGHTER changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``present.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________