Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)

[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.

____________________