[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7589-H7597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
            EXTENDING MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS TO ROMANIA

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 3161) to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment--
most-favored-nation treatement--to the products of Romania.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3161

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) Romania emerged from years of brutal Communist 
     dictatorship in 1989 and approved a new Constitution and 
     elected a Parliament by 1991, laying the foundation for a 
     modern parliamentary democracy charged with guaranteeing 
     fundamental human rights, freedom of expression, and respect 
     for private property;
       (2) local elections, parliamentary elections, and 
     presidential elections have been held in Romania, and 1996 
     will mark the second nationwide presidential elections under 
     the new Constitution;
       (3) Romania has undertaken significant economic reforms, 
     including the establishment of a two-tier banking system, the 
     introduction of a modern tax system, the freeing of most 
     prices and elimination of most subsidies, the adoption of a 
     tariff-based trade regime, and the rapid privatization of 
     industry and nearly all agriculture;
       (4) Romania concluded a bilateral investment treaty with 
     the United States in 1993, and both United States investment 
     in Romania and bilateral trade are increasing rapidly;
       (5) Romania has received most-favored-nation treatment 
     since 1993, and has been found by the President to be in full 
     compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements under 
     title IV of the Trade Act of 1974;
       (6) Romania is a member of the World Trade Organization and 
     extension of unconditional most-favored-nation treatment to 
     the products of Romania would enable the United States to 
     avail itself of all rights under the World Trade Organization 
     with respect to Romania; and
       (7) Romania has demonstrated a strong desire to build 
     friendly relationships and to cooperate fully with the United 
     States on trade matters.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE TRADE 
                   ACT OF 1974 TO ROMANIA

       (a) Presidential Determinations and Extension of 
     Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision 
     of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et 
     seq.), the President may--
       (1) determine that such title should no longer apply to 
     Romania; and
       (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1), 
     proclaim the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-
     favored-nation treatment) to the products of that country.
       (b) Termination of Application of Title IV.--On and after 
     the effective date of the extension under subsection (a)(2) 
     of nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of Romania, 
     title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall cease to apply to 
     that country.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Gutknecht). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons] each will control 20 minutes.

[[Page H7590]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Point of order. Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, is either gentleman opposed to the bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] 
opposed to the motion?
  Mr. GIBBONS. No, I am not.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Is the gentleman from Illinois opposed to the motion?
  Mr. CRANE. No, I am not.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Then I request 20 minutes to speak in opposition, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, an opponent is entitled to 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] for 
20 minutes in favor of the motion to suspend the rules and the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk] for 20 minutes in 
opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of my 
time to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons], the ranking member of our full Committee on Ways and Means, 
who introduced this legislation with me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3161, legislation which 
authorizes the President to extend permanent most-favored-nation [MFN] 
tariff treatment to the products of Romania. This legislation, which 
was introduced by myself and the ranking minority member of the Ways 
and Means Committee, Mr. Gibbons, is supported by the administration 
and was favorably reported out of the Ways and Means Committee by a 
voice vote on June 13, 1996.
  At present, Romania's MFN status is subject to the freedom-of-
emigration conditions contained in title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, 
the provision of U.S. law which contains the so-called Jackson-Vanik 
amendment. As enacted, the Jackson-Vanik conditions apply to nonmarket 
economy countries not eligible for MFN treatment on January 3, 1975. 
Since the passage of Jackson-Vanik more than 20 years ago, however, we 
have witnessed the end of the cold war and the rebirth of Central and 
Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism in the region.
  Like many of its neighbors, Romania has undergone wholescale change 
in its political and economic systems, as the country has undertaken 
the difficult transition away from centralization toward democracy and 
open markets. After the overthrow of its Communist dictatorship in 
1989, Romania approved a new Constitution to lay the foundation for 
human rights, freedom of expression, and respect for private property 
under the new democratic government. Since then, Romania has held 
local, parliamentary, and Presidential elections. Later this year, 
Romania will hold its second Presidential election under the new 
Constitution.
  In addition to democratic reform, Romania has undertaken significant 
market-oriented economic reforms, including privatization. Since 1990, 
more than 500,000 small- and medium-size companies have been created by 
the private sector and more than 2,000 state owned enterprises have 
been privatized. At present, the private sector accounts for about 50 
percent of the country's gross domestic product and employs more than 
half of its work force. To continue the transition to a market-based 
economy, the government has targeted 2,900 state enterprises for 
privatization this year. At the end of this process, it is estimated 
that the private sector will account for more than 70 percent of 
Romania's gross domestic product.
  Given Romania's progress toward pluralistic democracy and a market 
economy, I believe it is appropriate for the United States to respond 
by passing H.R. 3161 to normalize our bilateral trade relations. 
Extending permanent MFN to Romania, as has been done for other East 
European countries, will enhance our bilateral relations by providing 
the business community with greater certainty with respect to Romania's 
status under U.S. law. In addition, Romania is a member of the World 
Trade Organization and an extension of permanent MFN is necessary in 
order for the United States to benefit from our rights under the WTO in 
our relations with Romania. Moreover, solidifying our bilateral 
commercial relations will help to ensure that Romania continues on the 
steady course of reform that it has laid out for its future.
  The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that its baseline 
revenue projections assume that Romania's conditional MFN status will 
be renewed by the President in the future. Therefore, enactment of H.R. 
3161 will not affect projected Federal Government receipts. I urge my 
colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today because I care deeply about the 
Romanian people and the fate of the country where I spent almost 6 
years of my life as a Fulbright Scholar, university professor doing 
research, USIA officer and U.S. Ambassador.
  It would have been easier for me to follow the stampede, business and 
trade interest. When I was the U.S. Ambassador under Ceausescu's harsh 
regime, conventional wisdom in the media, the Congress, like today, and 
the State Department was that Ceausescu was a great guy who was a 
maverick in foreign policy and his friendship should be cultivated and 
rewarded. Many here were anxious to curry his favor and reward his 
tyranny. So it is no surprise that former ambassadors and many 
congressmen have fallen again for the slick PR, money, pressure, 
propaganda job of the current Romanian Ambassador, favored son of the 
old Communist elite trained for just this purpose. As usual it works 
and money, trade, and businesses talk louder than values, principles, 
human rights, and freedom. Many were on the wrong side during 
Ceausescu's day, and now they are again on the wrong side in Iliescu's 
day, against the democrats, against the growth of economic freedom and 
privatization, against press freedom, against human rights.
  But I was proven right before when the Wall Street Journal described 
me as America's Cassandra Ambassador and when earlier this year the 
University of Bucharest granted me an honorary doctor's degree for work 
fighting for human rights and democratization in Romania.
  Since the current regime in Bucharest remains the only Government in 
Eastern Europe which has not elected a democratic government separated 
from the harsh Communist past, and since serious problems of human 
rights violations, press infringements, private property and 
privatization reverses continue, it is important that I speak for the 
little person seeking democracy, the small businessmen seeking economic 
freedom and minorities with human rights concerns.
  Romania has MFN on an annual basis, and it is trying to ram through 
permanent MFN so that the crypto-Communist Government of Ion Iliescu 
can get an extra advantage in the upcoming elections. A 3-months' delay 
in bringing up permanent MFN will not hurt Bucharest at all, but it 
will give the democratic forces a chance to have a more level playing 
field in this election. Following the election in November, no matter 
who wins, then permanent MFN can be brought up and voted on and signed 
into law.
  Listen to the plea of the ad hoc committee for the Organization of 
Romanian Democracy in a letter to me last week: ``Unlike the other 
Eastern European countries * * * Romania has continued to be ruled by 
the same type of autocratic and police regime. Rewarding the Romanian 
authoritarian regime with the unconditional MFN status will be 
equivalent to the unqualified endorsement of President Iliescu and will 
provide the regime with unfair respectability credentials before 
elections. They pointed out that in recent local elections democratic 
groups barely won out. Under the present frame of mind of the Romanian 
people, we feel that the granting hastily of the permanent MFN status 
before the Presidential/parliamentary elections would discourage the 
Romanian electors and

[[Page H7591]]

would destroy all chances for the popular vote turning to a truly 
democratic system. Therefore, the fairest, optimal solution would be 
the postponement of the dabate on the MFN status in Congress until 
after the elections. Trusting in your fair evaluation of the real 
political climate in Romania, we thank you * * * for your 
consideration.'' Chairmjan Stefan Issarescu and Co-Chairman Dr. Simone 
Vrabiescu-Kleckner, A.C.O.R.D.
  In addition to the election factor, the 3 months gives us a last 
opportunity to gain real progress in areas of concern heretofore 
ignored by the Bucharest regime. Without annual MFN, the United States 
will surely lose what little leverage it has in encouraging improvement 
in the areas of human rights, privatization, economic freedom, press 
and media freedom and political democratization. Why are the Romanian 
Embassy and its recruited supporters and many in Congress so anxious to 
rush permanent MFN through without waiting less then 4 months until 
after the election? We know the new ambassador's job and fate many be 
on the line if he doesn't get this big plum for his boss Iliescu now, 
immediately, after all, look what happened to Geoana's predecessor. But 
ponder, why has the same establishment here in Washington and New York 
not put Romania on the top list to gain entry into NATO? Just perhaps 
it has something to do with less than favorable progress made by the 
Government in most areas since 1989. If Bucharest has nothing to hide, 
why not wait only a few short months before voting on permanent MFN?

  Of course, there is a parade of congressman, former ambassadors, 
religious group leaders and Romanian officials and parliamentarians 
expressing their approval of immediate permanent MNF for Romania. We 
know why: An old Communist trick, it has become a question of 
nationalism and patriotism because of Bucharest's propaganda. If 
someone prominent in Romania did not support this he would be branded 
anti-Romanian, that is how it is framed. Do we ever learn anything from 
history?
  Just a few points on the problems in present-day Romania: One, 
privatization and economic freedom are proceeding slower than almost 
anywhere else. In fact the Heritage Foundation's index of economic 
freedom of 1996 ranks Romania 112th after such countries as Russia, 
Moldova, Albania and Bulgaria and the lowest in Eastern Europe, 
dropping dramatically from last year.
  Two, there are still many problems with state dominated TV and 
newsprint for opposition newspapers not being readily available as well 
as journalist freedom. In Sunday's Washington Times it was reported 
that Romanian journalist Radu Mazare was sentenced to prison charged 
with libel for exposing corruption of local officials of the 
government. Western broadcasts, including BBC, are often selectively 
banned; Senator Jesse Helms sent a letter to find out why journalist 
Doina Boghean was sentenced by a court for the offense of slander; 
Senator Strom Thurmond wrote to find out why two religious radio 
broadcasts by Voice of the Gospel were shut down; CSCE Chairs Senator 
Alphonse D'Amato and Congressman Chris Smith wrote expressing concern 
about government limitation on religious programming including for 
Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists and others. Does all this sound 
democratic?
  Three, human rights violations and discrimination against minorities 
continues. The new Ambassador in Washington taking a page from his 
Communist training tried to discredit my position by saying I am now a 
Hungarian advocate. Sorry, Mircea, but it will not work. I am for human 
rights for all people but everyone knows and outside government will 
admit that I am and have been a Romanianophile.
  Four, why is it that the number of orphans in Romania has grown since 
the fall of Ceausescu, and they exist in the most horrible conditions? 
Is this not an indictment of the Iliescu government which has been in 
power since 1989?
  Fifth, in most cases private property is not returned to its original 
owners.
  We should be helping the democratic, not the authoritarian, forces in 
Romania.
  Therefore I urge postponement at least until after the November 
elections of consideration and approval of permanent MFN for Romania so 
that the Romanian people can have a better chance at fair elections and 
so that more progress can be made in the areas aforementioned.
  We have a moral obligation to the people seeking greater 
democratization and privatization in Romania to take this position. And 
furthermore the United States is still, often despite the Congress, 
looked to as defender of the truth, freedom and democracy throughout 
the world and we have an opportunity to be that defender. The United 
States has to stand for something and take the lead, and show that 
commerce and money greed are not everything to us. Let us do the right 
thing for a change.
  Oppose H.R. 3161 until after Romania's elections.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue here is shall we grant to the people of 
Romania ordinary business, like trade agreements that we address to 
almost everybody else on Earth with very few exceptions. I am not here 
to defend Romania. No one could possibly do that. Romania is not a 
perfect country, but there are not many perfect countries at all on 
this globe, and I think that they are trying to do the best they can to 
get back into what is the normal westernized way of doing business and 
of treating their people. I know of no country in Europe that has 
possibly been more abused by its leaders in the last 50 or 60 years 
than Romania, but it is making progress.
  Mr. Speaker, our trade with Romania is pitifully small. It is not 
much of an economic impact one way or another. But we ought to get on 
with it, and we ought to normalize our relationships with Romania, and 
I support this piece of legislation.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, 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 join my colleagues on the Ways and Means 
Committee and the International Relations Committee who support the 
passage of H.R. 3161, making Romania permanently eligible for United 
States most-favored-nation trade benefits.
  I want to commend Chairman Crane and the sponsors of this measure for 
working to bring it to the floor today.
  Romania currently enjoys MFN status, since it has been deemed to be 
in compliance with the underlying provisions of United States trade 
law.
  This measure simply allows Romania to receive such trade benefits on 
a permanent basis--which should help promote American investment in 
that important country.
  Passage of this measure would also recognize the improvements that 
have been made through political and economic reforms in Romania.
  However, there needs to be further progress in such reforms.
  With regard to its foreign policy, Romania must resolve its 
outstanding bilateral differences with neighbors like Ukraine and 
Hungary.
  With regard to Hungary, in particular, we need to see further 
progress toward the historic reconciliation Romanian President Iliescu 
says he seeks.
  Yes, there is still much that needs to be done, and I say to the 
Government of Romania--and to those who believe that passage of this 
measure is premature--that we will be looking for progress.
  When the time comes that Romania seeks full membership in the 
European union and the NATO military alliance, we here in the United 
States and our allies in Europe will be looking closely to see what 
Romania has accomplished.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lantos].
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
   Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment. We are witnessing the rite 
of passage of a formerly totally totalitarian and dictatorial country 
into the ranks of law-abiding international citizens, fully respecting 
human rights, and making significant progress toward democracy and free 
market systems.

[[Page H7592]]

  For those of my colleagues who are new to this body, allow me to 
state that 4 years ago I led the successful fight to prevent Romania 
from getting MFN treatment. I did so against an incumbent 
administration and the leadership of both of our political parties, 
because 4 years ago conditions in Romania did not warrant such 
legislation.
  Today they do. I recently visited Romania, which is one of many 
visits begun initially in the 1930s, and I was delighted to see the 
degree to which the Country has become normalized, both economically 
and politically.
  I find it rather amusing that the gentleman from North Carolina who, 
as ambassador to Romania under the despicable dictatorship of 
Ceaucescu, year after year, in writing, certified that Romania should 
get most-favored-nation treatment, is now opposing the granting of 
permanent MFN status, which merely means normal trading relationships, 
for the people of Romania.
  I think it is important to underscore, Mr. Speaker, that recently 
elections were held in Romania with a fairly good turnout, much better 
than ours, and two-thirds of the voters voted against the incumbent 
government. What better proof that there is at least a modicum of 
political democracy vibrant in that country?
  Granting permanent MFN status to Romania will be a stepping stone to 
that country's entering the European Union and, eventually, NATO. As 
the founding Democratic chairman of the congressional Human Rights 
Caucus, I strongly urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to take this significant step.
  The cold war is over. The Soviet Union no longer exists. The 
countries of Central and Eastern Europe gradually, haltingly, painfully 
are moving in the direction of democratic market economies.
  Romania has now reached the stage that they need encouragement and 
support. Across the political spectrum, Romanian political parties are 
urging us to approve this legislation. Every religious minority in 
Romania does so, as well. We should not let down the people of Romania.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was U.S. ambassador under the harsh days of 
Nicolai Ceausescu, I watched the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lantos], the great defender of human rights, come to Bucharest and 
personally praise and thank Ceausescu for the great job he was doing.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, what was the gentleman smoking?
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. I did not interrupt you, but that is what you said, 
and it was written in the book.
  In the Congressional Record, this same gentleman said ``To a very 
large extent, the basic power structure is unchanged in Romania 
today,'' He said this in 1992. This is the man to whom we now want to 
give the favor, so next Sunday in the elections he can tell his people, 
the Congress of the United States is supporting this regime. So he is 
talking about all this dramatic progress that has been made since 1992, 
but he was saying that this was a terrible regime in 1992.
  And there has not been very much progress. In fact, when we use most 
indices, they have actually gone backwards since 1992. My argument is 
that this bill supports the old Communist bureaucracy nomenclature and 
elite. It does not support those people striving and seeking freedom 
and democratization in Romania.
  I stay in touch with them every day, they come by my office every 
day.
  People from here who go over there and invest small amounts of money, 
middle-size amounts of money, lose it because of the noninviolability 
of contracts. They find that bribery, corruption, black marketeering, 
lying, cheating, and stealing is a way of life that has been inherent 
from the Communist regime. This has been perpetuated.
  It would be nice if, as the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations said, we can go home and pray and wish that 
this regime in Romania will improve and will be nice to us, I mean, be 
nice to its people in the future. But the fact of the matter is that 
when we give up this last piece of leverage that we have, they will be 
able to do anything they want to their people at will, and I am sure 
that they will continue to regress in the areas of privatization and 
economic freedom, and press freedom.
  If we want to stand on the side of those people truly seeking it, 
they call me every day. I do not think these hundreds of people are 
making this stuff up. It is not like we are dreaming it. It is coming 
into my office every day, because they know that no matter what, I will 
have the guts and courage enough to come out here and defend them and 
tell Members what is really happening over there, because I do not care 
what I lose from saying the truth here on this House floor.
  But I could tell Members that people who want more democratization in 
Romania are being repressed, they are being hurt, put down by this 
regime, which laughs at democracy and does not have a democratic bone 
in their whole bodies.
  We need to apply a little bit of pressure, get a little bit of 
leverage, try to get a quid pro quo somewhere before granting this. 
Certainly we do not need to hand this crown to the royalty, Ion 
Iliescu, at this point and say OK, you have done well with your 
dictatorship in Romania since Ceausescu's days, and now what we want to 
do is give you permanent MFN and reward you for this, so you will 
forever be able to do whatever you want to do.
  If Romania is so great, if it has improved so much, why are Members 
not on the front line fighting for inclusion of Romania in NATO and the 
WTO and the EC and everything else? But the fact of the matter is, it 
is one of the worst regimes in Eastern Europe.

  I am not fighting for the Government of Romania here today, I am 
speaking for the poor democrats in Romania who seek freedom. It is a 
shame that everybody else cannot go over there and see that reality. I 
have spent 6 years of my life in many different capacities living over 
there in the shoes of those people with families, and this is what they 
have shared with me. They expect me to be here to defend them and 
promote democracy and freedom, and that is what I am trying to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there are strong arguments on both sides of this 
issue. I am in favor of this legislation. I think it is time for 
permanent most-favored-nation status to Romania, because basically they 
have embraced democracy.
  When we talk about a most-favored-nation status, I think we again 
have to reiterate that it is really a misnomer. When we talk about 
most-favored-nation status, all we are talking about, we are not 
talking about any special privilege, we are just talking about normal 
trade relations. We give MFN status to most countries around the globe 
except for a small number. I quite frankly do not think that Romania 
belongs in that category.
  Third, granting permanent MFN status will help Romania, I think, stay 
on the path to market economics, democracy, and freedom; and basically 
that is why I am for this legislation, because I think they are going 
down the right path, and I think we want to encourage them to keep 
going down that path.
  Our two-way trade is very small, it is barely $500 million a year 
with Romania, so it is not much. But the potential is there to expand 
our trade with Romania. Expanding trade will strengthen the Romanian 
economy, allowing it to grow. As Romanian people prosper and reap the 
fruits of open markets, the future of democracy, I feel, in Romania 
will be stronger, because free markets and democracy go hand in hand.
  Therefore, granting MFN status for Romania is really in our interests 
as much as it is in their interests. If we want free markets to take 
hold in Eastern and Central Europe, then we think this is good 
legislation, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate

[[Page H7593]]

the House is voting today to extend permanently MFN for Romania. Just 
as a preface, let me remind Members that throughout the 1980's when the 
gentleman from Florida and others continually pushed for most-favored-
nation status for Romania, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and myself were in the vanguard and 
fought to withdraw MFN status.
  I led three human rights missions to Romania. Under the Ceausescu 
regime, we fought to take MFN from Romania because of the brutal 
dictatorship that existed there. Therefore, I think I have some 
standing before this body on this issue.
  I care deeply about the Romanian people. I think the question before 
us is a matter of when. This is the wrong time. There is an important 
national election that will be held in November. There have been very 
serious allegations of media abuse, especially access to the media, by 
members of the opposition parties who find it increasingly difficult to 
get their message out. We all know as politicians, and as candidates, 
that if the media is biased and if it is somewhat government-
controlled, particularly the television outlets, you do not get your 
message out to the voters.
  I respectfully submit that Members should be mindful that MFN is in 
place right now. Iliescu, the Romanian Government, the people of 
Romania have most-favored-nation status. The question is whether or not 
we make it permanent. I think that question should be settled after 
this very, very important national election that is scheduled for 
November.
  There were recent local elections held. We heard from objective 
observers that there were problems, problems with the accuracy of the 
voter lists in particular, problems with inconsistent interpretation of 
the election law, and those kinds of irregularities raise the stakes 
for the upcoming elections.
  If we now say, you have MFN, we are not going to review this anymore, 
I think we take away that pressure, that vigilance which that review, 
connected with most-favored-nation status will give us.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are laws on the books in Romania, and I 
think this is a very disturbing trend, that will put journalists into 
prison if they criticize or speak out against the government.
  If we had these laws in this country, that would be a gross violation 
of First Amendment rights, of freedom of speech and freedom of the 
press. Yet, we see this disturbing trend occurring in Bucharest which 
will bring to bear the full weight of the law, with terms from 3-months 
to 3-years in prison for those tenacious, objective, and unbiased 
reporters who are willing to take on the government.

                              {time}  1530

  All of us get bad editorials. We all get frustrated at times with the 
way that our own media handles what we consider to be the truth or the 
accuracy of our opinions, but we do not criminalize their actions. But, 
in Romania there is this disturbing trend which we need to speak out 
against. Again, the annual review gives us that ability to say, Wait a 
minute, let's look at the record and then let's look whether or not we 
want to confer for another year most-favored-nation status on Romania.
  Let us not remove that little bit of pressure which we have at this 
stage. I sincerely hope that Members will vote this down with the clear 
understanding when the 105th Congress meets, we will look again at this 
issue in light of the national elections that will have taken place in 
November 1996.
  Also, we are hoping that there will be domestic observers on the 
ground observing the upcoming elections. Little notice has been given 
to the fact that in 1992 there were domestic observers, but that 
provision will not be made this November unless there is a change.
  All of us know that, even in our own elections, if we do not have 
poll watchers standing by, checking those voter lists, fraud is a real 
potential. Provision for domestic observers is not available for this 
upcoming election. We know there will not be enough international 
observers to go around and the possibilities are ripe for election 
fraud.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that the issue before the House be deferred. Let 
us look at the full record of the 1996 national elections and then make 
an informed and hopefully prudent decision on Romania's permanent MFN 
status.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Houghton], my distinguished colleague on the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I have only asked for 30 seconds because I 
think this is a very straightforward message. We can wring our hands, 
analyze, reanalyze, and re-reanalyze why Romania should not get annual 
MFN status. But the facts are that this is a 23-million person nation. 
They are the only member of the World Trade Organization who is not 
afforded this status. They are supportive of the United States. They 
have gone through a wrenching 50 years. They are struggling to become a 
responsible nation. We should encourage this. I urge Members to support 
H.R. 3161.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record two 
letters from two distinguished United States ambassadors to Romania who 
served under Republican administrations strongly supporting this MFN 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that at the end of the debate our good 
friend and now colleague answers the question of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lantos]. That is, while he was ambassador to Romania, 
is it not correct that he signed and supported the MFN to Romania under 
Ceausescu?
  I think that the gentleman deserves an answer. We should not 
personalize these issues nonetheless because what we have here is 
bipartisan leaders from the Committee on International Relations, the 
Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade, and the 
minority members all supporting what we need to do.
  I think we have to ask ourselves two questions: The first is, why is 
this in the interest of the United States? And, second, what happens if 
this MFN does not take place? Well, we cannot say we are going to 
postpone it or do it after the elections. That would be a terrible 
signal. For all practical purposes, this MFN issue would not happen 
unless we voted today, and we should.
  First, Romania has met permanent MFN tests under United States law. 
It has been certified numerous times as meeting the Jackson-Vanik 
requirements on immigration. The administration is going to certify it 
again this June. Second, there is progress on human rights and 
democracy. Ilie Nastase, the tennis player, ran for mayor of Bucharest. 
He did not make it. It is not a perfect democracy, as many have said, 
but there is progress. Also, in the treatment of Gypsies and many other 
minorities, the progress has been continuing.
  Romania in 1992 signed and complied with the requisite trade and 
commercial agreements. It is a founding member of the World Trade 
Organization. It is a member of GATT. Romania has voted with us close 
to 80 percent of the time at the U.N. It has sent troops to Bosnia. It 
has helped us in Angola. They have been there when we need it.
  What kind of a signal are we going to send Poland, Romania, and 
Czechoslovakia, all of whom could and should enter NATO if we say all 
of a sudden: Well, we're not going to let you in? What are the 
consequences of not acting today? First of all, we will lose leverage. 
How can we go to Romania and say: Look, you guys have done what you've 
done. Progress in human rights, progress on elections, market economy. 
And then all of a sudden the United States is asked to reciprocate and 
suddenly we say no. That would lose us leverage. That would be 
unfortunate. It would be a terrible signal.
  This also would annul America's commercial opportunities in Romania. 
We have got businesses there. They are starting to trade. I think, 
admittedly, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] said, there is 
not much trade, but it is growing. Let us not send that signal. Radical 
elements in Romania will say, See the United States doesn't deliver.
  Mr. Speaker, we should do this. It is bipartisan. It makes sense. 
Romania

[[Page H7594]]

deserves it. And it is in the best interests of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record.

                                     Portland, OR, April 26, 1996.
     Re H.R. 3161.

     Hon. Philip Crane,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I had the honor of being the United 
     States Ambassador to Romania. My wife and I arrived at post 
     December 1, 1989, and we formally returned to Oregon January 
     31, 1992. As you can readily see, I was privileged to 
     participate and watch a wonderful people return to freedom.
       This writer was one of the very last Ambassadors to present 
     this official credentials to the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. 
     I think it fair to say we did not like one another. On May 
     25, 1995, my wife and I visited Romania with a Stanford 
     Travel party. Our group met with President Ion Iliescu for 
     approximately two hours. It is difficult for me to put in 
     writing the total contrast between the two individuals. The 
     hospitality, friendship, and good will I witnessed from 
     President Iliescu to our private group was outstanding.
       It is my understanding you will be receiving other 
     correspondence advocating the granting of permanent Most 
     Favored Nation status to Romania. Believe me, Sir, my wife, 
     Joan, and I have lived through the start and gradual maturing 
     of these people towards democracy and a free market economy. 
     I am very proud of any small role I had in helping the United 
     States gain a friend in this tough world.
       As a retired business man, I would like to point out that 
     our annual trade is growing, and our side has a surplus. It 
     is difficult to do business in this world and the need for 
     permanent M.F.N. status is the guarantee of stability for all 
     parties. This improvement of reliability will work to the 
     benefit of the U.S.A. and Romania.
       If there is anything reasonable I can do to help Romania 
     obtain permanent Most Favored Nation status, please let me 
     know. I rely on your good judgment.
           Very Sincerely,
                                                  Alan Green, Jr.,
     Ambassador--United States, Retired.
                                                                    ____


           Statement in Support of Permanent MFN for Romania

       I wish to support the granting of permanent MFN for Romania 
     at the earliest possible date. As Ambassador to Romania from 
     November 1985 until July 1989, I am very familiar with the 
     sufferings of the Romanian people under the abominable regime 
     of then-dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Denial of permanent MFN 
     to Romania was, during those years, a valuable means of 
     exerting some pressure on that regime.
       Romania has made significant progress since the revolution 
     of 1989 toward democracy, respect for human rights, the rule 
     of law and a free market. Its cooperation with United States 
     foreign policy initiatives has been noteworthy. It seems to 
     me, therefore, no longer justifiable for Romania to be one of 
     the few countries denied permanent MFN. I thus urge that 
     Romania be granted such status.
       I make these comments on my own behalf, not on behalf of 
     any other person or organization.
                                                       Roger Kirk,
     U.S. Ambassador to Romania, 1985-1989.
                                                                    ____


                 The Case for Permanent MFN for Romania


                  1. romania has earned permanent mfn

  Romania has met the permanent MFN tests under U.S. law. It has been 
certified numerous times as meeting the Jackson-Vanik criteria. The 
Administration will certify it again this June.
  Romania is on a course of political and economic reform that is in 
full accord with U.S. goals--a pluralistic democracy, a free market 
economy, a respect for human rights and a free and fully functioning 
press. Its progress has been continual.
  It signed in 1992 the requisite bilateral trade and commercial 
agreements. It is a founding member of the WTO and a member of GATT 
before that.
  Romania has been a steadfast ally of the U.S. in seeking solutions to 
the war in Bosnia and on other issues, contributing troops as part of 
its international peacekeeping duties, some of which serve alongside 
U.S. forces. It is committed to full political and military integration 
with the West and its military to military program has been hailed by 
the U.S. as one of the best.


                2. Romania has earned permanent mfn now

  As a founding member of the WTO, and as a nation that has been 
certified as meeting the Jackson-Vanik requirements, Romania should 
have been graduated months ago, perhaps as early as January, 1995.
  Delaying consideration of MFN sends a wrong signal to Romania, 
especially in light of expected congressional approval of permanent MFN 
for Bulgaria and possibly Cambodia--who have not progressed as much as 
Romania and are not members of the WTO.
  The U.S. has an opportunity to help Romania solidify its economic and 
political gains. Granting MFN now puts the U.S. in a position to best 
work in Romania to shape its future progress.
  Both houses of the Romanian parliament have passed resolutions 
endorsing the policy of extending permanent MFN to Romania now, 
indicating a broad national consensus in Romania about both the issue 
and timing of its consideration.


       3. the consequences of not acting harms the united states

  Granting MFN is a recognition of past progress and the expectation of 
future development. Romania's elections are not expected to reverse its 
progress. However, by not acting, or more correctly, halting a process 
which has been on-going, the U.S. injects itself into the Romanian 
domestic political debate--something it has tried hard not to do. This 
hurts U.S. and lessens its future leverage over Romania.
  Not acting now undercuts U.S. commercial opportunities since U.S. 
firms cannot take full advantage of WTO protections. U.S. firms broadly 
support permanent MFN and with it, are poised to play an increasingly 
important role in Romania's economic development.
  Radical elements in Romania will be able to argue that the U.S. 
demands a lot, but gives nothing in return.
  On a practical basis, delaying action now minimally means no 
consideration for at least one year given the U.S. political schedule.
                                  ____
                                  


                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 1996.

                          Support Romania MFN

       Dear Colleague: On Tuesday, the House is expected to 
     consider H.R. 3161, a bill to grant permanent Most Favored 
     Nation (MFN) status to Romania under suspension of the rules. 
     It is a bill that is long overdue. Romania has made 
     tremendous strides over the past several years in adopting 
     and implementing political and economic reforms. Romania has 
     met all of the U.S. legal criteria for MFN, namely the free 
     emigration of its citizens, as called for in the Jackson-
     Vanik provision. It has clearly taken strong measures to 
     institute a democratic form of government.
       While the bill enjoys broad support, we respect the 
     concerns expressed by several Members who would like to 
     postpone the vote until after Romania's December elections. 
     To address these concerns, we would like to highlight the 
     views of two former U.S. Ambassadors to Romania who have 
     written in support of granting MFN to Romania.

       ``I have lived through the start and gradual maturing of 
     these [Romanians] people towards democracy and a free market 
     economy. I am proud of any small role I had in helping the 
     United States gain a friend in this tough world.
       ``As a retired business man, I would like to point out that 
     our annual trade is growing, and our side has a surplus. It 
     is difficult to do business in this world and the need for 
     permanent M.F.N. status is the guarantee of stability for all 
     parties. This improvement of reliability will work to the 
     benefit of the U.S.A. and Romania.''

                                              Alan Green, Jr.,

                                       U.S. Ambassador to Romania,
                                    December 1989 to January 1992.

       ``I wish to support the granting of permanent MFN for 
     Romania at the earliest possible date. As Ambassador to 
     Romania from November 1985 until July 1989, I am familiar 
     with the sufferings of the Romanian people under the 
     abominable regime of then-dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Denial 
     of permanent MFN to Romania was, during those years, a 
     valuable means of exerting some pressure on that regime.
       ``Romania has made significant progress since the 
     revolution of 1989 toward democracy, respect for human 
     rights, the rule of law, and a free market. Its cooperation 
     with the United States foreign policy initiatives has been 
     noteworthy. It seems to me, therefore, no longer justifiable 
     for Romania to be one of the few countries denied permanent 
     MFN. I thus urge that Romania be granted such status.''

                                                   Roger Kirk,

                                       U.S. Ambassador to Romania,
                                                          1985-89.

       We would like to note that a third former U.S. Ambassador 
     to Romania, Mr. John Davis, has also communicated to the Ways 
     and Means Trade Subcommittee his strong support for granting 
     MFN to Romania.
       We believe it is in the interest of the United States to 
     encourage Romania's development and to help it secure a place 
     in the community of democracies. Passage of this legislation 
     is a tangible recognition of our approval for all of the 
     efforts Romania has made. Support Romania MFN.
     Doug Bereuter,
       Member of Congress.
     Bill Richardson,
       Member of Congress.

  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  When I was a United States ambassador, I did what I could in letters 
and in personal meetings with President Reagan and the State Department 
in opposition to what was going on inside of Romania. Then I resigned 
and I protested against U.S. policy and I gave up the position. I do 
not know of anybody else here who would have or who did give up any 
such position because of their beliefs or because of their positions. 
If it is time for permanent MFN

[[Page H7595]]

for the butchers of Beijing, mainland China, North Korea, Vietnam and 
Cuba, sure it is time for Bucharest and everybody in the world. But the 
best way to effect long-term democratization in Romania is to oppose 
H.R. 3161 at this time. Otherwise we are rewarding Iliescu and his old 
Communist buddies and we are hurting the Democrats and one day we will 
all be held accountable for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member speaks today in favor of H.R. 
3161, which would extend permanent MFN, or normal trade status, to 
Romania.
  In order to save time, I certainly associate myself with the 
rationale offered by the gentlemen from California, New Mexico, and New 
York. I have been a skeptic and a critic of Romania for quite some time 
since I first visited in 1984 to see what Ceausescu was doing. No 
apologist, always a severe critic. In fact I voted against MFN in the 
past. When I went to Romania again last year, I was the critic asking 
tough questions to our ambassador to Romania. The reasons for doing so 
are compelling. First and foremost, Romania has made substantial and 
important progress on a variety of fronts since the fall of communism 
in 1989. This Member had the pleasure of personally observing this 
transformation in progress when this Member traveled to the country 2 
years ago.
  Today the Romanian Government has made important efforts to resist 
extremism by expelling political players with radical views from its 
ruling coalition. Romania now boasts an extensive free press, with more 
than 1,000 newspapers and periodicals and several hundred television 
and radio stations, many of which routinely criticize the Government 
without fear of persecution.
  Romania's economic progress has been propelled by its considerable 
privatization efforts. Nearly 50 percent of the country's GDP now comes 
from the private sector, which employs about half of the country's 
workforce. This figure represents more than 500,000 small and medium-
sized companies created since 1990 and more than 2,000 former state 
companies that are now private. When this privatization program is 
complete, about 70 percent of Romania's GDP will derive from this area, 
a figure comparable to other Central European nations. Other economic 
reforms have included the elimination of price setting and of most 
subsidies.

  Extension of permanent MFN status to Romania undoubtedly would 
provide a significant boost to United States business interests there. 
United States investment in Romania totaled $151 million in 1995. This 
figure represents over 2,000 United States investors, including such 
diverse names as Amoco, Coca Cola, Colgate Palmolive, IBM, and the 
numerous smaller companies that comprise the bulk of Romania's joint 
venture partners. The United States is the sixth largest exporter of 
products and services to Romania selling to $392 million in 1995. Our 
two-way trade can be expected to rise substantially if we grant 
permanent MFN to Romania's exports to this country.
  Perhaps most important of all, permanent MFN treatment of Romania 
will solidify a blossoming bilateral relationship and serve as a 
powerful inducement for continuing Romanian cooperation on a range of 
political, economic, and security-related issues. Mr. Speaker, it is 
now time to normalize trade relations with Romania for the benefit of 
the United States as much as for Romania. Romania's request for NATO 
membership will provide the United States, Canada, and European NATO 
members strong leverage to encourage even greater democracy and reforms 
by Romania. Similar leverage exists for the current members of the 
European Union as Romania seeks membership in that union. This Member 
strongly urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3161.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to H.R. 3161 and to reiterate that it 
is simply asking for a 4-month deferral. They already have annual MFN. 
What we are saying is do not disadvantage the Democrats in the upcoming 
election any more than they already are disadvantaged. That is the one 
country that has not proven that they can elect a Democrat yet. We want 
to give them one more chance to try for that in this fall's election. 
What would it hurt for the next 4 months for all the good that it could 
do if the Democrats are successful in November?
  I urge voting against H.R. 3161 to delay consideration of permanent 
MFN for Romania at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, for the last 5 years I have stood on this 
floor at various times sponsoring legislation with several of my 
colleagues, with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], the chairman 
of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the 
ranking member and at one time chairman of the subcommittee. Each time 
we have had this debate about MFN for Romania, it has been a rocky 
road. We have had discussions, we have had delays, we have had changes 
in what was going to happen. But each year we have given temporary MFN 
to Romania.
  The reason why that is is that, from the time of revolution and 
struggle in 1989, this nation and its people have moved at a concerted 
pace to bring about change. Reform has been slow, but it has been 
steady. In that 5 years, we have seen a new constitution in Romania. We 
have seen a parliament elected. We have seen elections.
  What are we talking about here today? We are talking about past 
elections. We are talking about future elections. Democracy is in 
action in Romania. We have seen some improvement in human rights, slow 
but sure. We have seen some improvement in free speech if we just 
follow Romanian history or what is happening there. We can see there is 
a great deal of free speech in Romania. And there has been increased 
respect for private property.

  As we look at Romania, we see that Romania is not just asking for 
something. Romania has tried to help itself. Romania has taken steps to 
join the world democracies and other democratic institutions. We have 
seen Romania become an associate member of the European Union, a member 
of the World Trade Organization, and Romania has also formally applied 
to join NATO just like the other Eastern European countries want to 
very much belong to this organization.
  Extending MFN can be seen as part of a nation's commitment to 
strengthening trading relationships. That is what it has come to be. It 
used to be Jackson-Vanik. Now it is a Good Housekeeping stamp of 
approval. I am pleased to say today that there has been progress. But I 
listened to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton]. He had only 30 
seconds but he said it so succinctly. The gentleman from New York has 
had incredible success in business. He understands that a country like 
Romania cannot do better unless it is in the world trading market.
  So, I look at Romania today and I listened to the debate. As usual it 
is a difficult debate. Is Romania a model of democracy? No. But when 
one remembers what Romania was like before 1989, and this is now only 
1996, Romania has done very well when one thinks of the way the people 
had to live.
  In this body just a few weeks ago or last week, we passed MFN for 
China. We know this nation has huge human rights problems, but we gave 
it to China. The situation is different today. This is a small country, 
full of good people. They want MFN, they want to trade, they want to be 
among nations that can be proud. Let them have MFN. Let them do better.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Forbes].
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to align myself with the 
comments of those who believe in unconditional, or permanent, most-
favored-nation status for Romania.

[[Page H7596]]

  Mr. Speaker, Romania, which now does enjoy the conditional MFN 
status, has a trade agreement with the United States and has been 
certified twice in the past year as meeting the tenets of freedom, of 
immigration, human rights, and democratization required under this 
legislation.
  For a nation to gain that permanent MFN status, however, Congress 
needs to enact this kind of a legislation, and I rise in strong support 
of enactment of H.R. 3161.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there have been dramatic changes in 
Central and Eastern Europe in the last 7 years, and as my distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], just 
referenced, Romania has moved in a marked way toward a greater 
democracy and away from communism.
  There is proof of that progress. The privatization efforts of the 
industrial and agricultural sectors are already showing great results. 
Recent figures show that the gross domestic product in Romania has 
moved in the private sector to 45 percent, a significant increase over 
where it was just a year ago.
  Obviously we are seeing examples of democracy building all across 
Romania, and they hold their second nationwide Presidential election 
later this fall. Under the World Trade Organization and GATT, the 
United States is obligated to extend unconditional or permanent MFN 
status to our trading partners who are parties to that agreement and we 
should do no less with Romania, Romania being the only member of WTO 
with whom the United States has a trading relationship but who is still 
subject to the conditional MFN relationship.
  Mr. Speaker, almost every State of the United States has a trading 
relationship with Romania. My own State of New York, for example, is 
the fifth largest exporter in 1995, and I believe as we work clearly to 
build democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, we must extend this 
permanent status to our friends in Romania.
  Is the situation perfect? No, it is not perfect, but it is moving in 
a very dramatic and correct direction. Romania is a nation of more than 
23 million people, the second largest market in Eastern Europe 
representing rich opportunities to creating American jobs for United 
States companies and, more than that, Romania's 23 million people 
deserve the opportunity to succeed economically, and for the prospering 
of and ensuring a stable democracy in the region, I ask that this 
legislation be enacted.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to granting 
permanent most-favored-nation status to Romanio. H.R. 3161 would allow 
Romania to reap the benefits of MFN while its regime continues to 
ignore its dire human rights situation.
  Romania's large Hungarian minority needs to be recognized when 
debating MFN trade status. As a congressman representing a sizable 
Hungarian constituency, and as a member of the Human Rights Caucus, I 
know the importance of ensuring that national minorities have the right 
to speak and do commerce in their native language. This is a 
fundamental human right that cannot be ignored. However, if we vote in 
favor of H.R. 3161, we would strip the Hungarians living within 
Romanian borders of their right to education in their native tongue.
  Although Romania and Hungary are both former Warsaw Pact nations, 
their differences in politics are overwhelming. While Romania represses 
its freedom of speech and does not guarantee free and fair elections, 
Hungary was the leader among Central European nations in establishing a 
democratic system, even before the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the last 
7 years, Hungary has steadily transformed itself into an independent, 
democratic, market-oriented society, integrated into Europe and the 
international trading network. Hungary, in particular among its 
neighbors, has shown an impressive degree of stability. Even during the 
cold war, Hungary worked hard against tough odds to establish itself as 
a society independent of Soviet domination in certain key political and 
economic spheres, and was granted most-favored-nation status by the 
United States in 1978.
  If we are to grant Romania permanent MFN trading status, we must 
first insist that it follows the democratic paths of its European 
neighbors such as Hungary. The United States must grant preferential 
trading agreements only to those nations willing to uphold basic human 
and political rights.
  Before granting most-favored-nation trading status to Romania, we 
must ensure that its government: improves its freedom of the press, 
freedom of speech and public assembly, a faster rate of privatization 
and restoration of private property, protects its human rights, and 
guarantees free and fair elections.
  We need to wait for the results of the upcoming national elections 
before we should even consider granting permanent MFN status to 
Romania. If we vote in favor of H.R. 3161 today, we would only help 
propel neo-Communist President Ion Iliescu to victory and a 
continuation of policies that have been contrary to American values. 
Let us, instead, use MFN as a form of leverage to move Romania in the 
direction of true democracy.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3161 to 
authorize the President to extend permanent most-favored-nation trading 
status to Romania.
  Romania has made strong progress in the direction of democracy and 
free market reforms. It is in full compliance with the criteria of 
Jackson-Vanik on free emigration.
  Romania has also made progress on rule of law, and on human rights. 
However, I do share the views of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle--and on both sides of this bill--when they state that we want to 
see Romania make more progress in both these areas.
  The critical question before us is how to maximize U.S. influence on 
behalf of those values that we all support.
  At this time, I believe that the best way to foster United States 
influence in Romania is to authorize the President to extend permanent 
MFN status for Romania.
  Through actions to enhance the climate for United States-Romanian 
trade and investment, we enhance the voice of the United States in 
support of Romania's reform process.
  I urge my colleagues to support permanent MFN status for Romania.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this debate is about normal trade status 
with Romania. We are not providing any favorable benefits to Romania 
from this action. It simply authorizes the President to determine when 
the United States should treat Romania on equal trade terms with all 
other nations.
  The most-favored-nation law was written to deal with freedom of 
emigration from East bloc Communist nations. These governments do not 
even exist anymore. It's time to update our trade legislation to 
reflect the realities of the times. In fact, I wish we were here today 
granting permanent MFN or normal trade status with all other former 
East bloc countries still on the list. Times have changed. While the 
rest of the world trades normally with these countries, including 
Romania, we're still wrestling with these issues.
  All political parties in Romania support permanent MFN or normal 
trade status with the United States. Holding this bill up will only 
embolden the hard-line nationalistic elements in Romania who do not 
want foreign influences inside their country. And, there will be no 
time later this session to vote on this issue if permanent normal trade 
status in held up for Romania's fall elections. We'll be back at this 
issue during the next Congress, and there will probably some other 
excuse devised so that normal trade status is held up another 2 years.
  It's in America's interest to provide permanent normal trade status 
because without this designation, the United States cannot take trade 
disputes with Romania to the World Trade Organization. It will also 
solidify our bilateral economic relationship to ensure that Romania 
continues on the path of free market reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to focus on the issue at hand--
support normal trade relations for Romania.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
H.R. 3161, which authorizes the President to extend permanent most-
favored-nation treatment to Romania. The bill recognizes that Romania 
is making progress toward democracy and a free market economy, and the 
extension of MFN will encourage that process to continue.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, Romania is an important trading partner 
for my home State of Texas. Texas ranks No. 2 among the 50 States in 
exports to Romania, and in the period from 1992 to 1994, Texas exported 
more than $110 million worth of products to Romania. The products Texas 
exports to Romania are many, and they range from energy development 
products to transportation equipment and paper products.
  After the recent debate over extending MFN to China, it is easy to 
see the benefits of permanently extending MFN to an emerging democracy 
like Romania.
  Romania has adopted a new constitution since overthrowing its 
Communist dictatorship in 1989, and is improving in the areas of human 
rights, freedom of expression, and economic reforms.
  Romania is also a member of the World Trade Organization, and 
extending MFN allows the United States to have our full rights under 
the terms of the GATT with respect to Romania.

[[Page H7597]]

  The extension of MFN to other Eastern European nations has already 
occurred, and it is time for us to extend MFN to Romania as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, following 3 years generations of Communist 
regime, Romania for the last 5 years has struggled to implement a 
deliberate program of converting to a free market system. Its new 
democratic government realizes that critical to reaching that goal is 
the privatization of its industry through passage of new laws, 
broadened investment policies, and proliferation of international 
economic partnerships. U.S. businesses can and should be significant in 
this economic transformation now in progress.
  The result of Romania privatization is the systematic updating and 
upgrading of all its productive means, from the farm yards to the steel 
mills; and each industrial change presents opportunity for American 
engineering, technology, and management to become ingrained in that new 
system. Most-favored-nation status for Romania flashes to American 
business that final unmistakable signal of governmental encouragement 
for participation in and development of this burgeoning new market for 
United States products.
  Additionally, Romania realizes that its new found industrial emphasis 
will require significant infrastructural modernization and a number of 
new facilities. These projects will demand large infusions of outside 
professional and technical services, materials, equipment, and 
technology, as well as realistic financing innovations. Until now, 
American efforts in these areas have been overshadowed by European and 
Asian companies; however, that is beginning to change. Most-favored-
nation status is the final step in demonstrating deep American interest 
in Romania.
  Today, a consortium of United States firms named Motorways U.S.A., 
which includes several Texas enterprises, is in direct negotiations 
with the Government of Romania for design, construction, operation and 
maintenance of its first toll road facility. Romania has 
enthusiastically welcomed this initially attempt by United States 
companies to provide by partnership dramatically different approaches 
for solving its most pressing needs.
  This willingness to venture out and to rely on what, by Romanian 
standards, are novel and innovative free market techniques as impetus 
for its new market economy, exemplifies that certain willingness and 
dedication which will make Romania a long-term trading partner with the 
United States. This has been key in convincing me that now is the time 
to give Romania permanent most-favored-nation status and urge you to 
join me in doing so. A vote for this resolution is a vote for American 
jobs, favorable balance of trade, and increased American economic 
presence in Central and Eastern Europe.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 3161 which would confer permanent most favored-nation [MFN] status 
on the country of Romania. A vote on this critical piece of legislation 
now would seriously hamper any efforts by the prodemocratic forces in 
Romania to continue to reform the Government and improve Romania's 
human rights record.
  Among all of the former Communist bloc countries in Eastern Europe, 
Romania has made the fewest advances toward greater liberty and 
openness since the transition period began. The Hungarian minority, for 
example, suffers immensely from limited freedoms and constant 
discrimination. Today, a new education law has been implemented which 
prohibits the teaching of most subjects in minority languages. In 
addition, an ethnic Hungarian citizen, Paul Cseresznyes, has been in 
prison for 6 consecutive years on political grounds with no hope of 
release in the near future.
  The preservation of basic human rights, which we take for granted 
here in the United States, has not received due respect in Romania. 
Freedom of speech is constrained as journalists work under the ever-
present shadow of harassment by the Romanian intelligence service. And, 
during the recent local elections, objective observers expressed some 
concern about the administrative competence of election officials.
  Much of the blame for this delay can be laid at the feet of the 
regime currently in power. In voting for permanent MFN status today, 
we, as a leader of the Western World, are also ratifying the Romanian 
Government's actions to date. We cannot allow ourselves to be oblivious 
to the broader message that approval of H.R. 3161 sends. A decision is 
best made only after Romania's presidential and parliamentary elections 
in December, when it reaffirms its commitment to democratic reform. 
Romania should be given credit for beginning the transformation to an 
open society in the wake of its Communist past, but permanent MFN 
status from this country is not the best means of doing so.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3161.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________