[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4257-H4290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will remind all 
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and 
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is a 
violation of the House rules.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Green].
  (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this 
time.

[[Page H4258]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the disapproval resolution and I 
reluctantly do so. In previous Congresses, I voted for the extension of 
MFN for China with the belief that more engagement on economic and 
diplomatic fronts would yield gradual but positive changes within 
China. But as our trade deficit has worsened, I know that has not been 
the case. I know things have changed in China. In fact, there are 
elections that are going on on the local level, so there has been 
progress. But the concern I have is the tariff disparity between the 
United States and the People's Republic of China, so I was seriously 
considering voting in favor of the disapproval resolution. But I am 
going to vote against it today, because I do not think it would improve 
our trade deficit if we pass this resolution. I do not think it would 
give us more access to the China market. I do not think it would 
improve the treatment of Christians in China, although I know we have 
heard today both people who said they are persecuted and people who 
have said, including Reverend Billy Graham, that it would be bad not to 
have most-favored-nation. I do not think it would prevent China from 
selling weapons to Iran if we disapprove most-favored-nation.
  I think the best choice we have is to continue to work with China and 
respect their culture and respect their country, and to say we are two 
great nations and we need to work together. That is why China's desire 
for WTO membership requires more open markets. I hope we will see that 
in China. I hope we will see a lessening of the tariffs on our products 
going to China because then this will come up again next year. That is 
why I have cosponsored our Democratic leader's bill asking for China's 
accession to WTO be subject to a vote in Congress.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the New Republic we had 
this headline talking about persecution of Christians. It is in stark 
contrast to what we read about and hear about from apologists for 
China, whether it is in Wall Street, Washington, or in Hollywood.
  The New Republic reported that persecution is real and by all reports 
getting worse. Attacks of Catholics and of Protestants continue, and 
the Far East Economic Review stated that police destroyed 15,000 
religious sites in one province last year alone. Priests were sent to 
re-education camps for 2 years for simply saying mass, and 40 percent 
of all inmates in labor camps are members of the Christian underground. 
The New Republic went on to say that

       The methods used to re-educate Christians include starving 
     and beating detainees, binding them in excruciating 
     positions, hanging them from their limbs and torturing them 
     with electronic cattle prods and drills. Sometimes, relatives 
     are forced to watch the torture sessions.'

  When I hear the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] speak about what 
happened in the 1960's in America, it reminds us too much of what is 
happening today even in a country that has killed 60 million of their 
own people in the past 50 years. We have to stop apologizing for China 
and stand up to this tyranny.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise all Members that the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] has 24\1/2\ minutes remaining; the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] has 22 minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] has 24 minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining; 
and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 3 minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. ARCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 79 
which would strip most-favored-nation trading status from China. At the 
outset, I want to make it clear, and I am sure it has been said before 
but it bears repeating, that the term most-favored-nation is a 
misnomer. It implies that we are somehow giving a country special 
treatment. Rather, when we provide MFN, we are only giving the same 
normal standard treatment that we give almost every country in the 
world; well over 100 countries. The only countries to whom we do not 
give MFN are Afghanistan, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. We give 
better than MFN treatment to another very select group of countries, 
Canada, Israel, and Mexico. What we are considering today is whether we 
should continue giving China average treatment.

                              {time}  1330

  Now a move to the substance of the resolution. Quite apart from the 
benefits enjoyed by our companies by continuing to do business with 
China, our ability to win this vote affects whether United States 
values will continue to be of influence in China. Shutting down trade 
with China or making the terms of trade impossibly restrictive would 
put in place a policy of unilateral confrontation that would not change 
China's behavior. Maybe MFN for China is not a good policy until, as 
Churchill would have said about democracy, ``You consider all of the 
other alternatives.'' And those who oppose MFN for China do not really 
consider the other less attractive, by far, alternatives. If we remove 
MFN from China, we would disengage our government from a leadership 
role in the region and would remove the positive influence that our 
business community has in China.
  At the same time, I hope that China will continue to pursue accession 
to the WTO and will be able to agree to take on the rights and 
obligations that make membership. At that point I believe that the 
United States should be in a position to provide China with full MFN 
treatment uncluttered by any conditions, a relationship identical to 
that which we have with almost all of the world. Once China becomes a 
WTO member we will be able to utilize the highly effective dispute 
settlement mechanism of the WTO to resolve our trade disputes with 
China.
  As I understand it, China still has a long way to go in that 
accession bid. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to vote a strong 
no on this disapproval resolution.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], who in his capacity and his work on the Helsinki 
accords and Commission has been a champion of human rights throughout 
the world.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, one cannot discuss this issue in 1 minute. 
Everybody on this floor knows this, and in fact perhaps in 5 or 50 
minutes.
  For over a decade and a half as chairman of the Helsinki Commission, 
I was not for most-favored-nation status for the Soviet Union. Why? 
Because they did not meet international norms. America has been, is now 
and hopefully always will be the beacon of freedom and justice for all 
the world. I am for constructively engaging on those premises, but I am 
also for principled engagement, for an engagement that says we will not 
do business as normal with those who do not treat their own people as 
international norms would demand. And not only do international norms 
demand that, but the peace and security and stability of all the world 
demands that.
  My colleagues, let us stand up, let us lift that torch high of 
liberty and justice and say not business as usual.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Capps].
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I do 
so with profound respect for the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] and my good friends on 
the other side. I want to make two points briefly.
  First, the very term ``most favored nation'' is inaccurate. MFN is 
not a privileged status according to close friends, but an ordinary 
tariff treatment extended to all but 11 countries. Today I will 
introduce a bill to replace MFN in our trade law with a more suitable 
and accurate term, ``normal trade relations.''
  Second point: I have a heart full of thoughts on this issue, Mr. 
Speaker. I had the privilege of being in China in December and 
lecturing at Peking University. While I would not call myself an expert 
on this subject, I do recognize that the underlying subject here is 
about culture, about cultural difference, cultural clash, cultural 
change. United States culture is not Chinese culture.

[[Page H4259]]

  We talk about human rights. China, with a cultural tradition of more 
than 5,000 years, talks more about stability. We are dedicated to 
Judeo-Christian values. They for their part owe more to Confucius, to 
Lao Tzu, to the I Ching. We talk proudly of democracy. China has had 
centuries of feudalism, of emperors and empresses and are moving toward 
democracy. Consequently, it is difficult to translate across cultural 
lines. It is impossible to read their history according to our vectors.
  But we must live together in the 21st century, and we must strive 
together to find ways to do this. This is not the time to isolate 
China, this is not the time to isolate ourselves against China. I plead 
a no vote on the pending resolution.
  During my recent visit to China, I witnessed the promise of 
leadership among the emerging generation of active, intelligent, 
responsible young people. I am confident that they want to be active 
participants in the 21st century, not as enemies of the United States 
but as partners. I don't want to close the door on them right now. I 
want to encourage them as I have been encouraged by them. Democracy is 
a very delicate plant in China today. But we can help nurture and 
strengthen it.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts].
  (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for an end to the many 
human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China, and I rise in 
support of renewing China's most-favored-nation trading status because, 
Mr. Speaker, these two goals are not mutually exclusive. In fact, 
renewing MFN for China will enable us to address the abuses we find so 
objectionable, first by keeping the lines of communication open with 
those leaders in China who have the power to change persecution and the 
climate there through private and tough diplomacy and, second, by 
allowing the many human rights, mission and Christian agencies in China 
to continue their work with the Chinese people.
  Mr. Speaker, revoking China's MFN trade status and essentially 
declaring economic warfare on China is not the best way to achieve our 
goal of improving the human condition for the Chinese people. In fact, 
it would exacerbate the problem. Since this debate began I have spoken 
with many in the mission and Christian community who live and work in 
China, missionaries and Christian leaders whose whole lives are 
committed to the Chinese people. What they have told me is that if MFN 
status is revoked they feel that they would feel the effects of 
retribution on themselves and on Chinese Christians and on human rights 
activists. They told me that the hand of the hard liners would come 
down upon the people of China and especially anyone who is perceived as 
representing the West.
  Rev. Daniel Su, a former member of the Chinese Red Guard who now 
works for China Outreach Mission Ministry, has said, quote:

       The Chinese people are better off if MFN status is 
     maintained. People suffer when China becomes isolated and 
     hostile. Isolating China will do nothing for human rights in 
     China particularly the rights of Chinese Christians. Like 
     Rev. Daniel Su has said, Cutting off ties with China is like 
     setting your car on fire when it stalls.

  Dr. Samuel Ling, the Institute for Chinese Studies said this:

       History has proven that as the United States engages China, 
     a more pluralistic atmosphere develops, and both the standard 
     of living and human rights and freedoms stand to improve.

  Others have made other quotes, Mr. Speaker. I urge the Members to 
support MFN.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt], a member who has worked very hard on this 
issue.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, this vote is about American credibility.
  Yesterday a bill was on the calendar which would have prohibited 
financial transactions with terrorist countries. It would have passed 
without debate. Yet China has sold chemical weapons to Iran and missile 
components to Syria, and what of human rights? Last year Congress 
enacted the Helms-Burton Act because of human rights abuses in Cuba. 
Yet when it comes to China we ignore our own State Department report 
that the human rights situation actually worsened in 1996.
  Then of course there is trade. We criticize the unfair trade 
practices of the Japanese, yet according to the last Sunday's L.A. 
Times, China has developed barriers to United States goods and services 
that would make the Japanese blush.
  This vote is fundamentally about American credibility. We cannot 
demand respect for our values from the rest of the world and set a 
different standard for China. Please vote yes on the resolution.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House 
Joint Resolution 79 and in support of the President's decision to 
extend normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China. 
Terminating our current trade relationship with China would undermine 
America's economic interests in those States such as my own. The 
American consumer would be burdened with dramatic price increases. 
Thousands of American trade and investment jobs would be lost.
  Chinese retaliation would likely exclude companies from opportunities 
in one of the world's fastest grow economies. Last year Missouri 
companies alone exported over $80 million in goods to China, an 
increase of over 64 percent from the previous year. United States 
exports to China currently support over 200,000 American jobs. The jobs 
which have been created have been good, high paying jobs.
  In my home State of Missouri employment by foreign subsidiaries has 
risen 165 percent since 1980. Manufacturing jobs created by foreign 
investment have risen 51 percent. In my district MFN for China means 
that agribusinesses, high technology, and avionics industries are able 
to export their goods to one of the world's largest markets. From 
national firms like Farmland Industries to regional companies like 
Hanna Rubber Co. and small family-owned businesses such as Sun 
Electronics in Raytown, MO, MFN for China means jobs, revenue and 
business.
  I have grave concerns over China's human rights record, particularly 
the practice of female infanticide, which has no place in any society. 
I have a constituent, Mattie, who was born in China just 2 years ago. 
She was adopted by loving Missouri parents and is living the American 
dream of freedom unknown in her native land. I want to advance our 
values within China so that future Chinese baby girls like Mattie can 
live proud and free within China as well.
  We cannot walk away from this or any other problem that China faces. 
We have a moral obligation to remain engaged with China so that they 
can learn our values of democracy. I urge this body to reject the 
resolution and extend normal trade relations to the People's Republic 
of China.
  Revoking trade privileges will reverse the progress that the Chinese 
people have made in their struggle for basic political, religious, and 
economic freedoms.
  The power of our democratic principles and ideals eventually led to 
the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. It is important that we 
continue to engage in debate with China until we achieve victory in 
Asia as well.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I support extending normal trade 
relations to the People's Republic of China, and I urge my colleagues 
to reject House Joint Resolution 79.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn], our distinguished colleague on the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, for the past 7 years this body has gone 
through the annual ritual of debating MFN status for China because the 
minority of our membership thinks that China needs to be taught a 
lesson. This may make some of my colleagues feel good, but I believe it 
is a misguided response that hinders the development of human rights 
and democracy in China.
  Before rushing headlong into the mistake of adding China to the list 
of nations denied MFN, there are two points to consider. First of all, 
who would be penalized by denying China MFN? Our compassion for the 
suffering in China is useless if the policy has no effect other than to 
put our own people out of work. Indeed, then the compassion is 
misplaced. We have made no difference in the life of those suffering

[[Page H4260]]

overseas while only increasing the numbers of those suffering without 
jobs here at home. By terminating MFN to China, this is exactly what I 
believe will occur. The loss of MFN will not change China. It will, 
however, cost our Nation and Washington State billions of dollars in 
aircraft, lumber, software, and agricultural sales and tens of 
thousands of jobs to our European and our Asian competitors.
  The second point to consider is will revoking MFN accomplish our goal 
of improved human rights and democracy. I do not believe it will. 
United States trade and investment teach the skills of free enterprise 
that are fundamental to any free society.
  For instance, in my home State of Washington we export a number of 
United States products from aircraft to software, and every single 
airplane and every single CD carries with it the seeds of change.
  It has already been noted that the Reverend Billy Graham recently 
observed that Christian love and integrity are now being delivered to 
millions of people in China who were denied this opportunity during the 
darkest days of China. This sentiment is shared not only by the 
Reverend Billy Graham, but by his son who is my constituent, Ned 
Graham. His organization, East Gate Ministries, is based in Sumner, WA, 
and it has shipped 1\1/2\ million Mandarin language Bibles to China and 
4 million more will be delivered before the end of the century under an 
agreement with the Chinese Government.
  Just last weekend I had the opportunity to meet with the younger 
Graham to discuss his organization's work in China and the current 
debate here in the United States Congress. He expressed concern about 
this debate and that the crusade against MFN may harm the ability of 
his ministry to get Bibles into the hands of the Chinese people.

                              {time}  1345

  The message was clear, Mr. Speaker. Revocation of China MFN is in the 
interests of no one, particularly the Chinese people themselves. If we 
want to affect Chinese behavior and trade policy in civil liberty areas 
we all care about, we should increase our mutual contact.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. Speaker, for the past seven summers, this body has gone through 
the annual ritual of debating MFN status for China because a minority 
of our membership thinks that China needs to be taught a lesson.
  This may make some of my colleagues feel good, but I believe it is a 
misguided response that hinders the development of human rights and 
democracy in China. Before rushing headlong into the mistake of adding 
China to the list of nations denied MFN, there are two points to 
consider.
  Who would be penalized by denying China MFN? Our compassion for the 
suffering in China is useless if our policy has no effect other than to 
put our own people out of work. Indeed, then the compassion is 
misplaced; we've made no difference in the life of those suffering 
overseas while only increasing the numbers of those suffering here at 
home.
  By terminating MFN to China, this is exactly what I believe would 
occur. The loss of MFN won't change China. It will, however, cost our 
Nation and Washington State billions of dollars in aircraft, lumber, 
software, and agriculture sales, and tens of thousands of jobs to our 
European and Asian competitors.
  The second point to consider is--will revoking MFN accomplish our 
goal of improved human rights and democracy?
  I do not believe it will. U.S. trade and investment teaches the 
skills of the free enterprise that are fundamental to a free society.
  For instance, in my home State of Washington, we export a number of 
U.S. products, from aircraft to software. And every single airplane and 
every single CD carries with it the seeds of change.
  It has already been noted that the Rev. Billy Graham recently 
observed that Christian love and integrity is now being delivered to 
millions of Chinese who were being denied this opportunity during the 
darkest days in China.
  This sentiment is shared by not only the Rev. Billy Graham, but a 
constituent of mine--Ned Graham. His organization, East Gates 
Ministries, is based in Sumner, WA, and has shipped 1.5 million 
Mandarin-language Bibles to China. And 4 million more will be delivered 
before the end of the century under an agreement with the Chinese 
Government.
  Just last weekend, I had the opportunity to meet with the younger 
Graham to discuss his organization's work in China and the current 
debate here in the Congress. He expressed concern about this debate and 
that the crusade against MFN may harm the ability of his ministry to 
get Bibles into the hands of the Chinese people. The message was clear, 
Mr. Chairman--revocation of China MFN is of interest to no one, 
particularly the Chinese people themselves.
  If we want to affect Chinese behavior in the trade policy and civil 
liberties areas we care about, we should increase our mutual contact, 
make MFN status permanent, and eventually, bring China within the 
disciplines of the World Trade Organization.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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 thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I rise today in opposition of extending MFN to China because 
I believe the United States policy of constructive engagement has 
failed.
  Mr. Speaker, selling goods into the United States market is not a 
right, it is a privilege, and it is a privilege that should be 
restricted to dictatorships like China. Despite the promises of the 
White House, big business, and the MFN supporters, the United States 
trade relationship with China has failed to move that nation toward 
democratic reform in order to reduce the threat China poses to world 
security.
  China's Government continues to brutally repress all dissent in that 
country and violate religious freedoms. Meanwhile it exports to rogue 
nations like Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Burma the technology to make 
weapons of mass destruction. China continues to close its market to 
United States goods and services and allows American products to be 
pirated, costing us billions of dollars. Faced with the evidence that 
our current policy of engagement toward China has failed, supporters of 
MFN then argue that we should ignore all those problems and extend this 
privilege to save American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the extension of most-favored-nation status for 
China.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I stand for human rights progress and a 
secure Asian-Pacific region and against House Joint Resolution 79. This 
is fundamentally an issue which asks whether we want to engage in as 
normal relations as possible with an emerging world power in order to 
shape their future direction, in order to shape a safer and more secure 
Asian-Pacific world.
  This is not a one-shot process, and there is no one-shot solution. 
Engaging, shaping, relating to China requires difficult decisions and 
fully understanding what is at stake, a secure Asian-Pacific world in 
which the forces of democracy arise from local experiences under our 
encouragement, and is not forced by well-intentioned but misguided 
foreign policies.
  The issue is not human rights today but making it possible to have 
progress in human rights over the long haul. The issue is not Chinese 
hostility today, but whether we want to allow hostility to shape our 
and their policy. Some would have us believe that putting China on 
notice today through denial of MFN somehow brings their abuses to a 
halt.
  I urge my colleagues to reject House Joint Resolution 79.
  Mr. Speaker, many arguments have been offered from both sides of the 
issue: Supporters of House Joint Resolution 79 believe that withholding 
most-favored-nation status from China will send a strong, clear message 
that the United States will no longer kowtow to Chinese interests. Many 
cite purported Chinese meddling in America's election campaigns as 
further proof of just how far the Chinese lobby has extended its reach 
into our domestic affairs. There are also arguments relating to China's 
nuclear capabilities and its sales of equipment to Iran. The strongest 
contention so far in this debate over MFN status has been the human 
rights issue. China's curtailing of political and religious freedoms, 
sterilization, laogai institutions, and list goes on and on.
  Despite these points, I adhere to the belief that extending MFN to 
China will be a wise policy decision for the United States. As we all

[[Page H4261]]

know, MFN is not a special status, it is one conferred to our regular 
economic partners throughout the world. According China MFN status will 
be the avenue through which we can influence China's discriminatory 
practices against some segments of its society. Political and religious 
freedom will follow greater economic freedom.
  As part of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I am knowledgeable 
of the various human rights abuses committed against political 
dissidents and jailed inmates in China. It is a deplorable situation, 
but I do not believe revoking MFN will be the solution. Increasing 
diplomatic contact and applying pressure through international 
organizations is a wiser decision that unilaterally isolating one 
quarter of the world's population. Democratic principles are 
transmitted through the free flow of ideas between nations in close 
interaction with one another. Isolating China is not the answer to 
curbing human rights abuse.
  Those who support House Joint Resolution 79 have mainly focused on 
the human rights question, but I believe that MFN is an economic issue. 
Using trade as a tool of engagement is a mutually constructive way for 
us to improve relations with China. In 1996, United States exports to 
China totaled $14 billion, and exports to China generated some 200,000 
American jobs.
  I wish to emphasize that the MFN debate is ostensibly about trade and 
should be limited to a discussion about whether we want to engage in 
normal trade relations with the fastest growing economy in the world. 
This seems to be a no-brainer and the answer is yes. This is 
fundamentally an issue which asks whether we want to engage in as 
normal relations as possible with an emerging world power, in order to 
help shape their future direction; in order to help shape safer and 
more secure relations in the Asia-Pacific world. this is not a one-shot 
process and there is no one-shot solution. Engaging, shaping, relating 
to China requires difficult decisions and fully understanding what is 
at stake--a safer, more secure Asia-Pacific world in which the forces 
of democracy arise from local experiences under our encouragement and 
not forced by well-intentioned, but misguided foreign policies.
  But many have added other issues to this debate to alleviate its 
focus as a trade issue, rather, they have converted it into a form of 
political theatre designed less to influence the eventual outcome which 
is well-known to everyone, but designed to assuage various 
constituencies in this country.
  Contrast this with the reaction in the Asia-Pacific region. Nearly 
everyone in the region who is directly affected by China does not see 
the extension of MFN as weakness or a toleration of abuses inside 
China; but as a way to constructively engage China.
  The issue is not human rights today, but making it possible to 
progress in human rights over the long haul; the issue is not Chinese 
hostility today, but whether we want to inadvertently allow hostility 
to shape our and their policy. There is implicit in the debate today 
the sentiment that failure to put China on notice today through denial 
of MFN somehow will bring their human rights abuses to a halt and stem 
their growth towards being a competitive and hostile world power.
  It seems to me that the denial of MFN will bring help facilitate the 
very thing the opponents of MFN decry--moving China to rogue status as 
a state. Let us bring a little common sense and not emotion to this 
discussion and let us engage China within a system of trade and 
security in which we have primary influence rather than make China an 
outcast state intent on destabilizing the Asia-Pacific region.
  As we approach the new millennium, we find that tools such as the 
Internet and monetary policies are helping draw the nations of the 
world in an ever tighter web. Events such as American normalization of 
ties with Vietnam, Burma and Laos's guaranteed admittance into ASEAN, 
NATO extension, and the future establishment of the Euro relate just 
how tight this version of the World Wide Web is contracting. The United 
States will take a great leap backward if it chooses to revoke MFN for 
China. At a time when competition is steep for the Chinese market, at a 
time when China's human rights situation is still problematic, the 
United States should be at the forefront of engaging China's political 
and economic policies.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, my comments today are aimed 
at our newer Members.
  I am unusual in this debate, because I have opposed MFN in the past. 
In fact I voted against NAFTA because I was not happy with the side 
agreements. In fact, I am concerned about China's human rights record. 
I am a member of the Human Rights Caucus and take great pride in my 
involvement there. And on missile proliferation, I probably spend as 
much time on that issue as any Member in this body as the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee 
on National Security. As a matter of fact, I wish I had as much 
interest as demonstrated today by Members on both sides on missile 
proliferation on the debate on our defense bill as I have heard today 
in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind our colleagues when we heard about the 
attack on the Stark, the U.S.S. Stark, it was not a Chinese missile, it 
was a French-made Exocet missile. In fact, we have our own allies 
exporting missiles that are being used against our troops by rogue 
nations around the world.
  Now, I am not happy with China's actions in many areas, but I do not 
want to isolate China; I think that is the worst thing we can do now. I 
fault this administration for a lack of enforcement of existing arms 
control agreements. The MCTR violations, the Garrett rocket engines 
that were sent to China, the M-11 missile transfers, the ring magnet 
transfers, the chem-bio transfers, they are all wrong; but we do not 
just talk about those on the MFN debate alone. We deal with those 
issues all year long, and I do that all year long, and all of us should 
do that all year long.
  I am appalled by the statement that has been said numerous times here 
of Gen. Xian Guang-Kai, but I say to my colleagues, I confronted him 
personally. I went to Beijing and sat across the table from him, and I 
said, General, those statements are unacceptable. That is what we need 
to do, Mr. Speaker, is aggressively engage the Chinese leadership.
  I spoke this past year twice at the National Defense University in 
Beijing, and I told Chinese military leaders what I am telling our 
Members today. We are not happy with China's policies in many areas, we 
are not happy with human rights improvements in China, and we are not 
happy with arms control violations; but we have to do that in an 
effective way and not isolate China and make it a demon. That is the 
wrong signal to be sending.
  Oppose this resolution and support the status of trade relations 
normally with China.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez].
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, we have a very important choice to make 
here today, but that choice is not between engagement or isolation. 
Certainly we will continue engagement with China, but that engagement 
must be constructive.
  The debate over China MFN is an important one for Americans. Nothing 
less is at stake than our economic future, our national security, and 
our democratic principles.
  Proponents of continuing MFN status for China say it merely 
normalizes trade in the same way that we have done so with many other 
countries. But trade relationships between the two countries is 
anything but normal. China does not play by the rules. China should not 
receive most-favored-nation status because it does not reciprocate the 
trade benefits that we grant them with MFN.
  Besides not following trade rules, China violates international arms 
control treaties and protocols, but the most disturbing violations in 
China are the gross negligence of human rights in that nation. China 
persecutes millions of religious believers of the Christian, Muslim, 
Buddhist and Jewish faith. These appalling human rights must stop. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a very important choice to make here today. But 
that choice is not between engagement or isolation. Certainly we will 
continue engagement with China. But that engagement must be 
constructive.
  The debate over China MFN is an important one for the American 
people. Nothing less is at stake than our economic future, our national 
security and our democratic principles.
  Proponents of continuing MFN status for China say it merely 
normalizes trade in the same way that is done with many other 
countries. But trade relations between the two countries is anything 
but normal.
  China does not play by the rules. China should not receive most 
favored nation status

[[Page H4262]]

because it does not reciprocate the trade benefits that we grant them 
with MFN.
  But the most disturbing violations in China are the gross negligence 
of human rights in that nation. China persecutes millions of religious 
believers of the Christian, Muslim, Buddist and Jewish faiths. The 
severity of this religious persecution has been well-documented by the 
international human rights community.
  Chinese Christian women are hung by their thumbs from wires and 
beaten with heavy rods. They are denied food and water, and shocked 
with electric probes for simply seeking to openly practice 
Christianity.
  Freedom House reports that there are more Christians imprisoned for 
religious activity in China than in any other nation in the world. Four 
Roman Catholic bishops have been imprisoned by the Chinese Government 
for celebrating mass without official authorization.
  Evangelical Protestants are arrested and tortured for holding prayer 
meetings, preaching and distributing Bibles without state approval. 
Churches of all faiths have been officially banned and replaced by 
``patriotic associations'' created by the Communist government.
  These appalling human rights violations in combination with their 
arms control violations and high tariff barriers are very powerful 
reasons to deny MFN for China. I urge my colleagues to vote ``Yes'' on 
this resolution.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Berry].
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of most-favored-
nation status for China. Only last year, the U.S. Congress told the 
American farmer, we want you to compete in a free market situation. In 
the 1970's the American farmer was successfully doing that and the U.S. 
Government unilaterally embargoed its markets to the point that they 
destroyed those markets and precipitated the agriculture crisis of the 
1980's.
  I beg my colleagues not to allow this to happen again. China has 25 
percent of the world's population and 7 percent of the arable lands. We 
sell them 4 billion dollars' worth of agricultural products each year. 
Even Rev. Billy Graham says, this is a good idea to trade with China 
and it will improve their country and ours. We must have access to the 
international marketplace if we expect our farmers to succeed. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for MFN for China and against the resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], my very good friend and one of the hardest 
workers in the cause for MFN.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support normal trade 
relations for China. American workers benefit most from the trading 
status with China.
  The facts I think are very clear. If we reject MFN, we do not improve 
the trade deficit, but we do lower or approve the loss of exports to 
China. In my State of Michigan alone, there is some $215 million in 
exports and over 5,000 jobs. If we translate that into the USA 
entirely, it is 228,000 jobs. China has been reported as the world's 
third largest economy, after the United States and Japan. It has, by 
far, the world's highest annual growth rate of 9 percent. We cannot 
exclude American companies, farmers, workers, goods, and services from 
this large market.
  For the sake of our businesses, our jobs, and our workers, we must 
reject this resolution. We must not slam the door on one-fourth of the 
world's population. If we really want to promote human rights and civil 
rights, and I do, and we want to plant the seeds of mutual 
understanding, then continue normal trade relations. I urge opposition 
of this resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time. I rise in strong support of the resolution denying MFN for China.
  Those who argue against it say this is not the right vehicle. I would 
say to my colleagues, what is the right vehicle? If I had another 
vehicle, I would try it, but the Chinese Government has thumbed its 
nose. They do not even give us a hook to hang our hat on.
  We talk to them about human rights. A recent report said that there 
is no dissident activity in China anymore. They have suppressed all of 
it. We know what they are doing with Hong Kong now. We know what they 
are doing with the trade deficit in selling weapons to Iran; what they 
did in Taiwan, what they have done in Tibet. The list goes on and on 
and on.
  When does it end? When does our Government stand for something? When 
is the almighty dollar not the most important thing?
  I think that we in this country say that we stand for human rights 
and democracy and self-determination. There are more than 1 billion 
Chinese people who are looking toward us, they are looking toward us, 
they are looking for us to stand for something. They are looking for us 
to help them throw off oppression of their Government. When does this 
end? No dissident activity? We cannot tolerate this. Support the 
resolution. Reject MFN for China.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  (Mr. FORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to oppose this resolution. In my 
estimation, this debate boils down to a simple question. Will we choose 
to isolate China, or will we remain actively engaged?
  I believe that a policy of engagement and not isolation is a powerful 
tool for change and will enhance our ability to positively influence 
China's policy. China is the world's most populous nation and has the 
potential to be the world's most dynamic economic power in the 21st 
century. Continuing MFN will further our national interests of helping 
China into the community of nations as a stable partner which respects 
human rights and contributes to our global economic trading system.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have raised valid and 
legitimate concerns about the unfair trade practices, but revoking MFN 
status is not the way to go about it. Enforcing existing international 
trade laws and targeting sanctions might be a more prudent course.
  Mr. Speaker, the 20th century will be recorded as America's century. 
As we move into this next century to maintain our position of economic 
preeminence and economic dominance, it would be unwise and imprudent at 
this point for us to revoke MFN.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], a very valued member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have thought a lot about this issue. 
There are people on both sides of this issue who have struggled over 
it, people of faith, people that I respect immensely. There is not a 
right or wrong answer on this decision. Nobody knows what the right 
answer is, but I support MFN this year and I supported it last year 
because I believe that taking MFN status away is going to do more to 
harm than help for Christians in China.
  This past week we had an opportunity to talk to some Wycliffe Bible 
translators. They said:

       Taking MFN away is going to cause every one of our Bible 
     translators to be viewed as a suspect of the government, an 
     agent of the State. You take MFN status away from China, you 
     are going to cause real persecution upon all the Bible 
     translators and missionaries in China.
  So people of faith are in disagreement over this issue. Yes, 
everything that has been said is true about the persecution, about the 
human rights abuses. But the correct answer has not been resolved yet. 
Taking it away, taking MFN status away, is not clear and conclusive 
evidence that it is going to improve things over there. I believe what 
Billy Graham has said and other missionary organizations have said is, 
``Stay engaged, keep the process going, stay involved, keep the 
dialogue open. We can bring them around to our way of thinking.''
  When I was over in Hong Kong I talked to a man who said, Jon, we are 
moving in the right direction. Yes, we are not moving as quickly as we 
want to move. But your culture is not any better. You have allowed 
abortions out of convenience. Yes, we have had them also, but you have 
allowed abortions out of convenience. You are the largest exporters of 
pornography. You have the largest murder rate, the highest percentage 
of murder rate and rate of teenage dropout in high school. Your culture 
is not any better than in China.

[[Page H4263]]

  When we get over this debate and people of faith disagree on this 
issue, let us turn our focus back on America and start cleaning up our 
own backyard before we continue to look at China. Renewing MFN is the 
best way of solving the persecution over there; staying engaged, 
staying involved, and moving the ball forward. Vote for MFN.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii 
[Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today near the end of this debate as a 
member of the Committee on National Security. I think that before we 
cast any vote we should think about the national security implications.
  In today's Washington Post, to go no further than the most 
contemporary moment, Mr. Speaker, ``U.S. is big market for firms owned 
by the Chinese military.'' The People's Liberation Army is now being 
called in some quarters the People's Liberation Army, Incorporated. We 
find ourselves in circumstances where military-related firms now are 
working in our seaports, they are involved in shipping.
  The military is pervasive throughout China. It is against our 
national security interests to go forward with most-favored-nation 
status for China at this point. It reminds me of the 1960's. We find 
ourselves walking down a path toward confrontation with China which 
need not occur if we are able to see today that we should not grant 
most-favored-nation status.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of extending MFN 
trading status with China and against the resolution. All of us are 
concerned about China and their actions, whether it be religious 
persecution, treatment of Taiwan, weapons proliferation, their human 
rights violations, or their questionable trade and copyright practices.
  The fact is, do we really believe, if we pull out of normal trading 
relations with China, that our industrial allies and other trading 
allies that we just met with in Denver are going to follow our action 
and pull out as well? Of course not. What they are going to do is fill 
the void and turn a blind eye to the concerns we have as a Nation. What 
we will do is to cut off our nose to spite our face, and walk away from 
one of the largest markets at the expense of American jobs.
  We have heard a lot about security concerns, and there are some 
things we should be concerned about. There is no question about that. 
But we also should consider some facts: that China has adhered to the 
Nonproliferation Treaty of 1992, and it supported the indefinite 
nonconditional extension in 1995. It ratified the Chemical Weapons 
Convention. It has signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  Yes, there are problems with that, but we have other ways we deal 
with that. Time and again, the administration has taken actions to 
impose sanctions against the Chinese for proliferation activities. We 
have put the laws on the books to do that. We have the laws to deal 
with copyright and other trade violations. What this says is that we 
will have normal trading practices to open the doors to deal with the 
Chinese, and on individual cases we can impose laws to deal with them. 
Let us not shut the door. It will do nobody any good.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], one of our greatest and hardest 
working champions and one of the initiators of the whole plan to deal 
with democracy and human rights in China.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very tumultuous year, 
especially for our relations with China. As we go forward and have this 
debate yet one more time on whether or not we should extend most-
favored-nation status with China, Members, look deep inside.
  I have to say that those who are opposing the most-favored-nation 
status, people like the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith and 
the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Frank Wolf, to me are heroes by every 
stretch of the imagination. I have watched them before I came to 
Congress and since I have been here, and I have been amazed at their 
ability to articulate passionate beliefs which they care deeply about.
  There are some, however, not necessarily just within this body but 
without, as well, who would like to have us believe that this issue is 
simply cut and dried, that those who support most-favored-nation 
trading status are profiteers, that they are out there working for the 
interests of corporate America, and that those who are against it care 
deeply about human rights and that is the end of the story. In fact, I 
have heard slogans that say something like profit over substance, or 
profit over principle.
  The fact of the matter is, nothing could be further from the truth. 
When I served a mission for my church in that region of the world in 
the 1970's, I grew to love the Chinese people. I grew to love them 
deeply. When I saw the massacre at Tiananmen Square, part of me died 
that day, because people who cared deeply about freedom, people who 
cared deeply about their convictions, were wasted away. We want to do 
something. We want to thump China in the nose. We want to do the right 
thing.
  But the answer is not to walk away from this relationship, because if 
we do nobody will be at the table articulating the things we care about 
so deeply. It will not be France, Germany, Japan. They will not be 
there. There will be a big silent spot. Does that mean we have been 100 
percent accurate and good in everything we have done in our dealings 
with China? No. We have not. We should speak up. We should do some 
things. We crafted a bill which will do that. But the answer is not to 
throw the baby out with the bath water. The answer is not to walk away 
from this relationship.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos], a cochair of the Human Rights 
Caucus of the Congress of the United States.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, there are a dozen good reasons to deny most-
favored-nation treatment for China, ranging from the persecution of 
Christians to the selling of weapons of high-technology to despicable 
countries, to the theft of our intellectual property, to discrimination 
against American exports. But we all know what is going to happen here. 
They will get MFN because even if this body should approve this 
resolution, the administration will veto it, and we do not have the 
votes to override it.
  So my plea is to my undecided colleagues, the only thing we are 
dealing with is the sending of a message to the Communist totalitarian 
regime in Beijing. Let us send a strong message. Let us tell them that 
we can stand on principle.
  When a year ago this body unanimously approved my resolution giving 
the right to the President of Taiwan to visit his alma mater in 
Cornell, we stood on principle. When we voted not to move the Olympics 
to Beijing, we stood on principle. Today at least we should stand on 
principle.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair announces that when 
we get close to closing, we will go in this order of closing: The 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] will go first; the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] will go second; the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Matsui] will go third; the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] 
will go fourth; and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] will close 
the debate.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui].
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition 
to the motion of disapproval, and in support of continuing our normal 
trade status with China. Opponents of most-favored-nation status say we 
must send a statement to China, a message.
  In some respects I agree with that. China must know as a nation we 
will be vigilant in our efforts to fight human rights abuses, and we 
will watch closely the transition of power with respect to Hong Kong, 
that we

[[Page H4264]]

will not tolerate acts of aggression toward their neighbors, and most 
importantly, we will continue to work to open their market to 
exporters.
  But the real question today is whether MFN is the proper vehicle to 
send this message, and whether revoking MFN advances our interests on 
these issues. The answer to both these questions is no. MFN is not a 
referendum on China's policies. It is not a sense-of-the-Congress 
resolution that we have serious differences with China. It is not just 
a symbolic vote, allowing us to send a message to the Chinese that we 
are unhappy with their leadership. It is a real vote with real 
implications, both at home and abroad.
  If we are concerned about Hong Kong, we must not undermine their 
economic stability at a point when that leverage is vital to protecting 
their freedoms. If we are concerned about religious persecution in 
China, let us listen to the missionaries who fear serious repercussions 
if we revoke MFN. If we are concerned about market access to our 
exports, we should not set off a trade war which could raise tariffs up 
to 70 percent and effectively cut off our economic relationship, 
estimated to cost consumers nearly $30 billion.
  Indeed, if we want China to act in accordance with established 
international principles, let us not isolate them from commercial, 
cultural, and religious exchanges.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion for 
disapproval, and to support continued MFN status for China.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  (Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to deny most-
favored-nation trading status.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to renewal of most-favored-
nation trading status for China. I supported MFN renewal last year 
believing that I should try the theory of engagement for 12 months and 
see what happens.
  Well, it's now 12 months later and what actions has the Chinese 
leadership undertaken. Allow me to read some headlines for some of our 
Nation's papers this year:
  ``U.S. Confirms China Missile Safe to Iran'',
  ``China called Obstinate over talks about Tibet'',
  ``China Buys U.S. Computers, Raising Arms Fears'',
  ``China joins forces with Iran on short-range missile''.
  The United States has given the Chinese 8 years of warnings and 
demands for improved human rights and to stop selling weapons and 
advanced missile and nuclear weapons technology to rogue nations like 
Iran or Pakistan. It's time to act now and take decisive action. No 
more carrot and stick approach. Just as the United States brought 
pressure on the Soviet Union to allow Jews to emigrate and on South 
Africa to end apartheid, and on South Korea to become more democratic, 
we must keep up our pressure on China.
  Conditioning MFN for China provides the United States with the best 
leverage to improve human rights and send a strong signal about its 
weapons sales because preferential access to the United States market 
is critical to China's authoritative regime. Societies based on 
democratic principles and respect for basic human rights and freedoms 
make the best neighbors and the best trading partners.
  I'm aware that United States business exports to China in 1993 
totalled $8.8 billion. In the meantime, China's trade surplus with the 
United States has grown from $6 billion in 1989 to $45 billion last 
year with many of the Chinese products being produced by forced labor.
  While I recognize the importance of MFN renewal to my home State of 
Michigan and its businesses, this must be weighed with the overriding 
goal of trying to foster a more humane way of life for the Chinese 
people, particularly as it impacts the rest of the world.
  Last week the Spence amendment restricting supercomputers to those 
countries that violate nonproliferation agreements passed by a 332 to 
88 vote.
  Last night, this House passed the Rohrabacher amendment restricting 
funds to Russia if they transfer certain missile systems.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House. We need to send a message to 
the people around this globe that human rights violations and the 
transfer of horrific technology-chemical and nuclear proliferation must 
end today.
  China MFN will continue. The President has the votes, but we can send 
a message that this practice of so many bad things must end.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the last time this issue 
came before Congress I voted to extend MFN trading status to China. I 
felt that engagement was our best hope for getting China to act more 
responsibly on issues of human rights, international affairs, and 
international trade.
  Since that vote, however, China has shown no progress on any of these 
issues. On human rights the State Department's 1996 report confirms 
that China continues to commit widespread human rights abuses, and in 
1996 China actually stepped up efforts to cut off protest and 
criticism.
  On international affairs, China is transferring dangerous weapons and 
technology to Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and Burma. On 
international trade, Chinese tariffs on our exports average 35 percent, 
while our tariffs on Chinese imports average 2 percent, and our 1996 
trade deficit with China was $40 billion. In the face of this, Mr. 
Speaker, I simply cannot be in support of extending MFN status, and I 
urge a vote in support of that proposition.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, often in this Congress we are 
faced, as we are today, with two imperfect choices. As a delegate to 
the U.N. conference in Beijing, China, I spoke out against China's 
human rights abuses, and I will continue to do so. I also know that, 
since beginning negotiations, changes have taken place. Normal trade 
relations are importing and exporting more products. They are exporting 
an understanding of our democratic standards.
  In 1994, the state compensation law was passed allowing Chinese 
citizens to sue Government officials and collect damages. Similar laws 
have passed but they would not have occurred without U.S. influence. 
Denying normal trade status to China would do nothing more than 
transfer trade to our international competitors and give ammunition to 
anti-American hard liners within China who will use our denial as an 
excuse to reverse advances that have already been made. I urge a vote 
against the resolution.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay], our distinguished whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I understand the deep feelings of the 
opponents of MFN and I have deep sympathy with those feelings. But the 
question before us is very simple. Will revoking MFN lead to more 
freedom in China? In my view, the answer is a resounding no. I want to 
send the Communist Chinese Government a message regarding human rights 
and religious freedom. But I believe that cutting off MFN is a very 
ineffective way to send that message, and in sending that message, we 
are taking freedom away from Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, free trade leads to freedom, and capitalism is a synonym 
for freedom.
  Will revoking MFN help those Chinese who are being persecuted by 
their Government? Will revoking MFN stop the Chinese Government from 
selling dangerous weapons to unstable countries? Will revoking MFN end 
barbaric social practices within China? I fear that the answer to all 
those questions is a big no. Instead of closing the door on China, we 
should be forcing that door open to open even wider. Instead of taking 
away freedom from Americans, we should empower our citizens to fully 
engage China.
  We should have congressional delegations going to China demanding 
that the Chinese Government free political and religious prisoners. We 
should disallow visas for any member of the Chinese Government who is a 
known human rights violator, and we should press on many different 
fronts to make our views known to the Chinese Government that we care 
how they treat their citizens. But we should not cut the strongest link 
we have with the people of China especially now that Hong Kong is 
falling under the control of the Beijing regime.
  That link is trade. And the trade link is the lifeline for many 
Chinese who see America not as an adversary but as a friend. And this 
is not just my view. In

[[Page H4265]]

a statement supporting MFN for China, Dr. Samuel Ling, who happens to 
be program director of the Institute for Chinese Studies at Wheaton 
College's Billy Graham Center, said: History since 1979 has proved that 
as the United States engages China, a more open, pluralistic atmosphere 
develops, and both the standard of living and human rights and 
freedoms, including religious freedom, tend to improve. Washing our 
hands of China is simply irresponsible. Let us not impose a false 
isolation of China that diminishes our influence, hurts the very people 
we want to help and takes freedom away from American citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this disapproval motion, and let us 
give a helping hand to those who are now being persecuted in China.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, brutal efficiency, prison, torture, 
executions, these are the tools of the Chinese leaders. These are the 
tools they use to muffle the voice of anybody who dares speak out 
against basic liberties. Tariffs, regulations, piracy, these are the 
tools Chinese leaders use to keep American goods out of China. They are 
effective tools, tools that have been sharpened into economic and 
political weapons, weapons that cut at the very heart of our belief in 
fairness, freedom, and democracy.
  As we speak today, every Chinese activist, every voice of dissent, 
every advocate of freedom and democracy in a country of 1 billion 
people is either in jail or in exile. According to the State 
Department, not a single dissident is free in all of China.
  I want to talk briefly about one brave voice who languishes in 
Chinese prison. His name is Wei Jing Sheng. Because he spoke out for 
democracy, he has been forced to endure two decades of prison, labor 
camps, and solitary confinement. Mr. Wei's message, that China needs 
democracy, frightens the Government so much that his guards will not 
allow him to even have a pen and paper. To dictators who fear the 
truth, this humble electrician is a dangerous man. But Mr. Wei is not 
the first electrician to stand up to cruel corrupt regimes. In the 
early 1980's, Lech Walesa said enough is enough and launched a fight 
for freedom that spread across eastern Europe and eventually the Soviet 
Union itself.
  Like Lech Walesa, Mr. Wei is a simple, direct man. He stands firm in 
his belief in democracy. But, for now, his voice has been silenced. So 
we must speak for him and for all the people in prison who have been 
speaking their conscience, just as we spoke for Lech Walesa a decade 
ago.
  For 8 years we followed a policy of engagement with China, and the 
human rights situation has only gotten worst. The same is true for our 
trade deficit with China, which continues to soar out of control. In 
the past 5 years it has more than doubled. This year it is expected to 
hit about $53 billion.
  Supporters of the status quo claim that revoking most-favored-nation 
status will hurt our exports to China. Let us take a look at the 
numbers. China exports about a third of their goods here, a third of 
what they produce comes here. What percentage of American exports make 
it to China? Less than 2 percent, 1.7 percent. We export more to 
Belgium.
  What kind of things are we exporting to China? A lot of high 
technology equipment and machinery that China is using for questionable 
ends, ends like stealing intellectual property, building up their 
military and spreading weapons of mass destruction.
  Is this the behavior we are supposed to reward with most-favored-
nation status? Is this the behavior we take as evidence of a growing 
respect for human rights? Is this what we call engagement?
  If America grants most-favored-nation status to China, we should call 
it what it is: It is looking the other way. Revoking most-favored-
nation status will not signal disengagement from China or that China is 
the enemy, but revoking that status will send a strong message to 
China's leaders. If they want the best possible access to these markets 
which they have a third of their exports going to now, they have to 
uphold their end of the deal.
  Looking the other way does not make the problem go away. Looking the 
other way only makes the problem worse, and looking the other way at 
injustice wherever it is undermines our credibility, our leadership and 
our moral authority in a world that needs it more than ever.
  This is a vote about what our future is going to look like. If we do 
not stand up for the principles of democracy and human rights in China, 
we risk losing those principles here at home. If we do not stand up for 
decent wages and safe working conditions and environmental protections 
in China, we risk losing the quality of life we have worked so hard for 
here at home. We cannot designate China as one of our most favored 
nations without debasing our standards, damaging our credibility, and 
betraying the ideals on which America stands.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental choice that we are 
making today. That is a choice of engagement versus nonengagement with 
China. It is unfortunate that most-favored-nation status is called 
most-favored-nation status. It would much more appropriately be called 
trading status. Among the countries today in the world that have most-
favored-nation status with the United States of America are Syria, 
Iran, and Iraq. It is a choice that we are making to isolate ourselves. 
Into the next century there is no question that China will be, and is 
today, but will only continue in its status as a world power. And in 
that economy we will have a choice in terms of whether we want to be 
part of that growth and part of that synergy of the world economy or 
not.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution in terms of the 
opportunity to continue just the normal trading status, not really a 
most favored status at all.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would advise all 
Members that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] has 7 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] has 9 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] has 12 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 3 
minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
  (Mr. Leach asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, there is probably no bilateral relationship 
more important than that between China and the United States. The 
evolution of Sino-American relations over the next decade will be of 
profound import not only for stability in the Asia-Pacific region, but 
for the world.
  In this regard it must be understood that most favored nation [MFN] 
trade status--that is, normal trade relations--is the linchpin of Sino-
American economic relations. it is also a natural extension of the open 
door policy that hallmarked American involvement in China at the end of 
the 19th century. By contrast, revocation of MFN would effectively 
drive a stake through the heart of our economic ties with China and 
place in grave jeopardy our future relationship with one-fifth of the 
world's population.
  Hence it is crucial that the issue of extending MFN be delinked from 
the aberrational issue of the moment, in this case ongoing campaign 
finance investigations.
  These issues--MFN which is fundamentally about relations between two 
peoples, and campaign finance abuses which likely involve the foolish 
actions of a few--are distinct. While Congress has a profound 
obligation to review the allegations of illegal involvement by 
foreigners and perhaps their governments in the American political 
process, perspective must be maintained. Campaign indiscretions are 
about deal-making conflicts of interest; MFN is about the future of the 
planet.
  In the context of the recent Presidential campaign, it must be 
understood that the most appropriate antidote to campaign finance 
violations is for the Justice Department to uphold vigorously current 
law and the Congress to work forthrightly on campaign finance reform.
  As for the Chinese, Beijing would be well advised to conduct its own 
inquiry into this affair, encourage openness and full disclosure and 
not shield any potential witnesses from

[[Page H4266]]

the accountability required by United States law enforcement and 
congressional oversight.
  By way of background, this Member has long believed that when 
confronted with the choice of high walls versus open doors in Sino-
American relations, open doors are preferable. Hence my historically 
strong support for maintaining MFN. Though I favor unconditional MFN 
for China at this time, I do not favor MFN unconditionally for all 
countries at all times. MFN is all about reciprocity. The best way for 
countries to have good sustainable economic relations is to have 
reciprocal open markets, and the best way to achieve reciprocity in 
trade is to get politics out of economics into the market.

  With this in mind, Congress should not hesitate to renew China's MFN 
status, preferably on a multiyear basis in conjunction with China's 
entrance into the World Trade Organization [WTO] on commercially 
acceptable terms. In this regard, it is my view that in the next 
century relations between states will relate more to the capacity of 
the business community to advance mutuality of interest than to the 
efforts of public officials to advance a civil dialog. Public policy is 
nonetheless crucial, for what is at stake is the advancement of the 
rule of law--whether it relates to U.N. Charter ideals, arms control, 
or rules of trade.
  With regard to the latter issue, the obvious deserves repetition: 
Common rules of trade are in the vested interest of all countries which 
want to be part of the modern world. Those nations which want 
privileged status to protect their own industries, usually on grounds 
of the old infant industries argumentation, generally hurt themselves. 
As recently pointed out by perhaps the most erudite 20th century head 
of state, Vaclav Havel, there is little more counterproductive for 
developing economies than protectionism. Financial services is a 
classic example. While China has become dramatically more integrated 
into the international financial system over the last decade and a 
half, it has only taken modest steps to open up its banking, insurance, 
and financial service industries to foreign competition. Yet in my view 
China and its economy would be far better off to welcome United States 
and other foreign financial institutions and their panoply of low-cost 
commercial and investment banking products.
  As for Hong Kong's return to China, this is clearly one of the 
seminal events of our time. For the West, it marks the end of a 
transition from colonial rule that began at the end of the Second World 
War and the end of an imperial presence in Asia. For China, in 
conjunction with the return of the Portuguese colony in Macao in 1999, 
Hong Kong's transfer marks the end of its traumatic colonial 
experience. In the short run, China has made its intentions clear. It 
intends to hold the reigns of freedom in Hong Kong rather more tightly 
than Gov. Chris Patten. In the long run, one's confidence in the future 
of Hong Kong depends on one's confidence in China and its ability to 
learn both from its own experience and the experience of others. 
Clearly, it's in China's interest to see the one country, two systems, 
concept successfully implemented. After all, Hong Kong's financial and 
managerial expertise is crucial to China's modernization drive and Hong 
Kong companies have accounted for over half of all outside investment 
in China, while Chinese concerns have invested over $60 billion in Hong 
Kong.
  Will China honor its agreements with the British and allow a two-
systems approach to internal government? We cannot know the answer to 
this question. But this Congress can certainly point out to Beijing the 
enormously destabilizing consequences of any substantial mishandling of 
the Hong Kong transition.
  Clearly, the United States has important and financial as well as 
philosophical interests at stake in Hong Kong's smooth and successful 
transition to Chinese sovereignty on July 1. It is certainly the hope 
and expectation of the Congress that Hong Kong will remain one of the 
world's most vibrant and productive societies, that it will enjoy the 
substantial autonomy promised to it by the People's Republic of China, 
and that fundamental freedoms of its people will be fully protected and 
respected after 1997. In addition, it is self-evident that China's 
handling of the Hong Kong transition will powerfully affect attitudes 
toward the mainland in Taiwan.

  In this regard, it is interesting to note that perhaps the only 
revolutionary leader held in high esteem by China, as well as Hong Kong 
and Taiwan, is Sun Yat-sen, whose principal contribution to Chinese 
political theory, beyond nationalism, is the precept of a three stage, 
guided evaluation to political democracy. Perhaps because it has a 
manageable population base, perhaps because it is located in the 
currents of trade and sits as a cultural and commercial island-bridge 
between China, Japan, and the Americas, Taiwan has led the way with 
political and economic democracy and the least divisions of wealth of 
any industrializing society. A generation ago its leading party, the 
Kuomintang, while rightist, resembled in organization the Communist 
Party of China. Today it looks more like Margaret Thatcher's 
Conservative Party. Tomorrow, who knows? The only thing that is certain 
is that the future of Hong Kong will have a bearing.
  Deng Xiaoping underscored the new Chinese pragmatism with his cat and 
mice metaphor, and by promoting ``socialism with Chinese 
characteristics.'' That pragmatism has led to unprecedented social and 
economic change in China. Indeed, despite continued political 
repression, China may be changing more rapidly that any other country 
in the world. Not only is it looking outward to trade and establishing 
a market-oriented internal economy, but in terms of private discussion 
there is much more freedom of expression than existed two decades ago. 
Privately, one can criticize the Government without repercussion; it is 
public criticism that remains shackled. This latter circumstance is 
indefensible, but the looseness of controls on the farmer is not 
without significance. Nonetheless, China's social and economic 
transformation can't proceed in the long run without effecting 
political change. At some point Beijing's new leaders must recognize 
the incompatibility of free enterprise and an authoritarian political 
system, and must recognize as well that instability can be unleashed in 
society when governments fail to provide safeguards for individual 
rights and fail to erect political institutions adaptable to change and 
accountable to the people.
  Whether the 21st century is peaceful and whether it is prosperous 
will most of all depend on whether the world's most populous country 
can live with itself and become open to the world in a fair and 
respectful manner. How the United States, its allies, and the 
international system responds to the complexities and challenges of 
modern China is also one of the central foreign policy challenges of 
our time.
  Revocation of MFN would not be responsive to that challenge. It would 
not effectively address our legitimate concerns on human rights, 
nonproliferation, Taiwan, or trade. On the contrary, it would 
constitute a supremely self-destructive act.
  The United States would be far better to develop a bipartisan and 
biinstitutional approach that maintains the open door to China and with 
it a relationship that could be key to peace, stability, and prosperity 
in the 21st century than to annually threaten this political 
brinksmanship on the House floor. I urge the defeat of this self-
defeating legislation.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this is not a vote about who is more 
against religious persecution in China. We all deplore violations of 
human rights not just in China but in the entire world. Defeating MFN 
will not stop human rights abuses in China. Many Christian ministries 
with an outreach to China believe that religious persecution will get 
worse in China if MFN is defeated. For these Christian missionaries it 
is their life's work. They are the experts on religious freedom. The 
Rev. Billy Graham, his son Ned, the president of the National 
Association of Evangelicals, the President of Moody Bible Institute, 
Fr. Robert Sirico, president of the Acton Institute, and Bob Grant of 
Christian Voice, they all encourage us to remain engaged with China.
  MFN is at the heart of America's engagement policy with China. MFN, 
if it is revoked, is the wrong vehicle to protest China's behavior. If 
Chinese goods are being illegally dumped here, we have laws against 
that and the same with goods that may be made in slave labor camps. We 
can stop that here with existing laws.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to renewal of most-
favored-nation status for the People's Republic of China. This is, 
basically, a question of fairness and of common sense. The fact of the 
matter is that we have a tremendous trade deficit with China. China 
does not allow U.S. products in. China imposes tremendously high and 
unfair tariffs.
  Mr. Speaker, this is simply a question of common sense. Our choice is 
not either isolate or engage. We also have the choice to negotiate, to 
say to China, ``We want to trade but on fair terms. You should not have 
such a trade imbalance. You should not block our products. You should 
not pirate our intellectual property. You should not trade arms to our 
enemies.'' These are things that we can negotiate while maintaining a 
relationship.
  People say, well, MFN will give us a better situation in all these 
areas. The

[[Page H4267]]

fact of the matter is, we granted MFN last year and the situation got 
worse. In fact, our trade deficit this year is 41 percent worse than it 
was last year. So there is no empirical evidence that MFN has yielded 
results. We need trade, but we need fair trade and a measure of common 
sense.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
America Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the House 
Committee on International Relations now for about 9 years, and I have 
long been a strong supporter of maintaining broad, comprehensive ties 
with the People's Republic of China.
  This policy of engagement has been upheld in a bipartisan fashion by 
five previous administrations, and I support President Clinton in his 
efforts now for continued engagement with China. We cannot allow 
America's broad range, multi-faceted relationship with China to be held 
hostage to any particular interest or issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleagues realize that when the 
People's Republic of China was founded in 1949, this government had to 
provide for some 400 million people living in China in 1949. Now we 
have got enough problems already on our own. Two hundred years it has 
taken us to provide for the needs of 264 million Americans. I think we 
need to leave a little slack here in realizing that this is not whether 
it is a dogma, it is a Communist, or what, but to provide for the needs 
of 1.2 billion people.
  Mr. Speaker, we need engagement. We need MFN with China.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, whatever decision we make today, the American people 
will see it as a decision about the role of morality in U.S. foreign 
policy, and they will be right. Mr. Speaker, this is a vote about 
whether a government which practices forced abortion and forced 
sterilization on a massive scale should be rewarded or punished. It is 
a vote about how a government treats its own people, especially people 
of faith, Catholic bishops, priests and Protestant ministers and 
Tibetan monks and nuns. This is a vote about a government that 
routinely uses slave labor and does so with impunity.
  I have held six hearings in my Subcommittee on International 
Relations and Human Rights on various aspects of human rights in China. 
We heard from people who survived the Laogai, the gulag system, people 
like Harry Wu. And I can tell my colleagues, the victims are not in 
favor of continuing most-favored-nation status with China because they 
know a butcher when they see one.
  Today's vote is about dying rooms and inhumane orphanages, where baby 
girls and handicapped children are left to die simply because they are 
unwanted by the dictatorship. Today's vote is about what happened in 
Tiananmen Square--because what was overt in 1989--the silence of 
dissent--is more covert and sophisticated today. But the repression 
remains pervasive and brutal.
  Last December, Mr. Speaker, the President coddled the dictatorship's 
hit man General Chi Haotian, the Defense Minister for the People's 
Republic of China, and gave him the red carpet treatment. The man who 
ordered the massacre at Tiananmen Square was the President's honored 
guest and during his visit to the U.S. said ``nobody died'' at 
Tiananmen Square. Does anybody in this room believe that? Of course 
not. It is utter nonsense, an unmitigated lie; but that is what the 
Beijing dictatorship is all about--lies.
  Let me just ask my friends and colleagues, how long are we going to 
continue this misguided strategy of constructive engagement? As the 
previous speaker pointed out, things have gone from bad to worse. 
During the China human rights period of time when President Clinton had 
his executive order in place, we saw a significant regression, not 
progress but regression in every category of human rights.
  As a matter of fact, one of three human rights missions to the PRC, I 
was there at the halfway point during the life of the executive order. 
During the trip I met with Wei Jingsheng, the father of the democracy 
movement in the People's Republic of China. A couple of weeks later, he 
met with John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary of Democrat and Human 
Rights--Bill Clinton's point man on human rights. How did the Chinese 
Government respond to those meetings, especially to the one with 
Secretary Shattuck? They arrested Wei, the dictatorship put him in 
prison where he is today--another victim of this brutal dictatorship.
  Let me also remind my colleagues that if they think trade will 
trigger democracy and respect for human rights--they are sadly 
mistaken. The government of China has gone from communism to fascism. 
And respect for human rights have deteriorated. Who is making big 
profits in the PRC? The generals and officers affiliated with the 
People's Liberation Army and those who are connected to the power 
structure of the dictatorship. And again, we have seen significant 
regression in the area of human rights.
  On religious freedom, I beg to differ vehemently with Billy Graham 
and others and especially with his son Ned Graham, who have suggested 
we should continue most-favored-nation status as a way of assisting 
religious liberty. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only 
people that can practice their religion in the PRC today are those who 
are part of the official Communist controlled church, and that is it. 
Step outside the boundaries of the government church and the full 
weight of the totalitarian state is visited upon you.
  If you're a pastor in the underground church--you go to prison. If 
you meet for Bible study in a setting not approved by Beijing, you are 
harassed--and you may go to a concentration camp. I met with Bishop Su 
of the Baoding Province. Bishop Su--who is part of the ``illegal'' 
Roman Catholic Church aligned with Pope John Paul II--celebrated mass 
for our delegation. What happened to him? He was arrested by the secret 
police and is now back in prison for meetings with us. Bishop Su is no 
stranger to persecution, having suffered more than 12 years for his 
faith. Now the bully boys have sent this good man back to the gulag. 
There is no religious freedom in the PRC. Let us stop kidding 
ourselves.
  To those who think trade equals progress in human rights, can you at 
least provide some evidence of that? Let me remind members that there 
were business men during the Nazi years, in the 1930's, who went and 
traded with the Nazis. But at least they did not have the temerity to 
stand up and say somehow that human rights were going to break out 
because the trains were running on time..
  MFN is empowering a brutal dictatorship. The oppressor is getting 
bolder and stronger. And meaner. The dictator will soon begin to 
project its power to its neighbors--the signs are all there. The 
dictatorship will soon leave a bristling blue water navy to project 
power and influence and to intimidate.
  Let me just note at this point that my business friends are not 
adverse to using sanctions when intellectual property rights are 
involved. Hollywood will go to war to protect pirated movies and CD's. 
But they shrink like violets when people's lives are on the line. When 
people, when torture, when forced abortion and religious freedom are 
the issue--they walk away and spout ``constructive engagement.'' Vote 
for the Solomon resolution and against MFN for this dictatorship.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Millender-McDonald].
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, this MFN status, as it is 
called, is nothing more than according normal trading status to China 
to facilitate commerce between the two nations. It is in no way 
preferential to China. MFN keeps tariffs from skyrocketing, and it 
retains a working relationship between our two countries.
  However, some Members of Congress want to take MFN status away from 
China, citing human rights violations as an excuse to deny them the 
equal trading status that we provide most countries in the world. I 
understand

[[Page H4268]]

these Members' concerns and want to see improvements in China's human 
rights record myself. However, only through continuous engagement in 
dialogue will we have an opportunity to effect change.
  It is important to note, however, that from 1990 to 1996, United 
States exports to China rose by 90 percent, the fastest growing rate of 
any major export market. This has been a direct benefit to southern 
California, given its recovery from a recession. One quarter of all 
cargo entering the United States comes from China.
  I urge my colleagues to support MFN and to reject this resolution.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Members of this body 
that three of the four former Presidents have endorsed most-favored-
nation status for China: George Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford. 
All three of them have for this vote today.
  In addition, every former Secretary of Defense, Democrat and 
Republican, over the last 12 years has supported MFN for China. We have 
every Secretary of the Treasury over the last 16 years supporting most-
favored-nation status for China. We have every Secretary of Agriculture 
and every Secretary of Commerce also supporting MFN for China, as well 
as every Secretary of State and every USTR, United States Trade 
Representative, that currently is alive.
  I might also mention, in terms of the issue of the trade deficit, 
many are making much out of the $40 billion trade deficit. One needs to 
look at the entire region, however. Because if we look at Taiwan, 
Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea, what we have seen is a 
commensurate reduction in their trade surplus with the United States as 
the trade deficit with China has gone up. So it is not a loss of United 
States jobs, it is a transfer of jobs from these four countries to 
China. That is exactly what is happening in that particular area.
  In addition, I might say that this really is not any longer an issue 
of trade, this is an issue of diplomacy. If we cut off most-favored-
nation status with the Chinese, we will, in essence, cut off diplomatic 
relationship with the Chinese. What we are really talking about is what 
the United States-China relationship will be 10, 15, 20 years from now. 
I think that is what we should be focusing on.
  China has 21 percent of the world's population. As a result of that, 
that relationship will be the most critical relationship the United 
States will have. I urge a rejection of the resolution by the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to this resolution. Our goal must be to strengthen our engagement with 
China to bring her into the international trading system, whose rules 
seek to assure mutual benefit for all trading nations, to bring her 
into the international web of agreements, whose goal it is to prevent 
the proliferation of nuclear weapons and create the maximum opportunity 
to resolve conflicts without war.
  As to the important issue of human rights, we know more about today's 
problems in China then we did during the terror of the cultural 
revolution precisely because China is far more open and allows far more 
personal freedoms than in the past. Greater individual economic 
opportunity has always fostered over time greater individual freedom 
and respect for human rights.
  We should continue to press China toward international human rights 
standards. But engagement, not disengagement, will achieve these goals.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] has 
5 minutes remaining; the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] has 8 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] has 8 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, today we will decide whether to maintain 
the normal trading relations we have had with China since 1980. This 
vote is critical to agriculture in the rural areas of our country that 
have made us the No. 1 exporter of agricultural products in the world.
  In 1996 alone, we exported over $60 billion in agricultural products. 
Last year we had a $1.4 billion trade surplus with China in 
agricultural trade. We sold over $2 billion of agricultural products to 
China. Ending normal trading relations will jeopardize this trade.
  As China reaches out to the rest of the world to meet more of its 
food needs, the last thing we should do is pull out of the market. 
While we clearly lead the world in agricultural exports today, many of 
our friends in Europe and Central and South America would relish the 
opportunity to supply the Chinese market. Agriculture is one of those 
things we Americans do best. And the jobs that it provides in rural 
areas are good jobs that are performed with pride by the American 
farmer and the workers who supply them; and that is why it is so 
critical that we maintain the markets that we have worked so hard to 
create.
  China has opened its markets to live cattle, cherries and apples from 
Washington and grapes from California. Because we remain engaged in 
trade with China, we are closer to gaining access for other important 
commodities. If we vote to end normal trading relations today, China 
will see us as an unreliable supplier of a very important commodity, 
the food it needs to feed its people.
  And finally, if we vote against normal trading relations with China 
today, we can forget about China's accession to the World Trading 
Organization. We have only begun to gain marketing access to China's 
agricultural markets.

                              {time}  1445

  With accession to the WTO based on a commercially viable package, 
China's state trading enterprises which control imports of agricultural 
commodities will fall.
  In the brief time allotted to me, I cannot address all of the reasons 
we should continue normalized trade relations with China. There are 
certainly legitimate concerns about human rights, religious freedom, 
international cooperation, U.S. jobs, Hong Kong and Taiwan. I believe, 
however, that progress in all of these areas will best be made, 
particularly in the area of human rights and religious freedom, by 
pursuing ever-increasing dialog and constructive engagement rather than 
reverting to isolationism.
  The choices are clear. We can do what America does best or we can 
revert to those things that have been tried and proven to be wrong for 
America and wrong for those that we perceive to be helping.
  I ask that we vote to continue normal trading relations. Vote against 
this resolution before us today.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest for those of us who live in such grandeur and 
have the most productive Nation in the world, why not risk? Why not 
risk ending slave labor?
  Why not? Because the other side will say that we cannot offend Boeing 
who wants to sell jets to China, and Motorola their cell phones. Why do 
we not risk stopping the murder of female babies? No way. Wal-Mart 
needs those cheap T-shirts and sneakers. Or why not encourage religious 
freedom? Forget it. Agriculture needs to sell grain and cotton to 
China, those small family farmers like Archer and Daniels and Midland.
  Why did it work in South Africa? They tell us we were not alone in 
South Africa. We were all alone when we voted the Helms-Burton bill, 
were we not? And why is it that Cuba is treated real tough and China is 
not? Maybe it is because Cuba did not make big political contributions 
to Clinton-Gore and other campaigns. Maybe that is why. And maybe that, 
Mr. Speaker, is why we are seeing human decency sell out to big money.
  If Members believe that they can stand up for human decency, and if

[[Page H4269]]

Members believe that this country is strong enough to compete with 
anyone based on its human values, then they will vote for this 
resolution and send a message to China that may get them to change.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it has been 8 years since the Tiananmen 
Square massacre. Every year at this time the President gives the regime 
an anniversary present requesting a special waiver to grant most-
favored-nation status to China. No wonder the former Presidents and 
Secretaries of State support renewing MFN. They are the ones who 
brought us this failed policy in the first place.
  What do we have to show for it? Lost jobs, lost freedom, and a more 
dangerous world. The American people know it. That is why in a poll 
yesterday, a Business Week poll, the American people support, 67 to 18 
percent, revoking MFN for China.
  The President and the regime in Beijing should take no comfort from 
this vote on the floor today. The American people want a change in 
policy. Our colleagues have thoughtfully spoken out to say that if they 
vote for MFN, they still want to see stronger actions taken by the 
Clinton administration. But in order for the Administration to do that, 
we need a strong vote in support of the Solomon resolution today.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose most-favored-nation status for China 
by supporting the Solomon resolution.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the resolution to disapprove most-favored-nation status and in support 
of normalized trade relations with China.
  Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned and often as outraged as 
many here on the floor have been about China's continued unfair trade 
practices, proliferation of nuclear and chemical arms, and human rights 
abuses. But unlike my colleagues who support this resolution, I believe 
that cutting normal trade relations will not change China for the 
better, but will, in fact, slow the pace of democratic and economic 
reforms in that country while penalizing the United States in the 
process.
  Rather than restricting trade, we should be concentrated on opening 
China's markets. We can do this by using targeted trade sanctions to 
persuade China to lower import barriers and end unfair trade practices. 
Last June, the United States and China reached an agreement that has 
shown how we can shut down illegal factories; 39 of them were done so. 
They were producing pirated software and computer disks. We need to 
take more of this kind of tough action.
  Since we have begun our policy of engagement, China has made progress 
toward halting the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological 
weapons technology, and China just recently ratified the chemical 
weapons treaty. In addition, China has agreed to a moratorium on 
nuclear testing and signed the comprehensive test ban treaty.
  Progress will continue to be made if we use diplomatic pressure and 
the prospect of economic sanctions to secure commitments by China. 
Revoking normalized trade relations will not achieve our human rights 
goals.
  Two nations in the region that once had authoritarian regimes, South 
Korea and Taiwan, now are among our strongest allies. Why? Because we 
built our relationships on trade and thereby had direct influence in 
improving human rights.
  Let us build on our relationships, let us not tear them apart. 
Keeping China as a strong trading partner is the most effective way of 
preserving our interest in a nation that has undergone massive change 
during the last 25 years. Please support the position the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Matsui] has advocated so effectively today.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, being the foremost authority on foreign 
aid in the entire House, I rise in opposition to the proposal today.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for allowing me this 
opportunity to address the House.
  I rise today in opposition to the resolution under consideration and 
in favor of normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China.
  Let me begin by stating that I have many problems with the recent 
conduct of the People's Republic of China.
  From their abysmal human rights record, to nonadherence on nuclear 
nonproliferation, to its engagement in discriminatory and unfair 
trading practices, and China has a long way to go before this conduct 
earns the respect of the United States.
  That said, however, I am also concerned that disapproving a trade 
agreement which simply extends to China the same privileges granted to 
all other nations with the exception of only seven rogue terrorist 
nations is not the most effective way for the United States to 
influence policy in China.
  While I understand and share the concerns of conservative Christians 
regarding religious persecution in China, I believe a policy of 
disengagement could potentially worsen the situation for religious 
minorities there, resulting in more, rather than less, persecution, and 
human rights violations.
  Passage of this resolution will have a seriously damaging effect on 
American business interests both here and abroad. Enacting a policy of 
trade isolationism with China would roll back the progress which has 
been made to this point, and would further undermine our diplomatic and 
economic influence in the region.
  By engaging China to open markets and supporting progressive 
democratic reforms, the United States foreign policy regarding China 
has had an impact.
  The people of China will only realize full democratization and 
liberalization of rights with the long-term, consistent involvement and 
encouragement of the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution and support our 
continued engagement with China.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, China is one of the world's major human 
rights abusers. It ranks right up there with Nigeria, Burma, Turkey, 
and the Sudan. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. Each year we 
debate MFN, we vent our anger and frustration with China and we send 
messages. I have consistently, Mr. Speaker, voted to cut off MFN. But 
nothing ever happens. And nothing will happen this year. The MFN 
approach is a legislative and policy dead end. If MFN were eliminated, 
surely it would cut off American influence in China. It might well slow 
the pace of economic freedom in China that ultimately, I believe, will 
lead to political freedom. And clearly it would hurt the common people 
of Hong Kong who have lived in freedom and under the rule of law and 
face an uncertain future under Chinese sovereignty.
  Mr. Speaker, we must move beyond the MFN exercise to a positive 
agenda for the values we believe in for all people. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] and I have joined together with a number of our 
colleagues and will introduce later this week the China Human Rights 
and Democracy Act of 1997. It will focus on increasing our broadcasts 
through Voice of America and Radio Free Asia to China to 24 hours a 
day. It will bring the truth to the Chinese people about their own 
country and about ours and about the world. It will build democracy in 
China through the National Endowment for Democracy. It will provide a 
voluntary code of conduct for U.S. businesses. It will cut off visas 
for human rights abusers and proliferators. It will provide new reports 
on human rights; a prisoner information registry; more human rights 
officers in our embassy in Beijing; a report on Chinese intelligence 
activities; and a disclosure regarding the People's Liberation Army and 
its commercial activities.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues who are so passionately for the 
rights of the Chinese people. I am still very much with them. I believe 
this exercise, however, leads nowhere and hope they will join us all in 
an effort that will really impact Chinese society and advance the cause 
of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
  Human rights, democracy, freedom and equality of opportunity are the 
values that define us as Americans and they should be reflected in our 
foreign policy.

[[Page H4270]]

  Unfortunately, the MFN debate, as well as the administration's 
policy, pits these principles against one another, dividing Congress 
and the American people, and sending a mixed message to the Chinese.
  As cochairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I have been a 
consistent and outspoken critic of the Chinese Government and its 
horrendous human rights record.
  I have always used my MFN vote to protest China's treatment of its 
citizens and its renegade foreign policy of market exploitation and 
weapons proliferation.
  Since 1994 when President Clinton formally de-linked human rights and 
MFN, the MFN debate has been an empty threat and has ceased to be an 
effective means of advancing our values within China.
  Today, we have again engaged in a heated debate that allows Members 
to vent their anger at Beijing, but does little to change Chinese 
society for the better.
  I believe that we must move beyond this annual exercise in futility 
toward a real policy which more accurately reflects and more vigorously 
promotes American ideals within China.
  For this reason, my colleague David Dreier and I have sought out 
positive and pro-active ideas from many of the leading voices on all 
sides of this issue on how we can move our China policy in a more 
productive direction.
  The legislation that has resulted from this consultation--the China 
Human Rights and Democracy Act of 1997--includes funding for 24-hour 
broadcasts into China by Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America in 
multiple languages.
  It would promote democracy-building activities in China, such as 
legal and judicial training, and expand reporting on human rights by 
the administration. Our legislation prohibits visas for human rights 
abusers and those who carry out China's irresponsible policies of 
weapons proliferation. The bill also includes a voluntary code of 
conduct for United States businesses operating in China. We would 
require expanded reporting on human rights and other important concerns 
that Members of this body have enunciated today, and increase public 
and private exchanges between the United States and China. Finally, we 
would begin the process of creating a Commission on Security and 
Cooperation in Asia--based on the successful model of the Helsinki 
Commission.
  The premise behind all these initiatives is that we can best promote 
our values by increasing our contact with the Chinese people, and 
concerns about human rights and democracy should be dealt with in a way 
that responds directly to those issues.
  The China Human Rights and Democracy Act attacks China's abusive 
policies at their roots by giving the Chinese people the tools to build 
a civil society and decrease their dependence on the Chinese 
Government.
  Economic freedom and opportunity can provide a catalyst to increased 
political freedoms, but we must not just sit around waiting for this to 
happen. We must take positive steps to bring these changes along, such 
as the China Human Rights and Democracy Act.
  Revoking MFN, however, would do nothing to accomplish this goal, and 
would make it difficult to take the kinds of actions which will bring 
China into the community of nations as a responsible member.
  Moreover, MFN revocation would devastate one of our best chances at 
changing China from within--Hong Kong, which will come under Chinese 
control this time next week. I firmly believe that Hong Kong--a place 
of freedom, the rule of law and a nascent democracy--has the potential 
to change China far more than China will change Hong Kong. If we take 
away MFN, Hong Kong will be the first casualty.
  If we want to improve the lives of the Chinese people and improve the 
human rights situation in China, we cannot promote our values 
selectively.
  Members of Congress have spoken forcefully against MFN today from 
their hearts--I respect no one in this Congress more than my colleagues 
from California, Virginia, New York, and New Jersey who have 
passionately addressed this issue today, and we have worked on these 
issues together for many years.
  I know that I will not change their minds today, but I ask that after 
this vote ends today, that we work together to end this annual debate 
and promote a more realistic approach.
  MFN revocation is a dead-end for Congress, and we have to move beyond 
sending messages to move China in the right direction. I will support 
MFN today and continue to work with all my colleagues to build a better 
approach to China. I hope that I can count on their support.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following op-ed from the Wall Street 
Journal for the Record:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, June 24, 1997]

                      Why I Changed My Mind on MFN

                        (By John Edward Porter)

       Human rights, freedom, democracy, free-market economics and 
     the rule of law are the values that define America and that 
     must be reflected in our foreign policy. Unfortunately, the 
     current MFN debate pits these principles against one another, 
     dividing Congress and the American people and sending a mixed 
     message to the Chinese leadership.
       I have been a consistent and outspoken critic of the 
     Chinese government and its deplorable human rights record. 
     China's egregious behavior is clear, and I have voted 
     repeatedly to revoke most-favored-nation trade status for 
     China to convey America's outrage over Beijing's abuses and 
     to pressure China to mend its ways. What's also become clear 
     to me, however, is that the threat of MFN withdrawal is not 
     the most effective way to advance our values within China.
       With support from successive U.S. presidents for MFN 
     renewal, the Chinese have concluded that our trade threat is 
     an empty one. Nonetheless, we continue to pursue an annual 
     debate that allows Congress to vent its anger against Beijing 
     but that does nothing to change Chinese society and move it 
     toward basic freedoms.
       Yes, a vote for MFN withdrawal sends a message. But with a 
     president committed to vetoing such a resolution, it is a 
     pointless exercise that cannot affect China's conduct. 
     Clearly, we need a new, active policy toward China and should 
     drop this annual debate.
       With this in mind, I began working six months ago to 
     develop a list of policy initiatives that could make a 
     difference within China, primarily expanded broadcasts 
     through the Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, a new radio 
     service that brings uncensored news directly to the Chinese 
     people. For the past 10 years, I've also worked closely with 
     Martin Lee and other domestic leaders in Hong Kong to ensure 
     that basic rights are protected there after June 30. I've 
     voted for legislation to establish direct U.S. ties with Hong 
     Kong in those areas where it maintains autonomy and have 
     introduced a bill to help protect Hong Kong journalists, who 
     are the first line of defense against erosion of the freedoms 
     enumerated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
       When Speaker Newt Gingrich returned from his recent trip to 
     China, he addressed the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and 
     emphasized his support for this kind of initiative. My 
     discussions with the speaker led to formation of an MFN 
     Working Group, which has brought together a group of House 
     members who share a strong commitment to human rights but who 
     have divergent views on MFN. Our goal was to come up with 
     legislative proposals that would help define an effective 
     U.S. policy toward China.
       The group is planning to introduce legislation--the China 
     Human Rights and Democracy Act--that we believe will be more 
     effective than the annual MFN debate in moving China toward 
     democracy. Passing this measure would make Congress a more 
     forceful player in the U.S.-China policy debate and encourage 
     the administration to integrate concerns about human rights 
     and democratic development into all our dealings with China.
       Our bill would increase funding for broadcasting by Radio 
     Free Asia and Voice of America, with a goal of 24-hour 
     broadcasts into China in Mandarin, Cantonese, Tibetan and 
     other Chinese dialects; increase funding for democracy-
     building activities, such as legal and judicial training, in 
     China through the National Endowment for Democracy; expand 
     State Department reporting on human rights violations and 
     political prisoners; and require disclosure of Chinese 
     companies' ties to the People's Liberation Army. Our 
     initiative also suggests the formation of a congressional 
     commission on human rights abuses in China and in other 
     repressive societies, including Vietnam, Laos, Burma and 
     North Korea.
       Furthermore, our legislation would increase both public and 
     private exchanges between the American and Chinese peoples, 
     but it would deny visas for U.S. travel to those whom the 
     State Department determines to have committed human rights 
     violations or who are involved in proliferation of weapons or 
     other sensitive technologies. Also, U.S. companies would be 
     encouraged to adopt a voluntary code of conduct, to show how 
     they treat Chinese workers and foster our values.
       The premise of these initiatives is that we can best 
     advance our values through continued contact with China. This 
     is especially true as China is about to regain sovereignty 
     over Hong Kong, a center of robust economic freedom that 
     would be devasted by MFN revocation. As we have seen in 
     Taiwan and South Korea, economic freedom ultimately leads to 
     political freedom. I believe that Hong Kong, a place of 
     freedom and the rule of law and, more recently, a place of 
     democracy, will ultimately change China much more than China 
     will change Hong Kong.
       If we want to bring China into the community of nations, we 
     cannot promote our values selectively. It is time to 
     recognize that revoking MFN is a dead-end policy that cannot 
     succeed in bringing us closer to our hopes for China. Members 
     of Congress have in past years spoken forcefully from their 
     hearts in voting to deny MFN for China. But now our minds 
     tell us that we must go beyond sending messages to move China 
     in the right direction.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H4271]]

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, there has been an awful lot of talk 
throughout this debate over the issue of sending a signal. ``Let's send 
a signal.'' They are absolutely right. There are several very important 
signals that we should be sending. For starters, in just a few days, we 
are going to see Hong Kong revert to China. We need to send a signal to 
the freedom-loving people in China that we want to maintain United 
States-China relations. In fact, the greatest apostle for freedom 
there, Martin Lee, has made it very clear in his statement that the 
nonrenewal of MFN would hurt us badly. We also need to send a signal to 
the international community, especially our closest allies in Asia.
  Bob Dole made it very clear in a piece that he wrote today in the 
Washington Times:

       Revoking MFN would engender grave doubts in all Asian 
     capitals about the wisdom of American policymakers and 
     undermine their respect for us as the guarantor of Asian 
     stability.

  We also, Mr. Speaker, need to send a very important signal to 
American citizens, American private citizens who are in China, American 
citizens there who are spreading the gospel, American business men and 
women who are on the front line pursuing capitalism and pushing our 
western values into China, and also to democratic activists, like our 
International Republican Institute, out there encouraging 
democratization at the village level. It is very important that these 
signals be sent, and the most important signal is to the people of 
China, the 1.2 billion people of China who should know that we stand 
with them. The single most powerful force in the 5,000-year history of 
China has been the economic reforms. We need to stand for MFN and in 
opposition to this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Crane] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Stark] has 5 minutes remaining; the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Matsui] has 3 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Bunning] has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining; and the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] has 3 minutes remaining.
  The first Member to close will be the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], followed by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], 
followed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], followed by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Stark]. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Crane] will close the debate.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to send signals all right, but we do not need to 
send do-gooder signals and we do not need to send feel-good signals. We 
need to send signals that the Chinese Government understands.
  Let us get one thing straight. It is important to note right now that 
nobody is talking about severing relations with China. Nobody. Nobody 
is talking about severing trade relations with China. Nobody. In fact, 
we are not even advocating permanent revocation of MFN. If we pass this 
resolution into law, there is nothing whatsoever to stop this Congress 
from renewing MFN, and I would be one of the first to help do it at a 
later date, maybe 3 months from now, 6 months from now, 7 months from 
now. That is why there is really no good reason for us to oppose this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, the status quo is simply unacceptable. As I think our 
side has outlined very forcefully here today, China's behavior remains 
repugnant, it remains dangerous to this country, and it is certainly 
unacceptable. Our current policies simply are not working.
  To recap, even the State Department says that human rights abuses are 
getting worse in China, not better. Let us not fool ourselves. A new 
round of religious persecutions is under way. That is unforgivable.
  China itself announced that its military spending will increase 15 
percent this year, and that is 50 percent over the last 4 or 5 years. 
It was just 6 months ago that China concluded a deal with Russia to 
purchase a missile which is specifically designed to kill American 
sailors.
  Mr. Speaker, would it not be worth it to delay renewing MFN for China 
for 3 months if China decided to stop buying deadly missiles from 
Russia? Would it not be worth it if China stopped religious 
persecution, even made a step in that direction? Would it not be worth 
it if a 3-month delay saved a few hundred lives? Would it not be worth 
it? Lives are precious.
  I would ask my colleagues to come over here and vote, not to cut off 
MFN for China but to delay it, so that we can sit down. The Chinese are 
the smartest people in the world. Let me tell my colleagues, we send 
this temporary measure to them, and they will sit down and we will see 
a difference. My God, would we not have a great feeling in our 
conscience if that happened?

                              {time}  1500

  Please come over and vote for this resolution.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate I yield 6\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I feel more strongly about this issue than any 
vote I have cast since I have been in this body. I want to thank all of 
the groups. I wish I can mention all of the names, but I want to thank 
the Family Research Council, I want to thank the Catholic bishops and 
the Catholic conference, I want to thank the Christian Coalition, and I 
want to thank the AFL-CIO for coming together and making this point. I 
will tell them we have won this debate, we have won it outside of this 
Chamber, and next year we will win it inside of this Chamber. The 
American people are with us. The Congress may not be with us, but the 
people are with us.
  Why should we support the Solomon resolution? The administration's 
policy is fundamentally failed. It is not true to American values. I 
will tell my colleagues it is amoral, and I personally believe that it 
is immoral.
  Why? The Catholic priests and bishops that are in jail, some for 
saying holy communion. The next time my colleagues approach the rail 
and when the pastor or the priest says we break the bread of the body 
of Christ, he remembers us and the wine for the blood of the Christ, 
think of the bishops and the priests that are in jail for doing this, 
for this very, very thing. There are Protestant pastors that are in 
jail. None of my colleagues go to house churches when they go there, 
none of my colleagues visit the prisons. The gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] and I were in Beijing Prison No. 1. We met with the 
underground church. If we can be with a church, my colleagues can be 
with a church, too.
  And what about the Buddhists, the Buddhists who have been raped, the 
nuns? Raped with a cattle prod and tortured? And what about the 
Moslems? We are a diverse country. There are 80 million Moslems in that 
country that are being persecuted, and they have more slave labor camps 
in China then thay had in the Soviet Union when Gulag Archipelago was 
written by Solzhenitsyn.
  And they have programs where they shoot prisoners and when they drop 
they cut their kidneys out and they sell them for 35 to $50,000.
  They have forced abortions. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
and I can tell our colleagues we talked to the people where they were 
told that they were tracked down and women were forced to have 
abortions.
  So why is this an immoral policy or at least an amoral policy? 
Because of those things.
  Second, the long arm of the Chinese Government has reached into our 
Government. Charlie Trie, a friend of the President has influenced this 
policy. Charlie Trie is in Beijing, probably watching this debate as 
the foreign ministry is watching this debate in Beijing. Where are the 
Riady family? They have had an influence on this policy. They have with 
money attempted and have been successful, successful in influencing 
this Government and, indirectly, this body.
  And where is John Huang? He will not come forward, and he will not 
come forward, but after my colleagues cast their vote 6 or 7 months 
from now the story will come out with regard to the influence of John 
Huang when he worked for the Government and then when he raised money 
for the Democratic National Committee.

[[Page H4272]]

  And major companies, read today's Wall Street Journal. Major 
companies, and I am not going to mention them, I do not want to 
embarrass anybody or mention any names, have been pressured, pressured 
with fear of losing business.
  So this Government has been directly influenced and this Congress has 
been indirectly influenced by the Chinese Government.
  I fear what would have happened if the same thing had been done 
during the 1970's and the 1980's with regard to the Soviet Union. What? 
Are we giving the Soviet Union MFN?
  Third, third, in the light of the military buildup the 
administration's policy is one of appeasement. It is a policy of 
appeasement that I believe with every fiber of my body. Now the 
Secretary of State will not like that because she knows better because 
she lived in Eastern Europe, she saw what communism can do. But let 
there be no mistake. This Clinton policy is a policy of appeasement.
  Now do my colleagues remember the debates in the House of Commons 
when Winston Churchill got up in the 1930's and talked about what was 
taking place in Nazi Germany. Chamberlain never listened to him, and 
the House of Commons never listened to him, and finally it was too late 
and millions of Americans and millions of British died. The same thing 
is happening with regard to this. We are going through the same 
policies that Winston Churchill went through.
  I had a briefing, and not many of my colleagues have had it. I had 
the briefing from the CIA, I have had the briefing from the DIA, and I 
have had the briefing from the Office of Naval Intelligence, and I will 
not say what one, but I said, ``Sir, can you tell me how many Members 
have had this briefing?'' I wanted him to tell me 25 or 40.
  He said, ``There were three, and you are the third.'' One is sitting 
in this Chamber now, and the other one is in the other body.
  If my colleagues have not had the DIA briefing and the CIA briefing 
and Office of Naval Intelligence, frankly those colleagues are voting 
in ignorance because all the material that they told me, and much of 
what was said on the floor, that I cannot say, really is true with 
regard to sales, the missiles, with regard to Iran and many of the 
other things. They are endangering our country, they are endangering 
our men.
  Imagine for just 1 minute being a priest, a minister or dissident in 
jail and having heard that tomorrow morning that the House of 
Representatives, the people's House, had voted to grant MFN. Can my 
colleagues imagine how demoralized they would be? The guard will 
probably come by, and I was in Beijing prison to see the conditions, 
and I was with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] in Perm Camp 
35. There are terrible conditions. Very few people have gone to those 
places. The guard will probably mock. The guard will say to the four 
bishops, ``Your American friends forgot you.'' Imagine how it would 
feel.
  But on the other hand, imagine hearing the U.S. Congress had voted to 
deny MFN, and we are not denying MFN, we are sending a message. Can my 
colleagues imagine how encouraged they would feel? Natan Shcharansky 
has said he knew that the U.S. people and the Congress and the 
Government stood with him.
  Let me just end by turning to my side. They can take care of their 
problem. We ought not be bailing out this fundamentally corrupt policy 
of this fundamentally corrupt administration. Vote to send a message to 
this administration, vote to send a message to the Chinese people, vote 
to send a message to the dissidents. Be true to American values. Ask, 
my colleagues, does this policy fit into American values? Be with the 
American people, 67 to 18. Be on the side of freedom.
  Do my colleagues remember, those who were here when Ronald Reagan 
gave the Evil Empire speech? In Orlando, FL, he was criticized by many 
on that side and many in the press, but it was the right speech, where 
he stood out with regard to religious freedom and evangelicals. And do 
my colleagues remember when Ronald Reagan gave his speech at the Berlin 
Wall? The State Department said, ``Mr. Reagan, don't mention the Berlin 
Wall,'' and Ronald Reagan said in that speech because he knew what he 
believed in and he knew the values; Ronald Reagan said:
  ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down the wall.''
  And the wall came down.
  When Thomas Jefferson wrote the words in the Declaration of 
Independence, he said,

       We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and 
     women are created equal and endowed by their Creator, by God, 
     with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty and the 
     pursuit of happiness.

  Those words were not only meant for Virginians, they were not only 
meant for Americans, they were meant for people in the gulags of China, 
they were meant for the dissidents, they were meant for the entire 
world.
  I beg of my colleagues if they are undecided, I plead with them, 
support the Solomon amendment so when the priests tomorrow hear, when 
the bishops tomorrow hear, when the dissidents tomorrow hear, they will 
know that the people's House has sent a message to the Chinese 
Government: We will no longer permit this to take place, and I strongly 
urge the support of the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 79 to 
revoke most-favored-nation status for China. Unconditional MFN forms 
the backbone of the President Clinton's China policy--a policy which I 
believe has been a failure. The administration's policy is 
fundamentally amoral and not true to American values.
  Why?
  First, human rights abuses continue and are worsening. They have not 
improved despite our so-called policy of engagement * * * not that 
there has been much engagement.
  Catholic priests and bishops are in jail--more and more go in each 
day for practicing their faith outside of Government control. Many have 
been arrested just for giving mass or administering the sacraments. In 
April, just before the visit to China of the congressional delegation 
headed by the Speaker and the visit by Vice President Al Gore, the 
Chinese arrested the bishop of Shanghai, ransacked his house and 
confiscated all his religious material.
  Protestant pastors and house church leaders are still being thrown in 
jail in record numbers. Beatings and torture are routine. Some reports 
indicate that Christians are being tortured in a prayerful position--
they are forced to kneel in a praying position which they are viciously 
beaten and their feet are crushed.
  Buddhist monks and nuns are tortured and killed. Tibet has been 
plundered. The Panchen Lama has been kidnapped and replaced by a puppet 
from Beijing.
  Muslims in the northwest corner of China are being persecuted.
  All dissidents are behind bars, in exile, in labor camps or under 
house arrest. The Chinese Government has stifled all dissent.
  There are more slave labor camps in China than in the Soviet Union 
when Alexander Solzehnitsyn wrote his famous book ``The Gulag 
Archipelago.''
  The Chinese Government shoots prisoners and takes their kidneys and 
corneas for transplantation.
  Forced abortions and sterilizations continue.
  There is more.
  The long arm of the Chinese Government has directly influenced the 
Clinton administration and has indirectly influenced this Congress.
  Charlie Trie is an Arkansas friend of President Clinton's. He is now 
in Beijing and doesn't seem to be coming back. He helped raise 
political contributions and sway policy. Big time.
  The Riady family left the country after allegations of campaign 
finance improprieties. They attempted to sway policy. Maybe they did 
sway it. They surely spent enough money trying.
  John Huang worked in the Clinton administration and raised money for 
President Clinton's 1996 campaign. Many think he passed information on 
to those closest to the Chinese Government. He helped sway policy.
  Big companies have been silent on human rights, religious freedom and 
democracy and are being directly pressured by the Chinese Government. 
These companies are afraid to lose business so they exert pressure on 
the U.S. political process in favor of American silence on human 
rights.
  The Chinese Government bought the world's silence at the U.N. Human 
Rights Commission in Geneva by doling out lucrative contracts to 
countries that refuse to support an EU-sponsored resolution condemning 
China's human rights practices.
  Imagine if the Soviet Union had tried to exert this kind of influence 
on our Government. Would we have turned around and given them MFN?
  Third, the policy the United States is pursuing toward China, in 
light of China's massive

[[Page H4273]]

military buildup and weapons proliferation, is one of appeasement. We 
are closing our eyes just as Neville Chamberlain did in England in the 
1930's when faced with another aggressive power.
  Winston Churchill spoke up in the Parliament, but the Chamberlain 
government did not listen. Now there is a new bully in town.
  The Chinese Government is building up its military--some say United 
States trade and technology are helping provide needed resources. China 
is selling chemical weapons, missiles, and nuclear technology which 
could pose a future threat to the United States and its allies.
  If you did not get the briefing by the Defense Intelligence Agency 
and the Office of Naval Intelligence--you don't have all the 
information. I strongly urge all my colleagues to get these briefings. 
You owe it to yourself and your country to know exactly what China is 
doing.
  China sold chemical weapons and cruise missiles to Iran. China sold 
nuclear technology to Pakistan.
  China is engaged in a military buildup and becoming a threat to our 
future security. It is developing ICBM missiles capable of hitting the 
United States, our allies in Asia, or our military installations in the 
Pacific. China also purchased 46 American supercomputers which 
intelligence experts say can be used to design nuclear warheads to put 
on the long-range missiles.
  I believe that American men and women may soon be in danger because 
of our current policy of appeasement toward the Beijing regime. 
Appeasement didn't work for Neville Chamberlain in the 1930's and it 
will not work for the United States in the 1990's.
  MFN is the backbone of a failed policy. A policy of appeasement. A 
policy that is amoral because it suggests engagement and yet, does not 
engage. And a policy that is, and will continue to be, dangerous to our 
national security.
  What is needed is real backbone, not appeasement.
  Imagine if you were a priest or pastor who was in jail. You had been 
beaten or tortured or starved. You had been forced to endure 
backbreaking labor. Imagine you heard that the United States Congress 
had again granted MFN to China--imagine how discouraged you would feel.
  But what if you, a jailed pastor or priest, hear tomorrow on your 
crystal radio set that the United States House of Representatives, the 
People's House, voted to deny MFN to China. Wouldn't you feel 
encouraged? I would and that's why I'm voting for the Solomon 
resolution.
  To my colleagues on my side of the aisle. I hope you will vote to 
deny MFN to China.
  It is important to be true to American values.
  It is important to be with the American people who overwhelmingly, in 
poll after poll, support linking trade to human rights improvements. 
The most recent poll, a Harris poll released yesterday in Business Week 
magazine, found that 67 percent of Americans oppose MFN for China. Only 
18 percent favor it. A vote against MFN is a vote on the side of the 
American people.
  I encourage those on my side of the aisle to be with the legacy of 
Ronald Reagan who refused to grant MFN to the Soviet Union while it 
persecuted people of faith. He engaged but he didn't appease. He spoke 
out for American values and stood with the persecuted when he called 
the Soviet Union the evil empire and demanded Mr. Gorbachev, tear down 
this wall.
  Be on the side of history. Vote to deny MFN to China and send a 
message to the Chinese Government, to the Chinese people, and to all 
persecuted people around the world that the words of Thomas Jefferson 
in the Declaration of Independence are for them.
  These principles of freedom, ``We hold these truths to be self-
evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their 
Creator with certain unalienable rights among them life, liberty and 
the pursuit of happiness'' apply to all people. Not just Virginians or 
Americans or Westerners. These rights are for all people, including the 
people of China. That's the message we would send by voting to deny MFN 
in the House.
  Vote ``no'' on MFN for China.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes, the balance of our time, 
to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding this time to me.
  I rise in opposition to the Solomon resolution of disapproval. The 
resolution before us today presents a fundamental choice about our 
relationship with China. Do we choose a policy of engagement, or do we 
choose a policy of isolation?
  Now some have argued in this Chamber today to end normal trade 
relations with China and still pursue a relationship with China. I do 
not think that argument can be sustained. To withdraw normal trade 
relations is to declare economic warfare against China. We cannot 
declare economic war against China and then expect China to play by our 
rules on political security and proliferation and human rights matters. 
Political engagement and economic cooperation with China go hand in 
hand. We cannot separate them.
  Now I support an engagement policy because I think it is in the 
American national interests, and I yield to no person in this Chamber 
in my concern for human rights. Engagement is not appeasement. It does 
not mean ignoring our differences with China. It means actively 
engaging China to resolve the differences. It means hard bargaining. It 
means, as the administration did, sending two aircraft carrier groups 
into the Taiwan Straits last year. It means threatening to impose 
sanctions because of Chinese violations of intellectual property 
rights. It means imposing sanctions on Chinese companies because of 
their violation of nonproliferation laws.
  Engagement works. Engagement has produced a number of successes in 
the nonproliferation area. They have been identified here during the 
afternoon.
  Engagement works. China was instrumental in convincing North Korea to 
sign the agreed framework freezing North Korea's nuclear program.
  Engagement works. Every Member of this Chamber is proud of what 
happened in the gulf war and how this body conducted itself. Without 
China's cooperation in the U.N. Security Council, it would not have 
been possible to fashion the international coalition that defeated Iraq 
in that war.
  Engagement works. Millions of Chinese have had their lives improved 
because of this engagement. Exposure to the outside world and the 
accompanying exchange of goods and ideas and people have brought 
increased openness, social mobility and personal opportunities to the 
Chinese. It is not a perfect country, it is far from it, we got plenty 
of concerns about their human rights, and they are valid concerns. But 
we got to get a perspective of a couple of decades here and see how 
China has evolved. Four hundred million new people in China since Nixon 
went to China in 1972.
  Engagement works. It is meant that we use our trade laws to attack 
Chinese trade barriers and to help American enterprises export.
  Engagement works. Our law enforcement authorities work together to 
combat terrorism and alien smuggling and illegal narcotics, 
trafficking.
  Engagement works on environmental and public health issues.
  Engagement has not solved all the problems, of course not. We got 
plenty of concerns left with China, but it has a proven record of 
bringing China, moving China, toward international norms. It offers a 
better prospect of achieving our policy objectives, including a respect 
for human rights, than isolation or containment. If we vote today to 
revoke China's normal trading status, we will undermine our ability to 
work with China in the future and we will damage a broad range of 
interests that this country has at home, in China, in the region and 
around the world. Revoking MFN will almost certainly make the human 
rights situation in China worse, not better. It will undermine the 
reformers. It will strengthen the hard liners. It will slow the flow of 
Western culture and ideas.

                              {time}  1515

  Our influence would be reduced. If we revoke MFN, we undermine our 
stature throughout Asia; Hong Kong's transition will be more difficult. 
Let us, my friends in this Chamber, follow the advice of three former 
Presidents, six former Secretaries of State, 10 former Secretaries of 
Defense, and support normal trading status for China. I urge the defeat 
of the Solomon resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes, the remaining time, to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished minority 
leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this is a debate today that is not simply 
about economics and trade, it is a debate about principle and value and 
belief. This country was founded not on economic principles and not on 
economic

[[Page H4274]]

ideas, but on moral beliefs that have for over 200 years radiated out 
of this country. As the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] said a 
moment ago, the revolutionary words that appear in our Declaration of 
Independence was the starting place of this country, which is an idea 
for all people.
  We said, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 
created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain 
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness.'' When we made those words, we did not say they were 
American rights, we said they were universal rights.
  And almost 50 years from the date those words were signed, Thomas 
Jefferson said this: ``May it be to the world what I believe it will be 
to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally, to all, the signal 
of arousing men to burst their chains.''
  In 1986 on the floor of this House a Member who is on the floor today 
said these words: ``I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, Members of this 
body, human beings do not live by bread alone, that there are spiritual 
values, the right to stand as a dignified human being, the right to 
stand as an equal person. I would suggest that wherever you are on the 
political spectrum you should join me in this effort, not to make a 
statement that is measured, not to make an incremental step, not to 
make a step that is a political step, but to make the statement at this 
point based upon what is right.''
  He said, ``I am simply saying that every human being on this planet 
should have control over their human destiny.''
  The Member who said those words is the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums], and he was not saying those words about China, he said them 
about South Africa. The freedom movement in South Africa started on 
this floor, and Members of this House of Representatives stood in this 
well time and time again and argued for the end of apartheid and the 
beginning of freedom in South Africa. I dare say had they not stood in 
this place and made that argument over and over again, Nelson Mandela 
would be in prison today. And all the arguments we are hearing now were 
made then.
  The policy we had with South Africa was called constructive 
engagement. People said we would lose contracts; people said other 
countries would never follow; people said it would hurt the good people 
in South Africa who were trying to break free; people said our 
businesses would not be there to change that government. But the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and Bill Gray and other Members 
of this body stood tall and fought for sanctions against South Africa, 
and Nelson Mandela stood at that podium, the president of the country, 
and talked about freedom.
  I say to my colleagues, the policy that we are following is not 
working. We need firm engagement, not constructive engagement. I know 
all of the good arguments that are made, and I respect the people who 
make them very much. First of all they say, well, trade helps us with 
human rights.
  Listen to what our own State Department says about what is happening 
in China. They say, ``All public dissent against the party and the 
government was effectively silenced by intimidation, exile, the 
imposition of prison terms, administrative detention or house arrest. 
No dissidents were known to be active at year's end.'' This is at the 
end of last year.
  ``Even those released from prison were kept under tight surveillance 
and often prevented from taking employment or otherwise resuming a 
normal life.'' That is our own government, our own State Department 
saying whether or not the policy is working.
  Then they say human rights and trade should be separated. They are 
different issues. We have to trade, and then we can talk about human 
rights. Does anybody argue that we should separate intellectual 
property protection from trade? Has any businessperson stood up and 
said, forget about my intellectual property rights, let us just go 
ahead and trade. Of course they do not.
  Mr. Speaker, do we not understand trade issues are human rights 
issues? What are we trying to do? We are trying to build a world 
trading system. How can we ever do that if people do not have human 
rights? Who is going to ever be in China to buy any of our products? 
They will never have enough money to do it. And we expose our 
businesses and our people to this unfair competition. You bet human 
rights is a trade issue.
  Then we hear, do not make China an enemy. What a crazy argument. I do 
not want China to be our enemy, that is the last thing in the world we 
want. But we are saying. By arguing that if we do not give MFN, most-
favored-nation treatment, the treatment we give to the most favored 
nations, that somehow we have made them an enemy. That is ridiculous. 
We can trade with China.
  Do my colleagues think China is not going to trade with the United 
States? They have a $40 billion trade surplus with us. We are carrying 
China. They have a trade deficit with every other country in the world. 
We are literally financing their form of government by our insistence 
on giving them most-favored-nation treatment.
  Finally, we say we will lose business. We will lose business. Let me 
end where I started. This country is not just about business. This 
country is about an idea, a moral belief that every human being in the 
world is created with liberty and freedom. If we do not stand for 
freedom in China, who will? If we do not lead for freedom in China, who 
will follow? When will we start this fight as we started it with South 
Africa? Maybe we start it today.
  Listen to this letter that was sent by the parents of a third grade 
young girl, near here in Baltimore, Maryland. She was writing about Wei 
Jingsheng. As you know, Wei Jingsheng has been in jail for 14 years in 
China because he dared to speak out. He spoke in the universal language 
of the Declaration of Independence and said human rights, like freedom 
of speech, press, assembly, and appeal to the government, are 
inalienable rights belonging to the people, the masters of the country. 
For saying that he was put in jail and he has been in jail for 14 
years, like Nelson Mandela was in jail.
  Mr. Speaker, this girl said, ``I wish all American citizens would 
help in this struggle for what is right. I want him to get out of 
prison and return to his family and get healthy soon.'' A third grader 
speaking of the moral beliefs and ideas that are the founding 
wellspring of this greatest country that has ever existed on earth.
  Six days after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, Lech Walesa spoke here 
to a joint session and he said, ``We, the people. I do need not remind 
anyone here where those words come from. And I do not need to explain 
that I, an electrician from Gdansk, am also entitled to invoke them.''
  I say to my colleagues there is as an electrician this afternoon in a 
jail in Beijing, and his name is Wei Jingsheng, and he wants to get out 
and be free just like Lech Walesa did and just like Nelson Mandela did. 
De Toqueville said America is great because America is good, and if we 
cease being good, he said we will cease being great.
  Representatives of the people of this country, stand today and be 
good, and stand for what is right and stand for the founding principle 
of this country, and we will bring freedom to China as we brought it to 
Lech Walesa and Nelson Mandela. Stand against most-favored-nation 
treatment. Stand to send a message to the leaders in Beijing. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this resolution.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have listened to some very eloquent testimony on both sides, and I 
think this Chamber has represented that today more than maybe most 
days, evidence of what our system is all about in terms of our 
exchanges on a bipartisan basis. But let me focus very briefly on why I 
think extension of normal trade relations with China is so important.
  If we go back to the Great Leap Forward, and that was with total 
government-managed control of that economy, there were 60 million 
Chinese that starved to death. We can condemn Deng Xiaoping for a lot 
of things, but one thing that he will be most remembered for is as the 
initiator of what he called Leninist capitalism, the ultimate oxymoron. 
But he did advance free enterprise in mainland China, and free 
enterprise has expanded so dramatically that our concern as a people,

[[Page H4275]]

which is not the government, it is the Chinese people over there, and 
bear in mind that of 1.2 billion, only 40 million of them are allegedly 
Communists, and I think they are too bright even to be Communists, I 
think they are just bright pragmatists that have got a good thing going 
for themselves.
  But the fact of the matter is, more Chinese people today are enjoying 
a higher standard of living than ever before in the history of China, 
in its 5,000 years, and that is continuing to expand dramatically, and 
it is because of their commitment to free enterprise.
  Now, we want to aid and abet and help them in that effort, to be 
sure, and that is why maintaining our contacts and our business 
contacts is a good idea. As Ben Franklin said, a good example is the 
best sermon. We are providing the best sermon by our presence over 
there in mainland China, and that is continuing to improve the lot for 
all of the Chinese people.
  I would urge my colleagues to recognize that there are alternative 
ways to address legitimate questions that have come up about arms 
transfers, legitimate questions that come up about human rights 
violations, but harking back to the original reference to our 
inalienable rights to life, liberty and property, Thomas Jefferson was 
absolutely correct. I mean he used that phrase, ``pursuit of 
happiness,'' but it was property.

                              {time}  1530

  The fact of the matter is, how do you enjoy life if you do not eat? 
That means having access to property and expanding and improving that 
access, especially in terms of food, shelter, and clothing. That is 
happening at an unprecedented rate over there.
  The last remaining issue to be addressed through that is liberty, but 
that is where our presence can set that good example. I would urge my 
colleagues to vote down the well-intentioned resolution of disapproval, 
and to guarantee that we continue what is sound policy into the future, 
and holds the greatest hope we have ever had in our post-World War II 
relations with mainland China; namely, normal trade relations.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 79, the resolution to disapprove extension of MFN for China. 
I have serious concerns about China's overall human rights record. 
However, if we do not have engagement we will be doing more harm than 
good--how do we isolate 1.2 billion people? We have tried isolation and 
it did not work. In arriving at this decision, I found particularly 
compelling the words of Rev. Billy Graham who said ``we must do all we 
can to strengthen our relationship with China. It is far better to 
treat it as a friend, than to treat it as an adversary.'' I believe it 
is in North Carolina's best interest to engage China and build on our 
strengths rather than damage a trade relationship which other nations 
will vigorously pursue in our absence.
  Exports, especially in the agriculture sector, are essential to North 
Carolina's economy. China represents a large and growing market for our 
goods and services. This market supports thousands of jobs here at 
home. Agricultural exports to China from the United States have grown 
from $333 million in 1993 to $2 billion in 1996 and the prospect of 
future growth is tremendous. Every $1 billion in additional exports 
creates nearly 20,000 new, high-wage jobs in the United States. For 
North Carolina, which exports $544 million--ninth among U.S. States--in 
goods a year to China--$297 million--and Hong Kong--$247 million--
engaging China through trade will provide jobs for North Carolina's 
workers and help ensure our economic success into the next century. I 
also believe it will allow us to press for better human rights policies 
as we increase our economic involvement.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 79, China, disapproval of most-favored-nation [MFN] trade 
treatment for China.
  My vote against this resolution--a vote to continue MFN for China--is 
not without deliberation.
  I am deeply concerned about the continuing allegations that China has 
not made sufficient progress in their human rights and democracy reform 
efforts. Both the State Department and prominent international 
organizations such as Amnesty International cite the persistence of 
jailed and exiled Chinese dissidents. However, I believe that the human 
rights issues must be approached independently of our trade 
relationship with China.
  MFN is not foreign aid. The United States grants MFN--which is normal 
trade status--to nearly 100 countries, and every President since 1980 
has annually renewed MFN for China. MFN to China means that we grant 
them normal tariff status. This is a policy that the United States 
grants to all but a handful of countries--Cuba, North Korea, 
Afghanistan, Laos, and Vietnam. In fact, countries such as Iran, Iraq, 
Libya, Syria, and Burma--where many believe there continues to be abuse 
of human rights--receive MFN treatment.
  I want to see the administration work more aggressively to encourage 
human rights and religious freedom in China. But I do not believe that 
denying MFN to China will achieve that goal. Cutting off normal trade 
relations with China will only further isolate a country with one-
quarter of the world's population.
  China continues to grow as one of the United States' main trading 
partners. U.S. exports to China have almost quadrupled in the last 10 
years. Exports to China support more than 17,000 jobs in the United 
States that, on average, pay 13 to 16 percent more than nonexport jobs. 
As key industries in the United States, such as telecommunications, 
grow, we need to maintain trade policy that will increase market access 
and ensure that U.S. companies have opportunities in those emerging 
markets. Illinois, for example, has benefited from trade with China. 
Over the last 2 years, exports from Illinois to China have increased 9 
percent to $1.6 billion. And this trade growth contributes to nearly 
600,000 export-related jobs in the State.
  And while these benefits are significant, I continue to be concerned 
about the data regarding China's reliance on prison labor to 
manufacture many of its exports. Since the early 1990's, in responses 
to charges that Chinese political prisoners were used to manufacture 
goods for export to the United States, the administration--through the 
Customs and State Department--began investigating these charges. Our 
Government signed a memorandum of understanding [MOU] with China in 
1992 to facilitate inspection of Chinese prisons. And continued 
allegations of using prison labor led the administration to tighten 
procedures for investigations and visits under the memorandum. I am 
aware that Chinese cooperation in implementing the memorandum falls 
short of being satisfactory. But the administration is committed to 
fully enforce the terms of the agreement. Since the MOU took effect, 
U.S. Customs officials have made 58 referrals to the Chinese Ministry 
of Justice for further investigation. And according to the 
administration, Customs has obtained two prison labor-related 
convictions. I believe that continuing normal MFN for China will 
facilitate the enforcement of the MOU.
  As a Member of Congress, I will vigilantly monitor the progress of 
human rights, workers' rights, and political democracy in China. I am 
deeply committed to these values. However, I do not believe that the 
resolution we are voting on today, is the proper arena to debate these 
issues; nor is revocation of MFN the most effective way to influencing 
internal Chinese policies. I believe that a more comprehensive approach 
will serve as a better means to bringing about a change in Chinese 
policy, particularly in terms of human rights. In America's dealings 
with China, history has shown that a more moderate approach is most 
effective.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, fellow colleagues, I rise in 
opposition to the resolution and in support of extending MFN treatment 
to China. The term MFN refers to the normal, nondiscriminatory tariff 
treatment that the United States provides to all its trading partners. 
It is the cornerstone of commercial relations between the United States 
and any foreign country. MFN status is not a concession and does not 
mean that China is getting preferable treatment. Rather, MFN status 
means that China and the United States grant each other the same--no 
less favorable--tariff treatment that they provide to other countries 
with MFN status. The United States provides special tariff preferences 
to a few selected trading partners under the NAFTA, United States-
Israel Free Trade Agreement, Caribbean Basin Initiative, Andean Pact, 
and the Generalized System of Preferences program. Eligible imports 
from these countries enter the United States duty-free or are subject 
to duties lower than the MFN rate. China is not eligible for any form 
of preferential or special treatment. It is only getting the same type 
of treatment that we extend to other countries.
  Terminating China's MFN status would seriously affect virtually all 
trade between the two countries, eliminate some of it, and result in 
higher prices for U.S. consumers and possible losses for U.S. exporters 
and lead to a significant downgrading of bilateral relations. Hence, 
carrying out a threat to terminate China's MFN status could 
significantly damage United States-China economic as well as political 
relations. The United States is the only country that conditions MFN 
status for China. If the United States terminated China's MFN status, 
it is highly doubtful United States allies would follow suit. 
Furthermore, American workers benefit most from an extension of most-
favored-nation status for China. In 1996, United States exports to 
China were valued at $12

[[Page H4276]]

billion, and of almost 200 United States trading partners, China ranked 
15th as an export market for American goods. If MFN were conditioned or 
withdrawn, the United States would unilaterally impose higher tariffs 
on Chinese goods, and Beijing would almost likely take its business 
elsewhere. Thus, because every 1 billion dollars' worth of exports 
creates approximately 19,000 jobs in the U.S., the loss of exports to 
China would put 228,000 American jobs directly at risk. Also, MFN 
revocation would increase tariffs on imports from China trade-weighted 
average of about 6 percent to an estimated 44 percent. MFN revocation, 
even accounting for changes in trade flows, will require U.S. consumers 
to pay upward of half-a-billion dollars more each year for goods such 
as shoes, clothing, and small appliances subject to increased tariffs. 
In addition, the costs of goods manufactured in the United States with 
Chinese components could increase, reducing the competitiveness of the 
finished goods.
  I sympathize with the victims of the many atrocious practices that 
China has engaged with in the past. I also agree with the rationale of 
many of my colleagues who seek to revoke China's MFN status due to its 
human rights violations. However, revoking China's MFN status is too 
drastic and most likely would prove to be counterproductive.

  I would like to remind my colleagues of an old maxim, ``Judge not, 
that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be 
judged: and with what measured ye mete, it shall be measured to you 
again.''
  If we want a more humane, China that shows respect for her own 
people, who are some of the most creative, artistic, brilliant people 
on this Earth, we had better be prepared to lead by first showing China 
what it takes to be a superpower. Power is not dictated by the ability 
to say no, most often it is the ability to say yes under the most 
difficult circumstances. We must pause to consider that the measure of 
the right of our social, political, and economic systems are far 
greater than the sum of all of our arguments regarding the atrocities 
in that distant land. By the sheer force of this country united under 
God we will teach, preach, and reach every corner of China with the 
messages and symbols that translate into over 200 years of success that 
the American experience has been.
  MFN is not a reward; nor is it a special treatment that results in 
special trade privileges. MFN simply refers to the nondiscriminatory 
treatment of trading partners, which has long been a basic principle of 
international trade. While China clearly has violated numerous trade 
agreements in the past, the best way to secure Chinese compliance is to 
engage the Chinese Government, not isolate it.
  Furthermore, the strongest case for keeping United States trade 
relations with China is made by Hong Kong and Taiwan's political and 
business leadership. They argue, if the United States breaks the trade 
tether to Beijing, it will undermine future economic and human rights 
for the Chinese people for years to come. Hong Kong's British Governor 
Chris Patten and prodemocracy leader Martin Lee have come out 
forcefully against using China's trade status as a way of showing 
United States displeasure with its human rights abuses. Chinese human 
rights leaders elsewhere are opposed to using trade as leverage against 
their country because they believe; First, it will not work, and 
second, stronger economic ties to the West and private-sector expansion 
will lead to an expanded middle class, greater political freedoms, and 
eventually a democratic system of government.
  MFN status for China cannot be compared to the decision by the 
Congress to place sanctions on South Africa. South Africa's regime was 
based on a policy of discrimination based on race and race alone. In 
China the battle is of tolerance of thoughts and ideas, not of skin 
color or complexion.
  We must consider that Hong Kong and Taiwan have been investing 
heavily in China's emerging capitalist system and they see increased 
United States trade ties as the linchpin in the dramatic economic 
changes going throughout the mainland. Now that historic transfer is at 
hand we should not abandon the people of Taiwan during this critical 
transition period.
  Extension of MFN is an importnt step in preserving Hong Kong's 
prosperity and freedom. Today, the Chinese economy is the fastest 
growing in the world. While many Chinese remain poor peasants, few go 
hungry and hundreds of millions of Chinese have seen their lives 
substantially improved through economic reform. Many Chinese people 
enjoy greater material wealth and a greater degree of personal economic 
freedom. Market reform is the single most powerful force for positive 
change in China in this century and possibly in the country's long 
history. In fact, economic reform has helped to lift hundreds of 
millions of hard-working people from desperate poverty, giving them 
choices and opportunities never available before. Thus, hundred of 
millions of hard-working people have access to information and contact 
with Western values through technologies spreading across the country, 
thanks to economic reform and the growth it created.

  China has made good faith efforts to comply with the concerns of the 
United States. For example, in 1995, the United States reached a 
historic agreement with China on the enforcement of Intellectual 
Property Rights, particularly copyrights, trademarks, and improved 
market access for United States copyright industries ranging from 
computer software and motion pictures to publishing and sound 
recordings. China has also made commitments to strengthen the 
enforcement at its borders and to close plants engaged in piracy.
  The people of Hong Kong strongly support a full one-year extension of 
MFN. If China loses MFN, Hong Kong would lose a colossal amount of 
business. United States economic growth in international trade would be 
halved and our unemployment would be doubled. Also, business confidence 
would be hit hard. If the United States is concerned about the 
handover, then the best thing is to assure the community by making sure 
that nothing happens to Hong Kong. The fundamental question for 
renewing MFN treatment to China is, if China's trade status were 
denied, would the impact in the long run be good or harmful for the 
Chinese and American people and, in particular, for improving China's 
human rights?
  My fellow colleagues, I have debated long and hard over this issue, 
and while I do have reservations about providing MFN treatment to China 
while they continue to engage in abusive actions, I believe that the 
most efficient way to combat these abuses is to ensure that the 
grassroots of the Chinese population is exposed to Western ideals and 
financial stability. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of extending 
MFN treatment to China.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint 
Resolution 79, and in opposition to the extension of most-favored-
nation [MFN] status to China. The failure of current policies to yield 
significant improvements in Chinese behavior, both at home and abroad, 
signals the need for Congress to chart a new course. MFN may not be the 
ideal vehicle but it is the most powerful mechanism we have to move 
China into compliance with internationally accepted norms. The United 
States represents 40 percent of China's export market, an amount equal 
to 2 or 3 percent of its gross domestic product. U.S. markets and 
purchasing power are irreplaceable. Because trade is the only weapon in 
our arsenal that China still pays attention to, we must use our 
economic power and influence as leverage to positively impact Chinese 
behavior and to advance fundamental United States interests in China.
  As the world's most populous country, China boasts one of the most 
rapidly growing markets in the entire world. Yet despite MFN status, 
China remains a dictatorial society governed by a Communist oligarchy 
hardly a monolith but China uniformly continues to deny market access 
to the majority of American goods and products. Countries that do not 
abide by universally accepted rules and regulations forfeit privileges 
and rights in the global trading arena. MFN would grant Chinese goods 
the normal level of access and protection afforded to members of the 
World Trade Organization [WTO]. With rights and privileges come 
responsibilities, particularly the need to abide by international 
norms. China's behavior--whether through the abuse of human rights or 
worker protections or through the erection of trade barriers--has 
indicated that it fails to merit a normal trading relationship with 
other members of the WTO. Regular trade with the United States is not 
the right of a nation that violates basic economic and human rights 
standards.
  However, the numbers bear witness to the fact that our trading 
relationship with China is anything but normal or reciprocal. The 
average United States MFN tariff on Chinese goods is 3 percent while 
the average Chinese MFN tariff on United States goods is a staggering 
35 percent. Granting MFN year after year has unfortunately produced no 
reciprocity in trade policy. It has however, produced an enormous trade 
deficit, that is on target to surpass our trade deficit with Japan 
sometime this year. China has argued that as a developing country it 
should be granted special exemptions and allowances; however, a 
developing country that registered a $40 billion trade surplus with the 
United States in 1996, should not be the recipient of such markedly 
underserved charity, especially in consideration of their total 
behavior.
  China's one-way trade policy and the accelerating trade deficit 
highlight that the promise of future massive payoffs is a mirage. In 
1996, the United States exported fewer goods to China than it did to 
relatively small markets such as Belgium and the Netherlands. Our 
exports are increasing at a more rapid rate in the stagnant economies 
of the European Union than they are in the dynamic Chinese economy. The 
situation in Japan has shown how difficult overcoming protectionist 
policies and reducing trade deficits can be. It is in our interest to 
avoid similar problems with China,

[[Page H4277]]

which potentially will represent a far larger market than Japan.
  America businesses are being forced to offer major concessions to 
Chinese state planners, often technology and investment, in order to 
gain access to potential Chinese customers. By supplying China with 
state-of-the-art technology, United States firms are shipping jobs 
overseas that would otherwise remain at home if China were to allow the 
unfettered entry of foreign goods. Through the extension of MFN we are 
exporting to China the capability to develop domestic industries 
establishing export platforms of what are today United States products 
will be sent around the world.
  The technologies of American business partners, means that even the 
limited United States goods and products will be abandoned in favor of 
indigenous enterprises that are being made in China. Trade policy 
should be facilitating the export of goods, not jobs, and a fundamental 
message policymakers must bear in mind, is that the current trade 
phenomena threatens the job security of American workers and means that 
United States investment in China receive the safe harbor treatment, 
positive trade status insures and encourages yet more United States 
investment to the point that action to counter isn't possible.
  All workers and members of Chinese society should equally share in 
the profits of economic growth in China. However, the reality is that 
the benefits are reserved for the few in order to suppress the freedoms 
of the many. Accordingly, human rights violations have actually 
increased--not decreased--since we have adopted the policy of 
constructive engagement. China continues to deliberately and 
consciously deny its citizens basic human rights. Virtually all 
dissidents are either in exile, in jail, or under house arrest. Workers 
still cannot form an employee union of their own choosing, nor 
undertake any legal action to challenge abysmal working conditions. 
Instead of investing in its people, the Chinese Government is using the 
added income from the burgeoning United States-China trade surplus to 
consolidate its stronghold on the diverse cultures of the Chinese 
people. China's $40 billion trade surplus has enabled the Government to 
increase national defense spending by 40 percent since 1990. As the 
United States and Russia are cutting military expenditures, China is 
pursuing efforts to purchase new generations of high-technology 
weaponry and exporting outside their borders to terrorist countries 
helping such as Iran to realize its dreams of nuclear capabilities. 
Only China has nuclear missiles aimed toward the United States, yet we 
continue to reward the Chinese Government committed to building 
military capabilities rather than individual liberties with MFN status.
  In the race for the fabled profits of the Chinese market, we have 
cast away both United States national interests and principles. Trade 
policy without conscience has not satisfied the Chinese population's 
hunger for personal and civil liberties. There is no question that 
granting China MFN status will benefit larger American companies; 
however, it will adversely impact small businesses and accelerate the 
decline of the United States manufacturing base. United States economic 
and trade policy clearly is the ugly American theme revisited in China. 
And at home no amount of profit can replace a job lost or restore the 
damage done to U.S. communities. We need a trade strategy with China 
that balances the interests and values of companies, workers, families, 
and communities. We must solidify our commitment to upholding democracy 
and human rights and abandon policies that assume the interests of 
international corporations are identical to the U.S. national interest 
as a whole.
  Many lament that trade policy alone will not bring about the changes 
sought that it is inadequate, but we must try to isolate and lead, 
unless the United States of America. The global leader is ready to led 
others will fall into our economic shadow of indifference.
  Trade relations with China are so complex that they understandably 
defy easy solutions. In order to craft an effective and comprehensive 
trade policy with China, we need more options and flexibility than the 
yes/no decision being made today. Extending MFN for a year sends to 
China the dangerous signal of business as usual: That there are no 
consequences for irresponsible, inhumane, and unfair behavior. Denial 
of MFN trade status is a dramatic step, on the other hand, could result 
in the reciprocal and humane treatment that past policies have failed 
to produce. The most effective way to forcefully advance United States 
interests and to embark upon a new era of United States-China relations 
is to vote ``yes'' on this resolution and not extend normal trade 
status to China and then back that up with action not rhetoric.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to see China change. I am tired of 
waiting for China to improve its human rights record, to stop 
repressing the people of Tibet, to allow civil liberties and public 
dissent, and to stop persecuting religious minorities. I'm deeply 
disturbed by China's arms sales to Pakistan and Iran. If I could, I 
would push a button, cast my vote, and make the Chinese Government 
change its ways.
  So I understand the appeal of voting for this resolution. It would be 
very satisfying, for a few minutes, to feel that I did something, that 
the Congress did something, to make China change.
  But I have to step back and ask whether revoking most-favored-nation 
[MFN] trading status to China would have the desired effect, and if 
not, what will. I don't think passing this resolution will make China 
change.
  This cannot be just a one-sided debate. We must consider not only the 
areas where we have real and heartfelt disagreement with the Chinese 
Government's actions and policies, but also those often complex areas 
where Chinese cooperation with the United States has had and will have 
enormous consequences. And there are important areas where China has 
cooperated with us: Working with us to stop North Korea's nuclear 
weapons development; helping us in the U.N. Security Council on the war 
against Iraq and subsequent sanctions; and assisting United States 
efforts to implement the nuclear test ban and extend the nuclear 
nonproliferation treaty. In these areas, cooperation and engagement 
with China made all the difference in policies that are vital to our 
national security.
  In just 1 week, Hong Kong will be transferred from British to Chinese 
sovereignty. We in the Congress have pressed China to live up to its 
promise of ``one country, two systems'' for Hong Kong. I have joined 
with other Members of Congress in calling on the Chinese Government to 
respect the political and economic freedom of the citizens of Hong 
Kong. Yet, once Hong Kong is under Chinese rule, trade with Hong Kong 
would also be subject to stiff tariff increases if MFN trading status 
is revoked. So, at the very time the Congress is pushing China to 
safeguard freedoms in Hong Kong, Congress would be undermining Hong 
Kong's independence and autonomy by severely damaging its economy. It's 
estimated that revoking MFN would cut Hong Kong's economic growth in 
half, reduce trade by $30 billion, and cost 85,000 Hong Kong workers 
their jobs--making Hong Kong dependent on the Chinese regime during 
this critical transition period.
  I have long advocated improved human rights in China. After the 1989 
massacre in Tiananmen Square, I organized a protest march of more than 
two dozen Members of Congress who walked across Washington from the 
United States Capitol to the Chinese Embassy, where we met with the 
Chinese Ambassador and presented in the strongest possible terms our 
views that the Chinese Government needed to change its ways.
  I have also been very concerned about the persecution of Christians, 
and other religious minorities in China. Yet activists working to stop 
the persecution of Christians are of two minds on this issue. Many, 
including Rev. Billy Graham and a number of Chinese Christians, have 
said that they feel engagement with China is the better course.
  Revoking MFN trading status means in effect that the United States 
would be imposing a huge unilateral increase in tariffs on Chinese 
goods. No other country is expected or likely to join us in raising 
tariffs, and that means revocation of MFN would be a 
unilateral economic sanction. Given the particular culture of the 
Chinese, I do not believe that this kind of sanction will be any more 
successful against China than unilateral trade sanctions have been 
against any other country. And many of our international competitors 
are quite ready to take over the United States share of the Chinese 
market.

  The debate suffers from semantics, the misunderstandings of ``most 
favored nation'' as implying something special and concessionary. 
Actually, of course, ``most favored nation'' trading status is just 
``normal'' trading status--it is the tariff schedule that applies to 
almost every other nation we trade with, even countries with human 
rights records far from our liking. There are only five countries to 
which we deny MFN status: Afghanistan, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and 
Vietnam. Even the ``rogue states'' of Iran, Iraq, and Libya, although 
subject to other economic sanctions, are technically eligible for MFN. 
Countries like Syria or Indonesia, whose human rights records we often 
decry in the Congress, have MFN trading status.
  Cutting off MFN status would mean that we would lose the opportunity 
to expose China to free market principles and values. I spoke recently 
with a constituent who has worked with Chinese mining companies. He 
told me that China has averaged 10,000 deaths per year in mining 
accidents. Yet to work with this American company meant that the 
Chinese had to accept American standards of worker safety that tolerate 
virtually no worker fatalities. This seems a most basic lesson--that 
workers should not have to risk their lives to earn a living. American 
business men and women,

[[Page H4278]]

interacting with their Chinese counterparts, will be able to expose the 
Chinese to many such standards and principles. Over time, it will make 
a difference, not just in economics, but in human dignity and human 
rights.
  The globalizing world economy and the revolution in information 
exchange and technology offers an unprecedented set of circumstances 
that will tend to push all but the most isolated of nations toward 
integration with the international community. To finance expanding 
trade, China needs foreign capital and investment. With that investment 
comes exposure to internationally recognized values and freedoms. With 
advances in information technology, such as the Internet, electronic 
mail, and fax machines--most of which are essential for doing business 
today--repressive governments like China's are fast losing their 
ability to control what people can read, learn, and think.
  There are other, more positive, levers we can use to encourage China 
to loosen its repressive policies. One of those levers is Chinese 
accession to the World Trade Organization [WTO]. I expect our 
negotiators to drive a hard bargain for market access and improved 
business practices before we can agree to China joining the WTO, a body 
China feels is essential for its trade expansion policies.
  Engagement will take time, and it is hard to be patient. It will take 
time for trade, investment, and foreign enterprise to break the iron 
grip the Chinese regime has over its people. But American trade, 
products, and most importantly exposure to American values and people 
carry the seeds of change. Ultimately, China cannot sustain the 
economic liberalization supporting its trade with the United States 
without seeing an inevitable erosion of its political isolation and its 
authoritarian regime.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of renewing most-
favored-nation [MFN] trading status to China. MFN status is extended to 
virtually every country in the world and permits a normal trading 
relationship with China. There's nothing ``special'' or ``favored'' 
about MFN.
  I believe that continuing this normal trading relationship is 
critical to advancing U.S. interests. First, of course, revoking MFN, 
would significantly raise tariffs on Chinese imports--costing United 
States consumers more of their hard earned money. Failure to extend MFN 
would also hurt our exports which has been steadily growing every year 
and support thousands of U.S. jobs. The Chinese would undoubtedly 
retaliate, putting our jobs and exports at risk. We would be giving our 
global competitors an open shot at the one of the world's biggest 
markets.
  But even more important, if we are to disengage from China and walk 
away from the table, the very problems we have with China will worsen--
especially in the important area of human rights.
  Because we engage with China does not mean that we approve of its 
practices. As an example, I have grave concerns about its human rights 
record. But the question is how disengaging will help. Instead, we 
should want the Chinese to become increasingly familiar with American 
ideals through our contact with them.
  Mr. Speaker, renewal of MFN has been supported by every President who 
has faced this issue, and is supported throughout Asia, including in 
Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose 
the disapproval resolution and support renewing most-favored-nation 
trading status to China. Simply put, continued engagement with China is 
the only way to help China become a constructive force for stability 
and prosperity in Asia, and advance important American interests.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support House Joint 
Resolution 79, disapproving most-favored-nation status for China. While 
I am an ardent supporter of free trade, and have voted consistently for 
continuation of MFN for China, my recent trip there has changed my 
position on this issue as it provided me with first-hand information on 
what is really going on in China. I left that country with the 
overwhelming impression that the Chinese do not care what the United 
States thinks about their behavior. I have voted on four previous 
occasions to give China the benefit of the doubt about its intention to 
open its markets to United States businesses and farmers but the 
Chinese continue to thumb their noses at the United States. While I 
would like to support a policy aimed at opening markets and expanding 
trade, there has to be a level playing field for such a policy to work. 
Instead, China continues to raise artificial barriers and place high 
tariffs on American goods and commodities, including United States-
grown peanuts. The trade deficit last year alone with China was $40 
billion.
  In addition, China's human rights record, particularly against Tibet 
and Taiwan, is abysmal. Along with its disregard for human rights, the 
Chinese strategically ignore numerous international treaties they have 
signed on arms proliferation. We have seen numerous well documented 
reports where China is selling highly sophisticated nuclear technology 
to Iran. Additionally, it continues to transfer advanced ballistic 
missile technology to Syria and Pakistan.
  The business community genuinely hopes to influence positive change 
in China but I did not see that during my visit. There is no American-
style democracy, free enterprise, or human rights. Rather, I saw a 
government that controlled every aspect of life. The Chinese 
consistently violate workers' rights with many workers laboring under 
slave-like conditions. American companies that wish to sell their 
products in China must locate production in that country and share 
ownership with the Chinese Government. We are currently transferring 
very sophisticated technology to China who hen turn around and use our 
technology against us.
  It's time to send China a message by withholding MFN status for 
China. I would be derelict in my duty to ignore neglect, which I do not 
believe is benign neglect.
  Each year when I voted for MFN for China I did it with the hope that 
this is the year the Chinese will pay some attention to our concerns 
more specifically, stop violating the provisions of the general 
agreement on tariffs and trade, and be shamed into improving its human 
rights record. Sadly, this has not been the case and I have no choice 
but in clear conscience to vote NO for MFN for China.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I know that what, at first, 
might seem to be a cure for a particular ailment is, in actuality, not 
a cure at all. In fact, going with a gut reaction to prescribe a 
treatment can do more harm than the original ailment may have. The same 
can be true for matters of government. The initial reaction to a 
problem in society, or the world will often lead us to make a 
conclusion about a course of action. Unfortunately, that first reaction 
can be wrong, even though guided by the best of intentions.
  We have such a case before us now. It is the dilemma of whether or 
not China should be granted the same trade relationship granted to 
almost every other nation of the world, a status misleadingly referred 
to as most favored nation, or MFN. We all know the charges: The Chinese 
Government violates basic human rights of its citizens, it is hostile 
towards Christianity, and its system of government runs contrary to our 
most fundamental beliefs, therefore MFN status should be denied. The 
initial reaction of our collective national psyche is to oppose MFN, to 
be tough, and say, ``No way, no special deals for China.'' But is this 
the proper solution?
  To clear up a misconception, MFN is not a special status at all. In 
fact, MFN status granted to a country simply means that U.S. citizens 
can trade with citizens of that nation without erection of 
extraordinary government barriers to entering our marketplace. Free 
trade is not something to be lightly dismissed. And MFN is nothing more 
than an attempt, albeit imperfect, to move towards free trade by 
lowering tariffs.
  Eliminating MFN status for China does not hurt the Chinese 
Government. But it does hurt Americans in two ways. First, by imposing 
what is essentially a tax on our people. It is a tax because it is the 
American consumer who will pay higher prices on goods coming from 
China. This means higher prices on many items and not just items which 
come directly from China. If the tariffs on Chinese goods increase, 
people will be forced to find replacement products. As the demand for 
those products increase, so will prices of those goods.
  The second means by which eliminating MFN status hurts Americans can 
be found in the reciprocal barriers China will likely erect. It will 
become much more difficult for farmers and businessmen in the United 
States to sell their products in China. Nearly every farmer and every 
agricultural group I have heard from supports MFN status for China.
  But the critics of MFN for China do not address the free-trade aspect 
of the debate, or the very real cost eliminating MFN would impose upon 
the American people. Instead, they focus on the real persecution of 
religious minorities' often practiced by the government in China. And 
for that I defer to those who are on the ground in China: the 
missionaries.
  According to Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest who recently 
discussed this topic on the Wall Street Journal's opinion page, 
Americans in China working to help the Chinese people are very 
frightened of what ending MFN might do to their efforts and the people 
to whom they minister. After all, ending MFN will not bring about the 
freedoms we hope China may confer upon its people, nor will ending MFN 
mean more religious freedom or fewer human rights violations. In fact, 
those working in China to bring about positive change fear only the 
worst if MFN is withdrawn.
  ``As commercial networks develop, Chinese business people are able to 
travel freely, and Chinese believers have more disposable income with 
which to support evangelistic endeavors,'' Sirico writes. Even worse, 
the missionaries have been reporting that ``such action would endanger 
their status there, and

[[Page H4279]]

possibly lead China to revoke their visas. It would severely limit 
opportunities to bring in * * * religious materials. These missionaries 
understand that commercial relations are a wonderfully liberating force 
that allow not only mutually beneficial trade but also cultural and 
religious exchanges.''
  And so the critical question remains: MFN, or no MFN? Idealogically, 
revoking MFN is a step in the wrong direction, a step away from free 
trade. It is equally clear that revoking MFN is harmful to our people, 
and likely to be harmful to the Chinese. The ones to suffer will be the 
very individuals we seek to help, not the powerful elite in Beijing.
  I have long held that governments do not solve problems. Rather, 
governmental action often creates more problems than existed 
previously. It is the individual people who are able to bring about 
positive change in this world; it is individuals who solve problems. 
China's government is indeed a concern: for us and its people. But it 
is a problem we can only resolve by changing the hearts of the Chinese 
leaders. And whether we like it or not, the way we can do that is 
through trade with China.
  By rushing quickly for the ``pills'' of government-enforced 
sanctions, we may have the best of intentions to cure the Chinese 
Government of its persecution of human rights. But unfortunately, those 
pills will only harm the patient. We must swallow our pride and admit 
that perhaps the best remedy is not the first solution.
  It is only through the open dialogue of individuals that the Chinese 
Government will ever be convinced it is wrong. By closing the door now, 
when we have the opportunity to allow to grow the seeds of change which 
have been so firmly planted in China, we will be damning that nation's 
people to a return to their darker days.
  We will lose the patient if we act hastily or imprudently and that 
cannot be the correct option. It is never an option when I have a 
patient on the operating table, and it cannot be an option when dealing 
with the situation in China.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, China is a rogue nation, ruled by 
totalitarians and Communists. It oppresses its people, and denies them 
basic freedoms and religious liberty. It fails to abide by standards of 
good citizenship in the community of nations. Its officials have been 
tied with attempts to influence the 1996 elections in the United States 
through contributions to the Democratic National Committee.
  In this environment, now Congress must decide whether continuing or 
essentially canceling regular American commerce with China will advance 
or damage America's national interests. These interests include 
national security, human rights and religious liberty, and commerce and 
American jobs.
  I take a back seat to no one as a defender of liberty, and as an 
opponent of communism and tyranny. I understand that this issue 
generates well-considered and strongly held opinions on all sides. I 
believe that the Clinton administration has badly mishandled our 
relationship with China, and that Congress has no choice but to fill 
the vacuum of leadership left by the President.
  With very few measures have I so deeply struggled with determining 
the best course of action, and with identifying what is right and wrong 
for America. After having carefully considered all of the facts, and 
reviewed all of the notes and letters and calls from my constituents, I 
conclude that our best hope for progress of American national interests 
in China is best fulfilled by extending China's regular trade status, 
and taking further actions that demonstrate a more robust American 
policy in that part of the world. I further conclude that blocking the 
renewal of MFN for China would damage America's national interests, in 
national security, human rights and religious freedoms, and American 
commerce and jobs.
  History and recent experience tells us that MFN gives the United 
States some leverage to advance our interests in China--but not a great 
deal of leverage. But if we cancel MFN, America's small leverage will 
become zero leverage. And China will turn away from America, and have 
no incentive to heed any of America's desires and interests.
  Let me first address the matter of American national security. 
Beijing has exhibited poor citizenship in the world. It tested missiles 
in the Taiwan Straits on the eve of free elections in Taiwan in 1996. 
It sold weapons and nuclear and other weapons materials to rogue 
terrorist nations. It attempted to expand its maritime presence in 
former United States military facilities, as in the case of COSCO at 
Long Beach Naval Station, and has effectively established beachheads at 
both ends of the strategically important Panama Canal through 
governmental industry subsidiaries. It smuggled AK-47 rifles into the 
United States, bound for Los Angeles street gangs. It increased its 
defense budget 40 percent over the past couple of years. In light of 
this current and emerging national security interest, it becomes clear 
that only by extending MFN for China can we hope to preserve the 
American interest and the American presence in China and East Asia. For 
this reason, several of our recent United States Secretaries of Defense 
have agreed to support continuing China's MFN status.

  Having nearly lost my life fighting communism in Vietnam, this matter 
of what action best represents America's national security interests is 
a matter I take very seriously. I assure you that I am under no 
illusion that extending MFN for China will work miracles in the 
advancement of our national security. It will not.
  But the penalty for terminating MFN for China is slightly greater 
than its reward. Terminating MFN with China simply drives the Beijing 
regime away from the United States, away from the community of law-
abiding countries, into the arms of the world's terrorist nations.
  Let me address the matter of human rights and religious liberty in 
China. Again, Beijing's record in this field is repugnant to the cause 
of freedom. The bill of particulars goes on and on. Beijing oppresses 
the Buddhist people of Tibet, and the Muslims of Xinjiang. It practices 
a population policy that includes forced abortions. It has detained, 
jailed, and killed its dissidents. It severely restricts the activities 
of Christians and other people of faith, and imprisons priests and 
ministers, and closes house churches that attempt to teach the Gospel 
free from the reach of the Beijing regime.
  What action advances America's national interest in this area? 
Extending MFN continues the reach of Americans, through commerce and 
other outreach, into the lives of Chinese citizens. I recognize that 
the Christian Coalition and other United States family organizations 
strongly oppose extending MFN for China. But United States 
organizations that support Christian missionaries in China are 
supporting MFN for China. One of the titans of the Christian faith 
supports extending MFN trade status: Rev. Billy Graham. He says that 
``I am in favor of doing all we can to strengthen our relationship with 
China and its people. China is rapidly becoming one of the dominant 
economic and political powers in the world, and I believe it is far 
better for us to keep China as a friend than to treat it as an 
adversary.''
  Continuing MFN for China, again, does not work miracles for the 
people of China. Continuing it thus far has not freed opponents of 
China's communist government from prisons, according to the United 
States State Department. However, American commerce with China has 
given the Chinese people a taste of economic freedom, and economic 
freedom may pave a path toward more political and religious freedom.
  Again, the penalty for terminating MFN for China exceeds its reward--
particularly for China's oppressed people. If we terminate MFN for 
China, China will have no reason whatsoever to improve the human rights 
and religious freedom of its people, or to accommodate American 
visiting missionaries to China.
  Last, I would like to address the matter of commerce and American 
jobs. Extending China's MFN status simply continues regular commerce 
with the world's most populous nation. Companies in San Diego engage in 
significant exports in China. Among these are Solar Turbines, power 
plants, Cubic, mass transit systems, Jet Products, manufacturing, and 
many others. Furthermore, many American jobs are dependent on imports 
from China. These include hundreds of thousands of retailers. And 
American consumers regularly purchase goods made in China.
  Once again, the risks associated with terminating China's MFN status 
exceed their reward. If we terminate MFN for China, American jobs are 
endangered, and China will simply approach the employers of other 
nations to fulfill its market of 1.3 billion people.
  Following the continuation of MFN for China, and the failures and 
vacillations of the Clinton administration's China policy, I believe 
Congress has a responsibility to exercise leadership in the United 
States relationship with the world's most populous country.
  We can begin this by enacting the China Human Rights and Democracy 
Act, a measure soon to be introduced by Rep. John Edward Porter and 
others. Chairman Porter formerly opposed China's MFN status, but is 
supporting it this year in hopes that we can make real progress in 
other areas. Chairman Porter described this measure in today's Wall 
Street Journal to increase funding for Radio Free Asia and the Voice of 
America, expand democracy-building activities through the National 
Endowment for Democracy, require additional United States State 
Department report on human rights violations and political prisoners in 
China, and greater disclosure of Chinese companies' ties to the 
People's Liberation Army.
  As we did with the USSR and Eastern Europe, we can blanket the 
Chinese people, and all freedom-loving peoples of Southeast Asia, with 
broadcasts about freedom and democracy in the outside World. We can 
also pursue

[[Page H4280]]

other aggressive initiatives to stand tall and strong for freedom in 
East Asia--initiatives which thus far have not been part of the Clinton 
administration's weak American policy toward China.
  Congress can and should take further action to send China powerful 
signals of our intention to advance our interests. The fiscal year 1998 
national defense authorization includes the Hunter-Cunningham language 
from H.R. 1138, prohibiting the leasing of former U.S. military 
facilities to foreign state-owned enterprises. Specifically, this will 
block COSCO, the maritime arm of the communist Chinese regime in 
Beijing, from leasing a large beachhead at the former Long Beach Naval 
Station.
  And the House has already voted to establish direct United States 
ties with Hong Kong, which reverts from British to Chinese control in 
just a few days.
  Extending China's regular MFN trade status does not work miracles. We 
should extend MFN because it helps advance our national interests in 
China in freedom and religious liberty, in national security, and in 
commerce and jobs. We should extend China's MFN status because blocking 
MFN would hurt, not help, our national interests in China.
  But we cannot stop there. Congress has a responsibility to take the 
sure and strong actions that implant backbone into United States-China 
relations, a spine that is thus far missing from the Clinton 
administration's own policy. We can act. And we will.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint 
Resolution 79, a resolution to disapprove most-favored-nation [MFN] 
treatment to the People's Republic of China.
  Our trade deficit with China in 1996 was $40 billion. By the end of 
1997, the trade deficit is projected to be $53 billion, which averages 
out to the staggering sum of $1 billion a week. A large part of this is 
due to the fact that China charges American products with extremely 
high tariffs. For instance, China levies a 50 to 120 percent tariff on 
imported cars, a 50 percent tariff on imported athletic shoes, a 60 
percent tariff on imported leather shoes, and a 40 percent tariff on 
imported toys. In all instances, United States tariffs on Chinese 
imports are substantially lower. China sells millions and millions of 
bikes in the United States, because we only levy a 11 percent tariff, 
while China charges us 50 percent. On average, the United States levies 
a tariff rate of 2 percent on Chinese goods. The Chinese have levies a 
35 percent tariff rate on United States goods. We hear so much about 
free trade, but our trade relationship with China certainly isn't free, 
and it certainly isn't fair. It costs American jobs. It's just plain 
wrong for the American working men and women.
  We constantly hear from China and the administration that trade and 
foreign policy should be separate issues. They should not be linked. 
That is a very interesting argument coming from China considering they 
are one of the most skilled practitioners of such a policy. They reward 
friends and punish enemies with economic carrots and sticks in the form 
of huge government contracts.
  Moreover, the use of trade sanctions is not without precedent. It has 
been a vital component of U.S. foreign policy. We sanctioned the Soviet 
Union by the restriction of technology transfers, denial of MFN under 
the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and embargoes on Soviet purchases of 
American wheat. We maintain a trade embargo against Cuba. We deny MFN 
to North Korea and Afghanistan. We will soon impose sanctions on Burma. 
Why should we treat China and different? The answer is that we 
shouldn't. We should treat China a totalitarian regime in every sense, 
as we have treated totalitarian regimes in the past. We must not coddle 
them. We must not appease them. We must not assist them.
  Mr. Speaker, a vote for this resolution will be a vote for democracy 
it will be a vote for the ideals that founded this Republic. The ideals 
that make this Nation truly great. As the sole remaining superpower in 
the world, we must send a strong message to the totalitarian regime in 
Beijing that her actions will not be tolerated any longer. Enough is 
enough. I strongly urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 
79.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record an 
article by Frank Gaffney, executive director of the Center for Security 
Policy, that appeared in today's Washington Times, titled ``Dealing 
with China.'' I believe that this insightful article should be read by 
all Members of Congress and American citizens who are concerned that 
the United States Government develop a comprehensive strategy to deter 
aggression by Communist China.

               [From the Washington Times, June 24, 1997]

                           Dealing With China

                        (By Frank Gaffney, Jr.)

       As the House of Representatives prepares to vote on 
     President Clinton's decision to renew Most Favored Nation 
     (MFN) status for China, it is being flooded with free advice. 
     Lobbyists representing firms doing business with the People's 
     Republic--or hoping to do so--are aggressively warning 
     Congress of the economic costs of failing to ``re-up''; human 
     rights and religious groups are emphasizing the costs in 
     terms of freedom and religious tolerance for the Chinese 
     people if the United States continues to turn a blind eye to 
     Beijing's repressive policies.
       Yesterday, five of the finest public servants I have had 
     the privilege of knowing--Jeane Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp, Lamar 
     Alexander, Steve Forbes and Donald Rumsfeld--weighed in with 
     their own take. Much of what they say should be done with 
     respect to U.S. policy apart from the question of MFN I find 
     compelling, as I am sure, will many members of Congress. I 
     think we could agree, for example, that the following sorts 
     of steps should be taken irrespective of one's views about 
     renewing China's Most Favored Nation status:
       Intensify efforts to provide truthful information and 
     encouragement of those resisting communist repressing 
     (including greatly expanding the operations of Radio Free 
     Asia; enforcing the existing bans on importing slave-labor-
     produced goods; imposing penalties for religious intolerance, 
     etc.). After all, how a nation treats its own people is a 
     good indicator of how it is likely to deal with those of 
     other states.
       Such steps can help make clear that the United States is 
     not an enemy of the Chinese people, but that it steadfastly 
     opposes the totalitarian government that brutally rules them. 
     It can also help undercut the nationalist xenophobia that the 
     Chinese leadership promotes in its bid to retain power.
       Deny front companies and banks associated with the People's 
     Liberation Army and other inappropriate Chinese borrowing 
     entities the opportunity to sell bonds in the U.S. market. 
     This step can be taken in a non-disruptive fashion (for 
     example, by creating a security-minded screening mechanism 
     for these prospective bond issues) without fear of 
     jeopardizing U.S. exports, jobs or ``people-to-people'' 
     contacts unaffected by such cash transactions.
       Block Chinese access to strategic facilities--in the United 
     States and elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, notably at 
     the eastern and western ends of the Panama Canal.
       Prohibit the sale of American military production 
     facilities and equipment to China.
       Terminate the ``anything goes'' policy with respect to the 
     export of dual-use technology to Chinese end-users. In the 
     interest of obtaining maximum pressure for change in China, 
     U.S. allies should be offered the same choice they are 
     currently given under the D'Amato legislation on Iran and 
     Libya--foreign companies and nationals must decide whether to 
     export militarily-sensitive equipment and technology to China 
     or risk losing their unfettered access to the American 
     marketplace.
       Develop and deploy effective global missile defenses to 
     counter China's own growing ballistic missile capabilities 
     and those Beijing is transferring to rogue states like North 
     Korea, Iran and Syria.
       Rigorously enforce existing U.S. laws penalizing those who 
     engage--as the Chinese government and its ostensibly private 
     companies have been doing--in the proliferation of weapons of 
     mass destruction and various menacing conventional arms.
       And increase significantly the resources dedicated to 
     uncovering and thwarting Chinese espionage, technology theft 
     and influence operations in the United States.
       Where I must respectfully disagree with my friends from 
     Empower America, however, is about the reason why such steps 
     are needed. They declare we ``should not demonize China'' and 
     assert ``there is no new Cold War, and China is not a new 
     Cold War enemy.'' The truth is that the reversion of Hong 
     Kong next week to communist control may prove to be the first 
     battle lost by the force of freedom in a new and far more 
     difficult phase of what Winston Churchill once called ``the 
     Twilight Struggle.''
       In any event, as noted in this space two weeks ago, it is 
     not entirely up to us whether China becomes an enemy. The 
     critically acclaimed book ``The Coming Conflict with China'' 
     observes: ``Before, Beijing saw American power as a strategic 
     advantage for the PRC; now it has decided that American power 
     represents a threat, not just to China's security but to 
     China's plans to grow stronger and to play a paramount role 
     in the affairs of Asia.''
       What is more, if it is true, strictly speaking, that 
     ``China is not a new Cold War enemy,'' it may not be good 
     news. The level of engagement with China--the many billions 
     of dollars in bilateral trade, the hundreds of PLA companies 
     operating in this country, the tens of thousands of Chinese 
     students and unknown numbers of Overseas Chinese with 
     families still subject to Beijing's control--make the 
     challenge of countering, let alone containing, the PRC 
     infinitely more difficult that any we faced in dealing with 
     the Soviet Union during the Cold War. We disregard or 
     discount this problem at our peril.
       The bottom line is the bottom line: The massive trade 
     surpluses that MFN status is allowing the PRC to accrue are 
     directly underwriting activities that will enable Beijing to 
     become an even more formidable threat to the United States 
     and American interests down the road. Despite its drawbacks, 
     revoking China's Most Favored Nation status is the only 
     measure now on the table that is fully responsive to this 
     reality--and proportionate to the magnitude of the problem it 
     presents.

[[Page H4281]]

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, attached is a letter from the Business 
Council for United States-China Trade which I would like included in 
its entirety in the appropriate section of the Congressional Record.

                                            Business Coalition For


                                             U.S.-China Trade,

                                    Washington, DC, June 23, 1997.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: We urge Congress and the President to 
     work together on a bipartisan basis to renew China's MFN 
     status for one-year without conditions. We strongly oppose 
     legislation which would impose new conditions on MFN, impose 
     targeted trade sanctions, or result in anything less than a 
     full one-year extension of MFN, or otherwise disrupt U.S.-
     China commercial ties.
       Unconditional renewal of China's MFN trading status is in 
     America's interest. MFN is the cornerstone of stable U.S.-
     China commercial relations. It is also the foundation for 
     continued dialogue and cooperation between the United States 
     and China over such vital concerns as security, human rights, 
     and Hong Kong's transition.
       In the next century, America's prosperity will be even more 
     closely tied to our leadership in international trade and the 
     Asia-Pacific region.
       China is the world's largest emerging market. It is at the 
     center of a vibrant Asia-Pacific regional economy, which will 
     support continued growth of American trade and jobs for 
     decades to come.
       In 1996, the United States sold over $14 billion of goods 
     and services to China. U.S.-China trade already supports over 
     200,000 export-related jobs, as well as tens of thousands of 
     jobs in American retail establishments, ports, services 
     companies, and transportation firms. It ensures American 
     consumers a wide choice of quality goods.
       China is the sixth-largest market in the world for American 
     agriculture, and has by far the most potential. in 1996, 
     China bought over $3.6 billion of U.S. farm products, such as 
     wheat, grains, vegetable oil, poultry, corn, soybeans, and 
     meat.
       American trade with China helps to promote values we 
     cherish. Ending MFN would harm the very Chinese entrepreneurs 
     and workers whose prosperity and jobs depend on trade and 
     access to the outside world. China's private enterprises and 
     joint ventures are beachheads of free enterprise, which  have 
     driven the sweeping economic and political reforms of the 
     last decade. We should support, not isolate, the segments 
     of Chinese society which offer the best hope for further 
     progress toward greater freedom and the rule of law for 
     all of China.
       Revoking or conditioning MFN would be a devastating blow to 
     Hong Kong, whose economy depends on its role as the economic 
     gateway to China and as a financial and commercial center for 
     companies doing business in Asia. The United States should 
     strive to bolster confidence in Hong Kong and to maintain it 
     as a vibrant model of entrepreneurial capitalism and 
     political freedom, as it faces an historic reversion to 
     Chinese sovereignty.
       While renewal of MFN is an important task, an equally 
     important challenge is continuing a fundamental restructuring 
     of U.S-China commercial relations that is essential to open 
     new markets for American products, subject China to the rules 
     and disciplines of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and 
     end the destructive annual battles over MFN renewal. We urge 
     the Administration, in close consultation with Congress, to 
     push ahead with negotiations over China's accession to the 
     WTO under a commercially sound market access protocol which 
     expands sales of American goods, services, and farm products; 
     locks in free market reforms, and advances long-term economic 
     and political change. We look forward to working with the 
     Congressional leadership and the Administration to achieve 
     all of these vital goals.
           Sincerely,
         A & C Trade Consultants, Inc., A & D Precision 
           Manufacturing, Inc., A. Eddy Goldfarb & Associates, 
           A.A.A. Aircraft Supply Co., Inc., A.N. Deringer, Inc., 
           A.O. Smith Corporation, A-1 Signal Division, ABB, Inc., 
           Abbotec Inc., Abbott Laboratories, ABC Companies, Inc., 
           The, ACCEL Graphics, Inc., ACCEL Technologies, Inc., 
           ACI Int'l, Acme Foundry, Acme-Monaco Corporation, 
           Action Instruments Inc., Action Products International 
           Inc., ACTS Testing Labs, Inc.
         Adams Air & Hydraulics, Inc., Adaptec, Inc., ADC 
           Technologies, Inc., Adidas America, Advanced Data 
           Management, Inc., Advanced Hardware Architectures, AEA 
           Credit Union, AEA International, Aerex Manufacturing 
           Inc., Aero Comm Machining, Aero Gear Inc., Aero Machine 
           Co., Inc., Aerochem, Inc., Aeroelectronics 
           Incorporated, Aerospace Dynamics International, Inc., 
           Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., 
           Aerospace Manufacturing Corp., Aerospace Products, 
           Aerospace Services & Products, AETNA, Inc., Agrifos, 
           L.L.C., AIMCO, Air Capitol Plating Inc., Air 
           Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute, Air Industries 
           Corporation, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Air 
           Structures, Inc., Aircraft Tool Inc., AirNet 
           Communications Corp., AirSep Corporation, Akro Fire 
           Guard, Albany International Corp., Albemarle China 
           Corporation, ALCOA, Alcone Marketing Group, Alexander 
           Doll Company, Inc., ALJO Precision Prod., Allen's 
           Concrete, AlliedSignal Inc., AlliedSignal-General 
           Aviation Avionics, AMCO Brokers & Forwarders, Inc., 
           Amer-China Partners, Ltd., American Association of 
           Exporters and Importers, American Association of Port 
           Authorities, American Automobile Manufacturers 
           Association.
         American Building System Inc., The American Chamber of 
           Commerce in Hong Kong, The American Chamber of Commerce 
           in New Zealand, The American Chamber of Commerce in 
           Singapore, The American Chamber of Commerce PRC in 
           Beijing, American Commercial Lines, Inc., American Crop 
           Protection Association, American Electronics 
           Association, American Electronics Association--Texas 
           Council, American Electronics Group, Inc., American 
           Express Company, American Farm Bureau Federation, 
           American Feed Industry Association, American Forest & 
           Paper Association, American Home Products Corporation, 
           The American Import Co./Taico Trading Corp., American 
           International Foods, American International Group, 
           Inc., American League for Exports and Security 
           Assistance, American Pacific Enterprises, American 
           Racing Custom Wheels, American River International, 
           American Seed Trade Association, American Standard 
           Companies, Inc., Ameritech International, Amersham 
           Corporation, Ames Department Stores, Inc., AMF Bowling 
           Products, AMI Metals Inc., Amicale Industries, Inc., 
           AMOCO, Amoco Chemical, AMP Incorporated, AmPro Corp., 
           AMS Industries Inc., AMT--The Association for 
           Manufacturing Technology, Amway Corporation, Andreae, 
           Vick & Associates, Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., 
           Anjar Co., Anwo Machine and Tool Co. Inc., APL Limited, 
           Apparel Unlimited, Inc., Apple Computer, Inc., Applied 
           Materials, Inc.
         Applix, Aquafine Corporation, Arcadia Supply Inc., ARCO, 
           ARCO Chemical Company, Arizona Coalition for US/China 
           Trade, Armstrong Global, Armstrong Holdings, Armstrong 
           World Industries, Inc., ARR-MAZ Products, Arrow 
           Electric, Inc, Arthur Andersen LLP, ASI Aerospace 
           Group, Asian Strategies Group, Asset Intertech, Inc., 
           Associated Company, Inc., Associated General 
           Contractors of America, Associated Industries, 
           Associated Industries of Missouri, Associated 
           Merchandising Corporation, Association of American 
           Railroads, Association of National Advertisers, Inc., 
           AT & T, Athens Industries, Atlas Aero Corporation, 
           Atsco Footwear Inc., Autozone, Avco Financial Services, 
           Inc, AVO International, Avon Products Inc., Award 
           Software International, Inc., B & B Machine & Tooling, 
           B & F Sales Corp., B & J International Supply, B & S 
           Steel of Kansas, Inc., B.G. Imaging Specialties, Inc., 
           B.J. Rocca Jr. and Co., Babcock Mfg. Co., Bachmann 
           Industries, Inc., Baker & Daniels, Bakery Crafts, 
           BalcoMetalines, Ball Hortculture Company, Bank of 
           America NT & SA, Bank of New York.
         Bank of Oklahoma, Barbara Franklin Enterprises, Barbis 
           International, Barringer Technologies, Inc., Barron 
           Transworld Trading Ltd, Barton Solvents, Inc., Bartow 
           Chamber of Commerce, Bartow Steel, Inc., BCI 
           Engineering Group, Inc., BCI Engineers & Scientists, 
           Bechtel Corp., Bedford Sportswear, Inc., Beijing 
           Development Area (USA) Inc., Belkin Components, 
           BellSouth Corporation, Benecor Honeycomb Corp., Benner 
           China & Glassware, Inc., Bennett Importing, Inc., 
           Berger & Eiss, Berger Company, Beta Shim Company, 
           BFGoodrich Company, BGW Systems, Inc., Bien 
           Internationale Corp., Bindicator Company, Bivar, Inc., 
           BJG Electronics, Black & Veatch, The Blackstone Group, 
           Blistex Inc., Blue Box Toys Inc., Boca Research, Inc, 
           The Boeing Company, Boston Technologies, Inc., Boullian 
           Aviation Services, BP America, BP Chemicals Inc., 
           Bradbury Co., Inc., Bradford Novelty Co., Inc., 
           Bradlees, Inc., Bradley Machine, Inc., Brass Key, Inc., 
           Braun Intertec Corporation, Breslow Morrison Terzian & 
           Assoc., Brimms Inc.
         Brisa, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Brooklyn 
           Chinese-American Association, Brooklyn Goes Global, 
           Brown Group, Inc., Budd Company, The, Budney 
           Industries, Inc., Bunge Corporation, Burlington 
           Northern & Santa Fe Railway, Burnett Contracting & 
           Drilling Co., Inc., Burnham Products, Burson-
           Marsteller, Burton Co., Business Research Institute, 
           Inc., Buxton Co., C.J. Bridges Railroad Contractor, 
           Inc., Cactus Mat Manufacturing, Co., Cadaco, Inc., 
           Caleb Corporation, California Chamber of Commerce, 
           California Instruments Corp., California Mop Mfg. Co., 
           California Portland Cement Company, California R&D 
           Center, California Sunshine Inc., Caltex Petroleum 
           Corp., Cambridge Specialty Company, Cange & Associates 
           International, Capital Region World Trade Council, 
           Capps Machines, Inc., Capstone Electronics Corp., Carco 
           Electronics, Cardinal Industries, Inc., Career 
           Explorers, Inc., Cargill Fertilizer,

[[Page H4282]]

           Inc., Cargill Flour Milling, Cargill, Inc., Carl Cox & 
           Associates, Inc., Carrier Corporation, Catalina 
           Lighting, Inc., Caterpillar Inc., CBIA, CDI Corporation 
           Midwest, Cedar Rapids Chamber of Commerce, Celestaire, 
           Inc.
         CENEX, Inc., Center Industries Corp., Centigram 
           Communications, Central Purchasing Inc., Century Bank, 
           Cerion Technologies, Cessna Aircraft Company, CF 
           Industries, Inc., Chaco International, Chance 
           Industries, Charles Engineering, Inc., Charming 
           Shoppes, Inc., The Chase Manhattan Corporation, 
           Chemical Manufacturers Association, Chemifax, Division 
           of Namico, Inc., Chevron Corporation, Chicago Council 
           on Foreign Relations, China Books & Periodicals, Inc., 
           China Human Resources Group, China Products North 
           America, Inc., China Trade Development Corp., Chrysler 
           Corporation, Chubb & Son, Inc., Chubb Corporation, The, 
           CIGNA Corporation, CIT Group/Commercial Services, Inc., 
           Citicorp/Citibank, Citifor Inc., Citizens for a Sound 
           Economy, Claire's Stores Inc., CLARCOR, Clark 
           Companies, N.A., The, Clark Manufacturing, Claude Mann 
           & Associates, Inc., Cliffstar Associates, Inc., Coastal 
           Corporation, The, Coastal Power Company, Coastcom, 
           Cobra Electronics Corporation, Coca-Cola Company, The, 
           Coffeyville Sektam, Inc., Coiltronics, Inc., Cole Haan, 
           Coleman Company, Inc.
         Collum International, Inc., Colorworks, Columbia 300 
           Incorporated, Columbus McKinnon Corporation, COMET 
           INT'L, Commercial Bank of San Francisco, Commonwealth 
           Toy & Novelty, Compaq Computer Corporation, Compressed 
           Air Products, Inc., Computalog, Computer & 
           Communications Industry Association (CCIA), Computing 
           Devices International, Comtech Communications, ConAgra, 
           Inc., Concept Resources, Inc., Concurrent Computer 
           Corp., Conductive Rubber Technology, Inc., CONECT-
           Coalition of New England Companies, CONMED Corporation, 
           Connections International, Conoco, Consolidated 
           Industries Inc., Consumers for World Trade, Continental 
           Grain Company, Continental Machine Inc., Continental-
           Agra Equipment, Inc., Contour Aerospace Inc., Coopers & 
           Lybrand L.L.P., Corning Incorporated, Corporation for 
           International Trade, Cox Machine, Inc., CPC 
           International Inc., Creative Computer Solutions, Inc., 
           Creative Production Resources, Crowley Sales & Export 
           Inc., Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., CSX Corporation, CTL 
           Distribution, Inc., Cubic Corp., Cutter & Buck, 
           Cyberkom, Dale C. Rossman, Inc., Darling Abrasive & 
           Tool Co., Data Instruments, Inc., Dataforth Corp.
         Davis Wright Tremaine, De La Rue Giori, Decora Industries 
           Inc., Deere & Company, DEKALB Genetics, Delagar 
           Division Belcam, Inc., Delson International, Inc., Des 
           Moines Chamber of Commerce, Dexter Aerospace Materials 
           Division, DeYoung Mfg., Inc., DF Corporation, Diamond V 
           Mills, Digital Equipment Corporation, Digital 
           Recorders, Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., 
           DIGIVISION, Diversified Computer Remarketing, Dixon 
           Area Chamber of Commerce, D-J Engineering, Dodge City 
           Chamber of Commerce, Don's Leather Cleaning, Inc., 
           Doron Precision Systems, Inc., Dover Technologies, Dow 
           Chemical Co., The Dow Corning Corporation, Dowty 
           Aerospace, Dresser Industries, Inc., DS Technologies, 
           Inc., DSC Communications Corp., DSP Technology, Inc., 
           DuPont, Duracell, Dynamic Systems, Inc., E & O Mari, 
           Inc., E.E. International, E.S.T. International, Easter 
           Unlimited/Fun World, Eastern Sea Consulting, Eastman 
           Chemical Company, Eastman Export Corporation, Eastman 
           Kodak Company, EBM Tours, Eck & Eck Machine Co., Inc., 
           Ecology and Environment, Inc., Economy Forms Corp.
         Econo-Power International Corp., EDAWN, Edelman Public 
           Relations, Eden, LLC, Edison Electric Institute, EDS, 
           Educational Design, Inc., Educational Hindsights, Inc., 
           Edutainment for Kids, Inc., Efratom Time & Frequency 
           Products, Inc., Eikon Strategies, Inc., Elan-Polo, 
           Inc., Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., 
           Electromedical Products International, Inc., Electronic 
           Industries Association, Elkay Plastics Co., Inc., 
           Ellanef Manufacturing Corporation, Ellicott 
           International, Elliot Kastle, Inc., Ellsworth Adhesive 
           Systems, Emergency Committee for American Trade, 
           Emerson Electric (Asia) Ltd., Emerson Electric Co., 
           Empire Industries, Inc., Endgate Corp., Endicott 
           Johnson Corporation, Energy-Onix Broadcast Equipment 
           Co., Enertech, Engineered Machine Tool Co., Enron 
           Corp., Enron Oil & Gas, Inc., Epperson & Company, Essex 
           Group, Inc., ETEC Systems, Inc., Excel Manufacturing, 
           Inc., Executive Aircraft, Expeditors International, The 
           Exporter, EXXESS Electronics, Exxon Corporation, F.H 
           Kaysing, Family Dollar Stores Incorporated, Farmland 
           Hydro, L.P., Farmland Industries, Inc., Fastenair 
           Corporation.
         FaxTrieve, Inc., Federal-Mogul Corporation, The 
           Fertilizer Institute, Feuz MFG, Inc., Fiberite Inc., 
           Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., Fiesta, Fife Florida Electric 
           Supply, Inc., Fila-USA Inc., Firstar Banks, Fisher-
           Price, Inc., Fleet Bank, Fleet Street Ltd., Flight 
           Safety International--Cessna, Flight Safety 
           International--Raytheon, Flight Safety International--
           Learjet, Florida Handling Systems, Inc., Florida 
           Phosphate Council, Florida-China Trade Task Force, 
           Fluke Corporation, Fluor Corporation, FMC Corporation, 
           FMI, Inc., Footstar, Inc., Ford Motor Company, Forte 
           Cashmere Co., Inc., ForTrade International, Foster 
           Design, Foster Pepper & Shfelman, Foster Wheeler Energy 
           International, Inc., Four Dimensions, Inc., Four Star 
           Distribution, The Foxboro Company, FPA Customs Brokers, 
           Inc., Frank Russell Company, Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., 
           Fulfillment Systems International, Funopolis, Gaines 
           Metzler Kriner & Co., Galamba Metals, Galoob Toys, 
           Inc., GAYLA Industries, Inc., Gaymar Industries, Inc., 
           GEC Precision Corporation, Genecar International, Inc.
         Genemed Biotechnologies, Inc., Genemed Synthesis, Inc., 
           General DataComm Industries, Inc., General Electric 
           Company, General Motors Corporation, Genesco Inc., 
           Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Gillette Company, The, 
           Global Business Systems, Global Group, Globe 
           Engineering, GM Nameplate, Inc., Goldsmiths, Goodyear 
           Tire & Rubber Company, The, Grand Imports, Inc., 
           Granny's Kitchens, LTD., Grant Thorton, Granton Shoo 
           Imports, Graphic Controls Corporation, Graybar 
           Electric, Great American Incentives, Great Lake Group, 
           The, Great Plains Industries, Great Plains 
           Manufacturing, Great Plains Ventures, Greater Austin 
           Chamber of Commerce, Greater Bristol Chamber of 
           Commerce, Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce, Greater 
           Hartford Chamber of Commerce, Greater Kansas City 
           Chamber of Commerce, Greater North Dakota Association, 
           Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, Greater Plant 
           City Chamber of Commerce, Greater Topeka Chamber of 
           Commerce, Greater Waterbury Chamber of Commerce, 
           Greenfield Industries, Greer Auto, Grocery 
           Manufacturers of America, Inc., GT Sales & 
           Manufacturing, GTE Corporation, Guardian Industries 
           Corp., Guerra Press, The, Guess Leather--Jones New York 
           Leather--Avanti, Gund, Inc., H&H Tool.
         H.O. Mohr Research & Engineering, Inc., Haight, Gardner, 
           Poor and Havens, Halliburton Co., Halliburton Energy 
           Services, Hallmark Cards, Inc., Hallum Tooling, Inc., 
           Hamilton Standard, Hannay Reels, Inc., Hard 
           Manufacturing Co., Inc., Harlow Aircraft Manufacturing, 
           Harris Corporation, Harry B. Gudsley & Associates, 
           Harry Sello & Associates, Harsco Corporation, Hartford 
           Despatch Int'l, Harwood Capital Incorporated, Hasbro 
           Interactive, Hasbro, Inc., Havens Steel Company, Heart 
           to Heart International, Hedstrom Corporation, HEICO 
           Corporation, Heilig-Meyers Company, Hermach Machine, 
           Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Hill's Pet Nutrition, 
           Inc., Hills & Company, HiRel Labs, Hirsch Pipe & 
           Supply, HMS Productions, Inc., Hoechst Corporation, 
           Holland Pump Manufacturing, Inc., Honeywell Asia 
           Pacific, Honeywell Inc., Hong Kong City Toys, The 
           Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, 
           Horton International Inc., Howden Fan Company, The, HSQ 
           Technology, Hub Tool & Supply, Hudson Pump and 
           Equipment Associates, Inc., Hughes Electronics, 
           Hydroform USA, Inc., HYI, I&J Machine Tool Company.
         Ibberson Inc., IBM Corporation, Ice Holdings, Inc., IES 
           Industries, Inc., Illinois Beef Association, Illinois 
           Coalition to Support US-China Commercial Relations, 
           Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Manufacturer's 
           Association, Illinois Pork Producers, Illinois State 
           Chamber of Commerce, Imaging and Sensing Technology, 
           Inc., IMC Global Inc., IMC Global Operations Inc., IMC 
           Kalium, IMC-Agrico Company, IMCO Recycling Inc., IMPAC 
           International, Imperial Toy Corporation, Indoor Air 
           Professionals, Inc., Inductor Supply, Inc., INET 
           Corporation, Infinity Financial Technology, Inc,. 
           Ingersoll-Rand Company, Innotec Group Inc., Innovative 
           USA, Inc., Integrity Technology Corporation, Intel 
           Corporation, Intelidata, Interex, Inc., Interface 
           Consulting International, Inc., Inter-Global Inc., 
           Intermetrics, Inc., International Business Development, 
           International Components Corp., International Dairy 
           Foods Association, International Development Planners, 
           International Mass Retail Association, International 
           Paper, International Trade Services, Inc., Inter-
           Pacific Corporation, Intertrade Ltd., Intool 
           Incorporated, Intrust Bank, Iowa Association of 
           Business & Industry, Iowa Beef Packers.
         Iowa Business Council, Iowa Department of Economic 
           Development, ITT Corporation, ITT Industries, J.F. 
           Fredericks Tool Co., Inc., J.H. Ham Engineering, Inc., 
           J.R. Custom Metal Products, Jacobs Engineering Group, 
           Inc.,

[[Page H4283]]

           Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Jade Enterprises, Inc., 
           Jamestown Container Companies, Jamie Brooke, Inc., 
           Janco Corp., Janex Corporation, JBC International, 
           Jenoptik Infab InTrak, Inc., Jensen Technology 
           Development, Inc., Jerry Eisner Co., Inc., Jewett 
           Refrigerator Co., Inc., John Hancock Financial 
           Services, John Weitzel, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, 
           Johnson and Higgins, Jones and Company, Inc., Joseph 
           Krow Fur and Leather Co., J-Tec Associates, Juans (USA) 
           Corp., Juno Industries, Inc., K.Swiss, Kagie/Newell 
           Inc., Kaifa Technology, Inc., Kairos Consultants, Kaman 
           Aerospace Corporation, Kamen Wiping Materials, Kane 
           Industries Corp., Kansas Association for Small 
           Business, Kansas Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Kansas 
           City, KS Chamber of Commerce, Kansas Dry Stripping, 
           Inc., Kansas Farm Bureau, Kansas Livestock Association, 
           Kansas Plating, Inc., Kansas World Trade Center, Kasper 
           Machine Company, Kavinoky & Cook, LLP.
         Kent Audio Visual, Kimoto & Company, Custom Brokers, 
           Kingsbury, Inc., Kirk's Suede Life, Inc., Kmart 
           Corporation, KMG Too & Machine Company, Knipp 
           Equipment, Knowledge Universe, L.L. C., KOA Speer 
           Electronics, Inc., Koch Industries, Koch Materials, 
           Kohler Co., Koogier & Assoc. Environmental Services, 
           KPI/Heurikon Corp., Kraft Foods, Inc., K-Sport, Ltd., L 
           & M Enterprises, L & S Machine Co., LD Supply, Inc., LA 
           Gear, Inc., Laird Ltd., Lamar Electro-Air, Lampton 
           Welding Supply Company, Latin American Pacific Trade 
           Association, Leach International Corporation, Leading 
           Edge Concepts Inc., Learjet, Learning Curve 
           International, Leather Apparel Association, Inc., 
           Leathercraft Process, Leawood Export Finance, Inc., 
           Ledford Machine-Gage Labz, LeFebure Corp., Leon Cohen 
           Sales, Inc., Leonard's Metal, Inc., LGB of America, 
           Liberty Classics, Inc., Liberty International, Licata 
           Associates, Inc., Liquidynamics, Inc., Liz Claiborne, 
           Inc., LJO, Inc., L-M International, LOBOB LABORATORIES, 
           Inc., Lockheed Martin.
         Logical Services, Inc., Louis Dreyfus Corporation, Louis 
           Lau AsianInfo Holdings, Lucent Technologies, Lucid 
           Corp., Luis Alvear, Lyons Manufacturing Co., M. Hidary 
           & Co., Inc., M.A. Hanna Company, Maersk Inc., Maisto 
           International, Inc., Malichi International, Ltd., 
           Mallinckrodt Inc., Mans & Mans Machine & Tool Co., 
           Manufacturing Development, Inc., Manufacturing Tool & 
           Supply, Manzella Productions, Inc., Marco Polo, 
           MarketSource Direct, Mary Kay Inc., Matrix Integrated 
           Systems, Mattel, Inc., Maurer Metalcraft Inc., Maury 
           Microwave Corporation, Maytag Corporation, McDermott, 
           Inc./Babcock & Wilcox, McDonald Construction 
           Corporation, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, McFerrin 
           Engineering & Manufacturing Company, McGinty Machine 
           Company, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., MCI, 
           McStarlite Co., McWilliams Forge Company, Measurement 
           Specialties, Inc., Medexel, Inc., Medtronic, Inc., 
           Meeks & Sheppard, Meldisco A. Footstar Company, 
           Melloor-Puritan-Bennett Corporation, Memorial Health 
           System, Merck & Co., Inc., Meredith Corporation, 
           Meritus Industries, Inc., Metal Forming, Inc.
         Methode Electronics, Metholatum Company, The, Metratek, 
           MetroBank, Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of 
           Commerce, Metropolitan Tulsa Chamber of Commerce, 
           Mezzullo & McCandlish, Miami Valley Marketing Group, 
           Inc., Michigan-China Coalition, Michigan Retailers 
           Association, Microscan Systems, Inc., Microscript 
           Corp., Mid-America International Trade Services, Mid-
           America Overseas, Mid-America, International Agri-Trade 
           Council, MidAmerican Energy Corp., Mid-Central 
           Manufacturing, Inc., Mid-Continent Fire & Safety, 
           Middle East Rug Corporation, Midwest of Cannon Falls, 
           Inc., Midwest Plastic Supply, Inc., Mighty Star, Inc., 
           Milford Fabricating Company, Inc., Milling Precision 
           Tool, Inc., Mine & Mill Supply Co., Minnesota Agri-
           Growth Council, Inc., Mires Machine Company, Mize & 
           Company, Mobil Corporation, Monde Group, L.L.C., 
           Monitor Aerospace Corporation, Monogram Aerospace 
           Fasteners, Monogram Sanitation, Monsanto, Motor & 
           Equipment Manufacturers Association, Motorola, Inc., 
           Moy, Cheung and Company, MRS Technology, Inc., MTS 
           Systems Corp., Mulberry Corporation, Mulberry Motor 
           Parts, Inc., Mulberry Railcar Repair Co., Multipoint 
           Networks, Inc., Mustang International Groups, Inc., 
           Mutual Travel.
         MVE, Inc., Nadel & Sons Toy Corp., Naico, Nantucket 
           Distributing Co., Inc., National Association of 
           Manufacturers, National Association of Purchasing 
           Managers, National Concrete Masonry Association, 
           National Foreign Trade Council, National Grain and Feed 
           Association, National Institute for World Trade, 
           National Marine Manufacturers Association, National 
           Oilseed Processors Association, National Plastics 
           Color, National Retail Federation, Nations Bank, 
           Natural Science Industries, NBBJ, NCAI, NDE, Inc., 
           Network Computing Devices, Inc., New England Financial 
           Group, New Planet Sourcing, New York City Partnership 
           and Chamber of Commerce, New York for US-China Trade, 
           Newman Government Services, NextWave Design Automation, 
           Niagara Lubricant, Nike, Inc., Nikko America, Inc., 
           Nimbus Water Systems Inc., Nintendo of America Inc., 
           Noon International, Norand Corporation, NORBIC, 
           Nordstrom, Inc., Norman Krieger, Inc., Norris Education 
           Innovations, Inc., Nortel, North American Export Grain 
           Association, Inc., Northrop Grumman Corporation, 
           Northwest Horticultural Council, Norwest Banks, 
           Nottingham Co., Nuclear Energy Institute, NuDimensions.
         Number Nine Visual Technology, Nylint Corporation, 
           O'Keefe's Incorporated, Occidental Chemical 
           Corporation, Octel Communications, Octus, Inc., ODS 
           Networks, Inc., Off Shore Consulting, Ohio Alliance for 
           U.S.-China Trade, The Ohio Art Company, Olem Shoe 
           Corp., Open Engineering, Inc., Optek Technology, Inc., 
           Optical Coating Lab, Optima Technologies Group, Inc., 
           Oracle Corporation, OrCAD, Inc., The Oriental Rug 
           Importers Association, Inc., Oshman & Sons, Otis 
           Elevator Company, Otis McAllistar, Inc., Outboard 
           Marine Corporation, Overhead Door Company, Overland 
           Park Chamber of Commerce P.T. Express International 
           Inc., PAC AM INTERNATIONAL, PACCAR Inc., The Pacific 
           Basin Economic Council, U.S. Member Committee, Pacific 
           Market International, Pacific Northwest Advisors, 
           Pacific Rim Resources, Inc. PackAir AirFreight, Inc. 
           PASCO scientific, Paul Davril Inc., Payless ShoeSource, 
           Inc., PCI Newco, PCS Phosphate--White Springs, Pella 
           Corporation, PEPBOYS, PepsiCo, Inc., J.C. Penney Co., 
           Inc., Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association, Pfizer 
           Inc, Pharmacia & Upjohn, Philip Morris International 
           Inc.
         Philips Electronics, Phillips Petroleum Company, Phoschem 
           Supply Co., PhRMA, Phsio-Control Corp. Pic'n Pay 
           Stores, Inc., Pico Design Inc./Motorola, Pillowtex 
           Corporation, Pioneer Balloon Company, Pioneer Hi-bred 
           International, Inc., Pizza Hut, Plastic Fabricating 
           Co., Plastic-View A.T.C., Playing Mantis,Play-Tech 
           Inc., Plesh Industries, Inc., Polaroid Corporation, 
           Polk Equipment Company, Inc., Polk Pump and Irrigation 
           Co., Inc., Pollard Dental products, Inc., Polotec, 
           Inc., Poolmaster Inc., Port of Houston Authority, Port 
           of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, Portman Holdings, Portman 
           Overseas, Post Glover Resistors, Power Link, Inc., 
           Power Process Controls, PPG Industries Asia/Pacific 
           Ltd., PPG Industries, Inc., Praegitzer Industries, 
           Inc., Pratt & Whitney, Precious Kinds/Activatoys, 
           Precision Filters, Inc., Precision Machining, Inc., 
           Precision Products, Inc., Precision Profiling, Inc., 
           Preco Industries, Pressman Toy Corp., Price Brothers 
           Company, Price Waterhouse LLP, The Principal Financial 
           Group, Printronix, Inc.
         The Pro Trade Group, Processed Plastic Company, The 
           Procter & Gamble Company, Professional Machine & Tool, 
           Progressive, Inc., Pro-Mill Company, PTX-Petronix, 
           Inc., Pulizzi Engineering, Inc., Puritan Industries, 
           Inc., Puritan-Bennett Aerospace Systems, Quaker Oats 
           Company, Quality Petroleum Corporation, Quality Tech 
           Metals, QUANTUM DYNAMICS, Inc., QuickLogic Corp., 
           Quinnipiac Chamber of Commerce, R. Dennis & Associates, 
           R.A. Hanson Company, Inc., R.A. Lalli Company, Raco 
           Machine, Inc., Rae Manufacturing Inc., Ragen & 
           Cromwell, P.S., Rainfairn, Inc., Ralee Eng. Co., Ray 
           World Trading, Ltd., Raytek Corp., Raytheon Aircraft 
           Company, RB International, The Reader's Digest 
           Association, Inc., Recognition Systems, Inc., Recoton 
           Corporation, Recreation Vehicle Products, Reebok 
           International, Reed Sportswear Manufacturing Co., 
           Reeves International, Inc., Regal Plastics Company, 
           Reliable Manufacturing Inc., Reliance Metalcenter, 
           RENDER, Revell-Monogram, Inc., RF Group, Inc., Richard 
           Manufacturing Company Inc., Richmont, Riggs Tool 
           Company, Inc., Right Stuff, Inc.
         RJM2 LTD, RNS Healthcare Consultants, Inc., Roanoke 
           Companies, Inc., The, Robinson Fans Florida, Inc., 
           ROCKPORT, Rockwell, Rockwell Collins, Inc., Rohm and 
           Haas Company, Rolls-Royce North America Inc., Roof 
           Coatings Manufacturers Association, Roundhouse 
           Products, Inc., RRE Investors, LLC, RSI, Inc., Rubber & 
           Accessories, Inc., Russ Berrie & Co., Inc., RxL 
           Pulitzer, Ryan International Airplines, S.M.S. Group 
           Incorporated, S.R.M. Co., Inc., S.R.M. Toys, Ltd., 
           Saitek Industries, Salant Corporation, Saline Area 
           Chamber of Commerce, Samsonite, Santana Ltd., Sauder 
           Custom Fabrication, Inc., The Savings Bank of 
           Rockville, Saxony Sportswear Co., Scarbroughs, Schenker 
           International, Schottenstein Stores Corporation, 
           Scientific Technologies, Inc., Scope Imports, Seafirst 
           Bank, Sea-Land Service, Inc., Sears, Roebuck & Co., 
           Securities Industry Association,

[[Page H4284]]

           Security Chain Co., Sellers Tractor Co., Semiconductor 
           Industry Association, Sensormatic Electronic Corp., 
           Separation & Recovery Systems, Integration, Service 
           Merchandise Co., Inc., Shamash and Sons, Inc., Shanghai 
           Industrial Consultant, Inc.
         Shelcore Toys, Shelter Bay Leathers, Inc., Shoe 
           Corporation of America, Shonac Corporation, Shultz 
           Steel Company, Siebe Environment Controls, Siemans 
           Corporation, Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., Sierra 
           Machinery, Inc., Sierra Semiconductor Corp., SIFCO 
           Industries, Inc., SigmsTron International, Inc., Sijo 
           Enterprises, Inc., Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, 
           Silicon Graphics, Simco Electronics, Simmons and 
           Simmons, Simmons Machine Tool Corporation, Skarda 
           Equipment Co., Skyway Luggage Company, SLJ Retail LLC, 
           SmarTrunk Systems, Inc., Soletek, Corp., Solid State 
           Measurements, Inc., Soundprints (TMC), Southern Tier 
           World Commerce Association, Southwest Manufacturing, 
           Southwest Paper Co., Specialty Tool Company, Spectrum 
           Associates Inc., SpeedFarm International Inc., Sperry 
           Sun Drilling Services, Sporting Goods Manufacturers 
           Association, Standard Parts & Equipment, Star Cutter 
           Company, StarBase, Starbucks Coffee International, 
           Starter-Galt Sand Co., State Fish Co., Stearman 
           Aircraft Products Corporation, Sterling International, 
           Sterling Machine Company Inc., Stern International, 
           Inc., Stetron International, Inc., Stratedge Corp.
         Stride Rite Corporation, The, Stride Tool, Inc., 
           Strippit, Inc., Strombecker Corporation, Summit 
           Financial Strategies, Sun Microsystems, Inc., 
           Sundstrand Corporation, Sundstrand Fluid Handling 
           Corp., Sunkist Growers, Sunshine Metals, Superior 
           Boiler Works, Inc., Superior Coatings, Inc., Sutlu 
           Imports Int'l Inc., Sweepster Inc., Sy Quest 
           Technology, Inc., Symbios Logic, T.L.I. International 
           Corporation, Talarian, Tampa Armature Works Inc., Tampa 
           Electric, Tampa Port Authority, Taplin Design Group, 
           Inc., Target Stores, TD Materials, Inc., Team Concepts 
           North America, Ltd., Technitrol, Inc., Ted L. Rausch 
           Co., Tegal Corp., Tektronix, Inc., Teleglobe 
           International, Telemind Capital Corporation, 
           TeleProcessing Products Inc., Temcor, TENNECO, 
           Tennessee Association of Business, Tens Machine Co., 
           Inc., Terra-Mar Resource Information Service, Texaco, 
           Texas Association of Business & Chambers of Commerce, 
           Texas Coalition for U.S.-China Commercial Relations, 
           Texas Farm Bureau, Texas instruments Incorporated, 
           Textron Inc., 3-G Inernational, Inc., 3M Company
         Thornley & Pitt, Inc., Three Way Pattern, Inc., Tierney 
           Metals, Time Warner Inc., The Timken Company, TMR 
           Materials Co., Inc., Toledo Area International Trade 
           Association (TAITA), Tomy America, Inc., Tone Commander 
           Systems, Topline Imports, Inc., Toy Manufacturers of 
           America, Toys 'R' Us, Inc., Tradehome Shoe Stores, 
           Inc., Tramco, Inc., Transammonia, Inc., Trans-Ocean 
           Import Co., Inc., Trans-Phos, Inc., Triangle Coatings, 
           Inc., Trident Microsystems, TRIG, Trio Machine, TRW 
           Inc., TSC Engineering Co., TSI, Inc., Tube Sales, Inc., 
           Tucker MFG., Turner Electric Works, Twin Cities 
           Airports Task Force, Tyco Preschool Inc., U.S. Agri-
           Chemicals Corp., U.S. Association of Importers of 
           Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA), U.S. Bank, U.S. Chamber 
           of Commerce, U.S. Council for International Business, 
           U.S.-China Industrial Exchange, Inc., U.S.-China 
           People's Friendship Association, UNC Aerostructures, 
           Uncle Milton Industries, Inc., UNIAX Corp., Union Camp 
           Corporation, Union Carbide Asia Ltd., Unirex, Inc., 
           Unisource, Unisys Corporation, United Airlines, United 
           Machine Co., United Parcel Service, United Silicon, 
           Inc., United States Council for International Business, 
           United Technologies Corporation, Unitek Miyachi Corp., 
           Universal Marketing Group, Unocal Corporation, US 
           Export, Inc., US Trade Center, US Trading and 
           Investment Company, US West, Inc., US-China Business 
           Council, V7S Corporation, Valve Manufacturers 
           Association, Varian Associates, Vector Corp., Vector 
           Products Inc., Venture Search, Vermillion, Inc., 
           Viewlogic Systems, Inc., Virco Mfg. Inc., Vtech (OEM), 
           Inc., Vtech Industries, LLC, VXI Electronics, WACCO, 
           Wacker Sitronic Corp., Wagman Construction, Inc., 
           Warner-Lambert Corporation, Washington Council on 
           International Trade, Washington Public Ports 
           Association, Washington State China Relations Council, 
           Water Magic International, Watkins-Johnson Company, The 
           Weathervane, Weaver Manufacturing, The Westchester 
           City, NY County Chamber of Commerce, Western Bank/
           Bellevue, Western Resources, Westinghouse Electric 
           Corporation, Westvaco, Weyerhaeuser Company, Whirlpool 
           Asia, Inc., Whirlpool Corporation, White Cap 
           International, Whittaker Aerospace, Wichita Area 
           Chamber of Commerce, Wichita Machine Products, Wichita 
           Tool, Wichita Wranglers, Wicon International Ltd., 
           Wilcox Brothers Sign Co., William Kent International, 
           Wind River Systems, Inc., Windmere-Durable Holdings, 
           Inc., Wm. F. Hurst Co., Inc., Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, 
           Woolworth Overseas Corp., World Association of Children 
           and Parents (WACAP), World Trade Center Denver, World 
           Trade Council, Worldports Inc., Worldwide Contacts 
           Connections Contracts, Xerox Corporation, XILINX, Inc., 
           YES! Entertainment Corporation, Zak, Incorporated, ZB 
           Industries, Inc., Zellweger Analytics, Inc., Zycad 
           Corp., Zymed Laboratories, Inc.

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we are considering the important matter of 
whether the United States should extend China's most-favored-nation 
trading status.
  I want to build a strong relationship between the United States and 
China--a relationship under which American businesses and workers can 
prosper, a relationship which will encourage China to embrace 
international norms and human rights. But the MFN status China enjoys 
has done little to build a strong mutually beneficial relationship 
between our two nations.
  Under MFN, China has engaged in unfair trade practices, pirated 
intellectual property, spread weapons and dangerous technology to rogue 
nations, suppressed democracy, encroached on democratic reforms in Hong 
Kong, and engaged in human rights abuses. Many sing the praises of MFN, 
but as we consider this issue, we must focus on the facts.
  China has gladly profited from MFN while continually flaunting 
international agreements and standards of conduct. China sends one-
third of its exports to the United States while only 1.7 percent of 
American exports can crack the Chinese market. The result: We now have 
a $40 billion trade deficit with China which is expected to reach a 
staggering $50 billion by the end of this year.
  And this trade deficit will not go away as long as China rigs its 
laws to block goods from the United States. Chinese goods enter our 
country at an average tariff rate of 2 percent while our exports face 
an average tariff of 35 percent. Worse, China extorts technology and 
expertise from American firms as the price of doing business in China.
  Congress has limited means to address our many and serious concerns 
regarding China. But China's exports to the United States of more than 
$50 billion per year give us leverage that we must use to further 
American interests--interests affecting trade, foreign policy, and 
American workers.
  The United States must not give China a pass on the tough issues. We 
need to use our trade laws to pressure China for greater access for 
American companies and goods. We need to take action when China 
knowingly aids in the proliferation of weapons and weapons technology. 
And we need to take steps to shield American workers from unfair and 
inhumane prison labor.
  I am voting against MFN for China because we need to let China and 
our trade leaders know that more of the same from China is not 
acceptable. If our Government wants support for free trade, then it 
must insist on fair and equal standards and compliance with our trade 
laws. When that happens there will be broader support for MFN.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Once again, Mr. Speaker we find ourselves debating the 
renewal of most-favored-nation status for the People's Republic of 
China. It has become an annual exercise, one that exposes the deep 
division in our Nation over our relationship with the most populous 
nation in the world.
  I am reluctantly going to vote against the resolution of disapproval, 
House Joint Resolution 79, authored by my esteemed colleague from New 
York, Mr. Solomon. I am reluctant because China is governed by an 
authoritarian regime which represses its people and brutally cracks 
down on dissent. I, like so many of my colleagues, want to take action 
to force China to change, to become democratic and to ensure that all 
the people of that nation have the opportunity to participate fully in 
economic social, political, and religious freedom. But, how do we 
accomplish this? Will terminating MFN status achieve these ends? I must 
reluctantly conclude that it will not.
  I believe that the United States can do more to advance the cause of 
human rights and foster religious, economic and political freedom if we 
continue to engage the Chinese in economic cooperation. Social 
freedoms--like freedom of religion--are a direct result of economic 
liberalization. If we remove all of China's trade privileges, we are 
not only isolating that country, but we are losing any opportunity to 
improve human rights there. Let's not forget that many of the students 
that took to Tiennamen Square to protest against their Government were 
educated in the United States. Termination of MFN status would curtail 
the education of Chinese students in the United States and thus hinder 
future democratization in China.
  I also believe that by terminating MFN we will hurt the American 
worker and consumer.

[[Page H4285]]

Perhaps as much as $9 billion in United States exports to China might 
be affected by removing MFN privileges. In one company alone in my 
congressional district, 500 jobs would be at risk.
  However, we must continue to pursue human rights in China and around 
the globe as an important foreign policy objective. Currently, some of 
my colleagues are drafting positive steps to influence more directly 
the domestic situation in China. An expansion of Radio Free Asia and 
other democracy-building efforts in China are among United States 
policy options. In addition, Congress is discussing the restriction of 
visas for Chinese nationals involved in Human rights violations and/or 
arms proliferation. It is my believe that these aggressive efforts to 
promote human rights are more likely to encourage constructive change 
in China.
  Mr. Speaker, we must stay engaged with China to effect the economic 
and political situation there. Terminating MFN status will only be a 
useless gesture that will hurt the American worker. I urge my 
colleagues to vote down House Joint Resolution 79.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of an issue that is 
of grave importance to me and to our Nation as a whole--most-favored-
nation [MFN] status for China. Continuing normalized relations with 
China is not an affirmation of their record on human rights. It is, 
however, our best hope of maintaining a channel of democratic ideals 
and principles of freedom to China's citizens. Ending MFN would be a 
terrible loss for those fighting for freedoms in China.
  If MFN were revoked, manufactured goods from China would be subject 
to high tariffs upon entering the United States, possibly triggering a 
retaliatory response. If we close our door, they will close theirs. 
That means American farmers and manufacturers will pay the price. For 
every product we sell, there is a supplier in Europe or Asia that can 
quickly pick up our discarded opportunities. We would literally be 
handing our global markets to our competitors.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of speculation concerning the 
possible repression of freedom in Hong Kong when China reclaims its 
authority. I too am concerned and will be watching closely. But I am 
hopeful that Hong Kong's free and prosperous economy will actually 
further market reforms in mainland China. Revoking MFN now would be 
tragic for Hong Kong and would destroy any hopes for positive results.
  Democratic and Western values often ride on the heels of American 
goods and products. Cutting our economic ties with China would turn the 
clock back and strengthen the hands of extreme nationalists and those 
who wish to repress freedoms. I strongly encourage all of my colleagues 
to support the continuation of MFN status for China.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the renewal 
of the most-favored-nation [MFN] trade status of the People's Republic 
of China because China continues to deny the greater part of its 
citizenry the most basic human rights; engages in the worst kinds of 
religious, political, and ethnic persecution; bully neighboring 
countries; and undermines international stability by exporting missiles 
and nuclear technology to some of the world's leading rogue nations.
  Every year, we are told that MFN promotes continued economic growth 
and human rights in the People's Republic of China. While MFN has 
helped China expand its economy, and improve the living standards of a 
relatively small number of its citizens, I believe it is an absolute 
leap of faith to argue that China's economic growth has benefited the 
vast majority of its 1.4 billion citizens who continue to be denied--
sometimes forcibly--the freedom to think, speak, read, worship, and 
vote as they wish.
  I simply cannot agree with those who argue that MFN will one day--
some day--result in improved human rights in China as the Government of 
that vast nation continues to violate human rights on a massive scale.
  For example, the people of Tibet have been subject to especially 
harsh treatment by the Chinese Government. Why? Because their culture 
and religion are inseparable from the movement that seeks full Tibetan 
freedom from China--a movement that has been brutally suppressed by the 
Chinese Government since the late 1940's, when armed Chinese forces 
drove the Dalai Lama, the head of Tibet's ancient theocracy, into 
exile.
  Since then, the Chinese Government has stepped up its efforts to 
discredit the Dalai Lama as well as its campaign to eradicate the 
ancient culture and traditions of Tibet. In May 1994, a new ban on the 
possession and display of photographs of the Dalai Lama, resulted in a 
raid of monasteries in which Buddhists priests were brutally beaten by 
Chinese military personnel.
  The child recognized by the Dalai Lama, but rejected by the Chinese 
Government, as the Pansen Lama, the second highest individual in the 
Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy, is currently being held in ``protective 
custody'' by Chinese authorities.
  Since 1996, all religious institutions in China must register with 
the state. The failure to do so results in the closure of such 
institutions--or worse. For example, Human Rights Watch--Asia reports 
that unofficial Protestant and Catholic communities have been harassed, 
with congregants arrested, fined, sentenced, and beaten.
  The sad fact is that after two decades after the United States and 
China normalized relations, China has persisted--no, insisted--on 
following policies that threaten to make it an increasingly disruptive 
force among the family of nations. China's continuing and growing 
practice of selling advanced weapons and nuclear technology to Iran, 
Iraq, and other rogue nations is already a threat to world peace.
  Supporters of continued MFN for China argue that continued economic 
development in China will lead inevitably to a more open Chinese 
society and polity. Unfortunately, the current Chinese leadership seems 
willing and able to delay what MFN proponents insist is the inevitable.
  It should be remembered that like China today, the old South Africa 
had a growing economy, a growing--albeit racially limited--middle 
class, a significant United States business presence, and a repressive 
government. And, just like the arguments supporting continued and 
increased trade with China, it was argued that continued and increased 
United States trade with the old South Africa would bring about the 
economic, social, and political reforms that would inevitably force the 
South African Government to dismantle apartheid--the policy of 
segregation and economic and political discrimination against non-
European groups.
  As we all know, the Government of the old South Africa continued--in 
fact, stepped up--its campaign of repression and terror, including 
kidnaping, torture, jailing, and murder, to maintain apartheid until 
1987--that is, the year the Western World finally lost patience with 
the promises of progress made by the South African Government.
  Just as constructive engagement failed to reform the old South 
Africa, continued MFN will fail to reform China. Because I believe only 
the strongest trade sanctions, including a worldwide trade embargo on 
China, will encourage China's leaders to change the policies that 
promise to transform China into the world's leading rogue nation, I 
will continue to work to suspend China's MFN status.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 
79, the resolution of disapproval and against most-favored-nation 
status for China.
  The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1996 issued by the 
Department of State states that: ``The Government--of China--continues 
to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses in 
violation of internationally accepted norms, stemming,'' among other 
reasons from ``* * * the absence or inadequacy of laws protecting basic 
freedoms.'' And the report continues: ``No dissidents were known to be 
active at year's end.''
  Every year when MFN is before the Congress for renewal we are told 
that it is only through engagement with China that conditions will 
improve and every year the State Department's report seems to indicate 
that conditions, engagement to the contrary notwithstanding, have 
changed little.
  Further, the United States' trade deficit with China was close to $40 
billion in 1996. And it is only recently and with an absence of 
enthusiasm that the Government of China has moved to protect the 
intellectual property rights of United States citizens. Also, the 
Chinese markets are not entirely open to United States exports and 
trade barriers prohibit the full flow of trade.
  In summary, continued human rights violations, failure to protect 
intellectual property rights, and failure to permit United States goods 
greater access to China's markets leads me to conclude that renewal of 
MFN for China at this time is not warranted.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 79, a resolution to revoke most-favored-nation [MFN] for the 
People's Republic of China.
  First, it is important to be clear about the terms of this debate so 
it is well understood what is proposed by this resolution. Most-
favored-nation is not preferential treatment, rather, it is the normal 
trade status that the United States extends to all but eight nations in 
the world. Revocation of MFN, on the other hand, is not the withdrawal 
of special trade concessions but the imposition of economic sanctions 
that would potentially sever our ties with the world's most populous 
nation.
  With that understanding, we can have an honest debate about whether 
employing unilateral sanctions and ending our trade relationship with 
China will bring about the changes in Chinese behavior that we all wish 
to see--greater respect for human rights, adherence to trade 
agreements, and support for nonproliferation controls. In my view, 
revoking MFN in an attempt to isolate China is highly

[[Page H4286]]

unlikely to induce positive change in China and is certain to harm 
United States economic and strategic interests.
  Since China's opening to the West in the late 1970's, the political 
and economic conditions of the Chinese people have improved 
significantly. Through trade and contact with American business 
partners, individuals and communities in China, especially in the 
coastal regions, have gained substantial freedom from central 
government planners in Beijing. Severing those contacts would reverse 
that progress and have the effect of increasing Beijing's authority 
over the lives of the Chinese people.
  Mr. Speaker, not only would revoking MFN fail to advance human rights 
in China, it would seriously injure United States economic interests. I 
am especially concerned about the effect revoking MFN would have 
American agriculture. China is expected to account for 37 percent of 
future growth in United States agriculture exports, making it the most 
important growth market for United States commodities. In last year's 
farm bill, Congress eliminated the safety net and told family farmers 
they would have to earn their income solely from the marketplace. It 
would be unfair to the farmers in my State and around the country to 
now close down perhaps their most important export market.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in advancing the interest 
of both the people of the United States and the people of China by 
opposing the resolution and continuing normal trade relations with 
China.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this resolution which would end normal trade relations with China.
  Trade with China is about trading goods and trading ideas--ideas of 
religious freedom, free speech, and a free-market economy. Ending trade 
means an end to this exchange of ideas, and an end to the freedoms we 
hope the Chinese people may one day have.
  While the biggest losers of ending trade with China may be the 
Chinese people, we here at home also stand to lose. And this is so 
clearly illustrated in agriculture trade.
  We will lose our sixth biggest agriculture export market and $2.6 
billion in annual trade. Our farmers here at home would lose more than 
$4 billion in income in the next 3 years. While we would have to work 
doubly hard to expand our markets elsewhere, the average Chinese 
citzens would end up having to pay a higher price at the store for 
food.
  And that's what this debate is about today--how can we help improve 
the living conditions of the average Chinese citizen. We can cease 
trade, cease our exchange of ideas and know that the practioners of 
abhorrent human rights abuses will use this vote as an excuse to 
further punish supporters of trade with America.
  Or we can stand tall and know that trade with China is the biggest 
opportunity we have to move China in the direction we want. I encourage 
my colleagues to vote against this misguided resolution.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to convey my strong support for the 
disapproval of most-favored-nation status for China.
  Six days from now, China will gain considerable strength nationally 
and internationally with the inclusion of Hong Kong. By approving most-
favored-nation status, we will be using the power of the United States 
of America to condone their misbehavior not only in China, but its 
extension into Hong Kong as well. Let's just review China's record.
  First on nonproliferation, in the 1980's, we received information 
that China was covertly assisting Pakistan's shadowy nuclear program. 
China promised it would mend its ways, and in return we signed a 
Nuclear Cooperation Agreement in 1985--an agreement which has never 
been implemented throughout its 12 year existence because no U.S. 
President has ever been able to certify that China is being a 
responsible member of the international nonproliferation community.
  In the 1980's, the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation secretly 
built a nuclear reactor in Algeria. After a multitude of denials, China 
finally admitted its involvement in the reactor construction--only 
after aerial photographs identified it in 1991. Another lie exposed.
  In 1994, after China had signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, 
press reports indicated that the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation 
was building a secret military reactor in Pakistan, as well as two 
reactors and a uranium facility in Iran. More promises broken.
  In 1996, the transfer of 5,000 ring magnets from the Chinese National 
Nuclear Cooperation to Pakistan for use in a uranium enrichment 
facility was leaked to the press. China promised that it wouldn't do it 
again, and the Clinton adminsitration chose to believe those promises, 
despite the years of deception that should have called the nature of 
China's assurances into question.
  In the area of missile proliferation, a press report published just 
last week described a new short-range missile being developed by Iran 
with the help of technology and assistance from the China Precision 
Engineering Institute New Technology Corporation. China has been 
selling M-11 missiles to Pakistan for 5 years, according to a June 30 
article in Time magazine, and recent satellite photos indicate that not 
only are missiles being transferred, but that an entire missile factory 
is being built. This latest information comes after the all too 
familiar series of promises Beijing made in 1994 not to do it anymore.

  Years of lies, years of broken promises--what we have here is a 
proliferation pathology. China is as hooked on selling weapons of mass 
destruction as an alcoholic is to his scotch. We need to prescribe the 
appropriate therapy, and as with alcoholism, it will take more than a 
12-step self-help program at a proliferators anonymous group. The 
alcoholic will first promise to cut down on his drinking. When he gets 
caught, he'll make the same promise. If he keeps getting caught, he'll 
up the ante and promise to stop cold turkey. When does the alcoholic 
really stop drinking? When an intervention take place. When his family 
and friends tell him that they will no longer support, accept, or 
tolerate his behavior, and he is forced to confront his addiction 
honestly in order to regain their love and trust. Mr. Speaker, what we 
need to do with China is undertake a proliferation intervention.
  On trade, every year we are told that renewing China's most-favored-
nation status would help reduce our trade deficit with China; however, 
we have seen that trade deficit rise from $2.8 billion in 1987 to $39.5 
billion in 1997.
  Supporters claim that MFN is normal trade relations. These so-called 
normal relations produce a 2-percent tariff on Chinese goods, but the 
Chinese levy a 35-percent average tariff rate on United States goods.
  In 1996, Chinese piracy of United States intellectual property cost 
our economy over $2.3 billion.
  The Chinese have continually used this status to their advantage, 
including the most recent development of Chinese military owned 
business' selling enormous amounts of goods to the United States, all 
because we allow it.
  These normal trade relations produce nothing but negative effects on 
our economy, and we can no longer stand idly by and let our country 
move further into debt.
  Finally on human rights, we have an obligation to promote human 
rights throughout the world. To support China in its practice of 
suppressing democracy, and encouraging slave labor would be a 
contradiction of everything our country stands for.
  The State Department Country Report on Human Rights from this year 
states that the Chinese Government continued to commit widespread and 
well-documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally 
accepted norms, stemming from the authorities' intolerance of dissent, 
fear of unrest, and the absence or inadequacy of laws protecting basic 
freedoms.
  Mr. Speaker, we can not continue to support the abhorrent practices 
in China, economically or abstractly.
  We are told to wait and see what happens when Hong Kong changes 
hands, but the players have already moved to centerfield. Already the 
hand picked legislature for Hong Kong has given the police broad new 
powers to ban even peaceful demonstrations, and any group wishing to 
hold a protest march or rally must get prior approval from the police.
  Granting MFN status to China now would be like buying your 16-year-
old a Porshe for flunking out of high school. It only reinforces bad 
behavior and leads to big trouble down the road.
  China is speeding up down the runway, ready to take off with Hong 
Kong. There is no justification for renewing China's most-favored-
nation status until they have proven to abide by international 
standards and practices. We should not be handing them MFN on a silver 
platter, they must earn it.
  Every year on the day after we grant China MFN status, the Chinese 
Government votes to grant the United States MFN for most-foolish-nation 
status for being duped again on nonproliferation, trade, and human 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to granting China most-favored-
nation status.
  Back in the 1980's, we received information that China was covertly 
assisting Pakistan's shadowy nuclear program. China promised it would 
mend its ways, and in return we signed a nuclear cooperation agreement 
in 1985--an agreement which has never been implemented throughout its 
12 years existence because no United States President has ever been 
able to certify that China is being a responsible member of the 
international nonproliferation community.
  In the 1980's, the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation secretly 
built a nuclear reactor in Algeria. After a multitude of denials, China 
finally admitted its involvement in the reactor construction--only 
after aerial photographs identified it in 1991. Another lie exposed.
  In 1994, after China had signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, 
press reports indicated that the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation 
was building a secret military reactor

[[Page H4287]]

in Pakistan, as well as two reactors and a uranium facility in Iran. 
More promises broken.
  In 1996, the transfer of 5,000 ring magnets from the Chinese National 
Nuclear Cooperation to Pakistan for use in a uranium enrichment 
facility was leaked to the press. China promised that it wouldn't do it 
again, and the Clinton administration chose to believe those promises, 
despite the years of deception that should have called the nature of 
China's assurances into question.
  In the area of missile proliferation, a press report published just 
last week described a new short-range missile being developed by Iran 
with the help of technology and assistance from the China Precision 
Engineering Institute New Technology Corporation. China has been 
selling M-11 missiles to Pakistan for 5 years, according to a June 30 
article in Time magazine, and recent satellite photos indicate that not 
only are missiles being transferred, but that an entire missile factory 
is being built. This latest information comes after the all too 
familiar series of promises Beijing made in 1994 not to do it anymore.
  Years of lies, years of broken promises--what we have here is a 
proliferation pathology. China is as hooked on selling weapons of mass 
destruction as an alcoholic is to his scotch. We need to prescribe the 
appropriate therapy, and as with alcoholism, it will take more than a 
12 step self-help program at a proliferators anonymous group. The 
alcoholic will first promise to cut down on his drinking. When he gets 
caught, he'll make the same promise. If he keeps getting caught, he'll 
up the ante and promise to stop cold turkey. When does the alcoholic 
really stop drinking? When an intervention takes place. When his family 
and friends tell him that they will no longer support, accept, or 
tolerate his behavior, and he is forced to confront his addiction 
honestly in order to regain their love and trust.
  Mr. Speaker, what we need to do with China is undertake a 
proliferation intervention. We need to exercise some tough love, and 
tell China that we have had enough of the empty assurances and broken 
promises. Let's get China onto the nonproliferation wagon--vote to 
revoke MFN status.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution 
to disapprove most-favored-nation status for China. Last year, I 
opposed efforts to grant this privilege to China, and following a trip 
I made to China earlier this year, I continue to have reservations 
about extending this status.
  Since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, concern in Congress about 
the United States-China relationship has focused on three areas: 
China's violations of our trade agreements, proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction, and human rights abuses. During last year's debates 
on China MFN status, a resolution was passed urging the appropriate 
House committees to hold hearings and offer recommendations on these 
areas. While congressional hearings and commissions have met and many 
reports been issued, in each of these areas where Chinese violations 
have occurred, it is clear that our national policies of constructive 
engagement have failed. In fact, there has been marked deterioration, 
not improvement, under recent policies.
  Looking from the economic perspective, the United States deficit with 
China has steeply climbed from $3 billion at the time of the Tiananmen 
Square massacre in 1989 to over $50 billion projected for 1997. Less 
than 2 percent of United States exports are allowed into China, while 
over 33 percent of China's exports come into the United States. China's 
high tariffs and nontariff barriers limit access to the Chinese market 
for most United States goods and services and violate the GATT 
agreement. We must take action to assure that from the economic 
standpoint we have a level playing field.
  Second, I am concerned about Chinese efforts to transfer nuclear, 
advance missile, chemical, and biological weapons technology to nations 
like Iran and nonsafeguarded nations like Pakistan. China is the 
largest nuclear power in the world and the only nation which produces 
long-range nuclear missiles. The United States spends billions to 
promote Middle East peace, and Iran is a threat to that peace. We 
cannot continue to ignore China's transfer of dangerous technology to 
that region. Such activity threatens to destabilize not only our Nation 
but other regions of the world.
  Most importantly, human rights issues continue to concern me. The 
State Department's most recent issue of the Country Reports on Human 
Rights reveal that Chinese authorities have increased efforts to 
curtail public protests or criticism of the government. There has been 
increased persecution of evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics in 
China who choose to worship independently of the government-controlled 
church. In addition, officials there ruthlessly enforce laws limiting 
families to having one child. It is well-documented that individuals 
who gave birth to a second child there experienced loss of job or 
government benefits, fines and in some cases forced sterilization. The 
freedoms we often take for granted in America are what makes this 
Nation such a wonderful place to live. As a national policy, I do not 
support offering economic incentives to a nation which discourages and 
disallows the freedom for individuals to express themselves.
  Our Nation has a responsibility to use its leverage to act on behalf 
of fairness and must insist on a reciprocal relationship with China. It 
is my strong desire that once and for all these three issues can be 
addressed so that both countries can have a satisfactory trade 
relationship. However, this will not happen by once again overlooking 
the serious problems that are occurring in China. A recent poll by 
Business Week magazine shows that 67 percent of the American people 
oppose MFN for China. Let's do what the American people want and deny 
MFN status for China.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, today I will cast one of the most difficult 
votes during my tenure in Congress when I vote to grant most-favored-
nation status to China. ``Most-favored-nation status'' is a misnomer, 
the vote is actually whether or not to continue a normal trading 
relationship with China.
  There are many reasons to deny even a normal trading relationship 
with China. The lack of respect for the sanctity of human life, the 
lack of free speech or assembly, and the targeting and persecution of 
Christians are all good reasons to deny a normal trading status.
  But there is another side. To stop trade with China will further 
isolate and remove any pressure the United States has to improve their 
system. The vote on a normal trading status with China is a decision 
that will dictate how the United States chooses to support and help 
bring the citizens of China out of the oppressive world they are born 
into and show them the light of democracy. It is a decision that will 
affect the stability of Asia for the foreseeable future. This decision 
is a choice between supporting the economic miracles in Taiwan and Hong 
Kong or walk away from the situation entirely. It is a decision to 
protect American jobs in Puget Sound or threaten their very existence.
  I will cast my vote in favor of a normal trade relationship with 
China for many reasons including the ones detailed below.


                            washington state

  Washington State is the most trade dependent State in the United 
States. Recent studies have concluded that 1 out of every 4 jobs in 
Washington State are dependent on trade. In fact, trade between 
Washington State and China represented over 20 percent of the total 
trade between the two countries. The economic well being and continued 
growth of the State economy are closely linked to a continuation of 
trade with China.
  Mr. Speaker, over 30,000 employees work in my district for the Boeing 
Co. Many on this floor have targeted the Boeing Co. as a reason to deny 
MFN from China. In a letter that I requested from Boeing asking the 
hard questions about the welfare of American workers in Puget Sound, I 
was informed that in this year alone over $1 billion in contracts for 
American-made Boeing aircraft have been solidified with China. Further, 
70 percent of all commercial sales of Boeing aircraft are sold 
overseas.
  However, impressively over 85 percent on average of the contents of 
these aircraft are from the United States and they are all assembled in 
the Puget Sound region. These are impressive statistics and I intend to 
follow through on these numbers--and Mr. Speaker, I include the letter 
for the Record.


                           religious freedom

  Finally, religious freedom demands the continuation of a normal trade 
relationship. China is guilty of the persecution of Christians and I 
condemn their behavior. However, to walk away from the success that 
Christian missions have enjoyed in China will not help curb this 
practice. The Reverend Billy Graham has stated that he is ``in favor of 
doing all we can to strengthen our relationship with China and its 
people.'' He continues, ``nations respond to friendship just as much as 
people do.''
  The China Service Coordinating Office, an organization that 
represents more than one hundred Christian organizations in China 
believes that the revocation of MFN will threaten Christian outreach to 
the mainland. I must look to those missionaries who are carrying out 
their Christian ministry every day on the ground, in the trenches and 
trust they understand what is best for the persecuted Christian 
minority in China. They support the continuation of a normal trading 
relationship with China.


                   our future relationship with china

  The United States of America must pursue a new policy with China. In 
order to effect real change, we must end this yearly debate on a normal 
trading relationship and pursue a pragmatic policy that reacts swiftly 
and certainly against Chinese infractions against its citizens and the 
global community.
  We must enact legislation to prohibit business with Chinese companies 
tied to the Chinese Red Army. We must deny visas to human rights 
abusers in China to enter the

[[Page H4288]]

United States. We must increase funding to democratic institutions 
dedicated to bringing the message of democracy to the Chinese people. 
We must react swiftly to any violation of trade agreements by enacting 
targeted sanctions against China. Only through bringing about change 
such as these will we support real change in China.


                                           The Boeing Company,

                                     Arlington, VA, June 20, 1997.
     Hon. Jack Metcalf,
     Longworth House Office Building, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Metcalf: I want to take the opportunity to 
     respond to your recent inquiry concerning the Boeing Company 
     and how our relationship with China affects jobs at our 
     Everett, Washington facility.
       We are an American company with a global presence competing 
     in a global market. We sell our products worldwide and 
     support hundreds of thousands of American aerospace jobs. 
     Today, about 70% of our sales are international. In the 
     future, $3 out of every $4 we make will be from customers 
     outside the United States.
       The Boeing Company considers China to be the single most 
     important international market for commercial airplane sales 
     in the next 20 years. China has need for about 1,900 new 
     airplanes, valued at $124 billion. This year alone we've 
     signed orders for over a billion dollars worth of airplanes 
     to China, including five 777s and two 747s--all made at our 
     Everett facility.
       We have 32,000 employees working in Everett, including 
     engineers, machinists, pilots and technicians. Their jobs are 
     dependent on our ability to sell airplanes. The Boeing 
     Commercial Airplane Group also has approximately 5,000 U.S. 
     suppliers who help contribute to building our airplanes. A 
     small percentage of our suppliers are located outside the 
     United States, including six in China.
       While Chinese suppliers are responsible for a portion of 
     the work done by our international suppliers, the majority of 
     the work on our airplanes occurs here in the United States. 
     In fact, 86% of the dollar value (parts, tools and labor) of 
     Boeing commercial aircraft in 1996 was provided by Boeing and 
     U.S. aerospace suppliers.
       It is important to note that Boeing will retain the key 
     engineering, design and product-integration expertise that 
     has made us the world's leading producer of commercial 
     jetliners. We will not transfer any technologies or core 
     competencies that would help a supplier become a competitor.
       A stable relationship between China and the United States 
     will directly affect our ability to sell airplanes in China--
     which in turn affects jobs at Boeing.
       Beyond jobs, trade is a powerful force for human progress, 
     representing the free exchange of goods, services and ideas. 
     MFN extension will help to assure that we can remain engaged 
     and competitive in China, and will also lay the groundwork 
     for concluding World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations 
     that will help lock in China's economic reform process, 
     improve the rule of law and improve market access for U.S. 
     workers and farmers. In our view, trade is the best tool we 
     have for promoting American values in China.
       I want to thank you for the opportunity to address some of 
     your questions, and your continued interest and efforts on 
     behalf of the Boeing Company and its employees.
           Sincerely,

                                        Christopher W. Hansen,

                                                   Vice President,
                                          U.S. Government Affairs.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to cast my vote against most-
favored-nation trade status for China. We have hoped that a policy of 
trade engagement with China would lend to greater democracy in China 
and greater responsibility from the Chinese government. It has not.
  China's human rights record leaves much to be desired. There is clear 
evidence of persecution of religious belief, persecution of the people 
of Tibet, use of prison labor, and a restricted press. Additionally, 
our dialogue and willingness to engage China in trade has made no 
discernible impact in the area of human rights.
  China continues to engage in predatory trade practices that have led 
to our $40 billion trade deficit with China. China refuses to enforce 
laws against the piracy of intellectual property and patents, continues 
to ship products made with prison labor, evades United States 
restrictions on China textile exports by transshiping pieces through 
Hong Kong, and effectively prohibits thousands of foreign products from 
entering the Chinese market through a maze of regulations which run 
counter to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Our trade 
deficit with China has been rising at a faster rate than that of any 
other major trading partner. How many more American jobs are we going 
to let China's repressive government destroy?
  It is clear that countless extensions of the MFN trading privilege--a 
privilege China needs more than we do--have not worked. Our yearning 
for friendship and our attempts to persuade Beijing to conform to 
international norms have been met with failure.
  China continues to increase spending on the military, and seems 
intent on developing an offensive military capability--financed by 
billions of dollars the regime makes through its managed trade with us. 
Beijing refuses to join international efforts to stem the proliferation 
of nuclear arms, continues to transfer advanced ballistic missile 
technology to Syria and Pakistan, provides nuclear and chemical weapons 
technology to Iran, and refuses to comply with the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty.
  The United States has a responsibility to use whatever leverage it 
has--military, diplomatic, or economic--to send this message. We have a 
responsibility to speak out for democracy wherever possible. For in the 
end, the argument over MFN is not just about what kind of country China 
is, it is about what kind of nation we are. China needs to be sent a 
loud, unequivocal message--a message that can only be delivered by 
revoking Beijing's MFN status.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of MFN for China. I 
rise in support of the common sense proposition that we continue to 
normalize trade relations with the People's Republic of China.
  We live in a global economy and it simply makes no sense to turn our 
back on a nation of 1 billion people. It is in our national security 
interests as well as our economic interest that we have normal 
relations.
  We are all concerned about human rights and individual freedom, but 
the best way to promote those causes is to be present in China with our 
values and our products.
  In my district alone, I have heard from large and small companies 
whose future for products and jobs largely depends on new markets.
  I can think of no more important export to China than each and every 
example of the American success story.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the statements of the President in his 
letter to Congress of June 11, 1997:

       Our engagement with China does not mean that we endorse all 
     of its policies. Where China has acted contrary to our 
     interests and the standards of international behavior, we 
     have made clear our differences. We successfully pressed 
     China to end its assistance to unsafeguarded nuclear 
     facilities in third countries. We insisted that it take 
     strong steps to protect the intellectual property rights of 
     American videotape and compact disc makers from piracy. When 
     China carried out provocative military exercises in the 
     Strait of Taiwan, we sent our aircraft carriers to the region 
     as a reminder of our commitment to stability and a peaceful 
     resolution to the Taiwan issue. And repeatedly, we have stood 
     up for human rights in China--at the United Nations Human 
     Rights Commission in Geneva; through the State Department's 
     unvarnished annual human rights reports; in our meetings with 
     China's leaders. We will continue to use all the tools at our 
     disposal--cooperation, diplomacy, targeted sanctions, when 
     appropriate--to narrow our differences.
       Ending normal trade treatment for China would end our 
     strategic dialogue--blocking cooperation on issues important 
     to America's interests and destroying our ability to promote 
     China's fuller observation of international norms. Rather 
     than advancing human rights, revocation would cut off our 
     contact with the Chinese people. It would eliminate, not 
     facilitate, further cooperation on preventing weapons 
     proliferation, promoting stability on the Korean peninsula, 
     and combating transnational threats to both our countries. It 
     would close one of the world's emerging markets to our 
     exports and endanger an estimated 170,000 American jobs. It 
     would make China more isolated and less likely to play by the 
     rules of international conduct.
       Most of the opponents of normal trade treatment for China 
     seek goals that I share--respect for human rights and 
     religious freedom in China; fair and open trade; responsible 
     policies on weapons proliferation. But I am convinced the 
     path they have chosen to advance those goals is the wrong 
     path. Further change in China is necessary and inevitable, 
     but it will not come overnight. It most assuredly will not 
     come if we isolate ourselves and cut off our relationship 
     with one quarter of the world's population.

  I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and support MFN for 
China.
  Mr. RYUN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a very difficult issue 
that we've been wrestling with for some months now. As a freshman, this 
is my first vote on most-favored-nation status for China. And I have 
listened very carefully to both sides on this matter.
  This has been a very healthy debate. It is a debate about religious 
freedom and human rights in China as well as about how to promote 
democracy and economic freedom throughout the world.
  I agree with the many missionaries in China who have told me 
personally that denying MFN status to China would only isolate that 
country, pushing it further from our ideals of religious freedom and 
democracy. I do not believe that slamming the door to freedom and trade 
would improve human rights in China. Instead, it would close off the 
avenues of greater Western influence.
  In a recent memo, a group opposing the renewal of MFN to China quoted 
an editorial from the Economist which stated:


[[Page H4289]]


       If you hear your neighbor beating up his children, do you 
     give a shrug and say it is none of your business?

  My answer is absolutely no. And I hope that all of us here would go 
next door and try to stop the abuse. That's how the United States 
should deal with China. To deny MFN would be to shrug and say that the 
human rights abuses are not our problem. Some have argued that we 
should ignore the violations, pull up our drawbridge, put on our 
blinders and turn inward, leaving China to continue its policies of 
persecution and population control. We have been down that road. And 
what did it produce? A decade-long terror called the Cultural 
Revolution.
  I believe the best way to affect change in China--morally, 
economically and politically--is through interaction with the Chinese. 
We should demonstrate the American way of integrity, honesty, and 
openness.
  Today, United States exports of goods and services to China total 
about $14.4 billion and support over 200,000 jobs. Kansas exports to 
China in 1996 were $53.2 million, up from $6 million in 1990. And China 
is my State's 13th largest trading partner.
  Let's make sure that in our zeal to rap the knuckles of the Chinese 
Government, that we do not slam the American farmer and manufacturer 
with a 2 by 4 and cause the loss of thousands of American jobs. We need 
only be reminded of the Soviet grain embargo imposed by President 
Carter in the 1980's. I can assure you that Kansas wheat farmers have 
not forgotten it.
  I believe there are more effective ways to foster freedom and curb 
human rights abuses in China. We should: First, ban companies 
controlled by the Chinese military from commercial activity in the 
United States; second, deny visas to Chinese officials involved in 
human rights abuses, religious repression or population control or who 
engage in selling high-tech weaponry; and third, increase exchange 
programs for Chinese students to come to the United States.
  So, by renewing MFN status, we choose to go next door and persuade 
our neighbor to treat his children lovingly. The United States should 
remain a positive influence on its neighbor by keeping our doors open 
to demonstrate how families in a free and prosperous nation live 
together in peace.
  Let us remember the words of President Reagan in his last State of 
the Union Address:

       One of the greatest contributions the United States can 
     make to the world is to promote freedom as the key to 
     economic growth. A creative, competitive America is the 
     answer to a changing world, not trade wars that would close 
     doors, create great barriers, and destroy millions of jobs . 
     . . Where others fear trade and economic growth, we see 
     opportunities for creating new wealth and undreamed-of 
     opportunities for millions in our own land and beyond. Where 
     others seek to throw up barriers, we seek to bring them down; 
     where others take counsel of their fears, we follow our 
     hopes.

  After much prayerful thought, I will vote in favor of extending most-
favored-nation status to China.
  I urge my colleagues to support normal trade relations with China in 
hopes of continuing our influence of religious and economic freedom.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of House Joint 
Resolution 79, a resolution of disapproval of most-favored-nation [MFN] 
status for products from China. I believe that it is in the best 
interest of United States agriculture to continue, and eventually 
expand, the current trading relationship with China.
  United States agriculture exports to China were $2 billion last year, 
a significant increase over 1993 United States exports of less than 
one-half of $1 billion. China represents an agriculture market that is 
vital to the success of our farmers and ranchers. Our agriculture trade 
with China can strengthen development of private enterprise in that 
country and bring China more fully into world trade membership.
  There are few countries that do not have unconditional MFN status 
with the United States. MFN status allows a country's products to enter 
into the United States at the same tariff rates that apply to other 
trading partners. In fact, MFN provides no special treatment. It allows 
us to treat all countries' imports in the same manner. Failure to do so 
often has a serious negative impact on American agriculture, the first 
to feel the impact of embargoes and retaliation.
  It is my intention to work toward the goal of ensuring regular and 
ongoing trade with China. In fact, the committee has been working 
closely with the Secretary of Agriculture and the United States Trade 
Representative on matters related to China's accession to the World 
Trade Organization. Several issues related to nontariff trade barriers 
must be resolved prior to any accession.
  International trade is important for American agriculture and for the 
success and prosperity of American farmers and ranchers. I urge my 
colleagues to reject House Joint Resolution 79.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution.
  Earlier this year, I traveled to China, Hong Kong and Taiwan with 
Speaker Gingrich and a dozen of my colleagues. At each stop, it was 
impressed on us how important MFN for China is. People in both Taiwan 
and Hong Kong pleaded with us not to cut off trade with China. It is 
extremely important to them.
  Why? Because they have billions of dollars worth of investment in 
China and Hong Kong. So do we.
  What do we gain by denying trade with China? Yes, some countries 
don't have MFN--such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Cuba--
countries that the State Department has listed as sponsors of 
international terrorism.
  Do we want to include China in the same category? Maintaining strong 
relations with China is of great importance to providing long-term 
stability to the Asia-Pacific region. MFN is not a privilege, it is to 
maintain normal trade relations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that if proceedings 
on the Journal resume immediately after an electronic vote on another 
question, then the minimum time for any electronic vote on agreeing to 
the Speaker's approval of the Journal may be 5 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to sections 152 and 153 of the 
Trade Act of 1974, the previous question is ordered on the joint 
resolution.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
earlier today, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 
5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, 
if ordered, will be taken on the question of the Speaker's approval of 
the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 259, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 231]

                               AYES--173

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Norwood
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Rahall
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Linda
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman

[[Page H4290]]


     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--259

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Towns
     Turner
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cox
     Schiff
     Yates

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. GILCHREST, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, and Messrs. SUNUNU, LARGENT, 
TAUZIN, LEWIS of California, and BECERRA changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, and Mr. TORRES 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the joint resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________