[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.
____________________