[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 5, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10054-H10063]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF NINE MEASURES RELATING TO THE POLICY OF 
    THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

[[Page H10055]]

call up House Resolution 302 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 302

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2358) to provide for improved monitoring of human rights 
     violations in the People's Republic of China. The bill shall 
     be considered as read for amendment. The amendments 
     recommended by the Committee on International Relations now 
     printed in the bill and the amendments printed in part 1-A of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted. All points of 
     order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and any further amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on 
     the bill, as amended, which shall be equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on International Relations or their designees; (2) 
     the further amendment specified in part 1-B of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Gilman 
     or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention 
     of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall 
     be separately debatable for thirty minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on H.R. 2232, it shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order to consider in the House 
     the bill (H.R. 2195) to provide for certain measures to 
     increase monitoring of products of the People's Republic of 
     China that are made with forced labor. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and 
     Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, which 
     shall be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 3. After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on H.R. 2195, it shall be in order to consider in 
     the House the resolution (H. Res. 188) urging the executive 
     branch to take action regarding the acquisition by Iran of C-
     802 cruise missiles. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read for amendment. The amendments printed in part 2 of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules shall be considered as 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the resolution and the preamble, as amended, to final 
     adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the resolution, as amended, which shall be equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on International Relations or their 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 4. After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on H. Res. 188, it shall be in order to consider 
     in the House the bill (H.R. 967) to prohibit the use of 
     United States funds to provide for the participation of 
     certain Chinese officials in international conferences, 
     programs, and activities and to provide that certain Chinese 
     officials shall be ineligible to receive visas and excluded 
     from admission to the United States. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The amendments recommended 
     by the Committee on International Relations now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, which shall 
     be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on International Relations 
     or their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 5. After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on H.R. 967, it shall be in order to consider in 
     the House the bill (H.R. 2570) to condemn those officials of 
     the Chinese Communist Party, the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China, and other persons who are involved in the 
     enforcement of forced abortions by preventing such persons 
     from entering or remaining in the United States. The bill 
     shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment 
     printed in part 3 of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     shall be considered as adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary or their designees; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 6. After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on H.R. 2570, it shall be in order to consider in 
     the House the bill (H.R. 2386) to implement the provisions of 
     the Taiwan Relations Act concerning the stability and 
     security of Taiwan and United States cooperation with Taiwan 
     on the development and acquisition of defensive military 
     articles. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. 
     The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on International Relations now printed in the 
     bill, modified by the amendments printed in part 4 of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules, shall be considered as 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as 
     amended, which shall be equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     International Relations or their designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 7. After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on H.R. 2386, it shall be in order to consider in 
     the House the bill (H.R. 2605) to require the United States 
     to oppose the making of concessional loans by international 
     financial institutions to any entity in the People's Republic 
     of China. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. 
     The amendments printed in part 5 of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules shall be considered as adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, which 
     shall be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the committee on Banking and 
     Financial Services or their designees; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 8. After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on H.R. 2605, it shall be in order to consider in 
     the House the bill (H.R. 2647) to ensure that commercial 
     activities of the People's Liberation Army of China or any 
     Communist Chinese military company in the United States are 
     monitored and are subject to the authorities under the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The bill shall 
     be considered as read for amendment. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on International Relations 
     or their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 9. After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on H.R. 2647, it shall be in order to consider in 
     the House the bill (H.R. 2232) to provide for increased 
     international broadcasting activities in China. The bill 
     shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     International Relations now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, which shall be equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on International Relations or their 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 10. During consideration of any measures pursuant to 
     this resolution, the list of questions on which the Chair may 
     postpone proceedings under clause 5(b)(1) of rule I shall be 
     considered to include (as though in one of the subdivisions 
     (A) through (E)) both the question of adopting an amendment 
     and the question of adopting a motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a technical amendment to the 
resolution. After clearing a technical printing error with the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], a member of the Committee on Rules, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment to House Resolution 302 placed 
at the desk be considered as adopted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman of the Committee on 
Rules for yielding to me.
  I am pleased to rise in support of House Resolution 302 providing for 
consideration of nine measures relating to the policy of the United 
States with respect to the People's Republic of China.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the rule (H. Res. 
302) providing for consideration of nine measures relating to the 
policy of the United States with respect to the People's Republic of 
China.
  Today the House addresses major aspects of the United States-China 
relationship in bringing these measures to the floor.
  Many ask: Why are we taking up these measures? The answer is simple. 
We are taking up these measures because we made a

[[Page H10056]]

promise to the American people when the House unanimously adopted House 
Resolution 461 in June 1996.
  That resolution, which was introduced by Mr. Solomon and Mr. Cox, 
called for hearings and legislation by the cognizant House committees 
on issues of concern to the American people regarding the People's 
Republic of China. We're keeping our promise.
  This legislative package is an effort to separate such issues as 
human rights, proliferation, and the advancement of democracy from our 
annual debate about China's trade status--the MFN issue.
  The American people are deeply concerned about our relationship with 
China--all of our colleagues receive letters, phone calls, and other 
communications about it. We are responding to our constituents.
  The Chinese are watching our actions closely. This is an opportune 
time to be open and to be frank with the new Chinese leadership that 
the American people and Congress are concerned about a number of 
important issues in our bilateral relationship.
  Many of us in the Congress, and many of the American people, believe 
that the administration is soft-peddling issues which we as Americans 
feel strongly about--such as human rights, democratization, trade, 
Tibet, Taiwan, and our national security.
  This legislation expresses the strong sentiment of the Congress and 
the American people on these issues and urges the administration to 
take appropriate action.
  Seven of the nine bills fall within the sole or shared jurisdiction 
of the Committee on International Relations. I am pleased with the work 
of the Rules Committee on these measures. Accordingly, I urge support 
for the rule so that we can proceed with consideration of these bills.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
half of our time, 30 minutes, to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During 
consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has granted one rule which 
provides for the consideration of nine bills relating to United States-
China policy. Each of the nine bills will be considered separately. 
Each bill will receive one hour of debate equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction or their 
designees. In addition, the rule provides that one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions, will be in order on each of the nine 
bills.
  With that, I will proceed to describe briefly the procedure for each 
of those 9 bills.
  The first bill the rules makes in order is H.R. 2358, the Political 
Freedom in China Act, under a modified, closed amendment process. In 
addition, the rule makes in order and waives points of order against 
the Gilman-Markey amendment specified in the Committee on Rules, report 
to be separately debatable for 30 minutes.
  The rule then provides for the consideration of H.R. 2195, the Slave 
Labor Products Act, under a closed amendment process. House Resolution 
188, the fighting missile proliferation resolution, is to be considered 
under a modified, closed amendment process as well.
  The rule then provides for the consideration of H.R. 967, the Free 
the Clergy Act, under a closed amendment process. The rule provides for 
the consideration of H.R. 2570, the Forced Abortion Condemnation Act.
  Next, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2386, the Taiwan 
Missile Defense Act. The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 
2605, the China Subsidization Act. Next, the rule provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 2647, the Denial of Normal Commercial Status to 
the Chinese People Liberation Army. The rule then provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 2232, the Radio Free Asia Act.
  Finally, the rule provides that the Speaker may postpone proceedings 
on the question of adopting an amendment and the question of adopting a 
motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair, balanced rule. It makes in order four 
amendments by Democratic Members, two amendments by Republican Members, 
and six amendments which are bipartisan in nature.
  Mr. Speaker, on the substance of the bill, let me just say that the 
day has finally arrived on this floor. Today we will consider a series 
of bills on China that I have just outlined that, together, represent a 
comprehensive approach to dealing with the myriad of problems presented 
by the criminal behavior of the Communist dictatorship in Beijing.
  Year after year we in this Congress go through the routine process of 
attempting to deny but then granting most-favored-nation trading status 
to this regime, despite its endless list of crimes against humanity, 
crimes against innocent human beings. Then we forget about it for a 
year while China continues its human rights abuses, its grossly unfair 
trading practices, its huge military buildup, its sale of weapons and 
technology to rogue regimes like Iran, its religious persecutions of 
innocent, helpless human beings, and even worse, Mr. Speaker, selling 
ready-to-assemble factories to Middle East countries that produce 
chemical and biological weapons, including deadly nerve gas and other 
deadly germ warfare that could be used on American soldiers when they 
are called upon to defend another country, like Kuwait against Iraq. 
Members should read the newspaper and watch television and see what is 
happening with this man Hussein in Iraq.
  The nine bipartisan bills we offer here today, and I emphasize 
``bipartisan,'' will help us break this vicious cycle. Each of them 
deals with a different aspect of our relationship with China, or 
addresses a particular transgression committed by this Communist 
dictatorship.
  Mr. Speaker, I must at this point heap praise on the man I think most 
responsible for putting this package together and getting it to this 
floor this far, our Republican policy committee chairman, the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Chris Cox. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] 
and his staff have done diligent work, outstanding work over these past 
several months, as a matter of fact, several years, in overseeing this 
effort, and our hats certainly go off to him, and certainly I know it 
is appreciated by the oppressed people of China.
  I would also like to thank the relevant committees which have 
reported out or discharged this legislation, including the Committee on 
Ways and Means, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on National Security, and 
especially the committee which did the lions' share of work, the 
Committee on International Relations, under the able leadership of my 
good friend, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ben Gilman.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minority leader, the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Nancy Pelosi], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Tony Hall], and so 
many other Democrat Members on the other side of the aisle who have 
been unswerving in their support of a free China, and who also helped 
make this package a legislative reality.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of these bills by this House is absolutely 
essential here today. Even if one were a supporter of MFN, one must 
admit that China's behavior is absolutely unacceptable, and this 
Congress cannot just stand idly by and do nothing about it, especially 
after the President of the United States fell all over himself last 
week rolling out the red carpet for this Chinese dictator, and offering 
him a bag of goodies in return for a couple of empty promises. We will 
be back here next year and 2 years from now, and I will recall those 
empty promises to Members, and Members will tell me that they were not 
fulfilled.
  Let us look at the facts. On trade matters, hardly a day goes by when 
the economic and trade picture with China does not get worse. China's 
refusal to grant fair and open access to American goods has resulted in 
our trade deficit with that country skyrocketing to $38 billion last 
year, and toward $50 billion this year.
  Do Members know how many American people were put out of work because 
of that? The people that make this shirt I am wearing here no longer 
have jobs. This has cost thousands of American jobs, and this Congress 
refuses to do anything about it, up until today.
  While this package will not affect most-favored-nation trading status 
with China, the bill of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] does 
attempt to address the problem of

[[Page H10057]]

the Chinese People's Liberation Army's huge commercial empire by 
requiring the executive branch to compile a list of People's Liberation 
Army companies, and authorizing the President to restrict trade with 
them under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Considering 
the crimes committed by the Chinese People's Liberation Army, as well 
as its clearly unfair trading practices. This is clearly the least we 
can do.

  On the matter of human rights, hardly a day goes by without reading 
of yet another act of aggression, another act of duplicity, or another 
affront to humanity committed by these butchers of Beijing.
  Consider this: The same people who conducted the massacre in 
Tiananmen Square and the inhumane oppression of Tibet, and if Members 
do not think they are being oppressed, go there and see firsthand what 
is happening to those poor people, they have been busily eradicating 
the last remnants of the democracy movement in China. It is gone, Mr. 
Speaker.
  As we all know, according to this year's State Department human 
rights report, in 1996, China stepped up efforts to cut off expressions 
of protest, and had effectively silenced all opposition by 
intimidation, exile, or imprisonment. That is our State Department's 
report, Mr. Speaker. Read it.
  I emphasize the words ``stepped up,'' Mr. Speaker. Human rights in 
China are getting worse, not better. This package attempts to deal with 
this fact through a variety of means. H.R. 2358 that was introduced by 
the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] provides for $2 million 
for additional diplomats dedicated to monitoring human rights to be 
posted throughout all of China, so we can see and we can have reports 
coming back to us.
  Another bill introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
provides additional moneys for customs inspectors to monitor and 
enforce existing prohibitions on slave labor, of which Communist China 
is the world's premier user. And some of the people around here sing 
their praises. They still use slave labor, starving people to produce 
goods to sell in this country, like this shirt I am wearing, and 80 
percent cheaper than we can make it in our country. And we sit here and 
do nothing about it?
  The Free the Clergy Act, H.R. 967, of the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Ben Gilman] denies visas to Chinese officials that are engaged in 
China's rampant religious persecution, and prohibits funding of travel 
to the United States for officials of Communist China's sham official 
churches. Do Members not know that that will send a message?
  In a similar vein, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Tillie Fowler] 
would deny visas to those officials involved in China's odious practice 
of forced abortions. They are bad enough, abortions in themselves, but 
forced abortions?
  And the gentleman from California [Mr. Ed Royce] will increase 
funding for Radio Free Asia with the intent of achieving 24-hours-a-day 
broadcasting in China in multiple languages and in dialects, so that 
the people behind that Chinese iron curtain can see what is going on 
and can hear that there are people out there, that there is a beacon of 
hope for them.
  In the field of national security, what we see is a relentless 
Chinese military buildup, ever more frequent exports of technology and 
weapons of mass destruction, and an increasingly belligerent Chinese 
foreign policy that even threatens to use those missiles on Los 
Angeles.
  Where are all the Members from California? They ought to be terribly, 
terribly upset about that. Here is one back here.
  While every other major country has reduced its military spending, 
Communist China has increased its military spending by double digits 
for a number of years now, and has already increased their military 
spending by 50 percent in just the last several years, while we in 
America and every other democracy in the world is cutting back. Why are 
they doing that? What have they got on their minds? What are they 
buying with all of that money? Soviet-made Sunburn missiles from 
Russia, that is what, and Soviet and Russian-made SU-27 Flankers, Kilo 
submarines, and a host of other equipment and technology that will 
allow China to, among other things, continue to intimidate the 
democratic society of Taiwan.
  Meanwhile, China's irresponsible proliferation activities continue to 
go unabated, despite last week's paper promises. The fact is that China 
continues to export ballistic missile and nuclear technology to 
Pakistan, and missile, nuclear and chemical weapons technology to the 
avowed enemy of America.
  Who says we are their enemy? Iran says we are their enemy. Yet China 
gives them the same nuclear technology that now we are telling them we 
are going to give to China. It is outrageous, Mr. Speaker.
  This package also deals with these national security problems in 
several different ways. One bill calls for enforcement of the Gore-
McCain Act, this is the law of the land, in light of China's C-802 
missile shipments to Iran. That 1992 act calls for sanctions against 
countries which arm Iran, but the President and the Vice President have 
been ignoring the law, declining even to issue a waiver. Why? I wonder 
why.
  H.R. 2386, introduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. Duncan 
Hunter], requires a report on the missile defense needs of Taiwan, and 
calls for sales of missile defense technology to Taiwan as soon as 
possible, so they can meet this threat.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I myself introduced an attempt to shut down the 
taxpayer-funded money flow to this rogue regime, which makes what we 
are doing here today necessary by requiring the United States to oppose 
all so-called soft money loans to China.
  Here is this country. We are going to have people come on the floor 
today and they are going to praise this China's Government and say how 
successful they are, and look at their great economy. And we still give 
them money in foreign aid? We give our taxpayers' money to them?
  Mr. Speaker, this world is upside down. It is high time for 
substantive and creative responses to the aforementioned affronts 
against humanity committed by this despotic dictatorship in China. That 
is what these nine bills are all about, and I would urge every Member 
to come over here, participate in this 10 hours of debate on the issues 
that I have just brought before Members. We need to do that not only 
for the people that are suffering under communism in China today, but 
we need to do it for the protection of the American people in the 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). Without objection, the Clerk 
will report the amendment to the resolution that was previously agreed 
to.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
       The first sentence of section 2 is amended by striking 
     ``H.R. 2232'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``H.R. 2358''.

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution, House Resolution 302, is a compound 
rule that will allow consideration under a very closed amendment 
process. It allows nine separate bills or resolutions responding to 
human rights abuses in China.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from New York, has described, this 
rule provides 1 hour of general debate for each bill, equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
committee of original jurisdiction.
  The rule permits only one floor amendment to be offered to one of the 
nine bills. No other floor amendments can be offered to that bill or 
any of the other nine bills in the China package. The rule self-
executes 11 other amendments to some of the bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I do share with my colleague, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon), an abomination of the human rights abuses in China. 
During my service in Congress, as others have done, I have devoted 
myself to improving human rights conditions in many of the forgotten 
places around the world. Therefore, I do appreciate the work of the 
gentleman, as well as the Committee on International Relations

[[Page H10058]]

chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman), and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] for their continued 
focus on China's human rights abuses. China's brutal suppression of 
religious and political freedoms are well known. China has cracked down 
on political dissent, imprisoned and tortured people for their 
religious beliefs, and supported the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  China continues forced abortions for many women who do not follow the 
one-child-per-family policy, and the House of Representatives and the 
United States cannot remain silent on these human rights abuses.
  The United States must do more than just talk about human rights 
abuses. We must take action that leads to improving the lives of the 
Chinese people. The bills before us today contain a number of creative 
approaches. They are the result of a great deal of effort by many House 
committees. It is an act of leadership and courage for us to consider 
them.

                              {time}  1630

  Unfortunately, I do not agree with the actions of the Committee on 
Rules in moving the China package forward under this process. I agree 
that there is a sense of urgency, and in fact I wish that the House had 
moved with stronger force to stop many human rights abuses that I and 
others have pointed out over the past two decades.
  However, I believe that the speed of the process denies the 
opportunity for House Members to participate in the shaping of this 
legislation, and it increases the risk that the final product will not 
represent our best effort. For these reasons, I reluctantly oppose the 
rule.
  Last night during consideration by the Committee on Rules, the 
distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on International 
Relations, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], testified he had 
serious substantial concerns about this package of legislation. He also 
had serious concerns about the process. He pointed out that some of the 
bills had no hearings and there has been inadequate consultation with 
the administration and the intelligence community. The result, he 
warned, is likely to produce a flawed product that will not have the 
intent we seek and will not reflect well on Congress.
  The Committee on Rules did self-execute amendments that will improve 
the package. I am thankful to the committee for making these changes 
and for including Democratic amendments.
  However, this is the least preferable way to make the changes. It 
puts the Committee on Rules in the role of the decisionmaker, 
circumventing the normal committee process, and denies the opportunity 
for all House Members to vote on the self-executing amendments. With 
one exception, House Members are denied the opportunity to offer their 
own amendments on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that speed and efficiency are necessary when 
important issues such as human rights come up. But under this rule, we 
are sacrificing too much of the rights of House Members and risking 
making too many mistakes to consider the China legislative package.
  I would urge my colleagues to reject this rule and a very flawed 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], the vice chairman of the 
Committee on Rules. He is an outstanding supporter of human rights 
throughout this world. I wish I had more time than 3 minutes to yield 
to him. There will be ample other time during the 10 hours of general 
debate.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of this rule and to say that I am in 
agreement with many of the points that my friend from New York made. 
Probably the most important one to me is the fact that it is true over 
the years we constantly focus on the debate on whether or not we should 
renew most-favored-nation trading status with the People's Republic of 
China and then, while we have talked about many things, we 
unfortunately do not get on that road toward pursuing many of the very 
justifiable concerns that we have, and that is what this is all about 
today.
  Before we had the vote on renewal of MFN earlier this year, the 
Speaker asked my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and me to put 
together a package which includes, in fact, an overwhelming majority of 
the items included in this legislation. We worked with the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] 
and many other Members who got involved in this process, and in a 
bipartisan way we introduced H.R. 2095 with 40 cosponsors. And it is 
bipartisan; we have 14 Democrats who joined as cosponsors of that 
measure.
  I am not going to stand here and be one of those that the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon]) mentioned, who is going to praise the 
Chinese Government or, in fact, say that they are all very rich. I am a 
very strong critic of the actions of the Government of the People's 
Republic of China and those concerns which all of us share. I am not 
going to say that they are a rich country because they are not a rich 
country.
  But I will say that if we look at the 5,000-year history of the 
People's Republic of China, clearly, market reforms have been the most 
powerful force for change, and our commercial relations with the 
People's Republic of China have been integral toward pursuing those 
reforms which have addressed many of the concerns that exist among the 
1.3 billion people.
  As I say, there are very deep and disturbing problems which do need 
to be addressed, and we are today taking a proactive position in trying 
to look at those.
  I think that we need to shift the policy of debate simply on the 
issue of trade toward those ways that we can promote our American 
values, the Western values of human freedom, democracy, the rule of 
law, and respect for international norms. That is why I believe that 
when we look at the items included in H.R. 2095, we do many of those 
things that need to be addressed.
  One of them I think is very important, and that is to increase 
funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. We have been key 
toward encouraging village elections throughout China. While some are 
critics of village elections, I think that anything we can do to 
encourage democratization, even if it is coming from the ground up 
where we now have, unlike during the Mao years, non-Communist 
candidates and we have in fact secret ballots, things that did not 
exist when village elections were taking place decades ago, those are 
positive. The International Republican Institute is on the front line 
toward helping literally hundreds of millions of people to participate 
there.
  There are many other items that we have included in this measure, 
funding for Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America, and I believe 
that we have a very good package by and large. There are some things in 
this measure which concern me, but I do believe that those things that 
encourage greater political pluralism are things that we can support as 
a country.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise today to urge defeat of the rule. I do so with some 
reluctance, but I am concerned that we are about to embark on a debate 
that is not going to reflect well on the House of Representatives. We 
will set back U.S.-China relations and do harm to important American 
interests.
  Some of the bills that we will consider are acceptable; some are not. 
On balance, I think bringing these bills forward now will do more harm 
than good in the U.S.-China relationship. A China debate by the 
Congress is entirely appropriate, if it is properly done. I have got 
substantive and procedural concerns about this package. I am concerned 
about the cumulative impact of this collection of bills.
  The administration opposes almost all of these bills. I do not assume 
that the administration is right in all cases and the House wrong, but 
I am troubled that no process was followed to try to work out the 
differences on the bills.

[[Page H10059]]

  Let me just say a word about the relationship with China. It is a 
terribly complex relationship. It is one of the most difficult foreign 
policy relationships in the world to manage, even in the best of times. 
The relationship often makes us uncomfortable. China as a country has 
many faults and does many things we do not like. The two countries have 
vastly different perspectives on a whole host of problems, as was 
obvious to all of us who heard President Jiang Zemin for even a few 
minutes last week.
  But China is too big and too important to ignore. Notwithstanding our 
differences, we do have many common interests with China. The 
relationship has deteriorated very badly since 1989. We have just 
concluded an important summit meeting between the President of the 
United States and the President of China. I think that summit served 
real purposes and it put the U.S.-China dialogue back on track. We have 
got very tough problems ahead of us.
  China has a long way to go before its behavior is acceptable to the 
international community. But looking over the last 25 years, China has 
evolved from a country ostracized by much of the world to a more 
acceptable and accepted member of the global community, although it is 
not there yet, by any measure.
  I believe that China is making progress toward a market economy and a 
deeper integration into the world and has taken some steps toward a 
more open and accountable society. Even on the most difficult aspect of 
our relationship, human rights, personal freedom has expanded in recent 
years as a result of economic growth, and there has been some easing of 
governmental authority over everyday life.
  I acknowledge that China has a very long way to go, and I agree with 
many of the protests against certain aspects of China policy. No one of 
us can guarantee the future. Direct conflict with China cannot be ruled 
out. We are at a moment of decision with China. Either China will 
decide to live by the rules that bind the rest of the international 
community or it will go off on its own, a threat to its neighbors and 
to vital U.S. interests. We are not going to control that decision, but 
we can influence it. It is in this context that the House takes up this 
package of legislation.
  Cumulatively, these measures will be perceived as anti-China bills. 
What concerns me most about the package of bills and some of the 
rhetoric that will accompany them is that the House will be perceived 
as demonizing China and China may very well respond in kind.
  I do not believe it serves American interests today to paint China, 
with all of its faults and with all of the concerns we have about its 
conduct, as a second evil empire. That is not the prescription for a 
productive relationship. While I support some of the measures before us 
today, as a whole I do not think these bills have been well considered.
  We have not had a single hearing on several of the bills. 
Consultation with the administration has been limited and in some cases 
nonexistent. Administration positions and preferences have been ignored 
without even an effort to take the views of the executive branch into 
account. Members have been denied an opportunity to offer serious and 
substantive amendments. A flawed process is likely to produce a flawed 
result. In terms of substance, the deficiencies of this package are 
apparent.
  Some of the bills, such as the one on cruise missiles to Iran, make 
very close judgments concerning the violation of existing laws without 
adequate intelligence briefings or consultations. Some of the measures 
before us are overly broad or vague. I might mention the two bills that 
deny U.S. visas to large numbers of unspecified Chinese. Some of the 
bills fail to take into account probable Chinese reactions and how 
these could affect American interests.
  It would, for example, not serve U.S. interests if China were to bar 
admission into China for Billy Graham or other American religious 
leaders in retaliation for our denying visas to their religious 
officials. Some of the bills, such as the Taiwan ballistic missile 
development bill, could be counterproductive and produce a result very 
different from what we intend. Some of the bills, including H.R. 2570 
on forced abortion and H.R. 967 on religious persecution, certainly 
worthy in their purpose, would create administrative nightmares for 
those responsible for their execution. In short, these are far-reaching 
bills with major substantive problems.
  One question I ask is, what is the hurry? The Senate is not scheduled 
to take up these bills this year. We are about to adjourn. We have time 
to take a more deliberative approach and to produce a better product. 
I, of course, endorse the right and the responsibility of the Congress 
to express its views on important foreign policy issues, but our 
institutional right should be carefully and deliberately exercised.
  On these delicate matters of foreign policy toward China, we should 
consult closely and work cooperatively with the President. It simply 
does not help American foreign policy for the Congress to charge off in 
one direction and the President in another. That is precisely what we 
are doing as we consider these bills.
  A process should be followed that is unhurried and deliberate. We 
need to make every effort to debate China policy at a time and in a 
manner that does not frustrate the President's ability to conduct U.S. 
foreign policy. I do not think we have met those responsibilities.
  My concern is that we are about to rush into actions that will not 
reflect favorably on the House of Representatives and could damage the 
Nation's interests. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues 
to vote no on this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair advise us how much time 
remains on both sides?

                              {time}  1645

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall] has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the very distinguished member of the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs. He came with me to this body 19 years ago and he is 
a very respected Member in Lincoln, NE.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding me the time.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and as 
someone who has carefully followed events in the People's Republic of 
China for some time, this Member rises to address the legislative 
initiative orchestrated by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox].
  The legislative package that is before this body today contains a 
great many provisions that this gentleman fully supports. Some of the 
amendments made in order seem very appropriate. Others will be examined 
in debate. And some, perhaps, should be offered but cannot be offered. 
But I do believe a structured rule was essential.
  The initiative on Radio Free Asia has been authored by the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], an initiative also 
proposed by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and this Member 
and recommended by our distinguished Speaker. It is a common sense 
proposal that would facilitate the flow of unfiltered information to 
tens of millions of Chinese.
  Similarly, an initiative supporting ballistic missile defense for 
Taiwanese is unfortunately now merited, as is the proposal for 
additional State Department personnel to monitor human rights 
conditions. These are all worthwhile initiatives.
  However, Mr. Speaker, there is the high prospect for a frenetic 
overtone to this unfolding debate. The underlying psychology of some of 
my colleagues seems to be to regain the initiative vis-a-vis the PRC. 
Mr. Speaker, the United States never lost the initiative.
  The United States is the preeminent military, economic, and political 
power in the world today. Yes, it is true that China, together with 
much of the rest of Asia, has experienced major growth--but that is not 
a threat to us. This Member is a realist--we should not be creating 
enemies where none need exist.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member fully shares the hope, desire, and 
commitment that human

[[Page H10060]]

rights and democracy will flourish within the PRC. By focusing on the 
details of very specific human rights abuses that one finds in today's 
headlines, it is easy to ignore the dramatic, undeniable progress that 
has occurred, and continues to occur. The China of today simply is not 
the China with which President Richard Nixon forged an opening in 1972. 
Rather, today's China is vibrant and rapidly changing. It is dynamic. 
In terms of personal prosperity, in terms of individual choice, in 
terms of access to outside sources of information and freedom of 
movement within the country, the Chinese undeniably enjoy increased 
freedom. Public dissent, however, is severely limited.
  Moreover, just last year modest legal reforms were advanced in the 
area of criminal procedures which make it more likely that individuals 
will be considered innocent until proven guilty, will have the right to 
a lawyer at the time of detention, and will be able to challenge the 
arbitrary powers of the police. Although these reforms have far too 
many conditions or limitations that permit the government to suppress 
political dissent, they nonetheless represent progress toward rule of 
law in China.
  All the village level, it would seem that a remarkable transformation 
has taken place without anyone noticing. Village elections, once the 
sole domain of local communist party functionaries, have in many but 
far from all cases, suddenly become contested events--with 
noncommunists elected to some posts. This Member is not pretending that 
very serious, deeply rooted problems do not continue; they do. But the 
critics of the PRC should stop pretending that conditions for the 
average individual in China has not dramatically improved; of course, 
that varies greatly from region to region in China.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member is absolutely convinced that democracy and 
broader respect for human rights inevitably will come to China. There 
is no way the Chinese leaders in Beijing can prevent the flow of 
information and ideas into their country. We can have at least some 
effect here, either positive or negatively.
  Simply put, Mr. Speaker, as President Clinton said, time is on our 
side. The objective that everyone will profess so loudly on this floor 
today will come in time if we do not blow it. Making China our 
adversary will not advance political nor religious rights, nor will it 
advance the security of Taiwan.
  This Member would, therefore, simply urge, in the course of today's 
debate, that a measure of past-to-present analysis and a long-term 
perspective on what is actually in America's national interest should 
be applied to the debate about to unfold on the various resolutions in 
the China legislative package the rule makes in order today.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, for his care and fairness in drafting it.
  As a mother of four, I know that perfection is not an option, and I 
certainly agree with many speakers that this rule is not perfect. 
Nevertheless, I feel that it is timely and that it brings many 
important subjects to our attention. I would say to our colleagues who 
disagree with some of these resolutions and proposed amendments, vote 
against them. I may vote against some, too. But do not vote against 
this rule.
  Let me make a couple of other points. Last week, as has been noted, 
the President of China was here. I thought his visit was very 
productive. I support the economic relationship with China and have 
voted twice against discontinuing most-favored-nation status for China. 
That does not mean, however, that I think that issues concerning human 
rights and proliferation are unimportant. I think they are very 
important. And this is our opportunity to address those, too, and to 
address those in a timely way before we adjourn.
  On one subject, I would like to make a further point; and that is the 
language in this rule that automatically reports the text of House 
Concurrent Resolution 121 into House Resolution 188. Resolution 188 is 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and it concerns 
proliferation of missile technology from China to Iran. The addition to 
the other language is the full text of an amendment I have offered that 
has been reported unanimously by the Committee on House International 
Relations and has also been introduced in the other body, with many 
cosponsors, to direct the administration to impose sanctions on Russian 
firms that are engaging in missile proliferation to Iran. That is as 
urgent a threat as the Chinese proliferation. Combining the two makes 
the point more effectively. I look forward to a time later today when 
both will be passed.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of this rule and 
commend those involved for a very fair and complete process.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], one of the true defenders of human rights in 
this body. He is a member of our Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, these nine bills that I strongly 
support bringing to the floor through this rule make a necessary 
statement, Mr. Speaker, a statement that I think, unfortunately, has 
not been made by the President of the United States. I certainly have 
not heard the President of the United States make it. And that is very 
clear, very simple, we want China to be free.
  Yes, we recognize that China cannot be ignored, but we want freedom 
for the Chinese people. The reality of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is the 
international community generally is today engaged in a policy of 
massive capital and technology transfers to China in the context of 
what I would refer to as the ugly face capitalism, the utilization of a 
system that permits extraordinary profits for major investors because 
of the lack, the total lack, of labor rights existing in that country.
  Now, with that ugly face of capitalism and the increase of the gross 
domestic product that is occurring in China may come, and it always 
does with GDP, comes military power. I am convinced that unless the 
Chinese people are able to throw off the yoke of their oppressors, our 
children, Mr. Speaker, and their children will have to face very 
dangerous consequences, perhaps horrible consequences, the massive 
capital and technology transfer that China is benefiting from today.
  So I believe that it is important that we make the statement and that 
we take the substantive steps that we will be taking with these bills. 
It is, obviously, very difficult for the people of China to free 
themselves when international capitalism is pouring billions of dollars 
into the coffers of the communist oppressors, billions that they use to 
maintain their oppressive apparatus. We can and I believe we must, and 
I believe the Congress is in fact saying with these bills, we do not 
accept the status quo, we want freedom for China.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hall] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this whole debate reminds 
me of a chapter of a book called ``365 Days,'' where a doctor, Dr. 
Glasser, who treated patients during the Vietnam war, makes mention of 
the fact that our medics during the Vietnam conflict, when soldiers 
were so severely wounded that there was nothing that could be done for 
them, would often give them a sweettart and tell the dying soldier that 
it was for the pain; and somehow the soldiers, wanting to think they 
would get better, would actually feel better.
  That is about what these bills do. It is like giving a dying soldier 
a sweettart. It does not save him. But maybe it is a psychological 
thing for the American people that somehow we will feel better about 
the fact that one of the world's most brutal dictatorial regimes has a 
$40 billion trade surplus with our country and that they use that money 
to arm our votes.
  I would hope that people would vote against this rule. Because I 
would like to offer an amendment to where, if we are really going to 
address the trade problems and the wrongs in the People's Republic of 
China, why do we not do something very simple, why do we not instruct 
our trade agencies and the people responsible for tariffs to, on a 
quarterly basis, look and see what the Chinese charge us for access to 
their markets and then adjust our tariffs to meet theirs. It is called 
fairness.

[[Page H10061]]

  That bill is already drafted. I would like the opportunity to offer 
it as an amendment. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules. I would like an open rule so that 
one of these bills could be amended to do just that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] that we have a protocol that we have followed 
that we cleared with the Democratic minority that we would only 
consider those bills that have been reported from the committees.
  The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], as a matter of fact, has 
a bill dealing with the WTO that I am his major cosponsor of. We could 
not make that in order, Mr. Gephardt understands that, because the 
Committee on Ways and Means would not report it unfortunately.
  I would like to cosponsor the gentleman's legislation if he 
introduces it, and I will do everything I can to help him move it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon] has just made my point. I think we ought to have 
an open rule. I do not think a handful of people in the Republican 
leadership or a handful of people in the Democratic leadership or just 
those people who are fortunate enough to serve on the Committee on Ways 
and Means should make this decision. I think everyone in this House 
should make the decision where we seek some basic level of fairness 
between what we charge the Chinese, which is almost nothing, to have 
access to our markets, which indeed in many instances are made by slave 
labor, and they are charging us anywhere from 30 to 40 percent for our 
goods and they have a 40-percent trade surplus with our country, which 
means they are the winner.
  All I want is fairness and opportunity for Members of this body to 
decide whether or not we can have that level of fairness. For that 
reason, and especially since the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
chairman of the distinguished Committee on Rules, would like the 
opportunity to vote for that bill, I would encourage every Member of 
this body to vote against the rule so that it would be open for debate 
so we have an opportunity to vote on just that.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], who is most responsible for 
bringing all of this legislation to the floor. He is the chairman of 
our policy committee for the Republican Party.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me the time.
  The recent visit of President Jiang Zemin has focused the attention 
of the American people on our relations with the People's Republic of 
China in a very constructive way. To the extent that the summit was 
meant to promote cordial relations between our two states and friendly 
dialog, it was a success. For President Jiang was warmly received, he 
was provided a 21-gun salute, a State dinner, a breakfast here on 
Capitol Hill with our congressional leadership, and he even had a 
chance to address the American people on the ``McNeil-Lehrer News 
Hour.''
  Because we respect his position as the head of the Communist Party 
and as the President of the People's Republic of China, and because we 
recognize the importance of cordial relations with the world's most 
populous nation, we received him properly and openly. But there is more 
to our relationship than summitry and warm expressions of goodwill. We 
also must do the hard work of hammering out our distinctions on 
security issues, on the proliferation of technology for weapons of mass 
destruction, and on human rights, all of which are of fundamental 
importance, not just to the peoples of our countries, but to the people 
of the whole world.
  For many years, United States policy toward the People's Republic of 
China has been mired in debate over MFN status, most favored nation 
trade status for the People's Republic of China. This is a stalemate 
that has frustrated all sides of the debate and hindered the 
development of a coherent China policy that addresses the diverse 
aspects of our relationship, many of which have little, if anything, to 
do with trade.
  The attempt to refract every element of our policy toward the 
People's Republic of China through this single annual debate on trade 
policy has failed to do justice to what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton] rightly observes as a complex relationship. Because the 
choice presented in the MFN debate was binary, it was like a light 
switch on and off, we could not calibrate our responses to the nuance 
and change in the relationship. Even worse, the threat of MFN denial 
lost credibility with China's Government, providing the United States 
with little leverage on either trade or nontrade issues.
  To move beyond this stalemate, the House adopted House Resolution 461 
a year and a half ago, in June 1996. This resolution passed the House 
with bipartisan support. Let me quantify what I mean by ``bipartisan 
support.'' The vote was 411-7. It is stated, the debate over Communist 
China's most favored nation trade status cannot bear the weight of the 
entire relationship between the United States and the People's Republic 
of China. Instead, the bill enumerated in detail a series of concerns 
about the activities of the Communist Chinese military, about China's 
human rights record and about their economic and trade policy, and it 
charged the standing House committees of jurisdiction with holding 
hearings and reporting out appropriate legislation tailored to these 
separate concerns.
  Six of our standing committees have now fulfilled that charge and 
sent to the floor nine separate pieces of legislation that contain 
discrete and measured responses to each of the serious issues in our 
bilateral relationship with the People's Republic of China.

                              {time}  1700

  Together these bills comprise a very positive policy for freedom that 
does not involve MFN but that does provide needed clarity to these 
important issues.
  This effort remains thoroughly bipartisan. I want to recognize the 
hard work and the positive contributions of the Democrats as well as 
Republicans who have put this package together. It is the reason that I 
am addressing Members from the minority side of the aisle. I wanted to 
walk across to tangibly illustrate just how much we have worked 
together with the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority 
leader; with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos], as well as the authors of the 
legislation that we will be considering: The gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter], the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence], the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] as well as scores of our 
colleagues.
  Our policy for freedom supports a growing, positive relationship with 
a free China and it recognizes that the people of China are not the 
same as the regime in China.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with a brief story from Chinese 
history, and a thought:
  When the Ming Dynasty replaced the Mongols in the 14th century, China 
embarked on its own Age of Exploration, an era that antedated, and 
rivaled in every respect, the exploration and the discovery that was 
going on in Europe at the time. Chinese fleets scoured the Indian 
Ocean. They visited Indonesia, Ceylon, even the Red Sea and Africa, 
where they brought back giraffes to surprise and amaze people back 
home.
  But this is where Chinese exploration ended. Who knows? With a little 
more wind, they might have rounded the Cape of Good Hope before the 
Portuguese. They might have reached Europe. They might even have 
discovered America.
  Today, the irrepressible dreams of human freedom live on in China's 
diverse and tolerant peoples. But China's

[[Page H10062]]

explorers and discoverers are kept down by the worst of the 20th 
century's legacies, the last vestiges of totalitarianism, which also 
live on still in Communist China.
  It is my hope that as we close the 20th century, America, whose 
unique mission in the world is to promote freedom, can provide the 
Chinese people with a little wind at their back so that this time they 
will round the corner, this time they really will be free, and so that 
our friendship will truly be strong and the world will be a much safer 
place.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for 
bringing this package together with the cooperation of both majority 
and minority Members and for the splendid debate that I know that we 
will have in the next 10 hours.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule.
  I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. 
Solomon, for yielding time and I rise in strong support of this fair 
rule to expedite the consideration of these nine important initiatives.
  Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the end of the session and we are taking 
steps to ensure full debate on these important topics without bogging 
the House down in days and days of speechmaking. This rule strikes a 
responsible balance. In my view it is well past time that Congress send 
a clear message challenging the human rights conduct, weapons 
proliferation, and hostile intelligence activity of the People's 
Republic of China. As chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, I have been closely following these and other issues to 
be discussed today. We have examined the activities of Chinese 
intelligence and military officers in the United States and we have 
studied the evidence of proliferation by China of weapons of mass 
destruction. We have also closely examined the brutal conduct of the 
Chinese Government toward many of its own citizens. The record is clear 
and tremendously unsettling--it is not one of freedom, but one of 
repression. China, whether we like it or not, is one of the single 
greatest national security concerns facing us today.
  Today we are finally taking concrete action, some basic steps to 
demonstrate our real concern about the intentions and activities of the 
Chinese regime. Through these nine bills we will encourage enforcement 
of the 1992 Iran-Iraq Nonproliferation Act. We will monitor the access 
of and deny United States subsidies and United States visas to Chinese 
intelligence officers and others who work against America and its 
interests. We will promote human rights in China and punish those who 
persecute, who perform abortions, and who exploit forced labor. In 
short, we will define a congressional agenda toward China, one of 
freedom and tolerance.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of all Members who have helped 
bring these important bills to the floor. I especially commend my 
friend from California, Mr. Cox, for his steady leadership in this 
crucial national security area. I intend to maintain a clear and high 
priority focus on China in my capacity as chairman of HPSCI.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Calvert]. The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 184, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 578]

                               YEAS--237

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--184

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brown (FL)
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     McKinney
     Morella
     Petri
     Riley
     Schiff
     Schumer

                              {time}  1729

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Riley for, with Ms. McKinney against.

  Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, CUMMINGS, REYES, and ADAM

[[Page H10063]]

SMITH of Washington changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________