[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.
____________________