[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 5, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10063-H10080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 POLITICAL FREEDOM IN CHINA ACT OF 1997

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 302, and 
as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, I call up the bill (H.R. 2358) to provide for improved 
monitoring of human rights violations in the People's Republic of 
China, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 2358 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2358

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Political Freedom in China 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Congress concurs in the following conclusions of 
     the United States Department on human rights in the People's 
     Republic of China in 1996:
       (A) The People's Republic of China is ``an authoritarian 
     state'' in which ``citizens lack the freedom to peacefully 
     express opposition to the party-led political system and the 
     right to change their national leaders or form of 
     government''.
       (B) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     ``continued to commit widespread and well documented human 
     rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted 
     norms, stemming from the authorities' intolerance of dissent, 
     fear of unrest, and the absence or inadequacy of laws 
     protecting basic freedoms''.
       (C) ``[a]buses include torture and mistreatment of 
     prisoners, forced confessions, and arbitrary and 
     incommunicado detention''.
       (D) ``[p]rison conditions remained harsh [and] [t]he 
     Government continued severe restrictions on freedom of 
     speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, privacy, 
     and worker rights''.
       (E) ``[a]lthough the Government denies that it holds 
     political prisoners, the number of persons detained or 
     serving sentences for `counterrevolutionary crimes' or 
     `crimes against the state' and for peaceful political or 
     religious activities are believed to number in the 
     thousands''.
       (F) ``[n]on-approved religious groups, including Protestant 
     and Catholic groups . . . experienced intensified 
     repression''.
       (G) ``[s]erious human rights abuses persist in minority 
     areas, including Tibet, Zinjiang, and Inner Mongolia[, and] 
     [c]ontrols on religion and other fundamental freedoms in 
     these areas have also intensified''.
       (H) ``[o]verall in 1996, the authorities stepped up efforts 
     to cut off expressions of protest or criticism. All public 
     dissent against the party and government was effectively 
     silenced by intimidation, exile, the imposition of prison 
     terms, administrative detention, or house arrest. No 
     residents were known to be active at year's end.''.
       (2) In addition to the State Department, credible 
     independent human rights organizations have documented an 
     increase in repression in China during 1996, and effective 
     destruction of the dissident movement through the arrest 
     and sentencing of the few remaining pro-democracy and 
     human rights activists not already in prison or exile.
       (3) Among those were Wang Dan, a student leader of the 1989 
     pro-democracy protests, sentenced on October 30, 1996, to 11 
     years in prison on charges of conspiring to subvert the 
     Government; Li Hai, sentenced to 9 years in prison on 
     December 18, 1996, for gathering information on the victims 
     of the 1989 crackdown, which according to the court's verdict 
     constituted ``state secrets''; and Liu Nianchun, an 
     independent labor organizer, sentenced to 3 years of ``re-
     education through labor'' on July 4, 1996, due to his 
     activities in connection with a petition campaign calling for 
     human rights reforms.
       (4) Many political prisoners are suffering from poor 
     conditions and ill-treatment leading to serious medical and 
     health problems, including--
       (A) Wei Jingsheng, sentenced to 14 years in prison on 
     December 13, 1996, for conspiring to subvert the government 
     and for ``communication with hostile foreign organizations 
     and individuals, amassing funds in preparation for 
     overthrowing the government and publishing anti-government 
     articles abroad,'' is currently held in Jile No. 1 Prison 
     (formerly the Nanpu New Life Salt Farm) in Hebei province, 
     where he reportedly suffers from severe high blood pressure 
     and a heart condition, worsened by poor conditions of 
     confinement;
       (B) Gao Yu, a journalist sentenced to 6 years in prison on 
     November 1994 and honored by UNESCO in May 1997, has a heart 
     condition; and
       (C) Chen Longde, a leading human rights advocate now 
     serving a 3-year reeducation through labor sentence imposed 
     without trial in August 1995, has reportedly been subject to 
     repeated beatings and electric shocks at a labor camp for 
     refusing to confess his guilt.
       (5) In 1997, only 1 official in the United States Embassy 
     in Beijing is assigned to human monitoring human rights in 
     the People's Republic of China, and no officials are assigned 
     to monitor human rights in United States consulates in the 
     People's Republic of China.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL 
                   PERSONNEL AT DIPLOMATIC POSTS TO MONITOR HUMAN 
                   RIGHTS IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to support 
     personnel to monitor political repression in the People's 
     Republic of China in the United States Embassy in Beijing, as 
     well as the American consulates in Guangzhou, Shanghai, 
     Shenyang, Chengud, and Hong Kong, $2,200,000 for fiscal years 
     1998 and $2,200,000 for fiscal year 1999.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 302, the 
amendments printed in the bill and the amendments printed in part 1-A 
of House Report 105-336 are adopted.
  The text of H.R. 2358, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 302, 
is as follows:

                               H.R. 2358

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Political Freedom in China 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Congress concurs in the following conclusions of 
     the United States State Department on human rights in the 
     People's Republic of China in 1996:
       (A) The People's Republic of China is ``an authoritarian 
     state'' in which ``citizens lack the freedom to peacefully 
     express opposition to the party-led political system and the 
     right to change their national leaders or form of 
     government''.
       (B) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     ``continued to commit widespread and well documented human 
     rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted 
     norms, stemming from the authorities' intolerance of dissent, 
     fear of unrest, and the absence or inadequacy of laws 
     protecting basic freedoms''.
       (C) ``[a]buses include torture and mistreatment of 
     prisoners, forced confessions, and arbitrary and 
     incommunicado detention''.
       (D) ``[p]rison conditions remained harsh [and] [t]he 
     Government continued severe restrictions on freedom of 
     speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, privacy, 
     and worker rights''.
       (E) ``[a]though the Government denies that it holds 
     political prisoners, the number of persons detained or 
     serving sentences for `counterrevolutionary crimes' or 
     `crimes against the state', or for peaceful political or 
     religious activities are believed to number in the 
     thousands''.
       (F) [n]onapproved religious groups, including Protestant 
     and Catholic groups . . . experienced intensified 
     repression''.
       (G) ``[s]erious human rights abuses persist in minority 
     areas, including Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia[, and] 
     [c]ontrols on religion and on other fundamental freedoms in 
     these areas have also intensified''.
       (H) ``[o]verall in 1996, the authorities stepped up efforts 
     to cut off expressions of protest or criticism. All public 
     dissent against the party and government was effectively 
     silenced by intimidation, exile, the imposition of 
     prison terms, administrative detention, or house arrest. 
     No dissidents were known to be active at year's end.''.
       (2) In addition to the State Department, credible 
     independent human rights organizations have documented an 
     increase in repression in China during 1995, and effective 
     destruction of the dissident movement through the arrest and 
     sentencing of the few remaining pro-democracy and human 
     rights activists not already in prison or exile.
       (3) Among those were Wang Dan, a student leader of the 1989 
     pro-democracy protests, sentenced on October 30, 1996, to 11 
     years in prison on charges of conspiring to subvert the 
     Government; Li Hai, sentenced to 9 years in prison on 
     December 18, 1996, for gathering information on the victims 
     of the 1989 crackdown, which according to the court's verdict 
     constituted ``state secrets''; Liu Nianchun,

[[Page H10064]]

     an independent labor organizer, sentenced to 3 years of ``re-
     education through labor'' on July 4, 1996, due to his 
     activities in connection with a petition campaign calling for 
     human rights reforms, and Ngodrup Phuntsog, a Tibetan 
     national, who was arrested in Tibet in 1987 immediately after 
     he returned from a 2-year trip to India, where the Tibetan 
     government in exile is located, and following a secret trial 
     was convicted by the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China of espionage on behalf of the `Ministry of Security of 
     the Dalai clique'.
       (4) Many political prisoners are suffering from poor 
     conditions and ill-treatment leading to serious medical and 
     health problems, including--
       (A) Wei Jingsheng, sentenced to 14 years in prison on 
     December 13, 1996, for conspiring to subvert the government 
     and for ``communication with hostile foreign organizations 
     and individuals, amassing funds in preparation for over-
     throwing the government and publishing anti-government 
     articles abroad,'' is currently held in Jile No. 1 Prison 
     (formerly the Nanpu New Life Salt Farm) in Hebei province, 
     where he reportedly suffers from severe high blood pressure 
     and a heart condition, worsened by poor conditions of 
     confinement;
       (B) Gao Yu, a journalist sentenced to 6 years in prison on 
     November 1994 and honored by UNESCO in May 1997, has a heart 
     condition; and
       (C) Chen Longde, a leading human rights advocate now 
     serving a 3-year reeducation through labor sentence imposed 
     without trial in August 1995, has reportedly been subject to 
     repeated beatings and electric shocks at a labor camp for 
     refusing to confess his guilt.
       (5) The People's Republic of China, as a member of the 
     United Nations, is expected to abide by the provisions of the 
     Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
       (6) The People's Republic of China is a party to numerous 
     international human rights conventions, including the 
     Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
     Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

     SEC. 3. CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS.

       (a) Release of Prisoners.--The Secretary of State, in all 
     official meetings with the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China, should request the immediate and 
     unconditional release of Ngodrup Phuntsog and other prisoners 
     of conscience in Tibet, as well as in the People's Republic 
     of China.
       (b) Access to Prisons.--The Secretary of State should seek 
     access for international humanitarian organizations to 
     Drapchi prison and other prisons in Tibet, as well as in the 
     People's Republic of China, to ensure that prisoners are not 
     being mistreated and are receiving necessary medical 
     treatment
       (c) Dialogue on Future of Tibet.--The Secretary of State, 
     in all official meetings with the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China, should call on that country to begin 
     serious discussions with the Dalai Lama or his 
     representatives, without preconditions, on the future of 
     Tibet.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL 
                   PERSONNEL AT DIPLOMATIC POSTS TO MONITOR HUMAN 
                   RIGHTS IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to support 
     personnel to monitor political repression in the People's 
     Republic of China in the United States Embassies in Beijing 
     and Kathmandu, as well as the American consulates in 
     Guangzhou, Shanghai, Shenyang, Chengdu, and Hong Kong, 
     $2,200,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $2,200,000 for fiscal 
     year 1999.

     SEC. 5. DEMOCRACY BUILDING IN CHINA.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations for NED.--In addition 
     to such sums as are otherwise authorized to be appropriated 
     for the ``National Endowment for Democracy'' for fiscal years 
     1998 and 1999, there are authorized to be appropriated for 
     the ``National Endowment for Democracy'' $5,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1998 and $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, which 
     shall be available to promote democracy, civil society, and 
     the development of the rule of law in China.
       (b) East Asia-Pacific Regional Democracy Fund.--The 
     Secretary of State shall use funds available in the East 
     Asia-Pacific Regional Democracy Fund to provide grants to 
     nongovernmental organizations to promote democracy, civil 
     society, and the development of the rule of law in China.

     SEC. 6. HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA.

       (a) Reports.--Not later than March 30, 1998, and each 
     subsequent year thereafter, the Secretary of State shall 
     submit to the International Relations Committee of the House 
     of Representatives and the Foreign Relations Committee of the 
     Senate an annual report on human rights in China, including 
     religious persecution, the development of democratic 
     institutions, and the rule of law. Reports shall provide 
     information on each region of China.
       (b) Prisoner Information Registry.--The Secretary of State 
     shall establish a Prisoner Information Registry for China 
     which shall provide information on all political prisoners, 
     prisoners of conscience, and prisoners of faith in China. 
     Such information shall include the charges, judicial 
     processes, administrative actions, use of forced labor, 
     incidences of torture, length of imprisonment, physical and 
     health conditions, and other matters related to the 
     incarceration of such prisoners in China. The Secretary of 
     State is authorized to make funds available to 
     nongovernmental organizations presently engaged in monitoring 
     activities regarding Chinese political prisoners to assist in 
     the creation and maintenance of the registry.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF A 
                   COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN ASIA.

       It is the sense of the Congress that Congress, the 
     President, and the Secretary of State should work with the 
     governments of other countries to establish a Commission on 
     Security and Cooperation in Asia which would be modeled after 
     the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING DEMOCRACY IN HONG KONG.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the people of Hong 
     Kong should continue to have the right and ability to freely 
     elect their legislative representatives, and that the 
     procedure for the conduct of the elections of the first 
     legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region 
     should be determined by the people of Hong Kong through an 
     election law convention, a referendum, or both.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RELATING TO ORGAN HARVESTING 
                   AND TRANSPLANTING IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF 
                   CHINA.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the Government of the People's Republic of China should 
     stop the practice of harvesting and transplanting organs for 
     profit from prisoners that it executes;
       (2) the Government of the People's Republic of China should 
     be strongly condemned for such organ harvesting and 
     transplanting practice;
       (3) the President should bar from entry into the United 
     States any and all officials of the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China known to be directly involved in 
     such organ harvesting and transplanting practice;
       (4) individuals determined to be participating in or 
     otherwise facilitating the sale of such organs in the United 
     States should be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent of 
     the law; and
       (5) the appropriate officials in the United States should 
     interview individuals, including doctors, who may have 
     knowledge of such organ harvesting and transplanting 
     practice.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment 
specified in part 1-B of the report, if offered by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman], or his designee, which shall be considered read 
and debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent.
  The gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] and the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] each will control 30 minutes of debate 
on the bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].


                             General Leave

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 2358, 
the Political Freedom in China Act, is an attempt to give the people of 
China a voice. It is a message of support to the human rights 
dissidents, to the political activists, to those who are persecuted 
each and every day because they have the courage to stand up for their 
beliefs and disagree with their government.
  The message this bill sends is that the United States Congress values 
the right of the Chinese people to be free, to determine their fate, 
and to express their will. This bill says to the people of China, the 
United States Congress takes your plight seriously and we are willing 
to provide a tool, a more efficient and transparent mechanism to 
monitor human rights violations. This bill is that tool.
  Among other provisions, this bill assigns additional diplomats to the 
United States embassy and consulates, whose sole responsibility will be 
to monitor human rights violations in China. It would also station one 
American human rights monitor in Nepal.
  It requires State Department officials to raise human rights concerns 
in every meeting with Chinese officials. It authorizes increased 
funding for the National Endowment for Democracy projects in China.
  This bill requires the State Department to establish a prisoner 
information registry for China that will gather

[[Page H10065]]

and provide information on all political prisoners held in Chinese 
gulags.
  This legislation also supports the continuation of democratic reforms 
for the people of Hong Kong.
  Last week, while China's Communist leader was greeted with pomp and 
circumstance, treated more like a movie star than the leader of a 
regime which turns its tanks and weapons against its very own people, 
thousands of innocent Chinese people were being detained without 
process, others disappeared, and others were executed.
  As the Chinese President toured various cities in the United States, 
as he spoke at Harvard University, his regime continued to severely 
restrict the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of 
assembly, freedom of religion, privacy, and worker rights.
  The grim reality of China's dictatorship is clearly outlined in the 
latest State Department Human Rights Report on China which states:

       The Chinese government continued to commit widespread and 
     well-documented human rights abuses. Abuses include torture, 
     mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, arbitrary and 
     lengthy incommunicado detention.
  More importantly, our State Department report underscored that the 
situation is getting worse.

       Overall in 1996,

the report says,

     the authorities stepped up efforts to cut off expression of 
     protests or criticism.

  Our State Department report continues:

       All public dissent against the party and government was 
     effectively silenced by intimidation, by exile, by the 
     imposition of prison terms, by administrative detention, or 
     by house arrest.

  The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] have incorporated their amendments in our bill, 
which provide funds to the National Endowment for Democracy to assist 
these human rights groups in China, and it calls for an annual State 
Department report to the Congress on the progress being made on this 
critical issue. Their amendment also calls on our State Department to 
take further steps to work with human rights groups in that country.
  Let us not be fooled. A dictator is a dictator is a dictator. The 
dictator's thirst for power, for control, knows no bounds. As a result, 
a dictator does not loosen his hold on the people. A dictator tightens 
his grip with each challenge, regardless of the magnitude or source. 
The situation in China is a good example of this.
  Just when one thinks that the atrocities cannot get any worse, recent 
news reports indicate that the Chinese regime is preselling the organs 
of prisoners destined for execution.
  The gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] has incorporated her 
amendment in our bill, which highlights the fact that the regime is 
harvesting these organs for sale to the highest bidder. Perhaps the 
Chinese regime is looking at this as a new industry for its economy.
  Furthermore, the regime in China is intensifying its campaign to 
systematically erase the culture, population and religion of Tibet. It 
has arrested thousands of Tibetan Buddhist priests and nuns and has 
destroyed between 4,000 to 5,000 monasteries.
  The gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] has added his amendment 
to the bill, which helps bring human rights in China and Tibet to the 
forefront of any negotiations of our State Department that we may have 
with China by highlighting the plight of political prisoners and 
prisoners of conscience in that country.
  Religious persecution, as noted by our colleague from Hawaii, extends 
to hundreds of Protestant pastors, of Catholic priests who, like Bishop 
Su who was again arrested on October 8, disappear in the gulag that is 
China's jails.
  We must act, and we must act now. We cannot sit idly by, hoping that 
other approaches may take effect and lead to a change in China.
  What about the gross violations that will take place in the meantime? 
Can we ignore those realities? Can we ignore our moral responsibility 
to the people of China?
  The bill before us offers a concrete solution, a viable option to 
begin turning back the tide of abuse and torture by the Chinese regime.
  I would especially like to thank the architect of this package of 
China bills, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], whose commitment 
and dedication to this effort has helped bring about this package of 
China-related bills to the floor today, and of course to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman], our chairman, for his unwavering support 
and leadership on this issue.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill before us, 
the Political Freedom in China Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation, H.R. 
2358, a bill that if our colleagues support, which we believe they 
will, puts Congress in concurrence with many of the conclusions of the 
Department of State in its 1996 human rights report with respect to the 
People's Republic of China, including the fact that China is an 
authoritarian State, that the Government of China has continued to 
commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses; that abuses 
include torture and mistreatment of prisoners for its confessions and 
arbitrary and incommunicado detention, that the number of persons 
detained are believed to be in the thousands, and that overall, in 
1996, the authorities stepped up efforts to cut off expressions of 
protest or criticism.
  But all dissent against the party and government was effectively 
silenced by intimidation, exile, the imposition of prison terms, 
administrative detention, or house arrest, and that as a result of 
those activities, no dissidents were known to be active at the end of 
1996.
  So for all of those and many other reasons, it is fitting and 
appropriate that we in fact provide the resources to create the 
opportunity to fully monitor Chinese political repression.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen]; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]; the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon]; also the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Martinez] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] have led the way on this bill, 
on these series of bills.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2358. This bill relates to imprisonment, to 
abuse and human rights violations perpetrated on nonviolent political 
activists in the People's Republic of China. It goes without saying, 
Mr. Speaker, that U.S.-China relations are important, and that our 
government should pursue improved ties with China. It is equally 
important, however, that the pursuit of improved relations should not 
cause us to forget the victims of human rights abuses.
  Our concern stems from widely recognized standards of international 
behavior and our core values as a Nation. It is in the context of those 
values and standards, standards which the People's Republic of China 
has herself formally subscribed, and I want to emphasize to the 
Members, we are not trying to impose anything on the People's Republic 
of China, other than what the People's Republic has already signed up 
for.
  We as Members of Congress call the world's attention to ongoing human 
rights violations and prisoners of conscience in China and Tibet. One 
of the most effective means, Mr. Speaker, of directing attention to the 
plight of such prisoners is to focus on the circumstances of individual 
prisoners. By doing so, we transpose the issue from the realm of 
abstraction to real-life men and women whose bodies are subjected to 
torture and neglect, whose minds are cruelly punished with techniques 
deliberately designed to induce confusion, demoralization and despair.
  Time and again, ex-prisoners of repressive regimes tell us that the 
single most important gift they can receive is the news they are not 
forgotten by the outside world, that others know of their suffering and 
that others are working for their release.

[[Page H10066]]

                              {time}  1745

  That is why the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and the 
Congressional Working Group on China and the emphasis in this bill is 
urging every Member of Congress to adopt a prisoner in China or Tibet, 
and to publicize his or her plight, and to demand his or her release.
  All of us, Mr. Speaker, can adopt one of these prisoners, make that 
prisoner our own, so they will not be forgotten. They will understand 
that the flicker of light of freedom will come from the floor of this 
House today and will shine, and those people will know it. It will warm 
their hearts and give them hope for the future.
  The self-executing rule for H.R. 2358 adds my amendment, which will 
include Mr. Ngodrup Phuntsog among the number of specifically named 
prisoners of conscience. Mr. Phuntsog is a Tibetan restaurateur whose 
crime was to provide tea and food to proindependence demonstrators. For 
this he was sentenced in 1989 on the spurious charge of espionage to 11 
years in prison.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Phuntsog was sentenced to 11 years in prison. Think 
of it. We are gathered together here today on this floor, with all the 
freedoms at our command, and this gentleman sits in prison for 11 
years, and an additional 4 years deprivation of political rights.
  It is feared that his treatment in Lhasa's Drapchi Prison is 
extremely harsh. We lack precise information on his health and 
treatment, but reports from our colleague, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Frank Wolf] give cause for serious concern.
  Recently the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] visited Tibet 
unofficially. He found widespread repression, including credible 
reports of the maltreatment of political prisoners, and my amendment 
helps direct the spotlight of international attention to the cell where 
Ngodrup Phuntsog and others are being held under conditions we can only 
imagine.
  My amendment complements the underlying bill by addressing the wider 
issue of human rights in China and Tibet. It calls for a policy which 
seeks the immediate and unconditional release of all prisoners of 
conscience in China and Tibet, access to international humanitarian 
organizations in prisons in China and Tibet, to ensure that the 
prisoners are not being maltreated or neglected, and the commencement 
of negotiations between the People's Republic of China and the Dalai 
Lama without preconditions on the future of Tibet.
  I urge all my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, all my colleagues, to vote for 
the Nation's highest ideals, and to send, above all, a message of hope 
to prisoners of conscience in China and Tibet. Vote for H.R. 2358.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our colleague, 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the esteemed chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 2358, the 
Political Freedom in China Act of 1997. This bill authorizes $2 million 
for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to be appropriated to the State 
Department to ensure that there are adequate personnel to monitor 
political repression in the People's Republic of China in the United 
States Embassy in Beijing, as well as the American consulates in 
Kathmandu, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Shenyang, Chengdu, and Hong Kong.
  Testimony and reports from both private nongovernmental organizations 
and the administration clearly stated the importance of having more 
State Department personnel assigned solely to monitor human rights of 
the people living under the rule of Government of the People's Republic 
of China.
  I want to commend the distinguished chairwoman of our committee's 
Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade, the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] for introducing this 
measure.
  The China section of the State Department Country Reports on Human 
Rights Practices for 1996 states that overall in 1996, the authorities 
stepped up efforts to cut off expressions of protest or criticism. All 
public dissent against the party and Government were effectively 
silenced by intimidation, by exile, the imposition of prison terms, by 
administrative detention, or house arrest. No dissidents were known to 
be active at the year's end.
  The repression of human rights and the people living under the rule 
of the Government of the People's Republic of China has reached levels 
not even experienced in the former Soviet Union. In illegally occupied 
Tibet, people are in prison for even listening to Radio Free Asia, to 
the Voice of America, and for possessing a photograph of His Holiness, 
the Dalai Lama.
  Regrettably, current U.S. policy toward China is held hostage by 
mostly short-term, narrowly defined business interests. H.R. 2358 
attempts to address this problem by bringing balance and logic back 
into our China policy, by addressing the important cornerstone of our 
American values, the protection and advancement of fundamental human 
rights of people around the world.
  Once human rights and the rule of law are addressed, then long-term 
business interests can operate in a safe, conducive environment, one 
that benefits the worker, the student, and businesses. Accordingly, Mr. 
Speaker, I urge full support for this legislation.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2358. Too often our 
discussions of China's horrendous human rights conditions are limited 
to the issue of trade. Today we can discuss human rights independently, 
demonstrating its true significance to us in the United States.
  Perhaps Columbia University Professor Andrew Nathan expressed it best 
when he stated, ``Human rights in China are of national interest to the 
United States. Countries that respect the rights of their citizens are 
less likely to start wars, export drugs, harbor terrorists, or produce 
refugees. The greater the power of the country without human rights, 
the greater the danger to the United States.''
  Mr. Speaker, China's record on human rights is deplorable. It is 
outrageous. In regards to religious groups, unauthorized religious 
congregations are forced to register. Their members have been beaten 
and fined. There was recently a raid on the bishop leader of a Catholic 
diocese. That is outrageous. We cannot allow that to continue.
  Freedom of speech is still under siege in China. The Minister of 
Civil Affairs imposed an indefinite and nationwide moratorium on new 
social bodies. The people of China are being stifled. From Tibet to 
forced abortions, the list goes on and on and on. We all know the 
circumstances within China.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will allow us to establish the monitoring of 
political repression within China. The bill is necessary, the bill is 
right, and I hope this body will approve this measure by an 
overwhelming number.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are at a defining moment. The Communist Chinese 
authorities and the oppressed people of China and other countries 
around the world are watching. They will note what we are doing here 
today.
  During the cold war, America made some strategic alliances with 
sometimes dictatorial regimes. Perhaps the most blatant of these 
strategic alliances was that we established a positive relationship 
between the Communist government of China and the United States of 
America.
  The cold war is over. If it ever made any sense for us to be locked 
arm in arm with an oppressive regime, it makes no sense today. The 
people, the free people of the world, the people who look to the United 
States of America, know we mean what we say.
  President Clinton, during the last visit of this Communist dictator 
to our country just a few weeks ago, had some words to say. Unless we 
put muscle behind those words, it will have the opposite impact than 
what the American

[[Page H10067]]

people think. It will actually demoralize those people who believe in 
freedom overseas, and it will create strength among the Communist 
dictators to hold power, if they think those words about human rights 
were nothing more than word confetti for the American people.
  No, today the U.S. Congress is going to act. This piece of 
legislation is the first of many that will prove to the world that 
America still is the beacon of hope and justice for all the oppressed 
people of the world. When it comes down to the bottom line, the 
American people are serious when we talk about freedom and justice, and 
that those people around the world who believe in freedom and justice, 
they will be our friends. We are on their side, and not the side of the 
oppressor.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a relationship between peace, prosperity, and 
liberty. Let us stand for liberty today, and we will have peace and we 
will have prosperity in the long run. If we do not, it will hurt 
America.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member and 
my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the President's policy of 
constructive engagement, I rise in strong support of MFN for China, and 
I rise in very strong support of continuing to have a pillar of our 
foreign policy be constructed on human rights.
  I therefore endorse the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], which will authorize $2.2 million for each 
of the next 2 years to help monitor political repression in China, and 
show to Americans, to the Chinese, and the people around the world that 
we are indeed devoted and dedicated to human rights practices being 
greatly improved in China.
  I do want to say that there are some concerns that I have with some 
parts of the underlying language in this bill. For instance, the 
amendment would extend the time for congressional consideration of the 
President's certifications from 30 days to 120 days of continuous 
session.
  That 120 days of continuous session may, in fact, make it very 
difficult, according to the administration and the President's State 
Department, for us to then engage with the Chinese in these 
congressional considerations of the President's recommendations on 
nuclear nonproliferation and business arrangements in China.
  But I do want to say my strong support for the gentlewoman's 
underlying amendments, her commitment to human rights, the United 
States' commitment to human rights.
  We come to the exchange that the President had with Jiang Zemin right 
down the street at the White House, where a press reporter asked, how 
do you both see what happened in Tiananmen Square? Jiang Zemin said, in 
effect, that this threatened their national security and their actions 
were, therefore, legitimate.
  President Clinton, standing right next to him, said he strongly 
disagreed with what took place in Tiananmen Square, that they had very 
different views on human rights, and that they should continue a 
constructive engagement, but we should continue to see big, big changes 
in human rights, in nuclear nonproliferation policy, in trade areas, in 
political repression; in us now allowing three people to be sent to 
China now, three of our religious leaders, to help try to open up 
China, and also, Bishop Su, a Catholic, was recently released from 
imprisonment in China; small steps, not enough. This amendment by the 
gentlewoman will certainly help. I strongly support it.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me just rise in strong support of this 
great legislation, and commend the gentlewoman from Florida, [Ms. 
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen], for sponsoring this bill, and for her steadfast 
support of freedom around this world, and especially in China.
  Mr. Speaker, as I alluded to in my remarks on the rule, this bill is 
really the least we can do to fight inhumane repression in Communist 
China.
  By increasing funding the number of State Department human rights 
monitors in and around China, we will be much more able to get a true 
picture of what is happening in that vast country.
  And we already know some of that.
  We know that hardly a day goes by without reading of yet another act 
of aggression, another act of duplicity, or another affront to humanity 
committed by the dictatorship in Beijing.
  Consider human rights: The same people who conducted the massacre in 
Tiananman Square, and the inhumane oppression of Tibet, have been 
busily eradicating the last remnants of the democracy movement in 
China.
  According to the U.S. State Department's annual human rights report, 
and I quote: ``Overall in 1996, the authorities stepped up efforts to 
cut off expressions of protest or criticism. All public dissent against 
the party and government was effectively silenced by intimidation, 
exile, the imposition of prison terms, administrative detention, or 
house arrest.''
  I emphasize the words ``stepped up,'' Mr. Speaker. Human rights in 
China are getting worse.
  China has also ramped up its already severe suppression of religious 
activity.
  That is why we need this bill, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we were able in the Rules Committee to 
self execute some excellent amendments to this bill by members of both 
parties.
  Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Gilman are to be commended for bringing the 
subject of China's humiliating policies in Tibet to the fore with their 
amendments.
  And Linda Smith's amendment condemning China's practice of harvesting 
organs from prisoners sheds light on yet another example of the odious 
nature of this regime.
  This bill deserves unanimous support.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to our colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Linda Smith], who is the author 
of the amendment in our bill against the harvesting and selling of 
organs of political prisoners in China.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 
of this bill, called the Political Freedom in China Act of 1997, but I 
would especially like to commend its author. This is not a fun thing to 
talk about, but she has worked very hard to bring it to the floor 
today.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, included in the Political Freedom in China Act is a 
provision from several of us in the House. It is House Concurrent 
Resolution 180, which was originally introduced by the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], chair 
of the Republican Policy Committee, as well as [Mr. Weldon], the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], and the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Gejdenson].
  This language expresses the sense of Congress that the Chinese 
Government should be condemned for its practice of executing prisoners 
and selling their organs for transplant. It also says that any Chinese 
official directly involved in these executions and operations should be 
barred from entering the United States ever.
  Finally, it calls upon U.S. officials to prosecute those who are 
illegally marketing and selling these organs in the United States. 
Wealthy Americans are reported to be paying $30,000 and then travel to 
China, where they receive the kidney of an executed prisoner at a 
special hospital operated by the People's Liberation Army.
  Mr. Speaker, while reports of prisoners being executed have gone on, 
these reports, for several years, it was not until just a month ago 
that there was a broadcast by ``Primetime Live,'' an ABC program, that 
brought the issue into focus.
  I am going to submit for the Record a copy of the transcript. This 
will show what we saw on the program, and I would like it to be a part 
of the Congressional Record.
  It showed the People's Liberation Army preparing in hospitals for the 
prisoners. It showed the prisoners being executed as guards and 
soldiers

[[Page H10068]]

repositioned the guns at the base of their neck to be assured that when 
they were executed there were no organs destroyed. Then it showed the 
interview of several people who had received or been a part of the 
operations or the sale of the organs in the United States. We have 
received a letter from the head of the FBI, Director Louis Freeh of the 
FBI, stating that he is fully committed to aggressively investigate 
this, and for this we commend him.
  But this act fits very well together because it says that we are 
going to spend money on China. We are going to spend $2.2 million for 
the next 2 years so the State Department can look into these issues. 
Right now the Chinese Government denies it in spite of the facts. But 
this bill will carry people into China and require that light be shined 
on this atrocious practice.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about an issue of 
values, an issue where there is a clear distinction between right and 
wrong and where we can stand on the right side of history.
  The United States serves as the beacon of liberty in our world. We 
are a nation founded on ideals, the idea that every person, from 
whatever racial or ethnic or religion or belief, is endowed by God with 
inalienable rights, the right of life, the right of liberty. We must 
never forget this.
  Americans have shed blood on five continents in support of these 
ideas. Americans have expended extensive resources in support of these 
ideas. These are not ideas that Americans take lightly or ideas that we 
can just discard. These ideas are powerful enough to cause people to 
risk their lives and have caused people to give up their lives.
  It has become fashionable to keep the Declaration of Independence 
folded up inside our suit pockets for use on certain occasions, Fourth 
of July parades, Bicentennial celebration, political campaigns. It is 
not something to keep folded up or hidden away. It is something to wear 
on our sleeves, to remember and to rededicate ourselves to. It is not 
for rhetorical flourishes and empty celebration but for inspiration for 
our actions and our deeds.
  We must not be willing to keep the ideas in that sacred text folded 
up and in a drawer in order to not offend our important foreign visitor 
from the Republic of China.
  The proper time to be talking about this subject would have been 2 
weeks ago before President Jiang Zemin left our country. We should have 
spoken out on this floor prior to the President's visit, at a time when 
1 billion people on the other side of the world were craning their 
necks to listen.
  We had an opportunity to make it perfectly clear that while we put 
great importance on having a cordial and productive relationship with 
the people of China, we will never forget that our Nation's bedrock 
principles are not relative. The freedoms that Thomas Jefferson wrote 
of over 200 years ago are universal and timeless. They are absolute. If 
Albert Einstein were here today, a man who fled Nazi tyranny to 
America, I know that he would say that those laws of freedom are as 
absolute as any theory of physics.
  We should not have to trade away our conscience with our commerce. We 
must pursue a policy of active engagement on a whole range of issues, 
not downplay our differences.
  I think the President of China was very happy with his reception in 
this country. From his perspective, the trip was a total success. He 
was able to put on a tricornered hat in Williamsburg, the State where 
Jefferson formulated his vision of human rights, without facing any 
strong challenge to the undemocratic and brutal rule of the Chinese 
Communist government. He was able to put forth his preposterous theory 
about the relativity of human rights and call the issue of Tibet an 
internal matter.
  Well, we should not be happy with the fact that he is happy over his 
trip to the United States, and neither should any American who believes 
that our bedrock ideals are absolute, eternal, and paramount to issues 
of commerce.
  Human rights is at the core of our bedrock ideals. That is why I am 
speaking about this bill. Human rights is just one of many issues that 
we need to debate and deal with concerning our relationship with China. 
The list is long: Weapons proliferation, forced abortion, religious 
persecution, organ transplants, democracy in Hong Kong, Tibet, trade, 
and others. The bill is just one step down a very long road that we 
must take if we want to get to the point where the United States and 
China have truly normal relations.
  I urge all of my colleagues to cast a proud vote for H.R. 2358, to 
authorize additional funding for human rights monitoring in China. Wei 
Jingsheng, one of the most prominent imprisoned Chinese dissidents, has 
had his writings from prison published in a book entitled ``The Courage 
to Stand Alone.'' He has been in prison for the crime of advocating 
human rights and democracy in China, nothing more radical or outlandish 
than that. Listen to what he has to say about human rights.
  He said: Human rights themselves have objective standards which 
cannot be subjected to legislation and cannot be changed by the will of 
the Government. He said: They are common objective standards which 
apply to all governments and all individuals, and no one is entitled to 
special standards.
  Let us today hold the Chinese Government to the same standards we 
hold every country in the world to. Let us not make a special 
dispensation for this country because of the fact that we think there 
are 2 billion eyes to watch American movies or 1 billion mouths to 
drink American soft drinks.
  When democracy comes to China, let the record show that America 
firmly and constantly stood and argued for the cause of human rights 
and freedom. When the day of reckoning comes, when freedom rings out 
throughout that great land, let people say, America stood for the cause 
of right; Americans did not let their economic self-interest blind them 
in our cause.
  I urge Members to join with me in voting for this bill to honor the 
Jeffersonian legacy and all those who sacrificed their lives for it, to 
refute the belief of the Chinese Government that we are not serious 
about human rights, and to make sure that Wei and others do not stand 
alone, that every person in the United States stands beside them every 
day.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people have been 
treated to a really special opportunity today because we have been able 
to see Members from virtually across the political spectrum in this 
place come together on such a crucial issue, to express care and 
concern about one of the most fundamental rights that we hold, and that 
is the ability to worship according to the dictates of your conscience 
and to speak out according to your beliefs. I am really pleased to be 
here today to support this piece of legislation.
  The 21-gun salute is over. The state dinner is over. The press events 
at Independence Hall in Colonial Williamsburg are over. China wanted to 
achieve a new image in the West as a result of this summit, but 
Americans had a different plan in mind. Through their protests, they 
sent a different message to the Chinese leadership.
  It reminds me of the message that President Reagan delivered to 
Mikhael Gorbachev in Geneva in 1958. Natan Sharansky tells the story in 
his wonderful book ``Fear No Evil.'' He says Reagan told Gorbachev that 
the Soviet Union would not change its image in the world until he let 
Sharansky go.
  So it is with China. The photos at the White House or at Harvard will 
not give China the respect and the superpower status that they seek. 
Rather, freeing Chinese political prisoners, freeing Wei Jingsheng and 
Wang Dan, freeing other Chinese who are in prison merely for voicing 
their opinions or worshiping their God, in sum, only by ending the 
laogai can the Chinese leadership achieve world respect, status, and, 
one day, admiration. Until then, we stand not with the Government of 
China but we stand with the people of China.
  I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend, the

[[Page H10069]]

gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], for his leadership of one of the 
most brilliant parts of this measure, taking the Helsinki concept, the 
CSCE concept on human rights, and applying that here. And working with 
my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and others, we 
have gone a long way in this measure.
  The NED provisions which my friend from Florida mentioned are 
important, and getting the business community focused on business, and 
getting our Government to focus on this human rights issue is very, 
very helpful. I would like to congratulate my friend.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all of the Members 
who came together to find our common ground to speak out for promoting 
human rights and freedom in China and Tibet. I particularly want to 
commend the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] for her 
initiative in presenting this very important legislation that we have 
before us which would provide funding to increase the monitors to 
monitor human rights violations in China.
  Mr. Speaker, those who oppose some of the efforts that we have been 
putting forth to promote human rights in China have said that our 
efforts will isolate China, that we want to isolate China. Nothing 
could be further from the truth.
  I have the privilege of representing San Francisco. A large number of 
people in my district are Chinese Americans. They are just like the 
rest of Americans, they are not a monolith. They all do not agree on 
the tactics of using MFN, but they all agree that a freer China will 
make the world safer, and that is something that we all must work and 
strive for.
  That is why I was so very disappointed last week when, in preparation 
for Jiang Zemin's visit, President Clinton, in his speech laying out 
his plan for U.S.-China relations, put forth six areas of profound 
interest between our two countries: the environment, trade, fighting 
narcotics, et cetera. But he did not include promoting a freer China or 
human rights in China or promoting democratic freedoms as one of those 
areas of profound interest.
  I think the last week has demonstrated, with the protests, et cetera, 
that although that might not have been a priority in the President's 
speech, it is a priority for the American people. And the Ros-Lehtinen 
legislation today will help us promote human rights in China.

                              {time}  1815

  The administration, instead, chose to roll out the red carpet to the 
head of the regime that rolled out the tanks in Tiananmen Square. They 
gave a 21-gun salute to the leader of the military that proliferates 
weapons of mass destruction and brutally occupies Tibet. And they 
toasted at a dinner, they toasted the man who controls the torture of 
Wei Jingsheng and many other political prisoners of conscience and 
religious prisoners, as well.
  When President Jiang was here, some of us had the opportunity to meet 
with him. And in that meeting, he denied that there was any political 
repression in China, that there was not any harvesting of organs for 
profit, it was just a rumor, when that is well documented, that there 
is religious freedom clearly blossoming in China. And I presented him 
something that I will refer to later, the religious freedom 
legislation, a letter from Ignatius Cardinal Kung asking him to free 
the Catholic bishops who have been sent to prison or to labor camps. He 
denied categorically that China had every proliferated weapons of mass 
destruction.
  While President Jiang was in the state of denial and calling all of 
this just rumor, political prisoners were suffering in China. We must 
monitor that. While he was denying that this was taking place, 
prisoners of conscience were suffering in China. We want the message to 
go out to them that their suffering and their courage and their 
determination to promote a freer China is shared by Americans who 
promote Democratic values throughout the world. And this additional 
funding for monitoring will help to document, so that the American 
people will know and that we can say to the president when he denies it 
is happening, President Jiang, who denies it happens, we know and the 
prisoners know that we care about them.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], who is the architect of the 
package of bills before us today and tomorrow stating the policy of the 
United States Congress regarding China's abuses.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], author of the bill, for yielding me time.
  It has been a pleasure to work with my colleagues in the majority and 
minority parties on such an important measure that is not just a sense 
of the Congress resolution, that does not just express outrage, it is 
not just a cry of pain, but rather, that does something, something 
within our control. We can, and we will as a result of this 
legislation, keep track of what is going on in the People's Republic of 
China as never before.
  As my colleague the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] has just 
pointed out, when President Jiang visited with us and when we 
breakfasted here with him in the Capitol, he simply denied that there 
were human rights problems in the People's Republic of China. He told a 
nationwide TV audience, ``China does not feel that it has done anything 
wrong in the field of human rights.'' And yet, we know from the Clinton 
administration's report, which has been cited several times on the 
floor during this debate, that exactly the opposite is true.
  Not only has the human rights situation not been improving as a 
result of or in connection with or coincidence with our policy of 
engagement, it has been getting worse. Quoting, from the Clinton State 
Department's report, ``The authorities stepped up efforts to cut off 
expressions of protest or criticism. All public dissent against the 
party,'' that is the Communist Party, the only party permitted in the 
People's Republic of China, ``and the Government was effectively 
silenced.''
  We are discussing this legislation and the need for it immediately in 
the wake of President Jiang's visit. And it is fair to ask whether 
anything happened at the summit that militates now against this 
initiative or whether this initiative will jeopardize any of the 
summit's accomplishments. That requires us to pierce the fog of the 
summit's atmospherics and realistically assess its concrete results.
  In this respect, the remarks of my colleagues who spoke immediately 
prior to me make it very, very clear that, yes, President Jiang, just 
as conventional wisdom holds, had a successful summit. He stuck to his 
agenda. He got his way. But the people of China, particularly the 
political prisoners of China, particularly those few whose human rights 
cases have been so visibly raised and so consistently raised by the 
United States that we expected perhaps in the glow of the summit they 
might win their release, got precisely nothing. For Wang Dan, for Wei 
Jingsheng, this was not a successful summit at all.
  Wei Jingsheng, whom some have called the father of Chinese democracy, 
was once, just like solidarity leader Lech Walesa, an electrician. But 
this son of a Communist Party official has spent most of his adult life 
in Communist Chinese prisons and reeducation camps.
  In 1978, Wei posted his essays on freedom, his writings on freedom, 
written in large characters, on a stretch of masonry that became known 
as Democracy Wall. And in return, the Communist government sentenced 
him to 14 years in some of Communist China's worst prisons. Just 6 
months before his final year in confinement, he was briefly released on 
the eve of the International Olympic Committee's deciding whether to 
let Beijing host the year 2000 Olympics. When the People's Republic of 
China lost its Olympic bid, Wei was immediately arrested again.
  For nearly 2 years after that, he was held in secret detention 
without any specific charges. And finally, in 1996, Wei Jingsheng was 
given a show trial on shamelessly straightforward charges of writing in 
behalf of democracy. The Communist authorities kept the trial closed to 
the public and the press and even denied him the legal counsel offered 
by two United States

[[Page H10070]]

Attorneys General, one a Democrat, Nicholas Katzenbach and the other a 
Republican, Richard Thornburgh.
  Today, Wei Jingsheng is 46-years-old. He suffers from heart disease 
and arthritis at this early age, he is my age, that caused him 
debilitating back pain. The last time his family saw him, he was unable 
to keep his head upright. As part of a campaign to break his spirit, 
the Communist authorities have cut off the heat to his solitary 
confinement cell in winter, kept him under lights to deny him sleep, 
and refused him medical attention.
  This is the kind of abuse that we are after in this legislation. This 
is the reason that the Ros-Lehtinen bill is so important and the reason 
I am so proud to join with my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, in 
support of this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we continue to reserve our time 
in light of the fact that there may be additional speakers. Perhaps the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] will continue to yield 
time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our 
colleague the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida 
[Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] for yielding me the time and also for addressing 
such an important issue as human rights in China.
  I heard the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] talk about Wei being 
sent to jail and brutally tortured for writing on behalf of democracy. 
This past week, I had the thrill of meeting Harry Wu, one of the great 
figures, along with Wei, fighting for democracy in the latter half of 
the 20th century. He characterized today's so-called engagement policy 
as basically no different from the appeasement policy in Munich.

       We are feeding a communist giant. When you are talking 
     about a communist giant, you have to know that this is a 
     military giant. Forty-seven years ago we had a debate, who 
     lost China? Pretty soon we will have another debate, who 
     rebuilt communist China?

  We have got to step forward with the moral courage and recognize once 
and for all that the greatest exports that will ever come from the 
United States of America are not military hardware or nuclear 
technology, but are the ideals of freedom, Jeffersonian democracy and 
the things that have made America great for over 200 years.
  I hope today is a starting point where Republicans and Democrats, 
conservatives and liberals, can come together on this most vital issue 
of human rights in China and across the globe. We have a great 
opportunity.
  A.M. Rosenthal, writing in the New York Times, said,

       After World War II, much of the Western left edged off from 
     the fight for human rights in communist countries. 
     Conservatives looked away almost everywhere else. The losers 
     were the people in the cells.

  I hope that both sides can understand that we need to fight for 
freedom regardless of whether we are conservatives or liberals.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  As one who has visited China three times this year, I join my 
colleagues in allowing that this is an appropriate measure for us to 
undertake. Because, clearly, there are matters ongoing that are vitally 
in need of our continuous observation, our continuous analysis, our 
continuing observation from the standpoint of what is necessary for us 
as legislators to undertake, and also to be able to assist in allowing 
that the State Department, through its actions, are able to undertake 
those things that are necessary to analyze the human rights violations 
and report them to us so that we may take appropriate action.
  In that sense, Mr. Speaker, I stand along with our colleagues who 
have offered this measure in strong support of saying in the great 
hopes that it will bring us to a point whereby we may be in a better 
position when we are speaking with reference to United States-China 
relations.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2358, 
to provide for improved monitoring of human rights violations in the 
People's Republic of China. I compliment my colleague from Florida [Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen] for her leadership in this issue.
  I especially support that amendment that calls on the People's 
Republic of China to stop harvesting and transplanting organs from 
prisoners. The organ harvesting program in China has meant millions of 
dollars to the Chinese military. The Chinese Government says organ 
harvesting involves criminals who voluntarily consent. The facts show 
otherwise. China's assertion that these are the facts makes a mockery 
of the international principles adopted after Nazi medical experiments 
were uncovered and outlawed.
  No other country in the world at this time is known to use the organs 
of prisoners except for China and to take them in an involuntary 
fashion. They appear to have turned a chilling execution of thousands 
of people who did not even commit capital crimes into a multimillion 
dollar black market of a kind the world has never seen.
  Accordingly, others have joined me in Congress to write to President 
Clinton and Secretary of State Albright noting that 4,000 people a year 
who are reportedly executed in China for committing minor crimes and 
they go from arrest to execution in order to harvest their organs for 
sale on the black market. This is not justice. This is murder for 
profit.
  I hope my colleagues would join me in supporting the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] in this forward-thinking legislation, which 
is the most important human rights issue that we will face in the 105th 
Congress. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation that should enjoy 
support of both sides of the aisle.
  I would also ask my colleagues to join me in signing a letter to the 
Chinese Ambassador asking him to take swift action against this 
practice of harvesting organs from prisoners.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Hastings] for so kindly yielding me the time.
  Let me thank the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Drier], and so many of my colleagues, including the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], all who have 
participated in creating some of the concepts that have been embodied 
in this legislation.
  We began meeting earlier this year, convinced that the annual debate 
on MFN had ceased to provide any positive results in terms of China 
policy and desiring to fashion a package of tools that were better 
equipped to address specific problems that we saw in U.S. policy toward 
China and better geared toward promoting the values that we hoped to 
see take root in that country. These ideas have been mostly 
incorporated in this legislation and I think will go a long way toward 
getting a true engagement with China, not just a debate within the 
Congress, but a true engagement that has the potential of truly 
changing Chinese society.
  It represents a great step forward in changing the nature of 
congressional discussion of U.S.-China policy. It makes efforts that 
mark a new and more mature debate on the important policy and the 
impact of our relations with China. I have been and continue to be an 
outspoken critic of those Chinese government policies and actions which 
constrain the people of China or threaten U.S. interests.
  An abysmal human rights record, a belligerent attitude toward 
neighboring countries, a penchant for disregarding obligations under 
domestic and international law, a widespread and endemic system of 
corruption and cronyism, a willingness to arm rogue regimes with 
weapons of mass destruction, these are the characteristics of the 
Chinese regime that disturb and alarm the Congress and the American 
people.

                              {time}  1830

  As I said before and set out with my colleagues to do with H.R. 2195, 
Congress must address these issues with

[[Page H10071]]

ideas and options which look to the specific problem and seek an 
appropriate solution. Efforts to withdraw MFN trading status from China 
do not meet these goals. It is a blunt instrument that is not directly 
related to the problems we seek to address, and most significantly, 
with the Senate and the President opposed, MFN would never be withdrawn 
in any event, and MFN withdrawal is therefore what I consider to be a 
dead-end policy option which will never actually effect change in 
Chinese society.
  The package of bills before Congress tonight has the potential to do 
so and I believe should be commended to every Member. I believe that 
the committee of jurisdiction, International Affairs, has done an 
excellent job in fashioning this package. I commend this effort and 
everyone who has been involved in it. I am proud to stand on the floor 
of the House today and send a strong message that Congress cares about 
American values and about promoting those values abroad.
  By increasing funding for democracy activities, expanding monitoring 
of human rights abuses, intensifying efforts to broadcast information 
into China, denying visas to Chinese who flaunt international law or 
American values, expressing our support for the free and democratic 
government of Taiwan, promoting contact between agents of change in 
Chinese society and their American counterparts, and expecting United 
States businesses in China to be a force for positive change, we are 
directly addressing these problems with pro-active solutions. We are 
taking concrete steps to promote American values that have a proven 
track record of success--democratic self-governance, rule by laws 
created with the consent and active participation of the people, 
freedom and individual liberties.
  Today, we will begin in a new debate on China. I am hopeful that it 
will yield positive results on all sides. I urge all of my colleagues 
to support H.R. 2358 and the rest of this legislative package.
  While it is not perfect it is an important step and one that we must 
take if we hope to welcome the day that China becomes part of the 
community of peaceful, democratic, law-abiding nations. That is a day 
all Americans--and I suspect, most Chinese--look forward to.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], who has been the leader on the 
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, talking 
about the many abuses of the Chinese regime, especially in relation to 
Chinese slave products.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time. I want to congratulate the distinguished 
gentlewoman for this legislation and her strong human rights leadership 
in this House.
  H.R. 2358, Mr. Speaker, addresses the important question as to 
whether the cornerstone of our foreign policy should be the promotion 
of universally recognized human rights. Looking at the State Department 
budget, and my subcommittee oversees on the authorizing side the State 
Department budget, we see that the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights 
and Labor has 52 employees and a budget of just over $6 million. By way 
of contrast, the Public Affairs Office is about twice as large, with 
115 employees and a budget of over $10 million. Even the Protocol 
Office has 62 employees, 10 more employees than the whole Human Rights 
Bureau. Each of the six regional bureaus has an average of 1,500 
employees. These are the bureaus the Human Rights Bureau sometimes has 
to contend with in ensuring that human rights is accorded its rightful 
priority against competing concerns, and they have a combined budget of 
about $1 billion, or about 160 times the budget of the Human Rights 
Bureau.
  This gross disparity in resource allocation is not only a poignant 
symbol of the imbalance in our foreign policy priority, it is also an 
important practical consequence. It has practical consequences. For 
instance, Washington officials from the regional bureaus develop their 
expertise by taking frequent trips to the regions in which they 
specialize. Officials in the Human Rights Bureau, however, below the 
rank of Deputy Assistant Secretary almost never have the budgets for 
such trips.
  It is an unfortunate fact of life that we usually get what we pay 
for, and it appears that the American taxpayers are paying for more 
State Department protocol and public relations and less for human 
rights. By adding $2.2 million in each of the next 2 fiscal years for 
monitoring human rights in the People's Republic of China, this bill 
will help to redress the terrible imbalance in the current State 
Department budget.
  Let me also point out, and I appreciate the earlier comments of the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority 
leader, when he quoted from Wei Jingsheng, that great human rights 
champion in the People's Republic of China, who today is languishing in 
a gulag in Laogai because of his strong beliefs. I met with Wei when he 
was let out to try to procure the Olympics 2000 for the Chinese 
dictatorship. They thought that symbolic gesture would garner that for 
them. He was only out for a couple of weeks, several weeks. I met with 
him, talked to him for about 3 hours. Two weeks later or so he met with 
Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Democracy John 
Shattuck. The next day after meeting with the point person for the 
Clinton administration on human rights, Wei Jingsheng was grabbed off 
the streets and thrown into prison, and he is there now, unfortunately 
suffering. We know that he has been beaten. At one point he was beaten 
so bad he could not even raise his head, and his sister and others who 
care deeply for him fear for his life.
  We need greater monitoring. We need more surveillance to know what is 
going on. One or two people designated in Beijing or Shanghai or 
elsewhere is not adequate to the test.
  Let me also say I am very appreciative to the gentlewoman from 
Washington, Mrs. Linda Smith, for her language that she has added to 
this bill with regard to the organs that are used from executed 
prisoners. Let me just say we have had two hearings on that in my 
subcommittee. It is a horrific reality. We need to rein in on it, and 
we need, I think, do everything possible to shut down that gruesome 
process.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes $2.2 million for each of the next 2 
years to support U.S. Embassy and consulate personnel to monitor 
political repression in China. I think it is a constructive bill. This 
is one of the bills in this package of nine that I will support. I 
think it sends the Chinese a signal that we care very deeply about 
human rights, that human rights will be a major component in our 
relationship with China.
  I will tell my colleagues that the administration has some 
reservations about this bill. They consider it duplicative and 
unnecessary, but I do think it is a constructive, positive bill. I 
commend the gentlewoman from Florida for sponsoring it and pushing it 
forward and for others who have spoken in support of it. I intend to 
vote for this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time and for her leadership and all my colleagues who have worked so 
hard to see that we not only export goods from this country, but that 
we export goodness and morality. De Tocqueville said America is great 
because America is good.
  Somewhere in China, there are people just like the person that the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] just described who are in cramped 
prison quarters, some of whom have been tortured, some of whom are 
right now undergoing physical pain. The administration said we should 
engage with China to see to it that we move China from this repressive 
situation to one in which people are allowed to dissent without being 
incarcerated, without being hurt, without being subdued by the military 
force.
  This is engagement. It is not right to ask a businessman who is about 
ready to close a business deal at the same time to bring up the problem 
that a dissident has in a particular prison. He is not going to do 
that. He needs to close a deal, he needs to get the check, he needs to 
get the money. It is important to have personnel who are assigned to 
this monitoring task solely, who can really focus and really specify.

[[Page H10072]]

This is an excellent bill. I support it fully.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentlewoman 
from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] is recognized for 1 minute.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, this bill does more than send a 
message to the repressive Chinese regime. It puts respect for human 
rights at the forefront of our discussions with Chinese officials. It 
forces our own Government to recognize that these values that we hold 
so dear and which have helped in forging our democracy, which are free 
speech, freedom to worship, freedom of assembly, those values will be 
part, an important part, an essential part of our foreign policy.
  We cannot continue to sweep these issues of the violations of human 
rights aside merely because they are uncomfortable for us to discuss 
with the Chinese. If we ignore these violations, the political 
dissidents, the opposition in China, will suffer even more oppression. 
Let us be their voice today. Let us celebrate democracy, human rights 
and freedom for the Chinese people by supporting this bill, and indeed 
the entire package of bills before us.
  In summation, I ask that we do what is right; what is just; what we 
know we must do. I ask that you support H.R. 2358.
  Others may choose to ignore the pleas and cries of anguish of the 
Chinese people, but the United States Congress must not.
  The United States Congress must send a clear message to the Chinese 
regime and to the world that it will defend the rights of all people to 
be free of oppression, of subjugation, of persecution.
  The U.S. Congress must stand firm in the face of dictators and 
declare its support for those who cannot speak for themselves. The 
United States Congress must stand up to China's Communist regime--not 
just with rhetoric, but with concrete actions.
  We must tell the Chinese regime that the United States Congress will 
not sit on the sidelines any longer; that we are ready to take the 
necessary steps to help being an end to the atrocities and violations 
of human rights and basic liberties.
  H.R. 2358 is the tool. It is the action supporting the message.
  To summarize, H.R. 2358 assigns new diplomats to American embassies 
and consulates for the exclusive purpose of monitoring human rights in 
China.
  H.R. 2358 denies entry into the United States to any Chinese official 
found to be involved in the trafficking of human organs from political 
prisoners in China.
  The bill increases the number of legislative days to review the 
President's required certification that China is complying with the 
agreement for nuclear cooperation. It would also require a 
Congressional vote of approval for the certification.
  H.R. 2358 requires State Department officials to raise human rights 
concerns in every meeting with Chinese officials.
  Adds $10 million in funding for National Endowment for Democracy 
projects in China.
  Calls on the State Department to issue an annual report on the human 
rights situation and to establish a Prisoner Information Registry for 
China.
  It supports the continuation of democratic freedoms for the people of 
Hong Kong.
  In essence, H.R. 2358 is a comprehensive bill which includes the 
contributions of several of my distinguished colleagues. I thank them 
for their commitment and dedication to the issue of human rights in 
China, and for their ongoing courage to stand up for what is right.
  As you cast your vote, I want you to think of the people of China; 
think about the political prisoners and the persecuted.
  I want you to think about the values that have made this country 
great--about the sense of humanity that has guided us through the 
history of the Republic. The United States has a responsibility as the 
post-cold war leader to set the example for others to follow.
  We can set a positive example right now. I urge you to support H.R. 
2358.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
  It is now in order to consider the further amendment specified in 
part 1-B of House Report 105-379.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilman

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman:
       Convert the existing provisions of the bill to a TITLE I, 
     and add at the end the following:

               TITLE II--AGREEMENT ON NUCLEAR COOPERATION

       (A) Amendment to Joint Resolution Relating to Agreement For 
     Nuclear Cooperation.--The joint resolution entitled ``Joint 
     Resolution relating to the approval and implementation of the 
     proposed agreement for nuclear cooperation between the United 
     States and the People's Republic of China (Public Law 99-183; 
     approved December 16, 1985) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by inserting ``and subject to section 2,'' after ``or 
     any international agreement,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1) by striking ``thirty'' and inserting 
     ``120''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``Sec. 2. (a) Action by Congress To Disapprove 
     Certification.--No license may be issued for the export to 
     the People's Republic of China of any nuclear material, 
     facilities, or components subject to the Agreement, and no 
     approval for the transfer or retransfer to the People's 
     Republic of China of any nuclear material, facilities, or 
     components subject to the Agreement shall be given if, during 
     the 120-day period referred to in subsection (b)(1) of the 
     first section, there is enacted a joint resolution described 
     in subsection (b) of this section.
       ``(b) Description of Joint Resolution.--A joint resolution 
     is described in this subsection if it is a joint resolution 
     which has a provision disapproving the President's 
     certification under subsection (b)(1), or a provision or 
     provisions modifying the manner in which the Agreement is 
     implemented, or both.
       ``(c) Procedures For Consideration of Joint Resolutions.--
       ``(1) Reference to committees.--Joint resolutions--
       ``(A) may be introduced in either House of Congress by any 
     member of such House; and
       ``(B) shall be referred, in the House of Representatives, 
     to the Committee on International Relations and, in the 
     Senate, to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

     It shall be in order to amend such joint resolutions in the 
     committees to which they are referred.
       ``(2) Floor considerations.--(A) The provisions of section 
     152(d) and (e) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2192(d) 
     and (e)) (relating to the floor consideration of certain 
     resolutions in the House and Senate) apply to joint 
     resolutions described in subsection (b).
       ``(B) It is not in order for--
       ``(i) the House of Representatives to consider any joint 
     resolution described in subsection (b) that has not been 
     reported by the Committee on International Relations; and
       ``(ii) the Senate to consider any joint resolution 
     described in subsection (b) that has not been reported by the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations.
       ``(c) Consideration of Second Resolution Not in Order.--It 
     shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate to consider a joint resolution described in 
     subsection (b) (other than a joint resolution described in 
     subsection (b) received from the other House), if that House 
     has previously adopted such a joint resolution.
       ``(d) Procedures Relating to Conference Reports in the 
     Senate.--
       ``(1) Consideration.--Consideration in the Senate of the 
     conference report on any joint resolution described in 
     subsection (b), including consideration of all amendments in 
     disagreement (and all amendments thereto), and consideration 
     of all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, 
     shall be limited to 10 hours, to be equally divided between, 
     and controlled by, the majority leader and the minority 
     leader or their designees. Debate on any debatable motion or 
     appeal related to the conference report shall be limited to 1 
     hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the 
     mover and the manager of the conference report.
       ``(2) Debate on amendments in disagreement.--In any case in 
     which there are amendments in disagreement, time on each 
     amendment shall be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally 
     divided between, and controlled by, the manager of the 
     conference report and the minority leader or his designee. No 
     amendment to any amendment in disagreement shall be received 
     unless it is a germane amendment.
       ``(3) Consideration of veto message.--Consideration in the 
     Senate of any veto message with respect to a joint resolution 
     described in subsection (b), including consideration of all 
     debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall 
     be limited to 10 hours, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the majority leader and the minority leader or 
     their designees.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 302, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hamilton] each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and ask unanimous consent that he may be 
permitted to yield that time to other Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H10073]]

  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, the President has announced his intention to 
submit to Congress the certification necessary to implement the 1985 
United States-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, thereby enabling the 
People's Republic of China to obtain United States nuclear technology. 
No United States President, not President Reagan nor Bush, and until 
now not President Clinton, has made such a certification. Why? Because 
Communist China's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile 
proliferation makes it the Wal-Mart of international commerce. China's 
record is not only reprehensible, it mocks repeated assurances to our 
Nation that it would stop proliferating to countries such as Pakistan 
and Iran.
  In that regard, I urge all Members to examine the compendium I am 
placing in the Record, a compendium dated November 4, 1997, detailing 
China's nuclear nonproliferation promises from 1981 through 1997. Yet 
despite promises and subsequent violations of those promises, the 
Clinton administration is willing to open the door to China for 
critical United States nuclear assets.
  Moreover in the wake of last week's summit, we have heard nothing 
that gives us confidence that the Chinese are willing to provide 
ironclad, enforceable assurances that any promises with regard to the 
transfer of nuclear technology to Iran would be kept.
  Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to describe the possible shortfalls in the 
agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration in order to begin 
nuclear commerce with China. The Chinese have pledged only to halt new 
nuclear cooperation with Iran, thereby allowing continued cooperation 
between China and Iran on at least two existing contracts. Moreover, a 
possible loophole in the Chinese pledge could permit the resurrection 
of a contract that has been suspended, but not canceled to build a 
uranium enrichment facility in Iran since that contract would not fall 
into the category of any new nuclear cooperation.
  The administration made no headway with the Chinese on conditioning 
nuclear cooperation with Pakistan or with any other country besides 
Iran, and the administration did not secure any agreement with China 
that would halt the transfer of nuclear-capable missiles to Iran or to 
other countries.
  Mr. Speaker, because of these and other concerns, I have joined with 
the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] to 
introduce this amendment which achieves two important goals. It extends 
from 30 to 120 days the time for Congress to review the President's 
certification to China. It also establishes expedited procedures in the 
House and Senate for consideration of a resolution of disapproval of 
that certification or further modifications to the 1985 agreement 
should that prove necessary. Our legislation ensures that the Congress 
has adequate time to examine China's record of compliance with its 
nonproliferation commitments, particularly its pledge to provide no new 
nuclear assistance to Iran and to take appropriate legislative action 
if that is deemed necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, we stand at a critical juncture with respect to our 
nonproliferation policy toward China. Implementing a nuclear 
cooperation agreement is not a step that should be taken lightly with 
any nation. With China, it is vital that we get it right the first 
time. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and to 
adopt the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the text of the compendium referred to in my remarks is 
as follows:
       ``The question of assurance does not exist. China and Iran 
     currently do not have any nuclear cooperation . . . We do not 
     sell nuclear weapons to any country or transfer related 
     technology. This is our long-standing position, this policy 
     is targeted at all countries.'' Foreign Ministry spokesman 
     Shen Guofang, Los Angles, 11/2/97, Reuters, 11/3/97.
       ``We don't have to take it on faith . . . We received 
     clear-cut, specific assurances.'' Senior US official, AFP, 
     10/31/97 (referring to China's vow not to commence new 
     nuclear cooperation with Iran.)
       China will . . . not help other countries develop nuclear 
     weapons. At the same time, China also holds that prevention 
     of nuclear proliferation should not affect international 
     cooperation on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The US 
     administration is clear on this point and so is the 
     international community.'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Tang 
     Guoqiang, Beijing, 10/30/97, Ta Kung Pao, 10/31/97 (emphasis 
     added).
       ``President Jiang and I agreed that the United States and 
     China share a strong interest in stopping the spread of 
     weapons of mass destruction and other sophisticated weaponry 
     in unstable regions and rogue states; notably, Iran. I 
     welcome the steps China has taken and the clear assurances it 
     has given today to help prevent the proliferation of nuclear 
     weapons and related technology.'' President Bill Clinton, 
     press conference, Washington, D.C., 10/29/97.
       ``In May 1996, China committed not to provide 
     [unsafeguarded nuclear] assistance to . . . Pakistan or 
     anywhere else. We have monitored this pledge very carefully 
     over the course of the last 16, 18 months, and the Chinese 
     appear to be taking their pledge very seriously. We have no 
     basis to conclude that they have acted inconsistently with 
     this May 1996 commitment. Also, the Chinese have provided 
     assurances with respect to nuclear cooperation with Iran. 
     What they have assured us is that they . . . are not going to 
     engage in new nuclear cooperation with Iran, and that they 
     will complete a few existing projects, and these are projects 
     which are not of proliferation concern. They [will] complete 
     them within a relatively short period of time . . . the 
     assurances we received are . . . sufficiently specific and 
     clear to meet the requirements of our law and to advance our 
     national security interests, and they are in the form of 
     writing. They're written, confidential communications . . . I 
     would call them authoritative, written communications . . . 
     Today was when the final exchange took place . . . We will 
     make [them] available to members of Congress in confidence, 
     because these are confidential diplomatic communications, an 
     opportunity to read and judge for themselves these written 
     assurances that we've been given . . . [Q] assurances 
     specifically--different countries, specifically, say, Iran, 
     Pakistan? . . . [A] Yes, just Iran . . . they have 
     safeguarded peaceful nuclear cooperation with both Pakistan 
     and India, and they told that at this particular point, 
     they're not prepared to suspend those projects . . . The 
     President made very clear to him that this was an essential 
     requirement; we needed to have this assurance on Iran, or 
     there could be no certification . . . [Q] Who is the 
     assurance addressed to? [A] We're not going to discuss the . 
     . . specifics of the issue. [Q] Is it in a letter, though, 
     that's addressed to someone in particular in the U.S. 
     government? [A] It's an authoritative, written 
     communication.'' Senior Administration Official, press 
     briefing, The White House, 10/29/97, emphasis added.
       ``We have received assurances from the Chinese that they 
     will not engage in any new nuclear cooperation with Iran, and 
     that the existing cooperation--there are two projects in 
     particular--will end. That is the assurance we have received. 
     As to the form of that assurance, we will be discussing that 
     with Congress . . . ''. Sandy Berger, National Security 
     Advisory, press conference, 10/29/97
       ``The United States and China reiterate their commitment 
     not to provide any assistance unsafeguarded nuclear 
     facilities and nuclear explosion programs.'' Joint U.S.-China 
     Statement, The White House, 10/29/97.
       ``China has taken new, concrete steps to prevent nuclear 
     proliferation that threaten the interests of both countries. 
     China has . . . Provided assurances addressing U.S. concerns 
     about nuclear cooperation with Iran . . . ''. White House 
     Fact Sheet, ``Accomplishments of US/China Summit.'' 10/29/97.
       ``. . . I think we have reached a point where we're 
     satisfied that we have the assurances that we need to have 
     that China is not engaging, will not engage in assistance to 
     states developing nuclear weapons, which would enable the 
     President to go forward with the Peaceful Nuclear Energy 
     Agreement of 1985'' Senior White House official, press 
     conference, Washington, D.C., 10/29/97.
       ``China adopts a cautious and responsible attitude toward 
     nuclear exports. It has never transferred nuclear weapons or 
     relevant technology to any other country. China's stand 
     against nuclear weapons proliferation is consistent with 
     clear-cut; that is, China has consistently opposed nuclear 
     weapons proliferation. It does not advocate, encourage, or 
     engage in nuclear weapons proliferation, nor has it helped 
     other countries develop nuclear weapons. In the meantime, 
     China takes the view that the fight against nuclear weapons 
     proliferation should not affect international cooperation on 
     the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The American side is well 
     aware of the Chinese position on that.'' Foreign Ministry 
     spokesman Tang Guoqiang, Beijing Central Peoples Radio, 10/
     28/97 (emphasis added)
       ``I wish to emphasize once again China has never 
     transferred nuclear weapons or relevant technology to other 
     countries, including Iran . . . China has never done it in 
     the past, we do not do it now, nor will be do it in the 
     future.'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Shen Guofang, Kyodo, 10/
     21/97.
       ``. . . China adheres to the policy that it does not 
     advocate, encourage or engage in proliferation of nuclear 
     weapons nor assist other countries in developing nuclear 
     weapons. For many years the Chinese Government has exercised 
     strict and effective control over nuclear and nuclear-related 
     export, including exchanges of personnel and information, and 
     has abided by the following three principles: (1) serving 
     peaceful purposes only; (2) accepting IAEA safeguards; (3)

[[Page H10074]]

     forbidding transfer to any third country without China's 
     consent. With regard to any nuclear export, the recipient 
     government is always requested to provide to the Chinese side 
     an assurance in writing to acknowledge the above three 
     principles and the export can proceed only after approval by 
     relevant Chinese authorities . . . [regulations] strictly 
     prohibit any exchange of nuclear weapons related technology 
     and information with other countries . . . No [Chinese] 
     agency or company is allowed to conduct cooperation or 
     exchange of personnel and technological data with nuclear 
     facilities not under IAEA safeguards . . . [these] 
     regulations are applicable . . . also to all activities 
     related to nuclear explosive devices . . . the Chinese side 
     wishes to emphasize that the prevention of nuclear 
     proliferation should in no way affect or hinder the normal 
     nuclear cooperation for peaceful uses among countries, let 
     along be used as an excuse for discrimination and even 
     application of willful sanctions against developing 
     countries. The prevention of nuclear proliferation and 
     peaceful uses of nuclear energy constitute the two sides of 
     one coin . . . this is the consistent policy of China.'' 
     Ambassador Li Changhe, Statement at Meeting of Zangger 
     Committee, Vienna, 10/16/97 (emphasis added).
       ``China's position on nuclear proliferation is very clear . 
     . . It does not advocate, encourage, or engage in nuclear 
     proliferation, nor does it assist other countries in 
     developing nuclear weapons. It always undertakes its 
     international legal obligations of preventing nuclear 
     proliferation . . . China has always been cautious and 
     responsible in handling its nuclear exports and exports of 
     materials and facilities that might lead to nuclear 
     proliferation.'' Statement by Foreign Ministry spokesman Cui 
     Tiankai, Beijing, Xinhua, 9/15/97.
       ``The state highly controls nuclear exports and strictly 
     performs the international obligation on nonproliferation of 
     nuclear weapons it has undertaken. The state does not 
     advocate, encourage and engage in proliferation of nuclear 
     weapons, and does not help other countries develop nuclear 
     weapons. Nuclear exports are used only for peaceful purposes 
     and are subjected to International Atomic Energy Agency's 
     guarantee and supervision . . . The state prohibits 
     assistance to nuclear facilities not subject to International 
     Atomic Energy Agency's guarantee and supervision, and does 
     not engage in nuclear exports or personnel and technological 
     exchanges and cooperation with them.'' Regulations of the PRC 
     on Control of Nuclear Exports, Xinhua, 9/11/97.
       ``Our country . . . has followed the policy of not 
     advocating, not encouraging, and not engaging in the 
     proliferation of nuclear weapons, and not helping other 
     countries to develop nuclear weapons . . . all relevant 
     agencies and units engaged in the activities of foreign 
     economic trade must thoroughly implement our country's policy 
     on nuclear exports; that is, not advocating, encouraging, or 
     engaging in the proliferation of nuclear weapons and not 
     helping other countries develop nuclear weapons; only using 
     nuclear export items for peaceful purposes, accepting the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards and 
     supervision, and not allowing the transfer of such items to 
     third countries without our country's permission; and not 
     giving assistance to the nuclear facilities of those 
     countries that have not accepted the safeguards and 
     supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency . . . 
     Nuclear material, nuclear installations and related 
     technology, non-nuclear material used for reactors, and 
     nuclear-related dual-use installations, material, and related 
     technology . . . may not be supplied to or used by nuclear 
     facilities that have not accepted the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency's safeguards and supervision. No unit or 
     corporation is allowed to cooperate with nuclear 
     installations that have not accepted the system of safeguards 
     and supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, 
     nor are they allowed to engage in exchanges of professional 
     scientific and technical personnel and technological 
     information . . .'' Chinese State Council Circular No. 17, 
     Beijing, 5/27/97 (translated by CRS).
       ``. . . we have absolutely binding assurances from the 
     Chinese, which we consider a commitment on their part not to 
     export ring magnets or any other technologies to 
     unsafeguarded facilities . . . The negotiating record is made 
     up primarily of conversations, which were detailed and 
     recorded, between US and Chinese officials.'' Under Secretary 
     of State Peter Tarnoff, congressional testimony, 5/16/96.
       ``Last week, we reached an understanding with China that it 
     will no longer provide assistance to unsafeguarded programs . 
     . . senior Chinese officials have explicitly confirmed our 
     understanding the Chinese policy of not assisting 
     unsafeguarded nuclear facilities would prevent future sales, 
     future transfers of ring magnets.'' Secretary of State Warren 
     Christopher, congressional testimony, 5/15/96.
       ``Being a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
     Treaty, China strictly abides by its treaty commitments and 
     has never engaged in any activities in violation of its 
     commitments. China's position of opposing nuclear weapons 
     proliferation is constant and unambiguous. China will, as 
     usual, continue to honor its international commitments and 
     play a positive role in maintaining regional and world peace 
     and stability.'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Cui Tiankai, 
     Zhonggwo Ximven She, 5/15/96.
       ``China strictly observes its obligations under the treaty 
     and is against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. China 
     pursues the policy of not endorsing, encouraging or engaging 
     in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or assisting other 
     countries in developing such weapons. The nuclear cooperation 
     between China and the countries concerned is exclusively for 
     peaceful purposes. China will not provide assistance to 
     unsafeguarded and unsupervised Chinese nuclear facilities.'' 
     Foreign Ministry spokesman, Xinhua, 5/11/96.
       ``Shen Guofang is an official press officer of the Chinese 
     government and he has said several times that China is not 
     exporting nuclear arms material nor spreading nuclear arms. 
     The Central Intelligence Agency of the United States, the 
     CIA, has accorded to Shen made several mistakes. The claim 
     that China is exporting so-called ring magnets to Pakistan is 
     one of the CIA's mistakes, according to Shen.'' Interview 
     with Chinese Shen Guofang, YLE Radio, Helsinki, 4/5/96.
       ``China has never transferred or sold any nuclear 
     technology or equipment to Pakistan . . . We therefore hope 
     the U.S. Government will not base its policy-making on 
     hearsay.'' Foreign Ministry Deputy Secretary Shen Guofang, 
     Hong Kong AFP, 3/26/96 (after the reported ring magnet sale 
     to Pakistan).
       ``China, a responsible state, has never transferred 
     equipment or technology for producing nuclear weapons to any 
     other country. Nor, as a responsible state, will China do so 
     in the future.'' Foreign Ministry spokesman, Xinhua, 2/15/96.
       ``China is a responsible country. We have not transferred, 
     nor will we transfer to any country, equipment or 
     technologies used in manufacturing nuclear weapons. As a 
     signatory to the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty, 
     China scrupulously abides by the treaty concerning 
     international legal obligations toward the prevention of 
     nuclear weapons proliferation, and it does not advocate, 
     encourage or engage in nuclear proliferation. While engaging 
     in cooperation with other countries for the peaceful use of 
     nuclear energy, China strictly abides by China's three 
     principles on nuclear exports and accepts the safeguards and 
     supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.'' 
     Foreign Ministry spokesman Shen Guofung, Xinhua, 2/15/96.
       ``Foreign Ministry spokesman Shen Guofang today denied 
     reports that China has transferred nuclear technology to 
     Pakistan. He said that China carries out normal international 
     cooperation with Pakistan and some other countries on the 
     peaceful use of nuclear energy. The legitimate rights and 
     interests of all countries in the peaceful use of nuclear 
     energy should also be respected. China has constantly adopted 
     a prudent and responsible toward the export of nuclear 
     energy. It is totally groundless to say that China has 
     transferred nuclear technology to Pakistan.'' Foreign 
     Ministry spokesman Shen Guofang, as reported in Ta Kung Pao, 
     2/9/96 (follows 2/8/96 Washington Times story about China's 
     transfer of ring magnets to Pakistan's unsafeguarded uranium 
     enrichment plant).
       ``China has constantly stood for . . . pursuing a policy of 
     not supporting, encouraging or engaging in the proliferation 
     of nuclear weapons and assisting any other country in the 
     development of such weapons . . . Since 1992 when [China] 
     became a party to the [nuclear Non-Proliferation] treaty, it 
     has strictly fulfilled its obligations under the Treaty, 
     including the obligation to cooperate fully with the IAEA in 
     safeguard application. China follows three principles 
     regarding nuclear exports: exports serving peaceful purposes 
     only, accepting IAEA safeguards . . . Only specialized 
     government-designated companies can handle nuclear exports 
     and in each instance they must apply for approval from 
     relevant governmental departments. All exports of nuclear 
     materials and equipment will be subject to IAEA safeguard. 
     China has never exported sensitive technologies such as those 
     for uranium enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water 
     production.'' Information Office of the State Council of the 
     PRC White Paper: ``China: Arms Control and Disarmament'', 
     Beijing Review, 11/27/95.
       ``. . . there isn't any nuclear cooperation between China 
     and Iran that is not under the safeguard of the International 
     Atomic Energy Agency.'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Chen Jian, 
     Xinhua, 9/26/95.
       ``. . . China as a State Party and particularly as a 
     developing country with considerable nuclear industrial 
     capabilities, strictly abides by the relevant provisions of 
     the NPT to ensure the exclusive use [of such capabilities] 
     for peaceful purposes . . .''. Ambassador Sha Zukang, NPT 
     Extension Conference, at UN, 1/23/95.
       ``China does not engage in proliferation of weapons of mass 
     destruction . . .'' Foreign Minister Qian Qichen, AP 
     newswire, 10/4/94.
       ``China is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
     Treaty. We do not support or encourage nuclear proliferation, 
     this has been a consistent position.'' Premier Li Peng, 
     Beijing Central Television Program One, 3/22/94.
       ``[T]he Chinese government has consistently supported and 
     participated in the international communities efforts for 
     preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.'' Ambassador 
     Hou Zhitong, address to the U.N. General Assembly, 10/21/92.
       ``[China] supports non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and 
     other weapons of mass destruction.'' Foreign Minister Qian 
     Qichen, at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament and Security 
     Issues in the Asia-Pacific Region, 8/17/92.

[[Page H10075]]

       ``The reports carried by some Western newspapers and 
     magazines alleging that China has provided Iran with 
     materials, equipment, and technology that can be used to 
     produce nuclear weapons are utterly groundless.'' Foreign 
     Ministry spokesman, Xinhua, 11/4/91.
       ``China has always stood for nuclear nonproliferation, 
     neither encouraging nor engaging in nuclear proliferation.'' 
     Premier Li Peng, Xinhua, 8/10/91.
       ``The Chinese Government has made it clear that it adheres 
     to a nuclear nonproliferation policy. This means that China 
     does not support, encourage, or engage in nuclear 
     proliferation. We said so and have done so, too.'' Premier Li 
     Peng, interview with Iranian and Chinese journalists, Renmin 
     Ribao, 7/10/91.
       ``China has struck no nuclear deals with Iran . . . This 
     inference is preposterous.'' Chinese embassy official Chen 
     Guoqing, rebutting a claim that China had sold nuclear 
     technology to Iran, letter to Washington Post, 7/2/91.
       ``The report claiming that China provides medium-range 
     missiles for Pakistan is absolutely groundless. China does 
     not stand for, encourage, or engage itself in nuclear 
     proliferation and does not aid other countries in developing 
     nuclear weapons.'' Foreign ministry spokesman Wu Janmin, 
     Zhongguo Ximwen She, 4/25/91.
       ``China's position is clear cut, that is, China won't 
     practice nuclear proliferation. Meanwhile we are against the 
     proliferation of nuclear weapons by any other country. . .''. 
     Premier Li Peng, Xinhua, 4/1/91.
       ``. . . the Chinese Government has consistently supported 
     and participated in the international community's efforts for 
     preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.'' Ambassador 
     Hou Zhitong, Xinhua, 10/24/90.
       ``China seeks a policy of not encouraging or engaging in 
     nuclear proliferation and not helping any country develop the 
     deadly weapons.'' Ambassador Hou Zhitong, Xinhua, 9/12/90.
       ``China has adopted a responsible attitude [on nuclear 
     cooperation], requiring the recipient countries of its 
     nuclear exports to accept IAEA safeguards and ensuring that 
     its own nuclear import is for peaceful purposes.'' Foreign 
     Minister Qian Qichen, Xinhua, 2/27/90.
       ``China does not advocate, or encourage, or engage in 
     nuclear proliferation and would only cooperate with other 
     countries in the peaceful application of nuclear energy.'' 
     Foreign Minister Qian Qichen, Renmin Ribao, 9/15/89.
       ``China, though not a [NPT] signatory, has repeatedly 
     stated that it abides by the principles of nuclear 
     nonproliferation.'' Xinhua, 5/9/89.
       ``As everyone knows, China does not advocate nor encourage 
     nuclear proliferation. China does not engage in developing or 
     assisting other countries to develop nuclear weapons.'' 
     Foreign Ministry spokesman, Beijing radio, 5/4/89.
       ``The cooperation between China and Pakistan in the sphere 
     of nuclear energy [is] entirely for peaceful purposes. The 
     relevant agreements signed between the two countries consist 
     of specific provisions guaranteeing safety. The allegations 
     that China has been assisting Pakistan in the field of 
     nuclear weapons . . . are completely groundless . . .''. 
     Foreign Ministry spokesman Li Zhaoxing, Beijing Radio, 1/19/
     89.
       ``[Secretary of Defense Frank] Carlucci said Chinese 
     leaders emphasized that they would never sell nuclear weapons 
     to foreign nations. . .''. Washington Post, 9/8/88.
       ``China does not advocate or encourage nuclear 
     proliferation, nor does it help other countries develop 
     nuclear weapons.'' Vice Foreign Minister Qian Qichen, Beijing 
     Review, 3/30/87.
       ``The State Department and its allies insist that the 
     negotiators made no such concessions. They argue that despite 
     the text of the [US/China nuclear] agreement, they have 
     obtained private assurances from the Chinese that Beijing 
     will cooperate with unwritten American expectations. In 
     particular, the chief American negotiator, Special Ambassador 
     Richard T. Kennedy, has prepared a classified `Summary of 
     Discussions,' in which he asserts that the Chinese have 
     provided further pledges to reform their nuclear export 
     policies. Touting these unwritten, unofficial assurances, he 
     claims that the China pact would not compromise our vigilance 
     against the spread of nuclear weapons.'' The New Republic, 
     11/25/85, p. 9.
       ``Since that time [1983], we have received assurances from 
     them [the Chinese government] and we have seen nothing, and 
     there is no evidence, that indicates that they are not 
     abiding by the assurances that they have provided us.'' 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary of State James R. Lilley, 
     congressional testimony, 11/13/85.
       ``The People's Republic of China has clearly indicated that 
     it shares our concerns about any nuclear weapons 
     proliferation. . .''. Secretary of Energy John S. Herrington, 
     congressional testimony, 10/9/85.
       ``The Chinese made it clear to us that when they say they 
     will not assist other countries to develop nuclear weapons, 
     this also applies to all nuclear explosives . . . We are 
     satisfied that the [nonproliferation] policies they have 
     adopted are consistent with our own basic views.'' Ambassador 
     Richard Kennedy, Department of State, congressional 
     testimony, 10/9/85.
       ``The Chinese have also made a number of high-level policy 
     statements, and I would emphasize that these were high-level 
     policy statements and not mere toasts tossed off in haste and 
     casually. These clearly set forth their position that they 
     are opposed to the spread of nuclear weapons and do not 
     assist or encourage others to develop weapons.'' Assistant 
     Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz, congressional testimony, 
     10/9/85.
       ``Since negotiations began on the proposed agreement, China 
     has made significant new statements on its nonproliferation 
     policy . . . These statements show that China is opposed 
     to the spread of nuclear explosives to additional 
     countries.'' Ambassador Richard Kennedy, Department of 
     State, congressional testimony, 9/12/85.
       ``The People's Republic of China has clearly indicated that 
     it shares our concerns about any nuclear weapons 
     proliferation . . .'' Assistant Secretary of Energy George 
     Bradley, congressional testimony, 9/12/85.
       ``The Chinese know that nuclear cooperation with us rests 
     on their strict adherence to basic nonproliferation practices 
     discussed and clarified at such great length.'' ACDA 
     Assistant Director Norman A. Wulf, congressional testimony, 
     9/12/85.
       ``Our contacts with the Chinese . . . have demonstrated 
     clearly that they appreciate the importance we attach to 
     nonproliferation. We are satisfied that the policies they 
     have adopted are consistent with our own basic views.'' 
     Ambassador-At-Large Richard Kennedy, congressional testimony, 
     7/31/85.
       ``Over these past two years, the Chinese Government has 
     taken a number of important nonproliferation steps. First, it 
     made a pledge that it does `not engage in nuclear 
     proliferation' nor does it `help other countries develop 
     nuclear weapons'. The substance of this pledge has been 
     reaffirmed several times by Chinese officials both abroad and 
     within China. In fact, China's Sixth National People's 
     Congress made this policy a directive to all agencies of that 
     large and complex government. As such, it constitutes a 
     historic and positive change in China's policies.'' ACDA 
     Director Kenneth Adelman, congressional testimony, 7/31/85.
       ``Energy Department sources said a key part of the 
     administration's presentation to Congress would be a 
     classified summary of a meeting between Li Peng and special 
     US ambassador and nuclear negotiator Richard T. Kennedy in 
     Peking in June. Kennedy was said to have `nailed down' 
     Chinese assurances that they will work to halt the spread of 
     atomic weapons and will abide by all US safeguard 
     requirements. The sources said Kennedy wrote the summary and 
     `showed it to the Chinese, and they said it's consistent with 
     the way they view their policies.' Sen. Alan Cranston (D-
     Calif.) said he was promised that written assurances of the 
     Chinese position would be included in the nuclear agreement 
     package.'' ``US and China Sign Nuclear-Power Pact,'' 
     Washington Post, 7/24/85.
       ``A long-dormant nuclear cooperation agreement with China 
     apparently has been rejuvenated by new written assurances 
     from China on its commitment to control the spread of nuclear 
     weapons, accorting to Senate and administration officials.'' 
     ``US-China Nuclear Pact Near: New Assurances Said Received on 
     Control of Weapons,'' Washington Past, 7/22/85.
       ``Discussions with China that have taken place since the 
     initialling of the proposed [nuclear] Agreement have 
     contributed significantly to a shared understanding with 
     China on what it means not to assist other countries to 
     acquire nuclear explosives, and in facilitating China's steps 
     to put all these new policies into place. Thus, ACDA believes 
     that the statements of policy by senior Chinese officials, as 
     clarified by these discussions, represent a clear commitment 
     not to assist a non-nuclear-weapon state in the acquisition 
     of nuclear explosives.'' ACDA, ``Nuclear Proliferation 
     Assessment Statement,'' submitted to Congress on 7/24/85 with 
     the US/China Agreement for Cooperation, 7/19/85.
       ``China is not a party to the NPT, but its stance on the 
     question is clear-cut and above-board . . . it stands for 
     nuclear disarmament and disapproves of nuclear proliferation 
     . . . In recent years, the Chinese Government has more and 
     more, time and again reiterated that China neither advocates 
     nor encourages nuclear proliferation, and its cooperation 
     with other countries in the nuclear field is only for 
     peaceful purposes''. Ambassador Hc Qian Jiadong, speech given 
     at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, 6/27/85 (quoted 
     by Amb. Richard Kennedy in congressional testimony, 7/31/85).
       ``I wish to reiterate that China has no intention, either 
     at the present or in the future, to help non-nuclear 
     countries develop nuclear weapons . . . China's nuclear 
     cooperation with other countries, either at present or in the 
     future, is confined to peaceful purposes alone.'' Vice 
     Premier Li Peng, Xinhua, 1/18/85.
       ``We are critical of the discriminatory treaty on the 
     nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, but we do not advocate 
     or encourage nuclear proliferation. We do not engage in 
     nuclear proliferation ourselves, nor do we help other 
     countries develop nuclear weapons.'' Premier Zhao Ziyang, 
     White House state dinner on 1/10/84, Xinhua, 1/11/84 (note: a 
     US official later said that ``These were solemn assurances 
     with in fact the force of law,'' AP, 6/15/84).
       ``China does not encourage or support nuclear 
     proliferation.'' Vice Premier Li Peng, Xinhua, 10/18/83.
       ``Like many other peace-loving countries, China does not 
     advocate or encourage nuclear proliferation, and we are 
     emphatically

[[Page H10076]]

     opposed to any production of nuclear weapons by racists and 
     expansionists such as South Africa and Israel.'' Yu Peiwen, 
     head of Chinese delegation to Conference on Disarmament in 
     Geneva, Xinhua, 8/4/81.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Gilman-
Markey amendment does two things, both of which I think retroactively 
move the goalposts in our nonproliferation negotiations with China.
  The first thing it does, as the distinguished gentleman from New York 
said, is to extend the time for congressional consideration of the 
President's considerations from 30 to 120 days of continuous session. 
The second thing that it does is to provide for expedited procedures 
for consideration of a congressional joint resolution of disapproval.
  Now what we have here is a statutory framework that we have had in 
existence for a number of years that sets out the procedure to be 
followed in these nonproliferation negotiations with China. As we come, 
so to speak, to the fourth quarter of the game, we are suddenly moving 
the goalposts, and I just do not think that is a good thing for us to 
do. The amendment retroactively moves the goalposts in our 
nonproliferation negotiations with China.
  Now the second thing I think this amendment does is to delay the 
dialog with China. I think this amendment, even though it is couched in 
procedural terms, places at risk our ability to persuade the Chinese to 
move in our direction on a whole range of issues that separate our two 
countries. China is inevitably going to see this amendment as part of 
an attempt to delay or to defeat the President's certification 
regarding the United States-China nuclear agreement, and I do not think 
it is too difficult to guess how the Chinese will respond. Beijing will 
suspend its current nonproliferation dialog with us and thereby make 
further progress on these important issues virtually impossible.
  The third point I would make is that I think current law, with the 
30-day provision of continuous session, provides ample time to review 
the certification of the President. That review period will not expire 
under current law until February, and what that does is give us 4 
months to review the certification.
  So although on the surface this is a procedural amendment seeking 
more time and seeking an expedited procedure, I think in fact it will 
have deleterious impact on the substance of the matter. I do not think 
we should try to prejudge the nuclear agreement, we should judge it on 
its merits. There is a lot of inquiry that has to be made with respect 
to it. I think those inquiries can be made within the 4-month period, 
and I do not think it is wise for the United States to put into law a 
framework, announce that to the world, so to speak, put that before the 
Chinese over a period of many years, and then, as we come to the final 
part of the consideration with the President's certification, suddenly 
say, we are changing the rules of procedure. That is not the way a 
responsible power should act.
  I urge that this amendment be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Gilman-Markey amendment. We are 
all familiar with China's past proliferation record. Over the years, 
China has been the Wal-Mart of weapons of mass destruction for 
countries such as Iran and Pakistan. Over the years, China has 
perfected the game of promising the United States that it would stop 
its nuclear garage sales with a nudge and a wink to the Ayatollahs of 
the world. Last week, China scored the winning point in its game of 
nuclear ``trick or treat.'' It got to take the treat and to play the 
trick. They got the treat of U.S. nuclear exports and the trick of 
assisting Iran and Pakistan to build the so-called Islamic bomb.
  The President has announced that he will certify the 1985 nuclear 
cooperation agreement with China, claiming that China has been 
sufficiently moving forward and becoming a responsible member of the 
international nonproliferation community and is therefore deserving of 
access to American nuclear technology.
  However, it was only this past June that the CIA had this to say 
about China: During the last half of 1996, China was the most 
significant supplier of weapons of mass destruction-related goods and 
technology to foreign countries. The Chinese provided a tremendous 
variety of assistance to both Iran and Pakistan's ballistic missile 
programs. Pakistan was very aggressive in seeking out equipment, 
material, and technology for its nuclear weapons program, with China as 
its principal supplier. China has repeatedly pledged to curb its habit 
of providing nuclear missile, chemical, and biological weapons to 
countries such as Iran and Pakistan, but China has repeatedly broken 
its pledges.
  The nuclear cooperation agreement was negotiated in 1985, but it has 
not been implemented because no President has been able to meet the 
congressionally mandated conditions associated with its implementation 
which include Presidential certification that China has become a 
responsible member of the international nonproliferation community. I 
do not believe that this was the case in 1985, and I do not believe 
that it is now.
  A 1985 AP story about the agreement pointed out that the Reagan 
administration had relied upon a verbal statement sealed by a champagne 
toast to conclude the agreement, and we all know how well China lived 
up to that solemn pledge. And now we find ourselves in what might be an 
identical situation. The administration says it got some verbal 
nonproliferation commitments from China and some written commitments 
that no one has yet seen.
  What has been made public about China's nonproliferation commitment 
seems to have some problems. One, the agreement only prevents new 
nuclear cooperation with Iran's nuclear weapons programs and allows 
continued cooperation between China and Iran to take place in at least 
two nuclear contracts.
  The agreement appears to have a loophole that could allow the 
resurrection of a currently suspended but not canceled contract to 
build a uranium enrichment facility in Iran since that contract would 
not fall into the category of new nuclear cooperation.
  The agreement does not condition nuclear cooperation with Pakistan or 
any other country besides Iran.
  The agreement does not contain provisions that would halt the 
transfer of nuclear-capable missiles to Iran or other countries.
  Now perhaps once Congress gains access to all the information, we 
will decide that the promises that have been made are sufficient. On 
the other hand, after we hold hearings, review the documents, and have 
some time to observe China's behavior, we may come to the conclusion 
that the agreement contains empty or insufficient promises, and we may 
want to do something about it.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and I have made this 
amendment to give Congress the additional time it is going to need in 
order to make this agreement, ultimately carefully fashioned to advance 
the goals which Congress has been trying to protect which this country 
has been advancing in the years ahead. I hope that all Members of the 
Congress can support us this evening in sending this very important 
message.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise both in support of the underlying 
bill which I think is a very sensible effort to augment our ability to 
ascertain the human rights situation in China by strengthening our on-
the-ground operations there and the Gilman-Markey amendment which, to 
me, without prejudicing what our decision would be, enhances Congress' 
ability and the administration's ability to ensure that the 
representations and commitments made by the Chinese in the area of 
nuclear proliferation are being implemented and forced by expanding the

[[Page H10077]]

time in which Congress has to review and decide whether to allow or 
disapprove of the agreement which has been certified.
  China's past record of abiding by its international commitments not 
to aid the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is not a good 
one. Congressional skepticism about Chinese promises is clearly 
warranted. There is time to consider the agreement, and the extension 
of that time and the expedited procedure which would allow a decision 
to be implemented without the threat of filibuster or delay in the 
other body is very critical in reducing the skepticism and reinforcing 
congressional support for the agreement should the record of 
implementation bring us to that conclusion.
  So for that reason, I think both the Chinese and the administration 
should welcome this. This gives us a greater time to determine if, in 
fact, it is true that the representations made have been kept, the 
commitments made with respect to export controls and the implementation 
of a meaningful export control regime are being followed through.
  By reducing our concern, it leads people to come to a fact-based 
conclusion by adding to the time we have to look at it. My fear is that 
if the existing law remains in place, we will be rushed into a 
decision, we will be forced to make decisions based on the past record 
rather than the present record, and so I think the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] 
have an excellent amendment here, and I urge the body to adopt it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher], a member of our committee.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Gilman-
Markey amendment.
  I was in Cambodia not too long ago with a United States team of 
military personnel trying to clear out mines in Cambodia, and they told 
me that there was a new mine that they were having trouble teaching the 
Cambodians how to get rid of, how to defuse, because it was a smart 
mine, and eventually that mine exploded in the hands of someone trying 
to defuse it. It was designed to kill Americans or anyone else trying 
to defuse mines. When they opened it up, what did they find? They found 
a chip from Motorola, a Motorola chip that was designed specifically to 
make it impossible to defuse these mines without the loss of American 
military personnel.
  We need control of our technology when it is going into the hands of 
vicious dictatorships like we find in the mainland in China. If we do 
not impose these restrictions on technology or just handle this issue 
with care, it is going to come back and haunt us. It is going to hurt 
our national security, and Americans will be dead if we do not take the 
proper care.
  That is what the Gilman-Markey amendment is all about. That is why I 
support the Gilman-Markey amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Gilman-Markey 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, last month I called on the administration not to certify 
that China has stopped its exportation of nuclear technology to 
unregulated countries, and I wrote to President Clinton urging that the 
administration halt preparations to recertify China and spoke out 
against it here in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, granting certification to China now is the wrong thing 
to do, given China's record of exporting nuclear technology. The recent 
action by the Chinese premier to sign regulations limiting nuclear 
exports pales in comparison to Chinese actions of the past 12 years 
which argue for continued prudence and vigilance.
  I am particularly concerned about Beijing's pattern of transferring 
ring magnets, an important component for building nuclear weapons for a 
Pakistani nuclear facility. I am concerned that the administration 
appears to be giving insufficient consideration to China's recent 
transfer of nuclear technology to unregulated nuclear facilities in 
Pakistan.
  The administration will be granting certification despite CIA 
findings that the Chinese have sold 5,000 ring magnets to Pakistan for 
its uranium enrichment facilities, and ring magnets can be used in the 
building of nuclear weapons. The administration is apparently willing 
to ignore China's continued support of Pakistan's commitment to build a 
plutonium production reactor and a plutonium reprocessing plant. These 
facilities are essential for a nuclear weapons program, and despite the 
protests of United States lawmakers, China continues to assist Pakistan 
in building a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, this 
arsenal is not subject to international inspection.
  Furthermore, the administration continues to look the other way as 
China continues to export technology and ballistic missile components 
to Pakistan, a country that is not a member of the International Atomic 
Energy Agency and bans investigators from several of its nuclear 
facilities.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly, there is a lot of skepticism and many 
unanswered questions about granting the certification. Let us pass this 
common sense, the Gilman-Markey neutral resolution, so that our 
decision is based on the complete review of the terms of the agreement 
and not just rush into rubber-stamping an agreement that we may later 
come to regret.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me this time, even though I am not in agreement with his 
position, but I appreciate his generosity.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Gilman-Markey amendment 
to the underlying bill of the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen]. I support that bill, as well as this amendment.
  This is probably the most important issue that we will debate on this 
whole China issue in the House. I certainly care about promoting 
democratic freedoms in China, and I am very concerned about the $50 
billion trade deficit that we will suffer this year with China. But 
even if those two issues were not a factor in our U.S.-China 
relationship, the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction is the most serious issue that we in the Congress have to 
deal with. It is about nothing short of the safety of the world.
  I am afraid that the President's move to certify that China is in 
accord with the cooperative agreements on the nuclear accords is just a 
fiction, and I believe that it is very necessary for Congress to take a 
very close look at what the Chinese have promised and what the 
prospects are for their keeping their promises, because indeed the law 
on proliferation and certification calls for performance before a 
country can receive certification, and President Clinton is intending 
to give certification on the basis of promises.
  My colleagues have reviewed some of the promises made by China and 
promises not kept by China, and I would be happy to share the pages and 
pages and pages of unkept promises on the subject of proliferation, but 
I will just refer to one in particular.
  On May 11, 1996, the Chinese pledged that ``China will not provide 
assistance to unsafeguarded nuclear facilities.'' The end of that year, 
December 1996, the CIA's assessment on China's nonproliferation record 
stated, ``During the last half of 1996, China was the most significant 
supplier of weapons of mass destruction and technology to foreign 
countries. The Chinese provided a tremendous variety of assistance to 
both Iran and Pakistan's ballistic missiles programs. Pakistan was very 
aggressive in seeking out equipment, material and technology for its 
nuclear weapons program, with China as its principal supplier.''
  That was 6 months after the pledge.
  Then, this year, in talking about the certification, President 
Clinton said, after the CIA, in an unclassified report to Congress, 
revealed that, President Clinton said, ``China has lived up to its 
pledge not to assist unsafeguarded nuclear facilities in third 
countries and is developing a system of export controls to prevent the 
transfer of sales of technology and weapons of mass destruction, but 
China still maintains some troubling weapons relationship.''
  That last sentence is fraught with meaning because it covers a very 
vast

[[Page H10078]]

array of violations by China, but China still maintains some troubling 
weapons supply relationships. That means they are still proliferating 
weapons of mass destruction.
  President Clinton said that only a short while after the Office of 
Naval Intelligence Report on Worldwide Maritime Challenges, March 1997, 
stated, and this is blown up for the review of my colleagues,

       Discoveries after the Gulf War clearly indicate that Iran 
     maintained an aggressive weapons of mass destruction 
     procurement program. A similar situation exists today in 
     Iran, with a steady flow of materials and technologies from 
     China to Iran. This exchange is one of the most active 
     weapons of mass destruction programs in the Third World and 
     is taking place in a region of great strategic interest to 
     the United States.

  I just want to close by saying, when we asked President Jiang in the 
breakfast, the famous breakfast meeting, has China engaged in the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; well, we know they have, 
but: please comment on China's proliferation, he deferred to his 
foreign minister who stood up and said China has never proliferated any 
nuclear technology, has never proliferated any nuclear technology; 
never.
  So when we base our policy on promises by China, I think we have to 
look at the record. The Congress needs the additional time to review 
that. I urge my colleagues to support the Gilman-Markey amendment.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for yielding me this 
time.
  I think the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] was most 
eloquent on this issue. The bottom line here is that the President, 
under pressure from a failing U.S. nuclear industry, because there has 
not been a new nuclear plant constructed in the United States in more 
than a dozen year, and none are proposed, is being pressured to 
transfer critical nuclear technology to China, a country that has a 
long-term documented record of transferring technology for weapons of 
mass destruction to rogue states. China has broken all of its past 
promises in this area.
  But now, now, things are different, things are very different. They 
have signed a new agreement. Here it is. Oh, we cannot see it. Well, 
neither can I. It is a secret agreement. Now, they broke the written 
agreements, they broke the verbal agreements, all done publicly, but 
now they have signed this, this secret agreement here, my colleagues 
can see, it is quite lengthy, saying that they will not do it again, 
under certain conditions unspecified to certain nations, which are 
specified.
  Now, I do not think that Congress can review this lengthy document in 
only 30 days and determine whether or not China has complied with all 
of the conditions of the secret document which we cannot see. I think 
it will take us a little bit longer. So I am suggesting that our 
colleagues should support this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, 120 days is not too long to certify whether or not China 
is really complying with conditions that we would like to see for a 
country to whom we are going to transfer critical nuclear technology, 
because I tell my colleagues, if we transfer that technology and it is 
misused, it will seem like a lifetime to people who voted to allow the 
Chinese to have that technology to transfer to America's enemies around 
the world.
  So support this amendment. It is reasonable that Congress should have 
120 days before the United States takes this unprecedented step.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] 
has 4 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has 2 
minutes.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
  I understand he wants an additional minute.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] 
has the right to close.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank both gentlemen for 
yielding time.
  The 1954 Atomic Energy Act is at bottom what we are discussing here 
and requires a joint resolution of Congress before any nuclear-related 
trade between an United States company or the United States Government 
and any other country, so Congress has to act. Senator Glenn amended 
this law in 1978 with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act, and that law 
forbids nuclear-related exports to any country that, after March 10, 
1978, assisted, encouraged or induced any non-nuclear Nation to engage 
in nuclear activities. That includes civilian nuclear activities.
  On December 16, 1985, Congress passed a joint resolution 
prospectively approving a U.S.-People's Republic of China nuclear sale, 
provided that prior to the implementation of that agreement the 
President certifies that the People's Republic of China is a member in 
good standing of the community of nonproliferating nations.
  As my colleagues have heard from all that has gone before, the 
People's Republic of China takes the view that we do not do it, we do 
not proliferate, and in any case, we will not do it anymore. They have, 
in fact, been proliferating, and they have been doing it all the way up 
to the present time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the report of the Director of Central 
Intelligence to Congress dated June 1997, and what it says, it has been 
quoted in this debate previously, is that China was the primary source 
of nuclear-related equipment and technology to Pakistan and a key 
supplier to Iran during the reporting period. Incidentally, Iran also 
obtained considerable chemical weapons-related assistance from China in 
the form of production equipment and technology. The Chinese Foreign 
Minister told us at our breakfast here just a few days ago with 
President Jiang Zemin and the Foreign Minister that China has never 
done these things. So we cannot accept their assurances, and yet that 
is all we have.
  The Presidential certification required by law is based on a 
prospective promise, a piece of paper, even though we know that what 
they are telling us today that they have not done in the past is 
untrue. China has a huge credibility gap.
  The assertion by China's foreign ministry that China would refuse to 
provide America with assurances on nuclear cooperation with Iran since 
China was not engaged in such cooperation which led up to the summit 
are an indication of what we are up against. This bill, this amendment 
to the bill, does nothing more than give Congress adequate time to 
discharge its responsibility, which we have had since 1954.
  In the circumstances, since China's cooperation is going to be 
entirely prospective, it is utterly reasonable, and I urge the support 
of my colleagues for this very reasonable amendment.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me simply say that a 
number of my colleagues here have expressed their very deep concern 
about this certification that the President will make. I share that 
concern. They have expressed a lot of suspicions about Chinese conduct 
on proliferation over a period of years. I also share that concern. 
They are quite right, those who support this amendment, to be deeply 
concerned about it. They have pointed to instances where China has not 
kept its word, and I appreciate that.
  But I also want to point out here that this Congress in 1985 adopted 
a framework by which we would consider certifications. We passed that 
law. We adopted the framework, and now, let it be clear that at the 
last minute, we are changing the rules of the game. We are doing 
exactly what we accused the Chinese of doing. We are changing the rules 
of the game.
  I do not think that is the way a responsible power should act.

[[Page H10079]]

  We passed a law, 30 days for certification for review. It did not 
have the expedited procedures in it that this amendment adopts.
  I know I am whistling in the wind here because this amendment will be 
adopted overwhelmingly, but I simply want to point out to my colleagues 
that we passed a law, we provided the framework, now we are trying to 
change that framework at the very end of the game. The Chinese have a 
right to complain about that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
by Mr. Gilman and Mr. Markey.
  Mr. Speaker, I just have to say, last week we were treated to a 
farce. I am just aghast that this administration would, presumably with 
a straight face, send a certification over to this Congress that 
Communist China is a responsible partner in nuclear nonproliferation.
  What is a paper promise against hard historical facts? And the facts 
are that China is one of the most irresponsible proliferators in the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, this responsible amendment doesn't kill any planned 
nuclear deal with China. It simply gives the people's Representatives a 
little more time to review the process.
  It would be irresponsible and dangerous to vote no and I urge an 
``aye'' vote.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair will reduce to 
5 minutes the time for any electronic vote on passage without 
intervening business or debate, other than engrossment or third 
reading.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 394, 
nays 29, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 579]

                               YEAS--394

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--29

     Bereuter
     Blunt
     Brown (CA)
     Crane
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Dreier
     English
     Fazio
     Foglietta
     Gillmor
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Houghton
     Johnson (CT)
     Kennelly
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Manzullo
     Meek
     Moran (VA)
     Payne
     Roemer
     Sawyer
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Snyder
     Stump

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bunning
     Cubin
     Flake
     Gonzalez
     McKinney
     Riggs
     Riley
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Yates

                              {time}  1936

  Mr. KOLBE, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Messrs. STUMP, HALL of Texas, and 
FOGLIETTA, Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut, and Messrs. SAWYER, SHAYS, and 
SKAGGS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. JONES and Mr. DAVIS of Florida changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 579, I was unavoidably 
detained performing other congressional duties and unable to vote. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 302, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as 
amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 416, 
noes 5, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 580]

                               AYES--416

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady

[[Page H10080]]


     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--5

     Brown (CA)
     Dingell
     Kanjorski
     Paul
     Pickett

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bunning
     Cubin
     Flake
     Gonzalez
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     McKinney
     Riley
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Thune
     Yates

                              {time}  1945

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________