[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.
____________________