[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 154 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10159-H10169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             COMMUNIST CHINA SUBSIDY REDUCTION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 302, and as 
the designee of the Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, I call up the bill (H.R. 2605) to require the United States 
to oppose the making of concessional loans by international financial 
institutions to any entity in the People's Republic of China, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 302, the bill 
is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 2605 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2605

       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 ``Communist China Subsidy 
     Reduction Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the People's Republic of China has enjoyed ready access 
     to international capital through commercial loans, direct 
     investment, sales of securities, bond sales, and foreign aid;
       (2) regarding international commercial lending, the 
     People's Republic of China had $48,000,000,000 in loans 
     outstanding from private creditors in 1995;
       (3) regarding international direct investment, 
     international direct investment in the People's Republic of 
     China from 1993 through 1995 totaled $97,151,000,000, and in 
     1996 alone totaled $47,000,000,000;
       (4) regarding investment in Chinese securities, the 
     aggregate value of outstanding Chinese securities currently 
     held by Chinese nationals and foreign persons is 
     $175,000,000,000, and from 1993 through 1995 foreign persons 
     invested $10,540,000,000 in Chinese stocks;
       (5) regarding investment in Chinese bonds, entities 
     controlled by the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China have issued 75 bonds since 1988, including 36 dollar-
     denominated bond offerings valued at more than 
     $6,700,000,000, and the total value of long-term Chinese 
     bonds outstanding as of January 1, 1996, was $11,709,000,000;
       (6) regarding international assistance, the People's 
     Republic of China received almost $1,000,000,000 in foreign 
     aid grants and an additional $1,566,000,000 in technical 
     assistance grants from 1993 through 1995, and in 1995 
     received $5,540,000,000 in bilateral assistance loans, 
     including concessional aid, export credits, and related 
     assistance; and
       (7) regarding international financial institutions--
       (A) despite the People's Republic of China's access to 
     international capital and world financial markets, 
     international financial institutions have annually provided 
     it with more than $4,000,000,000 in loans in recent years, 
     amounting to almost a third of the loan commitments of the 
     Asian Development Bank and 17.1 percent of the loan approvals 
     by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 
     in 1995; and
       (B) the People's Republic of China borrows more from the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the 
     Asian Development Bank than any other country, and loan 
     commitments from those institutions to the People's Republic 
     of China quadrupled from $1,100,000,000 in 1985 to 
     $4,300,000,000 by 1995.

     SEC. 3. OPPOSITION OF UNITED STATES TO CONCESSIONAL LOANS TO 
                   THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       Title XV of the International Financial Institutions Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 262o--262o-1) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1503. OPPOSITION OF UNITED STATES TO CONCESSIONAL 
                   LOANS TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     instruct the United States Executive Directors at each 
     international financial institution (as defined in section 
     1702(c)(2) of the International Financial Institutions Act) 
     to use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose the 
     provision by the institution of concessional loans to the 
     People's Republic of China, any citizen or national of the 
     People's Republic of China, or any entity established in the 
     People's Republic of China.
       ``(b) Concessional Loans Defined.--As used in subsection 
     (a), the term `concessional loans' means loans with highly 
     subsidized interest rates, grace periods for repayment of 5 
     years or more, and maturities of 20 years or more.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 302, the 
amendments printed in Part 5 of House Report 105-379 are adopted.
  The text of H.R. 2605, as amended by the amendments printed in Part 5 
of House Report 105-379 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2605

       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 ``Communist China Subsidy 
     Reduction Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the People's Republic of China has enjoyed ready access 
     to international capital through commercial loans, direct 
     investment, sales of securities, bond sales, and foreign aid;
       (2) regarding international commercial lending, the 
     People's Republic of China had $48,000,000,000 in loans 
     outstanding from private creditors in 1995;
       (3) regarding international direct investment, 
     international direct investment in the People's Republic of 
     China from 1993 through 1995 totaled $97,151,000,000, and in 
     1996 alone totaled $47,000,000,000;
       (4) regarding investment in Chinese securities, the 
     aggregate value of outstanding Chinese securities currently 
     held by Chinese nationals and foreign persons is 
     $175,000,000,000, and from 1993 through 1995 foreign persons 
     invested $10,540,000,000 in Chinese stocks;
       (5) regarding investment in Chinese bonds, entities 
     controlled by the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China have issued 75 bonds since 1988, including 36 dollar-
     denominated bond offerings valued at more than 
     $6,700,000,000, and the total value of long-term Chinese 
     bonds outstanding as of January 1, 1996, was $11,709,000,000;
       (6) regarding international assistance, the People's 
     Republic of China received almost $1,000,000,000 in foreign 
     aid grants and an additional $1,566,000,000 in technical 
     assistance grants from 1993 through 1995, and in 1995 
     received $5,540,000,000 in bilateral assistance loans, 
     including concessional aid, export credits, and related 
     assistance; and
       (7) regarding international financial institutions--
       (A) despite the People's Republic of China's access to 
     international capital and world financial markets, 
     international financial institutions have annually provided 
     it with more than $4,000,000,000 in loans in recent years, 
     amounting to almost a third of the loan commitments of the 
     Asian Development Bank and 17.1 percent of the loan approvals 
     by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 
     in 1995; and
       (B) the People's Republic of China borrows more from the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the 
     Asian Development Bank than any other country, and loan 
     commitments from those institutions to the People's Republic 
     of China quadrupled from $1,100,000,000 in 1985 to 
     $4,300,000,000 by 1995.

     SEC. 3. OPPOSITION OF UNITED STATES TO CONCESSIONAL LOANS TO 
                   THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       Title XV of the International Financial Institutions Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 262o--262o-1) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1503. OPPOSITION OF UNITED STATES TO CONCESSIONAL 
                   LOANS TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     instruct the United States Executive Directors at each 
     international financial institution (as defined in section 
     1702(c)(2) of the International Financial Institutions Act) 
     to use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose the 
     provision by the institution of concessional loans to the 
     People's Republic of China, any citizen or national of the 
     People's Republic of China, or any entity established in the 
     People's Republic of China.
       ``(b) Concessional Loans Defined.--As used in subsection 
     (a), the term `concessional loans' means loans with highly 
     subsidized interest rates, grace periods for repayment of 5 
     years or more, and maturities of 20 years or more.''.

     SEC. 4. PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD BE ADHERED TO BY ANY UNITED 
                   STATES NATIONAL CONDUCTING AN INDUSTRIAL 
                   COOPERATION PROJECT IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF 
                   CHINA.

       (a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to create 
     principles governing the conduct of industrial cooperation 
     projects of United States nationals in the People's Republic 
     of China.
       (b) Statement of Principles.--It is the sense of the 
     Congress that any United States national conducting an 
     industrial cooperation project in the People's Republic of 
     China should:
       (1) Suspend the use of any goods, wares, articles, or 
     merchandise that the United States national has reason to 
     believe were mined, produced, or manufactured, in whole or in 
     part, by convict labor or forced labor, and refuse to use 
     forced labor in the industrial cooperation project.
       (2) Seek to ensure that political or religious views, sex, 
     ethnic or national background, involvement in political 
     activities or nonviolent demonstrations, or association with 
     suspected or known dissidents will not prohibit hiring, lead 
     to harassment, demotion, or dismissal, or in any way affect 
     the status or terms of employment in the industrial 
     cooperation project. The United States national should not 
     discriminate in terms or conditions of employment in the 
     industrial cooperation project against persons with past 
     records of arrest or internal exile for nonviolent protest or 
     membership in unofficial organizations committed to 
     nonviolence.
       (3) Ensure that methods of production used in the 
     industrial cooperation project do not pose an unnecessary 
     physical danger to workers and neighboring populations or 
     property, and that the industrial cooperation project does 
     not unnecessarily risk harm to the surrounding environment; 
     and consult with community leaders regarding environmental 
     protection with respect to the industrial cooperation 
     project.

[[Page H10160]]

       (4) Strive to establish a private business enterprise when 
     involved in an industrial cooperation project with the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China or other state 
     entity.
       (5) Discourage any Chinese military presence on the 
     premises of any industrial cooperation projects which involve 
     dual-use technologies.
       (6) Undertake to promote freedom of association and 
     assembly among the employees of the United States national. 
     The United States national should protest any infringement by 
     the Government of the People's Republic of China of these 
     freedoms to the International Labor Organization's office 
     in Beijing.
       (7) Provide the Department of State with information 
     relevant to the Department's efforts to collect information 
     on prisoners for the purposes of the Prisoner Information 
     Registry, and for other reporting purposes.
       (8) Discourage or undertake to prevent compulsory political 
     indoctrination programs from taking place on the premises of 
     the industrial cooperation project.
       (9) Promote freedom of expression, including the freedom to 
     seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, 
     regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in 
     print, in the form of art, or through any media. To this end, 
     the United States national should raise with appropriate 
     authorities of the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China concerns about restrictions on the free flow of 
     information.
       (10) Undertake to prevent harassment of workers who, 
     consistent with the United Nations World Population Plan of 
     Action, decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing 
     of their children; and prohibit compulsory population control 
     activities on the premises of the industrial cooperation 
     project.
       (c) Promotion of Principles by Other Nations.--The 
     Secretary of State shall forward a copy of the principles set 
     forth in subsection (b) to the member nations of the 
     Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and 
     encourage them to promote principles similar to these 
     principles.
       (d) Registration Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Each United States national conducting an 
     industrial cooperation project in the People's Republic of 
     China shall register with the Secretary of State and indicate 
     that the United States national agrees to implement the 
     principles set forth in subsection (b). No fee shall be 
     required for registration under this subsection.
       (2) Preference for participation in trade missions.--The 
     Secretary of Commerce shall consult the register prior to the 
     selection of private sector participants in any form of trade 
     mission to China, and undertake to involve those United 
     States nationals that have registered their adoption of the 
     principles set forth above.
       (e) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``industrial cooperation project'' refers to a 
     for-profit activity the business operations of which employ 
     more than 25 individuals or have assets greater than $25,000; 
     and
       (2) the term ``United States national'' means--
       (A) a citizen or national of the United States or a 
     permanent resident of the United States; and
       (B) a corporation, partnership, or other business 
     association organized under the laws of the United States, 
     any State or territory thereof, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands.

     SEC. 5. PROMOTION OF EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL, SCIENTIFIC, 
                   AGRICULTURAL, MILITARY, LEGAL, POLITICAL, AND 
                   ARTISTIC EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES 
                   AND CHINA.

       (a) Exchanges Between the United States and China.--
     Agencies of the United States Government which engage in 
     educational, cultural, scientific, agricultural, military, 
     legal, political, and artistic exchanges shall endeavor to 
     initiate or expand such exchange programs with regard to 
     China.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that a federally chartered not-for-profit organization should 
     be established to fund exchanges between the United States 
     and China through private donations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
and the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] each will control 30 
minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume, and in doing so remind all of us of a revolutionary poem. It 
starts off:

     Listen, my children, and you shall hear, of the midnight ride 
           of Paul Revere,
     One if by land, and two if by sea, and I on the opposite 
           shore will be, ready to ride and spread the alarm . . .

  And it goes on, and he talked about the alarm of the British.
  Mr. Speaker, I am no Paul Revere, but I am here today to talk about 
another alarm, and that is the alarm of soft money.
  Now my colleagues have heard a lot about soft money flowing into the 
United States from a country called China. Well, this debate right now 
is about soft money flowing out of the United States and to China.
  My colleagues, what is soft money? Better listen up because our 
taxpayers want to know this.
  Mr. Speaker, what is soft money that we are talking about in this 
debate? Well, listen to what it is. It is no interest, not low 
interest, no interest, 35-year loans with a 10-year grace period, $20 
billion of taxpayer-funded loans to China. Can my colleagues imagine? I 
wish that all of the businesses in the Hudson Valley could have these 
kind of no-interest, 35-year, taxpayer-funded loans with a 10-year 
grace period for free. Would not that be nice if we could have that, my 
colleagues?
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a straightforward bill. It simply requires 
the Secretary of the Treasury to direct the U.S. executive directors of 
the international financial institutions to oppose all concessional or 
soft loans to the Government of Communist China, a rich nation with 
tons of money out there to buy military hardware that some day may be 
used against this country.
  This bill defines soft loans, and listen to it again, as those with 
over 20 years' maturity, 5-or-more-year grace periods, and very, very 
low or no interest rates at all.
  Mr. Speaker, this is also one of the easiest votes we should have in 
this Congress during this nine-bill presentation here today. How in the 
world could we ever justify, morally that is, making easy money loans 
funded by American workers and American taxpayers to the government of 
this totalitarian dictatorship that kills its own people, is engaged in 
a massive military buildup, and which happens to despise the United 
States of America? That massive military buildup is being paid for by 
these free-interest loans that we are giving them.
  Before I speak to those who may stand here today and defend these 
loans on the basis of supposed human needs, environmental protection or 
whatever, let me provide a little background for those colleagues, 
because I do not think unless they served on the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services or the Committee on International Relations, 
they probably have not really looked into this.
  But in 1996, the Government of Communist China received over $4 
billion, $4 billion in taxpayer-funded loans from the World Bank and 
the Asian Development Bank. Of that, $500 million was in the form of 
soft loans from the World Bank's International Development Association, 
or better known as the IDA. Over the past decade China has received 
over $20 billion in taxpayer-funded loans, including over $7 billion in 
soft loans from the IDA alone.
  What are these IDA loans? They are 35-year, interest-free giveaways, 
that is what. That is what they are, and despite a 1977 law that 
requires the United States to oppose multilateral loans to countries 
with a pattern of gross violation of human rights, the United States 
continues to support these loans, including soft loan giveaways, to 
China. Why? Because of a loophole in the law allowing the exception for 
basic human needs.
  Now, that sounds humanitarian; does it not? There is a lot of trouble 
with that term, Mr. Speaker. According to the Congressional Research 
Service, it has absolutely no clear meaning in U.S. law. Thus it is 
subject to interpretation and hence abuse, and boy, oh, boy, is it 
being abused, and that is what we have gotten from the Clinton 
administration. With the fashionable sustainable development, a core 
policy of this administration, environmental loans, such as a recent 
IDA loan for the Yunnan environment, have garnered U.S. support.
  Previous administrations were no better. The Bush administration was 
just as bad. The fact is we have failed to oppose these IDA loans for 
China in any serious way for a long, long time.
  What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a little bit of definition creep 
into the term ``basic human needs.''
  Why are these soft loans to Communist China a bad idea? First, China 
does not need them. They are a wealthy nation. They have got more money 
in the bank than we have in the United States of America, and as I said 
before, soft loans only account for one-eighth of the taxpayer-funded 
loans to China in 1996, only one-eighth of them.

[[Page H10161]]

  China also borrows heavily in the private capital markets and has 
over $75 billion in foreign exchange reserves. Do my colleagues believe 
that, $75 billion in reserves? And we are continuing to hand out this 
interest-loan-free money? That begs the question, why does China need 
any taxpayer-funded loans, especially from the United States of 
America?

                              {time}  2130

  Second, with these soft loans to governments, why are they bad 
economics? In fact, what are they, other than the failed philosophy of 
socialism, and that underpins government-to-government loans?
  History yields us no evidence whatsoever that governments loaning 
money to governments results in rising prosperity for the masses of 
people on either side. That is because governments do not create 
prosperity, Mr. Speaker. Business and industry do. The debacle of 
socialism in this country should have gotten us over this a long time 
ago.
  Third, anyone that thinks when a body is undisciplined and 
unaccountable, as the World Bank makes a soft loan to the Communists in 
Beijing, and the money does not line the pockets of corrupt officials 
there? You better know it does. That person is, quite frankly, a 
sucker, ladies and gentlemen.
  Fourth, by making soft money available to Beijing, we are subsidizing 
a military buildup of massive proportions. I do not know how many can 
see this, but take a look at what I am about to say. Communist Chinese 
military spending has increased by double digits for a decade now, 
doubling their defense budget, while at the same time we have been 
cutting back for the last 13 years, and so have our allies all over 
this world. They are buying weapons that cost billions of dollars, 
weapons that may one day be turned on U.S. soldiers.
  Mr. Rohrabacher and I have been publicizing all year the fact that 
China is, as we speak, attempting to take possession of the Russian 
Sunburn missile built with the express intent of taking out U.S. Aegis-
equipped ships and sought by China with the express intent of keeping 
U.S. ships out of the Straits of Taiwan.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a Russian destroyer, and these are the new 
missiles mounted on it now owned by the People's Republic of China. 
That is what can be used against the United States of America in the 
not too distant future if we ever had to defend the Taiwan Straits or 
other areas in the Asia-Pacific area.
  Mr. Speaker, soft loans to the Government in China are a geostrategic 
mistake of colossal proportions.
  The fifth and final reason to oppose these loans is that they are 
just plain immoral. Let us remember that no matter the fancy title of 
the project, whether it is to be poverty reduction or sustainable 
development, these loans go to the Government of Communist China. Yes, 
these loans go to the butchers of Beijing. It is a moral outrage to sit 
here and see this continue to happen year after year after year.
  That is the same regime that killed 1,000 people at Tiananmen Square, 
the regime that has a slave labor gulag of over 6 million prisoners, 6 
million. That is half the population of New York State almost. The 
regime that even President Clinton's State Department says has silenced 
all opposition by imprisonment, exile, and intimidation.
  And for that alone, according to the 1977 law, they ought to be 
banned from these kinds of loans, but they continue to go on and on and 
on. How can we loan soft money to them? How can we put the good name of 
the American worker behind these loans?
  It will be argued that our no vote will reduce our influence in the 
World Bank. Mr. Speaker, do not believe that for a minute. The rest of 
the world is always looking for our lead. Witness Bosnia. We leave, and 
the Europeans leave.
  Even if other nations do loan to China over our no vote, so what? 
Their taxpayers will get the shaft, and not ours.
  It will be argued that the U.S. businesses will not be able to bid on 
the projects funded by these loans. So what? Freedom, national 
security, and the interests of the taxpayers are, quite simply, the 
highest priority, higher than the interests of a few businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I frankly think this bill is the bare minimum that we 
can do. I personally feel that the arguments I have made should apply 
to all taxpayer-funded loans to China. We should oppose them all. If 
the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank continue to loan to 
Communist China, we should withdraw from those organizations. But this 
bill does not do that at all. Again, it only applies to soft money, no 
cuts in any funding to any of these international banks.
  Again, I am going to call your attention to what is soft money we are 
talking about holding up here. Again, it is no-interest, 35-year loans 
with a 10-year grace period, $20 billion of which have been given to 
them over the last 10 years and, with this bill before us today, puts 
an end to that, and, above all, it sends a message that we will not do 
business with people with these kind of human rights violations.
  I would urge support of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is punitive in 
nature, it is bad public policy, and it is an infringement on the 
constitutional prerogative of the Executive Branch.
  As tomorrow I will oppose so-called fast track authority because I 
think it is constitutionally unenforceable for Congress to give up its 
power to amend a bill, I think it is also inappropriate for us to 
infringe on the authority of the Chief Executive to implement United 
States foreign policy.
  First of all, we are not talking about United States loans; not at 
all. What we are talking about are international financial 
institutions. We are talking about the World Bank, we are talking about 
the International Development Association, we are talking about the 
Asian Development Bank, et cetera.
  These banks try very hard to be nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and 
countries have a vote with respect to each and every loan that is going 
to be given. They also have criteria for countries who are eligible. 
They have criteria for loans that are eligible.
  What this bill does, it says forget about the eligibility of a 
country, forget about the eligibility of a particular loan, forget 
about whether other countries might be much worse than China, forget 
about whether other countries are getting amounts of money as great as 
or greater than China. We want, today, to target China, because we want 
to have eight bills bashing China so we can achieve some political 
mileage out of it.
  Well, not only is it bad public policy, but I just think it could be 
very, very harmful, too, diplomatically. China is a country of 1.25 
billion people. Our relations with China have been unsteady, uneasy, 
over the years, but in 1979 we had a great breakthrough; we 
reestablished diplomatic relations.
  The China of today is not the China of 20 years ago or 30 years ago. 
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has pointed to many, many 
imperfections. I would agree with the gentleman on a number of those.
  On the other hand, they have made tremendous strides too, tremendous 
improvements. Twenty years ago, the second language was Russian. Today, 
the students are studying as a second language English. They are going 
not to Moscow; they are going to New York City, they are going to 
Philadelphia, they are going to Boston, they are going to San 
Francisco, et cetera.
  The relationship that exists between the United States, the most 
powerful nation on the face of this Earth, and China, the most populous 
nation on the face of the Earth, is probably the most important 
bilateral relationship that we have today, for the next decade, and 
maybe for the next century or so. This will only poison the well. This 
will do no good whatsoever.
  We will also impair our effectiveness tremendously. We will have no 
flexibility within these international financial institutions. We would 
have no leverage whatsoever. As a matter of fact, everybody would say, 
``Okay, we dismiss the United States. What we are going to do now we 
must do without regard to the United States of America.'' And they will 
go ahead and do it. It will demean our own country for no good purpose 
whatsoever.

[[Page H10162]]

  Mr. Speaker, I want to read the statement of administration policy 
with respect to this bill.

       The administration opposes H.R. 2605, which would require 
     United States executive directors at each international 
     financial institution to oppose concessional loans to the 
     People's Republic of China or any Chinese citizen or any 
     Chinese entity. H.R. 2605 would unconstitutionally infringe 
     on the President's authority to conduct foreign affairs. In 
     addition, such requirements are rarely an effective policy 
     tool, and often hinder efforts to advance United States 
     priorities within international financial institutions.'

  There is another reason, too. This bill was recently introduced, just 
a few weeks or so ago. It is within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Banking and Financial Services. There has not been one minute of 
hearings on this bill, no time for people to come in and testify to see 
all the difficulties with it. It is my understanding that the chairman 
of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services strongly 
opposes this bill, it is my understanding that the chairman of the 
relevant subcommittee of jurisdiction opposes this bill, and I would 
hope that everyone in this body would oppose this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from Niagara 
Falls, New York [Mr. LaFalce], mentions that the administration is 
opposed to this bill. The administration has been opposed to every 
single one of these Chinese bills, and I am very proud they have passed 
overwhelmingly with Democrat support from his side of the aisle. I 
believe this one will too.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman], the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, and once again praise the gentleman for his 
great work in bringing all of these bills to the floor.
  [Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.]
  Mr. GILMAN. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me time and 
his support of this effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice in support of this important 
measure directing the President to instruct our representatives to 
international institutions to vote against concessional assistance for 
the People's Republic of China.
  Introduced by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, who has been a 
tireless advocate for the protection of human rights inside China, this 
legislation puts an end to continued subsidies to the People's Republic 
of China.
  China has ample access to the world's capital markets, and continued 
loans to that country from multilateral development banks siphons off 
resources from other countries with little or no access to global 
financial markets.
  By this bill, we are calling on our executive directors of all 
multilateral development banks extending credits to China to review all 
their loan policies to ensure that China will not continue to divert 
scarce development assistance from needier countries.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for the amendments to this 
bill that were offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui], that would create a voluntary set of 
principles promoting good corporate citizenship by American companies 
operating in China. Companies adopting that code would be given 
preference for participation in trade missions to China.
  This measure points us in the right direction, and I commend the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for his leadership and urge 
support for this important measure.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the ranking 
Democratic member on this committee for his very generous gesture and 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth bill before this body in the past 2 
days that deals with the People's Republic of Communist China. The 
first would have the American people believe that it enforces a ban 
against products that were made with slave labor from being brought 
into this country.
  What it does in reality, if you read the summary, is it provides 
another $2 million for us to find out which products were made with 
slave labor, but they still come in. They compete with glove factories 
and garment plants in south Mississippi, and probably compete with 
products made in every single congressional district in this country, 
but they still come in.
  The second one would be a prohibition of funds to Chinese religious 
officials. What it really does is deny people who are appointed by the 
Communist Chinese regime to be figurehead religious people, and they 
are really not. It denies their visas. That is all it does.
  The third is called the Forced Abortion Condemnation Act. I have a 
100 percent voting record with the National Right-to-Life. All it does 
is condemn what they do and deny visas again to a handful of people 
from Communist China who want to come in. It does not change their way 
of thinking.
  The fourth is called the Political Freedom in China Act, and it 
spends $2.2 million to monitor human rights. They literally sit there 
and watch as the Chinese murder their own people, force abortions on 
their own people, torture their own people. It does not change 
anything.

                              {time}  2145

  It pays $2 million, $2.2 million for Americans to go over there and 
watch.
  The fifth is called Radio Free Asia Act, and if the money was 
appropriated, it would spend $50 million to broadcast signals that are 
in all probability jammed by the People's Republic of China, telling 
them that they have a bad government. Great idea, but the signal is 
jammed. It does not accomplish anything. Again, it makes us feel good, 
like we are trying to do something, but we are really not.
  And this bill, the Communist China Subsidy Reduction Act. I do not 
think the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] gave a fair 
representation of what he is trying to accomplish, and I really do not 
oppose it. How can one oppose a bill that does nothing? And it does 
nothing. All it does is have the United States oppose the extension of 
concessional loans by international financial institutions to any 
entity in the People's Republic of China. To just oppose it does not 
mean it does not happen. It still happens. It is one of those feel-
good, make the American people happy, bamboozle the American people, 
make them think we are getting tough with the Communist Chinese, but it 
does not. We had a chance last night to get tough with the Communist 
Chinese.
  I guess the first question is, for some people in our country, why 
would we want to? Why take on the people in Peking? Why tell them that 
they need to change their behavior? Well, I agree. The first 6 bills 
pretty well spelled it out. They are forcing abortions. They have 
phoney religions. They persecute people for simply practicing their 
religion. There is no political freedom. There is no free air time on 
the radio and television to tell the truth about what is going on. So 
all of those things need to change. But this does not change it. We had 
a chance last night to change that.
  But what else are the Chinese doing? While this session of Congress, 
the 105th session of Congress has been meeting, the Chinese Communists 
have acquired ports on both ends of the Panama Canal. These ports were 
built by the American people. They used to be ours. Because of a very 
bad treaty in 1977, they were reverted to the Republic of Panama. The 
Republic of Panama, in the most shadiest of deals, turned down two 
American firms that bid high for the use of those ports and gave them 
instead to a company called Hutchinson out of Hong Kong, and as of July 
1, Hutchinson is now in the People's Republic of China. So there is one 
port directly across from our Howard Air Force Base in Panama on the 
Pacific side, another on the Atlantic side, both of which are fully 
capable of blocking all entry and exit from the Panama Canal. They now 
control it. That frightens me as a member of the Committee on National 
Security.
  What else have they done? Most recently, the Chinese Ocean Shipping 
Company, a firm that is 100 percent owned by the People's Republic of 
China, a Communist totalitarian state,

[[Page H10163]]

leased the San Diego Naval Shipyard that we accessed. I am very proud 
of the House Committee on National Security, because we passed 
legislation to ban that lease. I helped my good friend, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hunter] and others, to make that amendment pass. 
It went to the Senate. They did nothing. The effect is, we do nothing. 
Now the Chinese Communist shipping company controls what used to be an 
American naval base in San Diego.
  Let us talk about the missiles. We have heard about the missiles 
repeatedly. Something the American people, by omission or commission 
were never told about the Gulf War is that during the Gulf War a 
Chinese Silkworm missile came within 100 yards of one of our 
battleships, 100 yards. It was shot down by an American fighter plane. 
What if it had hit? Do my colleagues remember when the Exocet missile 
hit the Stark? Do my colleagues remember when the Argentine missiles 
hit the British destroyer? People die, and they die very quickly when a 
missile hits a ship. That missile was either given or sold to the 
Iraqis by the Chinese Communists.
  As we speak, the Chinese Communists are selling missiles to Iran. 
They are selling missiles to Iraq. They are either selling or giving 
missiles to North Korea. These are not onetime indiscretions on the 
part of the Chinese Communists. These are things that are going on 
every day and have gone on every day.
  I look in the back of the room and I see the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Gilchrest], who served as a Marine in the Vietnam war, and any 
Marine in that war knows that he had to worry about every step that he 
took, because the next step may be to land on a Chinese Communist 
landmine that were given to the North Vietnamese during that war.
  This is not something that is just happening today. It is a period, 
it is a systematic series of aggressive acts against the United States 
of America that spans three decades. And what do we do about it? Thus 
far we have passed five bills that do nothing, and we are debating a 
sixth bill that does nothing. I want to change that. I want to offer a 
motion to recommit, because the rule that passed yesterday denies every 
Member of this body, not just Democrats, every Member of this body 
their constitutional right to amend a bill on the House floor.
  We all ran for office. We were all elected by 1/435th of the people 
of this country, and yet a couple of people in a room up there called 
the Committee on Rules decided that the rest of us do not deserve the 
right to approve these bills. But what they did do was allow for a 
motion to recommit where one could try to amend this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer a motion to recommit. I am going to 
offer a motion to recommit to try to do what is right, not for the big 
bosses who go to the teas and the coffees at the White House, or who 
give phoney loans to the other political party so that they can kind of 
process it through and use it during their elections, because they 
really have tainted both political parties, I mean let us be honest 
with each other. That is what they have done and they have not done it 
for our benefit, they did it for theirs.
  Communist China, after doing all of the things that I have talked 
about, enjoys a $40 billion trade surplus with our Nation. That means 
at the end of every year, they will have $40 billion more of our money 
than we will of theirs. How do they have such a big trade surplus? 
Well, it is very simple. This Congress, after all the ranting and 
raving and chest-pounding over the evils of the Clinton coffees, turned 
right around and gave most favored nation status to China. It means 
that their goods can come into our country with a 2 percent tariff, but 
if one is an American and one is trying to sell their product in that 
totalitarian Communist regime, they, No. 1, will decide whether or not 
they will even let you, and if they let you, they are going to charge 
your product a 30 to 40 percent tariff just to have the opportunity to 
be sold there.
  We charge them 2 percent, they charge us 30 to 40 percent. It is 
wrong. It is not fair. We wonder why they give those monies in campaign 
contributions? That is my hunch why they do it. They have a heck of 
a deal, we got a horrible deal. I would like to change that.

  Last night I offered a motion to recommit to change that, to say that 
on a quarterly basis, the United States Secretary of the Treasury would 
review what they charge us to have access to their products and their 
market, and just say, for the next quarter, that is what we are going 
to charge them. We do not set a tariff. We tell the Chinese we will be 
as fair with you as you have been with us. So maybe the people in 
Waynesboro, MS who are losing their jobs at the glove factory to gloves 
that are made with political prison labor in China will have a fair 
shot at the American market and a fair shot at the Chinese market.
  Guess what? Almost every Democrat voted for that, but I am sorry to 
say that only six of my Republican friends chose to stand up to the 
Speaker of the House, who is the number one fund-raiser for that 
political party, who got Chinese money, and say, you know what? That is 
wrong. Let us fix it, let us do something about it.
  I want to take this opportunity to compliment the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Neumann] the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and the 
gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Smith]. What they showed last night was 
real American courage, because they put what was best for this country 
ahead of what is best for their political party. They put their 
constituents ahead of what was best for the Speaker of the House.
  That is why we run for office. That is why we stand in the rain, that 
is why we stand at football stadiums, that is why we stand in front of 
Wal-Marts, that is why we call up our friends and ask for money, that 
is why some of us mortgage our houses so we can raise enough money to 
go on television to run for political office, because we do it to try 
to make things right. They did that, and every one of them was 
threatened today, because they did what was right for America, and not 
what was right for their political party. Shame on you; shame on the 
people who threatened them.
  We are going to have a chance, once again. As I said, I have no 
objection to the bill of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. It 
does not do anything, but I am going to try to make it better. I am 
going to try to call for some basic fairness between what the Chinese 
charge us to have access to their markets and what we charge them. That 
is all we want. Fairness.
  I hope my colleagues will give us that chance. I hope my colleagues 
will put partisan politics aside, whether you are Democrat or 
Republican. I hope, for once, my colleagues will do for the people what 
they promised they would do for them, and that is do what is best for 
our country, regardless of whether it is good for this political party 
or that political party. For once, let us look out for the American 
working person.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the gentleman's 
speech, and it is good to see him really get excited for a change here, 
and I agree with what the gentleman is saying.
  The gentleman is probably going to get a move to call this not in 
order, ruled out of order because it has to go through Ways and Means, 
or what have you, but in my view, this is just something that could be 
done, just simply that, as the gentleman talks about, in fairness. We 
are going to trade with you, you are going to get the same breaks that 
we get, and I commend the gentleman for making this effort, and I would 
ask that people make the effort to vote and to support the gentleman on 
this effort, and I compliment the gentleman on taking the time to do 
this.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am not precisely sure of what the 
exact rule is, or what the Committee on Rules has put forward with 
respect to

[[Page H10164]]

the possibility of an amendment of this nature. I have the greatest 
respect for the intentions of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
in presenting this bill, both with respect to how the bill was put 
together and to what the implications of the bill are, and I would, far 
from speaking for him, nonetheless posit the proposition to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and Members of the House, that 
essentially what the gentleman from Mississippi is proposing is 
entirely consonant with the object of the bill before us.
  So in that regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just bring a bit of 
historical perspective to consideration of the bill.
  At one point, and I am sure the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
will recall, we had a Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee which 
concerned itself with, among other things, the terms and conditions of 
international trade on the high seas. I consider that I was a 
reasonably well-informed individual in my life prior to coming to the 
Congress, but nonetheless was rather shocked and very chagrined to 
discover the degree to which disregard for the rules of international 
trade and disregard for the contractual agreements that had been 
reached between the United States and other nations, particularly 
China, was the fact of the matter before us in that committee.

                              {time}  2200

  We found that there were shipping trade violations, and I think the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] was a Member of that committee 
and could attest to the fact that I, among others, upon discovering it, 
simply could not understand why we do not enforce the rules we already 
have. I think we as Americans take some pride in the fact that we try 
to keep our agreements, we try to live up to our contracts. That was 
not taking place.
  We have just had recent evidence of what can happen when we do take a 
stand. The proposition of gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] is 
such that we can, if it is put forward and agreed to, take the kind of 
stand that has been exemplified, Mr. Speaker, in recent days with the 
decision of the Maritime Commission to fine certain Japanese companies, 
shipping companies, for not living up to the rules and regulations to 
which they had agreed and which we live up to.
  The fines were such that when they were imposed, that the executive, 
in the form, of course, of the President and his administration, was 
forced into the position, and, in fact, it may be apocryphal, but I 
heard at one point that the President or someone under his immediate 
authority said, can they do that? Who are these people? They are our 
Maritime Commission, and by God, they were doing their job. What their 
job was is not to turn the American people into suckers and saps, where 
they are not made to be fools. People know that when it is happening.
  One of the reasons there is cynicism abroad in the United States 
today is people know that they are being played for suckers. They do 
not like it. They want us, if we are on the floor of this House, free 
men and women elected by free men and women, to not be made fools of. 
They expect us to insist as legislators, as national legislators, that 
we carry these things out, that we see to it that the rules and 
regulations are obeyed. I think that is the intention of the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] with the bill.
  I would like to say that I support the idea of reciprocity, and would 
ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], in the context of what 
is possible under the rules as applied to the bill, whether or not the 
intent of the proposal of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], 
that is, that a review and reciprocity be instituted with respect to 
tariffs, might be possible to incorporate into the bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in my 20 years in the Congress I guess I have never been 
accused of being soft on communism before. It is rather funny. But here 
I am, the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] going after me.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that was said in a jocular 
fashion, and I can assure the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon], 
neither the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] nor myself meant to 
impose any such kind of admonition on the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] with respect to his staunch defense of freedom against 
communism.
  However, I do think in the spirit of the bill he put forward, we are 
requesting that he take into consideration the thrust of the 
proposition of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Hawaii, first of all, the gentleman's amendment is out 
of order. Let me just say that the reason this is a middle-ground bill, 
and I will say it to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] as well, 
is because all nine of these bills were reported out of committee, 
reported out of the Committee on International Relations, reported out 
of the Committee on Banking and Financial Affairs, the Committee on 
Ways and Means, the Committee on National Security, or they were waived 
by jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker, let me, and I never want to do this, but let me admonish 
my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], a little 
bit. All of these bills were put together on a bipartisan nature. That 
is why they are middle of the road. Believe me, on all nine of these 
bills I had tougher measures, but the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton] and others objected to them. We made the decision to only put 
out the bills that were agreed to on a bipartisan basis. All nine are 
bipartisan.
  I would say to the gentleman from Mississippi, the days are gone 
forever when a Member can stand here on this floor and just write out 
an amendment and send it to the desk without anybody ever having seen 
it. We do not do that. We do not allow it in the Committee on Rules.
  Today Members have to have that amendment drafted by the bill 
drafting commission here. They have to submit that amendment and so 
many copies. We distribute it to every single committee of jurisdiction 
so everybody knows what these amendments are.
  What is in these bills that are on the floor? They are all 
bipartisan. We asked for amendments on both sides of the aisle, and 
this was not just me, this was the staff of the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Dick Gephardt] and the staff of the gentlewoman from California, 
[Ms. Nancy Pelosi], and Democrat staff on that side of the aisle 
contacted every Democrat and said, bring your amendments up to the 
Committee on Rules. Any significant amendment that was brought to us we 
made in order. We not only made them in order, two Republican 
amendments, five Democrat amendments, and five bipartisan amendments, 
we not only made them in order, we self-executed them into the bill, so 
when they came to this floor, they were totally bipartisan. That is 
what is on this floor right now.
  By the way, I would say to my friend the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Taylor], he was not in the Committee on Rules and did not bring 
any bill before us, any amendment before us. If he had, we would 
probably have self-executed it into the bill. I do not really know what 
his amendment would have done, but we certainly would have taken a good 
look at it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] 
for his remarks on this legislation.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment. I tend to agree 
with the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] that much of what we 
have done so far on these various bills have not done a whole lot. We 
have talked about rectifying the conditions in China, changing human 
rights, dealing with forced labor, providing for religious freedom, and 
dealing with the abortion issue. I do not think much will come of those 
amendments. I felt that some of those were technically flawed. This 
amendment is different. This is a much better amendment. This amendment 
gets to the heart of the matter.
  It is possible, due to a veto or some other technique, that this does 
not become law, but it should. If it became law, it would restrict our 
funding for

[[Page H10165]]

the Chinese. This is what should be done.
  I do not believe that the type of legislation that we have been 
passing can really change the nature of China. I believe that we have a 
responsibility here in the Congress to provide for the freest society 
possible and to set the best example for the record, and that is the 
best way to change the internal affairs of other nations, and that we 
do not have this moral authority or constitutional authority to impose 
our will. But in the same light, we do not have the responsibility or 
authority, nor should we ever take hard-earned funds from the American 
taxpayers to subsidize regimes like Red China. So this is why I feel 
strongly about this issue, that we should stop this loaning through 
these international agencies.

  When the foreign operations appropriation bill came to the floor, we 
discussed the issue of the Export-Import Bank. This does not deal with 
the Export-Import Bank, this deals with the $4 billion they get from 
the international agency.
  I applaud the chairman for dealing with this. But I proposed an 
amendment that would deal with the direct subsidies of $4 billion more 
from the Export-Import Bank which goes to Red China. We were able to 
garner 40 votes to send a message and say that China should not be 
receiving these subsidies. So even with the best of light on 
legislation like this, it is moving in the right direction, it is doing 
the right thing, but still, the American people will be obliged to 
provide $4 billion worth of aid to Red China through the Export-Import 
Bank. I do not believe this is a proper function for government. I do 
not believe for a minute the American people want to do this. I believe 
it is endorsement of a system that we do not like.
  At the same time, I do not believe these token bills that we have 
passed will do hardly anything to change the internal nature of what is 
occurring in Red China. But if we could send them a message and say we 
would not subsidize them, take the funds away, someday maybe we will 
reconsider taking away the funds from the Ex-Im, but we ought to pass 
this bill tonight.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify a point. The distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules said that the House Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services had reported out the bill. Then he 
changed that and said, well, they did not report it out, but they had 
waived jurisdiction.
  If they did do this, it was not by committee vote, it was by 
unilateral decision of the chairman without any consultation with the 
minority. And it is further my understanding that the chairman of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, who, according to the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, waived jurisdiction, also opposes 
this bill.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaFALCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I just spoke with the chairman of 
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and he said he would 
vote for the bill.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, because he is one of the most respected 
Members of this body, not knowing what he is going to say, I am going 
to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Blunt]. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, one thing for sure, I am certainly not 
going to oppose the gentleman's bill or his efforts.
  I must disagree in one area. I think the gentleman's bill will do an 
awful lot. It sets the tone of the way we should be looking at China, 
and perhaps the greatest national security threat in our history is 
looking at us, and we are financing it.
  Some of the young Members do not know this, but the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon] does. Years ago I had language in a defense 
appropriation bill that Chairman Rostenkowski would not tolerate. He 
demanded the rule be left open, and it was, I say to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  When we came over to the floor, completely open, he says, I will not 
do waivers of points of order against this bill because I will strike 
the Traficant language. Listen to what the Traficant language was. It 
says if a foreign country denies American companies the right to bid on 
their government contracts, their companies domiciled therein, 
incorporated under their law, cannot bid on our defense contracts.
  That went really to the wire, did it not, because the first title of 
that appropriation bill was the Army, and I raised a point of order. 
The point of order was sustained because the authorization bill was not 
passed, and I struck every penny in it for the Army.
  The second title was the Air Force. They sustained the strike, and 
the Air Force was completely obliterated from the bill. Then the 
leaders came over and said, we cannot have the Senate write the bill. 
If you yield back those strikes, we will allow your provision. I say to 
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], that is what it took to 
pass that provision.
  Let me say this to the gentleman, our trade program is goofy. We will 
probably annualize a $60 billion trade surplus for China next year. I 
am not going to talk about human rights. I am going to talk about 
business. Look at the scoreboard. We are getting our clock cleaned.
  I know this is not germane, and I know there are going to be some 
parliamentary maneuvers, but I want to say this to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], he is on the right track. I did it once 
before, and I had to do something I did not like doing, but when we get 
to the point where we are issuing Chinese boots to our military troops, 
we had better sit back and take a good look.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bill 
Young, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the 
Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
John Murtha, for looking into that issue and taking care of it.
  But I support this bill from the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon]. I support every bill that has come out here relative to 
China. I supported this rule. I was wishing I had more time to really 
talk about those Communist dictators, but with that I will let it lay.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Dana Rohrabacher, who is one of the most fierce 
fighters for human rights in this entire body.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2605. 
In 1997, Communist China will have a $50 billion trade surplus with the 
United States of America. That is $50 billion. At the same time, China 
is the largest recipient of international financial loans and 
subsidies, including an annual amount of almost $4 billion in U.S. 
loans and subsidies through international financial institutions.

                              {time}  2215

  At the same time that all that is going on, China is engaged in a 
massive buildup of its military capabilities. Who are those military 
men in the employ of the Communist Chinese dictatorship going to use 
those weapons against? It makes no sense for us to be financing 
projects for the Communist Chinese while they are building up their 
military and they have the weapons to use against us that we are 
financing by making sure they do not have to pay for other things.
  They have got the money to pay for those other projects themselves. 
If they have got the money to build up their military, they can pay for 
all of their own projects. Sometimes it is argued they say, well, 
American companies will not get this project or that project in 
building up some infrastructure or whatever project unless we give them 
some type of a subsidized loan.
  Why should we subsidize those projects, those public work projects, 
in Communist China? We have got lots of public work projects we could 
finance with that money in the United States. None of this makes any 
sense. And the money is drawn right out of the pool of money that is 
available to the American people.
  Vote ``yes'' on Solomon. Vote to support a sane policy on providing 
loans to this dictatorship.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goode].

[[Page H10166]]

  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] for emphasizing trade equity. I also commend 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules for his package of bills and do 
not seek to do any harm to his position, but I do seek the position of 
making it better.
  The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] simply wants to add a 
fourth section to a three-section bill. The persecution of Christians 
in China is atrocious. Their policy of abortion is atrocious. In China, 
the tolerance of those who do not believe as they believe is bad, to 
say the least.
  But my father used to say, ``If you want to get somebody's attention, 
you got to hit him in the pocketbook.'' And the trade equity provisions 
pushed by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] would hit the 
Chinese in the pocketbook. I urge my colleagues to support his position 
and make a good bill better.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] saying that he wishes I brought it before 
the Committee on Rules. Earlier this year, my colleague, I brought an 
amendment to have all DOD employees drug tested before the Committee on 
Rules. The committee never even voted on it.
  Then I brought Medicare subvention before the Committee on Rules, 
something that my colleague is a cosponsor of. He voted against it in 
the Committee on Rules, and he voted against bringing it to the floor.
  So if I am a little hesitant to bring this important measure to the 
Committee on Rules, it is for good reason. It is because the Committee 
on Rules has not been fair and people in the Committee on Rules have 
voted in the Committee on Rules against bills that they have 
cosponsored bringing them to the floor.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Boy, oh boy. I just wish I had a little more time here. 
We would get into a donnybrook, my colleagues. But I will not do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Royce].
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding me the time.
  I rise in support of the Communist China Subsidy Reduction Act. And I 
want to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for all the 
work that he has put into this legislation and the entire ``Policy for 
Freedom China'' package that we have been considering today.
  We have had many debates on the floor about trade between our country 
and the People's Republic of China. We have a debate every year. It is 
one thing to disagree with the terms of trade between our country and 
China. But I hope we can all agree to end below-market-rate loans for 
China.
  There are many reasons for supporting this act and opposing below-
market-rate loans made by U.S.-supported international financial 
institutions. We should oppose these loans to the repressive Beijing 
regime on human rights grounds alone. It is more than clear that the 
human rights situation in China is not improving. And these loans are 
financed by American taxpayers, and that is wrong.
  But let us leave aside the horrific human rights abuses and security 
concerns we need to have and focus on our economic side of this debate. 
The bottom line is that China does not need these loans. China is 
attracting all types of foreign investment, $50 billion in foreign 
investment in 1996 alone, much of it from U.S. companies. Beijing also 
has been raising funds through commercial loans and bond sales, all at 
market rates.
  The People's Republic of China is now sitting on the highest foreign 
exchange mound in the world, in large part because of its trade surplus 
with the United States made possible by restrictions on American access 
to China's markets. I share the frustrations that have been expressed 
in this debate about our economic playing field.
  Because of these high investments in trade levels, the Chinese 
economy is growing at unprecedented rates. In 1994, 12 percent. In 
1995, 10 percent; 1996, 13\1/2\ percent. By contrast, the U.S. economy 
is growing at some 3 percent. Yet, we are providing China with below-
market loan rates. What sense does this make?
  I have heard some from the administration argue that this legislation 
is unnecessary. There are plans to phase out these loans, they say. 
That may be true. But that, in and of itself, is no reason to oppose 
this legislation. Let us make a strong statement of principle that 
cheap loans to China financed by the American taxpayers are not 
something this Congress supports. It is the least we can do.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox], the chairman of the Policy Committee of the 
Republican Party. He is responsible for having coordinated these nine 
pieces of legislation.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], and I thank all of the speakers that preceded for 
their careful attention to the bill before us, which is, as the other 
bills have been in the last day and a half since we have been debating 
them, focused and targeted on a specific problem with a very measured 
response.
  The problem is actually an opportunity. The problem is that what was 
once a developing nation, nation in poverty, is now a growing nation. 
In fact, it has one of the fastest growing economies on Earth. It has 
the largest foreign exchange reserves on Earth and ready access to the 
world's capital markets, as witness the fact that it has sold $6.75 
billion worth of U.S.-dollar-denominated bonds.
  Since July 1, the People's Republic of China includes the thriving 
market of Hong Kong, with its access to world capital markets. It is 
true, as has been stated in debate already, that it is administration 
policy, Clinton administration policy, to end China's access to so-
called concessional lending. Concessional lending is, of course, well 
below market lending at either little or no interest, with long 
maturities, such as 20 years.
  The Treasury has been making progress, and the Treasury has this 
policy precisely because of China's large foreign exchange reserves and 
their access to capital markets. Already they have terminated the 
People's Republic of China's access to the concessional loan facility 
of the Asian Development Bank.
  It is important that we are working in concert with administration 
policy. It is important because their opposition to this legislation 
makes it clear that all that they oppose is Congress having a say-so in 
the matter.
  In truth, the administration was supposed to have and intended to 
terminate below-market, subsidy, taxpayer-financed lending to the 
People's Republic of China and to Communist Chinese enterprises a year 
ago. Now they are talking about doing it a year henceforth.
  The reason Congress needs to act is that, in our system of 
government, we control the purse strings, it is the taxpayers' money, 
and the time has come, as all can see, to recognize that the nation 
with the largest foreign exchange reserves in the world, with so much 
outstanding credit, that is, loans that it has made to others, $48 
billion in outstanding loans from private creditors as of 2 years ago, 
and that number has gone up, that that nation no longer needs to have 
access to concessional lending from multilateral development banks that 
is meant for nations in poverty who do not have access to capital 
markets.
  This is precisely the right remedy. It is precisely the right remedy. 
This bill clarifies policy, applies sensible policy, and applies it 
across the board in a fair way. It is a pro-free-market bill. It is a 
pro-American bill, and it is a pro-China bill.
  As we have seen in the debate over so many of these other bills, if 
we are to be a friend of China, we have to be a friend of an 
increasingly free China. We have to be honest with ourselves and 
recognize that trade with China, which, as we all recognize, runs 
mostly one way right now, they have an enormous trade surplus with us, 
we have a lot of money over there, but, frankly, we import from them, 
whereas they do not buy our things, that it is, unfortunately, one way 
to their advantage.
  Whereas Taiwan, a much smaller country with a fraction of the 
population, buys 60 percent more from the United States than does the 
People's

[[Page H10167]]

Republic of China, China is hoarding these foreign exchange reserves, 
apparently to a purpose. That is their right. They have access to our 
capital markets. They are selling their bonds and stocks, so on, over 
here. That is their right. But then the appropriate response is not for 
the United States to subsidize lending back to that same trading 
partner.

  And so this bill, the Communist Chinese Subsidy Reduction Act, which 
targets only those loans that are below market, that are clearly 
subsidies from the taxpayer, is exactly the right thing to do. It is 
why the chairman is right to bring it. It is why the Committee on 
Banking and Finance is right to send it to the floor. And it is why I 
hope all of my colleagues will vote now in favor of it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). Pursuant to House Resolution 
302, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on 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.


        Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, I 
would like to be recognized for a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Taylor of Mississippi moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 
     2605) to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to 
     report the bill back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment. At the end of the bill insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 4. QUARTERLY ADJUSTMENT OF TARIFFS ON PRODUCTS OF THE 
                   PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       (A) Quarterly Determinations by Secretary of the 
     Treasury.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall determine, at 
     the end of each calendar quarter--
       (1) the dollar amount of tariffs paid to the People's 
     Republic of China during that quarter by persons for 
     exporting goods and services from the United States to the 
     People's Republic of China; and
       (2) the dollar amount of tariffs paid to the United States 
     during that quarter by persons for importing goods and 
     services from the People's Republic of China into the United 
     States.
       (b) Adjustment of Tariffs.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall adjust 
     the tariffs on all products of the People's Republic of China 
     so that an amount is collected on imports of products of the 
     People's Republic of China, during the 3-month period 
     beginning 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter for 
     which a determination is made under subsection (a), equal to 
     the amount by which the dollar amount computed under 
     paragraph (1) of subsection (a) exceeds the dollar amount 
     computed under paragraph (2) of subsection (a).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion 
to recommit with instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit with instructions is not germane 
to this underlying bill. The fundamental purpose, or common thread, of 
the bill is very narrow and only concerns concessional loans to China. 
The range of methods employed in the bill is similarly narrow, and the 
bill is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and 
Finance.
  The motion, however, deals with the reciprocal tariff treatment of 
products of China. This is clearly not within the very narrow purpose 
of this bill. The issue of tariffs is also outside the range of methods 
employed in this bill and contains matter within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  There has been a protocol under previous Democrat leadership and 
Republican leadership today that amendments of this nature which would 
either raise or lower tariffs or raise or lower taxes are not allowed 
in motions to recommit on the floor. They must clear with the Committee 
on Ways and Means first.

                              {time}  2230

  Therefore, the motion to recommit with instructions is not germane, 
and I urge the Chair to sustain the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Blunt]. Does any Member wish to be heard 
on the point of order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, as much as any Member of this 
body lives and breathes, this amendment is very much germane. Mr. 
Solomon's bill does one thing. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury 
to kind of something, do something about the Chinese Communists. My 
amendment directs the Secretary of the Treasury to do something about 
the gross injustice between what the Communist Chinese charge American 
products when our products go to their country and the fact that they 
only pay 2 percent when they come to ours. Why are we doing this? Why 
were there 5 votes in the past 2 days? It is because they force 
abortions, it is because they are thugs, they do not have religious 
freedom, they do not have political freedom. They are selling missiles 
and weapons to our enemies. They are buying ports on both ends of the 
Panama Canal.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman is not 
speaking to the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Member to confine 
his remarks to the point of order.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, as I said, every bill that we 
have voted on is trying to affect Chinese policy. This bill is asking 
the Secretary of the Treasury to take steps to affect Chinese policy. 
My amendment asks the Secretary of the Treasury to take substantial, 
realistic steps to affect Chinese policy. We are only going to get one 
last chance this session to do something substantive. As I have pointed 
out, the Committee on Rules has voted against bills that they are 
cosponsors of.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not speaking to the point 
of order. We have some integrity in this House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds the Member to speak to the 
point of order.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. The Speaker knows I am speaking to the 
point of order. The gentleman may not, but you do, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Members of this House to do what each of 
us begged for the opportunity to do every other year, and, that is, 
stand up for the rights of the American citizens, to strike a blow 
against the thugs when we get the chance. Tonight we have a chance. 
Tonight we can decide that we will have some lame excuse and go back 
and tell the constituents of each of our individual districts, that, 
``Doggone it, we couldn't do anything about those Chinese thugs because 
the Rules Committee said we weren't germane.'' Or we can say that there 
are some things more important than the rules of the House in the 
integrity of this Nation, simple things like right and wrong, simple 
fairness for the American working people. That is more important than 
the rules of the House that can be changed at any moment. That is what 
I am asking Members of this body to vote on, and that is why I am 
asking Members to vote against tabling this motion and then turn around 
to vote for this motion to recommit so that all of these things that 
have done nothing will at least be followed up by a measure that does 
something for the people of America and gets the attention of the thugs 
in Peking.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] makes the point of order 
that the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit is not germane.
  The test of germaneness in this situation is the relationship of the 
amendment proposed in the motion to recommit to the provisions of the 
bill as a whole.
  The bill, H.R. 2605, provides that the Secretary of Treasury instruct 
the United States Executive Directors to oppose concessional loans at 
each international financial institution to the People's Republic of 
China, any citizen or national of the People's Republic of China, or 
any entity established in the People's Republic of China.
  The amendment proposed in the motion to recommit would amend the 
tariff schedules of the United States to achieve reciprocity between 
the aggregate amount of Chinese tariffs on American products and the 
aggregate amount of American tariffs on Chinese products.

[[Page H10168]]

  As noted in section 798c of the House Rules and Manual, to be germane 
an amendment should address the same legislative jurisdiction as is 
addressed in the bill. Here, although the bill addresses the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the 
amendment addresses the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  On this basis, the Chair finds that the amendment is a ``proposition 
on a subject different from that under consideration'' within the 
meaning of clause 7 of rule XVI. That is, the amendment is not germane. 
The point of order is sustained. The motion to recommit is not in 
order.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask a 
parliamentary inquiry as to which is the proper motion to question the 
ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may appeal the ruling of the 
Chair.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out 
that in previous instances in this esteemed body, Speakers, when a 
question of the ruling of the Chair would be brought before it, would 
allow the Members to decide whether or not they wanted to vote on 
something. I would very much appreciate it if this Speaker would allow 
the Members to decide whether or not we will vote on this. If this 
Speaker chooses not to do so, then I will ask the Members to vote 
against the ruling of the Chair so that this motion to recommit can be 
brought before this body and voted on by the 435 Members who were each 
elected by the citizens of this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has ruled. Does the gentleman wish 
to appeal the ruling of the Chair?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


            Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Cox of California

  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the 
appeal of the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] to lay the appeal on the table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 192, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 604]

                               YEAS--220

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

                               NAYS--192

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

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Barr
     Boehner
     Carson
     Cubin
     Dixon
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     LaTourette
     McKinney
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Neal
     Riley
     Schiff
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2256

  Messrs. RANGEL, RUSH, and MORAN of Virginia changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. COLLINS of Georgia, KINGSTON, and NEUMANN changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). The question is on passage of 
the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 354, 
noes 59, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 605]

                               AYES--354

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry

[[Page H10169]]


     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--59

     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Brown (CA)
     Campbell
     Castle
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis (FL)
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Furse
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hinchey
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Manzullo
     McDermott
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Obey
     Olver
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pickett
     Roemer
     Sabo
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Tauscher
     Thurman
     Velazquez
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Carson
     Cubin
     Dixon
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Houghton
     LaTourette
     McKinney
     Miller (CA)
     Neal
     Rangel
     Riley
     Rush
     Schiff
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2316

  Mrs. LOWEY, and Messrs. FAZIO of California, MANZULLO and NADLER 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________