Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 154 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)

[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.

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.

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.

____________________