[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 71 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4112-H4123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD RECONSIDER DECISION TO BE 
  FORMALLY RECEIVED IN TIANANMEN SQUARE BY PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 454 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res 454

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H. 
     Con. Res. 285) expressing the sense of the Congress that the 
     President of the United States should reconsider his decision 
     to be formally received in Tiananmen Square by the Government 
     of the People's Republic of China. The resolution shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on 
     the resolution equally divided and controlled by the Majority 
     Leader or his designee and a Member opposed to the 
     resolution; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the 
legislation and the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, nine years ago the world witnessed the massacre of at 
least a thousand people by the Communist Chinese regime in a place 
called Tiananmen Square.
  It was one of the most brazen and contemptible acts of terror by a 
government in recent history, violating all internationally recognized 
human rights, and cutting to the core against one of the most cherished 
American values, that of freedom of political expression.
  Yet in a few weeks, the President of the United States will condone 
that terrorist act by the Communist Chinese regime, place those 
internationally recognized human rights on the back burner, and throw 
those cherished American values into the trash can by being formally 
received by the Butchers of Beijing right in that very place where the 
massacres occurred!
  For years, Mr. Speaker, I have been appalled and aghast at the depths 
of shamelessness to which this administration has sunk in its cowardly 
but relentless effort to appease the government of Communist China, but 
this decision by President Clinton is the topper.
  At least one can make a plausible-sounding, even if incorrect, case 
for granting Most-Favored-Nation trade status to China. But how in the 
world can this totally indecent decision be defended?
  What reason could possibly be good enough? Are there jobs at stake if 
the President doesn't go to Tiananmen Square?
  Would China perhaps do something irrational in its foreign policy if 
President Clinton doesn't go to Tiananmen? Of course not.
  The only reason for President Clinton to engage in this full-blown 
publicity stunt for the Butchers of Beijing is the same reason that 
explains all of the rest of his appeasement policies toward China.
  This administration has long since lost any sense of a moral compass 
when it comes to foreign policy, period.
  The administration that said in 1992 that it would be the most 
ethical in history has categorically subordinated American values and

[[Page H4113]]

U.S. national security interests to the interests of the business 
community, which always wants to appease all foreign governments.
  We have known this for years, but President Clinton's forthcoming 
farce in Tiananmen Square takes us to a new and extremely low level.
  Now this administration is not only betraying our most fundamental 
principles, but it is doing so openly, brazenly, and apparently with no 
shame whatsoever.
  It is disgusting, and the very least the President can do is reverse 
this decision.
  This is an excellent resolution and I urge unanimous support for it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and granted a closed 
rule to House Concurrent Resolution 285. The rule provides for 
consideration of the concurrent resolution in the House with 1 hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the majority leader, or his 
designee, and a Member opposed. The rule also provides for one motion 
to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, today is the ninth anniversary of the massacre at 
Tiananmen Square. It was on June 4, 1989, that the Chinese tyranny 
killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of students who were peacefully 
calling for democracy in that square.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in a letter asked us if we 
might wear a sign, and I am wearing here on my lapel a sign of memory, 
in memory of, the valiant students who were massacred that day, the 
unarmed representatives of the Chinese people who were massacred that 
day.

                              {time}  1730

  It is a date that will be recalled by history in infamous terms, in 
the most infamous of terms.
  This month, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States seeks to 
become the first U.S. President to visit China since the brutal 
massacre of 1989, and we are informed that the President of the United 
States plans to commence his visit to China by attending ceremonies 
with the Chinese hierarchy precisely at Tiananmen Square. That act, if 
in fact it takes place, that the President of the United States take 
part in a ceremony in Tiananmen Square, that act, if it takes place, 
will be a condemnable act, Mr. Speaker.
  Now in the past weeks we have learned that the President of the 
United States may, may have turned a blind eye as wealthy campaign 
contributors harmed our national security by helping the Chinese 
communists improve their ballistic warheads. We have learned that the 
President of the United States may have accepted campaign donations 
from the Chinese army, the communist Chinese army, at the same time 
that he changed United States policy to benefit the Chinese Communist 
missile program.
  We have learned that the President of the United States may have 
ignored his own Secretary of State and the director of the Central 
Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon and allowed his campaign donors to 
help the Chinese communist military. And we have also learned that the 
President of the United States may have intervened personally to stop 
the Department of Justice's investigation into this matter.
  Now the facts as we are learning them are deeply disturbing, and it 
is quite obvious that we do not know all the facts. These are serious 
matters, Mr. Speaker. The Chinese government, the Chinese Communist 
government, has at least 13 missiles aimed right now at United States 
cities. It would indeed be shocking if the President of the United 
States helped China to make those missiles more accurate.
  It is clear that the American people deserve a thorough and complete 
explanation of the facts, and so unless and until we get such an 
explanation, we believe that the President should reconsider his visit 
at the very least to Tiananmen Square. We think that the Tiananmen 
Square visit is without any justification and is inherently not only 
unjustifiable but insensitive as well.
  And so that is what the resolution that is being brought to the floor 
today in essence is all about, Mr. Speaker. It expresses the sense of 
Congress that President Clinton should reconsider his decision to be 
formally received by the Chinese tyranny in Tiananmen Square until the 
Government of China, of the Peoples Republic of China, acknowledges 
that Tiananmen Square massacre, pledges that such atrocities will never 
happen again, and releases those Chinese students that still to this 
moment remain in prison for supporting freedom and democracy in China.
  Nine years ago today thousands of Chinese students peacefully 
gathered in Tiananmen Square to demonstrate their support for freedom 
and for democracy while soldiers of the Chinese regime, the Chinese 
Communist regime, were ordered to fire machine guns and tanks on 
unarmed civilians. Now according to the Chinese Red Cross, more than 
2,000 Chinese pro democracy activists, demonstrators, Chinese citizens 
who believed in the right of the Chinese people to have self 
determination and freedom, thousands died that day at the hands of the 
Chinese tyrants.
  And so that is why this simple resolution is just and proper, and 
that is why on this anniversary that we bring it to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) for yielding me the time.
  As my colleague has described, this is a closed rule. It will allow 
consideration of H. Con. Res. 285, which expresses the sense of 
Congress that the President of the United States should reconsider his 
decision to be formally received in Tiananmen Square by the government 
of the People's Republic of China. This rule allows for 1 hour of 
debate and provides for one motion to recommit.
  While I support this underlying resolution, and I just like to say 
that I would hope that we could have soon some resolution like this on 
the floor for the country of Sudan that I just returned from an 8-day 
trip, where 2 million people lost their lives and there is hardly any 
publicity about it, there is hardly any press about it, there is hardly 
anybody in the world that really cares about it. It just breaks your 
heart to see so many children and mothers that are dying from 
starvation, and to walk into and see killing fields where people have 
absolutely been shot, killed, hacked up with knives, being eaten by 
vultures. We talk about all these countries of the world, but there are 
so many countries where millions of people died and there is never a 
squawk out of this Congress. So I hope that some day we can start 
putting Sudan on the map.
  I just like to say, relative to this resolution, I do have some 
reservations about the process in this Resolution 285. It was just 
introduced and the committee of jurisdiction has held no hearings that 
I know of, or markups on it. The rule was voted out of the Committee on 
Rules last night around 11 p.m. It is a closed rule which allows no 
amendments. This should be an open rule to allow the House to work its 
will. However, I reluctantly rise in support of this rule because of my 
concern for human rights abuses in China.
  Today is the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. It has 
been 9 years since the killings of hundreds of unarmed civilians by the 
Chinese army in Beijing. The Chinese authorities have taken no steps to 
investigate these human rights violations, and Congress needs to send a 
strong message to the People's Republic of China that we have not 
forgotten Tiananmen Square.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would inform the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hall) we have no other speakers, and I would inquire as to whether 
he does.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no Member here to speak on this 
particular rule, and therefore, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that even in the short period of time that we 
have discussed this rule it has become apparent, especially because of 
the significance of the date that we bring this

[[Page H4114]]

rule to the floor, the date that we are acting, it has become apparent, 
the importance of this statement that the House will be making very 
clearly pursuant to the resolution that is being brought to the floor 
by this rule.
  This is a date, the 4th of June, that will forever be recalled as an 
infamous date, as a date where unarmed people who represented the 
dignity of an entire nation were slaughtered by the weapons in 
possession of a totalitarian dictatorship that is still in power, that, 
as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) stated, has not only not 
acknowledged its crime but continues to perpetuate crimes.
  We have recently learned that the Chinese government is in the 
business of selling organs, human organs from prisoners, and if the 
price is right they will simply shoot the prisoner and sell the organ. 
That is the regime we are talking about. It is a regime that now Mr. 
Clinton, the President of the United States, is going to visit, and 
even though I still find it hard to believe, he apparently is going to 
be received officially for his state visit at the square where those 
thousands of Chinese innocent students were slaughtered. What pleasure, 
what profound and limitless pleasure would be obtained by the Chinese 
murderers if the President of the United States, the elected leader not 
only of the only superpower in the world but the ethical and moral 
leader of the world, agrees to be received by that regime of thugs in 
the same physical place where thousands of students were murdered for 
believing in the ideals that are also the ideals of the United States 
of America.
  And so what we will be saying in this resolution is, ``No, Mr. 
President, if you think you have to go, and we think you shouldn't, but 
if you think you have to go, at the very least do not give the Chinese 
thugs the ultimate pleasure of showing their people that the President 
of the United States of America is willing to receive honors in the 
same place where the blood of the Chinese people flowed in rivers 
simply some years ago, a few years ago now. No, that is unacceptable.''
  That is what we are saying in this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House 
Resolution 454 and as the designee of the majority leader, I call up 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 285) expressing the sense of 
the Congress that the President of the United States should reconsider 
his decision to be formally received in Tiananmen Square by the 
Government of the People's Republic of China, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The text of House Concurrent Resolution 285 is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 285

       Whereas 9 years ago on June 4, 1989, thousands of Chinese 
     students peacefully gathered in Tiananmen Square to 
     demonstrate their support for freedom and democracy;
       Whereas it was with horror that the world witnessed the 
     response of the Government of the People's Republic of China 
     as tanks and military units marched into Tiananmen Square;
       Whereas Chinese soldiers of the People's Republic of China 
     were ordered to fire machine guns and tanks on young, unarmed 
     civilians;
       Whereas ``children were killed holding hands with their 
     mothers'', according to a reliable eyewitness account;
       Whereas according to the same eyewitness account, 
     ``students were crushed by armored personnel carriers'';
       Whereas more than 2,000 Chinese pro-democracy demonstrators 
     died that day, according to the Chinese Red Cross;
       Whereas hundreds continue to languish in prisons because of 
     their belief in freedom and democracy;
       Whereas 9 years after the massacre on June 4, 1989, the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China has yet to 
     acknowledge the Tiananmen Square massacre; and
       Whereas, being formally received in Tiananmen Square, the 
     President would bestow legitimacy on the Chinese Government's 
     horrendous actions of 9 years ago: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the 
     President should reconsider his decision to be formally 
     received in Tiananmen Square until the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China acknowledges the Tiananmen Square 
     massacre, pledges that such atrocities will never happen 
     again, and releases those Chinese students still imprisoned 
     for supporting freedom and democracy that day.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hamilton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey) for taking the time to craft this very timely and 
important resolution. H. Con. Res. 285 expresses a sense of the 
Congress that the President should reconsider his decision to be 
formally received in Tiananmen Square in the People's Republic of China 
by the government of the People's Republic of China. In light of 
China's actions in Tiananmen Square 9 years ago, it would be 
inappropriate for the President to go there. That square was the site 
where thousands of students and workers who held up a replica of the 
Statue of Liberty and looked towards our Nation for support were 
brutally gunned down and run over by the tanks in the People's 
Liberation Army.

                              {time}  1745

  Subsequent to that unforgivable crime against their own people, 
authorities within the PLA tried to smuggle to Los Angeles, to the 
street gangs here, Stinger missiles and thousands of AK-47s.
  The People's Liberation Army runs a vast network of prisons and labor 
camps throughout China and occupied Tibet and holds untold numbers of 
Christians, Muslims and Buddhists for attempting to practice their 
religion without authorization from the state.
  The People's Liberation Army threatens democratic Taiwan and fuels 
the nuclear arms race in South Asia by transferring nuclear and 
ballistic missile technology to Pakistan. Recently, high-placed 
authorities within the PLA were accused of influencing U.S. policy in 
order to obtain very critical and sensitive ballistic missile 
technology.
  Our full Committee on International Relations and the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight today has conducted a joint hearing on 
the sale of body parts by the People's Republic of China. The PLA is at 
the center of an international sale and transplant scheme that takes 
kidneys, corneas, livers and lungs from condemned prisoners and 
transplants them into wealthy patients who can afford the price.
  There comes a time, Mr. Speaker, and a place, to put a limit on just 
what our Nation needs to do in order to engage China and its military. 
The administration gave a 17-gun salute in Washington to the Chinese 
general who orchestrated the Tiananmen massacre.
  I ask, does the President really need to stand on that bloodstained 
Tiananmen Square so that Beijing can feel comfortable trading with us? 
I think not. Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in 
supporting H. Con. Res. 285.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution. I think it is a bad policy, I 
think it is bad politics, and I think it is bad procedure.
  On the face of it, the resolution seems innocuous. It declares the 
sense of Congress that the President should reconsider his decision to 
be formally received in Tiananmen Square when he visits China later 
this month, until the Chinese Government acknowledges the Tiananmen 
Square massacre, pledges that such a tragedy will never occur again and 
releases the Chinese students still imprisoned for their participation 
in the pro-democracy movement in 1989.
  It is important to note, I think, that the resolution does not oppose 
the President's trip to China itself, but it does put conditions on the 
reception ceremonies that would inevitably make a successful visit less 
likely.
  This resolution claims that, by attending arrival ceremonies in

[[Page H4115]]

Tiananmen Square, the President will somehow bestow legitimacy on the 
cruel events that took place there 9 years ago today. I think that is 
unfair to the President. I think it is absurd.
  President Clinton has spoken out time after time against the brutal 
actions of the Chinese Government at Tiananmen Square. As Members will 
recall, President Clinton gave China's President a public lecture on 
this very issue at a joint press conference in Washington at the summit 
last fall, a lecture that many Members praised at the time.
  The President, through his policy of engagement, has pushed 
aggressively on human rights, and he has gotten results. China has, 
with American prodding, released a number of political and religious 
prisoners, including Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan. It has acknowledged 
its obligation to abide by the terms of the International Covenant on 
Civil and Political Rights, a concession that makes it now impossible 
for Beijing to argue that human rights is a domestic concern in which 
we should not intrude.
  China has begun to tolerate a level of public discussion and dissent 
that even a year ago would have been unimaginable. Of course, China has 
a long way to go in its human rights practices, but we should also 
recognize that the typical Chinese today has more personal freedoms and 
a better quality of life than at any time in history.
  Tiananmen Square is the central feature of Beijing. The Great Hall of 
the People faces one side and the entrance to the Forbidden City faces 
another. It is China's equivalent of the White House south lawn. It is 
where heads of state visiting China are formally welcomed. It is where 
Prime Minister Major, President Chirac, Prime Minister Hashimoto and 
Prime Minister Netanyahu have all been welcomed in recent years.
  So Mr. Clinton's presence there is similar. It has no suggestion of 
approval of China's human rights policies, any more than the presence 
of many Members of this body who have, accompanied by their Chinese 
hosts, visited Tiananmen Square in the past.
  May I remind Members, for instance, that just last year the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives visited Tiananmen Square; and during 
his visit to China the Speaker enunciated a fundamental truth when he 
said, and I quote him now, ``If you can be respectful but firm, you can 
get a long way talking with the Chinese.''
  China is a sovereign country. We cannot tell it where to hold its 
welcoming ceremonies. We would be deeply offended if the Chinese tried 
to dictate this to us. Why does anyone imagine that they will react 
differently?
  The real question this resolution raises is how we can best promote 
human rights in China. Do we advance our human rights concerns by 
telling the Chinese where to receive the President of the United 
States, or do we advance those concerns by engaging with the Chinese?
  This resolution suggests that we can improve China's human rights 
record behavior by telling the President not to go to Tiananmen Square. 
Frankly, in my view, that is a very superficial way to deal with a very 
difficult, complex issue. Do we really believe that this resolution 
will improve human rights conditions in China? And, if it does not, 
what then is the purpose of the resolution?
  The only practical way to promote human rights in China is by 
maintaining the policy of engagement toward China that has been 
followed by every administration, Democratic and Republican, since 
President Nixon. Engagement works. It is not easy, it does not produce 
results as quickly as we might like, but if we are to have any chance 
of pushing the Chinese toward greater respect of human rights, we must 
continue to engage with them. Insults will not do the trick.
  There are things that we can do that hold out the promise of 
improving human rights in China.
  We must make it clear to China that, until it changes its human 
rights practices, it cannot become a modern, stable, prosperous 
country.
  We must make it clear to China that, unless it improves its human 
rights performance, it will never be a fully accepted member of the 
international community.
  We must make it clear that it is in China's own interests that it 
adhere at least to minimal international standards of due process, 
accountability, transparency and the rule of law.
  We must continue to press China on these contentious human rights 
issues. We must not abandon our efforts, but we must be ready for the 
long pull.
  I do not question the sincerity of those who will speak in support 
this resolution today, and I fully understand how the votes will go in 
a few minutes. All of us were appalled by China's brutal actions in 
Tiananmen Square 9 years ago. All of us agree that the Chinese 
Government should formally and publicly repent its tragic actions and 
immediately release those who are still imprisoned for their 
participation in the pro-democracy movement of 1989.
  We are not considering this resolution today in isolation. This 
resolution must be put in the context of other measures this House has 
debated in recent months. It is part of a pattern that has seen this 
House take up one anti-China resolution or amendment after another 
since the U.S.-China summit last fall. Together, these measures are 
immensely complicating the management of this most difficult foreign 
policy relationship.
  I understand that many Members of this House do not favor a policy of 
constructive engagement with China. That is, of course, their 
prerogative. For myself, I do not want to undermine the policy of 
engagement. I do not want to promote a policy of confrontation, and 
that is what I believe these resolutions and amendments do.
  There are many Chinese policies that I abhor, as much, I think, as 
any Member of this House. We should speak out against those policies, 
but we should also think about what actions will change those policies 
and bring results.
  Anti-China rhetoric may make some feel good, but it will not bring 
the results that we seek. It complicates the issue. The President's 
policies have led to some improvements in the human rights situation in 
China. This resolution will not.

  Finally, I voice my dismay with the procedure followed for this 
resolution. It was introduced only yesterday and went directly to the 
Committee on Rules. The Committee on International Relations has 
jurisdiction over such resolutions, but apparently the chairman waived 
consideration in order to facilitate the resolution coming up today.
  I understand that today is a significant date, but that is not an 
excuse for a flawed, hurried process. There has been no consideration 
of this resolution or the difficult issues it addresses by the 
Committee on International Relations. There has been no consultation 
with the administration, at least to my knowledge. Little thought has 
been given to the foreign policy implications of this resolution. This 
is not a deliberative, careful process. A flawed process is producing, 
I think, a flawed product. This does not reflect well on the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I take second place to no one in my support for human 
rights and freedom in China, but that is not what we are debating in 
this resolution. Let us consider how we can promote the values of 
freedom and justice in China, but let us do it thoughtfully, 
deliberatively and free of partisan and political motives.
  This resolution will not advance freedom in China. It will not help 
those who, 9 years after the tragedy we commemorate today, continue to 
suffer for their belief that the Chinese people should enjoy the same 
liberties we in this country so cherish.
  This resolution will not prod Chinese authorities to open their 
country to the forces of pluralism and the winds of democracy. It will 
do none of these things. It will only convince Chinese leaders that 
many in this institution, the House of Representatives, want to declare 
a war of words against China. It will promote confrontation and make it 
less likely that the Chinese will listen to us on human rights or the 
other issues of deep importance to us.
  The administration, of course, opposes this resolution, and so should 
all those who are interested in results and not just rhetoric. I urge 
my colleagues to vote no on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith),

[[Page H4116]]

our distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on International 
Operations and Human Rights.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on this important human rights 
resolution. Nine years ago today, the ground of Tiananmen Square was 
hallowed by the blood of thousands of peaceful democracy advocates. 
Those Chinese patriots were slaughtered by a communist regime that 
remains unapologetic for its actions and that continues to deny the 
truth of what happened. It is repugnant that the President of the 
United States of America, the country that, foremost of any of the 
world, ought to bear the standard of freedom and democracy, would meet 
at the very site with dictators who continue to lie about the murders 
committed less than a decade ago.

                              {time}  1800

  This resolution is not anti-China. It is anti-abuse, the abuse that 
was endured by those democracy activists, that was witnessed by the 
world via C-SPAN, via CNN and other networks that were there on the 
scene.
  Mr. Speaker, in December of 1996 General Chi Haotian, the Defense 
Minister of the People's Republic of China and the operational 
commander of the forces that attacked the pro-democracy demonstrators, 
was invited to the United States by the Clinton Administration. During 
his visit, he was given full military honors, a 19-gun salute, visits 
with several military bases, and a tour of the Sandia Nuclear 
Laboratory. He even had a personal meeting with President Clinton at 
the White House.
  General Chi said that not a single person, and I quote, not a single 
person lost his life in Tiananmen Square. He claimed that on June 4, 
1989 the People's Liberation Army did nothing more violent than pushing 
people whom he called hooligans.
  The supposed idea behind these official visits such as General Chi's 
visit and President Clinton's trip to Beijing is to foster mutual 
understanding. That is just what they say. If we are going to live in 
the same world with governments run by people like General Chi, the 
argument goes, we had better get to know each other.
  General Chi's big lie about Tiananmen Square certainly helped many 
Americans understand what he and his government are really like. 
However, in China the visit by the Butcher of Beijing was a public 
relations coup. He could not have gotten better press, being feted at 
the White House and being given all of these honors. Again, this is the 
man that ordered the killing of those students.
  I believe that the process of getting acquainted must be a reciprocal 
one. In an effort to help General Chi understand that in America it 
matters whether you tell the truth, my Subcommittee on International 
Operations and Human Rights invited him or any other representative of 
the Chinese Government to appear at a hearing on the Tiananmen 
massacre. If he could present convincing and compelling evidence that 
the massacre was really a myth after all, those of us who view the 
Beijing government and had our views shaped by that massacre would have 
to admit that we were wrong.
  We were prepared to give General Chi an opportunity to substantiate 
his claim that China has sold no illegal weapons to Iran. Perhaps he 
could have shown us that there were no persecuted Christians in China, 
no ethnic and religious persecution in Tibet and Xinjiang, no forced 
abortions, which are millions per year, women who are literally thrust 
and brought into these abortion mills, no coerced sterilizations, and 
no dying rooms for unwanted children. These claims would have all been 
contrary to the evidence, but in America everyone is given a fair 
opportunity to be heard.
  Unfortunately, General Chi did not respond to our invitation, and the 
place we had saved for a representative, either he or a member of the 
government, sat empty during that hearing, at which time we heard from 
multiple eyewitnesses, including an editor from the People's Daily who 
recounted the horrors of Tiananmen Square.
  In commentary about Tiananmen Square, Mr. Chairman, Nicholas Kristoff 
of the New York Times, who was in the Square that night, reported, and 
I quote, ``The troops began shooting. Some people fell to the ground, 
wounded or dead. Each time the soldiers fired again and more people 
fell to the ground.''
  When he went to the Xiehe hospital, the nearest to the Square, ``it 
was a bloody mess with hundreds of injured lying on the floors. I saw 
the bullet holes,'' Nicholas Kristoff goes on to say, ``in the 
ambulances.''
  Jan Wong of the Toronto Globe and Mail, looking down from the balcony 
at the Peking Hotel, ``watched in horror as the army shot directly into 
the crowds. People fell with gaping wounds.'' Later, she reported, 
``The soldiers strafed ambulances and shot medical workers trying to 
rescue the wounded.'' ``In all,'' she reported, ``I recorded eight long 
murderous volleys.'' Dozens died before her very eyes.
  This is what Tiananmen Square means to the people of China and to the 
world. If President Clinton goes there and stands shoulder to shoulder 
with the very people who ordered the massacre, that gesture will be a 
thousand times more powerful than any mere words he may exchange with 
those who mowed down and bayonetted students and democracy activists. 
It will be the diplomatic equivalent of dancing on the graves of the 
courageous and innocent victims of Tiananmen square.
  Mr. President, for God's sake and for the sake of the people of China 
and for the sake of everything the U.S. used to and hopefully still 
stands for, do not mark the ninth anniversary of the murder at 
Tiananmen Square by celebrating with the murderers at the scene of the 
crimes.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the resolution. I put a question to my 
colleagues: What were 122 Members of the House of Representatives doing 
visiting Beijing in 1997? I visited there four times with 39 of them, 
including the Speaker of the House, the distinguished gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, and the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter), chair of the Subcommittee on Asia, 39 members.
  On the visits each time, each one of us went to Tiananmen Square. No 
one in this House failed to condemn the atrocities in Tiananmen Square, 
nor are in support of what happens there.
  The President has spoken clearly and often in condemnation of human 
rights violations in China. When we traveled there, Speaker Gingrich, I 
was there on March 30 when he said if we can be respectful, but firm, 
we can get a long way talking with the Chinese.
  I have been in those rooms with the Prime Minister and the Vice 
Premier, with other distinguished Chinese persons. In each instance our 
priorities were human rights, democracy, the rule of law; and in each 
instance we raised those questions time and time again.
  Fundamentally, the question of the arrival ceremony becomes a 
question about whether or not President Clinton goes to China. When a 
foreign leader goes to China, the leader has a welcoming ceremony, and 
that is where the ceremony is, period.
  We have discussed it with the Chinese at great length. Not 
surprisingly, the Chinese leaders consider China their country, not 
ours, and feel that a guest should have the ceremony where they always 
have had it. I am not aware of other countries that do arrival 
ceremonies where and when we tell them.
  Finally, I will put this question to my colleagues: When President 
Richard Nixon went to China, the Red Guard, Mao Tse-tung, and countless 
other official individuals reigned supreme. The question that I put: 
Was China as bad on human rights then when President Nixon visited? The 
answer is, of course, it was. But it was right to be engaged then, and 
it is right to be engaged now.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

[[Page H4117]]

  Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard some of my colleagues say that we have to 
make it clear to China that if they are to join the people of nations, 
that they are going to have to change their policies. I have heard some 
of my colleagues say that we have to be respectful, but firm. I have 
been in Congress now for 16 years, and every single year I have heard 
that same kind of statement. Every single year, the situation either 
remains the same or worse.
  Recently, a Clinton administration official said frankly on the human 
rights front, the situation has deteriorated. They are rounding up 
dissidents and harassing them more.
  There were 7,300 young men and women who wanted nothing more than 
liberty and freedom 9 years ago and were brutally massacred or hurt in 
Tiananmen Square. Many of them are still in communist Chinese gulags 
today.
  What are we going to do about it? We have got to continue to be 
engaged with them. We have a $60 billion trade deficit that is really 
putting pressure on communist China. They are using 10 million men, 
women, and children in slave labor camps, gulags, to make tennis shoes 
and things that we buy in this country every day.
  Yet, when they commit human rights atrocities like Tiananmen Square, 
we say we have to keep engaged. We have to be respectful, but firm. We 
have to make it clear to them they have got to change, but they do not 
change. It goes on year after year after year.
  Today, we had a hearing before our committee. The gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) and I cochaired that meeting. We had Harry Wu testify 
before our committee, and Wei Jingsheng before the committee. Both of 
them told us very clearly that in the prisons over there they are 
killing prisoners for body parts.
  They come to foreign countries, and they say to foreign countries, if 
you want a kidney, we will get it for you for $30,000. Then they go 
back for tissue samples and blood samples, and they find a prisoner or 
group of prisoners. They say, okay, come over here on a certain date, 
and I will kill them and give you their kidneys, and they do it.
  They are making an estimated minimum of $60 million a year by 
harvesting body parts off of prisoners, many of them possibly political 
dissidents, and selling them to people around the world. I cannot 
hardly believe that. It is ghoulish. Yet, we turn our backs on that.
  It is going on today. They are doing it in Taiwan. They are doing it 
in Macao. They are doing it all over Southeast Asia. They are doing it 
even here in the United States, where people have already been arrested 
trying to sell these body parts.
  But we have to stay engaged with them. We have to look the other way 
while these human rights atrocities continue to take place. I say, why? 
Are we our brother's keeper or not? Are we supposed to turn our head 
and look the other way just for the almighty dollar? Is American 
business so callous that they do not care about people in other parts 
of the world?
  Obviously we want to make money. Money is very important. But, for 
God's sake, what about human beings who are suffering? We look the 
other way.
  What kind of penalties do we impose on the Chinese Government for 
these atrocities? Nothing. Nothing. We talk about it year after year 
after year. Many of my colleagues have been here as long as I have, and 
nothing changes. There are still 10 million people in those gulags 
making tennis shoes for us, slave labor camps, being paid nothing, but 
we look the other way. We have got to stay constructively engaged with 
no penalties.
  I submit to my colleagues, we have got to put some pressure on them. 
We have done it before, I think, when we had some property rights. A 
couple years ago I think we put some pressure on China and they 
relented, but it was only because we put pressure on them. But we do 
not do that anymore. Very rare cases.
  So I would just like to say to my colleagues we need to put pressure 
on communist China. We now believe that we have had technology 
transferred that has endangered the very security of every man, woman, 
and child in this country, or possibly may have. We know that the 
Chinese Communist government has given political contributions in this 
country, and they do not do it for their health. They must have been 
doing it, trying to influence our policies in some way.
  These things need to be investigated thoroughly before the President 
of the United States goes over there in Tiananmen Square where this 
massacre took place and starts shaking hands with the President of 
China, who lied to the American people when he said there were no 
political contributions coming from them into this country, and he knew 
it.
  I would just like to end up by saying this to my colleagues: For 
God's sweet sake, think about those people over there who are dying 
today while we are so callously looking the other way.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to this debate, I think we 
are back into debate like we just finished on the prayer amendment. The 
question is: Does the President of the United States condone what 
happened in Tiananmen Square? Is anybody seriously asserting that the 
President of the United States condones what happened there? The answer 
is absolutely not. He has spoken about it over and over again.
  I would respect the matters of this resolution if they would put in 
it what they really want, which is that the President should not go. To 
say to the President of the United States, look, Bill, when you get 
over there, tell them where you are going to land and where you want to 
meet them and what door you want to go into, the Great Hall of the 
People. Just send over a letter to the Chinese Government and say, I am 
not coming in the front door, I want to come in around back through the 
alley.
  That is so ridiculous as to make the Chinese either laugh or be 
angry, one way or the other. It is their country. They decide how every 
official delegation comes to China.
  I traveled with the President on his South American trip and his 
African trip. People in Brazil and Argentina were distressed by the 
amount of intrusion we made about how the President comes into a 
country.

                              {time}  1815

  For us to stand here on the floor and seriously say he should not go 
to the official reception place of the Chinese Government is just 
simply ridiculous.
  Now, I believe that we have no choice but to remain engaged with 
China. For us to return to the pre-Nixon era, when we said they are 
communists so we are not going to talk to them, is simply not possible. 
Clearly, the events in South Asia that everybody was out here 2 weeks 
ago passing resolutions about, that is, the exchange of nuclear 
technology with Pakistan, and the whole problem of the Pakistan-China-
India triangle, is an issue that must be discussed at the highest 
level.
  If Members and I share a concern about peace in the world, we have to 
be talking to the people who have the ability to control that 
situation. For us to say to the President, why do you not start by 
insulting the Chinese, tell them where you are going to land, you are 
going to go into Nanking, the old south capital, you are not going to 
Beijing because that represents a bad place, would be like saying to 
Yeltsin, I do not think I am going to come into Moscow because that is 
where a lot of tragedy and trauma occurred.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this resolution is very ill-conceived and bad 
public policy.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  (Mr. SALMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this resolution, 
which could not have come at a more poignant time. Nine years ago today 
thousands of young Chinese men and women lost their lives while 
demonstrating support for freedom and democracy. This peaceful 
demonstration came to a violent end when Chinese soldiers of the 
People's Republic of China were ordered to fire machine guns and tanks 
on these innocent unarmed civilians. Many of the survivors remain 
incarcerated today.

[[Page H4118]]

  I realize I have a somewhat different point of view than many of my 
colleagues. In fact, I urged the President to go to China. There was a 
letter circulated recently asking him not to go. I think that would be 
a tragic mistake. I think he should go. I think there are a lot of 
valuable things he could accomplish. I think he can reaffirm the moral 
values of the American people in terms of human rights, 
nonproliferation, and on and on. He should have gone long ago, in fact, 
not for just some kind of a photo opportunity, but to discuss the 
serious issues facing our Nation today.
  However, he should not go to Tiananmen Square. In fact, just 3 days 
ago I sent a letter to President Clinton, and I will quote it:

       I must urge you in the strongest terms to avoid any 
     official activities in Tiananmen Square. No American 
     President should appear at Tiananmen Square, at a minimum, 
     until Chinese officials acknowledge young Chinese men and 
     women whose blood was shed 9 years ago this week. Your visit 
     there would set back the Chinese struggle for human rights, 
     and would be an insult to those heroic students who gave 
     their lives for the cause of freedom.

  Mr. Speaker, Chinese officials must acknowledge the bloodshed that 
occurred in Tiananmen Square if they expect to advance a constructive 
relationship with the United States. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this resolution. It is not about trying to dictate to the 
President where he should go or where he should not go, it is simply 
about common sense. It is simply about reaffirming our values. That is 
a great opportunity to build constructively this relationship.
  A lot of folks who have said that MFN does not work, they say so 
because I do not think we have been constructively engaged. We do not 
take the opportunities to use the bully pulpit to speak plainly with 
our colleagues on another continent.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am outraged at the atrocities at 
Tiananmen Square 9 years ago. I, too, as the concurrent resolution 
states, am outraged that children were killed holding the hands of 
their mothers, outraged that students were crushed by armored personnel 
carriers. As the resolution says, I am outraged that more than 2,000 
Chinese, pro-democracy demonstrators, died that day.
  But is this resolution about changing policy in China? Unfortunately, 
it is not. It is just yet another partisan political attempt to 
embarrass the President. While I would never dare impugn the motives of 
those speaking in favor of the resolution, where were all the voices, 
where was the Speaker's voice, when he supported extending China once 
again Most Favored Nation trading status? Where were all the voices who 
support extending Most Favored Nation trading status on China? Why were 
they not talking about the atrocities then?
  To support China-MFN and to support this concurrent resolution is 
intellectually incompatible, because to do so is to argue that these 
brave souls, 2,000 of them that lost their lives, their lives are 
worthy of changing a ceremony but they are not worthy of changing our 
economic policy. Those lives are worthy of changing some ceremonial 
thing that the President will do, where he will walk, but they are not 
worthy of us, God forbid, losing a buck.
  I am sure those that bring back the memory of those whose lives were 
lost in Tiananmen Square are very genuine, very genuine in their 
memories. But I respectfully suggest to bring up the memories of such 
brave freedom fighters in the context of something that is not a great 
debate about policy about China, but is yet just another attempt to 
rebuke the President on an international stage, is not what we ought to 
do.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, our relations with the People's Republic of China are 
multidimensional. We have trade relations, we have security relations, 
and yes, we care about human rights in China. Yes, we should talk about 
these things always together. But there are people of good will on both 
sides who believe that keeping tariff rates low is a way for us to 
engage China. That is the view of the President of the United States.
  While I am one who has voted against MFN, and so probably do not fall 
into the category that my colleague just described of being 
inconsistent, I do not see it as hypocrisy when people wish to stand up 
for human rights and also wish to stand up for low tariff rates.
  It seems to me that when we have a vote on this in just a little 
while, we are likely to have about 90 percent of the Congress voting 
together, because on either side of the MFN issue, we ought to agree 
that human rights in China are important. Because our relations, our 
bilateral relations with the People's Republic of China are complex, it 
is, to state the obvious, that human rights is not all there is.
  But if the President of the United States were to appear in Tiananmen 
Square, with all of the symbolism that that carries, were to appear in 
this very public killing field, that visit, that event, would be all 
about human rights and nothing else. That is why the President ought 
not to do it.
  It is not just that over 2,000 people were killed by PLA troops and 
tanks on that day, as estimated by the Chinese Red Cross and other 
reliable sources, including eyewitness accounts. It is that the 
survivors of those democracy demonstrations are still in jail today, in 
1998. It is awfully difficult to imagine an America that stands for 
freedom sending its President to the very site of this notorious event, 
which all the world saw and still concerns itself with, and not send 
the kind of signal that all of us hope is not sent, that America no 
longer cares about freedom. We do care about freedom. I believe 
President Clinton cares about freedom. That is why he should not go 
there.
  Last year I went with the leadership of this Congress to meet with 
President Jiang Zemin in Beijing. We were not received in Tiananmen 
Square. It was not necessary for us to be received there. The Vice 
President of the United States, Al Gore, last year went to the People's 
Republic of China. He was not received in Tiananmen Square.
  President Clinton should not become the first American President, the 
only American President, to be received in Tiananmen Square since that 
horrible occurrence in 1989. That is what this resolution is all about. 
I am very confident that it will receive broad and bipartisan support. 
I am very confident that the advice that we will be giving I think will 
be received as it is intended, for the good of the United States of 
America, for the good of human rights around the world.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think supporting this resolution is standing up 
for human rights. I think well-intentioned people can disagree about 
this, but for me this is the essence of meaningless symbolism over real 
substance.
  If Members do not think the President should go to China, bring forth 
a resolution saying that the President should not go to China. If 
Members do not believe in the policy of constructive engagement, then 
come out and speak against that particular policy. If Members want to 
do something that will hurt the Chinese and bear the consequences of 
it, then come out for MFN. If Members want to withhold imports and 
trade benefits because of the constant and continuous policy of 
proliferation of nuclear and missile technology, deal with that.
  But do not say, all this is fine, constructive engagement is good, 
going to China makes sense, renew MFN, but, Mr. Speaker, do not go to 
the place that for all of us symbolizes the most horrible, 
indescribable terror imaginable and the example of brute government 
force, do not go there, as your statement of protest.
  Mr. President, go there, speak against that horror, speak against 
what we do not want, push an agenda which is meaningful and real in 
terms of helping America's interest in stability and the interests of 
nonproliferation and the cause of human rights, but

[[Page H4119]]

do not take the cheap symbolism of this kind of resolution as a 
substitute for a policy.
  I have watched, too much, people who write letters urging the 
President to allow American satellites and Chinese launchers and then 
pass one House bill to stop it, and people who stand up and decry China 
and then go vote for MFN because American corporations want it.
  I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) about his 
point, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this 
resolution. The resolution calls for the release of prisoners. The 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I went into prison. In fact, 
this is Beijing Prison Number 1. This is the back of the head of the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  These were prisoners, Tiananmen Square prisoners, and we picked the 
socks up off the line that the prisoners were making. There were 1,000 
to 2,000 people killed, but there were men, many of them or most of 
them, and I see the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Chris Smith) in the 
back there, who remembers vividly when we went in the Beijing Prison 
Number 1. What it says was Hosiery Factory, when it was basically a 
very, very brutal prison.
  For their families, it is absolutely important to pass the 
resolution. It is not a free vote, because I will tell the Members, 
tomorrow morning on Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia and Voice of 
America, if you will, this will go on, that the United States Congress 
has passed this. What it will say is that the people's body, the United 
States Congress, has passed this resolution.
  If you were a mom or dad who had had your son or daughter killed, and 
I have brutal pictures of those who have been run over by tanks, this 
would send a message. But for those who are in prison and languishing, 
it will send a message: One, he ought not to go to Tiananmen Square, 
and I am one who has been opposed to MFN; but two, I think for the 
children, for the prisoners that are in there who made these socks, and 
these have golfers on them and they do not play golf in China, they are 
for export to the United States, this resolution is a good resolution.
  I strongly hope that it is passed by an overwhelming margin, because 
tomorrow in Beijing when they hear, I think it will send a positive 
message, and the prisoners in Beijing Prison Number 1 and throughout 
the gulags will find out about this resolution. Their moms, their dads, 
their wives, their families within the next couple of weeks will tell 
them, and that will give them hope.
  I appreciate the sponsorship of this, and I strongly support this, 
and hope it can be almost by unanimous vote.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today with my prized possession 
which is the great icon, the picture, probably one of the greatest 
symbols of the 20th century, of the lone man before the tank. And it is 
signed by almost every important dissident who has come out of China. 
It is a great treasure to me because of the courage of the people that 
are represented here.
  I rise today in support of the resolution, and I want to tell my 
colleagues why. But, first of all, I want to associate myself with some 
of the remarks of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), because far too often we have 
resolutions on the floor that serve as a fig leaf for those who, when 
the really serious issues come up like trade status and the rest, are 
never with us.
  Members are quick to criticize the impact of the President's policies 
while they have stuck with him every time a vote is taken, but use 
these issues for political purposes and bring up resolutions, as I say, 
to make themselves well, when they are voting against the really 
serious issues that we have to deal with.
  Having said that, I want to say that this is not about whether the 
President should go to China. I think the President should go to China 
when the time is right. He thinks that is now. I disagree, but I am not 
against his going to China.
  And it is not about whether we should be engaged with China, because 
we certainly should be engaged with China, but in a sustainably and 
constructive way, which I do not think we are right now.
  The reason why I am opposed to the President being received in 
Tiananmen Square is because the President is trying to frame his visit 
as the end of the Tiananmen era. That is not so. And just saying it 
will not make it so.
  The Tiananmen era will not be over until the Chinese regime reverses 
the decision of Tiananmen Square; until the over 100 people who were 
arrested at that time are freed and are allowed to speak freely in 
China; until the over 2,000 political prisoners are freed, not exiled 
but allowed to stay in China and speak freely, and over 200,000 people 
who are in reform-through-labor camps because of their political 
beliefs are released.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say that Mr. Harry Wu said 
this morning if the President goes to Tiananmen Square, he will join 
the Chinese regime on the wrong side of history. I urge our colleagues 
to vote aye.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 285 expressing the 
sense of Congress that President Clinton ought not to be received by 
the Chinese Government on his arrival at Tiananmen Square when he goes 
there later this month.
  Mr. Speaker, as many in this body know, I am one who believes very 
strongly in a policy of engagement. I am one that supported China MFN. 
I believe that engagement works. I believe that when American citizens, 
businesspeople, students, and academicians travel to China, we help to 
spread our values there. And I do believe that makes a difference. I 
also do not oppose the President's visiting China. Indeed, I believe he 
should visit China, because I believe it is an important element of a 
sound foreign policy for China.
  Others that have supported this resolution have talked about the 
abuses that are going on today in China. They have talked about 
widespread political prisoners. They have talked about body parts being 
sold commercially and about forced abortions. We know there are human 
rights abuses in China--some of them alleged, some that we know take 
place.
  But that is not what this resolution is about. The resolution says 
that this President ought not to be received as an official part of his 
visit in Tiananmen Square because of the very symbolism that an event 
there would suggest. It would suggest that the United States, that the 
President of the United States, forgives and forgets what happened 
there only 9 years ago when the Chinese Government callously crushed an 
incipient student political democracy movement. It was brutal, and we 
all saw it on television.
  And, yes, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said that I was 
in Tiananmen Square with him. Yes, I was there. But I think there is a 
difference in walking across Tiananmen Square and being officially 
received there as part of the opening ceremony.
  Mr. Speaker, the President should go to China, but he ought to be in 
control of his own visit. No Chinese visitor would agree to be received 
on American soil at the site of some atrocity against its citizens in 
this country, if such an event were to occur. If we believe in freedom 
and human rights for Chinese, our president should not visit in any 
official capacity the scene of the brutal repression.
  Mr. Speaker, I say, ``Mr. President, make your visit. Stay engaged. 
But do not say to the Chinese that we condone and forgive what happened 
there 9 years ago. Mr. President, do not go to Tiananmen Square on this 
visit.''

[[Page H4120]]

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley).
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
resolution.
  It was over 20 years ago the Republican President Nixon fought off 
the forces of isolationism and turned this country towards a direction 
of engagement with China. When I hear many of the speakers today that 
are suggesting that our President should not be entertained on 
Tiananmen Square, that are suggesting which door he should enter when 
he goes to the Great Hall of China, I am troubled by that, because it 
seems to me that we have seen clear demonstration over the last 20 
years that this policy of constructive engagement has done more to 
advance the interest of human rights, the interest of religious freedom 
in China than any policy of isolationism could have ever achieved.
  Sure, there are still problems in human rights. There are still 
problems in religious persecution. But for us to suggest and to dictate 
to this President how and where he should be entertained is clearly not 
appropriate. It does not serve us well to dictate to the President that 
he should insult the host, the President of China and the citizens of 
China.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against this resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) for his leadership on this.
  Mr. Speaker, the President ``continues to coddle China, despite its 
continuing crackdown on democratic reforms, its brutal subjugation of 
Tibet, and its irresponsible export of technology.'' That is not my 
opinion.
  Let me read that again. The President ``continues to coddle China, 
despite its continuing crackdown on democratic reforms, its brutal 
subjugation of Tibet, and its irresponsible export of technology.'' 
December 11, 1992, William Clinton when he was President-elect.
  Mr. Speaker, talk about a whopper. I mean, if my colleagues wonder 
why the American people distrust our leadership, it is when they say 
one thing to get elected and, when they get elected, they do exactly 
the opposite.
  We heard earlier in the debate that he is just yielding to the 
interests of that country, that they set the schedule. But when another 
President of the United States went to Bitburg, where Nazi butchers had 
killed Jews that were buried in that cemetery, there was a justified 
outcry in America, and from the other side of the aisle, that said that 
we do not think the President should go to Bitburg.
  Mr. Speaker, what is the double standard here? Thousands of students 
were butchered. Many are in prison today. And the last thing we need 
from the President of the United States is to break his word that he 
gave the American people about coddling the Chinese, about not standing 
up for human rights, because he ran on it. We would like him to keep 
his word and not do what would be a terrible signal to those who are 
trying to stand up for human rights and democratic reforms around the 
world.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I think with the eloquence of many who have 
spoken here on both sides, it is important to remember what happened 9 
years ago in Tiananmen Square. The people must remember. The U.S. 
Congress must remember. The President of the United States and, yes, 
the Chinese people and government must remember.
  But I have got to ask, too, why do we not remember and remember how 
important it is to engage? Would anyone have seriously suggested that 
Presidents Reagan or Bush or Ford or Carter, going all the way back, 
should never have gone to Moscow to meet with the Soviet Union, now, of 
course, the Russians, because of the gulags, because of the Korean Air 
007 shooting down, because of the oppression in Afghanistan and 
countless other countries? Of course not. We knew they had to go.
  Or Richard Nixon, should he not have gone to China? Talk about human 
rights violations. Mao Tse-tung and the Red Guard were running in full 
bloom at the time. Millions massacred, millions incarcerated. Deng 
Xiaoping himself, a later leader of China, was being subjected to 
imprisonment by the Red Guard, but we had to engage.
  The President of the United States standing in Tiananmen Square does 
not gloss over what happened there; it highlights it. It highlights it 
because of the attention it draws, and I think President Clinton will 
stand well in representing what Americans believe.
  We have to look at this trip in the entirety, not in separate events. 
And that is what I think is important, is what does the President come 
back with?
  Finally, I am a little tired of micromanaging by Congress. I am tired 
when the Speaker of the House goes to Israel and decides it is okay to 
bash foreign policy on foreign soil. I am tired of Congress trying to 
micromanage the foreign policy of this country. It is fair to hold the 
President accountable, but let the President do what the Constitution 
says he is to do.
  Many, and I am one of them who has supported MFN status, but I would 
be insulted if someone tried to say that business was trumping blood in 
that situation. So it is that I feel the President should be given the 
leeway and the discretion to do what he knows is fair to be done, and 
then it is fair to judge him on the entirety.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of the committee.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be blunt. The presence of 
the President in the United States, President Clinton with his record 
on human rights, in Tiananmen Square makes a mockery of this country's 
sincere commitment to human rights and democracy.
  This administration has the worst human rights record of any 
administration in my lifetime. And any utterance the President of the 
United States might make about human rights in Tiananmen Square, where 
thousands of young people struggling for democracy in China were 
murdered, just takes away from any message that we might have as a 
people to the peoples of the world that we are serious when we talk 
about democracy and freedom.
  In reality, it will be seen as purely posturing by a President that 
has time and again said making money and making sure that the Chinese 
can keep that $50 billion trade surplus to be used to build up their 
own weapons systems which they then use to suppress their people is 
much more important than human rights.
  President Clinton said, well, we must have Most Favored Nation status 
again just recently; and he told the people of the United States that 
this was because China can help us. It is not good in human rights. At 
least it can help us in a broader role by bringing peace to Asia or 
whatever. And further evidence of this, of the role they can play, is 
the important role that the President said that we can be working with 
China in some strategic relationship in the 21st century.
  But what constructive role was he talking about with Beijing as a 
strategic partner? Since May 26, one week previous to the President's 
statement, U.S. intelligence has been tracking a Chinese cargo 
freighter that departed from Shanghai loaded with missiles and 
electronic components to be used for nuclear weapons steaming for 
Pakistan. Steaming for Pakistan. With that type of a record I would 
suggest that China cannot help us with anything, and they are not good 
for human rights.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House 
Concurrent Resolution 285 which urges President Clinton reconsider his 
decision to be received in Tiananmen Square.
  Mr. Speaker, President Bush condemned the Chinese government when the 
killings occurred; and President Clinton has repeatedly been on record

[[Page H4121]]

and made clear his view that the breakup of the demonstrations and 
killing of innocent civilians was unacceptable and a great mistake by 
the Chinese leaders.
  Traditionally, the Chinese Government welcomes heads of state by 
arrival ceremonies held at the Great Hall of People which is next to 
Tiananmen Square. All dignitaries from around the world are accorded 
the same reception at the Great Hall, as was done with Japanese Prime 
Minister Hashimoto, French President Chirac, British Prime Minister 
Major, Russian President Yeltsin, and even Israeli Prime Minister 
Netanyahu.
  Mr. Speaker, are we as a Nation greater than all of these democratic 
nations combined? It seems to me that we are bordering along the line 
of arrogance to tell another sovereign nation how it should receive our 
President. The reception of these world leaders at the Great Hall did 
not signify their government's condoning the Tiananmen Square massacre. 
Likewise, President Clinton's reception at the Great Hall cannot be 
construed as bestowing legitimacy on the Chinese Government's brutal 
actions 9 years ago.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Speaker, contrary to the views of my friends in the Republican 
majority, I honestly believe the presence of President Clinton on 
Tiananmen Square will reinforce and reaffirm fundamental basic 
democratic values and principles to all the leaders and the people of 
China. President Clinton should respect Chinese protocol and use the 
opportunity of the Great Hall to expressly honor the memories of those 
who died in Tiananmen Square, while urging that China continue progress 
at all levels for human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that our colleagues vote against this measure.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair advise us how much time 
remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hamilton) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in many instances we see 
bravery by going forward, marching strong and tall. I would hope this 
country would view the visit of the President of the United States just 
in that form.
  I, too, was outraged and overcome with sadness at the tragedy of 
Tiananmen Square in 1989. Thousands of Chinese students marched 
peaceably, children were killed and students were trampled, and 
horrendous and horrific acts perpetrated on the people of China who 
wanted freedom.
  But I would say that this resolution does not speak to that question. 
For if it seriously did, and I believe in human rights and have argued 
vigorously against the travesties in Rwanda and Burundi and Bosnia and 
places around the world, we would not want our President not to go and 
confront the leaders and the tragedy of Tiananmen Square.
  We would want our President to stand tall in that square and declare 
a day of freedom for all of those prisoners who are incarcerated. We 
would want our President to challenge the Chinese on their own 
territory about the travesty of the lack of human rights and human 
dignity in that country.
  This resolution is not a resolution to bring about those kinds of 
acts. It is a partisan one, although I do not in any way argue against 
those who are committed to the issues of human rights. I know that they 
are standing on solid ground. I simply ask them to reconsider whether 
or not any action will come out of this.
  I believe it is extremely important that our President go bravely 
into China, stand up for what America believes in, the human dignity of 
all people, ask for those incarcerated because of their difference in 
views to be freed now and immediately. That is what I want the 
President of the United States to do, to stand for freedom and human 
rights, to do it and say it loudly and to bring the United Nations 
along with him. I believe we can do this better if we allow our 
President to represent us in the way he should.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution that simply 
asks President Clinton not to be formally received at the site of 
Tiananmen Square.
  Tiananmen Square is probably the site of the worst government 
violence brought upon an unarmed population in the last thirty years, 
where at least 2000 people were murdered by their own government.
  I adamantly believe that the President, in light of explosive 
allegations that the Chinese military was attempting to funnel illegal 
campaign donations to political candidates and because of China's 
weapons and nuclear proliferation, should not even travel to the 
People's Republic of China at this point.
  But if he is, the President must send the strongest signal to China 
that we will not accept such butchery on an innocent people.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished minority leader.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, this debate has been a good debate and I want 
to thank the committee for bringing it to the floor. The debate is 
about H. Con. Res. 285, expressing the sense of Congress that the 
President of the United States should reconsider his decision to be 
formally received in Tiananmen Square by the government of the People's 
Republic of China.
  It is unusual. I think we have acknowledged that. It is an unusual 
thing to bring such a resolution to the floor. It is probably even more 
unusual for the resolution to have been brought to the floor by me or 
to have been submitted by me. I listened to the debate, and good points 
were made on both sides of the debate, and I want to thank everybody 
who participated in the debate.
  Why would I do this? It is not my usual posture to suggest that I 
should describe for the President how and where he should travel, where 
he should be received when he travels. What would compel me to do this? 
What compels me is the love of freedom and the scene of that love of 
freedom that I saw 9 years ago on this day, the young students in China 
gathered together on Tiananmen Square.
  They gathered for the purpose of celebrating freedom and democracy. 
They gathered for the purpose of hoping and dreaming, wishing, praying 
and, no doubt, demanding freedom and democracy for themselves. They 
gathered around them on that square the symbols of freedom that they 
knew, even from their relatively closed society, they knew symbols of 
freedom from around the globe. One such symbol of freedom that they 
knew of was the Statue of Liberty in the United States. The students 
had built a papier mache model of that statue and it was, I am sure, 
something of enormous encouragement to them.
  Then the troops confronted the students, armed troops, tanks, we have 
all seen the pictures. We sit there and we wonder why would a lone 
figure stand in the face of those tanks. Why would the students risk 
the carnage that they experienced? The same reason people have risked 
their personal lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor before, 
for the love of freedom.
  They saw during all that carnage their comrades fall, fellow 
students. They must have been as horrified as we were as we watched the 
scenes. They saw the symbol of liberty, the Statue of Liberty in papier 
mache, crushed under the tanks. They later experienced the arrests and 
some of them are there today.

[[Page H4122]]

  One of the things I marveled about 9 years ago and one of the things 
I marvel about today, no matter how rigorously the Government of China 
keeps the message of freedom out, the message is heard by these young 
people. I guess there is an old line, with love all things are 
possible, and with the love of freedom they hear the message of 
freedom.
  They look to America as the peoples of the world look to America for 
freedom, and they see in America many, many symbols of freedom, the 
Statue of Liberty that they reproduced. I expect this building is seen 
by many people around the world and would be seen by these young people 
today in their prisons or worrying about arrest, this Capitol would be 
a symbol of freedom. The White House is seen as a symbol of freedom, 
the eagle.
  Mr. Speaker, to most of the world the President of the United States, 
the American presidency is a symbol of freedom. What an honor. What an 
honor for this great Nation to have our head of State recognized as a 
head of State, as a symbol of a thing so precious as freedom.
  They saw the Chinese army crush their symbol of freedom and it broke 
their hearts. Should these young people now see the symbol of freedom, 
the American presidency, received in Tiananmen Square, celebrated by 
that same government that was so callous and so cruel, so harsh, so 
brutal in crushing their love of freedom?
  It is not about the President, Mr. Speaker. It is not about the 
Congress. It is not about you and I. It is not about American business 
enterprise. It is not about trade. It is about young people with 
freedom and the love of freedom in their hearts and their hopes and 
their dreams, who should not have to observe one of the great world 
symbols of freedom received on what is to them sacred, hallowed ground 
by the despotic government that crushed their dream.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, nine years ago, the People's Liberation Army 
and the State Security Forces of the People's Republic of China turned 
their weapons on a group of unarmed, peaceful demonstrators who had 
gathered in the center of Beijing for several weeks to protest the 
corruption of the communist Chinese government and demand democratic 
reforms and greater freedom. Many of those who had gathered there were 
students--the best and brightest of China--but there were also factory 
workers, older people, families and even party members. They had come 
to Tiananmen Square--the physical and psychic center of China's capital 
city--to peacefully petition for change in their government. This 
peaceful petition was met with bullets and tanks. Between 2,000 and 
5,000 people were killed in and around Tiananmen Square by Chinese 
military and police forces. They were shot in the back as they ran 
away. They were crushed under tank treads. They were killed by 
indiscriminate machine gunfire. They put their own lives at risk to 
save others. They are heroes and martyrs, and we will never know many 
of their names even though we watched their fate unfold on CNN. We 
cannot allow their memory to die and we cannot allow what they stood 
for to be diminished.
  By ordering Chinese troops and police to fire on their own people, 
Jiang Zemin, Li Peng and the rest of the Chinese Politburo earned their 
place in history. Nothing that has happened since can change this fact. 
President Clinton seems determined, however, to create his own place in 
history as the American leader who turned his back on the democracy 
movement in China in order to avoid offending his authoritarian hosts. 
The Chinese leadership remains unapologetic about the events of June 4, 
1989 and they continue to vilify, imprison and exile these brave 
democracy activists. By standing in Tiananmen Square with these men, 
President Clinton lends them and their policies--including the actions 
of June 4th--the veneer of legitimacy they have sought since that 
fateful day. This is unacceptable.
  Tiananmen Square is more than a vast expanse of concrete in the 
middle of Beijing through which one must inevitably cross. It is more 
than a typical example of totalitarian architecture; and it is more 
than a place for ceremonial receptions of foreign dignitaries. 
Tiananmen Square evokes a visceral emotional reaction within those of 
us who followed the events of May and June of 1989. It is the place 
where we saw the spirit of freedom and democracy living in the faces of 
tens of thousands of Chinese people. It is also the place where we saw 
their dreams of freedom and democracy crushed by their own brutal and 
illegitimate government. In 1989, Jiang Zemin and Li Peng--among 
others--made the decision to use force against peaceful demonstrators 
at Tiananmen Square. In June 1998, they will be at Tiananmen Square to 
greet the President of the United States. I believe that such an act is 
an insult to the memory of those who died in the Tiananmen Square 
massacre and those who remain in prison or in exile today as a result 
of their participation in that historic protest. Is this the message 
that we want to send to those inside China and around the world who are 
fighting for freedom and democracy?
  I strongly support the substance of this resolution and I am pleased 
that the House has seen fit to bring it to the floor today. I believe 
that it is important that President Clinton visit China, and that the 
U.S. remain engaged with China. I do not, however, believe that it is 
inconsistent with engagement to join my colleagues in calling on the 
President to honor the memory of those brave Chinese men and women who 
died nine years ago in the name of freedom and democracy by refusing to 
stand in Tiananmen Square with the architects of the massacre that is 
synonymous with that place. Engagement does not mean we fail to stand 
with those who are our values, rather than those who repudiate our 
values. Engagement does not mean that must allow the Chinese 
dictatorship to manipulate a visit by the U.S. president to their own 
political purposes. U.S. policy should not get ``beyond Tiananmen 
Square'' until and unless the Chinese government admits that what 
happened there nine years ago was a mistake and apologizes to the 
Chinese people for this crime which was committed against them. When 
that happens, I will be the first one to urge our President to visit 
Tiananmen Square. Unless he goes to lay a wreath there in memory of the 
victims of June 4th, however, he should not go to Tiananmen Square on 
this trip.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The concurrent resolution is considered as read for amendment.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 454, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GILMAN. 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 305, 
nays 116, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 202]

                               YEAS--305

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Nethercutt

[[Page H4123]]


     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--116

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gillmor
     Gordon
     Green
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Pickett
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith, Adam
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Burr
     Engel
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Lewis (GA)
     McDade
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Serrano

                              {time}  1916

  Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. OLVER, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. TIERNEY 
and Mr. MEEHAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. McINNIS, WALSH, McHUGH, MASCARA and MANTON changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________