[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.
____________________