[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3938-3945]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 SENSE OF CONGRESS URGING CRITICISM OF PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA FOR 
  HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN CHINA AND TIBET AT ANNUAL MEETING OF UNITED 
                   NATIONS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H.Con.Res. 28) expressing the sense of the 
Congress that the United States should introduce and make all efforts 
necessary to pass a resolution criticizing the People's Republic of 
China for its human rights abuses in China and Tibet at the annual 
meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 28

       Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China 
     has signed two important United Nations human rights 
     treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
     Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, 
     and Cultural Rights;
       Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China 
     recognizes the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human 
     Rights, which calls for the protection of the rights of 
     freedom of association, press, assembly, religion, and other 
     fundamental rights and freedoms;
       Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China 
     demonstrates a pattern of continuous, serious, and widespread 
     violations of internationally recognized human rights 
     standards, including violations of the rights described in 
     the preceding clause and the following:
       (1) restricting nongovernmental political and social 
     organizations;
       (2) cracking down on film directors, computer software 
     developers, artists, and the press, including threats of life 
     prison terms;
       (3) sentencing poet and writer, Ma Zhe, to seven years in 
     prison on charges of subversion for publishing an independent 
     literary journal;
       (4) sentencing three pro-democracy activists, Xu Wenli, 
     Wang Youcai, and Qing Yongmin, to long prison sentences in 
     December 1998 for the announced effort to organize an 
     alternative political party committed to democracy and 
     respect for human rights;
       (5) sentencing Zhang Shanguang to prison for ten years for 
     giving Radio Free Asia information about farmer protests in 
     Hunan province;

[[Page 3939]]

       (6) putting on trial businessman Lin Hai for providing e-
     mail addresses to a pro-democracy Internet magazine based in 
     the United States;
       (7) arresting, harassing, and torturing members of the 
     religious community who worship outside of official Chinese 
     churches;
       (8) refusing the United Nations High Commissioner on Human 
     Rights access to the Panchen Lama, Gendun Choekyi Nyima;
       (9) continuing to engage in coercive family planning 
     practices, including forced abortion and forced 
     sterilization; and
       (10) operating a system of prisons and other detention 
     centers in which gross human rights violations, including 
     torture, slave labor, and the commercial harvesting of human 
     organs from executed prisoners, continue to occur;
       Whereas repression in Tibet has increased steadily, 
     resulting in heightened control on religious activity, a 
     denunciation campaign against the Dalai Lama unprecedented 
     since the Cultural Revolution, an increase in political 
     arrests, the secret trial and sentencing of former Middlebury 
     College Fulbright Scholar and Tibetan ethnomusicologist 
     Ngawang Choephel to 18 years in prison on espionage charges, 
     and suppression of peaceful protests, and the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China refuses direct dialogue with 
     the Dalai Lama or his representatives on a negotiated 
     solution for Tibet;
       Whereas the annual meeting of the United Nations Commission 
     on Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland, provides a forum for 
     discussing human rights and expressing international support 
     for improved human rights performance;
       Whereas during his July 1998 visit to the People's Republic 
     of China, President Clinton correctly affirmed the necessity 
     of addressing human rights in United States-China relations; 
     and
       Whereas the United States did not sponsor a resolution on 
     China's human rights record at the 1998 session of the United 
     Nations Commission on Human Rights: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the 
     United States--
       (1) should introduce and make all efforts necessary to pass 
     a resolution criticizing the People's Republic of China for 
     its human rights abuses in China and Tibet at the annual 
     meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights; and
       (2) should immediately contact other governments to urge 
     them to cosponsor and support such a resolution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights and the 
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific for acting expeditiously on H. 
Con. Res. 28, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that our 
Nation should introduce and make all efforts necessary to pass a 
resolution criticizing the People's Republic of China for its human 
rights abuses in China and Tibet at the next annual meeting of the 
United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
  In a December 22, 1998 speech commemorating the 20th anniversary of 
the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Communist Party Central 
Committee, China's President and Party Secretary Jiang Zemin stated 
that China needed to ``nip those factors that undermine social 
stability in the bud, no matter where they come from.'' In that very 
same speech Jiang emphasized, ``the Western mode of political systems 
must never be copied.'' Soon after those remarks, arrests were made of 
key dissidents. To this very day, the crackdown on China's fledgling 
democracy movement continues.
  The Democracy Wall movement in the late 1970s and the Hundred Flowers 
Campaign in the late 1950s were periods when citizens were first 
encouraged to express their beliefs, and then subsequently they were 
severely persecuted for their criticism of the Communist Party and 
their desire for democracy. Similarly, the period before President 
Clinton visited China in June also saw an easing of political 
repression by the authorities, though some of us were concerned that 
this was only a temporary change and that the government would, as it 
has, indeed, revert to form.
  Some so-called China experts would have us believe that this is a 
cyclical historical process. But having seen it done so many times, it 
appears to us to be a method to flush out dissidents and to be able to 
preserve power.
  In the last 8 months, the Communist government in China has carried 
out the most symptomatic crackdown on democracy activists since the 
Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. Scores of democracy activists have 
been arrested, hundreds more have been detained, and three leaders, Xu 
Wenli, Wang Youcai and Qin Yongmin have been sentenced to long prison 
terms.
  I ask, is the administration certain that it still wants a strategic 
partnership with such a government?
  In December, our Select Committee on U.S. National Security and 
Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China 
released their report stating that China has been stealing weapons 
designs from American nuclear laboratories and obtaining sensitive 
computer missile and satellite technologies. A select committee 
confirmed Pentagon and State Department findings that two American 
companies not only helped the Chinese space industry, but also may have 
helped improve the reliability of China's missiles. Yet, every year, 
billions of dollars of more goods from Chinese sweatshops and from 
their labor camps come into our Nation adding to our growing trade 
deficit with China.
  In a few months, flush with foreign currency reserves, the PLA, the 
Chinese military organization, will be receiving SS-N-22 Sunburn 
missiles that they bought from Russia. Those missiles are designed to 
destroy our most sophisticated naval ships. If in the future China 
blockades democratic Taiwan, I ask how effective will our Seventh Fleet 
be? We question what the administration has done to prevent the Chinese 
from obtaining such deadly missiles.
  We have now learned that Beijing stole nuclear weapon technology from 
our labs. The New York Times reported that the administration knew that 
this was going on since 1997. Last weekend in Beijing, Secretary 
Albright met with the Chinese leaders, and we were pleased that she 
raised the issue of the ongoing crackdown of the democracy movement 
there and in occupied Tibet. Regrettably, years of words not backed up 
by any action has gone on much too long, through too many 
administrations, and has permitted our Nation's security and our 
economy to be weakened and our moral stand to be questioned.
  If the administration seriously supports a resolution in Geneva, as 
H. Con. Res. 28 recommends, then it would give some help to those brave 
Chinese and Tibetan democracy advocates who are struggling against the 
brutal dictatorship in Beijing, and it would give the American people 
some hope that perhaps this administration has started to reformulate a 
China policy that we feel has been misguided and has been a disaster.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 28.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and I rise in strong support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened to the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations, and there are many observations 
that he made with which I agree. He has been an effective champion of 
human rights in China, and I pay tribute to him for his human rights 
efforts as they relate to China and other countries.
  But I need to correct the historical record as it comes to 
administration policy. As one who has opposed administration policy 
with respect to China under both Republican and Democratic 
administrations because I believe they both have been ill-advised, as 
the most recent spying episode so dramatically underscores, it is 
important to keep the record straight and to keep the bipartisan voice 
of Congress honest.
  Our Republican colleagues are in no position to be surprised that 
China has been spying on the United States. That spying has been going 
on during the last many years. It did not originate last year or the 
year before, and the previous 2 Republican administrations

[[Page 3940]]

bear their full share of the responsibility as we now see the chickens 
coming home to roost.
  So the historical record must be made clear. China's human rights 
record is abominable. We have spent untold hours in committee and on 
this floor denouncing China's human rights record, ranging from forced 
abortion to the restriction of the right of individuals to practice 
their religion, from the lack of press freedom to the lack of political 
freedom, and recent developments in China clearly indicate that the 
human rights condition has deteriorated in recent months. It is now 
reaching a new low. There is not much dispute on this floor about the 
abominable human rights record of China.
  What this resolution calls for is for our administration to introduce 
and support at Geneva at the United Nations Human Rights Commission 
meeting a powerful resolution denouncing China's human rights record, 
and to lobby and lead the way so we will have enough friends and allies 
in that organization so that our resolution will, in fact, prevail. I 
think it is important for this administration to understand that the 
other body passed a similar resolution urging the administration to 
denounce China's human rights policy in Geneva by a vote of 99-to-
nothing.
  When this debate is over, I will ask for a recorded vote in this 
body, and I suspect we will have a similar overwhelming vote calling on 
our administration to introduce and to lead the fight to denounce 
China's human rights record.

                              {time}  1400

  We speak powerfully when we speak on a bipartisan basis. I am 
critical of our administration for not having introduced this 
resolution at last year's meeting, and I expect my Republican 
colleagues to be equally critical of previous Republican 
administrations for their attempt to sweep China's abominable human 
rights policy under the rug.
  Human rights transcend parties and differences. We should be 
demanding human rights for the people of China, and we should demand, 
whether we have a Republican or a Democrat in the White House, that the 
United States stand up for our own principles.
  I call on all of my colleagues to join me in urging our State 
Department to introduce and to lead to a successful vote a resolution 
denouncing China and China's abominable human rights policies.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to my 
friend and neighbor, the gentlewoman from San Francisco, California 
(Ms. Pelosi) someone who has been a leader in the fight for human 
rights in China.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for yielding time to 
me. I again applaud him for his great leadership on human rights 
throughout the world. I associate myself with the remarks in his 
statement, both in support of human rights and in clarifying the record 
about the bipartisan nature of the security issues that were raised by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  I also want to salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the 
distinguished chairman of the committee. He has been a champion on 
human rights throughout the world. He has worked tirelessly for human 
rights in China and Tibet, and he has been an articulate voice that 
should be a comfort for all of those who fight for freedom throughout 
the world.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a particularly significant year for us, the 
U.S., to take the lead on the U.N. resolution in Geneva. It has been 40 
years since the Dalai Lama fled Tibet. It has been 20 years since the 
democracy wall repression in China, where those who dared speak out for 
freedom in 1979 were arrested for very long prison terms.
  It has been, can we believe it, Mr. Speaker, 10 years since the 
tragedy of Tiananmen Square, since the massacre of those young people 
who dared to take as their symbol our statute of liberty, and as their 
clarion call the words of our Founding Fathers.
  So it behooves the United States of America in this particularly 
significant anniversary year that commemorates serious repression in 
China and Tibet to take the lead, as our colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) said, not only to introduce a resolution but to 
urge other countries to support it, too.
  In the absence of our leadership brave Denmark, in which the United 
States is so ably represented by the son-in-law of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) and his family as our distinguished ambassadors 
there, brave Denmark introduced the resolution.
  China's response? China said this resolution, at the U.N. commission, 
will be the rock which smashes Denmark's head. How distinguished of 
them to frame it in that way. But let us show the bravery of Denmark. 
It is the very least, I think, that we can do.
  Some of our allies, the Brits, for example, said they were not going 
to introduce the resolution because they were going to give China this 
year to demonstrate an improvement in human rights, and then make an 
evaluation this year. Well, what did they see in that year but 
increased repression?
  Sure, there was a show when President Clinton went to China, and 
there was just enough done on both sides for domestic consumption, both 
in China and in the United States. But the fact is, and as the record 
shows, it was not real.
  I have been an ardent supporter of human rights in China, and foe of 
the failed policy of both the Republican and the Democratic 
administrations. The irony of it all is that we are diminishing our 
voice in human rights for trade purposes, and ha, ha, ha, the Chinese 
regime has the last laugh there, because they have refused to open 
their markets to our products.
  Our reward for ignoring their human rights violations and their 
repression is a $60 billion trade deficit with China; $60 billion for 
the Chinese regime to buy more weapons for their military and more 
money to consolidate their position in power, and to continue to 
repress those who speak out for democratic reforms, the same democratic 
reforms, by the way, which they, in theory, signed up to support when 
they signed the U.N. Technician resolution, which they have not 
ratified and which they have not implemented.
  Mr. Speaker, what is it that will happen if this resolution passes? 
If this resolution passes on the Floor, we will be giving the Clinton 
administration the leverage that they need, the leverage that they need 
to go in to the U.N. Commission and say, the Congress of the United 
States, speaking for the people of the United States, wants us not to 
ignore the human rights violations in China any longer.
  If we win, and if we are serious about our leadership there we will 
win, because our failure will be indicative of our lack of enthusiasm 
there, and we have to get moving soon, but if we win there, it will 
make a serious difference to the pro-democratic reforms in China. We 
lose all moral authority to talk about human rights anyplace in the 
world if we refuse to speak up on it in a place because there are some 
trade deals involved. Our ideals and our deals are important. We cannot 
ignore our ideals.
  So let us hope that when the President and the administration boast 
of having a consensus for their trade policy with China, which they do 
boast, that they will now also recognize the vote in Congress; as the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) indicated, 99 to nothing in the 
Senate, and congratulations to them in the other body, and hopefully we 
will have a unanimous vote in this House of Representatives. When we 
do, we will be sending a very clear message to the Chinese regime that 
we know what is going on there.
  My colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) very 
generously named many of the prisoners there. They say, Mr. Speaker, 
the most excruciating form of torture to a prisoner of conscience is to 
tell him or her that nobody in the world knows that they are there or 
cares that they are there.
  Today this Congress has the opportunity to say, we know you are 
there, we salute your fight for freedom, we want to associate ourselves 
with your

[[Page 3941]]

aspirations, we want to live up to the legacy of our Founding Fathers, 
and we are not going to be a prisoner, ourselves, of any trade 
relationship; one, of course, that does not even advantage us. Because 
what would it profit a country if it gained the whole world in terms of 
money, but suffered the loss of its soul?
  Today we have an opportunity, because of the leadership of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) to make our message a very 
clear one, and urge the administration, in the strongest possible vote, 
to support and take the lead on the resolution in Geneva.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the gentlewoman from California 
for her supporting remarks. As the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) indicated earlier, she has been a long-term fighter for human 
rights around the world, and particularly in China. We are grateful for 
her strong advocacy of this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of our committee.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 
28. This resolution is right on a number of counts. It is right 
philosophically, it is right practically, it is right in terms of 
trying to get the American people to think about the defense and 
technology policies that bind us to the People's Republic of China.
  First of all, in terms of the principle of House Concurrent 
Resolution 28, the principle is that we are asking the United States, 
and I commend the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) 
for the strong leadership he has always had, and my good friends on the 
other side of the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) and others who have long fought the battle that 
human rights and democracy should mean more to the people of the United 
States than just platitudes on the Fourth of July.
  The fact is that human rights and democracy are the foundation of 
what makes us, as Americans, different from people elsewhere in the 
world. The United States of America, unlike other countries, is not 
composed of a single religion or a single culture or a single ethnic 
group. We are people who are made up of various races and various 
religions. The one thing that binds us together is a love of liberty 
and justice, and a sense of human decency and honor that is not found 
as the basis of other societies.
  This is the glue that ties together the United States of America. 
When that glue is in some way loosened, or in some way becomes 
unaffixed, it is a threat, it is a dire threat, not only to ourselves 
but to people around the world that depend so dearly on the commitment 
of our country to the founding principles.
  In fact, the United States of America, without our commitment to 
human freedom and democracy, there is no freedom and democracy anywhere 
in the world that is not threatened by our own lack of commitment.
  Today this resolution underscores that. It insists that even though 
in other countries, for pragmatic reasons, they may be afraid of what 
is going on in China, afraid to make the Communist Chinese regime in 
Beijing mad at them, they are not willing to vocalize those concerns 
about human rights abuses that are going on in the mainland of China, 
this resolution insists that the United States take the principled 
stand in these international bodies and officially oppose the 
degeneration of the human rights situation in Communist China.
  I know it has already been stated, but on February 26 the State 
Department issued its human rights report and found that over the last 
year, in terms of human rights, China's record has ``sharply 
deteriorated.'' This is unfortunate, because the policies of the United 
States have not kept pace with the deterioration of human rights that 
is going on in China. At least this resolution will put us, in 
principle, where we should be in terms of this vital issue.
  There is a symmetry in this world. If we are not right on the issues 
of human rights and democracy, if we base our principles on something 
other than those principles that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson 
laid out, no matter how imperfect we were in those days, and how we 
have struggled to overcome our imperfections over these many decades 
and into this century, those principles hold firm, and trying to use 
those principles as a guiding light has served our country well, and 
has served the world well.
  One note. If it was not for the commitment of the people of the 
United States to democracy and freedom, the Nazis and the Japanese 
militarists would undoubtedly dominate this planet at this time. 
Undoubtedly the millions of people who died under the genocide of the 
Nazis, there would be millions more people who would have died under 
the genocide of communists and Nazis and other dictatorships.
  So it was our commitment, it was the Saving Private Ryan generation, 
that not only saved Private Ryan but saved the world and provided us, 
provided us with a message. It is now our job. They have done their 
duty. We must do ours. So this goes a long way in establishing that 
principle.
  But there are practical issues when we set this principle down. 
Although this is not dealt with specifically in this resolution, I will 
mention them only in passing. We must, when setting down this 
principle, that human rights counts, democracy counts, and that if a 
country is the world's worst human rights abuser and is expanding its 
military power, that that is a concern for us; that we must then look 
at our policies and say, is it indeed right that we treat the People's 
Republic of China, the world's worst human rights abuser, in the same 
way that we treat Belgium or Italy or other democratic countries?
  This is a national debate that we need to have. We need to know what 
we should do in situations like this. Congress does not have all the 
answers, but we do know that in the last 10 years, as the human rights 
situation in China has continued to decline, as there has been more and 
more repression, as there has been genocide, genocide in Tibet and 
murders in the Muslim areas in the far reaches of China, as well as the 
repression of people of religion in China, we have not changed our 
trade policies or some of our other policies to deal with this.
  We condemn those policies or actions today, but we need to have a 
discussion, an honest and open discussion of what our trade policies 
should be. As it is, our trade policy has provided the Communist 
Chinese regime with billions of dollars worth of surplus which they are 
using to upgrade their military capabilities and to increase the 
control over their own people.
  By the way, this trade policy is done at the expense of our own 
people. Quite often we are subsidizing the investment of manufacturing 
units in China which are then used to manufacture goods to put our own 
people out of work. This may be a policy that we might not want to have 
with a democratic country; but to a dictatorship, for a country that is 
the world's worst human rights abuser, to a country that is expanding 
its military power, I do not think so.

                              {time}  1415

  Finally, we have to confront the issue as has become more evident 
this weekend when, finally, word leaked out about the technology 
transfers, the awesome technology transfers that have taken place over 
these last few decades.
  The Communist Chinese, not only have been able to obtain military 
technology, sophisticated military technology, but they have obtained 
technology that will permit them to produce weapons of mass destruction 
that put in jeopardy the lives of millions of Americans.

[[Page 3942]]

  Then we hear about American companies trying to keep down the cost of 
putting in satellites by increasing the reliability and the efficiency 
of Communist Chinese rockets to deliver those very same weapons of mass 
destruction possibly to the United States if we are ever in a 
confrontation.
  These are items that can no longer be ignored. These are things that 
should be on our agenda to discuss as a free and democratic people, a 
people of goodwill on both sides of the aisle.
  Today we express our concern for the principle, for the underlying 
principle of human rights and democracy. We express this to reconfirm 
our commitment to what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and our 
Founding Fathers talked about. But we should also reaffirm it as the 
foundation of practical policy.
  So today, as I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 28, I would also call 
on my colleagues to begin a debate, a sincere debate on how this 
positive stand for human rights should be interpreted in our trade and 
technology and defense policies that guide our country.
  I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and for the 
leadership he has provided, the leadership that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) has provided on human rights throughout the 
years.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my friend and colleague.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate my 
words with those stated by the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Gilman) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member. Let me 
acknowledge again the very dedicated, committed, and consistent voice 
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has been on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a little repentance and a question as 
well, because I think, if the American people understand why we are 
here on the floor of the House, there may be a wave of support for 
having this resolution under our name in the United Nations, this 
resolution to condemn the human rights abuses in China.
  I say that because, as the weekend approaches, whether it is Friday 
evening, whether, for Muslims, it is throughout the week at different 
times, whether it is a Sabbath Saturday or a Sabbath Sunday, we are 
unfettered by our ability to worship our God or our beliefs or express 
those beliefs.
  If there are those that would interfere with religious beliefs, we 
can be assured that we have access to grievance and to a response. How 
would we like to have a country, a Nation that we live in that 
continues to turn up its nose on the issue of mere, simple and obvious 
rights for their people?
  China has continued to do this in a very arrogant manner, to the 
extent that when Denmark offered to have this resolution presented to 
denounce their human rights, they indicated that they would be crushed.
  Where are our principles? Yes, I believe in trade. In fact, I have 
been convinced on one or two occasions that China should be 
constructively engaged. So my repentance is such that I have offered 
them an olive branch. I have said, ``If we engage with you, will you 
understand that Tiananmen Square meant something to Americans, that the 
Dalai Lama means something to Americans? The Dalai Lama means something 
to us. The people of Tibet need to be able to respect and acknowledge 
their leader. Forced abortions mean something to us.''
  So I think it is more than appropriate for a nation who has, time 
after time, received from Republican administrations and Democratic 
administrations the push for Most Favored Nation, of which it seems 
that we have not benefited. My own city of Houston has just recently 
returned officials from a trade mission because we are looking to 
engage.
  Now I believe, Mr. Speaker, is the time that we follow the other body 
and unanimously engage with China and have this motion before the 
United Nations, using every ounce of strength that the United States 
has. We will not tolerate the human rights abuse. We will stand up and 
be counted for all of the tragedies and the incarcerated persons and 
the elimination of religious freedom. Now is the time.
  Let me say on the floor of the House, I have repented. It is a time 
now to address the question of human rights abuse for China to hear us 
loudly and clearly before we go one step of the way.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 28, which urges 
the introduction and passage of a resolution on the human rights 
situation in the People's Republic of China at the United Nations 
Commission on Human Rights.
  I know that physically the United States can do very little to 
relieve the suffering of people in other nations at the hands of their 
own governments. However, we as members of this representative body on 
the behalf of the American people and those without voices can advocate 
our concerns regarding human rights policies which are inconsistent 
with our own interest and values.
  In its annual report on human rights, the State Department stated 
that the human rights situation in China has continued to ``deteriorate 
sharply.'' The government in Beijing continues to commit ``widespread 
and well documented human rights abuses.''
  Despite China's recognition and signature on two United Nations human 
rights treaties, China's government continues to commit widespread 
violations of internationally recognized standards. These violations 
include torturing prisoners, forcing confessions, restricting non-
governmental political and social organizations, and restricting the 
press.
  The Chinese government has continued its repression of religious 
freedom outside of the official Chinese church. This religious 
crackdown has manifested itself in Tibet, with the continued 
denunciation of the Dalai Lama. Tibet continues to see an increase in 
the number of political arrests and the Chinese suppression of peaceful 
protests.
  With these human rights abuses in mind this body must and should 
encourage the Administration to support and make all efforts necessary 
to pass a resolution at the annual meeting of the United Nations 
Commission on Human Rights criticizing the People's Republic of China 
for its human rights abuses in China and Tibet.
  In the past the Government of China has made some modest improvements 
in human rights just before the annual Human Rights Commission 
consideration of a China resolution. For example, we know that 
conditions for political prisoners improve when the resolution is being 
debated and they deteriorate when the resolve of the United States 
weakens.
  China in the past has shown a willingness to respond to the concerns 
of the United States regarding human rights, and I believe that this 
resolution will prompt the attention of the Chinese government.
  The Senate has already signaled its frustration and displeasure with 
the Chinese government's human rights record by passing a similar 
resolution to the one now being debated by a unanimous vote. Therefore, 
Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support House 
Concurrent Resolution 28.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her very powerful and eloquent statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield as much time as he might consume 
to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), my friend, who has been a 
champion of all human rights causes globally and will now speak on the 
issue of China.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) very much for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the fact 
that he is perhaps the conscience of this Congress in terms of human 
rights. We thank him very much for his work, and we applaud the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his leadership as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which 
addresses the horrendous record that China has on human rights, both 
within their own borders and within Tibet as well.
  Under the 50 years of the Chinese occupation, the Tibetan people have 
been denied most rights guaranteed in the universal declaration of 
human rights, including the rights to self-determination, freedom of 
speech, assembly, movement, expression, and travel.
  In the 20 years after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, 1.2 million or 20 
percent of Tibet's population was killed. Today the Chinese are further 
undermining Tibet

[[Page 3943]]

with a massive influx of ethnic Chinese into Tibet. In some areas, 
Chinese outnumber Tibetans by two or three to one. With this influx, 
the Chinese are controlling the cultural, economic, and religious life 
as well as the political and military structure in Tibet.
  Religious repression is one of the cruelest aspects of the Chinese 
regime in Tibet. Over 6,000 monasteries and sacred places have been 
destroyed by the Chinese who are making a concerted effort to wipe 
Tibetan Buddhism off the face of the Earth.
  Interestingly, and one of the reasons I became involved in this 
issue, is that the horrendous human rights record in China struck home 
to the people of the State of Vermont, and specifically the people of 
Middlebury College Community when the Fulbright scholar and former 
Middlebury College student Ngawang Choephel was seized by the Chinese 
authorities in 1995 for the crime of doing videotaping in Tibet.
  He was charged for this horrendous crime of using a videotape to 
record the culture of Tibet. He was charged with espionage, and the 
result is that he was tried in secret. No evidence has ever been made 
public to support the charges of espionage, which most of us think is 
absolute nonsense.
  Ngawang Choephel was sentenced to 18 years in jail for videotaping 
cultural activities in Tibet. His frail elderly mother, Sonam Dekyi, 
who I had the privilege of meeting in Middlebury, Vermont, is spending 
all of her energy, not only trying to get her son out of jail, but 
trying to visit him, to see what is going on, and she has up to this 
point not been successful.
  In July of last year, Ngawang Choephel was transferred to Puatromo 
Prison, which is a high security facility in a remote isolated area. 
Unlike other prisons, inmates are denied visitation rights. This is a 
brutal treatment for an innocent young man. Yet it is treatment of 
Tibetans, and worse occurs regularly under the Communist Chinese rule.
  My friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, recognizes 
the plight of Ngawang Choephel and was kind enough to insert an 
amendment into the resolution specifically citing Choephel's unjust 
imprisonment as an example of China's violation of basic human rights.
  I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) as well as the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) who is the ranking member, for 
their attention to the plight of this young man. I would also like to 
thank the committee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) 
and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) the ranking member, 
for their commitment for human rights and for bringing this resolution 
forward.
  I would simply conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that, as the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) mentioned a moment ago, I 
think, as important as this action is, we have got to go further and 
ask ourselves why we continue to provide Most Favored Nation status to 
China, why we continue to sit back while major corporation after major 
corporation throws American workers out on the street, runs to China 
where people are paid 20 cents and hour and have no basic democratic 
rights.
  So I think that whole issue of trade and responsibility of an element 
of corporate America to perpetuate and strengthen the regime in Peking 
has got to be addressed as well.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos) has 30 seconds.
  Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) will 
control the time allotted to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) 
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we 
have 6 additional minutes equally divided between us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), one of the most 
effective and successful champions of human rights in this body.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time. I want to thank 
also the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) for his graciously 
asking for additional time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 28 and urge my 
colleagues to do the same. We must make it clear to the government of 
China that it will not be business as usual with the United States if 
they continue to abuse their own citizens. Some of us frankly have been 
voting that way consistently on MFN.
  The government of China rhetorically recognizes the universal 
declaration of human rights and, indeed, its own constitution and laws 
provide for fundamental rights. That is, of course, on paper. 
Obviously, and tragically, these laws are honored more in the breach 
than in the practice. In fact, according to the recently released State 
Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices in China, the 
situation has substantially deteriorated since President Clinton's 
visit in July of last year.
  Beginning in the fall, dozens of political activists were arrested 
for attempts to register a political party and engage in other 
political activities which we believe to be fundamental to the rights 
of individuals.
  Over 30 members and supporters of the China Democracy Party were 
detained, and three of its leaders were sentenced to lengthy jail terms 
in closed trials that flagrantly violated due process.
  The State Department report also reveals that the government of China 
continues to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses, 
including extrajudicial killings, torture, and mistreatment of 
prisoners, forced concessions, and arbitrary arrests and detention.
  At a minimum, Mr. Speaker, our government should take the steps 
called for by H. Con. Res. 28 and formally rebuke the government of 
China before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
  Mr. Speaker, the Statute of Liberty stands at the gateway of America 
and says, ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning 
to breath free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, send these, 
the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me.'' Millions have come seeking 
freedom, seeking justice, seeking fundamental human rights.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Speaker, we know that America cannot take all of the homeless, 
all of those tossed by tempest within our borders. But what we can do, 
and what we must do, as the leader not just of the free world but as 
the leader of the world committed fundamentally to human rights, we 
need to speak up, speak out, and act upon our principles, and make it 
clear to the rest of the world that we will not do business as usual 
with those who undermine human rights in this world.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I 
urge strong support of this resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 28, 
the Gilman-Gephardt resolution which urges the United States to sponsor 
a human rights resolution regarding Chinese violations at the U.N. 
Human Rights Commission in Geneva and, equally important, to work 
vigorously for the resolution, not just to introduce it, but to work 
very hard with other member states to secure its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, on January 8, the Committee on International Relations 
held a hearing on the ongoing and very deplorable state of human rights 
in China

[[Page 3944]]

today. Each of our witnesses was a prisoner of conscience who had 
recently managed to get out of China. All of them called for the United 
States to be far more forceful in responding to the human rights 
violations in China than we had been in recent years. The following 
week we heard from human rights organizations, and each and every one 
of them agreed that our policy of constructive engagement has been a 
failure.
  I would remind my colleagues that last year, and the year before, and 
the year before that, and even when the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) was chairman of the subcommittee that I now chair, we held 
hearing after hearing--matter of fact, in the last 4 years alone, about 
a dozen hearings--on the deplorable state of human rights in China. We 
heard from Harry Wu, that great leader who spent years in the laogai, 
who got out and actually went back to try to bear witness to the 
ongoing oppression that comes the way of religious and political 
prisoners in China.
  We heard from Wei Jingsheng, and many other political prisoners, who 
had been tortured, who had suffered unspeakable atrocities, both 
psychological and physical. And they said that we need to know the true 
nature of this regime; that it is oppressive.
  We have heard about Tibet, and we heard from the representatives of 
the Dalai Lama. Richard Gere came to one of our hearings on refugees 
and spoke very eloquently about how the Buddist nuns and priests are 
routinely tortured.
  I will never forget when we heard from survivors of the laogai, the 
gulag system. Six of them came before us: Catherine Ho, Palden Gyatso, 
and many others. Palden Gyatso, a Buddhist monk, came in with some of 
the implements routinely used to torture people. He could not even get 
through security downstairs in the Rayburn Building. We had to escort 
him through. And he told of the agony that is routinely visited upon 
these individuals.
  We heard from Mrs. Gao, a woman who used to run a forced abortion, 
forced sterilization program in Fujian Province. She got out, with the 
assistance of Harry Wu, and she told story after story about how women 
as late as in the ninth month of their pregnancy would be forcibly 
aborted.
  We heard from women who had escaped on the Golden Venture at another 
hearing, and how one woman, when 6 months into her pregnancy, was 
forcibly aborted by the dictatorship, to comply with the one child per 
couple policy.
  We heard from another woman who found a baby girl who had been 
abandoned, because very often girls are abandoned in China, when 
couples are only allowed one child. She scooped up that child, like the 
good samaritan that she was, only to have the family planning cadres 
come knocking at her door to say that now that she had her one child, 
she must be forcibly aborted and she needed to be sterilized.
  These are the every day realities of what goes on in the People's 
Republic of China: Religious persecution of the house church movement 
and the Catholic church. All of them suffer unbelievable cruelty at the 
hands of the Chinese dictatorship.
  Amnesty International recently issued a report card, and they made it 
known at our hearing on China. They listed a number of concrete 
benchmarks and said let us look at these areas and determine whether or 
not constructive engagement has indeed borne any fruit. In each one of 
those categories, they found total failure.
  For example, they spoke of the release of the Tiananmen Square 
prisoners and other prisoners of conscience. Their verdict: Total 
failure.
  Review all counterrevolutionary prison terms. Bottom line, total 
failure.
  Allow religious freedom. Their bottom line: Continued strong 
repression.
  Prevent coercive family planning and the harvesting of organs: They 
said, no improvement.
  Amnesty then went on to speak of the implementation of the so-called 
the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Chinese 
government milked for all it was worth. They have not even implemented 
it yet, as we all know. They signed it and got all these accolades in 
the west, including the United States, with perhaps no intention of 
following through on the rights that were enumerated in there.
  Let us be mindful of this flimflam game they play. They sign a scrap 
of paper here, an important treaty there, and then they do not follow 
through, and there is no implementation.
  Also, Amnesty International raised the issue of police and prison 
brutality. We know--and the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 
clearly documents this, as do report after report from the human rights 
community--that torture is routinely used against dissidents and 
prisoners of conscience and religious individuals. Routinely.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution that is before us today urges the 
administration to do the very least it can do to try to rectify this 
egregious situation. Indeed, in 1994, when President Clinton delinked 
human rights from Most Favored Nation status for China, an annual 
resolution at Geneva was going to be, by his own reckoning, the 
centerpiece of what he would do to try to thwart the human rights 
violations in that country.
  As of today, the administration apparently still has not decided 
whether or not it will proceed with a resolution this year. The Human 
Rights Commission begins on March 22. And as we all know, the other 
body has already gone on record unanimously--my hope is we will as 
well--saying bring this resolution to Geneva, let us vote on it and, 
hopefully, let us prevail.
  Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human 
Rights of the Committee on International Relations, which I chair, did 
add the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), at his 
request. And let me say there are many others that could be added as 
well. But that just underscores the extent of the Chinese government's 
barbaric behavior.
  Last week, for example, 10 Uighur political and religious prisoners 
were executed. We have heard from people who have talked about the 
Uighur minority and how they are discriminated against. Everywhere we 
look, the Tibetans, the Han Chinese themselves, and the Uighurs are all 
singled out whenever they have a different religion, because, 
obviously, China is an atheistic state, and those believers do not 
conform to the very, very carefully circumscribed limits of the 
officially recognized churches. Step across that line, and the full 
weight of the Chinese dictatorship will be brought to bear against you.
  Just so all Americans understand, one individual was given an 11-year 
prison sentence for giving an interview, an interview, to Radio Free 
Asia. He talked to the press. And for that he was yanked by the 
dictatorship, by their cronies, and thrown into prison. He is now 
serving an 11-year prison sentence.
  This barbaric behavior has to stop. The minimum we should do is to 
try to raise the issue rhetorically at the U.N. Human Rights 
Convention. Not to do that would be an outrage. I hope the Clinton 
administration will hear us, and I urge support for this resolution.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 28, a 
resolution urging the United States to cosponsor a resolution 
condemning China's human rights record at the United Nations Commission 
on Human Rights. I commend Chairman Gilman for introducing this 
resolution and moving it through the committee so quickly. A similar 
resolution passed the Senate by a vote of 99-0. That should set an 
example for this body. I hope H. Con. Res. 28 will pass the House 
unanimously today.
  The United Nations Human Rights Commission is the forum within the 
United Nations system established for the express purpose of examining 
and voicing concern about the human rights practices of member 
countries. Its resolutions are not binding in any way, but they do have 
the effect of raising awareness and holding countries accountable to 
their international human rights commitments. China, as a member of the 
United Nations, has agreed to the Universal Declaration on Human 
Rights. It has also signed the International Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights, a treaty-like document which obliges it to uphold 
certain basic freedoms of its citizens.

[[Page 3945]]

Among these are the freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention; 
freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom from torture; 
freedom of expression; freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to 
fair and speedy trial.
  It agreed to sign this covenant last year at this time and doing so 
enabled China to avoid criticism at the 1998 Commission. The Clinton 
administration cited China's willingness to sign the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as the reason why it did not go 
forward with a resolution in 1998.
  Mr. Speaker, this year there is no excuse. China's human rights 
record is as bad as ever.
  Since July 1998, the Chinese government has arrested over 100 
prominent democracy activists, giving many long prison sentences in 
unfair trials. Their crime was expressing their views--acting on their 
conscience. An intense crackdown earlier this year coincided with the 
start of talks between U.S. and Chinese officials in a so-called--and 
much touted--``human rights dialogue.'' The crackdown was a message--we 
are willing to talk about human rights but we know we don't have to 
take any action. Thousands of political prisoners remain in jail.
  Religious believers in China have continued to suffer persecution. 
Catholic bishops and priests continue to be jailed and tortured. The 
Vatican reported earlier this year that Chinese authorities tortured a 
31-year-old priest by subjecting him to physical and psychological 
pressure. They brought in prostitutes to tempt him and then video-taped 
his ordeal as a way to break his spirit.
  Protestant house church leaders are on the run, fearful for their 
lives and freedom. Reports indicate that almost all the leaders of 
China's largest house churches--the name given to the vast network of 
underground churches--are forced to move from place to place to avoid 
arrest.
  Though persecution of house churches varies from region to region, it 
is Chinese government policy to crack down on China's underground 
churches. A number of documents smuggled out of China in recent years 
have revealed the local communist party's plans to eradicate the 
underground church. For example, such a document revealed last year 
that in July 1998, municipal authorities in Hua Shen complained to 
their superiors about the activities of an ``illegal missionary'' whose 
preaching has begun to attract more and more followers. ``He has been 
arrested and educated many times, and yet his heart has not died and 
his nature has not changed'' party officials report. His religious 
gatherings draw people from neighboring towns--sometimes as many as 
1,000 at a time--and has ``become the largest illegal religious group * 
* * It has created an interference effect,'' the report says. It calls 
on all local municipal units to coordinate their activities in order to 
``effectively crack down illegal religious activities and create 
favorable conditions for the stability and development of our town.''
  That is not religious freedom, Mr. Speaker. This is religious 
persecution.
  In Tibet where the Buddhist religion is a deep part of the culture, 
the communist party has begun a campaign to encourage Tibetan Buddhists 
to become atheists. This is only the latest anti-religion campaign 
waged by the PRC against the Tibetan Buddhists.
  The Chinese Government has closed monasteries and nunneries and 
expelled monks and nuns. Since 1996, some 9,977 monks and nuns have 
been expelled from their monasteries--7,000 in 1998 alone. A reported 
492 monks and nuns have been arrested since May, 1996--135 in 1998. Of 
these, 13 died in prison from torture. Many others were released just 
before they died. Torture is rampant in Tibetan prisons. Hundreds of 
Tibetans continue to flee across the treacherous Himalayan Mountains to 
reach freedom in Nepal and India. Some even send their children--
fearing there is no future left for them in Tibet.
  Amnesty International reported that a group of young Uighurs were 
sentenced to death recently on political charges. Uighurs are Muslim 
people living in the Northwest province of Xinjiang. They have reported 
severe persecution, the closing of mosques, and overall discrimination 
against their population by the Chinese Government. It has also been 
reported that Chinese nuclear weapons are tested in areas populated by 
Uighurs--leading to birth defects and other problems.
  But, Mr. Speaker, despite all these facts, the Clinton administration 
sits on their hands when it comes to exerting multi-lateral diplomatic 
effort to end China's human rights abuses. We dilly-dally and postpone 
our decision about sponsoring a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights 
Commission, making it almost inevitable that any such resolution will 
be defeated.
  China is not sitting on its hands. It is probably already lobbying 
its friends hard against such a resolution. Human Rights Watch 
documented China's efforts to defeat a resolution in 1997--by dangling 
millions of dollars worth of contracts in front of governments willing 
to vote with them.
  But the Clinton administration is not even willing to exert 
diplomatic leadership to generate support for a resolution of 
condemnation.
  This is not leadership and it does illustrate a commitment to human 
rights on the part of U.S. Government.
  We talk tough, then appease the PRC. We look the other way while 
China steals American technology to enhance its military capability and 
then appease the PRC by giving Chinese leaders state and high-level 
visits to the United States. We say we care about human rights, but we 
don't use multi-lateral frameworks to advance them.
  Our policy is a failure.
  I hope my colleagues will support H. Con. Res. 28 and I hope the 
administration will not let China off the hook in Geneva.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H. 
Con. Res. 28, expressing the sense of the Congress that the United 
States should introduce and seek to secure passage of a resolution 
criticizing Chinese human rights abuses at the annual meeting of the 
United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
  There is no question that the recent actions by the Chinese 
authorities to criminalize the activities of individuals seeking to 
organize a new political party are in direct contradiction to China's 
stated commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its 
signature last year of the International Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights. The prosecution of some Chinese citizens for their 
contacts with foreign individuals and their alleged passing of ``state 
secrets'' in some instances also appear to be serious breaches of 
China's obligation to respect universally recognized human rights 
standards. Such efforts to control freedom of expression are deeply 
disturbing, and reflect a government that is unsure about its 
legitimacy.
  Mr. Speaker, China's internal situation clearly remains a complex 
mixture of positive and negative developments. The resolution correctly 
refers to other areas of ongoing concern with respect to China's human 
rights performance, including family planning practices, the situation 
in Tibet, freedom of religion and the penal system. At the same time, 
this Member believes it is important not to lose sight of some of the 
progress being achieved, for example, in the area of multi-candidate 
elections at the village level in certain regions and in the continued 
trend toward increased personal freedom of Chinese citizens to pursue 
their economic betterment.
  While not discounting improvements where they are discernible, this 
Member also believes that when China takes steps that are clearly 
retrograde in the area of human rights, the Administration must condemn 
such actions forthrightly, both bilaterally and in appropriate 
multilateral settings. The Administration's decision not to introduce a 
resolution on human rights in China at the 1998 meeting of the United 
Nations Commission on Human Rights was a serious error, and was 
correctly criticized at the time by a number of Members of this body. 
This Member welcomes the clear statements by the Secretary of State 
during her visit to China last week. The Administration must now 
reverse the mistake it made last year in Geneva by introducing and 
advocating strongly for a resolution critical of China's human rights 
violations.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member urges all of his colleagues to support H. 
Con. Res. 28.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House 
Concurrent Resolution 28, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________