[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 109 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: August 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES-CHINA ACT OF 1994
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). Pursuant to House
Resolution 509 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4590.
{time} 1622
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4590) to provide conditions for renewing nondiscriminatory--most-
favored-nation--treatment for the People's Republic of China, with Mr.
Sharp in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be recognized for 30
minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] will be recognized
for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi], the sponsor of this bill, and ask unanimous
consent that she be allowed to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the bill of the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Pelosi] is well-intended, but it has some very serious defects in it.
It would interrupt as much as one-half, or $17 billion worth of Chinese
imports into the United States.
This would be a very expensive proposition for both China and the
United States and would be tantamount to revoking China's MFN status.
Enactment of H.R. 4590 would set off a number of years of strained
dialog between the Chinese and United States Governments. Our relations
with China and with other countries in this region would suffer.
In addition, the Pelosi bill would prove difficult, if not
impossible, to administer. Members have received a letter from the
Commissioner of Customs, Mr. George Weise, indicating that enactment of
H.R. 4590 would require investigation, over a very short period of
time, of about 100,000 Chinese industries, 25,000 of which are in the
textile industry alone. Commissioner Weise notes that he does not have
the personnel who could speak Chinese, nor does he know whether he
would be granted the access be Chinese plants necessary to conduct such
investigations.
Commissioner Weise is doing an admirable job of administering a
complex body of trade laws with already limited resources.
Administering the Pelosi bill would draw Customs agents away from U.S.
ports, thereby thinning an already overburdened Customs presence on the
U.S. border.
I do not believe any of us would want to put a law on the books that
we could not enforce or have no chance to enforce, but this certainly
would qualify as such. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4590.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], the very fine chairman of the
Subcommittee on Trade, and would ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Archer].
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed
to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 4590, a bill which would
effectively deny most-favored-nation treatment to almost half of all
goods imported into the United States from the People's Republic of
China. H.R. 4590 directly undermines an extension of China MFN for
another year. I recognize that serious political repression continues
in China. But the method proposed in this bill would be a fatal blow to
our objective of promoting human rights. This bill is completely
unworkable, and dangerous to our long term strategic interests in the
region.
China is one of the fastest growing markets for U.S. exports. At the
same time, Americans of modest income benefit from many low cost
Chinese imports.
The administration estimates that nearly half of all Chinese exports
to the United States in 1993 fall within the ``unqualified goods''
category, targeted for sanctions by this bill. Mirror retaliation by
the Chinese would be virtually certain upon enactment. The impact on
the United States economy and job market would be too great--
particularly for those United States businesses just establishing
themselves in the Far East--and on the more than 150,000 estimated
United States workers whose jobs depend on trade with China.
Second, with one fifth of the world's population, China is a major
actor in important international efforts we undertake. China's
cooperation on issues such as drug interdiction, refugees, environment,
population control, and weapons proliferation is essential.
It would be impossible to enlist China's support in promoting our
worldwide goals, and simultaneously implement the bill on the floor
today. We cannot slap China in the face, and then turn around and
expect that country's help in achieving success in other foreign policy
initiatives.
Third, H.R. 4590 is an unworkable proposal. The difficulties in
distinguishing between China's state-owned and private enterprises are
immense. Of the 8 million manufacturing and agricultural concerns in
China, most fall into a hybrid category where ownership arrangements
are shared between the public and private sector.
The direction in this bill to identify firms receiving any state
subsidies as ``state-owned'' is not practical.
The determination process would command an amount of Treasury
Department resources that simply does not exist, rendering this
legislation unenforceable.
Other means are available to pursue the human rights agenda.
Multilateral efforts underway offer encouraging prospects for
improvement. One possible forum for addressing these issues is the 15-
nation Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation group [APEC], chaired this
year by the United States. Multilateral efforts to press for
improvements in human rights have yielded more worthwhile results than
demands announced unilaterally.
The presence of the American business community in China also
continues to advance the human rights cause. Trade is a two-way street,
which takes our ideas along with our exports to China. I would
challenge proponents of H.R. 4590 to show me a United States-owned firm
in China that is not far out in front of its competitors in promoting
health and safety standards, workers compensation, and
nondiscrimination in the workplace.
The bottom line is this. We can accomplish more by continuing to
develop positive United States-China relations. While China has not
achieved an acceptable level of success in the human rights area, there
is forward movement in China. We must keep the momentum going in that
direction.
H.R. 4590 would be a step in the wrong direction--several steps
backwards in fact. The United States must continue to exert influence
in this area, while keeping in mind the wide range of United States
economic and foreign policy interests in China.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4590.
{time} 1630
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Hutto] and I am very pleased to have his support on this
legislation.
Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Chairman, I want the United States to trade with
China, but not at any price.
I do not believe it is right to have unrestricted trade with a nation
that acts like communist China--a nation that treats its people the way
it does. China has little regard for anything resembling human rights.
The world outcry about Tiananmen Square apparently has fallen on deaf
ears, and there has been little or no improvement. Their propaganda
would lead one to believe there has been change but we all know that
persecution still exists in China.
In approving most-favored-nation with China, I believe we should
maintain some leverage. That is why I am supporting the Pelosi
substitute which imposes sanctions on products produced by the People's
Liberation Army and defense industrial companies. I believe it was
wrong for President Reagan to agree to ship nuclear technology to China
in the mideighties. It was a mistake because China is on the side of
the bad guys. Do you think it is right to give favored status to a
nation that sells missiles to Iran and others who pose such a threat to
the world? They are even supporters of North Korea.
Yes, let us trade with China, but we must let this communist country
know that they must shape up and that they cannot continue to trample
the rights of the Chinese people.
Vote for the Pelosi amendment that will impose sanctions on products
produced by the People's Liberation Army and defense industrial
companies. Vote Pelosi.
Please, let us keep some leverage in trading with China.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the United States-
China Act of 1994.
This bill offers us one last chance to do what is right--to show that
our commitment to human rights and decency is more than a bag of empty
words.
I vividly remember watching the tanks roll over Lady Freedom at
Tiananmen Square--and the situation has not changed much.
Last year, our President drew a line in the sand and said that if the
Chinese government did not clean up its act and start showing a little
more respect for human rights, fair trade and fair dealing, we would
cut off their preferred trading status with our country.
Now, a year later, China is still one of the worst violators of human
rights in the world. Religious persecution is still widespread. Beijing
still persists in its methodical, sustained assault on the native
culture of Tibet.
And China still continues to maintain a vast array of trade barriers
to prevent our goods from competing in their markets.
And through it all, China keeps using the profits from its trade with
us to finance a dangerous and de-stabilizing military buildup of its
own.
Last year, the challenge was issued. And since then, China has shown
not one ounce of improved respect for human rights or demonstrated one
iota of newfound respect for human decency. And the trade goes on.
Folks, it is time to put up or shut up.
The President of the United States has changed his mind and backed
away from his own challenge, but the challenge has already been issued.
We cannot take it back now.
If we do nothing at this point; if we continue granting
unconditional, preferential trade treatment to China, our credibility
as a world leader and as a defender of human rights will be devastated.
If we do nothing now, it will only prove that our national principles
are for sale. It will prove that we stand firmly for fair trade and
human rights only when it does not get in the way of business and
profits.
If we do nothing today, we will be saying it's OK to get tough with
Cuba--it is a small country--or Afghanistan--or Laos or Montenegro. It
does not cost us much to stand on principle with them. They are little
and their potential trade is not significant.
The nine countries that do not receive MFN status have a combined
population of 145 million. And we have stood by our commitment to them.
But if we do nothing today, we will be saying we do not stand on
principle when it comes to the big boys--like China--because it costs
too much.
Yes, I understand that China is a huge potential market for United
States goods and services. And I can understand why corporate America
and the business community do not want to do anything to rock the boat.
But there are some principles that are worth rocking the boat for,
even if costs us trade opportunities and profits over the short term.
Sometimes you just have to stand up for what is right. And it is not
right for this Nation to continue rewarding behavior that is immoral
and abhorrent to civilized people everywhere.
This bill is the right thing to do. It goes to the heart of the
problem. It does not punish the Chinese people or Chinese businesses
for conduct or actions their government has committed. Our gripe is not
with the Chinese people.
This bill strikes down MFN status only for goods produced by the army
or by state-operated businesses.
It would affect only one-sixth of China's exports to this country--
that portion of their trade that is used to finance the growth of their
army and strengthen the police state.
You do not fight repression of feeding the dragon. This bill might
not stop repression, but it would stop U.S. trade from helping buy the
tanks to fuel that repression.
And, more importantly, by passing this bill today, we could show
China and the world that when we make a commitment to human rights, we
stand by it even if it costs us a little trade and few profits.
I would have preferred to cut off MFN status for China altogether as
proposed by the gentleman from New York.
However, since that effort failed, it is absolutely imperative that
we approve this resolution.
This bill is our last chance to prove that we do stand by our
commitments to human rights and simple decency. It is the least we can
do. It is something we have to do.
I urge my colleagues to support the measure.
{time} 1640
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our
colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman], the
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, at first glance, the Pelosi measure seems
like an appropriate way to balance our concern with human rights in the
PRC without revoking MFN--a step which many of us, myself included,
believe would do more harm than good.
Ms. Pelosi's alternative seems appealing because it tries to punish
the state sector while leaving private enterprise in China untouched.
However, this approach is based on a drastic oversimplification of the
complex Chinese economy, and it is absolutely unenforceable.
The United States Customs Service simply does not have the ability to
distinguished between state-owned, or military, or private enterprises
in China.
The three sectors are inextricably linked in a complex web of joint
ventures, subsidiary relationships, and other connections.
The Pelosi bill, therefore, amounts to little more than political
symbolism.
If there were no negative consequences to this measure, then such
symbolism might be appropriate. But that is not the case, imposing
sanctions on China would invite retaliation-in-kind against nearly $8.8
billion in exports and approximately 180,000 United States jobs.
By threatening China overtly, we play into the hands of the hard-
liners there, by bolstering their claims that the West wants to push
China around, and increases the leadership's resolve to resist what
they call United States imperialism. No Chinese leader could survive
for a day if they were to be viewed as kowtowing to United States
pressure.
Second, by reducing trade and investment, this bill undermines the
development of a free market economy in China.
Those of us who watch China closely know that the greatest economic
and political liberalization in China has been in the southeast. The
Guangdong and Fujian provinces--the bedrock of capitalism in China--are
precisely the regions which would be hit by these sanctions.
President Clinton's MFN decision recognizes that human rights can
only thrive if buttressed by a firm foundation of democratic ideas,
ideals, and principles.
The most effective way to encourage these ideals is the free market
economy. We have seen time and again within a capitalist system, people
are allowed to think, create, and to enter into agreements and
contracts. And by being able to benefit, personally, from the work
product of their hands and minds, the entrepreneurs and the workers in
a capitalist system are afforded a stake in the system.
Mr. Speaker, all over the world democracy is following designer
jeans. Love of freedom quickly takes root in the fertile soil of open
economic systems. Let us not poison that soil that is proven to nurture
human rights.
This bill is bad policy. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to
vote for the Hamilton substitute and against the Pelosi measure.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pelosi amendment and in
favor of the Hamilton proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Solomon and Pelosi
legislation that would significantly affect our trading relationship
with China. I will support Chairman Hamilton's measure to renew China's
most-favored-nation trade status.
I continue to be deeply concerned about China's record on human
rights. Clearly, there exists much room for improvement. However,
denial of MFN status to China is not the best avenue to gain this human
rights improvement.
Over the last few years I have become convinced that direct
engagement with China through a vigorous bilateral trade relationship
is the most effective means to gain progress in this area.
Strengthening the fledging free enterprise system in China will only
promote greater respect for human rights, enhance United States-Chinese
cooperation on other critical matters including national security
issue.
China represents a dynamic, expanding market for United States
exports. Clearly, growth in U.S. exports has led our recent and current
economic recovery and expansion, creating thousands of high-paying,
high-value American jobs.
Denial of MFN status to China will damage our economy and only serve
the interests of our international trade competitors.
We have here before us two attempts to reverse the President's
decision or place conditions on extension of MFN. I will oppose such
efforts and seek to promote improvement in China's human rights record
through other avenues.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yea'' vote on Hamilton.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier], a respected member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend, the ranking
Republican member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, as I said when I stood here earlier, I sincerely
believe that the most inhumane, immoral thing we could do for the
people we are hoping to help the most would be to deny most-favored-
nation trading status to the People's Republic of China. Make no
mistake about it, that is exactly what the Pelosi measure does.
Mr. Chairman, every shred of empirical evidence that we have
demonstrates that over the last 15 years, as economic liberalization
and exposure to the United States has increased in China, their human
rights situation has improved. Things are not perfect, we all recognize
that. Terrible repression exists. However, consider the progress that
has been made. As I said earlier, for example, it has come to light
that up to 80 million Chinese people, 80 million people, were killed
during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution of the Mao era.
Nobody can read the names of those 80 million people into the Record to
illustrate what is wrong with a China cut off from the outside world.
Nevertheless, we should remember them and heed their warning.
Despite the Tiananmen Square massacre and the ensuing repression,
there has been great progress in China. Punishing the Chinese people
with economic sanctions that push them back toward the dark days of a
closed China would be a grave moral injustice.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], the deputy majority whip.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of the
Pelosi amendment. This is a good and important amendment. It does the
right thing.
Mr. Chairman, we should not give unconditional most-favored-nation
status to a country like China. Nothing has changed since Tiananmen
Square.
We should not reward China for doing nothing, for not moving toward
democracy as it has promised to do. Human rights is an important
foreign policy objective.
The abuses in China and Tibet continue. In fact, they are growing.
Innocent students, monks, and nuns are forced to work in slave labor
camps. People are detained for their religious, cultural, and political
beliefs. People don't have the right to protest for what is right.
There is no such thing as freedom of assembly. There is no freedom of
speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom at all. Things have not
changed.
I believe we should use all nonviolent tools at our disposal to
ensure and protect human rights. Trade is one of our most powerful and
mighty tools.
Do not misunderstand me. I believe in trade. But, I do not believe in
trade at any cost. We should not, we must not, trade away our
commitment to human rights and freedom. I, for one, am not willing to
pay that price.
We all live on this planet together. What happens or fails to happen
in China happens to us all.
The Hamilton amendment is a fig leaf. It covers nothing. It does
nothing. We must do more. We can do more. I urge my colleagues to vote
no on the Hamilton amendment. Send a message to China that things must
change--support the Pelosi amendment.
{time} 1650
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, in a Washington Post op-ed article on March 22,
Secretary of State Warren Christopher wrote ``President Clinton forged
the first concensus--a consensus of conscience--on American policy
toward China. The core of our policy, the President said, would be ``a
resolute insistance'' on overall significant progress on human rights
if MFN for China was to be renewed.''
Many of us would have truly admired the President's consensus of
conscience had he not gone and done the unconscionable. He betrayed all
those who took his word--and words--seriously.
It is a sad day when the President of the United States betrays those
who have put their lives on the line for human rights.
Rather than bag MFN pursuant to his own explicit human rights
conditions which were not met, Bill Clinton bagged the conditions. He
threw in the towel--and said, ``No mas.''
I remember the President's stirring words--on May 28, 1993, as he
said, ``It is time that a unified American policy recognizes both the
value of China and the value of America. Starting today the United
States will speak with one voice on China policy. We no longer have an
executive branch policy and a congressional policy. We have an American
policy.''
What a difference a year makes.
Faced with the fact that China's record on human rights has actually
worsened during the past 12 months, Mr. Clinton has now abandoned the
so-called ``American policy'' and values he so proudly boasted of.
I have traveled to China on two separate human rights trips, Mr.
Speaker, most recently in January. In addition to meetings with top
Chinese officials, we met with numerous dissidents and church people.
Mr. Chairman, Bishop Su who said Mass for our delegation was
previously incarcerated for 15 years safely for his faith--was arrested
and held for 9 days, for simply meeting with me. Had I met with Bishop
Su to talk Nike shoe sales--both he and I would have gotten the red
carpet. Official government religious intolerance is on the rise like a
tidal wave--believers are being arrested, jailed, tortured, and raped.
Not only is it illegal to teach anyone under the age of 18 about God,
but two new decrees issued in January make it a crime to assemble, to
pray, and worship God--even in your own home. The Government has begun
a new crackdown on proselytizing by foreign missionaries and prohibits
importing of religious goods and publications. In February of this
year, an American missionary, Reverend Balcombe was arrested for
preaching the word of God.
The Chinese Government continues to arrest and hold in prison
political and religious dissidents. As a matter of fact, repression
agaisnt belivers in God has significantly worsened. Yes, a few well
known dissidents have been released, including Wang Juntao. But
according to Human Rights Watch/Asia the number of known releases of
political or religious prisoners since the Executive order was issued
totals twenty-five. The number of new arrests of peaceful political or
religious activists since the executive order was issued is well over
100.
Mr. Chairman, our 1993 trade deficit with China was approximately $23
billion. The projected deficit in 1994 in $30 billion. And as we have
seen demonstrated by Harry Wu--part of that deficit is built on the
backs of millions of men and women detained in prison labor camps.
Access to these prisons by international human rights organizations is
prohibited. The MOU, renegotiated earlier this year, allows for access
to some prisons by U.S. monitors 60 days after a request is made. And
yet, even then, not the entire prison may be inspected. Harry Wu's
remarkable research, done at great risk to his own life, provides us
with the only accurate look into China's prison labor gulag. And it is
appalling.
Finally, China continues its bizarre antiwoman, antichild policy of
permitting only one child per couple--a policy that relies on forced
abortion and forced sterilization to achieve its results.
In China today, bearing a child without explicit government
permission results in a coerced abortion. Those women lucky enough to
escape this repressive policy have illegal children and are subject to
heavy fines, job demotion, and harassment of many types. Imagine,
living in a land where brothers and sisters are illegal. No government
has the right to tell families they cannot nurture and protect their
own children.
On two occasions, Congress has condemned China's forced abortion
policy calling these heinous acts, crimes against humanity.
Now we just look the other way. The Clinton administration continues
to break the Kemp-Kasten law against coercion and has or is in the
process of providing over $100 million to the UN Population Fund, a
group that was denied funding because of its support and comanagment of
China's brutal policy by the Bush and Reagan administrations.
And MFN, if Mr. Clinton gets his way will be absolutely delinked from
human rights abuse--including these crimes against women and children.
I urge support for the United States-China Act of 1994 as the very
least we can do to protect against the widespread violations of human
rights by the government of the PRC.
H.R. 4590, would revoke MFN status for the products produced,
manufactured, or exported by the People's Liberation Army, Chinese
defense industrial trading companies and certain State-owned companies.
This exceedingly modest action would affect about $5 billion of
China's $30 billion in exports.
Congress should not join President Clinton in his wholesale
capitulation to the dictatorship in Beijing.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Kopetski].
Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
original text of H.R. 4590. I will support the Hamilton substitute and
I support fully President Clinton's courageous decision to move United
States-China relations away from the annual most-favored-nation [MFN]
status confrontation.
America is second to none in guaranteeing basic human rights to its
own citizens and fostering human rights throughout the world. Americans
will always cherish this virtue and never abandon this noble mission.
Several weeks ago, I had the privilege of participating in the
House's third Oxford-style debate addressing the linkage of United
States human rights and trade policies. Today's debate provides the
opportunity to revisit the debate and two fundamental questions for
American policy makers. First, should America use its trade policy to
reflect our anger with a given nation for human rights abuses against
its citizens? My response is that we should not. For it is a policy
which is doomed to failure, including in China.
Second, should we use our trade policy as a means to foster human
rights throughout the world? I say yes. For I believe that basic human
rights are best improved by a policy of open trade. In trade, not only
are goods exchanged, but so, too, are attitudes, ideas, the rule of
law, and the importance of procedural rights.
I visited Czechoslovakia in the fall of 1989. There, a border guard,
in the dark of night, told me that exposure to the western world, to
different standards of living and individual freedoms--much of which
was learned through tourists, trade, and television--had as much to do
with their quest for freedom as the innate resolve of all individuals
to be free.
I have many reasons for opposing H.R. 4590. Today, I want to focus my
remarks on American jobs--for it is the American worker who stands to
lose the most with passage of this legislation. Already some 180,000
American jobs are tied to China exports. These are high paying jobs,
often union jobs, in aerospace, industrial machinery, computers, energy
and electronics.
Proponents of this legislation argue that China trade is a job loser
for the United States. This assertion is inaccurate and misleading.
Yes, the United States runs a trade deficit with China. However, look
at the goods coming into the United States from China--predominantly
toys, apparel, and other light manufactured goods. Regrettably, these
jobs left American soil years ago. Passage of legislation to revoke or
condition China's most-favored-nation status will not bring these jobs
back to American soil. Rather, it will drive them to other third world
developing nations with lower wages and in some cases, equally
questionable human rights practices.
America's economic future is high skill and high wage jobs--exactly
the type of jobs created by United States exports to China.
China is the largest growth market for United States exports. In
1993, $9 billion in United States exports went to China, a figure that
has grown 17 percent since 1992. China intends to spend $100 billion
per year on infrastructure needs well into the next century. This
figure includes industries where U.S. technology is among the best in
the world. These are the jobs of the future; high wage and high skill.
These are the jobs Secretary of Labor Bob Reich talks about for
America. These are the jobs Members of Congress pontificate about
creating each and every day.
In telecommunications, China intends to spend $20-$35 billion through
the year 2000. China's telecommunications spending will account for 10-
20 percent of the global market.
In transportation, China plans to spend $40-$50 billion through the
year 2000. China will build airports, ports, subway systems, rail and
highway networks with or without United States participation and
competition for contracts.
In other sectors like aviation, energy, environmental and public
works, consulting services, agriculture and industrial machinery, China
intends to spend billions of dollars in the international marketplace.
The United States must compete and win in this market. The U.S.
industrial base will lose global competitiveness and thousands of U.S.
jobs will be threatened, or worse yet, not even created if the United
States pursues the course prescribed in H.R. 4590.
Let me share with the House two Oregon examples of companies heavily
involved in Oregon's economy to demonstrate the impact of today's
decision on American jobs. First, the Boeing Company, which employs
nearly 2,000 workers just outside my congressional district. Boeing
estimates the size of the Chinese aerospace market at between $25 and
$35 billion between now and the year 2010. Annually in Oregon, the
Boeing Company spends more than $100 million on subcontractors--small
manufacturing firms, accountants, bankers, cleaning services, and
environmental consultants to name a few. All of these subcontractors
stand to be negatively impacted by legislation to condition or revoke
MFN.
The second example is the NIKE Corp. NIKE employs some 5,000 people
in Oregon. Additionally, in 1993, NIKE subcontracted with Oregon firms
for more than $120 million. Again, these firms--union construction
contractors, landscapers, caterers, engineering, and law firms,
advertising agencies and security services--all stand to lose
economically were the United States to condition or revoke MFN to
China.
Today's debate, like the Oxford style debate, is not about whether
human rights are important. They are. The question is: What is the best
means to achieve human rights progress in China and other nations?
The Washington Post chronicled recently the gruesome Mao Zedong era
in China. We read that, from 1949-1976, as many as 80 million Chinese
died by the repressive policies during the eras known as the Great Leap
Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
A China, or any nation, that is engaged in the world community could
not hide 80 million deaths. Repression and mass slaughter are only
possible when a nation isolates itself from the world. Sunshine is the
best disinfectant for repressive governments. And that is what trade
brings.
It is a new world out there, the Iron Curtain is drawn open, and
international companies are chipping away at the Iron Rice Bowl in
China. We must engage these closed societies, drawing them out even
more into the world community. But let's not kid ourselves, nations
like Russia and China are still in transition. There is every
possibility that they could return to the ways of the recent past, and
the Chinese people, for one, live in fear of this. The Washington Post
story quoted a farmer, who said: ``Who knows what could happen? If
there is a change of policy at the top, who knows?''
Trade brings a better standard of living, so children do not go to
bed hungry, so families have a roof over their heads. And trade also
brings about the exchange of ideas. Whether principles of law, and a
judicial system; or the exchange of students, and scientists; or music,
books, and movies. As innocuous as it sounds, art is saturated with
cultural messages, and floods over closed societies in a wash of
Western values and individual freedoms.
Vaclav Havel once said: ``Communism was not defeated by military
force, but by life, by the human spirit, by conscience, by the
resistance of being and man to manipulation.'' Havel is right. We all
have a duty, even a moral obligation, to pursue the path of trade and
diplomatic engagement to produce healthier, more just societies on
Earth.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
(Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4590 and in support of the
Hamilton amendment.
Writing as a columnist in Time magazine in 1992, now Deputy Secretary
of State Strobe Talbott concluded an analysis of Congress' last debate
on China by saying:
Politicians are quick to embrace simple positions on
complex issues that make them feel good and look good--but in
fact make a bad situation worse.
Unfortunately, 2 years later, we find Secretary Talbott's opinion of
Congress still justified. While waiting to testify before the Rules
Committee last Friday, I heard a Member in favor of H.R. 4590 say:
``This legislation sends China a very simple message.''
We cannot send China a simple message because we are dealing with a
complex problem. I share the frustration of this House with China's
abusive human rights practices. But you cannot act solely on the issue
of human rights and not expect the other issues that divide our two
countries to be unaffected.
This legislation is the worst possible reflection on Congress because
it is neither enforceable nor fiscally responsible.
As the ranking Republican on the Treasury, Postal Appropriations
Subcommittee, it is my job to make sure the Customs Service has enough
funds to perform its mission. Customs Commissioner Weise has reviewed
this legislation and concluded Customs could not enforce this measure.
And I can tell you that our appropriations subcommittee does not have
the funds to purchase the equipment and hire the thousands of people
necessary to make it enforceable.
We can do better and we have. The Hamilton amendment is a
responsible, realistic approach to the many issues in Sino/American
relations. It builds on President Clinton's May 26 decision to extend
MFN and delink it from human rights.
The Hamilton amendment is not a quick fix. But this House must move
beyond what has become annual brinkmanship with China and set a new
course.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], chairman of the Democratic Caucus, and a leader
internationally in promoting human rights in his leadership role with
the Helsinki Commission.
{time} 1700
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time, and I
congratulate her for her leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Pelosi substitute which
denies most-favored-nation status for products produced, manufactured
or exported by the People's Liberation Army of China and state-owned
enterprises in China.
The gentleman who preceded me is in fact the ranking member, and he
is a good member of the Treasury-Postal Subcommittee which I chair.
Very frankly, I think not only can they, but I think they will enforce
this if this Congress passes and the President signs this bill.
I want to thank the gentlewoman for granting me the opportunity to
speak.
Last year when the President extended MFN trade status to China for 1
year, I supported him. However, implicit in my support was the
understanding that China's human rights practices would be subject to
serious scrutiny and our trading relations would be reviewed.
I did not believe it was pretend. I did not believe I had my fingers
crossed. I did not believe we were not serious.
State Department and human rights groups' reports and findings have
shown that China has continued to openly violate the human rights of
its citizens. No one on this floor denies that. As the country which is
the leading proponent of human rights in the world, we are proud of
that. It makes us distinct in the world community. This is not just a
matter of the United States imposing its standards, but upholding its
principles.
The issue which is so crucial to understand is that these are basic
notions of human rights and fundamental freedoms which the Chinese
Government has itself signed onto in the universal declaration of human
rights.
This is not imposing our values. This is expecting the values
articulated to be theirs by China itself.
It is important to remember the events of 1989, because this is not
ancient history. The people responsible for the Tiananmen Square
massacre are still in power in 1994.
Five years after the occurrence of this tragedy, China has no freedom
of the press, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of speech, no right to
emigrate, no freedom of religion, and no representative government.
My friend, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski], spoke of Vaclav
Havel who came to this floor and spoke to us of the values of Jefferson
and the values of our Constitution, and he stated that it was the
American public, the American Congress and the principles for which we
stand that moved the East to freedom in Europe. And it was that same
nation that was under a trade sanction called Jackson-Vanik, and
Jackson-Vanik worked. It did not work overnight, but it worked.
It is also important to remember that China's trade deficit with the
United States for last year climbed to $23 billion dollars--second only
to Japan.
Moreover, almost 40 percent of China's exports are to the United
States while China receives less than 2 percent of our exports.
As this Nation has learned throughout its history, we develop our
strongest alliances, garner our greatest respect, and safeguard lasting
security when we stand firmly and unequivocally for the principles upon
which our Nation was founded. To the extent that our actions must
affect China, let it not be at the expense of individual freedoms and
human dignity. Mr. Speaker, the Pelosi substitute will provide us with
that opportunity, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Let us pass the Pelosi bill. Let us be serious when we commit
ourselves to human rights.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the
Pelosi bill and in opposition to the Hamilton alternative.
Mr. Chairman, adopting the Pelosi bill to revoke MFN on products of
the Chinese military is not only the moral thing to do, but it is
absolutely essential for our national security.
The Chinese People's Liberation Army is growing fat and ever-more
dangerous, and it is financed by the trade surplus that we give China
with our annual extensions of MFN.
As I stated earlier, last year's monstrous $23 billion trade deficit
with China is now funding a massive 22-percent increase in Chinese
military spending.
So, Mr. Chairman, if there ever was an example of Lenin's prediction
that we would sell the Communists the rope with which they will hang
us, this is it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the Record an article by
William Triplett that appeared in the Washington Post and which clearly
explains why it is so important to pass the Pelosi bill.
Mr. Triplett estimates that when profits earned by front companies of
the Chinese military are added in, actual Chinese military expenditures
are 3 times the official numbers, or close to $100 billion annually.
Mr. Chairman, this is 2\1/2\ times that of Japan.
And Chinese military spending has doubled since 1989.
And what is China buying with all of this? Some of the best military
hardware available:
Su-27 Flankers, a top Russian fighter.
The Russian T-80U tank, comparable to our Abrams.
Guided missile technology, solid-fuel rocket boosters, uranium
enrichment technology and air-to-air refueling capabilities.
According to Mr. Triplett, it is clear that China is striving to
create a strategic force of modern, highly accurate, mobile ICBM's.
And according to former Ambassador James Lilley, China's buildup
clearly reflects a desire to develop the ability to project power
beyond her own borders.
Mr. Chairman, it is simply against our own interests to fund this
drive with favorable trade conditions for front companies of China's
military machine.
Many analysts believe that China could be the foremost threat to
peace and stability in the 21st century.
Anything can happen, but the Pelosi bill would be a prudent step
toward ensuring that this nightmare scenario does not occur.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for Pelosi.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
(Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pelosi
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to suggest that Ms. Pelosi's concerns are well-
founded but not well-advanced by the legislative prescription before us
today.
The questions advocates of a conditional MFN approach must examine is
one of means, not ends, whether a policy premised on self-righteous
indignation advances or undercuts a just cause.
What is at issue is less a question of indignation than of judgment.
If history is a guide, almost every effort to coerce China has not only
failed to produce greater political openness but accentuated
unpredictable xenophobic nationalism. On the other hand, almost every
U.S. step toward civil dialog has been met with a liberalized response.
Because denial of MFN would be such a profoundly self-destructive
act, Ms. Pelosi has suggested fine tuning the MFN-human rights linkage.
The trouble is that as preferably restrained as her new approach is, it
is more effectively advanced by the Executive Branch than legislative
fiat.
But modifying MFN is a nonstarter: It will threaten to begin a new
cold war in Sino-American relations; undercut the prospect of Sino-
American cooperation on North Korea and other important foreign policy
issues; produce no demonstrable improvement in Chinese human rights
behavior; and prove difficult if not impossible to enforce.
My own view is that when confronted with the choice of high walls
versus open doors in Sino-American relations, open doors are
preferable.
By way of perspective, several decades ago a group of French
journalists interviewed the late Chou En-lai and asked what he thought
the historical significance was of the French Revolution, to which he
responded: ``It is too early to tell.''
It strikes me that it may be too early to tell the exact
ramifications of the profound socio-economic changes occurring in
China. But those ramifications are of historic dimensions. They involve
not only the near-total delegitimatizing of Marxist philosophy but a
weakening of party as well as state authority and--despite continuing
serious human rights abuses--far greater personal freedom for most
Chinese than any time in Chinese history.
These changes were not the result of external pressures, but external
examples revealed by China's policy of reform and opening to the
outside world.
For those who believe--as I do--that free economics drives free
politics, the most aggressive human rights policy we can pursue is to
maintain free and fair trade with China. Can it possibly be rational to
pursue a misguided policy that, through miscalculation or design,
undercuts the stepchildren of Adam Smith and allows a tightening of the
reins of political power by the discredited disciples of Marx, Lenin,
and Mao?
The administration's Executive order approach to China-MFN set up
either Beijing or Washington for enormous international embarrassment.
In this case, Washington was ultimately the party that flinched.
Despite the administration's attempt to save face, its decision not to
revoke was a flinch, but a flinch from a mis-designed policy is far
better than plowing ahead with a demonstrably counterproductive
approach.
This administration and this Congress should stop playing games with
MFN. It is time to stop toying with the linchpin of Sino-American
relations and make decisions that advance the national interest of the
American people as well as the humanitarian well-being of the Chinese
people.
The United States would be better advised to develop a bipartisan and
bi-institutional approach that maintains the open door to China and
with it a relationship which could be key to peace, stability, and
prosperity in the 21st century than continue to play political
brinksmanship on the House floor.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Gilman].
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 4590,
legislation to revoke most-favored-nation trading status for products
produced by the Peoples Liberation Army, Chinese Government defense
trading companies, and State-owned enterprises.
I commend the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Pelosi, for her
leadership and tireless efforts on behalf of democracy in China. She
has earned herself a place as a recognized champion for freedom and a
voice for those who suffer under tyranny.
It is a great honor to serve with her.
At Tiananmen Square 5 years ago, the Chinese military demonstrated to
the world that it is an antidemocratic force of repression and the
ultimate guarantor of Communist rule over the people of China.
The Chinese military and related security agencies run a vast gulag
with some 16 to 20 million prisoners who serve as slave laborers for
its profit making ventures.
China faces no external threat to its national security, but its
military is engaged in a massive buildup of the most modern
conventional and strategic forces threatening peace and security in
Asia and the Pacific rim.
Chinese military companies are helping to finance that nation's
massive military buildup with arms sales to the Middle East and
commercial product sales to the United States.
It is the only military force in the world targeting the United
States with nuclear weapons and China is the only nation still testing
nuclear weapons.
The Chinese military is the occupying force in Tibet, a country the
size of Western Europe and the only nation in the world since the end
of the cold war to still have a foreign Communist force within its
borders.
According to some of our senior Federal officials, Chinese military
and civilian intelligence are the most active intelligence services in
the United States collecting American technology.
Chinese intelligence services are also extremely aggressive and
active in suppressing the Chinese people both at home and abroad here
in this country.
The Chinese intelligence services are also engaged wholeheartedly in
commercial cover ventures in the United States in order to be
economically self-sustaining.
Are we to believe that it is logical to continue United States
financing the Communist Chinese military machine, the same one run by
the very same people who fought us in Korea and Vietnam and who
conquered Tibet--does that makes good sense?
Do we truly believe that our national security will not be affected
by directly subsidizing the People's Liberation Army?
The answer of course is obvious. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to
support the gentlelady's resolution to revoke MFN for China's military
and state run enterprises.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, 15 years ago President Carter extended
most-favored-nation trading status to China. President Carter's
decision was the culmination of a long period of quiet diplomacy with
the Chinese that had been initiated by the late President Nixon in
1969. Today we are here to debate whether we should continue to embrace
or reverse over two decades of successful American diplomacy toward
China by removing or limiting China's trading status with the United
States.
When President Nixon decided to initiate 2 years of top secret
negotiations with the Chinese in 1969, contacts between the United
States and China basically did not exist. At that turbulent time in our
world history, the United States was bogged down in Vietnam, the
Cultural Revolution in China was in one of its most anti-democratic
phases, China and the Soviet Union were engaged in terrible border
clashes and war between the two countries was seen by many as
inevitable. China, with one quarter of the world's population, was
isolated in world affairs.
The tactical advantages of a diplomatic initiative toward Beijing
were obvious to President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger, despite the
fact that things in China were anything but stable or democratic. Nixon
and Kissinger were able to see past China's internal chaos to the
danger that an isolated, xenophobic China posed to the world.
Relations between the United States and China in the last 25 years
have rarely been untroubled. United States-Sino relations have
continued to expand despite numerous challenging events: American arms
sales to Taiwan; disruptive surges of Chinese exports to the United
States; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; the Cambodian peace
process; Chinese nuclear proliferation policies and the tragedy in
Tiananmen Square.
Despite all of the challenges to United States-Sino relations, it was
not until 1989 that legislative efforts to condition renewal of most-
favored nation status for China were linked to improvements in human
rights in China. In 1989, Members in this body decided that we should
move from diplomacy to punishment and that the bipartisan approach of
five former Presidents was wrong.
Although what happened at Tiananmen was deplorable and the Chinese
leadership deserved the widespread condemnation that it received, it is
time to declare a statute of limitations on Tiananmen Square. If we
want a safer, more stable international community, we cannot allow one
incident to determine our policy toward China for the next 25 years.
The realities of the current situation in China and in the
international community are far different and more complex than the
unforgettable image of a lone man standing in front of a tank that CNN
has indelibly printed on all of our minds.
Since Tiananmen, the Chinese economy has grown at approximately 10
percent a year and the market-oriented reforms started in 1980 have
continued. United States trade with China has approximately doubled, to
$40 billion in 1993, with China's total foreign trade reaching $200
billion.
Along with the People's Liberation Army are the armies of Avon ladies
in China. Along with state censorship are MTV and CNN brought into
China by satellite dishes, often installed and sold by the PLA.
During the last 15 years, as Chinese economic reforms have
progressed, the quality of life of the average Chinese has vastly
improved. The continuing market-oriented reforms have dramatically
changed the relationship of individuals to the state and reduced their
reliance on Beijing for the basic necessities of life.
Since 1978, changes which have taken place which affect average
Chinese citizens include: a great expansion of internal travel, choice
of residence, choice of job, shorter workweeks, higher paying jobs, and
most importantly, access to information.
Twenty years ago, the Chinese government had total control over what
its people could know about the outside world. Today, there are now
seven times as many newspapers and magazines in China as in 1978, and
one in five people have access to a TV versus 1 in 300 in 1978. Over
100 million Chinese have access to satellite dishes bringing in MTV,
CNN and other western broadcasts.
The past 16 years have been China's most sustained period of peace
and stability in the past 150 years. From 1978 to the present is the
only period of time since the opium war in 1839 that China has
experienced a 15-year period without foreign invasion, civil war or
widespread chaos.
China's leaders have placed a high priority upon maintaining
stability in China and avoiding at all costs a return to chaos and
foreign domination.
It must be remembered that China has over four times the population
of the United States but less than 60 percent of America's tillable
land. China's leaders face much different development choices than
those faced by America's leaders.
China must make a smooth transition from an economy based on
agriculture to an economy centered on manufacturing. China needs
continued strong economic growth in order to be able to provide the
basic necessities for its ever-growing population. In order to prevent
China from sliding back toward chaos, the world needs to participate in
China's economic growth and development. Removing or limiting MFN for
China would be the first step in China's slide backwards.
Prior to 1989, there was little external pressure on China to improve
human rights. The positive changes which have occurred in China over
the last 15 years have occurred as a direct result of China's opening
to foreign trade, investment and ideas from around the world. China's
leaders were willing to allow the influx of foreign ideas in order to
allow China to become a strong, prosperous world power.
However, China's way is not our way. We urge China to move more
deliberately toward true democracy, but we must understand that a
chaotic China could destabilize the world economy and vastly complicate
international stability. We must act responsibly today. I urge Members
to vote against any attempts to remove or limit MFN for China.
{time} 1710
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, if I thought for one moment
that extending most-favored-nation treatment to China would end our
country's responsibility and involvement in the human rights struggle
in that vast country, then I would support the Pelosi amendment. But I
cannot, because I believe forcefully that the total involvement of the
regional alliances continuing pressure on China, the United Nations,
the Helsinki accords, the one-on-one contacts that America has with
China, and all of the other private enterprises that are continuing
their good pressure on china will mount in intensity, not end with
granting the most-favored-nation status, and so we would have then not
only the ongoing contact but that great tool of diplomacy, free trade,
massive trade, Americans streaming into the mainland of China, talking
with other merchants, talking with the people. That is the way to bring
about human rights change and continue our American involvement.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I keep asking myself: Why are we here today?
Everybody knows the Solomon amendment was soundly defeated. The Pelosi
proposal, even if it were to pass, is going nowhere.
If this were a debating society, I would say wonderful, we can stand
here and debate this issue for 6 hours. But the fact is that I would
think the House would have something else to do in trying to pass
substantive legislation.
The Clinton administration, through some very difficult efforts,
finally came to the right conclusion, that is, delinking human rights
with our efforts on MFN. That was the right decision. The Clinton
administration got it right.
Here we are several weeks later, still debating an issue whose time
has clearly passed. The decision has been made by the administration, I
think we should follow it.
Economic growth is important for political change. I have been to
China twice, most recently last December. We had an opportunity to look
at the changes being made there, and I am impressed with what we can do
in the future there with our trade.
Let us defeat the Pelosi proposal. Let us pass the Hamilton proposal
and get on with the business of the Nation.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi
substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I stand today as a strong supporter of the Pelosi
substitute. This proposal speaks to our longstanding linkage of
favorable trade access to this Nation and respect for human rights.
Breaking this link would be giving up something that is fundamental to
this Nation--something that makes us unique and successful in the
world. We would be sacrificing our principles for short-term economic
gains.
Tying trade to human rights has worked. A generation of Soviet
emigres prospering in new homes around the world; the piece of the
Berlin Wall I keep in my office; and the historic elections and new-
found freedoms celebrated in South Africa this year, all speak to the
success of our Nation taking a stand. Using access to American markets
has been a crucial tool to effect change abroad through peaceful means.
There is a reason protestors in Tianamen Square carried a home-made
statue of liberty. From our founding days the United States of America
has been a beacon of freedom. Our Nation has held out hope to freedom-
loving people throughout the world. Time and again Americans have
fought and died to protect freedom in this Nation and around the world.
We should be proud of our leadership in human rights and we should
support the Pelosi substitute.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Horn].
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Horn].
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to stress that this debate on
most-favored-nation status for China is not over whether we want export
opportunities for our workers and companies. We obviously do. However,
there is an important principle at stake. By our vote today, we must
clearly and decisively demonstrate that human rights matter. Commercial
considerations must not be the sole factor determing American foreign
policy.
Who among us is not deeply suspicious of the present Chinese
Government, especially since the tragic events in Tiananmen Square in
1989? This action is not targeted at the Chinese people; it is targeted
at the trade activities of a repressive government.
In 1981, I was part of a 15-person delegation of university
presidents to review 25 institutions of higher education in China. When
students could get us aside outside of the ears of the secret police,
they said then, as they do now, that they want freedom. Hopefully,
increased trade will cause China's leaders to value political freedom.
In the mean time, we cannot close our eyes to repression.
I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, and to vote for the
bipartisan Pelosi amendment.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4590, a bill to
apply unworkable trade sanctions to the People's Republic of China. The
debate over trading with China is serious and difficult. Because of the
tragic human rights situation in China, it is easy to stray from the
central question of what is the most effective policy to achieve what
we all want for the Chinese people--a better life. Setting up a
unilateral policy of confrontation with the Chinese Government is not
the answer.
I urge my colleagues to support the President's policy of
aggressively pursuing human rights objectives through economic and
political engagement with China. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4590 and ``yes''
for the Hamilton substitute.
I do not question the intentions of proponents of H.R. 4590, but I
worry about the practical effects it would have. China, the most
populous nation on earth, has an economy which is expanding at an
astonishing pace. Chinese trade with the world grows by about 12
percent every year, twice the growth rate of global trade overall. Asia
will lead the world in economic growth during the next century, and to
participate effectively, the United States needs a strong presence in
China.
Currently China is our 10th largest export market. The potential for
substantial, additional exports is impressive. At this stage in its
development process, China will be purchasing heavily in sectors such
as capital goods, telecommunications, agriculture equipment and
computers. I will include in the Record at the conclusion of my
remarks, a letter to Mr. Archer from the business coalition for United
States-China trade containing a list of 307 United States companies and
associations who attest that their exports markets will be damaged
severely by H.R. 4590.
Poisoning our bilateral relationship with China would be a futile
effort. Instead of joining us, our European and Japanese competitors
would rush in to reap all the sales that we lose. I ask my colleagues,
would passage of this bill put us in a better position to work with
China to clean up the environment, or to control the development of
nuclear weapons in the region? Clearly it would not. Three years before
Hong Kong reverts to Chinese Communist control is not the time for the
United States to be disengaging from a leadership role in the region.
This bill purports to strike at state-owned companies in China, to
the exclusion of more entrepreneurial enterprises. While an attractive
idea, it is one which is manifestly unworkable. Matching a product that
has made its way out of China with the arbitrary definitions of state-
ownership set out in this bill would be an unmanageable task for the
Customs Service.
The task would soon become impossible as firms worked to disguise
their identify, in an attempt to avoid the sanctions in this bill--
something they do not do today. The further assignment of
distinguishing which companies were recipients of government subsidies
could not be administered given the murky line between free markets and
state involvement in China. In the end, the legal issues involved in
making these designations would virtually bring United States-China
trade to a halt.
I would agree with proponents of this bill that China is one of the
most protectionist countries with which we trade. The answer is not
unilateral legislated sanctions but solid, negotiated solutions to
targeted market access problems. USTR should pursue aggressive
enforcement of the intellectual property rights agreements and the 1992
MOU on market access which addresses a broad range of sectors.
Currently more needs to be done to implement these bilateral deals at
the provincial level in China. The Chinese may indeed face sanctions
under the special 301 intellectual property statute, for example, but
these can be tailored to achieving a particular market opening measure,
not a complete societal change.
I support the President's policy because he has realized after a year
in office that business plays a positive role in exposing the Chinese
people to ideas and skills necessary to succeed in a free market.
Prosperity and expanded contact with American citizens is the best way
to nurture the growth of democracy in China. We need a China policy
that recognizes the broad range of our interests in this enormous
country. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4590.
I submit the following letter from 307 American companies and
associations to be included in the Record.
Business Coalition
for U.S.-China Trade,
Washington, DC, August 3, 1994.
Hon. Bill Archer,
U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Archer: We, the undersigned American
companies, farm organizations, consumer groups, and trade
associations, are writing to express our strong opposition to
H.R. 4590, which was introduced by Congresswoman Pelosi on
July 16. We are concerned that the Pelosi bill would
seriously undermine the President's China policy by revoking
MFN tariff treatment for certain imports from China and put
American trade and thousands of American jobs at risk.
In announcing his new China strategy on May 26, President
Clinton noted that the real issue for the United States is
``how we can best support human rights in China and advance
our other very significant issues and interests,'' including
securing China's cooperation on weapons proliferation and in
managing the North Korean nuclear crisis. The President
determined that the best way to advance U.S. objectives on
trade, human rights, proliferation, and security is to ensure
that ``our nations are engaged in a growing web of political
and economic cooperation and contacts.''
As American firms doing business in China, we see every day
tangible proof that China's free market economic reforms have
led to expanded freedom and better living standards for the
Chinese people. Any American visitor can only be struck by
the dynamism of free markets and the underlying
entrepreneurialism of the Chinese people. We share the
President's conviction that America's engagement with China
must continue, and that U.S. trade and investment are
important long-term positive forces for human rights and
democracy.
The Pelosi bill is not a compromise. It would undermine the
President's policy and cause serious damage to U.S. trade.
While taking aim at the Chinese government, the Pelosi bill
would harm Chinese reformers who support trade and investment
with the United States and Chinese workers and managers who
are employed by American companies. The bill invites a
protectionist trade war that would put at risk nearly $9
billion of U.S. exports and almost 180,000 high-wage U.S.
export jobs. The loss of China trade would also threaten
thousands of jobs in America's retail establishments,
financial institutions, ports, and services industries. It
would also lead to substantial increases in the retail prices
of many imported products familiar to American consumers.
Because China is about to embark on a massive
infrastructure program, the loss of access to this rapidly
emerging market would deal a catastrophic blow to the future
global competitiveness of American companies. This would only
benefit our European and Japanese competitors. China is a
major customer for American aerospace, computers,
telecommunications, wheat, power generation, motor vehicles,
chemicals, and fertilizer products.
Finally, U.S. companies regularly adopt principles for
business conduct on a company-by-company basis. By specifying
in legislation recommended principles of business conduct for
doing business in China, including principles that touch on
highly sensitive political activities, the Pelosi bill would
undermine individual company efforts and the President's
initiative to work with leaders of the business community.
The bill risks creating an appearance in China that U.S.
companies are acting as agents of a foreign government and
violating Chinese law. In today's highly competitive global
economy, the U.S. can ill afford actions which have the
effect of handicapping the ability of American companies to
compete and create jobs.
On behalf of the American business community, we urge you
to strongly oppose the Pelosi bill. For U.S. companies
involved in U.S.-China trade, this is a potentially costly
vote. It will send important signals about America's
reliability as a trading partner and our nation's commitment
to competing in emerging global markets.
We look forward to working closely with you to support the
President's leadership on China policy and to defeat the
Pelosi bill.
Sincerely,
ABB Inc.; A & C Trade Consultants, Inc.; The AES
Corporation; AM General Corporation; ATC International,
Inc.; AT&T Inc.; Abacus Group of America, Inc.; Abbott
Laboratories; Adidas America; Advanced Aquatic
Technology Associates, Inc.; Aerospace Industries
Association; Aetna Asia Pacific; Aetna Life & Casualty;
AlliedSignal Inc.; American Automobile Manufacturers
Association; American Cyanamid Company; American
Express Company; American Farm Bureau Federation;
American Forest & Paper Association; American Home
Products Corp.; American International Group; American
Pacific Enterprises Inc.; Ameritech; Amgen Inc.; Amoco
Corporation; Ascom Timeplex, Inc.; ASICS Tiger Corp.;
Applause, Inc.; Armstrong World Industries; Ashe
Associates; Associated Merchandising Corporation;
Atlantic Richfield Company; Avon Products, Inc.; B.H.
Aircraft Co. Inc.; Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations;
Bandai America Inc.; Bank of America; BBC
International; Bennett Importing; D. B. Berelson &
Company; Bethlehem Steel Corporation; Blue Box Toys,
Inc.; The Boeing Company; Bradford Novelty Co., Inc.;
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Brown & Root, Inc.; Brown
Shoe Co.; The Business Roundtable; Buxton Co.;
California R & D Center, Inc.; Caltex Petroleum
Corporation; Cargill, Incorporated; Caterpillar Inc.;
Central Purchasing Inc.; Cherokee Shoe Co.; Chevron
Corporation; China Human Resources Group; China
Products North America, Inc.; China Trade Associates;
Chrysler Corporation; The Chubb Corporation; CIGNA
Corporation; CMS Industries; The Coca-Cola Company;
Cole Hann; C.O. Lynch; Commercial Intertech
Corporation; ConAgra, Inc.; CONCORD; Consolidated
Minerals Inc.; Consumers for World Trade; Continental
Grain Company; Cooper Industries; Coopers & Lybrand;
CSX Corporation; Cypress Enterprises; Daisy
Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Dakin, Inc.; Dana Corporation;
Davis Wright Tremaine; Dayton Hudson Corp.; Daytona
Inc.; Deere & Company; The Dexter Corporation; Diamond
Power Specialty Co.; Digital Equipment Corp.; R.R.
Donnelly & Sons Co.; The Dow Chemical Company; Dresser
Industries, Inc.; The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation; E.
I. du Pont de Nemours & Company; Duracell International
Inc.; Dynasty Footwear; EEI, Inc.; Eastern American,
Inc.; Eastman Chemical Company; Eastman Kodak Company;
Eaton Corporation; Eden Toys, Inc.; Edison Brothers
Stores; Elan-Polo, Inc.; Electronic Industries
Association; Endicott Johnson; The Ertl Company, Inc.;
Essex Group, Inc.; Excel Importing Corporation;
Emergency Committee for American Trade; Enron Corp.;
Exxon; The Fertilizer Institute; Fluor Corporation; FMC
Corporation; FOOTACTION USA; Footwear Distributors and
Retailers of America; Ford Motor Company; Foster
Wheeler Corporation; The Foxboro Company; Frequency
Electronics, Inc.; Fun World/Div. of Easter Unlimited,
Inc.; GenCorp; General Electric Company; General Motors
Corporation; Genesco, Inc.; The Gillette Company; The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company; Grand Imports, Inc.;
Great Eastern Mountain Investment Company; Guardian
Industries Corp.; Gund, Inc.; Hasbro, Inc.; HASCO
Components International Corporation; HMS Productions,
Inc.; Halliburton Company; Hallmark Cards, Inc.; R.A.
Hanson Company, Inc.; Harris Corporation; Hedstrom
Corporation; Henry Gordy International, Inc.; Hercules
Incorporated; Hewlett-Packard Company; H.H. Brown; Hawe
Yue/Rayjen Intl.; Hills & Company; Hoechst Celanese
Corporation; Honeywell, Inc.; Hongson; Hughes Aircraft
Company; Hull Corporation; IBM Corporation; Intel
Corporation; Inter-Pacific Corp.; International Seaway;
ITOCHU International Inc.; ITT Corporation;
International Development Planners; International
Insurance Council; Jack Guttman, Inc./Bakery Crafts;
Janex Corporation; J. Baker, Inc.; Jerry Elsner
Company, Inc.; Jimlar Corporation; Jirch Resources Co.,
Inc.; Johnson Controls; Kinney Shoe Co.; K-Swiss, Inc.;
L.A. Gear; Laird, Ltd.; Leather Apparel Association;
Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc.; Liberty Classics; The Limited,
Inc.; Liz Claiborne; LJO, Inc.; Lockheed Corporation;
MG Trading & Development; M. W. International, Inc.;
The M. W. Kellogg Co.; Mangelsen's; Manley Toys, Ltd.;
Mattel, Inc.; Marine Midland Bank; McDermott
Incorporated; McDonnell Douglas; McGraw-Hill, Inc.;
Meldisco; Merck & Co., Ltd.; Mercury Int'l.; Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc.; Midwest of Cannon Falls; Might Star,
Inc.; Mobil Corporation; Monarch Import Company;
Monsanto Company; Morrison Knudsen Corp.; Motorola
Inc.; Mustang International Groups Inc.; Nadel & Sons
Toy Corp.; National Association of Manufacturers;
National Foreign Trade Council, Inc.; National
Semiconductor; Natural Science Industries, Ltd.;
Nature's Farm Products, Inc.; NIKE, Inc.; Nikko
America, Inc.; Norman Broadbent International, Inc.;
North American Export Grain Association; Northern
Telecom Inc.; Nylint Toy Company; NYNEX Corporation;
The Ohio Art Company; Olem Shoe Corp.; Owens Corning;
Pacific Basin Economic Council; Pacific Rim Consulting;
Pacific Trade Institute, Inc.; Pagoda; Payless
ShoeSource; J.C. Penney Company, Inc.; PepsiCo, Inc.;
Perkin Elmer; Petroleum Equipment Suppliers
Association; Pfizer Inc.; Philip Morris Companies Inc.;
Phillips Petroleum Company; Pic'n Pay Stores; The
Portman Companies; Portman Overseas; Praxair, Inc.;
Premark International, Inc.; Pressman Toy Corporation;
Price Brothers Company; Processed Plastic Company;
Procter & Gamble Company; Reebok International, Ltd.;
Reeves International, Inc.; Revell-Monogram, Inc.;
Ridgewood Partners Ltd.; Riggs Tool Company Inc.;
Ripple Investments, Inc.; Rockwell International
Corporation; Rohm and Haas Company; Russ Berrie & Co.,
Inc.; Safari Limited; Saint-Gobain Corporation;
Schering-Plough International; Scientific Design
Company, Inc.; Sea-Land Service, Inc.; Sears Roebuck &
Co.; Sega of America, Inc.; Shanghai Industrial
Consultants; Shelcore, Inc.; Shoe Town, Inc.; Shonac
Corp.; Sierra Machinery, Inc.; Southern Electric
International; Spectrum HoloByte, Inc.; Sporting Goods
Manufacturers Association; The Stride Rite Corp.;
Sundstrand Corporation; TRW Inc.; Tasco Sales, Inc.;
Tendler Beretz Associates Ltd.; Tenneco Inc.; Texaco
Inc.; Texas Instruments Incorporated; The Bee Gee Shoe
Corp.; The Butler Group; The Kobacker Co.; Thom McAn
Shoe Co.; Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.; 3M
Company; Time Warner Inc.; Topline Imports; Tradehome;
Trade Wind Imp.; Trans-Ocean Import Co., Inc.; Tomy
America, Inc.; Toy Manufacturers of America, Inc.; Toys
`R' Us, Inc.; Tyco Playtime; Tyco Toys, Inc.; USX
Engineers & Consultants, Inc.; US-China Industrial
Exchange, Inc.; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Council
for International Business; Uneeda Doll Company, Inc.;
Unicover Corporation; Union Camp Corporation; Union
Carbide Corporation; UNISYS; Uniroyal Chemical Company,
Inc.; United States Association of Importers of
Textiles & Apparel; United States-China Business
Council; United Technologies Corporation; Unocal Corp.;
Venture Stores Inc.; VTech Industries, Inc.; Waco
Products Corporation; Warner-Lambert Company; Western
Atlas; Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Weyerhaeuser
Company; Whirlpool Corporation; Wilsons The Leather
Experts; Windmere Corporation; Witco Corp.; Wm. Wrigley
Jr. Company; Xerox Corporation.
{time} 1720
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam
[Mr. Underwood].
(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, once again, this Congress must consider matching our
declarations with our dollars. We must decide if we will send a bold
and meaningful signal to the Peoples' Republic of China or hide behind
a veil of empty rhetoric.
The bill introduced by the gentlewoman from California is a solid,
pragmatic means of confronting the PRC's human rights abuses without
disrupting the expanding private sector trade between our nations.
No one in this Chamber disputes the PRC's abysmal human rights
record. Amnesty International and Asia Watch have documented the PRC's
lack of due process rights to a fair trial, the detention of prisoners
of conscience, the repression of the right to peaceful assembly, and a
crackdown against religious activity. In 1993, 77 percent of all the
world's death sentences were carried out in the PRC, a role model for
death penalty supporters, including for such nonviolent offenses as
embezzlement. According to the International Campaign for Tibet,
repression against Tibetan Buddhist nuns has increased. In 1993, 12
nuns, including a 15-year-old girl, were sentenced to up to 7 years in
prison.
And we are expected to extend favors to this country.
All these actions contradict customary international law which binds
all nations. The universal declaration on human rights and the covenant
on civil and political rights represent the international family's
attempt to confront and combat human rights abuses, such as those found
in the PRC. As a member of the United Nations and a permanent member of
the security council, the PRC has a responsibility to uphold these
international standards.
The PRC also stands as a threat to modern nonproliferation efforts.
Of the five recognized nuclear powers, it is the only one that will not
observe a nuclear test ban. Questions remain about the PRC's alleged
exports of chemical weapons munitions to Iran and its export of M-11
missile technology to Pakistan.
In addition to recognizing the PRC's human rights and proliferation
records, no one in this Chamber denies the economic importance to the
United States of our trade relationship with the PRC. Our nations have
a $40 billion trade relationship, including $9 billion in U.S. exports.
This trade relationship provides the best tool for us to make a
statement about the behavior of the PRC.
This bill strikes a delicate balance between confronting the human
rights abuses and preserving a healthy trade relationship. It would
only target trade with the PRC's military and other state-owned
industries, leaving private industry free to trade with United States
firms and the growth of private industry is readily acknowledged as a
promoter of democratic reform.
The PRC claims to have a relatively small defense budget of $22
billion, but has engaged in budget smoke-and-mirrors, hiding funds in
its police budget and elsewhere, and securing an annual defense growth
rate of 10 percent per year. Many of the goods procured with these
funds are made by slave labor.
I believe we can put a wrench in the gears of China's war machine and
human rights abuses, while allowing the engine of free trade to keep
moving forward. It would be a bold foreign policy action and a smart
economic protection. I urge support for the measure. We do not need to
extend more favors to the PRC.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld], and thank her for her courageous leadership
on human rights throughout the world.
(Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. UNSOELD. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, some Members oppose the use of trade measures against
China on the grounds that unfettered commercial exchanges will bring
about political reform.
Well, I have a few questions for them. Would these same members argue
that the use of sanctions to press for the end to apartheid in South
Africa was a mistake? Would they argue that the use of sanctions
against the old Soviet Union was a mistake? Are they prepared today to
argue the case for lifting sanctions against Iraq, Haiti, and Serbia? I
doubt it.
Let us be honest. Most of the resistance to the Pelosi amendment
stems from the fact that large commercial interests have a stake in
maintaining markets in China.
Those of us supporting the Pelosi amendment are sensitive to that. I
would remind Members that if this measure is adopted China would still
enjoy a huge trade surplus with the United States. That surplus will
provide plenty of leverage to forestall retaliation.
So what will the Pelosi amendment do? It will go after goods produced
by the Chinese military. They are the ones who drove tanks over
protesters in Tiananmen Square. They are the ones guilty of imprisoning
and torturing human beings in Tibet and China for their religious and
political beliefs.
If we end MFN status for goods produced by the very inappropriately
named People's Liberation Army, we will be turning off the spigot that
is financing their arms build-up and aiding the suppression of those
who advocate freedom.
The cause of human rights is about standing for the individual
against a tyrannical government. One such courageous individual has
been traveling our country, sharing her story. Tsultrim Dolma was a nun
in Tibet arrested by the PLA for taking part in a political
demonstration. While in custody she was raped and tortured. A device
was rammed into her mouth sending volts of electricity through her
body--volts so powerful that her teeth were knocked out and she was
left unconscious. That is the PLA whose products now get more favored
treatment.
Mr. Chairman, this is a great Nation because we have stood for
certain principles. America's founding principle was most powerfully
expressed by Thomas Jefferson: ``We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights * * *''
This House has the opportunity to answer whether those words still
ring true for us today. I hope Members answer overwhelmingly that they
do--that we are still a people willing to stand up for freedom. Support
the Pelosi amendment.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Payne].
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me, and I rise in opposition to the Pelosi bill.
Mr. Chairman, no one disagrees that China must improve its record in
the area of human rights. China continues to fall far short of
international standards. The United States must continue to publicly
raise concerns about the detention of political prisoners, prison
conditions, use of forced labor, and human rights violations in Tibet.
However, I believe that through our business contacts with China, we
are helping to develop an entrepreneurial middle class there--men and
women whose lives will be improved and who will have the experience and
the benefit of China's transition to a market economy. Delinking MFN
and human rights conditions will promote a broad engagement between the
United States and China, not only through economic contacts but also
through cultural, educational, and other exchanges.
In the long run, I believe this is the best approach to promoting and
achieving real progress on human rights in China.
The Pelosi bill would prohibit all imports from China that are a
product of the Chinese Army or are goods produced, manufactured, or
exported by state-owned Chinese enterprises. This targeted approach
while well-intentioned is not workable.
The Pelosi bill would force the U.S. administration into countless
numbers of hearings and reviews to determine what products are
prohibited and what products are not, what exactly is a state-owned
enterprise and what is not.
In addition, it would put in jeopardy hundreds of thousands of
American jobs. The Pelosi bill is unworkable and counterproductive to
achieving increased human rights protection in China because it will
sever important cultural and economic ties.
We should be resolute in our efforts to achieve progress on human
rights while at the same time developing a fair trading system between
the the United States and China.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Pelosi bill.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McCloskey].
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
this time to me, and I commend her for her leadership.
Mr. Chairman, how can we look American working people in the eye and
say we want to extend MFN protection to Chinese goods manufactured in
slave labor factories and prison cmps?
If we can not say ``no'' to this for fear of offense, what is our
leverage to say ``no'' to anything?
As to their $24 billion and growing surplus with us, why do we allow
the Chinese market to remain rife with internal barriers crafted
specifically to deflect United States exports?
A memorandum of understanding between the United States and China in
August, 1992, provided a mechanism for United States investigations of
suspect slave labor facilities. More than a year after that agreement
was signed, the Chinese had acknowledged only 16 of 31 United States
requests to investigate factories suspected of using slave labor. They
granted only one request during that visit, United States
representatives were denied access to parts of the compound. The United
States request to revisit that facility was denied. This is good
intentions?
I might say this is ridiculous and absurd. We see where their
intentions are. Vote ``yes'' on Pelosi, vote ``yes'' for humanity and
fairness.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Eshoo].
Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding this
time to me, and I thank her for her extraordinary leadership on this
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi substitute to H.R. 4590
which revokes most-favored-nation [MFN] status for products made under
the control of the Chinese Government and its military.
This substitute directs the Treasury Department to publish a list of
military, state-owned, and defense industrial trading companies in
China and urges the Treasury Department to encourage U.S. firms
operating there to adopt a voluntary code of conduct which respects
basic human rights.
I have listened to and read what has been advanced by those who
support delinkage. Their words ring hollow when we see Chinese citizens
sent to forced labor camps where they must make goods for shipment to
the United States.
Our business community, particularly the high technology industry in
my district, sees tremendous commercial opportunities in China. China
is cited as the greatest market in history for United States exports. I
share their view that we pursue new markets.
But, Mr. Chairman, I also know the most valuable export our great
Nation has is democracy. And the best lesson in democracy we can give
the world is the standard we set for ourselves.
That standard is this: We will not give special trade privileges to
those who do not give basic human rights to their citizens.
Will China learn democracy sooner or later if we all United States
businesses to trade with China as a favored nation? Perhaps.
But should the United States traffic in products made by Chinese
workers wit bayonets held to their throats? No, Mr. Chairman, we do not
need to be trading in that kind of work product.
The Pelosi substitute provides a clear message to the Chinese
Government. It says we respectfully inform you that there are
consequences in failing to meet basic human rights standards we set for
nations we grant special privileges to.
Mr. Chairman, those standards were set by the President with the
support of Congress and American business last year. I believe that not
equivocating on those standards sends a clear and firm message to
China's leaders which may be more beneficial to us than any short term
economic benefits.
I urge my colleagues to support the Pelosi substitute to H.R. 4590.
{time} 1730
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague, the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Pelosi], for her rational and appropriate
compromise on the issue of China MFN.
Like Ms. Pelosi, all of us want to bring about freedom and democracy
in China. Yet, none of us want to cut off trade with that nation, or to
harm American companies that do business there.
The real issue here is leverage. How can we use leverage with the
Chinese Government to help bring about real change?
Some say, ``Let market forces continue--and, change is inevitable.''
But, no leverage at all is hardly convincing to leaders who murder and
imprison their citizens to prevent change.
Some say, Cut off MFN entirely. But, such a blunt tool could spark a
counterproductive trade war and prevent continued dialog with China's
leaders.
The real solution is H.R. 4590. It lets the United States stand up
for human rights, while using our leverage to move China's leaders
closer to respect for human rights.
We all look forward to a day when sanctions are not needed--when
freedom is a fact of life for the Chinese people.
H.R. 4590 will bring that day closer, and that's why we should
support it.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time at
this moment so my distinguished colleague from California can make the
concluding remarks.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset I do want to pay tribute to a most
gracious woman, and she has a firm commitment that I have recognized
certainly and respect profoundly even though we have honest
disagreements. So, I say to the gentlewoman, ``I salute you, Ms.
Pelosi.''
I simply want to reiterate a few things that were said earlier, and
that has to do with the importance of an American presence in mainland
China. The fact of the matter is we are there to set a positive
example, amongst other things. The treatment of the work force by
American employers in terms of worker safety, worker welfare, in terms
of looking to environmental concerns, these set the kinds of positive
examples that can have that rippling effect that will touch other
people's lives in China that have never been exposed to that before.
The United States has been in the vanguard in all of these areas, and I
think it is important to remember Ben Franklin's counsel: ``A good
example is the best sermon.''
Mr. Chairman, the United States presence there provides that good
example and that sermon, and it is for that reason that I think
expanded U.S. participation and presence on mainland China serves to
advance not just the economic interests of the United States or the
economic interests of mainland China. It serves to advance the
interests that we share and that are being expressed in the effort by
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] but which can be better
achieved by having a continuing U.S. presence there and an expanded
one.
So, I urge Members, with all due respect, to defeat H.R. 4590 and to
support the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think anyone here has suggested that we
disengage in trading with China. The policy that we are now discussing
is whether we should grant them MFN status. Everyone, and I think it is
indisputable, knows that China is the worst as far as human rights
violations in the whole world. This legislation merely asks that MFN
status for China be denied in relationship to products produced by the
People's Liberation Army, the Chinese defense industry companies and
Communist state owned enterprises. I think it is important that we make
that distinction, and I urge support for the Pelosi amendment.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes, which is all the
time we have remaining, to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman],
the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr GLICKMAN. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have to tell my colleagues
a little bit about the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. She is
one of the most persistent, doggedly tenacious people on the issue of
human rights that I ever met. We were in China together about a year
ago on a Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence trip. Wherever we
went, from the highest government official down, she tenaciously raised
the issue of human rights in a vigorous fashion, even in circumstances
that probably they never thought it would be raised in their lifetime,
and I think she made her point, and it was an important point, but I
disagree with her on this issue and for a couple of reasons, and let me
tell my colleagues why.
Just a few months ago the President of the United States announced a
major foreign policy initiative, the renewal of MFN to China, and, yes,
there was some controversy about it, but can my colleagues imagine how
indecisive America will now look in the world if today we cut not only
his legs off, but cut American foreign policy legs off in terms of that
position? We are being accused of being indecisive in Bosnia, of being
indecisive in Haiti, of being indecisive in other parts of the world.
We have one place where we have made a clear foreign policy decision.
It is China. And now the U.S. Congress is going to say to this
President, who has not had the most stellar record in the world of
consistency in foreign policy, ``I'm sorry, Mr. President, you're
wrong. We are going to do this one away from you.''
Mr. Chairman, this is a very bad thing to do to this country, not
just to this President, but to this country at a time when he has made
a decision and one that we need to stand by.
The second thing has to do with human rights, and it is no question
that China has a much less than stellar record in human rights, but
this is one of the most important countries in the world economically,
diplomatically and militarily. China soon, with the United States, will
probably be the two most economically powerful nations in the world.
China is also a country that, believe it or not, was quite helpful to
the United States during the cold war when our efforts were focused on
containing Moscow. China was of extreme help to our country in making
sure that the Soviets were contained.
This is not a country that has been a constant adversary of the
United States. Yes, it is a country that has a different standard for
its people and the one that we have got to find the right leverage to
change so that they improve their standard, but by adopting the Pelosi
resolution, Mr. Chairman, we isolate China, we isolate them at a time
that the North Korean Government has the potential, if not the reality,
of developing nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver to Japan, to
China and sell all over the world, and our only ace in the hole is
China. We isolate them at a time when other countries in Southeast Asia
are developing, and we need Chinese help in order to make sure that we
have opportunity to influence those countries diplomatically and
economically. We isolate them at a time when we need to improve their
human rights record, and they will laugh at us when we try to cause
their improvement without continuing the trade relationship.
So, while I honor the commitment of the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Pelosi], I think she is wrong on this one. I urge my colleagues to
support the Hamilton resolution.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I feel very privileged to rise today to close the
debate on H.R. 4590. Of course I rise in support of my own legislation,
and in doing so I want to thank my colleagues who have spoken here
today, who have lent their names as cosponsors to the legislation: The
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Bonior], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and the list goes on and on to over a hundred
Members, Democrats and Republicans alike.
I believe that Wei Jing Jung, who has not been seen since he had a
meeting with Secretary Shattuck, should be very pleased that so many
Members of this House of Representatives have stood by him in this
debate in the face of intense lobbying from those who, while certainly
supportive of human rights, do not give it the priority that we do in
our relationship with China, and I say that very forthrightly, Mr.
Chairman.
{time} 1740
Mr. Chairman, one of our colleagues who use to be in this body,
Representative Lindy Boggs from Louisiana, had a saying that she would
say to us from time to time in the Women's Caucus especially. She would
say: ``Know thy power.'' I say that to our colleagues here today. Know
thy power. With your vote today, you can make a statement in support of
the moderates and the reformers in China, and the succession there is
very important to our national interests. It is important that it go in
a more open politically reformed direction.
With your vote, knowing thy power, you can make a great advance for
the American worker. Because you can recognize the linkage, yes, the
linkage that is there between the fate of the American worker and the
promotion of human rights abroad.
Human rights activists and labor activists abroad have said that what
we are doing in Asia with our trade is racing to the bottom. Companies
in countries compete for the worst laws, and the weaker the laws are,
the better they like it. The American worker's job is dependent on
workers' rights in other countries, because as long as those countries
repress their workers and their rights, as well as other rights, the
American worker is ill-served, because we cannot compete with no-cost
labor for like-prison labor.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 4590 is as follows:
H.R. 4590
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``United States-China Act of
1994''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In Executive Order 12850, dated May 28, 1993, the
President established conditions for renewing most-favored-
nation treatment for the People's Republic of China in 1994.
(2) The Executive order requires that in recommending the
extension of most-favored-nation trade status to the People's
Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning July 3,
1994, the Secretary of State shall not recommend extension
unless the Secretary determines that such extension
substantially promotes the freedom of emigration objectives
contained in section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2432) and that China is complying with the 1992 bilateral
agreement between the United States and China concerning
export to the United States of products made with prison
labor.
(3) The Executive order further requires that in making the
recommendation, the Secretary of State shall determine if
China has made overall significant progress with respect to--
(A) taking steps to begin adhering to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights;
(B) releasing and providing an acceptable accounting for
Chinese citizens imprisoned or detained for the nonviolent
expression of their political and religious beliefs,
including such expressions of beliefs in connection with the
Democracy Wall and Tiananmen Square movements;
(C) ensuring humane treatment of prisoners, and allowing
access to prisons by international humanitarian and human
rights organizations;
(D) protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural
heritage; and
(E) permitting international radio and television
broadcasts into China.
(4) The Executive order requires the executive branch to
resolutely pursue all legislative and executive actions to
ensure that China abides by its commitments to follow fair,
nondiscriminatory trade practices in dealing with United
States businesses and adheres to the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines and
parameters, and other nonproliferation commitments.
(5) The Government of the People's Republic of China, a
member of the United Nations Security Council obligated to
respect and uphold the United Nations charter and Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, has over the past year made less
than significant progress on human rights. The People's
Republic of China has released only a few prominent political
prisoners and continues to violate internationally recognized
standards of human rights by arbitrary arrests and detention
of persons for the nonviolent expression of their political
and religious beliefs.
(6) The Government of the People's Republic of China has
not allowed humanitarian and human rights organizations
access to prisons.
(7) The Government of the People's Republic of China has
refused to meet with the Dalai Lama, or his representative,
to discuss the protection of Tibet's distinctive religious
and cultural heritage.
(8) It continues to be the policy and practice of the
Government of the People's Republic of China to control all
trade unions and suppress and harass members of the
independent labor union movement.
(9) The Government of the People's Republic of China
continues to restrict the activities of accredited
journalists.
(10) The People's Republic of China's defense industrial
trading companies and the People's Liberation Army engage in
lucrative trade relations with the United States and operate
lucrative commercial businesses within the United States.
Trade with and investments in the defense industrial trading
companies and the People's Liberation Army are contrary to
the national security interests of the United States.
(11) The President has conducted an intensive high-level
dialogue with the Government of the People's Republic of
China, including meeting with the President of China, in an
effort to encourage that government to make significant
progress toward meeting the standards contained in the
Executive order for continuation of most-favored-nation
treatment.
(12) The Government of the People's Republic of China has
not made overall significant progress with respect to the
standards contained in the President's Executive Order 12850,
dated May 28, 1993.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the Congress that, since
the President has recommended the continuation of the waiver
under section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 for the
People's Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning
July 3, 1994, such waiver shall not provide for extension of
nondiscriminatory trade treatment to goods that are produced,
manufactured, or exported by the People's Liberation Army or
Chinese defense industrial trading companies or to
nonqualified goods that are produced, manufactured, or
exported by state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic
of China.
SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY
TREATMENT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law--
(1) if nondiscriminatory treatment is not granted to the
People's Republic of China by reason of the enactment into
law of a disapproval resolution described in subsection
(b)(1), nondiscriminatory treatment shall--
(A) continue to apply to any good that is produced or
manufactured by a person that is not a state-owned enterprise
of the People's Republic of China, but
(B) not apply to any good that is produced, manufactured,
or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's
Republic of China,
(2) if nondiscriminatory treatment is granted to the
People's Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning
on July 3, 1994, such nondiscriminatory treatment shall not
apply to--
(A) any good that is produced, manufactured, or exported by
the People's Liberation Army or a Chinese defense industrial
trading company, or
(B) any nonqualified good that is produced, manufactured,
or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's
Republic of China, and
(3) in order for nondiscriminatory treatment to be granted
to the People's Republic of China, and subsequent to the
granting of such nondiscriminatory treatment, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall consult with leaders of American
businesses having significant trade with or investment in the
People's Republic of China, to encourage them to adopt a
voluntary code of conduct that--
(A) follows internationally recognized human rights
principles,
(B) ensures that the employment of Chinese citizens is not
discriminatory in terms of sex, ethnic origin, or political
belief,
(C) ensures that no convict, forced, or indentured labor is
knowingly used,
(D) recognizes the rights of workers to freely organize and
bargain collectively, and
(E) discourages mandatory political indoctrination on
business premises.
(b) Disapproval Resolution.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
``resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the two
Houses of Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of
which is as follows: ``That the Congress does not approve the
extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of the
Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the
Congress on ______________________ with respect to the
People's Republic of China because the Congress does not
agree that the People's Republic of China has met the
standards described in the President's Executive Order 12850,
dated May 28, 1993.'', with the blank space being filled with
the appropriate date.
(2) Applicable rules.--The provisions of sections 153
(other than paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b)) and
402(d)(2) (as modified by this subsection) of the Trade Act
of 1974 shall apply to a resolution described in paragraph
(1).
(c) Determination of State-Owned Enterprises and Chinese
Defense Industrial Trading Companies.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), not
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall determine which
persons are state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic
of China and which persons are Chinese defense industrial
trading companies for purposes of this Act. The Secretary
shall publish a list of such persons in the Federal Register.
(2) Public hearing.--
(A) General rule.--Before making the determination and
publishing the list required by paragraph (1), the Secretary
of the Treasury shall hold a public hearing for the purpose
of receiving oral and written testimony regarding the persons
to be included on the list.
(B) Additions and deletions.--The Secretary of the Treasury
may add or delete persons from the list based on information
available to the Secretary or upon receipt of a request
containing sufficient information to take such action.
(3) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of making
the determination required by paragraph (1), the following
definitions apply:
(A) Chinese defense industrial trading company.--The term
``Chinese defense industrial trading company''--
(i) means a person that is--
(I) engaged in manufacturing, producing, or exporting, and
(II) affiliated with or owned, controlled, or subsidized by
the People's Liberation Army, and
(ii) includes any person identified in the United States
Defense Intelligence Agency publication numbered VP-1920-271-
90, dated September 1990.
(B) People's liberation army.--The term ``People's
Liberation Army'' means any branch or division of the land,
naval, or air military service or the police of the
Government of the People's Republic of China.
(C) State-owned enterprise of the people's republic of
china.--(i) The term ``state-owned enterprise of the People's
Republic of China'' means a person who is affiliated with or
wholly owned, controlled, or subsidized by the Government of
the People's Republic of China and whose means of production,
products, and revenues are owned or controlled by a central
or provincial government authority. A person shall be
considered to be state-owned if--
(I) the person's assets are primarily owned by a central or
provincial government authority;
(II) a substantial proportion of the person's profits are
required to be submitted to a central or provincial
government authority;
(III) the person's production, purchases of inputs, and
sales of output, in whole or in part, are subject to state,
sectoral, or regional plans; or
(IV) a license issued by a government authority classifies
the person as state-owned.
(ii) Any person that--
(I) is a qualified foreign joint venture or is licensed by
a governmental authority as a collective, cooperative, or
private enterprise; or
(II) is wholly owned by a foreign person,
shall not be considered to be state-owned.
(D) Qualified foreign joint venture.--The term ``qualified
foreign joint venture'' means any person--
(i) which is registered and licensed in the agency or
department of the Government of the People's Republic of
China concerned with foreign economic relations and trade as
an equity, cooperative, contractual joint venture, or joint
stock company with foreign investment;
(ii) in which the foreign investor partner and a person of
the People's Republic of China share profits and losses and
jointly manage the venture;
(iii) in which the foreign investor partner holds or
controls at least 25 percent of the investment and the
foreign investor partner is not substantially owned or
controlled by a state-owned enterprise of the People's
Republic of China;
(iv) in which the foreign investor partner is not a person
of a country the government of which the Secretary of State
has determined under section 6(j) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) to have
repeatedly provided support for acts of international
terrorism; and
(v) which does not use state-owned enterprises of the
People's Republic of China to export its goods or services.
(E) Person.--The term ``person'' means a natural person,
corporation, partnership, enterprise, instrumentality,
agency, or other entity.
(F) Foreign investor partner.--The term ``foreign investor
partner'' means--
(i) a natural person who is not a citizen of the People's
Republic of China; and
(ii) a corporation, partnership, instrumentality,
enterprise, agency, or other entity that is organized under
the laws of a country other than the People's Republic of
China and 50 percent or more of the outstanding capital stock
or beneficial interest of such entity is owned (directly or
indirectly) by natural persons who are not citizens of the
People's Republic of China.
(G) Nonqualified good.--The term ``nonqualified good''
means a good to which chapter 39, 44, 48, 61, 62, 64, 70, 73,
84, 93, or 94 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States applies.
(H) Convict, forced, or indentured labor.--The term
``convict, forced, or indentured labor'' has the meaning
given such term by section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1307).
(I) Violations of internationally recognized standards of
human rights.--The term ``violations of internationally
recognized standards of human rights'' includes but is not
limited to, torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial,
causing the disappearance of persons by abduction and
clandestine detention of those persons, secret judicial
proceedings, and other flagrant denial of the right to life,
liberty, or the security of any person.
(J) Missile technology control regime.--The term ``Missile
Technology Control Regime'' means the agreement, as amended,
between the United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal
Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and Japan,
announced on April 16, 1987, to restrict sensitive missile-
relevant transfers based on an annex of missile equipment and
technology.
(d) Semiannual Reports.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall, not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and the end of each 6-month period
occurring thereafter, report to the Congress on the efforts
of the executive branch to carry out subsection (c). The
Secretary may include in the report a request for additional
authority, if necessary, to carry out subsection (c). In
addition, the report shall include information regarding the
efforts of the executive branch to carry out subsection
(a)(3).
SEC. 4. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.
The President may waive the application of any condition or
prohibition imposed on any person pursuant to this Act, if
the President determines and reports to the Congress that the
continued imposition of the condition or prohibition would
have a serious adverse effect on the vital national security
interests of the United States.
SEC. 5. REPORT BY THE PRESIDENT.
If the President recommends in 1995 that the waiver
referred to in section 2 be continued for the People's
Republic of China, the President shall state in the document
required to be submitted to the Congress by section 402(d) of
the Trade Act of 1974, the extent to which the Government of
the People's Republic of China has made progress during the
period covered by the document, with respect to--
(1) adhering to the provisions of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights,
(2) ceasing the exportation to the United States of
products made with convict, force, or indentured labor,
(3) ceasing unfair and discriminatory trade practices which
restrict and unreasonably burden American business, and
(4) adhering to the guidelines and parameters of the
Missile Technology Control Regime, the controls adopted by
the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the controls adopted by the
Australia Group.
SEC. 6. SANCTIONS BY OTHER COUNTRIES.
If the President decides not to seek a continuation of a
waiver in 1995 for the People's Republic of China under
section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974, the President shall,
during the 30-day period beginning on the date that the
President would have recommended to the Congress that such a
waiver be continued, undertake efforts to ensure that members
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade take a similar
action with respect to the People's Republic of China.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except the amendments
printed in House Report 103-673, which may be offered only by the
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall
not be subject to amendment. Debate on each amendment will be equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the
amendment. If more than one of the amendments printed in the report is
adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be considered as finally
adopted and reported to the House.
It is now in order to consider the amendment numbered one in House
Report 103-673.
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. hamilton
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Hamilton:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``United States China Policy
Act of 1994''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The economic, social, political, and cultural welfare
of the people of China, who constitute one-fifth of the
world's population, is a matter of global humanitarian
concern.
(2) By virtue of its size, its economic vitality, its
status as a nuclear power, and its role as a permanent member
of the United Nations Security Council, China plays a
significant role in world affairs.
(3) The United States policy toward China involves
balancing multiple interests, including promoting human
rights and democracy, securing China's strategic cooperation
in Asia and the United Nations, protecting United States
national security interests, controlling the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, promoting a peaceful and
democratic transition in Hong Kong, and expanding United
States economic contact with China.
(4) United States policy toward China must include as a key
objective the promotion of internationally recognized human
rights. Specific priorities and methods should be appropriate
to the circumstances. Engagement with China rather than its
isolation is more likely to foster United States interests.
(5) The opening of China to the West, the adoption of free
market economic reforms, the emergence of a strong and
entrepreneurial economy that ensures the rise of a Chinese
middle class; all have led to expanded individual freedom, a
weakening of state control over personal expression, access
to the media in the United States, Hong Kong, and the West,
and major improvements in living standards for the Chinese
people.
(6) United States policies that encourage economic
liberalization and increased contact with the United States
and other democracies foster respect for internationally
recognized human rights and can contribute to civil and
political reform in China.
(7) The President's policy statement of May 26, 1994,
provides a sound framework for expanding and extending the
relationship of the United States with China while continuing
the commitment of the United States to its historic values.
The United States must develop a comprehensive and coherent
policy toward China that addresses the complex and fast-
changing reality in that country and promotes simultaneously
the human rights, diplomatic, economic, and security
interests of the United States toward China.
(8) The United States has an interest in a strong, stable,
prosperous, and open China whose government contributes to
international peace and security and whose actions are
consistent with the responsibilities of great power status.
Whether those expectations are met will determine the
breadth, depth, and tone of the United States-China bilateral
relationship.
(9) Peace and economic progress in East Asia is best
assured through a web of cooperative relations among the
countries of the region, including China and the United
States. The emergence of a militarily powerful China that
seeks to dominate East Asia would be regarded as a matter of
serious concern by the United States and by other countries
in the Asia-Pacific region.
(10) Yet China's performance has been uneven on a number of
issues of concern to the United States. In particular, the
Chinese Government has failed to observe internationally
recognized human rights. In this regard the Congress makes
the following declarations:
(A) The Chinese Government itself has made commitments to
observe universal human rights norms.
(B) Human rights have universal application and are not
solely defined by culture or history.
(C) Chinese policies of particular concern to the United
States are the criminalization of dissent, the inhumane
treatment in prisons, and the serious repression in non-Han-
Chinese areas like Tibet.
(11) Genuine political stability in China and greater
respect for internationally recognized human rights, as well
as continued economic growth and stability, will only occur
in China as a result of a strengthened legal system (based on
the rule of law and property rights), the emergence of a
civil society, and the creation of political institutions
that are responsive to public opinion and the interests of
social groups.
(12) China has entered a major transition in its political
history which will determine the nature of the domestic
system, including respect for internationally recognized
human rights, and the Chinese Government's foreign policy.
The Chinese Government should accelerate the process of
reform of all aspects of Chinese society.
(13) Existing official bilateral and multilateral
institutions provide useful venues for engagement with China
concerning the rule of law, civil society, respect for
internationally recognized human rights, and political
institutions that provide humane and effective governance.
(14) American nongovernmental and business organizations,
in their various forms of engagement in China, have
contributed in that country to the initial emergence of civil
society, the strengthening of the legal system, and the
expansion of economic autonomy.
SEC. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF UNITED STATES
POLICY.
Congress affirms the President's policy and makes the
following recommendations for the conduct of United States
policy toward China:
(1) The United States should continue a steady and
comprehensive policy of pressing for increased Chinese
adherence to international norms, especially those concerning
internationally recognized human rights.
(2) Of particular concern to the United States are the
following:
(A) The accounting and release of political prisoners.
(B) Access to Chinese prisoners by international
humanitarian organizations.
(C) Negotiations between the Chinese Government and the
Dalai Lama on Tibetan issues.
(3) The official dialogue with the Chinese Government on
human rights issues should continue and be intensified.
(4) As he considers appropriate, the President should use
other available modes of official interaction with China to
pursue initiatives that are relevant to promoting increased
respect for human rights in China.
(5) The United States should expand broadcasting to China,
through the Voice of America and Radio Free Asia.
(6) The United States should work through available
multilateral fora, such as the United Nations Human Rights
Commission, to express concerns about human rights in China
and to encourage Chinese adherence to, and compliance with,
international human rights instruments. At all appropriate
times, the United States should work toward and support joint
actions to address significant problems. In particular, the
United States should seek to secure the participation of
other governments in overtures to secure the accounting and
release of political prisoners, to encourage access to
Chinese prisoners by international humanitarian organizations
and negotiations between the Chinese Government and the Dalai
Lama.
(7) Where possible, the United States should take further
steps to foster in China the rule of law, the creation of a
civic society, and the emergence of institutions that provide
humane and effective governance.
(8) To better carry out the recommendation in paragraph
(7), the Secretary of State should encourage United States
posts in China to increase reporting on the human rights
situation, the rule of law, civil society, and other
political developments in China, and to increase appropriate
contacts with domestic nongovernmental organizations.
(9) United States non-governmental organizations should
continue and expand activities that encourage the rule of
law, the emergence of a civic society, and the creation of
institutions that provide humane and effective governance.
(10) When considering the termination of the suspensions of
United States Government activities enacted in section 902(a)
of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990
and 1991, the President should explore whether such
terminations could be used to elicit specific steps by the
Chinese government to enhance respect for internationally
recognized human rights or correct abuses of such rights.
SEC. 4. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS SUPPORTING HUMAN
RIGHTS IN CHINA.
(a) Statement of Policy.--Concerning the promotion of human
rights in China, it shall be the policy of the United States
to promote the following objectives:
(1) An effective legal system, based on the rule of law.
(2) Respect for internationally recognized human rights.
(3) The emergence of civil society.
(4) The creation of institutions that provide humane and
effective governance.
(b) Factors.--In determining how to carry out the
objectives stated in subsection (a), the President should
consider the following factors:
(1) The circumstances under which it is appropriate to
provide support to organizations and individuals in China.
(2) The circumstances under which it is appropriate to
provide financial support, including through the following
means:
(A) Directly by the United States Government.
(B) Through United States nongovernmental organizations
which have established a sound record in China.
(3) The extent to which the objectives of subsection (a)
should be promoted through exchanges, technical assistance,
grants to organizations, and scholarships for advanced study
in the United States.
(4) How to assure accountability for funds provided by the
United States Government.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1995.--
(1) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for
education and cultural exchange programs of the United States
Information Agency for fiscal year 1995, up to $1,000,000 is
authorized to be available for programs to carry out the
objectives of subsection (a).
(2) In addition to such amounts as may otherwise be made
available for broadcasting to China for fiscal year 1995, of
the amounts authorized to be appropriated for international
broadcasting for fiscal year 1995, an additional $5,000,000
may be used for broadcasting to China .
SEC. 5. INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATIONS.
It is the sense of Congress that, in the event that
international humanitarian organizations undertake activities
in China related to the treatment of prisoners, the President
should make available an additional contribution to those
organizations to support such activities.
SEC. 6. PRINCIPLES TO GOVERN THE ACTIVITIES OF UNITED STATES
BUSINESS IN CHINA.
(a) In General.--Congress endorses President Clinton's
efforts to work with the leaders of the United States
business community to develop voluntary principles that could
be adapted by United States companies doing business in China
to further advance human rights and commends United States
companies that have previously adopted such principles or are
considering taking such action.
(b) Other Countries.--Congress urges the President to
encourage other governments to adopt similar principles to
govern the activities of their business organizations with
activities in China.
SEC. 7. PERIODIC REPORTS.
Not more than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act and annually for the 2 subsequent years, the
President shall submit to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, a report (in a classified form in
whole or in part as necessary) which reviews for the
preceding 12-month period those activities supported by the
United States Government to promote the objectives stated in
section 4(a).
SEC. 8. COMMISSION ON LAW AND SOCIETY IN CHINA.
The President is authorized to establish a United States
commission on law and society in the People's Republic of
China to undertake the following responsibilities and such
other duties as the President considers appropriate:
(1) To monitor developments in China with respect to the
following:
(A) The development of the Chinese legal system.
(B) The emergence of civil society.
(C) The development of institutions that provide humane and
effective governance.
(2) To engage in an ad hoc dialogue with Chinese
individuals and nongovernmental organizations who have an
interest in the subjects indicated in paragraph (1).
(3) To report to the President and to the Congress the
commission's findings regarding the subjects identified in
paragraph (1) and its discussions with Chinese individuals
and organizations concerning those subjects.
(4) To make recommendations to the President on United
States policy toward China in promoting the objectives
identified in section 4(a).
(5) To assess and report to the President and the Congress
on whether the creation of a United States-China Commission
on Law and Society would contribute to the objectives
identified in section 4(a).
Amend the title to read as follows: ``Concerning United
States efforts to promote respect for internationally
recognized human rights in China.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hamilton] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed will
be recognized for 15 minutes.
Is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] in opposition to the
Hamilton amendment?
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] will be
recognized for 15 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the question the House faces in consideration of HR
4590, offered by my good friend, the gentlewoman, from California, is
not whether human rights should be a central objective of the United
States policy toward China. We both agree that it should.
The question is how best to promote all United States interests in
China. The choice is clear cut. Do we promote our security, economic
and human rights interests in China through engagement, or through
confrontation?
The Pelosi bill represents a policy of confrontation. It continues
the linkage between trade and human rights, and it will increase
tariffs on half of China's exports to the United States.
The Hamilton Amendment endorses a policy of engagement. It is the
President's policy. It is a policy of engaging China in a web of
cooperation. It de-links China's MFN status from its human rights
record, and urges that we pursue our human rights objectives and other
important interests through more effective means.
pelosi approach: costs, but little gain
Passage of the Pelosi bill would bring heavy costs but few benefits.
First, it would seriously damage U.S. security and political
interests. According to Secretary of Defense William Perry, it could
have ``adverse consequences'' for the ``nation's security.''
If we pass this bill, China could undermine our policy in North
Korea, block sanctions resolutions at the United Nations, and increase
tensions with Taiwan.
Second, the Pelosi bill would seriously damage U.S. economic
interests.
If we denied MFN treatment for half of its exports to the United
States, China would surely retaliate against United States exporters.
Our exports would plummet. Our trade deficit would soar.
According to Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, the Pelosi bill has
``potentially devastating consequences'' for our current exports, for
our future competitiveness in the Chinese market, and our global
competitiveness in key high-tech industries.
Besides jeopardizing current exports to China, the Pelosi bill will
endanger follow-on United States exports totalling $12 billion. In
telecommunications alone, China will require imports of $3 billion
during this decade.
Those are the costs of the Pelosi bill, and they are heavy. In
return, we would get little. Human rights would not improve, and
probably worsen.
China's leaders would conclude that the goal of U.S. policy was to
bring down their regime. They would have no incentive to release
political prisoners or negotiate with the Dalai Lama.
Chinese who favor political liberalization would be deprived of the
freedoms they have.
Make no mistake about it: those in China seeking more political
freedom want the United States to extend MFN, not end it or restrict
it.
My amendment differs significantly from the policy of confrontation
contained in the Pelosi bill:
The Hamilton alternative reinforces the President's policy, rather
than undermines it. The Administration supports the Hamilton amendment
and ``strongly opposes'' the Pelosi approach.
At a time of transition in China, my amendment promotes positive
forces for change rather than provoking the negative elements of the
Chinese regime.
The Hamilton Amendment protects and promotes all United States
interests--security, economic, and human rights interests--in China.
The Hamilton alternative emphasizes a multilateral approach toward
human rights in China instead of a go-it-alone approach.
I urge Members to vote for the Hamilton amendment and to support the
President's policy toward China.
Members today have a clear choice. But they cannot have it both ways.
Some have suggested it is possible to vote for the Pelosi amendment and
the Hamilton amendment.
These two approaches cannot be reconciled. We cannot confront China
one day and engage China the next. Members have to choose. I believe
the choice is clear, and simple.
The Pelosi bill imposes severe costs on the United States, with
little or no gain to the national interest.
The President's policy, contained in the Hamilton amendment, advances
our national security, our economic well-being, and our interest in
human rights. It gives us maximum leverage at a critical time in China.
The Hamilton Amendment:
Emphasizes the importance of human rights as a goal of United States
China Policy.
Urges the Administration to work through international organizations
such as the United Nations Human Rights Commission to press human
rights concerns.
Reallocates existing United States funds for programs to promote
human rights in China and for increased international broadcasting to
China.
Urges American non-governmental organizations to dedicate more
resources to human-rights-related activities in China.
Endorses the President's effort to work with United States businesses
to create a voluntary code of conduct to govern business activities in
China.
Authorizes the President to establish a United States commission to
monitor human rights conditions in China.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4891,
the substitute amendment introduced late last week by Chairman
Hamilton. I am troubled by the fact that the Foreign Affairs Committee
has not had an opportunity to address the issues in the Hamilton bill.
The Hamilton substitute does not refer to the issues raised by the
Pelosi bill. It does not concern itself with our Nation's subsidization
of the People's Liberation Army. I ask my colleagues, how can we
rationalize giving trade benefits to the very same military forces that
fought us in Korea and slaughtered the young peaceful protesters in
Tiananmen Square?
I ask my colleagues to please consider--does it make any sense
whatsoever to assist the only military force in the world that is still
targeting the United States with nuclear weapons and is still testing
nuclear weapons? The Hamilton bill does not address these problems that
are so critical to our national security.
Many of the workers for the Chinese military industrial plants are
not even paid. They are prisoners who peacefully protested for
democracy and now toil to produce products that are dumped on our
markets. The profits go to supporting an offensive Communist military
machine that results in our own defense budget allocating resources to
contend with this threat. Where is the logic in that equation.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to close by reminding our President of what he
said in 1992 about President Bush's policy toward China and I quote:
In China, the President continues to coddle aging rulers
with undisguised contempt for democracy, human rights, and
the need to control the spread of dangerous technologies.
Such forbearance on our part might have been justified during
the cold war as a strategic necessity, where China was a
counterweight to Soviet power. But it makes no sense to play
the China card now, when our opponents have thrown in their
hand.
``A Strategy for Foreign Policy.'' Delivered by Governor Bill Clinton
to the Foreign Policy Association, New York, N.Y., April 1, 1992.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Hamilton substitute
and to support the Pelosi bill.
{time} 1750
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, conditioning the annual renewal of MFN on
human rights objectives is a foreign policy stick that failed to
produce the progress which we all seek from the Communist Chinese
Government. This approach, debated in the House every year since 1990,
is counterproductive to our goals of fostering the growth of freedom
and democracy in that nation.
I welcomed President Clinton's decision on June 2 to extend MFN to
China, and to formally delink human rights objectives from the annual
extension of MFN. I will vote for the Hamilton substitute, H.R. 4891,
because it affirms this policy and expresses my desire for the country
to speak in unison on international problems.
In making his announcement, the President said that a policy of
engagement gives us the best chance to achieve success in all areas of
interest to the United States--human rights, weapons proliferation, and
market access for our exports.
We need a strong and coherent policy which does not elevate a single
United States interest above the others. We need a policy that is
viewed with respect by China, and by our allies with whom we must
cooperate if our pressure is to succeed.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Hamilton substitute.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Berman], a senior member of the Subcommittee on
International Security, International Organizations and Human Rights.
(Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hamilton
substitute, and in support of H.R. 4590.
I support H.R. 4590 because I believe it will offer moral support at
a critical moment to both Chinese dissidents and those arguing for
reform within the system. Although I do not expect this legislation to
survive a veto and be enacted into law, I believe that a strong vote in
its favor today can actually strengthen the President's hand in dealing
with the Chinese Government, even as he explores other means for
promoting the cause of human rights in China.
By the administration's own account, the human rights situation in
China and Tibet remains deplorable. In announcing extension of MFN and
delinking MFN from human rights, the President stated that ``China
continues to commit very serious human rights abuses''.
The Secretary of State, in his recommendations to the President,
noted that ``Despite several significant prisoner releases, many more
dissidents were detained, tried and sentenced during a nationwide
crackdown on political and religious dissent.'' The Secretary also
noted that new laws were codified which would abridge political and
religious rights.
One might conclude from this that, since linking MFN and human rights
appeared to be so ineffective, we have little to lose from trying the
administration's approach. That would ignore the effect of the
administration's mixed messages to the Chinese Government in the weeks
and months before the decision. It would also overlook the very real
possibility that, if the mere threat of a sanction was insufficient to
extract concessions from a hard-line dictatorship intent on calling our
bluff, the natural next step might be to actually do what we had
threatened to do.
But most important is the obvious evidence of the Chinese
Government's behavior in response to the new policy. The human rights
situation has deteriorated as an immediate consequence of the
President's decision.
On July 14, the first major political trial since 1991 began in
Beijing to try 14 persons whom Amnesty International has declared
prisoners of conscience. This is the largest joint political trial in
many years. The defendants had been in detention for more than 2 years,
and the trial had been postponed several times since September 1993.
In Tibet, Phuntsog Yangkyi, a 20-year-old nun, died from injuries
sustained after she was severely beaten for singing nationalist songs.
Her body was hurriedly cremated against the wishes of her family,
making it impossible for them to arrange an independent medical
investigation into the cause of death. Phuntsog Gyaltsen, a 36-year-old
monk and prisoner of conscience, is reported to be seriously ill as a
result of sustained beatings in Drapchi prison in Lhasa. According to
unofficial sources, his body has become helpless, and he suffers from
liver and stomach ailments. Nevertheless, he is compelled to continue
hard labor such as digging, emptying toilets, and cultivating.
Five Tibetans were sentenced recently to 12 to 15 years imprisonment
and 4 to 5 years disenfranchisement for nothing more than destroying a
name plate on a government building and pasting up proindependence
slogans.
What all this suggests is that the delinking of human rights and
trade has had a negative effect on the position of reformists within
the Chinese Government, and has emboldened the hard-liners. It is
difficult under these circumstances to understand the administration's
position that conditioning MFN on human rights was the right policy a
year ago but is the wrong one now.
Perhaps if we had never threatened to restrict MFN unless the issues
of human rights was satisfactorily addressed, I might today be
persuaded that the two matters should not be linked. However, to have
conditioned a particular privilege on human rights improvements, only
to have the Chinese Government defy our concerns about human rights,
compels some indication from the United States Government of the
seriousness of our resolve to use trade sanctions.
If I felt that the administration is today considering adequate
alternative instruments to promote our interest in human rights, I
might still be persuaded that we ought not to use trade sanctions.
However, I do not believe that adequate means are under consideration,
and I see no alternative to the very precisely crafted approach of H.R.
4590.
Let me make clear at the outset that I am all for engagement with
that great civilization. I accept that we must acknowledge the global
importance of China, and the legitimacy of its people's aspirations to
a better life. I also agree that our economic interests in the region
suggest that we not fatally burden our trade relationship with China.
However, our long-term interests are in siding with the Chinese people
in their struggle against one of the most oppressive and violent
governments in recent times.
I believe that H.R. 4590 is an intelligent and precise instrument of
United States policy in China. It would leave the vast bulk of United
States-China trade entirely free to accomplish the economic and
political benefits that are claimed for it. While I applaud the
President's ban on import of munitions, I believe that to be
insufficient. In any case, that was a measure we needed to take to make
our streets safer. The voluntary code of conduct for United States
businesses, proposed by the administration, can have no effect at all
on the behavior of the Chinese Government, and is in any case opposed
by United States business.
H.R. 4590 would target for trade sanctions precisely those Chines
exports to the United States which bolster the Chinese Government's
capacity to repress its citizens and build up the strength of the
military and the state. I have reviewed the administration's arguments
against this modest approach, and I am not persuaded by them.
The administration suggests that it is extremely difficult to assess
exactly what products are covered by the act, but then proceeds to
suggest that it estimates that the value of goods covered by the act
would be $17 billion. I fail to understand how this estimate is arrived
at if indeed there is such great doubt about the goods covered.
In fact, the goods to be covered are quite specific, and procedures
are provided for determining them. Products made by the Chinese armed
forces or their subsidiaries, as determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, and specified classes of goods from a U.S. Tariff Schedule
which are provided by State Owned Enterprises, also determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury. While the administration argues the worst
case that almost any company that received subsidized inputs could be
defined as a state owned, H.R. 4590 provides a clear exception for
collective, cooperative, private or foreign enterprises.
Most significant of all is the provision of H.R. 4590 which allows
the President to waive any restriction that he determines would have a
serious adverse effect on the vital national security interests of the
United States. Thus, the legislation would not hobble our nation's
capacity to pursue other aspects of our relationship with China.
Even were the Chinese Government to engage in fraud to evade the
restrictions, we already have in place instruments and procedures for
determining the origin of goods, for purposes of trade law enforcement.
Reliable estimates of the value of defined types of imports suggest
that approximately goods worth about $5 billion would be subject to
higher tariffs. Given the fact that China would still have a trade
surplus of approximately $20 billion with the United States, it defies
credibility to suggest that they would retaliate against United States
businesses, risk counter-retaliation, and kill the goose that lays the
golden egg.
Even if the goods at stake were worth the $17 billion inaccurately
estimate by the administration, we would still the only major nation
running a substantial trade deficit with China. I must note that the
United States buys 40 percent of Chinese exports, while China buys 2
percent of United States exports. Which nation depends more on this
trade relationship?
I believe that the approach of the substitute, which reflects the
administration's policy, towards the promotion of human rights, is an
ineffective instrument.
The only substantive provision of the substitute relate to
educational and cultural exchange programs of the United States
Information Agency [USIA], broadcasting, and the Commission on Law and
Society in China. The provision on USIA programs makes no new money
available, and adds nothing to the President's existing authority to
use existing funds for programs in China. The same is true of the
broadcasting provision; whatever additional money was used for
broadcasting to China would be at the expense of an already
insufficient broadcasting budget. The Commission is a fine idea,
although it is unclear how much force a private commission can add to
the bilateral dialogue on human rights.
Moreover, even a significantly expanded broadcasting capacity, while
important as one instrument of policy among many, cannot be relied on
too greatly. It is noteworthy that in noting improvements justifying
the extension of MFN, the President pointed to Chinese cooperation on
jamming of United States broadcasts. Recent developments suggest that
hope was ill-founded and that the Chinese Government remains as
intransigent as ever.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, as President Clinton stated in May,
conditioning trade as a policy tool has outlived its usefulness--
particularly in our China policy. Instead, we must recognize--as this
amendment does--that United States policies that engage China and
promote economic liberalization, greater international trade, and
increased contact with the West are the policies that contribute to
civil and political reform in China.
Our bill affirms those beliefs and does not condition trade with
China on specific actions by the Chinese Government. It sets forth a
policy supporting human rights in China as a key United States foreign
policy objective, but which does not undermine our national security
and economic interests in China and the rest of Asia.
This debate is not about deals versus ideals. It is not about
principle over profit. This debate is about constructing a United
States foreign policy towards China and all of Asia that meets the
diverse interests of the American and Chinese people.
We all agree on the importance of promoting respect for human rights
in China. U.S. foreign policy must be based on deeply held moral and
political convictions that derive from 200 years of experience with
American democracy and over 2,000 years of Western civilization and
Judeo-Christian values. Such values are now nearly universally
accepted, regardless of a nation's religious faith or culture.
However, we should not use trade sanctions when sanctions will not
achieve our interpretation of human rights in China and when the trade
sanctions only hurt the very Chinese people we are trying to help. But
do not listen to me, listen to what ordinary Chinese citizens are
saying to the New York Times Beijing bureau chief. He says:
Talk to Chinese peasants, workers, and intellectuals and on
one subject you get virtual unaniminity: Don't curb trade.
For this reason, I encourage Members to vote yes on H.R. 4891.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, let me just stipulate that there are good and
decent Members on both sides, and I believe that very deeply. And they
both share the same goal.
Let me just say, as I was thinking, siting out there, what would we
be doing in the Congress today if we were debating MFN in 1933 for
Germany? What would we be doing?
We went back and got some telegrams and memos from Cordell Hull. On
March 3, 1993, Cordell Hull reveals he had received reports that the
entire Jewish population was ``living under the shadow of a campaign of
murder'' scheduled to begin in a few days, but he ``paid no credence to
them.''
The second cablegram, March 21, 1933, although the State Department
admits the United States press was reporting widespread mistreatment of
Jews in Germany, ``telegrams thus far received from the embassy do not
appear to bear out the gravity of the situation.''
March 24, 1933, despite receiving pleas to take up the issue of the
German Government, Cordell Hull was ``of the opinion that outside
intercession rarely produced the results desired and that frequently
aggravated the situation.''
I am enclosing for the Record those cables and also the New York
Times article that said, in it, he stated, ``in the opinion of the
embassy, stabilization has been reached in the field of personal
mistreatment, and there are indications that in other phases, the
situation is improving.''
{time} 1800
Mr. Chairman, we all know what happened after that.
Please understand that I am not suggesting that the People's Republic
of China in the 1994 version of the genocidal Nazi Germany. But as in
the 1930's, when there was an unwillingness to believe the human rights
violations could be occurring, I fear the world today may be naively
turning away from the ongoing brutal repression in the PRC. The world
should not be silent in 1994 as it was 1933.
If this bill fails, the issue of MFN for China may never come up
again. The Chinese people will continue to be thrown into prison
because if they dare to think independently, the Chinese military will
continue to defy international pressure to improve its behavior, the
Chinese martyrs will continue to believe that no one is there to
comfort them, and the memories of Tiananmen will continue to fade.
Mr. Chairman, I must say that my sense is that many of the
businesses, although they are good businesses, will no longer speak
out. I really have not heard of the business community, which I
generally support in this speaking out on this issue. In fact, I have
been getting cablegrams from our intelligence agencies that have been
saying the business communities have been very silent when they meet
with the Chinese Government.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support this, and hope
that whatever we do, we will be vigilant on this issue from here on
into the future.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record copies of telegrams and
articles describing the situation regarding Jewish persecution in
Germany:
Department of State,
Washington, March 3, 1933.
The following appeared as an ASSOCIATED PRESS dispatch from
London today in the PUBLIC LEDGER, Philadelphia:
``London Daily Herald said today plans were complete for
Anti-Jewish program in Germany on a scale as terrible as any
instance Jewish persecution in two thousand years.''
The paper ascribed its information to ``high source'' and
``whole Jewish population of Germany totaling six hundred
thousand is living under shadow of a campaign of murder which
may be initiated within a few hours and cannot be postponed
for more than a few days''.
While this Government is disinclined to lend credence to
this report, it is causing widespread distress among a large
section of the American people. You may, in your discretion,
talk the matter over with the German Government and acquaint
them with the apprehension and distress that is being felt
here.
____
Department of State,
Washington, March 21, 1933.
Press reports indicating widespread mistreatment of Jews in
Germany, are causing deep concern and even alarm to a large
section of our population. This is showing itself not only in
press comment, but in a series of meetings and conferences,
the most important of which is to be a mass meeting scheduled
in New York for March 27. A delegation of important Jewish
leaders called at the Department this afternoon.
Telegrams thus far received from the Embassy would not
appear to bear out the gravity of the situation reported
above. It is important, however, for us to have an exact
picture of what is taking place. Please therefore telegraph
us the facts as you see them, after consulting the principal
Consulates, by telephone if necessary, with a view to
ascertaining the situation throughout different parts of the
country.
____
Department of State,
Washington, DC, March 24, 1933.
Public opinion in this country continues alarmed at the
persistent press reports of mistreatment of Jews in Germany.
We are under heavy pressure to make representations in their
behalf to the German Government. I am of the opinion that
outside intercession has rarely produced the results desired
and has frequently aggravated the situation. Nevertheless if
you perceive any way in which this Government could usefully
be of assistance, I should appreciate your frank and
confidential advice. On Monday next there is to be held in
New York a monster mass meeting. If prior to that date an
amelioration in the situation has taken place, which you
could report in form susceptible of release to the press,
together with public assurances by Hitler and other leaders,
it would have a calming effect.
____
[From the New York Times, Mar. 27, 1933]
Nazis End Attacks on Jews in Reich, Our Embassy Finds
Washington, March 26.--Mistreatment of Jews in Germany has
virtually ceased, according to Secretary of State Hull, who
conveyed this information today in telegrams to Dr. Cyrus
Adler of Philadlphia and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of New York,
who came to Washington last week to protest against German
treatment of Jews.
Mr. Hull said Germans felt that such a far-reaching
political readjustment could not have taken place without
some delay in reaching a state of equilibrium. The situation
was improving, he asserted, largely as the result of demands
for discipline by Chancellor Hitler and also the reiteration
by Vice Chancellor von Papen of the necessity for a cessation
of individual depredations.
The Secretary of State will continue to watch the
situation, he said, but felt hopeful that conditions would
soon become normal.
Secretary Hull's telegram to Rabbi Wise and Dr. Adler
follows:
You will remember that at the time of your recent call at
the department I informed you that, in view of numerous press
statements indicating widespread mistreatment of the Jews in
Germany, I would request the American Embassy at Berlin in
consultation with the principal consulates in Germany to
investigate the situation and submit a report.
A reply has now been received indicating that whereas there
was for a short time considerable physical mistreatment of
Jews, this phase may be considered virtually terminated.
There was also some picketing of Jewish merchandising stores
and instances of professional discrimination. These
manifestations were viewed with serious concern by the German
Government.
Hitler, in his capacity as leader of the Nazi party, issued
an order calling upon his followers to maintain law and
order, to avoid molesting foreigners, disrupting trade, and
to avoid the creation of possibly embarrassing international
incidents.
Later, von Papen delivered a speech at Breslau in which he
not only reiterated Hitler's appeals for discipline but
abjured the victors of the last election not to spoil their
triumph by unworthy acts of revenge and violence which could
only bring discredit upon the new regime in foreign
countries. As a result, the embassy reports that the
authority of the regular police has been reinforced.
The feeling has been widespread in Germany that following
so far-reaching a political readjustment as has recently
taken place, some time must elapse before a state of
equilibrium could be re-established. In the opinion of the
embassy, such a stabilization appears to have been reached in
the field of personal mistreatment, and there are indications
that in other phases the situation is improving.
I feel hopeful, in view of the reported attitude of high
German officials and the evidences of amelioration already
indicated, that the situation, which has caused such
widespread concern throughout this country, will soon revert
to normal. Meanwhile, I shall continue to watch the situation
closely, with a sympathetic interest and with a desire to be
helpful in whatever way possible.
Cordell Hull,
Secretary of State.
____
Leaders Reply to Hull
The American Jewish Congress, through its officers,
announced last night that the organization had replied to
Secretary Hull's telegram. The text of the reply was as
follows:
In the name of the American Jewish Congress we wish to
thank you for your prompt report on the situation in Germany,
which confirms our fears that there has been ``considerable
physical mistreatment of Jews, picketing of Jewish
merchandising stores, and instances of professional
discrimination.''
The American Jewish Congress notes your statement that
Hitler ``has issued an order calling upon his followers to
maintain law and order, to avoid molesting foreigners,
disrupting trade and to avoid the creation of possibly
embarrassing international incidents.''
We are deeply grateful for your assurances that you will
continue to watch the situation closely with a sympathetic
interest. For we feel that, in view of the official program
of the Nazi party and its record of thirteen years
disseminating hatred against the Jewish people, the Jews of
Germany are in great and imminent jeopardy of life and
property, of civil rights and religious liberty. Until the
status of the Jewish citizens of Germany is safeguarded and
the position of the non-national Jews is secured, the
enlightened opinion of America must watch with profoundest
anxiety the development of events in Germany.
May we repeat what we emphasized in the course of our visit
to the State Department, namely, that we are moved by no
feeling of unfriendliness or ill will to the German
nation. Our concern is for the security of the Jews of
Germany and the safeguarding of their human and political
rights.
Stephen S. Wise,
Honorary President.
Bernard S. Deutsch,
President.
The American Jewish Congress.
____
Neurath Denies Rumors
Berlin, March 26.--Foreign Minister Constantine von
Neurath, ordinarily the Hitler Cabinet's silent man who
seldom receives journalists, broke his silence today to throw
the entire weight of his internationally known personality
against what he considers ``the deliberate, sudden rebirth of
the vilification campaign conducted during the World War
against the German Government.''
Speaking quietly, but with an inner emotion that even his
composed attitude of a man of the world could not hide, he
declared:
``It is my duty, both because I must defend the honor of my
people and because I am a responsible statesman, to warn the
world against permitting the baneful spirit of calumny in
vogue during the war to flare up again.''
To a general question regarding the Federal Government's
attitude toward news published in the foreign press or
alleged acts of terror committed against different-minded
persons, and especially Jews, Baron von Neurath replied:
``Even the best organized administrative apparatus would
not suffice to go to the bottom of each and every one of
these malicious false reports and deny them.
``I find no other explanation for the present propaganda
unloosed against the German Government than to consider it a
deliberate, sudden rebirth of the vilification campaign
conducted during the World War.
``Just as Belgian atrocity stories then mentioned chopped-
off children's arms, so there is talk today of allegedly
gouged eyes and cut-off ears. One would really think that the
foreign public, which meanwhile realized the untruth of the
World War atrocity stories, would not so easily again be
deceived by a new dishing-up of similar fairy tales.
socialists found uninjured
``How absurd such propaganda is you yourself experienced
Tuesday. That very morning you could read of unbelievable
atrocities committed on Messrs. Breitscheld and Wels, but in
the afternoon you had the opportunity with your own eyes to
see these two gentlemen participate in the Reichstag session.
[Dr. Rudolf Breitscheld and Otto Wels are Socialist members
of the Reichstag.]
``It would seem to me that this one reference renders
unnecessary my dwelling on other details.
``If at the beginning of the national revolution certain
excesses may have been committed by isolated individuals,
then that is certainly regrettable. At the same time it
must be said that never in history did a revolutionary
upheaval occur like that which now is completed in Germany
without an accompaniment of certain hardships.
``According to my opinion, the German people gave proof of
their tremendous innate discipline by the fact that such
arbitrary individual acts took place only in a few cases, and
even then only in comparatively mild form.
``You will yourself have noticed that the energetic appeals
by the Reich's Chancellor and Minister Goering, who several
days ago decreed severest penalties for such like arbitrary
acts by individuals, were thoroughly and unqualifiedly
successful and that no more cases of unauthorized procedure
became known.
``As concerns Jews, I can only say that their propagandists
abroad are rendering their co-religionists in Germany no
service by giving the German public, through their distorted
and untruthful news about persecution and torture of Jews,
the impression that they actually halt at nothing, not even
at lies and calumny, to fight the present German Government.
``Why, even a prominent Jewish banker told one of your
American colleagues, `We reject all foreign interference.
German Jews are hemen enough to help ourselves.'
``Actually, every visitor must agree that when he walks
through the streets of Berlin even today he encounters Jews,
poor as well as elegantly dressed, who are attending their
business. Nobody has harmed them.
says press was duped
``It is most regrettable that not only the yellow press but
even some papers of the highest standing have permitted
themselves to be duped by this propaganda. For instance, a
big American sheet wrote several days ago that foreign
correspondents must submit their reports to a censor. You
must admit this was not the case.
``In those few instances where telegraph authorities, on
the basis of an international treaty, held up reports of
foreign correspondents, their news items were either untrue
or so distorted that their publication indubitably had to be
considered dangerous to the State.
``That in times like these steps were taken against them
can be considered by nobody who thinks impartially as an
arbitrary interference with the freedom of the press.
Amicable relations between peoples are not served if the
press degrades itself to an organ for irresponsible,
malicious rumor mongering.
``When, therefore, in this very frank talk I have spoken so
sharply against this sort of propaganda by the foreign press,
I did it not only because I must defend the honor of my
people but because as a responsible statesman I also have the
duty to warn the world against permitting the baneful war-
time spirit of vilification to flare up again.''
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Valentine].
(Mr. VALENTINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hamilton
substitute.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about whether or not the United
States should promote human rights in China. Of course we should.
We have a moral obligation to promote human rights in China. To turn
our backs on more than a billion Chinese people would be to deny our
own heritage and to dash the hopes of people around the world who have
looked to the United States for inspiration.
Our own interests also demand that we promote human rights in China.
One in every five human beings on the face of the Earth is Chinese, and
the course of human rights in that nation will have a profound effect
on the rest of East Asia and indeed the world.
This debate is about the best way to promote human rights in China. I
readily admit that flexing our economic muscles by hitting the Chinese
with immediate penalties is tempting. I have succumbed to that
temptation in the past.
But the satisfaction of slapping economic sanctions on the Chinese is
likely to be transitory. The blunt reality is that the Chinese
Government will respond by throwing up greater defenses rather than by
giving in to outside pressure. In the end, we could punish American
consumers, workers, and businesses without helping Chinese citizens.
There is a better way--and it is already working. The greatest weapon
in our democratic, free market arsenal is the example we set. By
increasing our economic activity in China, we will be allowing the
Chinese population to see firsthand how our system functions.
American companies operating in China are already providing
educational, health care, housing and other benefits to Chinese
employees. What better way to build a movement toward a Western-style
economy and political system among Chinese citizens?
Those American initiatives, still in their infancy, will grow if our
economic relations with China are allowed to grow. The result will be
expansion of American businesses, more American jobs, a better deal for
American consumers, and an example that the Chinese will not be able to
ignore.
If, on the other hand, we try to use trade to solve a problem that it
cannot solve, everyone will lose. We should not encourage Chinese
Government hardliners to crack down further to protect themselves. And
we should not allow our competitors in Europe and especially Japan to
expand unchallenged in the largest market in the world.
Mr. Chairman, the time has come to replace a policy that will not
work with one that will. The time has come to reach out to the Chinese
people directly. Let us show some confidence in the power of our own
system.
I urge my colleagues to support the Hamilton substitute and oppose
the Pelosi substitute.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
(Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hamilton amendment. I had
prepared a substitute amendment of my own which I was prepared to offer
today. However, I am pleased to say that Mr. Hamilton has incorporated
into his amendment the main features of my proposal as well as those of
other Republican Members.
My substitute emphasized three principles which are now embodied in
the Hamilton substitute. First, seeking areas where we can work to
improve democracy in China right now. They include village reform, rule
of law, and corruption. Second, expanding discussions with China on
economic and trade issues. Finally, working with nongovernmental and
multilateral organizations to raise the level of international concern
about human rights in China.
The Hamilton amendment gives this House the opportunity to
demonstrate a commitment to human rights and democracy in China that
does not have to resort to the tired, failed policy of constant
confrontation.
Mr. Chairman, no one in the House disagrees on the problems in China.
Its human rights violations and predatory trade practices are well
documented. Where we all appear to honestly disagree is in the approach
we should take toward our goals in China
I give Bill Clinton a lot of credit for his May 26, 1994, decision to
renew most-favored-nation status for China and end its linkage with
human rights.
His decision recognized the fact that American policy toward China
must be viewed within the context of many different issues and his
decision provided a direction to address human rights and the other
issues which divide our two countries.
It is unfortunate the media decided to portray the President's
decision as a victory for ``business over human rights.'' It is just
not that simple. Human rights should continue as an important aspect of
our policy toward China. But I also think we need to end this annual
brinksmanship on MFN renewal.
A large number of House Members share that view. In May, 104 House
colleagues joined Jim McDermott and me in a letter to President Clinton
supporting unconditional renewal of MFN to China and urging the
President to consider the creation of a bilateral human rights
commission with China.
The Pelosi approach and the Hamilton approach are not complementary.
The Pelosi approach proposes to sanction the Chinese but in a way that
is both unworkable and detrimental to our efforts to enforce NAFTA and
maintain our borders.
The Hamilton amendment takes a long-term, realistic approach. It is
not a policy which seeks immediate gratification, but it is a policy
which will achieve results.
I urge House Members to join us in this new direction by supporting
the Hamilton amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of Members stand up on this floor
and say that this is a matter of economic benefit for the United
States. Let me remind my colleagues, to start our with, we are not
talking about a $30 billion trade surplus for our workers. That would
mean that we would be employing about 750,000 more workers with respect
to trade than the other side. We are talking about a $30 billion trade
deficit with China. That means if we talk about 25,000 jobs per billion
dollars of economic activity, we have a jobs deficit with China, a jobs
deficit which, if eradicated, would mean some $750,000 jobs for
American workers.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to yield to the gentleman at
this time. I am happy to meet with him in debate later.
Mr. Chairman, let me remind my friends, we are talking about 750,000
jobs that Americans could have if we did not have that deficit, Mr.
Chairman. However, let us go to the heart of this issue. The heart of
this issue is principle. An American President and an American
candidate for the Presidency laid down a set of standards for the
Chinese Government to follow, to hold the Chinese Government up to, and
those standards we told them in no uncertain words would determine
whether or not we would give MFN status to that government.
They have failed to meet the standard. The credibility of American
foreign policy will be on the line if we go ahead and give them this
status in light of their failure, and we are going to see failures
around the world with other countries in exactly the same situation if
we do not discipline ourselves to hold ourselves to the standard that
we set.
Mr. Chairman, it has been said that if we give up this principle, in
this case, we are going to get an economic benefit. I quarrel with
that, but I think that any nation that gives up its principles to get a
perceived economic benefit is going to end up with neither.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Indiana, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Hamilton
amendment. When President Clinton announced his comprehensive China
policy on May 26, he set forth a clear strategy to achieve the goal
that we all share.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on my point that
we have about a 750,000 job deficit on China? Maybe he would like to
respond to that.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, what I was
trying to ask my friend is would he claim that those 750,000 jobs would
all be right here in the United States? They would not be in other
countries, in Indochina, they would not be in Latin America?
Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that they would be.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will let me answer, yes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would make a claim that
that trade imbalance is all of a sudden going to create a tremendous
number of jobs here in the United States, that is a tremendous amount
of baloney.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, my answer is yes, if we had a well-reasoned
trade policy, those jobs would be in the United States, and this vast
ocean of people who are on welfare in the United States, those people
would have jobs.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely
ludicrous to believe that we in the United States would be creating or
manufacturing the kinds of goods that are created in China and other
low-wage countries, because American workers are not going to be doing
them. That is why this whole argument of this trade imbalance is
absolutely ludicrous.
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield, Americans have the right to
buy from whoever they want to, if Americans want to buy from them.
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to further yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. HUNTER. If they have that particular policy, yes, those 750,000
jobs that we are now in deficit to Red China on could be American jobs,
my answer is yes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman if I could reclaim my time, the gentleman is
absolutely wrong, but I thank him for his very helpful contribution.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hamilton amendment.
When President Clinton announced his comprehensive China policy on
May 26, he set forth a clear strategy to achieve the goal we all
share--to foster better human rights in China.
The Hamilton amendment incorporates that comprehensive strategy. It
is unquestionably the best, most humane, most effective human rights
policy.
We face a choice between feeling good, and doing good. Trade
sanctions make us feel better, but they hurt the very people we want to
help.
The Hamilton amendment will focus diplomatic resources on improving
human rights in China. In addition, it will encourage the continued
development of a market economy in China--the real hope for democracy
and human rights.
Nicholas Kristoff, NY Times Beijing bureau chief, reported in May
that if you talk to ``Chinese peasants, workers and intellectuals, on
one subject you get virtual unaniminity: Don't curb trade.''
Those same peasants, workers and intellectuals would add: ``Support
the Hamilton amendment.''
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the remainder of my
time, 4\1/2\ minutes, to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York, the
ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hamilton resolution. Before
speaking in opposition to it, however, I want to correct some
representations that were made about my legislation on this floor.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, in the remarks of the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], Mr. Hamilton said some damning remarks from
Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, saying that if we issued these
sanctions against China terrible things would happen, both political
and economic.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is that if we carry that to the next step, we
are saying that we, the United States of America, cannot issue
sanctions against China for trade violations as well. Right now we are
giving China until the end of the year to deal with the gross
violations and piracy of our intellectual property. If they do not
comply, we in the United States will issue sanctions.
Mr. Chairman, is the message that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hamilton] and the Secretary of Commerce are making, is the message that
they want to go forward that we will never issue sanctions for fear of
retaliation, both political and economic? I certainly hope not.
However, Mr. Chairman, if it applies to intellectual property, it
should apply in terms of human rights. If we can apply sanctions in one
case for intellectual property, we should be able to apply them to
intellectuals who are under arrest for professing their religious and
political beliefs.
In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I want to correct
misrepresentations that our bill is not implementable, and that the
Comptroller of the Customs Office is incapable of figuring out what
companies are fronts for the People's Liberation Army and the Chinese
industrial companies.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Chinese military advertises. They send out
catalogs. It would take a 7-year-old who knows how to read to know what
many, many, many of the companies are. I have them here for Members'
review. It would take too much time to go through all of the names of
their export commodities and the companies that would be easy for the
Comptroller of the Customs to identify.
{time} 1810
In turn if this bill is implemented, the tens of millions of dollars
that it would reap could go into customs for them to be able to control
the customs, because clearly they are having a problem now. The Chinese
have bribed, and the customs officer was convicted, of receiving over
$1 million in bribes from the Chinese Communist government.
Mr. Chairman, we have the names of the Chinese military industrial
companies. The Defense Intelligence Agency produced a chart and the
software to determine who these companies are. We did not issue this
sanction frivolously, or put this in this legislation frivolously.
Others have said it could apply to $18 billion. The legislation clearly
uses the figure of $5 billion, \1/8\ of the products coming in from
China to the United States.
Mr. Chairman, fair is fair. Let us debate the issue. What priority do
we give human rights in the scheme of things? How related to the fate
of American workers are the human rights of others abroad? As I have
said before, if countries repress their workers' rights, they will
repress their workers' wages, putting our workers in unfair
competition.
I can assure Members that if the Hamilton amendment prevails today,
in 2 or 3 years the United States will have a trade deficit with China
which will surpass our trade deficit with Japan.
Mr. Chairman, think about where we go from here. With all due respect
to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, his
legislation is nothing, it does nothing, and if that is what Members
want to vote for, then I understand that. But let us not represent that
it is part of any comprehensive China policy.
It is what it is, it says that we are going to give money to human
rights groups in China?
People who speak out for human rights in China are in jail in China.
As I said earlier, the last person who met with a U.S. representative
of our Government, Wei Jingsheng, has not been seen since. He is under
arrest and being discredited by the Chinese regime.
Let me talk again about some other points. They talk about putting up
to $5 million in Voice of America. Congress has already passed them by
on this. We voted 318 votes in support of $10 million for Radio Free
Asia, over the objections of the administration. The administration had
said on the day of President Clinton's announcement that Radio Free
Asia was going to be a priority of the administration. When the vote
came to the floor, they said, ``We have other priorities.''
Mr. Chairman, we have been down this road. The bill does very little.
If Members want to do nothing, vote for Hamilton. If Members want to
take a tax break from the Chinese military, vote for Pelosi.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the more difficult foreign
policy issues the country and this Congress will face, difficult
because perhaps the sentimental vote would be to vote for heavier
economic sanctions. But after careful deliberation on the merits, and I
have given this a great deal of thought, I do not see how we can
isolate 1 billion people with economic sanctions. We cannot shut them
out of the world economic or political community. We certainly cannot
do it alone, and we will not do it alone. We will more effectively open
up China and move that society toward openness through trade,
integrating China into the world economic community.
In the aviation sector alone, the United States has considerable
access to this market. Last year one out of every seven aircraft Boeing
produced was sold and delivered to China. The estimates are that China
will need $40 billion in new aircraft by the year 2010. Mr. Chairman,
45,000 American jobs have been generated from our aerospace industry
trade with China.
I think the way to continue opening up China is through trade that
opens doors rather than closes them.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, to close the debate, I yield my remaining
time to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley], the distinguished
Speaker of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The distinguished Speaker is recognized for 4 minutes
to close the debate.
(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hamilton substitute
to H.R. 4590. I believe we must improve human rights in China while at
the same time preserving our common interests with China. The
President's executive order on MFN for China is a good one, and the
substitute reinforces the President's policy.
I want to commend my colleagues for their serious and obviously very
sincere attention to this important and understandably emotional issue.
I want to particularly pay credit to the gentleman from New York and
the gentlewoman from California who have such deep personal concerns
and an abiding commitment to their belief of what is right in
supporting human rights in China.
This debate has been grounded in principles and convictions, and I
think that makes it a good and important debate, but I believe, Mr.
Chairman, that it is especially important for us to support the broad
foreign policy interests of the United States as well as supporting
human rights.
The President of the United States has been criticized in some
quarters for an inconsistent or vacillating foreign policy, but he
faces, as all Presidents do, difficult and sometimes almost intractable
problems. Certainly the most important and difficult problem we face
today internationally is the potential problem of confrontation with
North Korea, and here the support and assistance of China has been
essential in moving forward to develop an international consensus of
how to deal with this serious and potentially destructive problem.
In addition, on issue after issue, China as a member of the Security
Council is in a position to be of assistance in the orderly resolution
of international concerns and problems, and we have had time and time
again--from the Gulf war until recent days--the evidence of China's
willingness to be cooperative. But that can change. We need not
jeopardize our relationship with China in order to support human
rights.
The question is not whether we will support other issues, such as the
issues of our interest in expanding trade and in reaching solutions
with China on missile technology and proliferation as well as human
rights. We do not have to sacrifice a lack of concern and a lack of
influence with respect to China on human rights in order to obtain
other objectives in our relationship.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that sanctions against trade will add
to the protection of human rights in China. The fundamental problem is
that it is by expansion rather than by retraction of trade that we are
most likely to influence the Chinese in a positive direction toward the
respect of human rights.
What is our influence going to be if we were to take the draconian
action of cutting or even severely restricting trade? Our word, our
influence, our position , the position of our citizens will be less
important in China than it will be if trade is expanded. If we give the
ordinary Chinese worker and businessperson the opportunity to share in
expanded trade, all of our recent experience has indicated that that
rising economic interest, that expansion of trade, has broken down
political resistance and restrictions on human rights in country after
country.
{time} 1820
Our experience in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, virtually
everywhere, has been that where there has been expanding economic
opportunity, there has been a greater respect for human rights.
So the choice today is not between throwing away the interests and
concerns that we rightfully have to advance human rights in China, but
to do it in a way that is compatible with our other interests and
concerns. We can do both. That is why the voluntary code of conduct
embraced and applied by American business is such a good idea. That is
why the Hamilton substitute is such a wise and I think important
alternative today in this debate. Expanded trade will, I believe, take
hold on fertile soil. The Chinese are yearning to participate in a
broader economic opportunity. By expanding trade we will give ourselves
the best change to influence them, their government, and their people
toward expanded human rights.
I urge the support of the Hamilton substitute. It is the right time,
the right policy; it is the right strategy for our long-term goals and
to maintain our essential relationships with China and advance, not
restrict, the human rights movement in China so important to this
debate and to all of us.
Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant
opposition to the Solomon and Pelosi measures which disapprove the
extension of most-favored-nation status to the Peoples Republic of
China. In the past, I have traditionally supported the legislation
before us today. While I am still very concerned about human rights
abuse in China, I am no longer convinced that revoking MFN status
provides the correct answer. In fact, the termination of MFN may lead
to a substantial deterioration of human rights in the Peoples Republic
of China.
I certainly have strong reservations about granting MFN status to any
nation that exhibits the current practices of the Chinese Government.
However, I believe we can better improve the situation in China by
exposing the Chinese people to free market principles and Western
ideals. Historically, the Chinese have reacted negatively to
isolationism.
Revoking MFN, in my opinion, would be counter productive from a human
rights standpoint. Economic sanctions would harm the emerging Chinese
private sector. Sanctions would serve to weaken those individuals in
China who are championing the cause of economic and political freedom.
The United States currently has substantial economic interests in
China. The United States currently exports about $10 billion in United
States goods and services to the Peoples Republic of China. Revoking
MFN status would seriously jeopardize one of the fastest growing export
markets for United States manufactured goods. An export State like
Connecticut would be devastated by passage of this legislation.
It is important to view United States-China relations from a national
security standpoint. China is a permanent member of the U.N. Security
Council and a very influential member of the international community. I
believe that maintaining strong relations with the Chinese Government
is in the best interest of the United States.
Again, I have come to the conclusion that increased trade and the
continued presence of Western business is the best way to bring about
reform. Many of my colleagues will try to suggest that supporting MFN
for China represents opposition to human rights. As a strong advocate
of human rights, I want to say that nothing could be further from the
truth. There is not one Member of Congress that would not like to see
an end to the human rights abuses in China.
Since I have been on the other side of the fence on this issue, I
certainly understand the arguments and rationale of the other side.
However, after carefully reviewing this issue, I believe that promoting
capitalism offers the Chinese people the best prospect for freedom.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to make the rough vote and do what
is best for the Chinese people. Support the Hamilton substitute and
oppose the Solomon and Pelosi resolutions.
Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hamilton
Amendment to H.R. 4590 which would reinforce the President's decision
to de-link human rights with most-favored-nation status for the
People's Republic of China.
Human rights violations in China and other developing nations have
always concerned me. The citizens of the PRC face some of the most
oppressive conditions in the world. Freedom of thought, expression,
association, and religion are rights on which this country was founded,
and rights which the Chinese still hope to achieve. Many of my
colleagues have argued that such blatant abuses of human rights warrant
the removal of MFN status.
In fact, in the past I have voted against extension of MFN for China
for these same reasons. However, as I have studied the issue more
closely over the past year and consulted with many of my colleagues in
Congress and academia, I have reconsidered my opposition.
Since the Chinese Government enacted economic reforms in 1979, the
PRC has begun an incredible transition. Premier Deng Xiaoping could not
have imagined that in 1994 he would be presiding over the fastest
growing economy in the world.
As the Chinese people continue to gain affluence, I believe the
Communist government will have a much more difficult time suppressing
the desire for basic human rights. As history has shown, ideas follow
trade. I believe economic and political engagement is the best course
to promote democratic ideals, rather than by withdrawing our growing
presence in China.
The Hamilton alternative offers a realistic, multilateral means of
promoting human rights, such as working through forums like the U.N.
Human Rights Commission, rather than actions like economic sanctions
which will be counterproductive. It also preserves the broad range of
security, diplomatic, and economic interests that we share with China,
rather than provoking the Chinese Government into retaliation against
United States companies doing business there.
Trade in China is a very difficult issue. However, as we attempt to
settle this issue once and for all, Congress must carefully balance the
interests of United States businesses which seek to take advantage of
the enormous Chinese market with the desire to improve human rights in
the world's most populous nation. I believe the Hamilton Amendment
strikes that balance.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of continuing most-
favored-nation [MFN] trade status with China. I, therefore, oppose any
legislation that attempts to overturn the President's decision to
extend MFN status or that places economic sanctions on China.
However, we should not remove the issue of human rights from the
picture. We must continue to pursue human rights as an important
foreign policy objective and implement new initiatives to strengthen
the current focus. We must continue to engage the Chinese actively on
human rights on a broad front through diplomatic, multilateral and
nongovernmental means. These contacts, combined with aggressive efforts
to promote human rights, are more likely to encourage constructive
change in China.
I firmly believe that the United States can do more to advance the
cause of human rights and protect other American interests if we engage
the Chinese in political and economic cooperation and contacts. Social
freedoms are a direct result of economic liberalization. However, by
placing restrictions on or removing all of China's trade privileges, we
are isolating that country will lose any chance of improving human
rights in China.
Perhaps as much as $17 billion in United States imports from China
might be affected by removing MFN privileges. Retaliation by China
would place at risk the approximately $9 billion in annual United
States exports to China, as well as nearly 180,000 United States jobs.
This would in turn greatly affect the U.S. economy. In the end,
punishing China would be counterproductive from all perspectives.
I am supporting Representative Hamilton's substitute to maintain MFN
trade status for China. This substitute would fund programs to promote
human rights; authorize increased funding for broadcasting to China;
urge United States businesses to adopt a voluntary set of principles to
govern their activities; and authorize the President to establish a
commission to monitor human rights conditions in China. Mr. Speaker, we
must not isolate China, continue MFN trade status.
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to
efforts to link extension of most-favored-nation trading status for
China to human rights practices. I fully support President Clinton's
position that human rights improvements can be made through other more
effective means.
China is becoming an increasingly important trading partner for the
United States. While it is clear that human rights violations continue
to be a problem in China, cutting off trade relations will not improve
their situation. Instead, the United States needs to remain an active
economic participant with China and keep communication open.
There is no doubt that the Chinese government would retaliate against
the United States for cutting off MFN status. With the United States
becoming an increasingly important market for Chinese products, there
is no doubt that retaliation would be severe. Efforts to increase
United States exports to China would be damaged.
The United States business community overwhelmingly supports
extension of MFN-status for China because they recognize the importance
of this large market for increased sales. The economic well-being of
the U.S. lies in our ability to continue to build and maintain
international markets. Severing relations with China is counter-
productive in this effort.
The President has laid out a comprehensive plan to improve human
rights practices in China. This plan includes increased international
broadcasts to China, development of a set of voluntary principles for
doing business in China, and expanded multilateral efforts to improve
human rights in China.
In closing, it would be easy to vote to deny MFN-status for China and
think that we were making progress in addressing the very serious human
rights problems in that country. However, that vote would not
materialize into actual changes in China. By remaining engaged and
renewing our commitment to work toward improved human rights conditions
in China we are benefiting both the citizens of China and the United
States. I urge my colleagues to vote to support the President's policy
on China MFN.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I have the deepest and utmost respect
for my colleagues the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for their leadership and concerns
on the issue that is before us.
Obviously, the question of granting MFN status for China is not one
that can be easily labeled as black or white--there are many grey areas
that just cannot be defined in simple terms.
Yes, China has serious human rights problems--but so is the
fundamental right to provide a basic meal for some 1.3 billion people
living in the most populous nation on Earth.
Mr. Chairman, since the founding of the People's Republic of China in
1949, the population of that country was at 400 million--almost double
the population of our country today--but some 45 years ago.
If we are asking China to make improvements on its human rights
record, are we also exacting the same expectations from other
nondemocratic countries? Is this institution placing appropriate
pressures on the State Department and the President to make sure that
human rights issues are evenly applied against those countries with
similar records?
Mr. Chairman, my understanding in discussing the MFN issue with
Chinese officials is simply this--if you, the Congress and President of
the United States do not grant MFN status, obviously it will affect our
economy, but we will continue to do the best we can under the
circumstances. But it is your decision to make, not ours. And quit
being so arrogant and self-righteous about human rights violations--
examine your own history and see how long it took for certain segments
of your society to have their civil rights finally recognized and
restored.
Mr. Chairman, China several weeks ago did in fact explode an
underground nuclear device, and much against the wishes of the nuclear-
club countries, including our own Nation. But, Mr. Chairman, let's
examine the record. Since 1945, the United States conducted 215 nuclear
explosions in the atmosphere, and 812 nuclear explosions underground.
Since 1949, the former Soviet Union exploded 207 atmospheric tests and
508 underground tests. France, since 1961, conducted 45 atmospheric
tests and 147 underwater detonations. For China, since 1964, PRC has
exploded 23 atmospheric tests and 17 underground detonations. Mr.
Chairman, the record speaks for itself.
Mr. Chairman, I support the President's policy on China and after
careful examination of the legislation, I believe Chairman Hamilton's
bill best provides a balanced focus not only of our fundamental foreign
policy toward China, but to promote and enhance a market economy not
only for China, but for as many countries throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, even the major dissidents in China support MFN status
for China.
Mr. Chairman, the Hamilton substitute works toward progress in human
rights in China without exacting a terribly high price: the loss of
face of the Chinese government, with the undermining of SINO-United
States relations the net result.
The Hamilton measure supports engagement with China by increasing
funds for USIA exchange programs and radio broadcasting to the country,
and reinforces the President's call on the United States business
community in China to promote human rights with a voluntary code of
conduct. The bill further encourages the establishment of a commission
to monitor human rights advancement in China.
These are good and constructive steps that will ensure that human
rights progress shall continue in China, while fostering a strong and
cooperative relationship between our nations to address the spectrum of
interests we share. I cannot more strongly urge our colleagues to
support the Hamilton substitute.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4590 which
would provide conditions for renewing most-favored-nation treatment for
the People's Republic of China.
Let me begin with a story that might put this debate into context:
The great American journalist, H.L. Mencken, used to receive a lot of
mail from critics and supporters of his controversial views. Because of
the great volume, he was unable to answer all of them individually. So
he came up with an all-purpose answer which he sent to anyone who wrote
to him, supporter or critic. This is what it said.
Dear Sir or Madam: For all I know, you may be right.
Sincerely, H.L. Mencken.
I feel the same way about the proposal offered by Ms. Pelosi. For all
I know it may be right, but I don't think so. I disagree with the bill
because I do not believe it will work. And I believe that if it were
ever passed, the Chinese Communists would take its very passage as an
unacceptable diplomatic rebuff.
They would retaliate against American workers and employers, not to
mention the Chinese who support free enterprise.
But there is no way we can be certain of these things. Each of us has
to look at the complicated issues and then make up his or her mind.
There is no moral high ground in either position. Each side is trying
to help human rights.
I happen to believe the course followed by President George Bush and
now by President Clinton is the right course, a course of engagement.
The United States exported over $8 billion worth of goods to China last
year. Those exports supported 150,000 American jobs.
Why put those jobs at risk?
In my view, we cannot risk walking away from our relationship with
such an historically great and potentially powerful people as the
Chinese. Equally important, the Chinese people can't risk it. Do the
Chinese Communist leaders benefit by the current arrangement? Of course
they do. No one denies that, but this benefit to the Communist leaders
is, in my view, a short-lived one.
It is a side-effect of a powerful medicine whose long-range effects
can eventually cure the evil of human rights abuses in China. The name
of that medicine is economic freedom. Taken in consistent large doses,
over a long period of time, it can help to bring economic and political
health to the Chinese people.
So I urge our colleagues to vote no on this well-intentioned, but, in
my view, ultimately unworkable bill.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the balanced
approach to our policy with China encompassed in the Hamilton
substitute and in opposition to the approach advocated by the
gentlelady from California.
The President has undertaken what I believe is a prudent and
effective approach to our relations with the People's Republic of
China. He has clearly indicated his intention to pursue our very
legitimate concerns in areas such as human rights, arms proliferation,
and unfair trade. At the same time he has chosen not to abandon
constructive dialog with the most populous nation in the world. He
concluded that ending direct linkage between trade policy and other
foreign policy goals, including promotion of human rights and nuclear
nonproliferation, will enhance the prospect for success on all fronts.
The Hamilton substitute codifies the steps that the administration
pledged to undertake in May to demonstrate its continued commitment to
human rights issues in China. It includes increased authorizations for
Radio Free Asia broadcasts. It enhances United States support for Red
Cross prisoner visits in China. It endorses a code of conduct for
United States businesses operating in China. And it establishes a
United States Commission on Law and Society in China to act as human
rights watchdog.
But it does not jeopardize our overall political and economic
relationship in a way that could well prove counterproductive for both
nations and undermine our ability to cooperatively deal with real
crises such as the situation in North Korea.
Currently, there is a sizable trade imbalance between our nations. To
some extent that reflects unfair trade practices that we have to
resolve, just as is the case with Japan and other nations. But to a
very large extent this is more a reflection of shifting trends among
East Asian exporters since our overall trade picture with the region
has not dramatically changed.
But importantly, we are on the threshold of fully tapping the immense
Chinese market for American exports. China's economy is expanding two
and one-half times faster than the economies of North America and
Europe. Economists estimate that the $9 billion in goods and services
we exported to China in 1993 translate into 170,000 jobs. The impact on
the financially strapped aerospace industry is especially significant.
In 1992 China was the only commercial aircraft customer for McDonnell
Douglas. For Boeing, China represented 17 percent of its total sales,
nearly matching all its domestic sales. For the future, industry
analysts put the China aerospace market at $40 billion.
Because of this high leverage, and high visibility, the Chinese have
made no secret that aerospace industry will be the first to bear the
burden of retaliation. But there are also sizable potential markets for
a wide range of American products, such as computers, medical
instruments, power generating machinery, and even apples, which were
shipped to China for the first time recently. This potential will never
be realized if we slip into a full-fledge trade war.
H.R. 4590, the Pelosi bill, purports to take a middle approach that
focuses on enterprises most closely linked to the Chinese Government.
But the Department of State has advised us that the definition of
state-owned enterprises included in the bill ``can be read to encompass
almost the entire industrial base of China.'' It is certain to
precipitate a long list of legal challenges over which firms should be
on the list, and which should not.
In addition, frequently those products of township and village
enterprises go through wholesalers or exporters who would fit the
state-owned enterprise definition, and thus undermine the very kind of
grassroots small businesses we would like to see nurtured in China. On
the other hand, major firms can creatively reorganize the skirt the
definitions in the act. The bottom line is that the mechanism that H.R.
4590 seeks to establish is simply unworkable.
President Clinton summed up the argument well in his August 4 letter
to House Members:
Legislation restricting MFN will isolate China, undermine
U.S. interests from nuclear security to human rights and cost
tens of thousands of Americans their jobs. Legislation
supporting the Administration's policy will place our
relations with China on sound footing and give us maximum
leverage to bring about the change we seek in China.
I urge support for the Hamilton substitute.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I certainly concur with the thrust of the
Hamilton substitute. The development of a civil society based on the
rule of law is far more likely to advance human rights in China than
the unilateral sanctions approach of the Pelosi bill.
I would simply note that the administration crafted its initial
Executive order approach precisely in order to obviate today's
congressional action on China. That this body is again engaged in
debate on China-MFN is an irony of extraordinary dimensions.
In any regard, I want to turn to the most important issue in Sino-
American relations today: cooperation in peacefully resolving the North
Korean nuclear crisis.
North Korea is clearly the paramount national security challenge
confronting the United States today. In stark contrast to other
regional trouble-spots such as Haiti--where no vital United States
interests are at stake and no convincing rationale has yet been
advanced for an American invasion--our interests in stability on the
Korean peninsula and nuclear nonproliferation are both compelling and
in jeopardy.
It is premature to suggest that ``the crisis is over,'' and that
China's role may yet prove peripheral. Bilateral negotiations with the
DPRK are proceeding in Geneva. All of us naturally hope that a
breakthrough will soon occur.
But given North Korea's history of ignoring its commitments, great
caution is in order. We must fully expect that in the weeks ahead North
Korea will again seek to test American leadership and resolve.
In this context, Sino-American cooperation will likely be crucial to
any credible multilateral strategy for peacefully resolving the North
Korean nuclear crisis.
The reasons are obvious: China is a permanent member of the U.N.
Security Council, it is an important actor in Northeast Asia, and it
maintains the most extensive--though not always decisive--leverage with
North Korea of any outside power.
China remains North Korea's most important bilateral relationship.
The two Communist parties maintain ties. A 1961 defense treaty remains
in force. China is also the DPRK's largest trading partner. According
to the Hong Kong daily Ta Kung Pao, China provides the DPRK with about
72 percent of all its grain imports, 75 percent of the petroleum, and
88 percent of all coal.
Nevertheless, the United States and China share an impressive
identity of interests in Korea.
China clearly favors a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. It helped get
North Korea to reach a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. It has not
obstructed action in the U.N. Security Council and in one case even
sponsored a relevant statement on North Korea.
The PRC also has an interest in maintaining peace and stability in
Korea. It has extensive interests in northeast Asia that would be
jeopardized by conflict in Korea. North Korea is also a close neighbor,
and the gateway to Manchuria, where a large Korean minority lives just
across the border from the North.
One would presume that as early as March 1993, when North Korea
announced its intent to withdraw from the NPT, a compelling priority of
United States foreign policy would have been to achieve an
understanding with China--in close consultation with South Korea and
Japan--on the need for firm, concerted steps to defuse the North Korean
nuclear challenge.
But such has not occurred. In part this has been a function of
Washington's badly misplaced foreign policy priorities and its fatally
flawed approach to China-MFN. But it is also a function of Chinese
perceptions, both about of United States intentions--a mistaken belief
we may be seeking to destabilize China as well as North Korea through a
policy of peaceful evolution--and the nature of the North Korean
nuclear problem.
This helps explain why Beijing has often appeared aloof and
ambivalent--rather than engaged and committed--as others grapple with
this crisis.
China may doubt whether North Korea truly seeks to develop nuclear
weapons. Senior Chinese leaders evidently attached great weight to
pledges to this effect made by the late Kim II-Sung. In addition, PRC-
owned Hong Kong press reports suggest that Beijing does not believe
there is any direct evidence that North Korea has developed an atomic
bomb or bombs.
That having been said, Pyongyang's actions in the weeks ahead could
decisively affect key Chinese assumptions about the North Korean
program.
For example, China has genuinely angered and alarmed by Pyongyang's
decision to defuel its 25mwt reactor. Beijing's objections were
ignored. While China is relieved that diplomatic dialogue appears back
on track, it could well be compelled to contemplate sterner
alternatives if North Korea recklessly proceeds with nuclear
reprocessing.
China also does not believe that North Korea would launch a suicidal
war of aggression to reunify the peninsula. The PRC is more concerned
that external pressure on North Korea over the nuclear issue--
particularly in the context of leadership succession and rapid economic
decline--may foreclose diplomatic options and prompt Pyongyang to
resort to force.
Tactically, therefore, Beijing prefers an incremental approach. Its
preferred solution is to emphasize patient dialog and encourage North
Korea to open up to the outside world.
While China has so far failed to convince Pyongyang to emulate senior
leader Deng Xiaoping's policy of reform and opening, it fears that
without such reform the survival of the North Korean regime is in
doubt.
North Korea also presents China with a political problem. It puts
China in the hot seat at the United Nations because in principle China
is opposed to economic sanctions. Yet China faces international
isolation if it blocks U.N. action and appears to align itself with
Pyongyang. Hence it favors maintaining a low profile and the status
quo.
But events could soon compel China to take sides. Within weeks North
Korea could declare that it intends to begin separating plutonium from
recently discharged spent fuel. It may even do so with inspectors from
the IAEA present.
Although this would breach an understanding with the United States,
it would not violate IAEA rules or the NPT. As long as there is no
diversion, reprocessing is considered a peaceful nuclear activity.
While the material would be under IAEA monitoring, the North could at
any time complete its now-suspended withdrawal from the NPT or simply
oust the inspectors.
China must understand that if North Korea is allowed to proceed with
reprocessing under any pretext, it could soon have enough plutonium to
develop four or five nuclear weapons.
Should that occur, pressure in South Korea and possibly Japan to
develop an independent nuclear deterrent could well become
irresistible. Any such development would of course be of profound
concern.
If Pyongyang proceeds with nuclear reprocessing, there will be no
choice for China and the world community but to demonstrate
conclusively to the North that they have no option but to comply with
their NPT obligations and end their nuclear weapons program.
For this Congress not to understand that North Korea is our highest
national security priority--and to be threatening normal
nondiscriminatory trade with a country whose cooperation is likely to
be crucial to a resolution of the issue--is so foolhardy and
counterproductive as to defy rational explication.
I urge the defeat of the Pelosi bill and support for a bi-partisan,
bi-institutional approach to Sino-American relations.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the people of China
should be treated fairly. The extension of most-favored-nation trading
status for China should be continued in order to ensure that America
can improve the human rights situation in that nation through a
positive working relationship with the people of China and the Chinese
Government.
During debate on the MFN status of China, statements were made on the
floor of the House which claimed that although China needs us, we don't
need them. We have needed them, and we continue to need China as a
friend of the United States. President Richard Nixon needed China to
drive a wedge in the Communist bloc. We need China now to help advance
American interests on the Korean peninsula. In this globally
interdependent economy, it is highly likely we will need China in the
future.
Many may be misled by the term most-favored-nation status, because it
implies that China is getting some special treatment from the United
States in our trade relationship. In fact, MFN is the standard way the
United States does business around the world. China would be no more
favored than any other nation around the world with whom we have a
normal trade relationship.
Obviously, human rights are a crucial concern with regard to
America's foreign policy. But just as obviously, the use of trade
sanctions is not an effective vehicle for influencing the human rights
policy of foreign nations. Again and again, the use of trade sanctions
to improve human rights in distant lands has been tried, and, again and
again, the attempt has failed. Trade sanctions hurt the working class,
not the wealthy leaders of nations. In Haiti, where America is using
trade sanctions, small businesses are being destroyed, and the common
citizen is being deprived of human and economic rights.
On the other hand, the influence of America, properly applied, has
been very successful in improving the human rights conditions of many
nations around the world. South Korea and Argentina are but two
examples of the achievement of the United States in improving human
rights through interaction with the people and government of these
nations. In China itself, fantastic changes have occurred since the
opening of the nation in the early 1970's. This opening has allowed
interaction between American and Chinese businesses, and American
technology has allowed the people of China to improve their economic
standing. With improvement in technology comes more access to
information. The power of information will effect change in China, as
it already has. Whose information? That provided by America and our
allies, which, as long as we continue to trade with China, will
continue to filter through to each and every Chinese citizen. American
ideals, as always, can best be advanced by exposing others to our
values and our successes.
If we close down our trade with China, who profits? Not the citizens
of China, whose economic freedoms will likely decline, and whose access
to American information and ideals will be shut off. Not the American
worker, who will no longer have access to the enormous Chinese market.
We may feel a little better for a short time, and think that we have
done what is right. But when China begins to fall backward in human
rights, our brief good feeling will die.
The common citizen of China, and his or her human rights, should be
the focus of our human rights policy. What does that common citizen
want? During my visits to China, I have talked to many of the citizens
of China, and not once was I asked to revoke MFN status. Many, many
times, however, I was asked to continue to work to improve the
relationship between our two nations.
This very point is what separates China and this situation from the
past American policy toward South Africa. Essentially every South
African who was not associated with the government of that nation cried
out to the United States and to rest of the world to impose stringent
economic sanctions against South Africa. This was the right thing to
do, and I was proud to lead the effort in Texas to gain sanctions
against South Africa. Our goal was to effect a total change in the
governing body of the nation, and we succeeded. In so doing, we
destroyed the economic infrastructure of the nation, which we are now
helping to rebuild.
In China, the circumstances are very different. Our goal, as stated
by many Members, is to improve the situation of the common citizen of
China, not to force a change in government. We do not have the support
of the world. In fact, should we decide not to trade with China, many
other nations will jump in to take our place. Then, high-paying
American jobs will be lost as European aeronautical firms move into
supply aircraft, and as other nations rush to supply China's
technological needs. Human rights conditions will not be improved, and
the ability of America to exert positive influence will be lost. This
is not South Africa, and although Europeans agreed that ``We ain't
gonna play Sun City,'' you can be sure that the European Union will be
only to happy to play Beijing.
My colleagues and I do agree that human rights policy is of utmost
importance to this Nation, and America should do all it can to improve
the way other nations treat their citizens. What we need to realize is
that American can do more to help these people by interacting with them
than by ignoring them.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 280,
noes 152, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 382]
AYES--280
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bateman
Becerra
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Combest
Condit
Cooper
Coppersmith
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ewing
Faleomavaega (AS)
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Glickman
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings
Hoagland
Hoekstra
Hoke
Houghton
Huffington
Hughes
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lucas
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Roberts
Roemer
Rostenkowski
Roth
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schumer
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Spence
Stenholm
Stump
Sundquist
Swift
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Tucker
Valentine
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wyden
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--152
Abercrombie
Andrews (ME)
Applegate
Baker (CA)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Beilenson
Berman
Bilbray
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burton
Byrne
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
DeFazio
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dixon
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fields (LA)
Fish
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kildee
Klink
Klug
Lancaster
Lantos
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lowey
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Nadler
Norton (DC)
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Porter
Poshard
Rahall
Richardson
Ridge
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Sanders
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sharp
Shepherd
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Walker
Washington
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Bentley
Clyburn
Gallo
Herger
Mollohan
Ravenel
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Roukema
{time} 1840
Mr. CLAY and Mr. LEWIS of Georgia changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by ms. pelosi
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Pelosi: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``United States-China Act of
1994''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In Executive Order 12850, dated May 28, 1993, the
President established conditions for renewing most-favored-
nation treatment for the People's Republic of China in 1994.
(2) The Executive order requires that in recommending the
extension of most-favored-nation trade status to the People's
Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning July 3,
1994, the Secretary of State shall not recommend extension
unless the Secretary determines that such extension
substantially promotes the freedom of emigration objectives
contained in section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2432) and that China is complying with the 1992 bilateral
agreement between the United States and China concerning
export to the United States of products made with prison
labor.
(3) The Executive order further requires that in making the
recommendation, the Secretary of State shall determine if
China has made overall significant progress with respect to--
(A) taking steps to begin adhering to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights;
(B) releasing and providing an acceptable accounting for
Chinese citizens imprisoned or detained for the nonviolent
expression of their political and religious beliefs,
including such expressions of beliefs in connection with the
Democracy Wall and Tiananmen Square movements;
(C) ensuring humane treatment of prisoners, and allowing
access to prisons by international humanitarian and human
rights organizations;
(D) protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural
heritage; and
(E) permitting international radio and television
broadcasts into China.
(4) The Executive order requires the executive branch to
resolutely pursue all legislative and executive actions to
ensure that China abides by its commitments to follow fair,
nondiscriminatory trade practices in dealing with United
States businesses and adheres to the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines and
parameters, and other nonproliferation commitments.
(5) The Government of the People's Republic of China, a
member of the United Nations Security Council obligated to
respect and uphold the United Nations charter and Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, has over the past year made less
than significant progress on human rights. The People's
Republic of China has released only a few prominent political
prisoners and continues to violate internationally recognized
standards of human rights by arbitrary arrests and detention
of persons for the nonviolent expression of their political
and religious beliefs.
(6) The Government of the People's Republic of China has
not allowed humanitarian and human rights organizations
access to prisons.
(7) The Government of the People's Republic of China has
refused to meet with the Dalai Lama, or his representative,
to discuss the protection of Tibet's distinctive religious
and cultural heritage.
(8) It continues to be the policy and practice of the
Government of the People's Republic of China to control all
trade unions and suppress and harass members of the
independent labor union movement.
(9) The Government of the People's Republic of China
continues to restrict the activities of accredited
journalists.
(10) The People's Republic of China's defense industrial
trading companies and the People's Liberation Army engage in
lucrative trade relations with the United States and operate
lucrative commercial businesses within the United States.
Trade with and investments in the defense industrial trading
companies and the People's Liberation Army are contrary to
the national security interests of the United States.
(11) The President has conducted an intensive high-level
dialogue with the Government of the People's Republic of
China, including meeting with the President of China, in an
effort to encourage that government to make significant
progress toward meeting the standards contained in the
Executive order for continuation of most-favored-nation
treatment.
(12) The Government of the People's Republic of China has
not made overall significant progress with respect to the
standards contained in the President's Executive Order 12850,
dated May 28, 1993.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the Congress that, since
the President has recommended the continuation of the waiver
under section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 for the
People's Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning
July 3, 1994, such waiver shall not provide for extension of
nondiscriminatory trade treatment to goods that are produced,
manufactured, or exported by the People's Liberation Army or
Chinese defense industrial trading companies or to
nonqualified goods that are produced, manufactured, or
exported by state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic
of China.
SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY
TREATMENT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law--
(1) if nondiscriminatory treatment is not granted to the
People's Republic of China by reason of the enactment into
law of a disapproval resolution described in subsection
(b)(1), nondiscriminatory treatment shall--
(A) continue to apply to any good that is produced or
manufactured by a person that is not a state-owned enterprise
of the People's Republic of China, but
(B) not apply to any good that is produced, manufactured,
or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's
Republic of China,
(2) if nondiscriminatory treatment is granted to the
People's Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning
on July 3, 1994, such nondiscriminatory treatment shall not
apply to--
(A) any good that is produced, manufactured, or exported by
the People's Liberation Army or a Chinese defense industrial
trading company, or
(B) any nonqualified good that is produced, manufactured,
or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's
Republic of China, and
(3) in order for nondiscriminatory treatment to be granted
to the People's Republic of China, and subsequent to the
granting of such nondiscriminatory treatment, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall consult with leaders of American
businesses having significant trade with or investment in the
People's Republic of China, to encourage them to adopt a
voluntary code of conduct that--
(A) follows internationally recognized human rights
principles,
(B) ensures that the employment of Chinese citizens is not
discriminatory in terms of sex, ethnic origin, or political
belief,
(C) ensures that no convict, forced, or indentured labor is
knowingly used,
(D) recognizes the rights of workers to freely organize and
bargain collectively, and
(E) discourages mandatory political indoctrination on
business premises.
(b) Disapproval Resolution.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
``resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the two
Houses of Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of
which is as follows: ``That the Congress does not approve the
extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of the
Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the
Congress on ______________________ with respect to the
People's Republic of China because the Congress does not
agree that the People's Republic of China has met the
standards described in the President's Executive Order 12850,
dated May 28, 1993.'', with the blank space being filled with
the appropriate date.
(2) Applicable rules.--The provisions of sections 153
(other than paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b)) and
402(d)(2) (as modified by this subsection) of the Trade Act
of 1974 shall apply to a resolution described in paragraph
(1).
(c) Determination of State-Owned Enterprises and Chinese
Defense Industrial Trading Companies.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), not
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall determine which
persons are state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic
of China and which persons are Chinese defense industrial
trading companies for purposes of this Act. The Secretary
shall publish a list of such persons in the Federal Register.
(2) Public hearing.--
(A) General rule.--Before making the determination and
publishing the list required by paragraph (1), the Secretary
of the Treasury shall hold a public hearing for the purpose
of receiving oral and written testimony regarding the persons
to be included on the list.
(B) Additions and deletions.--The Secretary of the Treasury
may add or delete persons from the list based on information
available to the Secretary or upon receipt of a request
containing sufficient information to take such action.
(3) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of making
the determination required by paragraph (1), the following
definitions apply:
(A) Chinese defense industrial trading company.--The term
``Chinese defense industrial trading company''--
(i) means a person that is--
(I) engaged in manufacturing, producing, or exporting, and
(II) affiliated with or owned, controlled, or subsidized by
the People's Liberation Army, and
(ii) includes any person identified in the United States
Defense Intelligence Agency publication numbered VP-1920-271-
90, dated September 1990.
(B) People's liberation army.--The term ``People's
Liberation Army'' means any branch or division of the land,
naval, or air military service or the police of the
Government of the People's Republic of China.
(C) State-owned enterprise of the people's republic of
china.--(i) The term ``state-owned enterprise of the People's
Republic of China'' means a person who is affiliated with or
wholly owned, controlled, or subsidized by the Government of
the People's Republic of China and whose means of production,
products, and revenues are owned or controlled by a central
or provincial government authority. A person shall be
considered to be state-owned if--
(I) the person's assets are primarily owned by a central or
provincial government authority;
(II) a substantial proportion of the person's profits are
required to be submitted to a central or provincial
government authority;
(III) the person's production, purchases of inputs, and
sales of output, in whole or in part, are subject to state,
sectoral, or regional plans; or
(IV) a license issued by a government authority classifies
the person as state-owned.
(ii) Any person that--
(I) is a qualified foreign joint venture or is licensed by
a governmental authority as a collective, cooperative, or
private enterprise; or
(II) is wholly owned by a foreign person,
shall not be considered to be state-owned.
(D) Qualified foreign joint venture.--The term ``qualified
foreign joint venture'' means any person--
(i) which is registered and licensed in the agency or
department of the Government of the People's Republic of
China concerned with foreign economic relations and trade as
an equity, cooperative, contractual joint venture, or joint
stock company with foreign investment;
(ii) in which the foreign investor partner and a person of
the People's Republic of China share profits and losses and
jointly manage the venture;
(iii) in which the foreign investor partner holds or
controls at least 25 percent of the investment and the
foreign investor partner is not substantially owned or
controlled by a state-owned enterprise of the People's
Republic of China;
(iv) in which the foreign investor partner is not a person
of a country the government of which the Secretary of State
has determined under section 6(j) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) to have
repeatedly provided support for acts of international
terrorism; and
(v) which does not use state-owned enterprises of the
People's Republic of China to export its goods or services.
(E) Person.--The term ``person'' means a natural person,
corporation, partnership, enterprise, instrumentality,
agency, or other entity.
(F) Foreign investor partner.--The term ``foreign investor
partner'' means--
(i) a natural person who is not a citizen of the People's
Republic of China; and
(ii) a corporation, partnership, instrumentality,
enterprise, agency, or other entity that is organized under
the laws of a country other than the People's Republic of
China and 50 percent or more of the outstanding capital stock
or beneficial interest of such entity is owned (directly or
indirectly) by natural persons who are not citizens of the
People's Republic of China.
(G) Nonqualified good.--The term ``nonqualified good''
means a good to which chapter 39, 44, 48, 61, 62, 64, 70, 73,
84, 93, or 94 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States applies.
(H) Convict, forced, or indentured labor.--The term
``convict, forced, or indentured labor'' has the meaning
given such term by section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1307).
(I) Violations of internationally recognized standards of
human rights.--The term ``violations of internationally
recognized standards of human rights'' includes but is not
limited to, torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial,
causing the disappearance of persons by abduction and
clandestine detention of those persons, secret judicial
proceedings, and other flagrant denial of the right to life,
liberty, or the security of any person.
(J) Missile technology control regime.--The term ``Missile
Technology Control Regime'' means the agreement, as amended,
between the United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal
Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and Japan,
announced on April 16, 1987, to restrict sensitive missile-
relevant transfers based on an annex of missile equipment and
technology.
(d) Semiannual Reports.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall, not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and the end of each 6-month period
occurring thereafter, report to the Congress on the efforts
of the executive branch to carry out subsection (c). The
Secretary may include in the report a request for additional
authority, if necessary, to carry out subsection (c). In
addition, the report shall include information regarding the
efforts of the executive branch to carry out subsection
(a)(3).
SEC. 4. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.
The President may waive the application of any condition or
prohibition imposed on any person pursuant to this Act, if
the President determines and reports to the Congress that the
continued imposition of the condition or prohibition would
have a serious adverse effect on the vital national security
interests of the United States.
SEC. 5. REPORT BY THE PRESIDENT.
If the President recommends in 1995 that the waiver
referred to in section 2 be continued for the People's
Republic of China, the President shall state in the document
required to be submitted to the Congress by section 402(d) of
the Trade Act of 1974, the extent to which the Government of
the People's Republic of China has made progress during the
period covered by the document, with respect to--
(1) adhering to the provisions of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights,
(2) ceasing the exportation to the United States of
products made with convict, force, or indentured labor,
(3) ceasing unfair and discriminatory trade practices which
restrict and unreasonably burden American business, and
(4) adhering to the guidelines and parameters of the
Missile Technology Control Regime, the controls adopted by
the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the controls adopted by the
Australia Group.
SEC. 6. SANCTIONS BY OTHER COUNTRIES.
If the President decides not to seek a continuation of a
waiver in 1995 for the People's Republic of China under
section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974, the President shall,
during the 30-day period beginning on the date that the
President would have recommended to the Congress that such a
waiver be continued, undertake efforts to ensure that members
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade take a similar
action with respect to the People's Republic of China.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Pelosi] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member in
opposition will be recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be
recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, it is with great pride that I yield 3
minutes to the Democratic majority whip, the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Bonior], a champion for human rights, a champion for workers'
rights throughout the world, and, more importantly, in addition to all
of that, a champion of American workers' rights.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for
yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, sometimes, I think we take a lot of things for granted
in this country.
Every one of us in this Chamber today has been doing something that
the people of China would never dream of doing: We have openly debated
the policies of our Government.
We have questioned the direction our country should go.
You cannot do that in China. If you speak out against the Government,
you get arrested,
If you actively work to build support to oppose a policy, you get
thrown in jail.
And if you say a prayer in public in some parts of China--like we did
this morning--you might never be heard from again.
I think that is part of the reason why those students in Tiananmen
Square read from our Constitution and quoted Thomas Jefferson 5 years
ago.
It is the same reason why people in the most distant reaches of South
Africa used to carry copies of the Declaration of Independence in their
pockets: because they know America is supposed to stand for something.
Because when tyrants around the world oppress their own people, they
know the principals that this country was founded on are supposed to
stand out like a beacon.
And they hope that we will speak out on behalf of human rights and
democracy in the world.
That is all we are asking for today.
We are not asking to end most-favored-nation trading status with
China--because that issue has been decided for now.
We are not asking to hang a keep out sign for Chinese products on the
United States border--because we know that's not going to happen.
And we are not asking to turn our backs on the China market--because
we recognize the opportunities there.
We are simply asking that we target the most egregious offenders of
human rights in China today, and that we end the taxpayer subsidies for
the very people who are doing the torturing, the abusing, the
arresting, and the murdering in China today. Is that really too much to
ask?
Do you really think our trade with China is going to collapse if the
Chinese Army loses its most-favored-nation status?
We have a $23 billion trade deficit with China today.
Do you really think they will abandon the U.S. market if we drop MFN
for 5 billion dollars' worth of state-run enterprises?
There is not a single industrialized nation in the world that gives
them the same breaks we do.
And you know why? Because they know it's not fair to ask their
workers to compete with Chinese workers who are forced to work for 10
cents an hour.
Because they know they can not compete with products made in the
prisons of the Chinese Army.
And what about the budget of the Chinese Army--that increased by more
than 20 percent last year thanks to their special trade status with the
United States.
What do you think that money is going for?
More uniforms and desk chairs? Or more tanks, torture, and
persecution of the Chinese people?
It is interesting that during this entire debate, nobody has
disavowed the fact that China's human rights record is getting worse.
Nobody has said it is getting better.
And that's really what this debate comes down to.
The students who marched in China 5 years ago did not march for money
or for power.
They marched for the freedom of speech. They marched for the freedom
to organize and the freedom to vote.
They marched for the right to build a better life for their
families--and for more opportunities than 10 cents an hour.
And today, I hope that just once we will stand up for them, and for
people like them in our country and all over the world.
I hope we will vote to end MFN for the Chinese military.
Not because it is the popular thing to do.
Not because it is the political thing to do.
But because it is right.
Because we are the hope of the Chinese people. And we can not afford
to turn our backs on them.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want you all to know that this is not my idea of a
rule. I have never really come upon one exactly like this, but I do not
want to prolong the agony.
I think the House has demonstrated that it has made up its mind with
that rather outstanding vote in favor of the Hamilton proposal just a
few moments ago.
Let me say that Ms. Pelosi has striven hard to do what she thinks is
correct in this matter. I simply disagree with her position.
First, her proposal would interrupt about half of the trade that we
have with China. Second, all of us have a letter from the U.S.
Commissioner of Customs who says it would be impossible to administer,
and extremely costly to try to enforce, the restrictions that the
gentlewoman outlines in her proposal. Commissioner Weise points out
that it would take the investigation of about 100,000 companies in
China in order to determine which products would be targeted by the
sanctions authorized in H.R. 4590. The U.S. Customs Service would have
to identify and report publicly on these companies controlled by the
state in China or by the People's Liberation Army. The Commissioner
notes that there is just no way to do that. The Customs Service does
not have that many people who can speak Chinese. Customs Commissioner
Weise doubts that the Chinese Government would allow his personnel the
access necessary to carry out such investigations. Customs law is
difficult enough without adding the impossible task of administering
this bill.
{time} 1850
So, as well intentioned as the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Pelosi] is, this measure would restrict trade with
China, touch off a prolonged period of instability in U.S.-China
relations, and most importantly, undercut the President's new
comprehensive China policy. The President seeks to engage the Chinese
on every front, and we need the Chinese to help us manage the North
Korean nuclear threat.
The Chinese have never had the kind of traditions on freedom,
democracy, and human rights that we have had but I believe that they
are moving closer to, rather than further from, internationally
recognized norms in such areas. The people in China are freer today
than ever before in my lifetime, and perhaps, in the entire 6,000 years
of Chinese history.
So, Mr. Chairman, we are making progress, and I think that the
President has outlined a good policy for furthering such progress. I
believe that disrupting trade would rupture our relations with China,
and I would add that the United States would be the only industrialized
society disengaging from China. None of our competitors in the
industrialized world have any intention of doing what the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Pelosi] is asking us to do here today.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Pelosi substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
California [Mr. Matsui], the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade who
has just done a wonderful job in organizing and supporting all of this
effort, may be able to control the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] who has been a champion on the issue of
proliferation, especially in the case of China, and because of him at
least we have the gun ban in the President's policy statement of last
May.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Pelosi] very much, and I congratulate her on her amendment here
today.
Human rights violations, they continue unabated in China. Use of
slave labor continues unabated inside of China. Even if, however, on
balance one believes that it makes sense to turn a blind eye to that
because we need this trade imbalance of $30 billion a year with the
Chinese Government with their companies, how can we ignore the fact
that this country is the No. 1 proliferater of nuclear materials on
this planet? Over the last half-dozen years they have exported to North
Korea, to Syria, to Algeria, to Iran, to Iraq, to Pakistan. Now out
here on the floor on an ongoing basis we have to appropriate tens of
billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money to then isolate these
troublespots around the world. Why? Because China, the Kmart of nuclear
materials, of other ballistic materials, continues to drop oil onto
every trouble spot on this planet.
Now I ask my colleagues why in the world should we spend tens of
billions of taxpayers' dollars so that we can run up a $30 billion
trade deficit, and turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the cries of the
human rights dissidents sitting in this gallery today crying for us to
stand up for their people?
My colleagues, this is not a difficult decision. The Chinese
Government needs us more than we need them. They are not helping us
with North Korea, and, if they do, it is only out of their own national
defense self-interest. We get nothing out of this but long-term trouble
for this Government for our people.
Vote for the Pelosi amendment and save this Government tens of
billions of dollars in years ahead. We should have done this with the
Shah of Iran. We should have done this in Iraq. We would have paid a
much smaller price as a people if we had been wiser far in advance of
the problems that we sowed by ourselves by our own actions here in the
floor of this Congress.
Vote for the Pelosi amendment.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].
(Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of MFN and
against the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Pelosi].
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hamilton amendment to H.R.
4590, the U.S.-China Act of 1994.
I strongly oppose terminating China's current trade status by
revoking most-favored-nation [MFN] status or by imposing broad trade
sanctions. Our current policy balances a host of concerns which have
been voiced on the floor today, such as political and human rights
concerns.
Human rights progress must be achieved in China; however, it should
be done through nontrade means such as expanding private and
multilateral efforts, increasing international broadcasts to China and
supporting Chinese businesses in developing voluntary principles on
human rights.
Renewing China's MFN status remains consistent with our goal of
bringing China into the expanding world of free-market societies.
Isolating China by cutting off MFN only serves to weaken the ties to
the west and increase repression.
There are also a number of economic arguments to support extending
MFN status to China. Engaging China in a trade war will not only lower
American exports, but will also effectively kill more than 150,000
American jobs. Our constituents would feel the effects of this action
through higher prices resulting from an increase in U.S. tariffs on a
variety of Chinese products.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Hamilton amendment to
maintain MFN trade status for China.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Walsh].
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, in the past I have supported MFN with the
People's Republic of China, but only with the most stringent conditions
attached. I have little respect for the octogenarian administration of
PRC and their abysmal human rights record.
On a personal basis, I lived and worked with Tibetan refugees in
Nepal as a Peace Corps volunteer. I have a great measure of love and
respect for those people and their culture. Tibetan Lamaic Buddhism is
among the world's great religious traditions. I was very fortunate to
have witnessed and participated in some of the richest and most
beautiful religious services I have ever seen. In the 1950's, the
Communist Chinese set out to destroy this culture. They have not been
successful, but the people have suffered great harm.
Therefore it is with great difficulty that I face this decision
today. Events of the past have changed my view. The opening of Eastern
Europe to democracy began with economic reform. As Western culture,
good and bad, flowed east, and information expanded exponentially,
people were empowered. They knew what they were missing. They were
freer to exchange ideas, challenge authority and enrich their lives
materially. And once the door flew open they could not close it. Human
rights violations were witnessed not be silent neighbors, but by an
outraged world.
Mr. Chairman, I have become convinced that this is the only way to
open the Chinese doors and windows. They need to look out and we need
to see in to make sure that another Tibetan pogrom cannot take place.
Economics drives much of our foreign policy, and all of the economic
arguments in favor of MFN are strong. But we must cope with the human
condition these policies affect. The time has come to open China to
trade, to information interchange, and to democratic ideas that, once
introduced, should bring the desired result.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the Pelosi
amendment and a yes vote for most-favored-nation status with China.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman], a leader on this issue in the Congress.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Mr. Chairman, the issue before us is not isolating the People's
Republic of China. The issue before us is trade with the People's
Liberation Army. There is no sound reason that the military forces of
Communist China should be granted any preferential trading status. How
could we rationalize such a shortsighted policy?
The Chinese military is the only armed forces in the world that still
are targeting our Nation with nuclear weapons. Do we support that kind
of policy?
Our senior counterintelligence officials inform us that the Chinese
military has the most active industrial espionage network here in our
own country. Do we support that kind of a policy?
The Chinese military is supporting the North Koreans. Do we support
that policy?
Where is our long-term foreign policy thinking?
Bear in mind that our deficit in trade with China is more than $23
billion.
I say, ``Vote yes on the Pelosi bill to revoke MFN for the Chinese
army. Support our American workers here at home by supporting the human
rights abroad.''
{time} 1900
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
(Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for our colleague, the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Pelosi], but on this issue, she is wrong. We need
to divorce trade from foreign policy. We need China. If we are going to
be able to do anything diplomatically to solve the problem with nuclear
proliferation in North Korea, we need China.
The oriental people, the Chinese in particular, are very sensitive to
face. If they determine in any way that we are applying any kind of
pressure, overt or covert, we will be totally unsuccessful. And who
will suffer? Our farmers in the Midwest, our people in high-technology
industries, our people in Seattle and other places with airplanes and
other sophisticated products that the Chinese need.
We need to divorce this situation, make trade, trade, and make
foreign policy, foreign policy.
The framers of our Constitution were right when they said the
President shall set foreign policy.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for their attention today and for
their participation in this important debate.
Mr. Chairman, before I proceed I want to acknowledge the wonderful
staff support of Eric Weiss, Mike Wessel, Miles Lackey, Karen Ann
Feever, Carolyn Bartholomew, and so many other people on our staffs who
worked so very hard on this issue for such a long time. I, too, would
like to join the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] in
recognizing the dissidents who are in the Chamber with us today.
Mr. Chairman, why are we having this debate? Why are we here today? I
contend that this debate is central and fundamental to how we proceed
into the global and international marketplace. This is a debate about
the American worker, it is a debate about human rights throughout the
world, and, in this particular case, particularly in China, it is about
how we are smart in our trade relationships and how they relate to the
proliferation of weapons.
Over the past 5 years, this House has demonstrated its concern about
the trade deficit with China, which this year will be $30 billion, and
I promise you if we do nothing today, it will surpass Japan. Second, we
are concerned about the serious repression in China and Tibet, and,
third, seriously concerned about the proliferation of weapons to
unsafeguarded countries, including the sale of weapons to the Khmer
Rouge.
In the speaker's remarks, it was curious to me he made two points. He
said first, China was cooperating with us on North Korea; the Chinese
military is not. The military has pledged 82,000 troops in case of war
to the North Korean armed forces, and also pledged food and energy and
credit assistance in case of U.N. sanctions. So let us be straight
about what China is doing.
Why is it that people in our midst here wish to ignore the violations
in our trade relationship, in our proliferation arrangements, and, yes,
indeed, even on the question of human rights?
I said earlier that I did not believe that the Hamilton amendment did
that much. I do not think it does. So I think it is very possible for
Members to vote for that. It does nothing to negate voting also for the
Pelosi amendment. So I hope some Members will register their support
also for my legislation.
Why is that? Is it a difficult thing to ask our colleagues that they
vote not to give a tax break to the Chinese military, the same Chinese
military where these three issues converge, who are proliferating
weapons, who are repressing people in China and Tibet, and flooding our
markets with their products, many of them made by prison labor, because
the Chinese military oversees a great deal of the prison labor camps
itself?
Is it too much to say the American taxpayer should not be subsidizing
the proliferation of weapons into the Third World and to unsafeguarded
countries? Is it too much to say do not subsidize the Chinese military
when they are the oppressors in China?
Well, we have heard all of that. I think that in 3 years, if we do
nothing today, we will look back and say, how did this trade deficit
get to this point?
So I am asking my colleagues to vote in favor of the American worker,
to get the American consumer off the hook for unwittingly subsidizing
the Chinese military, and, as I said, help the American worker by
promoting human rights abroad.
Once again I want to thank my colleagues for their attention, both
here today and their courtesies in the course of this deliberation.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, we are arriving at the last and the final
twist in this debate, which has gone on for some time today, and which
surely has taken a number of twists.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that the Pelosi amendment, the
Pelosi bill, is in some ways a worse alternative than the Solomon
approach which at least has the advantage of being a straightforward
revocation of most-favored-nation status for China.
Partial revocation, as this legislation would have us do, is in some
ways the worst possible change that we could make. To try to limit
most-favored-nation status to only those companies that are completely
Simon pure in being privately owned, not having a government subsidy,
not being owned in part by the People's Army, is an almost impossible
task to administer, as I think most of us on reflection in this body
would agree.
Customs itself has said that it is almost impossible for them to
determine what is and what is not owned by the government or by the
People's Army. We can just imagine what would occur in terms of
creating shall corporations that would be owned by somebody, but would
still be owned by the army. It is going to be impossible to administer
this.
In the meantime we have had a vote, a positive vote, on the Hamilton
substitute, which expresses our support for human rights, which
recognizes that human rights can be promoted by involvement, by trade,
by interaction, by staying engaged with another country.
The House of Representatives and the Congress of the United States
has traditionally been bipartisan on foreign policy and trade. This
action today in support of Hamilton continues that tradition.
So I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan approach that we
have adopted here today, to say that we do support human rights, but we
support human rights in China by continuing to be engaged in trade with
China.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Pelosi
substitute.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all commend the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi], certainly the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hamilton], the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], and the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Gilman], the ranking member of the Republican side. I think this
debate was a very fruitful one, and I think everybody has gained from
it. Certainly I think this is an issue of national import, and one that
all of us well remember for some time to come.
I want to divide my remarks very briefly into three areas on the
issue of military and proliferation of weapons by the Chinese. What is
very, very interesting is that since the United States has been
engaging the Chinese, since the United States has been trying to get
the PLA to move from a military-industrial base to a consumer-based
economy, we have now seen over 50 percent of the former military-run
companies now engaged in consumer goods.
In fact, the Secretary of Defense has sent to every Member's office
in the last 3 days a letter basically saying that he is embarking on a
major military conversion effort with the Chinese. In October the
Chinese military leaders will be coming to the United States for the
purpose of talking about further conversion.
{time} 1910
So if Members want to stop the proliferation of weapons, then vote
down the Pelosi amendment.
Second, let me talk about economic leverage, if I may, because
everybody is talking, rightfully so, about the trade deficit. We have a
$22 billion trade deficit with the Chinese at this particular time. It
is growing and we know it could be $30 billion this year.
The reason that we have not been able to engage the Chinese to open
up their markets is because unfortunately, our entire relationship with
the Chinese over the last year and a half has been defined by MFN and
the issue of human rights. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say
that we want to open their markets up and spend all the time arguing
about human rights. We have to deal with the trade issue by trying to
open up their markets, and then also we need a multilateral discussion
with the Chinese by talking about human rights, by uncoupling the issue
of trade.
Let me last talk about the issue of human rights, because that is why
we are really here, and I believe the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Pelosi] has done a wonderful job heightening this issue with respect to
the Chinese.
There is no question the Chinese have over the years been very
repressive in their government. At the same time, I think all of us
will acknowledge that if Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter did not
normalize relations with the Chinese, the dissidents sitting in the
audience would not be sitting here today. We would never have the scene
at Tiananmen Square because normalizing relations with the Chinese has
opened up trade with the Chinese and commerce with the Chinese.
In fact, Don Kennedy, the former President of Stanford University,
said this three years ago, that we have over 45,000 students from China
per year coming to the United States, visiting our universities and
colleges. They are now exporting from the United States into China
democracy and our way of life.
If Members really want to improve human rights, they need to engage
them, not isolate them from us and the rest of the world.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Pelosi amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hamilton].
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Let me remind my colleagues, first, that we are proceeding under a
king of the hill procedure, so I urge very strongly a no vote on
Pelosi, even though we had a very solid vote a moment ago in support of
the Hamilton amendment.
Some have suggested that it is possible to vote for both of these.
But I want to say that the two approaches in the Hamilton and in the
Pelosi amendments cannot be reconciled.
One approach is an approach of engagement. That is the President's
policy. That is the Hamilton amendment. The Pelosi amendment is a
policy of confrontation. The choice is simple and it is clear, and we
cannot reconcile these two amendments.
Let me say that I think the Pelosi amendment damages our national
security interests, damages our economic interests, will do nothing to
improve human rights in China and is unenforceable.
Listen to the secretary of defense, and I quote him, ``in the context
of the deteriorating relationship that would inevitably result from the
passage of this bill,'' referring to the Pelosi bill, ``important U.S.
security interests would be undermined.'' And he lists them: North
Korea, sanctions at the United Nations, Taiwan and arms sales.
The Pelosi confrontational amendment would seriously undermine our
economic interests. Listen to the secretary of commerce, and I quote
him, ``passage of Pelosi would have potentially devastating
consequences on our current exports.
And the secretary of state says that the Pelosi bill would create
chaos in U.S.-China trade.
If we adopt the policy of confrontation offered by the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Pelosi], we will not persuade the Chinese to ease
up on human rights. We will not persuade the Chinese to cooperate more
fully in stopping North Korea's nuclear program. We will not serve our
economic interests. Confrontation will not help U.S. companies. It will
not help U.S. workers. Confrontation will not give us the leverage that
we need in the global community.
The President's policy is one of engagement here. It would give us
the leverage we need to press North Korea in the UN Security Council.
It would give us the leverage we need to open Chinese markets. It would
give us the leverage we need to encourage the liberalization of Chinese
society.
What we are trying to do with this policy of engagement is to draw
China into a web of cooperation; that is one of the most difficult
things to do in the conduct of foreign policy. Engaging China serves
our interests economically and politically and strategically. And it
will make us a key player in the most important question in China
today; and that is the transition of leadership.
I urge Members to support the President's policy of engagement, to
reject the policy of confrontation, to vote ``no'' on the Pelosi
amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the Democratic majority leader,
a champion for workers rights in the United States and human rights
abroad.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Pelosi] who has been the spiritual and real leader
of this effort. I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Bonior], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Gilman], who have been also great leaders on this
subject.
I rise today to ask my colleagues to support the Pelosi bill, to
stand up for human rights in China and economic rights here at home.
For more than 5 years, ever since the brutal state-sanctioned
terrorism of Tiananmen Square, this debate has raged here in this
Capitol. Make no mistake, this debate is about more than our wallets.
It is about our will as a nation and as a people.
Should America use its economic might to stand up for human rights?
Should we demand for the people of China the basic rights and justice
that we cherish for ourselves and our children? And when America says
that we care about human rights, when we say that we care about a
people who suffer physical torture and forced labor and political
persecution, do we mean that we care only when it is convenient for us?
In 1988, I traveled to China and met with many of the students and
workers who asked for human and civil rights. Their feelings seemed to
me to be irrepressible, undeniable. And just one year later we all
watched as the tanks rolled across at Tiananmen Square. I returned to
China with some Members this January and, believe me, when you tour the
factories and walk the back alleys, you can feel, palpably feel the
yearning of the people of that country for freedom and for civil
rights.
I sat with the president of their country and listened to him as he
said, ``We know that America likes to threaten the removal of trade
preferences,'' he said, ``but when push comes to shove, we know that
you will never, ever do it.''
Today, my colleagues, we are asking Members to prove him wrong. We
are asking Members to send this message to the government of China:
that when they refuse to even negotiate with the Dalai Lama on behalf
of the people of Tibet, when they refuse to release even those
political prisoners with grave medical conditions, and when they read
the riot act to the young patriots who are fighting for freedom and
workers rights, America is not going to pick up the tab.
{time} 1920
I am asking you to send a message to the working people of America as
well: That they should not have to compete with forced labor, prison
labor. You see, this is a moral issue, but it is also an economic
issue. How can the United States possibly compete with people who are
working in prisons? How can we compete with a nation that refuses to
adopt even modest, internationally recognized labor laws?
Given these rampant abuses, is it any wonder that we have a trade
deficit of $25 billion, on its way to $30 billion, probably on its way
to $40 billion or $50 billion?
I think this bill is reasonable and fair. By selectively removing
trade preferences, by carefully targeting our aim at the people that
have the power to change the policies, we stand the best chance of real
progress.
Mr. Chairman, some say it is the wrong approach. They say we need to
tap into China's growing market of 1.2 billion people, that this will
lift the people of China up, and it is the only way that we can get
democracy.
While we can never ignore the fact that development breeds democracy,
neither can we abandon our commitment to democracy through development.
Mr. Chairman, the notion of a ``trickle-down'' trade policy, one in
which all political and social reforms flow freely from the
marketplace, is not just simplistic, it flies in the face of history.
Mr. Chairman, just think, just think of where we would be in South
Africa today if America had not stood for the moral rights of the
people of South Africa. Let me tell the Members where we would be.
Nelson Mandela would be in a prison, he would not be the president of
South Africa, if America had not stood for the moral and legal rights
of the people of that country.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the question we have to ask is, if we will not
stand for the rights of the people of China, who will. If we let down
the people of China, what do we say to the nations that look to us for
hope and inspiration and leadership? Do we say that our principles are
still strong, they are just hiding for a while behind a sign called
``For Sale''?
Of course, international trade is about dollars and cents, but it is
also about people and it is about principles. If we abandon our
commitment to the freedoms that are the very foundation of free
markets, then we trade away everything that our country stands for.
Mr. Chairman, more than 170 years ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote that
``this country remains to preserve and restore light and liberty'' for
the nations of the world. ``The flames kindled on the fourth of July,
1776,'' he wrote, ``have spread over too much of the globe to be
extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they
will consume these engines--and all who work them.''
Vote for this bill. Vote to let the whole world know that when it
comes to human rights, when it comes to human decency, the United
States will always be the light of liberty--and in that endeavor, we
yield for no purpose and we yield for no price.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, today as we debate whether to revoke or
restrict most-favored-nation [MFN] trade status to China I think it is
important that we understand the policy the United States has followed
and why we are still debating MFN in 1994.
The United States first granted MFN to China in 1980. At that time,
China had shown that it was serious about implementing pro-democracy
reforms. Commerce prospered. Human rights appeared to improve.
Then, in 1989, the world watched in horror as a massive pro-democracy
demonstration in Beijing's Tiananmen Square turned into a government-
led massacre. President Bush implemented sanctions against China to
express the disapproval of the United States. But the true measure of
disapproval was voiced by the Congress.
As a result of the Tiananmen Square incident, I joined with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle three times over the past 4 years
to try and revoke MFN. I believed strongly that revocation would help
make China accountable for its actions in 1989 and to curb future
abuses. Each time the House and the Senate succeeded in passing
legislation to revoke MFN status, however, the President vetoed it.
Today, Tiananmen is 4 years old and times have changed--few of us
believe that a complete revocation would succeed in punishing China for
its 1989 atrocities. Without a doubt, the expansion in United States-
China trade has had positive effects on many aspects of life in China.
Unfortunately, measurable improvement in human rights is not one of
them. In fact, in the last 6 months, human rights conditions in China
have arguably deteriorated.
President Clinton announced in June that the United States would
extend MFN to China and de-link trade and human rights. At that time, I
announced that I would support the President's decision to extend MFN
unless China indicated it would not support United States security
interests in the region. The direct motivation for my statement was the
potentially explosive situation in North Korea. Recent press accounts
have proven, however, that China has contributed to North Korea's
military buildup by transferring advanced missile technology to North
Korea. This action demonstrates that China is actively opposing United
States security interests in the region. Consequently, I can no longer
support the President's determination wholesale.
If we continue business-as-usual with China, human rights may improve
as personal income and personal freedoms improve. The most sure way to
encourage human rights improvements, however, is to provide the
Government with an incentive to actively change its human rights
policy. And we must do so without compromising the substantial amount
of trade which we conduct each year. In my opinion, we must find a
middle ground approach--one that allows most trade to continue while
attacking those enterprises that are guilty of the most severe abuses.
I believe that the Pelosi alternative achieves that reasonable
approach.
The Pelosi approach focuses on sanctions where it will hurt most, on
the military-run enterprises which manufacture military and civil goods
and on certain state-run enterprises. These are the enterprises which
fund the expansion and modernization of China's armed forces or which
employ forced labor and engage in human rights violations. The Pelosi
alternative also calls for the President to include an assessment of
China's progress on human rights, exports which use convict, forced or
indentured labor, unfair trade practices, and weapons proliferation.
Most important, the Pelosi bill focuses on improving the lives of
ordinary Chinese people that have fought for democracy in their
country. Restriction of these goods will have a measurable effect on
these Chinese industries, and also on the human rights record of the
Chinese Government.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support
for the Pelosi substitute to H.R. 4590, a bill to disapprove most-
favored-nation [MFN] status for products of state-owned-enterprises in
China. I also want to take this opportunity to commend the gentlewoman
from California, Representative Pelosi, for her steadfast
determination, and tireless efforts to keep this issue before our
Nation's leaders, and for bringing this legislation to the floor today
for a vote. Many of us in the House of Representatives have come to
rely on Representative Pelosi for her leadership on this issue over the
past 5 years, and we look to her as our conscience and our guide. This
gentlewoman deserves the thanks of all the Members of this House for
her unwavering support of human rights and democratic reforms in China.
It is absolutely imperative that this House insist that the United
States Government not reward the Chinese regime which brutally
massacred pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square just 5 years
ago with carte blanche on the importation of their goods into our
market. Granting most-favored-nation status to all Chinese products
rewards the Chinese regime for its intransigence on human rights, and
its refusal to engage in fair trade.
The Pelosi substitute to H.R. 4590 is carefully targeted to send a
strong message to the Chinese Government that continued suppression of
human rights, production of export goods through forced prison labor,
flaunting of international agreements on nuclear nonproliferation, and
engaging in unfair trade practices cannot be tolerated, nor ignored,
nor rewarded. Denying most-favored-nation status for products made by
the Chinese military and state-owned-enterprises which rely on forced
prison labor to produce their goods is a reasonable compromise to the
continuing controversy over trade and human rights policy in regard to
China.
Mr. Chairman, despite the arguments of those who support totally
unfettered trade with China, the fact remains that trade and human
rights are inextricably linked. A nation that suppresses its peoples'
human rights also suppresses their wages. This, in turn, leads to an
unnatural advantage in trade, which adversely impacts American
businesses and workers, and causes the loss of American jobs. In point
of fact, the United States trade deficit with China is now over $30
billion a year, second only to our trade deficit with Japan. Yet,
despite the freedom we grant to Chinese imports to the United States,
China does not grant most-favored-nation status to United States goods,
and continues to bar certain United States goods from the Chinese
market. For those who advocate free trade, it seems rather illogical
and inconsistent to grant free access to our market to a country which
denies free access to their market for our goods.
Nearly 40 percent of China's total exports are to the United States,
which means that most-favored-nation status for their goods is vital to
the Chinese economy. Therefore, most-favored-nation status is logically
the most effective tool for influencing the Chinese Government to
improve their record on human rights. If the United States continues to
grant most-favored-nation status to Chinese goods, without requiring
improvements in human rights, than there is no incentive for the
Chinese regime to alter their policies. I ask my colleagues who support
unrestricted most-favored-nation status for China to identify what
other means we have available to influence the Chinese Government? They
cannot give me an answer, because they have no answer.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all my colleagues to insist that the
United States stand up for the principles of human rights, and for the
freedom of the Chinese people. Vote for the Pelosi substitute, and send
he clear, unmistakable message to the dictators in Beijing, and your
constituents, that you believe in freedom and democracy for people all
over the world.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
bill and substitute amendment authored by my dear friend and respected
colleague, Representative Nancy Pelosi. This reasoned and reasonable
approach to United States-Chinese policy would promote respect for
human rights without inadvertently punishing reformists.
No one here can dispute that the government of the People's Republic
of China must improve its repressive human rights record. Our decision
today is how to achieve that goal.
I side with those who believe that the worst offenders are not
entitled to the privilege of most-favored-nation status which is
afforded civilized trading partners. Unfettered access to the American
market, the largest unified market in the world, is not the answer.
Economic growth may help promote openness, but it is not the only
factor or the only path to democracy. If it were, you can be sure that
the Chinese would not allow economic reform.
By denying MFN to official institutions, we can provide incentives
for the government, particularly the military, to divest itself. This
would further the interests of the United States which include
promoting human rights, democracy, fair trade, livable working
conditions, nuclear non-proliferation, regional stability and more.
These are the goals we all share. These things will be more difficult
to achieve if we do not use the leverage of targeted MFN denial.
The Pelosi bill is workable. The list of targeted enterprises, in
fact the concept of targeted denial of MFN, was drawn up by the
administration before the undoing of our China policy.
The alternative offered by my colleague from Indiana merely advocates
doing what we ought to be doing already: protecting intellectual
property, encouraging responsible business practices, and expanding
broadcasting to tyrannized societies.
Without the human rights violations, without the prison labor,
without the missile proliferation, without the subjugation of Tibet,
the Chinese would still be among the worst of our unfair trading
partners. China does not afford the United States national treatment,
the common denominator among trading partners that entitles countries
to most-favored-nation status. China turns a blind-eye to industrial
and intellectual piracy. China uses prisoners and laborers in near-
slavery to fuel its economic engine. Because of all this, the United
States suffers a tremendous $24 billion trade deficit with China.
Confucius said centuries ago, ``do not treat others as you would not
have them treat you.'' The Golden Rule, as spoken by the venerable
Chinese sage, applies.
The Chinese Government must treat other nations as they would be
treated. Perhaps even more importantly, the Chinese Government must
respect the Chinese people if it is to deserve respect. We must stand
up for the average Chinese, like the man before the tank, and help to
put an end to repression. Support the Pelosi amendment, oppose the
Hamilton amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Pelosi bill, which will revoke MFN for goods produced by the People's
Liberation Army and China's defense trading companies.
This is the principled approach. It is the pragmatic approach.
As a strong supporter of free trade, I do not come to this position
lightly. China is not only the world's largest country, but it also has
the world's fastest growing economy.
Our relationship with China is one of the most important issues that
this Nation faces on the international scene in the years and decades
ahead.
Mr. Chairman, as we begin to face that challenge, a simple extension
of most-favored-nation trading status--without regard to China's
restrictions on imports, their export of missile technology and their
performance in human rights--will not advance our values. It will not
advance our interests.
Targeted sanctions are justified for many reasons: the Chinese
Government acknowledges holding more than 3,000 prisoners for counter-
revolutionary activities. This is a mere fraction of tens of thousands
of political and religious detainees. They can be held for 3 years
without a trial, and that is often extended for another 3 years.
China continues to export products made with prison labor to the
United States. Just this spring, the human rights group Asia Watch
released a report documenting import to the United States of 100 tons
of latex medical gloves inspected by prison labor.
There has been no progress in negotiations between China and the
Dalai Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader. There are hundreds of prisoners
of conscience in Tibet, including 15 nuns arrested last year and
sentenced to up to 7 years in prison.
China has started discussions with the International Committee of the
Red Cross [ICRC] about prison inspections, but to date, no prison
visits have been allowed. 1993 was the worst year for political arrests
and trials since mid-1990 in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square
massacre.
Mr. Chairman, the Pelosi bill strikes the right balance between our
interests in expanding trade and in defending human rights.
I thank my colleague from California for her leadership on this
issue, and urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4590.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlelady from California
for her constant and eloquent leadership for human rights for the
Chinese people. Throughout the years since Tiananmen she has been the
guiding light of the Congress on this issue and a beacon of hope for
every Chinese person who yearns for freedom.
The United States has emerged from the cold war the preeminent
political, economic, military, and ideological power in the world. I
believe we have the best opportunity in history to promote human
rights, the rule of law, free markets, and democracy--the values on
which our country is based--in the far corners of the globe. We must,
however, implement the foreign policies that reflect this golden
opportunity and advance it.
The Pelosi bill recognizes the need to find a workable means for
moving China toward a greater openness and respect for human rights.
Our former policy of conditioning MFN on improvements in human rights
ultimately failed because it was to broadly drawn and in the end so
draconian we would not use it for fear we might well undermine the very
influence toward greater economic and political freedom we wished to
foster.
The bill that the gentlelady from California offers today, however,
is narrowly drawn to target the groups--the People's Liberation Army
and the large state-run industries--that are the prime human rights
abusers in China. Harry Wu has provided irrefutable evidence that
state-run industries use slave labor, and the PLA, which has extensive
mechanism used by the Chinese leadership for abuses like Tienanmen
Square.
I am cosponsor of the Pelosi bill because I believe it sends a well-
honed message to the Chinese that our concern for human rights in China
is abiding and strong. I urge Members to support this targeted measure.
Now, Mr. Chairman, taken together, the legislation offered by Ms.
Pelosi and Mr. Hamilton represent a broad-based approach to promoting
human rights in China that contains carrots and sticks which, I
believe, is how we should be proceeding. I do not believe these two
approaches are mutually exclusive, and I support them both.
Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules has made it impossible for the
two approaches to both pass today, which I believe is unfair to Members
and particularly unfair to Mr. Hamilton, who has produced an excellent
bill. I am particularly supportive of provisions in his bill that
encourage the Chinese to enter meaningful negotiations with the Dalai
Lama regarding the future of Tibet, Identify preserving the social and
economic system of Hong Kong as a very high priority, and authorize
additional funds for Radio Free Asia, for which the house expressed
overwhelming support a few weeks ago.
After we have completed action here today, I believe the Rules
Committee should reconvene and produce another rule allowing the
approach that does not prevail--either Pelosi or Hamilton--to be
brought back to the floor for an up-or-down vote. The House should be
given a fair opportunity to work its will on this very important issue.
I will support both of these approaches today, which are offered by
Members with a deep and earnest interest in improving conditions in
China. I cast my votes, however, while protesting the convoluted rule
that does not give Members flexibility and will result in the adoption
of one approach or the other, and not both.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158,
noes 270, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 383]
AYES--158
Abercrombie
Andrews (ME)
Applegate
Baker (CA)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Beilenson
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackwell
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Browder
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burton
Byrne
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
de Lugo (VI)
DeFazio
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dixon
Dornan
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fields (LA)
Fish
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kildee
King
Klink
Klug
Lancaster
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lowey
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Norton (DC)
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Porter
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Sanders
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sharp
Shepherd
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Washington
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
NOES--270
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bateman
Becerra
Bereuter
Bevill
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Combest
Condit
Cooper
Coppersmith
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ewing
Faleomavaega (AS)
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Glickman
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings
Hayes
Hoagland
Hoekstra
Hoke
Houghton
Huffington
Hughes
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennelly
Kim
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lucas
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCandless
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Meek
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rostenkowski
Roth
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schumer
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Stenholm
Stump
Sundquist
Swift
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Tucker
Valentine
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wyden
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--11
Bentley
Clyburn
Franks (NJ)
Gallo
Herger
McCollum
Ravenel
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Roukema
Stark
Whitten
{time} 1943
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Dakota changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DORNAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substutite was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
Skaggs] having assumed the chair, Mr. Sharp, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4590) to
provide conditions for renewing nondiscriminatory--most-favored-
nation--treatment for the People's Republic of China, pursuant to House
Resolution 509, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________