[Pages H7265-H7272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2058, CHINA POLICY ACT OF 1995,
AND HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 96, DISAPPROVING EXTENSION OF MOST-FAVORED-
NATION TREATMENT TO THE PRODUCTS OF CHINA

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 193 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 193

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
2058) establishing United States policy toward China. The
bill shall be debatable for ninety minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on International Relations. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit. The motion to recommit may include instructions
only if offered by the minority leader or his designee.
Sec. 2. After disposition of H.R. 2058, it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 96) disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory
treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) to the products of
the People's Republic of China. The joint resolution shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by
Representative Wolf of Virginia and Representative Archer of
Texas or their designees. Pursuant to sections 152 and 153 of
the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
table, if offered by Representative Wolf or his designee. The
provisions of sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974
shall not apply to any other joint resolution disapproving
the extension of most-favored-nation treatment to the
People's Republic of China for the remainder of the first
session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson]. During the
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this rule was unanimously adopted by the Committee on
Rules, and I am proud to say that the arrangement worked out by this
rule was unanimously agreed to on a bipartisan basis by the principal
parties involved with the legislation.
What the rule does is to first make in order in the House the bill,
H.R. 2058, the China Policy Act of 1995, as introduced by the gentleman
from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
The rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate, equally divided
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee
on International Relations. While we originally considered limiting
this to 1 hour of debate, we expanded the debate time at the request of
the bipartisan group that had negotiated a compromise with Mr.
Bereuter.
The rule further provides for one motion to recommit the bill, which,
if containing instructions, may be offered by the minority leader or
his designee. I would point out to my colleagues that this latter
provision is in keeping with the new House rule adopted on January 4 of
this year which guarantees to the minority the right to offer a motion
to recommit with instructions, and I quote from rule XI, clause 4(b),
``if offered by the minority leader or his designee.'' That is what is
contained in the House rules.
This is a guarantee we Republicans were denied on numerous occasions
when we were in the minority but which we promised to give the minority
if we became the majority.
Mr. Speaker, the rule goes on to provide that after the disposition
of H.R. 2058, the House may proceed to the consideration in the House
of House Joint Resolution 96, introduced by the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Wolf], disapproving the extension of most-favored-nation status to
the products of the People's Republic of China.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, divided equally
between the gentleman from Virginia and the chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
Pursuant to the terms of the fast track procedures, the previous
question is considered as ordered to final passage on the joint
resolution, except that one motion to table the resolution is in
order, if offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] or his
designee.

Finally, the rule provides that the fast track procedures of the
Trade Act shall not apply to any other disapproval resolution relating
to MFN for China for the remainder of this session of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, before I turn to the policy aspects of the measures
before us, I just want to comment on the cooperation we have received
from the parties on all sides of the issue involved here in crafting
this rule. As I mentioned earlier, this was reported from the Committee
on Rules on a unanimous vote, thanks to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Beilenson] who is managing for the minority. This was also due in
no small part to the cooperation and compromise among all concerned
that has taken place in crafting the legislative bill made in order by
the rule.
I especially want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
Bereuter] for his open-mindedness and willingness to listen to other
Members. I also commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] who have labored for so long
in these vineyards, for their accommodating attitudes in reaching
agreement on a consensus bill.
I would be remiss if I did not single out the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Archer], and the ranking minority member of the committee, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], and the Committee on
International Relations chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gilman], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] for all their
work on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule, a fair rule and a bipartisan rule
that will enable us to debate the issues and vote on two distinct yet
related propositions relating to the People's Republic of China. I hope
that we will adopt this rule.
Turning now, Mr. Speaker, to the substance of the issue itself, I
cannot avoid making the observation that two things have remained
constant since the House began having this annual

[[Page H7266]]
China MFN debate 5 years ago. Those two constants are simply these: Our
trade deficit with China keeps going up, and the conditions within
China itself keep going down, keep getting worse.
Is there a single problem that troubles the United
States-China relationship which has gotten better in the last 5
years? I ask all of my colleagues listening to this debate today to
answer that question. Has anything gotten better since we debated this
1 year ago? The Chinese Communists' brutal disregard for human rights,
how about that? The severe restrictions on freedom of speech, press and
assembly and association, have they gotten better? Members know the
answer. The continued denial of prison visits by international
observers, has that improved? No. The continued jamming of Voice of
America, still going on. The ongoing sales of missiles and weapons of
mass destruction to terrorist regimes, still going on. The unrestrained
use of prison labor in the manufacture of export products, in
competition to the shirt that I am wearing, made by Americans in the
United States of America, has that gotten better? No, it has gotten
worse, and the proof is out there.

The massive military buildup, particularly in offensive weapons
systems. I mention again, offensive weapons systems, which threaten the
peace of the entire East Asian region.
Do my colleagues know that the People's Republic of China has more
than doubled its defense budget in the last 5 years while other
countries, like the United States of America and all of our NATO
allies, all countries around the world have decreased their military
spending?

{time} 1040

There is China's continued reliance on predatory trade practices, and
I could just go on and on. To top it all off, the Chinese regime has
arrested a man named Harry Wu, an American citizen, whose only crime
was to tell the world the truth about China's gulag and the prison
labor system. That is his only crime. Yet, he is being detained. God
knows what is going to happen to him.
Mr. Speaker, the list of abuses goes on and on and on. Every one of
these problems has gotten worse during a period of time in which
China's exports to the United States have gone up, listen to this, have
gone up 233 percent. And our trade deficit against China has gone up by
a staggering 377 percent since 1989, and we sit here and allow this to
continue to happen, putting Americans out of work.
That is what is wrong with giving an outlaw regime MFN status. The
trade becomes a one-way street. In 1989, the year of Tiananmen Square,
about 23 percent of China's total exports came to the United States, 23
percent. By last year, that figure had risen to nearly 37 percent, and
yet the Chinese Communist regime continues to thumb its nose at
everything our
country stands for. America, the leader of democracy throughout the
world, they thumb their nose at us.

I would just ask the proponents of MFN, when do the benefits start?
When can we expect to see a change in Chinese behavior? The hometown
newspaper of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] said it best.
A recent editorial in the San Francisco Examiner said that our
current approach to China proves that ``Once you get rolled, it's
easier to get rolled again. The Chinese have little reason to think the
United States will make good on any threat,'' because we never follow
through.
Continuing to read from the Examiner editorial: ``Instead of calling
the shots, the United States is treated by the Chinese as a bothersome
supplicant.'' Is that not something, this great Nation?
Continuing to read: ``Such back-of-the-hand treatment should not come
as a surprise. For years now the United States has seen how China
treats its own citizens.''
Mr. Speaker, I would simply close this portion of my remarks by
noting that no Member of this body should be surprised by the current
state of United States-China relations. If Members do not think about
anything else today, I hope that they will at least ponder this: A
China which is not at peace with its own people will not be at peace
with the United States or any other country in the world. That is why
human rights have to be at the center of the United States-China
relationship, because American interests are ultimately inseparable
from our American values. Anything and everything we do should be to
promote those American values.
Mr. Speaker, we will be conducting the MFN debate this year under a
different format from what we have used in previous years. The whole
point of what this House will be doing today is to send a united and
unmistakable message to China that the freely-elected representatives
of the American people are putting human rights and American values
back into the central focus of the United States-China relationship.
Reasonable men and women can have an honest disagreement over the
relative merits of MFN, and there are good people on both sides of this
argument, Republicans and Democrats alike. However, let there be no
mistake about it, Members of this Congress are unanimous in our
determination to see an end to the abuses that China's Communist regime
is perpetrating on its own people and on the world at large.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of the Members to think about this point as we
debate this issue over the next 3 hours.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material:

THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 19, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\............... 46 44 36 72
Modified Closed\3\.................. 49 47 12 24
Closed\4\........................... 9 9 2 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals:....................... 104 100 50 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).

SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 19, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) O................... H.R. 5.............. Unfunded Mandate Reform.. A: 350-71 (1/19/
95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) MC.................. H. Con. Res. 17..... Social Security.......... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1......... Balanced Budget Amdt..... 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 101............ Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/1/
Pueblo Indians. 95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 400............ Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/1/
Nat'l. Park and Preserve. 95).
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 440............ Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/1/
County, Calif. 95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95). O................... H.R. 2.............. Line Item Veto........... A: voice vote (2/2/
95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 665............ Victim Restitution....... A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 666............ Exclusionary Rule Reform. A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95). MO.................. H.R. 667............ Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/9/
Incarceration. 95).

[[Page H7267]]

H. Res. 69 (2/9/95). O................... H.R. 668............ Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/10/
Deportation. 95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) MO.................. H.R. 728............ Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/13/
Grants. 95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) MO.................. H.R. 7.............. National Security PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
Revitalization. 127 (2/15/95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) MC.................. H.R. 831............ Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
Deductibility. 188 (2/21/95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) O................... H.R. 830............ Paperwork Reduction Act.. A: voice vote (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) MC.................. H.R. 889............ Defense Supplemental..... A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) MO.................. H.R. 450............ Regulatory Transition Act A: 252-175 (2/23/
95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) MO.................. H.R. 1022........... Risk Assessment.......... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/ O................... H.R. 926............ Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/28/
95). Relief Act. 95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/ MO.................. H.R. 925............ Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
95). Protection Act.
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 1058........... Securities Litigation ...................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 988............ Attorney Accountability A: voice vote (3/6/
Act. 95)
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) MO.................. .................... ......................... A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95) Debate.............. H.R. 956............ Product Liability Reform. A: voice vote (3/8/
95)
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) MC.................. .................... ......................... PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
181 (3/9/95)
H. Res. 115 (3/14/ MO.................. H.R. 1159........... Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
95). Approps.. 95)
H. Res. 116 (3/15/ MC.................. H.J. Res. 73........ Term Limits Const. Amdt.. A: voice vote (3/28/
95). 95)
H. Res. 117 (3/16/ Debate.............. H.R. 4.............. Personal Responsibility A: voice vote (3/21/
95). Act of 1995. 95)
H. Res. 119 (3/21/ MC.................. .................... ......................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95). 95)
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 1271........... Family Privacy Protection A: 423-1 (4/4/95)
Act.
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 660............ Older Persons Housing Act A: voice vote (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) MC.................. H.R. 1215........... Contract With America Tax A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
Relief Act of 1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95) MC.................. H.R. 483............ Medicare Select Expansion A: 253-172 (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95) O................... H.R. 655............ Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/2/
1995. 95)
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95) O................... H.R. 1361........... Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996 A: voice vote (5/9/
95)
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95) O................... H.R. 961............ Clean Water Amendments... A: 414-4 (5/10/95)
H. Res. 144 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 535............ Fish Hatchery--Arkansas.. A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 145 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 584............ Fish Hatchery--Iowa...... A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 146 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 614............ Fish Hatchery--Minnesota. A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 149 (5/16/ MC.................. H. Con. Res. 67..... Budget Resolution FY 1996 PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
95). 168 (5/17/95)
H. Res. 155 (5/22/ MO.................. H.R. 1561........... American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
95). Interests Act. 95)
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95) MC.................. H.R. 1530........... Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
1996. 183 (6/13/95)
H. Res. 167 (6/15/ O................... H.R. 1817........... MilCon Appropriations FY PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
95). 1996. 155 (6/16/95)
H. Res. 169 (6/19/ MC.................. H.R. 1854........... Leg. Branch Approps. FY PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
95). 1996. 191 (6/20/95)
H. Res. 170 (6/20/ O................... H.R. 1868........... For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
95). 1996. 175 (6/22/95)
H. Res. 171 (6/22/ O................... H.R. 1905........... Energy & Water Approps. A: voice vote (7/12/
95). FY 1996. 95)
H. Res. 173 (6/27/ C................... H.J. Res. 79........ Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
95). Amendment. 152 (6/28/95)
H. Res. 176 (6/28/ MC.................. H.R. 1944........... Emer. Supp. Approps...... PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
95). 192 (6/29/95)
H. Res. 185 (7/11/ O................... H.R. 1977........... Interior Approps. FY 1996 PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
95). 238 (7/12/95)
H. Res. 187 (7/12/ O................... H.R. 1977........... Interior Approps. FY 1996 PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
95). #2. 195 (7/13/95)
H. Res. 188 (7/12/ O................... H.R. 1976........... Agriculture Approps. FY PQ: 242-185 A:
95). 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95)
H. Res. 190 (7/17/ O................... H.R. 2020........... Treasury/Postal Approps. PQ: 232-192 A:
95). FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95)
H. Res. 193 (7/19/ C................... H.J. Res. 96........ Disapproval of MFN to ...................
95). China.
H. Res. 194 (7/19/ O................... H.R. 2002........... Transportation Approps. ...................
95). FY 1996.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated;
PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we support the rule. As my colleague on the other side
of the aisle has indicated, this rule will provide for the debate on
two measures, H.R. 2058, the China Policy Act of 1995, and House Joint
Resolution 96, the resolution disapproving the extension of most
favored nation treatment to the People's Republic of China. The rule
allows 90 minutes of debate on the China Policy Act and also provides
for 1 hour of debate on the resolution disapproving MFN to China.
This is not an unusual rule for this legislation, which has critical
implications for United States policy toward China. In the past, the
Committee on Rules has brought two measures to the floor under one
rule. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are in total agreement
with the rules resolution, and many of my colleagues, including the
distinguished author of the disapproval resolution, the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Wolf, as well as the gentlewoman from California, Ms.
Pelosi, and the gentleman from Nebraska, Doug Bereuter, have worked
many hours to reach agreement on the proper legislative approach. They
have done an excellent job. They deserve, as the gentleman from New
York already has, they deserve to be commended. I am glad we will have
a chance to debate this issue.
The Chinese have one of the worst human rights records in the world.
Individual rights of people are routinely repressed. Scholars and
intellectuals are imprisoned, and women are often forced to have
abortions if they try to have more than one child.
In 1989 the world was horrified when the Chinese killed their own
students at Tiananmen Square. Now, 6 years later, not much has changed.
China continues to violate basic human rights of its own people, and
those living in Tibet as well. It also routinely contributes to nuclear
weapon and missile proliferation among terrorist states.
Many of us in the Congress believe that tough economic sanctions by
the United States is the only way to convince China to stop its human
rights violations. By denying MFN status and reversing China's $30
billion trade surplus, we may get some concessions. If the Chinese
Government refuses to hear the protests of those who respect basic
human dignity, perhaps it will listen if money is at stake.
We are glad Mr. Speaker, that we will have a chance to debate this
issue and to bring the bill of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
Bereuter] to the floor, the so-called China Policy Act, which addresses
some of the serious flaws in our current policy toward China. Again we
reiterate; we support this rule, and we urge our colleagues to join us
in voting for it. It is a fair and a good rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier], the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Even though he and I disagree on this matter, he is an expert, and I
will be interested in hearing what he has to say.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
Rules for his very kind remarks. As I look in the Chamber here, it was,
believe it or not, exactly 1 year old today, July 20, 1994, that my
colleague, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Pelosi, my colleague,
the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, my colleague, the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Solomon, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, the
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, our colleague, the
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Kolbe, and the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
Kopetski, our former colleague, joined in the first bipartisan,
bicameral debate on a very important question that came forward. That
question was, should U.S. trade policy be used to enforce human rights?
I would say to my colleagues who participated in that, they remember
very well that we had a difficult time determining exactly what the
exact question was going to be. We all agreed, we all agreed that U.S.
trade policy should be used to promote human rights, but we decided to
take the negative position, that U.S. trade policy should not be used
to enforce human rights. That is for a very simple and basic reason. I
remain convinced that trade promotes private enterprise, which creates
wealth, which improves

[[Page H7268]]

living standards, which undermines political repression.
If we look at the very serious challenges that lie ahead for the most
populous Nation on the face of the Earth, a country which has five
times the population of the world's only complete superpower, the
United States of America, we clearly have an obligation to remain
engaged.
Right here in the United States, we know full well that there are
thousands and thousands of jobs that depend on our exports to the
People's Republic of China. In fact, 360,000 jobs hinge on our exports,
so clearly, cutting off trade with China would jeopardize economic
growth right here in the United States.
Quite frankly, I believe that it is extraordinarily important for us
to look at the gains which have been made in China over the past
several years, since we worked to deal with this issue of engagement.
As my friends here on the House floor know full well, I take a back
seat to no one when it comes to demonstrating outrage at the issue of
human rights violation.
The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], and I
joined with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and others in
marching, following the Tiananmen Square massacre from right here in
the Capitol up to the Chinese Embassy to protest the Tiananmen Square
massacre. The fact of the matter is we have to realize that if we are
going to continue to deal with the improvement of human rights, there
is nothing, nothing that we could do to jeopardize it in a greater way
than to bring to an end, bring to an end the engagement policies that
we have had over the past several years.

Mr. Speaker, last year I went with my father and traveled throughout
China, and had fascinating experiences there. As I talked to people who
worked, peasants and others, clearly they carried the strong message
that as the old leaders of China fade from the scene, they do not want
to see us leave their country economically devastated. It is for that
reason that they encouraged us to maintain MFN with China.
As we also look at the situation which exists there, it is very clear
that there are many things that we as a country can continue to do to
improve the quality of life of the people of China. Just this week we
received a letter from Jack Valenti, our friend with the Motion Picture
Association of America, in which he talked about that to near record
crowds; the movie ``Forrest Gump'' is playing in China. Let us think
about the movie ``Forrest Gump,'' that great American drama, set with
the backdrop of 20th century American history. What an amazing message
to have moving throughout the country of 1.2 billion people living
today under political repression.
My hometown newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, just this week had a
very important article talking about individuals within China from all
across the economic spectrum who are benefiting from the kind of
engagement that we have going on today. The benefits have been very,
very great: black and white TV's are even appearing in caves in China.
When one thinks about that kind of exposure to the West, we are
clearly, clearly on a path toward improving the situation there.
I hope very much that we will be able to now move ahead in a
bipartisan way. This is a new day, because there is recognition that
while we can never tolerate the reprehensible human rights violations,
the violation of Harry Wu's rights and others' rights, we need to do
everything that we possibly can to move ahead with this very important
policy of engagement. I thank my friends for working in a very close
bipartisan way with the gentleman from California [Mr. Bereuter], and
others to bring this about.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, that is music to my ears. I thank the
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] from the Committee on Rules
for being so generous in yielding, and also the chairman of the
Committee on Rules, my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon], for bringing this rule to the floor, and for his championing
the cause of freedom throughout the world, and his relentless advocacy
for human rights in China.
It is with a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that I rise in
support of the Bereuter legislation, H.R. 2058, which is designed to
move United States-China policy in the right direction by sending a
strong message to the Chinese Government that the United States
Congress is concerned about human rights in China and Tibet.
I have been pleased to work in this endeavor with my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. With all due respect
to the previous speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], we
should all take a back seat to the gentleman from Virginia as an
advocate for human rights throughout the world, in his advocacy for
human rights. Mr. Wolf is an inspiration to this Congress, and it is a
privilege to work with him.
I was particularly pleased that the leadership of this Congress, the
office of the Speaker, and of the Democratic leader worked to help us
merge our bills, forge a compromise under the leadership of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Bereuter], and I am grateful to him for
his leadership and his receptiveness to our ideas.
As many Members know, and I address the mechanics of this because we
are on the rule, as many know, we had three options out there. We had
the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for total
revocation; we had the legislation of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Bereuter]; and we had the Wolf-Pelosi legislation, which we
believed was the strongest possible message on human rights for this
Congress. We have, I think happily, been able to merge the Bereuter
bill and the Wolf-Pelosi bill into the product we have here.
Indeed, we were very pleased to have many of the provisions in the
bill of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the bill of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Bereuter], but I commend the gentleman
from California for having initiatives that were even stronger than
some of ours and with which we were very
pleased to associate ourselves.

As with any compromise, some people may not be happy with it, but as
I say on this China issue, if it is good enough for the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] it should be good enough for the rest of us.
Why is it that we need to come here again to discuss this issue and
to present a policy for China in the Congress of the United States? Our
colleagues who have spoken before me, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] taking the lead, have spoken of some of the concerns that this
Congress has with China. They fall into three categories, by and large:
human rights, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and,
obviously, unfair trade practices; and MFN is related to trade. It is
appropriate that we are here.
The reason this debate comes up annually, and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] said we were 1 year talking about this, 1 year
to the day, is because the President must request a special waiver to
grant MFN to China; hence, the proposed motion of the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] to deny the President's request.
In those three areas of human rights, trade, and proliferation, in
this past year there has been no progress. Indeed, the Chinese continue
to violate international standards and norms, and the missile
technology control regime, in transferring technology to Pakistan, to
Iran, and making the Middle East a very dangerous neighborhood, as well
as the world a less safe place.
If there were no other consideration, the issue of the proliferation
of nuclear technology to unsafeguarded countries would be enough reason
for us to deal with this MFN issue on this floor. What is dismaying
about all of this is that instead of addressing this issue, the Clinton
administration on June 30--this notice was in the Congressional Record
on June 30: ``Notice of termination of the suspensions of licenses for
the export of cryptographic items to the People's Republic of China--
Message from the President.'' It is in the June 22, 1995, Congressional
Record. I have it available for our colleagues.
This is all to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a double standard with
this administration when it comes to China.

[[Page H7269]]
We have defined Iran as a rogue country. We have made a strong point of
saying we will not trade with them. We have chastised, and more, Russia
for their trade with Iran.

We have looked the other way when China has done the same, and
indeed, and indeed, in the same time frame, we have lifted--the
President has gotten a blanket waiver against the prohibition of sale
of encryption technologies to China. This is, I think, a big mistake.
The human rights violations continue, highlighted, of course, by the
arrest of Harry Wu, a champion of democracy, a scholar at the Hoover
Institution at Stanford University, a distinguished American, an
internationally recognized champion of human rights, and his release
must be immediate, as the bill calls for.
However, I would also like to say that Harry's plight is not only
that of an individual, but representative of the thousands and
thousands and thousands of people who are in prison labor camps in
China who Harry's advocacy was for. He had been arrested for 19 years
for criticizing the Soviet invasion of Hungary. He knew of what he
spoke in terms of brutality in slave labor camps. It continues. His
telling the truth about that has landed him in a Chinese jail. As an
American citizen he deserves our fullest support. I urge our colleagues
to avail themselves of our yellow ribbons on his behalf.
He is not the only one, obviously, in prison that we are concerned
about. There are thousands who are; in particular, Wei Jing Cheng, Bao
Pong, Chen Zeming, some of the champions of Chinese democracy. Indeed,
in the last few months, many leaders and intellectuals in China have
been arrested for merely signing petitions asking for an end of
corruption and more democratic reforms in China. Obviously, my
colleagues know I could go on all day about the violations of human
rights in China.
On the subject of trade, when we first started this debate in 1989,
for that year, for 1989, China had a $6 billion trade surplus with the
United States. That means, as Members know, within our trade
relationship they profited by $6 billion. This past year, it was $30
billion. It went $6, $9, $12, $18, $24, $30. This year it will be
closer to a $40 billion trade surplus, inching closer year by year to
the same kind of deficit that we have with Japan, but absent the same
kind of allowing of products into their markets that even Japan does.
Then Members know what our complaint is with Japan.
I do not want to bring up the issue of Taiwan in terms of
recognition, but just in terms of this one figure. In China there are
1.2 billion people. In Taiwan there are approximately 19 million
people, and Taiwan imports from the United States twice as much as
mainland China imports from the United States, so the trade issue must
be addressed, not only in terms of slave labor and violations of trade
agreements, but in addition to the lack of market access for American
products into China, which is also a trade violation.
{time} 1100

What does the administration do? The administration not only gave
them MFN but this past January gave the Chinese the same trade
privileges, reductions in tariffs, that World Trade Organization
members have, even though China is not a member of the World Trade
Organization and living up to any of the standards or requirements of
the WTO.
Again, our concern is with China. The disappointment is with the
administration in the way they respond to human rights, trade and
proliferation violations.
This China Policy Act that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]
has authored establishes a framework for diplomatic relationships
between the United States and China. It calls upon the President to
undertake intensified diplomatic initiatives to persuade the Chinese
Government to unconditionally and immediately release Harry Wu.
The provisions of the legislation are available to our colleagues,
but since it is new I will just touch on a few:
Adhere to prevailing international standards regarding proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, including halting the export of
ballistic missile technology and the provision of other weapons of mass
destruction to Iran, Pakistan, and other countries of concern; respect
internationally-recognized human rights--we know what they are--press,
freedom of religion, assembly, et cetera; releasing all political
prisoners and dismantling the Chinese gulag and forced labor system;
ending coercive birth control practices; respecting the rights of the
people of Tibet and ethnic minorities; curtailing excessive
modernization and expansion of its military capabilities. It goes on to
more on that.
Adhere to rules of international trade regime; comply with the
prohibition on all forced labor products coming into the United States;
and reduce tension with Taiwan through dialog and confidence-building.
The bill specifies the administration should undertake diplomatic
initiatives bilaterally with China and multilaterally in the United
Nations, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and in our
bilateral relations with other countries.
In order to hold the President accountable for
undertaking these initiatives, the bill requires a report to
Congress within 30 days of enactment and at least every 6 months
thereafter.

H.R. 2058 also places Congress firmly on the record in support of the
pro-democracy movement in China. For the first time we commend the men
and women working in the democracy movement, particularly those people
who so bravely petitioned the Chinese government for the promotion of
political, economic and religious freedom.
Finally, the Bereuter bill requires the administration to get Radio
Free Asia up and running. This important initiative has been stalled
for too long. The bill mandates that within 90 days of enactment, Radio
Free Asia shall commence broadcasting to China.
I urge my colleagues to give a strong vote on the Bereuter bill, on
the China Policy Act, because it will allow the United States Congress
to send a unified message to the Chinese government that its continuing
violations of internationally recognized human rights are not
acceptable.
The reason that I am pleased with this bill and one of the reasons I
support the bill is because it does hold the President accountable.
Last year when the President did not abide by the Executive order he
had issued the year before, he instead proposed some initiatives, a
code of conduct for businesses, funding for Radio Free Asia. The list
goes on and on. The fact is that the adherence to it was zero.
It is important, I think, for us to hold the administration
accountable. A vote for the China Policy Act will do that. I think it
is very important for this Congress. We have been engaged in advocacy
for a long time. We will always be engaged in advocacy for the causes
of concern to us. But absent a coherent China policy that maybe the
State Department proposes, the Commerce Department appears to dispose,
I think it then behooves the Congress to set forth a framework that
will have a positive impact on our relationship with China.
I think the message should be very clear that a prosperous, strong
and democratic China is in the best interest of the United States. We
look forward to a great future with the Chinese people, but in doing so
we want to do it on the basis of recognition of international norms and
indeed norms that the Chinese government has signed on to but has not
abided by.
By supporting the Bereuter bill, we can speak with one voice on
behalf of those fighting for freedom in China. I urge my colleagues to
vote for the bill.
In closing, I wish once again to commend my colleagues on that side,
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Wolf], and particularly in this case the gentleman from Nebraska
[Mr. Bereuter] for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the
floor. I once again thank the leadership of the House for accommodating
our concerns.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am not here today to talk about Harry
Wu or Tiananmen Square or human rights. Those issues should be
addressed. But I

[[Page H7270]]
think commerce and trade should be looked at in a little bit of a
different vein here, folks.
Let me say this: America does not need to go bankrupt trying to
effect some social reforms in China.
Let us look at the record. China has been convicted of dumping in
American markets, placing phony ``made in America'' labels on cheap
Chinese imports, violating international prison labor law, violating
United States copyright law, closing Chinese markets, and that is only
the tip of the iceberg. Their average wage is 17 cents an hour. They
still employ slave labor.
Let us look at some facts. Right now China enjoys a one-way street, a
$37 billion trade surplus with America, second only to Japan. At least
Japan makes us some promises. China makes us threats. China says if you
mess with MFN, they will crack down on soybeans, corn, aircraft, grain.
They will not tolerate it. Unbelievable, ladies and gentlemen.
I believe that a Congress that will allow China to dictate trade
terms is the same Congress that has destroyed many American jobs.
Let us talk some business. How do you compete with foreign imports
with a wage factor so limited and low? Then they rip off our markets
illegally and we extend the red carpet treatment, talking about all the
great business we are going to attain.
This is a dream world. The Constitution is very clear on this:
Congress shall regulate commerce with foreign nations. One of the main
problems financially in America is the Congress of the United States
talking about balanced budgets and all of these other sideline issues
and missing the whole boat. You cannot balance the budget of the United
States buying much more than you sell. That is what we are doing, and
it is our trade problem, folks.
I am going to oppose any more most-favored-nation trade status for
China for one reason: They do not deserve it. It is time to regulate
trade with China.
One last thing, ladies and gentleman. We are either going to take on
the trade issue in America or we will continue to have huge budget
deficits and tremendous loss of jobs. You cannot separate them.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], another outstanding member of the
Committee on Rules who formerly served on the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and is certainly very knowledgeable on this issue.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of
the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our distinguished colleagues who have
worked so diligently and so exhaustively on this issue: The gentleman
from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]; of course the gentleman from Virginia,
[Mr. Wolf], the tireless champion for human rights throughout the
world; the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] who has
distinguished herself in her career for her advocacy on behalf of
democracy and human rights in China; the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon], my chairman and dear friend; the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Smith] who is here and who has worked so tirelessly on this issue
as has the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and others.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. I rise in support of it. I would
prefer today to see a vote on the denial of the extension of MFN to
China. But I will support the Bereuter legislation. I think it is a
fair, well-thought-out piece of legislation.
What we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, here today on this issue
really I think is related to the following question: What is the goal,
or what should be the goal of our public policy? The maximization of
profit for our businesses at all costs, even at the cost of ignoring,
of not even mentioning the Orwellian nature of the Chinese regime?
I know, Mr. Speaker, the geopolitics involved when we analyze China.
I know that China is the historical adversary of Russia, and I know the
size of China and the great number of human beings that reside there.
May I recommend to our colleagues the book by our colleague, the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk], written with regard to
his experience when he was United States Ambassdaor to Romania under
Ceausescu, his brilliant synthesis of how those rogue regimes look to
most-favored-nation status as legitimization of their conduct. They
know who they are, but they want to be told by the leader of the free
world, the United States in effect, and we do that with MFN, ``You're
normal. We are ignoring your rogue status. We are ignoring the nature
of your brutality.''
That is what MFN is. When we deny MFN, there are no tariffs involved.
It is simply a political statement which tells rogue regimes, in this
case the Chinese regime, that they are not what they really are. That,
in effect, is what MFN is.
I think that we have to realize and ask this question about
ourselves: Are we willing to go through the trouble of at least
mentioning, of at least telling the tyrants in China, ``We know who you
are'' or ``We know your genuine nature.''
``We know that you murder prisoners and that you sell their organs.
We know that you use slave labor. We know that you force women to have
abortions.''
By not extending MFN, we would simply be telling the Chinese tyrants,
``We know who you are and we're telling the world who you are.
Recognizing the geopolitics, which we are not ignoring, we're telling
you who you are.''
I wish that we would have that vote today. If not, I think we are
making at least some progress with the well-thought-through and
negotiated legislation presented by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
Bereuter]. But this is an issue that will not go away until China truly
is normal. Then we can tell the world community they are not a rogue
regime. They are normal.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, we should not be timid in using trade with
the United States to stand up for human rights. This Nation has stood
tall, sometimes alone, for the rights of people around the world
against some very strong governments.
Some of the proudest moments in the history of this Nation were when
we watched Soviet emigres settle in new homes around the world. We saw
the destruction of the Berlin Wall, the historic elections in South
Africa, knowing full well the role that we played in the United States
to bring about these historic moments.
Trade was a critical tool in those changes. MFN and denying it to the
Soviet Union played a critical role in the actions of the Soviet Union
in Eastern Europe. Trade sanctions against South Africa was a critical
tool in bringing about the changes in South Africa.
The current conditions in China, as it relates to respect for human
rights, is outrageous. We should not be timid in taking economic action
as it relates to China. It will work. China, as the Soviet Union of the
pre-1990's before it, should not be granted unrestricted MFN. We should
stand tall for human rights against these nations. It will work.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule. I want to thank the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman, the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and
the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for all their good work. We
must send a very strong message to China.
Mr. Speaker, we must send a strong message to China. We must let
China know that if they want to join the community of nations, they
must treat their people with respect and dignity. We must tell them
that selling arms to Iran, a terrorist nation, is unacceptable.
Harry Wu's arrest is only the most recent reminder of China's
longstanding human rights abuses. We cannot forget the day the tanks
rolled into Tiananmen Square. Terrible human rights abuses continue to
this day.
Political prisoners in China and Tibet are brutally tortured.
Religious leaders are imprisoned. Democratic reformers are jailed.
There is no freedom

[[Page H7271]]
of speech, no freedom of press, no freedom at all.
We have a moral obligation and a mandate to tell China to change its
ways. As a Congress and as a nation, we cherish freedom, and we must
speak out.
We cannot stand by while China stifles dissent and disagreement. We
cannot stand by while the Chinese Government tortures its prisoners. We
cannot stand by while China exports goods made in slave labor camps. We
cannot stand by while China detains an American citizen, Harry Wu, and
threatens him with the death penalty.
I truly believe that if you do not stand for something, you will fall
for anything. We cannot have trade at any cost. We must not let the
democracy movements in China and Tibet fall. We must stand with the
people who are fighting for freedom. I urge my colleagues to support
this Rule.

{time} 1115

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] who has been one of the leaders for human
rights throughout this world for many, many years in this body, and we
just admire and respect him so much.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, let me say that the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon], especially on the issues related to China,
has been a stalwart and it is so good to be working with him and the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Pelosi] and many others.
China is one of the worst, most egregious abusers of human rights in
the world today. In report after report issued by our own State
Department, and numerous human rights organizations, examples of wide-
ranging abuses of human rights indicate that no aspect of human life is
free from the repressive and the insidious control of the butchers of
Beijing.
Mr. Speaker, last year, a year and a half ago, I thought the
President had it right. He issued an Executive order. He laid down very
clear, nonambiguous markers. Significant progress in human rights had
to be achieved or MFN was a goner. He stated this and made very, very
much about it. As a matter of fact, during his race for the Presidency,
he accused Mr. Bush of coddling dictators.
But I am very sorry to say that as we saw a deterioration of the
human rights situation in China and a significant regression, this
President, Bill Clinton, blinked. He did a complete flip-flop, backed
off a very principled stand, and then coddled the dictators, the very
butchers of Beijing that he was so rightfully critical of during the
campaign and during the early months of his Presidency.
It is shameless. The situation in China on religious freedom has
gotten significantly worse. Li Peng issued two sweeping decrees, 144
and 145, to crack down on the house church movement and on the
fledgling Catholic church in the People's Republic of China. One could
be part of the officially government-sanctioned, government-run church,
but if they dared to worship God and read their Bible in their home, or
assemble to praise God, they are going to have their door broken down
and the public security police are going to yank them off to prison for
interrogation and for beatings.
The situation of Harry Wu, I think, crystallizes what is going on in
China today. Here is a man who spent 19 years in the Laogai, was in the
gulag system, faced unbelievable repression, the use of hunger as a
means of torture.
He spoke at a subcommittee hearing. I am the chairman of the
International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee, and Harry and
other survivors of the Laogai system came forward and talked about
their terrible experiences in that gulag system. Many of those products
which end up in our stores. They are being sold in our supermarkets and
in our stores across the country.
We have what we call a memorandum of understanding with the People's
Republic of China, to check out the use of gulag labor for export, and
it is a farce. They do not allow us access to those. The gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I went to Beijing Prison No. 1 and saw socks
and jelly shoes being made, but it was one of those rare instances when
we were actually able to see what was being made with prisoners and
other people who were held in incarceration.
Harry Wu, Mr. Speaker, should tell us all what can happen when an
American citizen traveling on a duly issued visa and passport, is held
incommunicado and denied access by our own Embassy, against all the
rules, and now continues to languish in China against his will. It
tells us that the human rights situation is abysmal.
He has been a tremendous witness to the sorriest state of human
rights in China and, thankfully, we are today beginning to bring some
focus on what is actually occurring there.
On the issue of forced abortion, Mr. Speaker, which I know Members
have heard me talk about since 1979 when it was first initiated in that
country, just the other day I received a letter from a woman in China
who heard me talking about it on Voice of America and she wrote me this
letter: ``I've been hesitating to write you until today. At the end of
May I heard a report on V.O.A. about your concern over China's cruel
policy of forced abortion.''
``As a Chinese woman who has just been forced to have an abortion at
that time, I really agree with you. What is a real woman without the
personal right to have one more child, especially when she is expecting
a baby and obliged by the state to kill that baby.''
Mr. Speaker, she went on to say, ``Considering human rights in China,
we suffer more than any other countries, if we don't have the right
even to get birth to a baby. What's the use of any other rights? Please
don't mention my name in public since I could be severely punished.''
And she went on in her letter to talk about what some of her friends
have gone through.
Mr. Speaker, on gulag labor, on religious repression, on forced
abortion, all of these human rights abuses, the Tiananmen Square and
other dissidents who continue to be rounded up. Wei Jing Cheng, who met
with Assistant Secretary John Shattuck and 2 weeks later was dragged
into prison. Here is the hero to the Democracy Wall movement who had
the audacity to meet with the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights. He
met with me 2 weeks earlier in Beijing and because he met, he was
dragged off and we have not heard from him since.
This is a very cruel regime, Mr. Speaker. To be dealing with the
Chinese today, and to act as if there is nothing going on human rights
wise, is like dealing with the Nazis back in the 1930's. This is a
cruel dictatorship. Let us not forget that. Their people do not have
rights.
And when we talk about empowerment, empowerment has not worked. Yes,
trains may run on time and we may be having this robust trading
relationship, but they have had regression in human rights. They have
gone in the opposite direction. Rather than liberalization, they have
become more repressive.
There is a compromise piece of legislation that will be offered. I
think it is a good start. I would have hoped that we would have revoked
MFN. The President shamelessly delinked it, after making all the right
noises for months. He delinked it when human rights got worse in China.
For years to come, that will be seen as one of the worst decisions this
President has ever made and another indication of the vacillation of
the Clinton Presidency.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote for the Bereuter legislation. I
do think it makes a strong statement. Radio Free Asia is needed now
more than ever and language in this legislation admonishes the
President to do that. It is a good bill. We could have had better, but
I urge support for it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Connecticut. [Mr. Gejdenson].
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, we have today an opportunity to take a
small step forward on behalf of human rights for the people of China.
In is a very small step. It takes very little courage on our part, for
we risk nothing, either economically or our own personal freedom.
There is must more that has to be done. For people listening to this
debate, it must often be difficult to reconcile a country of a billion
people with a focused discussion on only one

[[Page H7272]]
or two individuals: Harry Wu, an American citizen who had all the
proper documents to enter China, sitting in prison; a handful of others
that are occasionally mentioned.
What we do here today, and focusing on Harry or one or two others, it
to try to get across to people what is going on today in China. I first
met Harry Wu 3 or 4 years ago. He came to testify about slave labor and
prison labor. He had with him a hidden camera as he met with Chinese
officials.
Posing as an American businessman, Harry asked how could he be
guaranteed the quality that he wanted in his products being made in a
prison. In a free market, in a factory where workers come voluntarily,
their pay and benefits have an impact on the product. But he asked, how
could he be guaranteed the product make by people who were enslaved by
the Chinese government could have that quality? And the Chinese
official, on camera, took her hands and said, ``We beat them. We beat
them.''
American consumers are out here today purchasing products made by men
and women who are in prison and beaten to keep up the quality that
international corporations demand of the products they sell across the
globe.
We are going to take a small step here today, but there is an
opportunity for American citizens to take a much larger step in the
message to the Chinese tyrants.
When you buy something, take a look at where it is made. If you have
an opportunity to buy something made in the United States or a country
that respects human rights, make the purchase from that country. There
are products at the same price. New Balance sneakers made in the United
States cost the same as those sneakers made by people enslaved in
China. Buy the American product.
If the Chinese officials see their percentage of
sales in the United States drop, we will not have to wait for a
Congress or an administration to take sufficient steps to get that
message across to the Chinese Government.

We, as citizens in this country, together have the ability to have an
impact on the policies within China. The tens of billions of dollars
worth of products that are sold in this country each and every year
provide the financing to sustain their system of government.
Together, we can make that difference. Every time you go out to the
store, take a look at where the product is made. If the product is made
in a country that oppresses human rights, as China does, try not to buy
that product. Maybe you cannot make it 100 percent of the time. If you
do it once in a while, if you do it twice, whatever time you can do
that, you will help people like Harry Wu who have risked their lives to
take this action.
When I grew up as a young man, I was told of an old Polish lady who
saved my father's life. My father, a Lithuanian Jew at the time, was
hiding from the Nazis. The borders have moved so often, it is hard to
tell. It was Poland at that time; today it is Lithuania.
She took this man in at risk of losing their eight children. When I
think of courage, I think of this woman. To save an individual's life,
not a family member, she risked not only her own life, but she risked
the lives of her eight children.
That courage that is asked of us here on this floor as American
citizens does not come to the same chart even. We are protected by
civil rights and civil liberties. We live in the greatest democracy in
the world. But together we can help, without risk, the lives of those
today imprisoned in China.
Join us in boycotting Chinese-made products. Write to legislators and
senators who oppose the Chinese Government's continued oppression, and
we will make a small difference in the lives of Chinese citizens. A
billion people in China have a right to expect that they can live with
some dignity and without oppression from their own government.
Today we in the Congress will make a small step in sending a message
to the Chinese Government. The American citizenry together can send a
much larger message. Let us not forget Harry Wu and the millions like
him in China. Let us stand together for freedom and individual rights.
Let us not forget the heroes of Tiananmen Square. Let us do our small
part in fighting for freedom.

____________________