Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I appreciate the ranking member's cooperation in that. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. I have been concerned for some time about the coordination of our Government's response to any intelligence activities which may be undertaken by the People's Republic of China, including those in the United States. The McCollum amendment will contribute to our ability to respond appropriately to any Chinese espionage activities which may occur. I urge its adoption and commend his leadership for bringing it to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment. I have been concerned for some time about the coordination of our Government's response to any intelligence activities which may be undertaken by the People's Republic of China. The United States presents a tempting target for any nation seeking economic, diplomatic, or technological advantage. One of the chief responsibilities of our intelligence agencies is to counter efforts by foreign intelligence services to improperly acquire information in these areas. The extent to which foreign governments are engaged in such practices ought to be evaluated by our Government and business leaders in determining the type of relationship the United States should have with those governments. Those determinations can not be made, and the effectiveness of the efforts by the intelligence community to provide the information necessary to support them can not be judged, unless they are periodically reviewed in a comprehensive fashion. The reports required by this amendment will help in that review. They will assist the Congress and the public in evaluating the extent of the threat posed by the intelligence activities of the People's Republic of China and will better ensure that the United States is positioned properly to respond to it. By requiring the reports to be submitted jointly by the Director of Central Intelligence and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the amendment recognizes the division of responsibility which exists between those intelligence activities of the United States primarily conducted overseas and those primarily conducted within our borders. I do not favor a blurring of those areas of responsibility and expect that the wording of the amendment is clear enough to ensure that does not occur. Mr. Chairman, countries spy on one another. That has been a fact of life on this planet since people began to live behind national boundaries. The bill we consider today is a reflection of that fact. It seeks to ensure that the United States is effective at spying on others and preventing others from spying on us. This amendment will contribute to our ability to respond appropriately to any Chinese espionage activities which may occur, and I urge its adoption.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for engaging in this colloquy, and for his confirmation of the understanding that we had when this provision was first enacted.

Ms. PELOSI. Finally, Mr. Chairman, does the committee expect that reports concerning a decision to stay the imposition of a sanction shall include a determination that the delay in the imposition of a sanction will not be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of the United States' nonproliferation objectives or significantly increase the threat or risk to U.S. military forces?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues today in commemorating the 25th anniversary of a civil rights law that has changed the way American girls and women think about themselves and their futures. Title IX prohibits gender discrimination in education programs. Title IX is not just about access to sports and it is an integral player in gender equity. Greater atheltic opportunity does build leadership and teamwork skills that serve every person throughout his or her life. More women have received higher education in the past 25 years through athletic scholarships. The ratio of high school girls playing sports has gone from 1 in 27 to 1 in 3. With the recent success of women Olympic athletes and the unveiling of a new professional women's basketball league, we do not lack athletic role models for young girls. Women's participation in collegiate sports has risen from 2 percent in 1972 to 35 percent in 1996. But title IX has also provided more lasting academic results, increasing the participation of girls and women in non-traditional educational and professional environments--math, science, engineering and technology. Today we celebrate 25 years of women's achievement through sports and education. But we know that the progress we have made is not near enough. Today the National Coalition of Girls and Women in Education ranked the United States with a grade of `C'' in gender equity in education. Enforcement of title IX has been inconsistent at best over the last 25 years All but two states have eliminated or reduced title IX enforcement staff positions, despite the federal law's requirement that each state department of education must have a Title IX designee. Title IX services provide training for school districts on sexual harassment in schools, identify and address gender bias in classrooms, support programs to infuse women's history into school curriculums. They assist young women in forming a strong identity, receiving support from peers and learning how to interact effectively with others. Title IX and other programs supportive of girls' education send a clear message to American girls that their education and future is important. As a mother of four adult daughters, I have seen the positive results. We are seeing a generation of young women growing in an environment that does not make them limit themselves by identifying roles or opportunities as ``men's'' or ``women's''. Young women today believe than can do anything. And they can. And we have a great repsonsibility to do all that we can to support them in that belief.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in great sadness this evening to report to our colleagues in the House of Representatives that, since the activity on this floor earlier this week regarding sending a signal to China about our seriousness about human rights, there are reports out of Beijing, both Reuters and AP, that veteran dissident Wei Jingsheng has been severely beaten by other prison inmates who were told they could get reduced prison sentences if they attacked him. Mr. Speaker, Wei Jingsheng is known as the Sakharov of China. He is the leading pro-democracy dissident there and has been in prison for 14 years. He has been in prison since the Democracy Wall demonstrations in 1979. He was released for a couple of months when China wanted to get the Olympics, and then rearrested after a meeting with Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck, Secretary for Human Rights and Democracy. Mr. Speaker, Wei has been there and he will not be contrite. He will not apologize for his pro-democratic statements and he is sentenced to another 14-year sentence for speaking out peacefully for pro-democratic change. He is being beaten by the other inmates, as I said, and they are getting reduced sentences if they strike him. His health is not good, it has not been good, and he is not receiving appropriate medical attention. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that our Democratic leader in the House, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] has written to Secretary Albright regarding the news about Wei Jingsheng. He expressed his concern about the reports and mentioned that Wei has been a symbol of hope for those who wish to confront Chinese tyranny. The gentleman mentioned that he as well as many of us are great admirers of Wei's commitment to the struggle for freedom. The gentleman from Missouri urges Secretary Albright to raise the issue at the highest levels during her upcoming trip to Hong Kong and use all diplomatic and other available sources to fight for Wei's safety and release. Mr. Speaker, Wei Jingsheng has received the European Parliament's Sakharov Prize. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and he is being kicked in the neck in the Chinese prisons and his tormenters are given time off for that so-called good behavior. I bring this up at this time because there is a delegation leaving for Hong Kong for the changeover that will take place on June 30. Secretary Albright has stated that she will not attend the event which is the swearing in of the puppet legislature. Mr. Speaker, just as a matter of background, briefly, there is a democratically elected legislature called Legco in Hong Kong. In preparation for the takeover, the Chinese regime has appointed a puppet legislature which will take over July 1 as they throw out the democratically elected legislature. So much for Democratic freedoms in Hong Kong. It is a travesty that this Government of the United States, especially under the circumstances of Wei Jingsheng's torment, will be sending our consul general to legitimize this illegal legislature that is going to be sworn in on Tuesday. Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Secretary of State, who never intended to attend the legislative swearing in in the first place because the administration knew that it was not appropriate, to withdraw the possibility that the consul general to Hong Kong, the representative of the United States, and other representatives of the State Department not attend. Not attend. And, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope that no Member of the Congress of the United States would legitimize the illegal legislature that has been handpicked by Beijing to replace the democratically elected legislature. Its term has at least one more year to run. It is interesting to me, though, to see the contradiction from the administration. On the one hand, they used on this floor and in their correspondence, and they used in a letter from the President of the United States, the name of Martin Lee as the leading democrat in Hong Kong, as the leading person to say support MFN for China; it is good for Hong Kong. And they used his credentials as the top democratically elected legislator in Hong Kong. Martin Lee, Martin Lee. He is a champion of democracy and his name was used earlier on the floor this week. And now Martin Lee will be ousted, replaced by a puppet legislature, and we in the United States, the greatest democracy in the world, will have our representatives there to legitimize that effort. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of Congress not to attend. I urge the administration not to send representatives to that swearing in.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, when people ask me what are the three most important issues facing the Congress, I always say: the children, the children, the children. But a close look at the Republican tax break bill shows that the rich are the winners in this bill and the losers, the losers are the children, the children, the children. The children are losers because 40 million children are not eligible for the tax credit. The children are losers because the HOPE scholarships will be cut in half in the Republican tax bill. The children are losers because the economic security of their families is threatened by the concentrated and reckless assault on the American family, the American worker and the American dream. Do not let children be losers, Mr. Chairman. We should all vote for the Democratic tax cut which is a vote for fairness, for opportunity and for work. Children can tell us, looking at this: ``Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?'' Clearly the fairest of them all is the Democratic tax cut for working, low and moderate income families in America. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican tax break for the wealthy and support the Democratic tax plan for fairness.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the Federal budget should be a statement of our national values. How we spend the public's money should reflect what is important to us in our country, and surely we all agree that the health and well-being of our people should be a national priority. Indeed the American people continue to believe that access to quality health care should be a national priority. Unfortunately, the reconciliation bill does not expand access to health insurance. Indeed, this bill makes access to health care more difficult. Why are we moving toward covering fewer people than more people? Under this bill and actions taken by the Senate, an American baby born today would not have access to quality health care insurance until she is 67 years old. The bill before us today does not live up to the promise of expanding health care insurance to 5 billion of the 10 billion uninsured children in the United States. The way the Republicans have structured the bill, the child health block grant, there is no guarantee that even one additional child will have health insurance coverage. The Medicaid cuts in this bill threaten children's hospitals and other safety net health care providers. Why would we target children's hospitals and county hospitals caring for the uninsured as a place to make an enormous spending cut to fund the tax breaks for the wealthy? Forcing public hospitals to close their doors will further reduce access to care, particularly for uninsured children. When we combine these changes with provisions in the bill to exempt even more health care plans from State consumer guidelines, we have a total package that weakens access to quality health care insurance for all Americans. The American people do not again want us moving backward on access to health care. Again, the Republican bill does not deliver on the promise of health insurance for uninsured children. Indeed, the Republican bill violates the goals of the budget agreement. On that basis alone we should reject the rule and kill the bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it has been 8 years since the Tiananmen Square massacre. Every year at this time the President gives the regime an anniversary present requesting a special waiver to grant most- favored-nation status to China. No wonder the former Presidents and Secretaries of State support renewing MFN. They are the ones who brought us this failed policy in the first place. What do we have to show for it? Lost jobs, lost freedom, and a more dangerous world. The American people know it. That is why in a poll yesterday, a Business Week poll, the American people support, 67 to 18 percent, revoking MFN for China. The President and the regime in Beijing should take no comfort from this vote on the floor today. The American people want a change in policy. Our colleagues have thoughtfully spoken out to say that if they vote for MFN, they still want to see stronger actions taken by the Clinton administration. But in order for the Administration to do that, we need a strong vote in support of the Solomon resolution today. I urge my colleagues to oppose most-favored-nation status for China by supporting the Solomon resolution.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt], a member who has worked very hard on this issue.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos], a cochair of the Human Rights Caucus of the Congress of the United States.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], who in his capacity and his work on the Helsinki accords and Commission has been a champion of human rights throughout the world.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that we all agree that the United States-China relationship is an important one, and that we want a brilliant future with the Chinese people, diplomatically, culturally, economically, politically, and in every way. However, the administration's policy of so-called constructive engagement is neither constructive nor true engagement. President Clinton has said promoting Democratic freedom, stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and promoting U.S. exports are pillars of our foreign policy. In each of these important areas, the administration's policy of so-called constructive engagement has not succeeded. In fact, there has been a marked deterioration, not improvement, under the administration's policy. Certainly, we must have engagement. But I contend that our engagement must be sustainable engagement, engagement that enables us to sustain our values, sustain our economic growth, and sustain international security. In my remarks this morning, Mr. Speaker, I want to debunk three myths about MFN and trade and human rights. The first myth is that United States-China trade is a job-winner for the United States. This is an out-and-out hoax. This year President Clinton stated trade with China supports 170,000 United States jobs. That is the exact same number he cited last year. In 1995, it was 150,000 jobs, in 1994, it was 150,000 jobs, in 1993, it was 150,000 jobs. This is an economy with 127,850,000 people. This represents one- eighth of 1 percent of jobs in America and it is not growing, while our trade deficit continues to grow. United States jobs are being lost through the Chinese Government's practices of requiring technology and production transfer. The Chinese Government is carefully and calculatingly building its own economic future by acquiring United States technological expertise. It allows into China only the goods it wants, and then through mandatory certification of the technology by Chinese research and design institutes, the technology is disseminated to Chinese domestic ventures. Not only does this practice not benefit U.S. workers who are left behind as the companies lose their own market share, but we are surrendering our own technology in the meantime. As a condition of doing business in China, United States companies are often required to agree to export 70 to 80 percent of their production there. This, too, translates into a loss of U.S. jobs. In the realm of intellectual property piracy, as Members know, despite the agreement the piracy is rampant, to the cost of $2.6 billion in 1996 alone. And that is not even figured into the huge trade deficit, which is projected to be $53 billion this year. Others say that the jobs that are created in the United States are in the production here that goes to China for assembly. Not so. Do not take my word, but the word of Ken Lodge, the manager of Hewlett- Packard's Beijing subsidiary, when he says, ``Over time, the use of North American suppliers will be turned off.'' Experts tell us our intellectual property is our competitive advantage. We see what the Chinese are doing to our intellectual property. It is estimated that 97 percent of the entertainment software available in China is counterfeit. It is interesting that since 1996, Chinese capacity to produce pirated products has increased dramatically. In conclusion, the United States-China trade relationship is a job loser for the American worker. Second, China is halting its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, myth No. 2. The truth is that China continues to proliferate dangerous weapons of mass destruction technology to Iran, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and other dangerous countries, destabilizing regions of strategic importance to the United States. The transfer of this technology is a threat to United States troops based in the Persian Gulf, and a threat to the security of Israel. We spend billions of dollars to promote the Middle East peace, and that peace is jeopardized by this export policy on the part of China, which we are choosing to ignore. In the case of Iran, 15,000 service men and women are within range of the C-802 missiles recently transferred by China to Iran. The C-802 batteries will give Iran a weapon of greater range, reliability, accuracy, and mobility than anything in their current inventory. This missile technology is in addition to biological and chemical warfare technologies recently transferred to Iran from China. Mr. Speaker, I want to call to my colleagues' attention this quote, this cover piece from a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence, March 1997. It states: Discoveries after the gulf war clearly indicate that Iraq maintained an aggressive weapons of mass destruction procurement program. A similar situation exists in Iran, with a steady flow of materials and technologies from China to Iran. This exchange is one of the most active weapons of mass destruction programs in the Third World and is taking place in a region of great strategic interest to the United States. In terms of Pakistan, the administration continues to turn a blind eye on China's proliferation of missiles to Pakistan. For 5 years the CIA has been carefully tracking the flow of China's M-11 missile components to Pakistan. The agency, the CIA, concluded that not only is China selling missiles, but it is also helping Pakistan build a factory to manufacture them. For the CIA, uncovering the plant represented a ``first-class piece of spying,'' says a senior agency official, but because it does not want to disrupt the so-called improving relationship, the Clinton administration does not want to deal with this secret. The CIA also turned up evidence that Beijing was reneging again on its promise not to spread these missiles into Pakistan. The agency maintains a vast network of informants in Asia who report on the movement of these weapons into the region. Last summer the CIA concluded that China had delivered to Pakistan not just missile parts, but also more than 30 ready-to-launch M-11's that are stored in cannisters at Sargodha Air Force base west of Lahore. There is more on this I will submit for the Record, but other agencies of the intelligence community have all agreed on a Statement of Fact: A top secret document that has recently been in the press that concludes that China is helping to build this missile technology. The third myth to debunk, Mr. Speaker, is that trade is improving human rights in China. Pro-MFN advocates continue to advance this notion of trickle-down liberty, even though the facts are to the contrary. Since Tiananmen Square, the State Department's own country reports have been dismal on this subject, and its own report in 1996, which was released this spring of 1997, contains an excellent description of the current state of human rights in China, but it is a sad one. Mr. Speaker, I would draw Members' attention particularly to the statements in that report that-- The (Chinese) government continued widespread and well- documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms, stemming from the authorities' intolerance of dissent * * *. Overall in 1996, the authorities stepped up efforts to cut off expressions of protest or criticism. All public dissent against the party and government has been effectively silenced * * * even those released from prison were kept under tight surveillance and often prevented from taking employment or resuming a normal life. Mr. Speaker, there is a report on religious persecution which the administration is sitting on until after this vote, which documents the violations of religions of the Buddhists, Catholics, Christians, Muslims, and the people of Tibet. On MFN, the debate today is necessary because the administration has refused to use the tools at its disposal, and because the Chinese ship one-third of their exports to the United States, while allowing only 2 percent of our products into China. We have leverage. The Chinese regime cannot take their business elsewhere. One-third of all of their exports cannot find another market. A vote for MFN today is a vote of confidence in a failing policy. Opposing MFN says that you believe that the status quo is not acceptable. Instead, we must have a policy of sustainable engagement with China, engagement which makes the trade fairer, the world safer, and the people freer. I urge my colleagues to oppose MFN by voting ``yes'' on House Joint Resolution 79.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would agree. I want to emphasize that we are not advocating an embargo on China but threat of increased tariffs.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], a champion on this issue.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis], a champion for human rights throughout the world.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, hopefully we can divide the time in half. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for his leadership in reaching this arrangement to bring his important resolution of disapproval to the floor. I will say, though, with great regret that we will be debating this resolution tomorrow morning, depriving the American people of the opportunity over the break next week to have office visits with Members, depriving the grassroots from weighing in. I think it is an attempt to keep this a Beltway business deal. I do not know what the administration is afraid of on this issue, if they are afraid that the figures about the trade deficit that were just announced, 41-percent higher trade deficit with China for the first few months of this year than last year; whether they are afraid of the report on religious persecution which the State Department is holding until after this vote, which is highly critical of Beijing; or whether they are concerned about the report in Time magazine today about the secret missile deal, The CIA has discovered that China is helping Pakistan build a missile plant, will the U.S. object? Whether it is trade proliferation or human rights, the American people have a message: 77 to 27 they support conditioning most-favored- nation status on improvement in human rights. It is unfortunate that they will not have an opportunity to weigh in, and I am afraid that the administration and the leadership in the House is afraid of the truth. With that, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, no, in support of the joint resolution. The gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] is in support of the joint resolution. The joint resolution be debatable for 3\1/2\ hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means in opposition to the joint resolution and a Member in support of the joint resolution. I am just seeking clarification that that be designated as the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark].

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but I just seek clarification in the unanimous- consent request from the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, that in the paragraph about who controls the time that the Member in support of the joint resolution be designated as the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I too want to add my accommodation to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] for her exceptional leadership in fighting this fight for America's service women; really, really for all women in America, and I rise in strong support of the Harman amendment to the defense authorization bill to repeal the provision in this bill prohibiting abortion services in U.S. military hospitals overseas. This provision is a clear threat to the health and safety of women military personnel and military families and a threat to the constitutional rights of all American women. Mr. Chairman, women stationed overseas in service to their country depend on base hospitals for medical care. Access to comprehensive reproductive health is essential for all women, civilian or military. These women are citizens ready and willing to sacrifice their lives for our country. Under the bill, as it currently stands, however, these women are treated as second-class citizens. Under this bill these brave women would be denied access to safe medical care. The Harman amendment is not an issue of taxpayer funding. Women in the military had previously used and would continue to be required to use their own funds to obtain abortion services at military hospitals. The Harman amendment is not an issue of coercing medical providers to perform abortion services. The Harman amendment maintains the conscious clause already in effect. It is, however, the intent of the language in this bill to deny more women the right to choose.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare for the debate and the vote on most-favored-nation status for China, I wish to call to the attention of my colleagues a statement made by Secretary William Cohen yesterday in which he said that Iran this month successfully tested a new air- launched antiship cruise missile obtained from China. A Member should have serious concerns about China's proliferation behavior to Iran. We spend a great deal of time, money, and effort to promote the Middle East peace, and Iran is a menace to that peace. I would like to also call to the attention of my colleagues the statement by the Office of Naval Intelligence: Discoveries after the Gulf war clearly indicate that Iraq maintained an aggressive weapons of mass destruction procurement program. A similar situation exists today in Iran with a steady flow of materials and technologies from China to Iran. This exchange is one of the most active weapons of mass destruction programs in the Third World and is taking place in a region of great strategic interest to the United States. Mr. Speaker, this is also a place where our young people are in harm's way in the Persian Gulf. I urge my colleagues to seriously attend to the issue of proliferation as they decide on their vote and vote no on most-favored-nation status to China.