Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member, for yielding me this time and commend him for his leadership, especially now, in defining the problems in this bill. I also commend our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for his efforts to do the best he could with inadequate resources. I rise in strong opposition to this bill as reported for many reasons. The bill is simply underfunded by 7.8 billion, or 11 percent, below the President's request. President Clinton demonstrated that there are ways to balance the Federal budget while at the same time investing in health and education of our people, especially our children. Indeed we will never balance the budget unless we make these investments in our children. This bill falls short because it follows the flawed budget blueprint adopted by the Republican majority. There are three reasons, there are many reasons, but I put forth three reasons to vote against this bill: cuts in education, cuts in education, cuts in education. Our colleagues on the Republican side get up and say that the Federal role in educating our children is only 5 percent. Indeed, under this bill we would not even be able to live up to that 5 percent. My democratic colleagues have addressed the education cuts over and over again in this debate, so I will turn to some of the cuts that affect American workers. Mr. Chairman, during the committee's deliberations, I presented an amendment addressing a number of the concerns about protecting American workers. Under the rule I was not able to offer that amendment as presented. I would like, however, to outline my concerns with the bill with regard to vital worker protection programs. In this bill, the Republican majority has declared war on the American worker. As the national debate continues over our commitment to American children, their education, their health and well-being, we must also address the economic well-being of their families. Over the last 2 years, primarily through the appropriations process, the 104th Republican controlled Congress has reversed decades of progress on job training, education, pensions and worker protections. This is particularly alarming when American workers and their families are menaced by trade, downsizing, technological downsizing, and other layoffs. This year the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill makes further cuts to important initiatives for America's 923 million working men and women in 6,000,000 workplaces across the country. These initiatives promote workplace health and safety, ensure pension security, and ensure that employees have fair wages and working conditions, and indeed even limits their ability to begin to bargain collectively. Indeed they even prohibit voluntarily guidelines for ergonomics, that is, repetitive motion injuries, which are the fastest growing health problem in our workplace. I want to refer my colleagues to this chart on the war on American workers. Safety and health enforcement in this bill is cut by 13 percent below the President's request, 9 percent below last year what is required to maintain last year's levels. It even prohibits the new OSHA initiative and assistance to small businesses enabling them to reduce workplace accidents and fatalities. Mine safety: The cut of 6 percent below the President's request for mine safety will mean no funds to acquire new mine safety equipment and a reduction of mine safety inspection. Pensions: On pension protection, a cut of 22 percent below the President's request, 6 percent below current services. No funds are provided for three of the administration's pension priority protection initiatives, pension education and participants assistance, the electronic filing initiative, and the 401(k) enforcement initiative. This is in addition to last year's Budget Reconciliation Act, which turned back the clock on protection of pension plans. Fortunately, the bill was vetoed by the President, but it would have threatened the security of pensions in 6000 pension plans. Employment standards, the Employment Standards Administration, ESA, makes sure that ordinary Americans get a fair shake at the workplace. The enforcement of child labor laws, sweatshops, fair wage laws and fair hour laws are critical to American workers. Funding for ESA is cut by 6 percent and is 15 percent below the President's request. As a result, reductions will have to be made in efforts to eradicate garment sweatshops and protect workers' newly won family and medical leave. Collective bargaining, the National Labor Relations Board investigates and prosecutes unfair labor practices. It is being cut substantially, minus 20 percent, $36 million in this bill. Dislocated workers cut by 15 percent. Over 2\1/2\ million American workers lose their jobs each year due to global competition, et cetera, and will not receive assistance. There are 81,000 fewer laid-off workers being served. American workers are the engine of our economy. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. They also deserve a safe workplace. Despite our budget challenges, we should not retreat on worker protection. This is the wrong place and the wrong time to cut back. American workers and their families deserve better. With that, I commend the chairman for doing the best he could with what little he had. I hope that in this battle of priorities, our national value system will say we need more for children, more for American workers, more investment in the future of our country.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of our committee.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill would delete the rider that bans OSHA from protecting workers from musculoskeletal disorders which represent America's fastest growing workplace health problem. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is the legislative rider bans any ergonomic guidelines. Ergonomics is the study of force in motion. What we would like to see the ergonomics look at is how to redesign the workplace so as to put less force on the body. This is the force that is causing so many musculoskeletal disorders and represents the fastest growing workplace health problem, having multiplied sevenfold in the past 10 years. Current estimates range from over 700,000 lost work day injuries to 2.7 million accepted worker's comp claims annually, affecting meat packing, poultry workers, computer programmers, auto workers, and supermarket employees, among others. Affected workers suffer pain, restricted life activities, lost work time, and often permanent disability. These repetitive motion injuries include carpal tunnel syndrome, of which you may be familiar, Mr. Chairman. The legislation in this appropriations bill prohibits OSHA from using funds for the development, promulgation, or issuance of any proposed or final standard or voluntary guideline. Mr. Chairman, I repeat, voluntary guideline regarding ergonomic protection or recording or reporting occupational injuries or illnesses directly related to. This language goes beyond the fiscal year 1996 language to ban OSHA from developing protections or even collecting data on the problem. Mr. Chairman, worker's compensation costs arising from musculoskeletal disorders amount to an estimated $20 billion annually, accounting for roughly $1 of every $3 employers spend on such claims. Indirect costs such as hiring and training replacement workers add billions of dollars more. Unfortunately, many thousands of U.S. employers are unaware of the extent of this problem. My amendment would allow OSHA to issue a proposed ergonomic standard. And what that would do is trigger OSHA's open rulemaking process. This process includes both lengthy comment periods and administrative hearings at which witnesses can cross-examine each other, designed to facilitate a thorough public debate to improve the standard and strengthen its scientific basis. If enacted, the rider in the bill would ban OSHA from even developing such a proposed standard to permit the debate to begin. My amendment will allow the debate to begin. A no vote on my amendment would preclude OSHA from even gathering the data, as I mentioned, on musculoskeletal disorders. Ignoring the fastest growing workplace health problem will not make it go away. Ironically, the rider's sponsors claim OSHA needs to improve the science upon which ergonomic protections would be based, but the rider would ban OSHA from gathering the data necessary to meet that need. A no vote on my amendment would fly in the face of congressional efforts to reform the regulatory process to ensure that regulations are premised on sound science. Mr. Chairman, I talked earlier about the cost to employers, and many of them would like the protection of guidelines. Even those employers who have recognized the problem are often unaware of the broad range of cost-effective solutions currently available. Smaller businesses are particularly at a disadvantage since they typically cannot afford to hire safety and health consultants. These employers need help. My amendment would allow OSHA to issue voluntary guidelines to assist employers in controlling the soaring costs associated with musculoskeletal disorders as well as opening up this debate to go further, if it is determined in that open period of public comment. Recently enacted legislation gives Congress a mechanism for modifying or disapproving Federal regulations through an expedited legislative process. My amendment would allow OSHA to move forward on ergonomics, but would retain this effective means of reviewing OSHA's protective standards before they even take place. This is not disruptive of changes that have occurred in this Congress, Mr. Chairman. In fact, it is in keeping with those changes. Countless employers have already cut injury rates and saved millions of dollars in workman's compensation costs through simple measures that quickly pay for themselves. A ``no'' vote on this amendment would preclude OSHA from developing protective standards or even voluntary guidelines based on such cost-effective solutions. These ideas, the initiatives, assist business at the expense of thousands of employers struggling with soaring worker's compensation costs, and to the detriment of millions of American workers. A yes vote would improve working conditions and safety, would save money for the employers and increase productivity of the American work force. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to some of the comments made by my colleagues, in addition to Mr. Obey's observation about the short- changing of NIOSH in this bill. Last year the proposal by this Republican majority in the Congress on NIOSH was to cut it by 25 percent. The flat funding this year is not in keeping with, does not even keep up with the responsibilities that it has. I do want to call to the attention of our colleagues the packet that our colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], held up and said, what would happen if this was laid on business? The fact is, that packet of information, and I question it because there have been no regulations released by OSHA, as that packet indicates, it does not contribute rulemaking or notice of rulemaking. So I think it is a little disingenuous to give the impression to our colleagues that that is a regulation that is being proposed by OSHA that is something that exists. Second, I say to our colleague from Texas, Mr. DeLay, that part of his work in this Congress was to pass legislation that gives Congress a mechanism for modifying or disapproving Federal regulations through an expedited legislative procedure, and that would, of course, still be allowed under my amendment should he not like the information that the ergonomic studies provide in terms of data on the occurrence of repetitive motion illnesses. The other point that I want to make is that, of course, this has to be based on science and scientific data. But this is not a one-sided issue. This is to protect businesses. Certainly it is to protect workers as well, and I do not have enough time allocated to me to read the entire statement of Mr. Dear when he came before our committee, but when I get my time again I would like to read from that statement, which talks about the need that some smaller businesses in particular have for the protection that voluntary guidelines and opening up of this debate would provide to them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, in the balance of my time I wanted to make the case that this ergonomic study is to benefit workers and businesses. When I asked the very distinguished director of OSHA, Mr. Dear, to respond as to what the developing of voluntary guidelines and what the government-business response to such voluntary guidelines would be, he responded by saying: From my own experience in meeting with employers I know that injuries caused by repetitive motion are a serious problem of concerned employers. I have met with one after another after presentation made here on the Hill after the employers have specifically asked me, ``Aren't there any guidelines? Couldn't you give me some help?'' And I had to say, ``Well, I would very much like to, but I cannot.'' And that is what this rider in this legislation does. It prevents OSHA from giving any direction whatsoever to small businesses. Again I say that support for my amendment will protect workers, protect businesses from excessive cost, and increase productivity. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fazio amendment to the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. This amendment attempts to revisit action taken in the Appropriations Committee that deserves the light of full debate. The majority has brought this appropriations bill to the floor with an onerous provision that restricts public access to congressional information. Most House committees have both majority and minority Web sites that the public can access to seek legislative information, committee schedules, and other relevant committee material. Since these sites first went on-line, they have been accessible to the public without restriction. The Republican majority would like to see this changed. The same majority that claims to have a commitment to a ``cybercongress'' and the information infrastructure has placed limits on what information the public can access. They want to make all committee home pages controlled by the majority. The public will not be able to read the minority information without reading the majority information first. This is not the way to open up Congress to an ever-increasing electronic electorate. By limiting the information the public can access, the Republican majority is blocking freedom of speech, and limiting debate on issues the public has a right to be informed about. The minority, regardless of party, has a right to be heard. It is not a question of Republican versus Democrat, it is a clear question of what the public has a right to read. The committee refused to hear an amendment offered by Mr. Fazio in committee that questioned this arrangement, and then claimed that since it was a regulation and not a law, that the committee need not discuss the provision. Last night the Rules Committee made a similar amendment by Mr. Fazio out of order. What are they afraid of? Individuals should be able to realize their freedom to access information, and the Republican majority should not define the way in which that information is available. What happens if a committee chairman decides not to put up a Web page, the minority is automatically cut off from the Internet? This is our Nation's highest democratic body, but this process is anything but democratic. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and support a free and open government.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Robert L. Demmons for 22 years of dedicated service in the San Francisco Fire Department which culminated in his appointment as chief of the department on January 16, 1996. The importance of his appointment goes beyond the fact that Chief Demmons is the first African-American to hold this position in San Francisco. What makes his appointment momentous is that Chief Demmons was the tenacious force behind the original complaint that brought about the consent decree which mandates the elimination of discriminatory practices and promotes the integration of minorities and women within the entry-level and promotional ranks of the San Francisco Fire Department. There are only a handful of men and women who challenge a system and are then given the privilege to rectify that process. I have no doubt that under Chief Demmons' leadership, both recruitment and the promotional system will meet or exceed the standards of the consent decree. I commend Mayor Willie Brown on this appointment. Chief Demmons has devoted himself to improving the personnel practices of the fire department. When he served as the chief of management services, he ran two extraordinary recruitment drives. He also improved the EEOC complaint process which safeguards the rights of employees. Chief Demmons has received numerous awards for his leadership in the fire department and in the community. One award that I would like to mention was the Meritorious Heroism Award that he received from the department. In 1985 when he was a lieutenant at the 33d Engine Company in Ingleside, he and another member of the department rescued a woman from a burning building and brought her outside to safety. Mr. Speaker, Chief Demmons has demonstrated his courage both in the field and by his efforts to reform the system. I know that you will join with me in saluting him for the contributions he has made and will continue to make to the citizens of San Francisco.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman, that would be the effect. I spent my time on the economics. I am so pleased the gentleman brought up the point, because the National Conference of Bishops opposes MFN.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, we have a very important choice to make here today. But that choice is not between engagement or isolation. Certainly we will continue engagement with China. But that engagement must be constructive. The current engagement called constructive engagement is neither constructive nor true engagement. It has produced a situation where each of us is being asked today to put our good name, our seal of approval on the status quo with China. That status quo includes very serious repression, which continues in China. In fact, it has worsened in recent years, the status quo includes very dangerous proliferation of nuclear missile, biological, and chemical weapons to Pakistan and rogue states like Iran and, on the issue of trade, includes a situation where we have very little market access, a huge trade deficit and theft of our intellectual property. Some Members say we should not mix trade and proliferation and human rights. On the basis of economics and trade alone, the lack of reciprocity on the part of the Chinese says that we should not grant most-favored-nation status to China. Of course, they will get it. But the vote today for Members of Congress is to say to the President, use the tools at your disposal. Bring down the great wall of China's high tariffs to products made in America, reduce this huge trade deficit. Give us opportunity for our products to go there. Stop the theft of our intellectual property and really stop it and, most importantly, stop the technological transfer which is undermining our economy. China, it has been said, is a huge country. It is, indeed, very populous. China is a big country. It will be a great power. All the more reason for us to want it to be free. But in terms of the trade issue alone, there is no reciprocity of the Chinese to the United States. What we have to decide and what we will have to answer to our constituents for is how we address this trade deficit, which is a job loser for the American people. China is a big country, as we have said. Because of the trade barriers, the theft of intellectual property, the transfer of technology, which is a couple hundred billion dollar problem, the use of prison labor and the fact that China refuses to play by the rules. We will have to answer for this vote China is going down a path that is a threat to the economies of the industrialized nations of the world. This debate is about nothing less than our national security, our democratic principles and our economic future. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Rohrabacher resolution and thank them for their attention.

Ms. PELOSI. That is the point I was getting to. I appreciate the gentleman focusing on that. The fact is that United States-China trade is a job loser for the United States. Our colleagues on the other side of this issue will say that exports to China have increased 3 times in the last 10 years. They have. But they fail to mention that imports from China have increased 11 times, thereby leading to this huge trade deficit. It is a job loser for several other reasons. There is an important issue that we are all familiar with: Piracy of our intellectual property. It remains to be seen if China will honor the commitment it has made in the recent agreement. It has not honored the memoranda of understanding or last year's agreement and indeed there is a report in the press yesterday that one of the PLA, People's Liberation Army factories has resumed production. But, the other issue is technology transfer. If intellectual property is a $2 billion, $3 billion loss, technology transfer is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. If you want to sell to China, bring United States products into China, the Chinese insist that you open a factory there. They misappropriate your technology, open factories of their own and then say to you, ``Now we want to see your plan for export.'' That is as simply as I can say it briefly. But the fact is this is not about products made in America. The Chinese want American products that are made in China. The most serious of these transfers of technology are in the airline industry, where tail sections of the Boeing 737's were mostly made in Wichita, KS. Now they are made in Xi'an Province where workers make $50 a month and the transfer of the technology and the transfer of the jobs has taken place. General Motors, Ford, they are all fighting to get in to build factories there so they can make parts there. They want MFN so they can get those parts back into the United States. So we are exporting, not low-technology jobs and textile jobs, we are exporting our technology and high paying jobs. If you take a country the size of China with the very cheap and in some instances slave labor, the lack of market access, the ripoff of our intellectual property, the transfer of technology, a country that is not willing to play by the rules in any respect in this trade relationship, you have a serious threat not only to our relationship but to the industrialized world. If there is one message that I want our colleagues and our constituents to understand today is that on this day, your Member of Congress could have drawn the line to say to the President of the United States, do something about this United States-China trade relationship. It is a job loser for the United States. This brings us to the point that others have said, ``Well, we can't isolate China.'' Do you think for one minute that with at least 10 million jobs and $35 billion in profit, and it will be over $40 billion this year in a trade surplus, all those billions of dollars in surplus, that the Chinese are going to walk away? Where are they going to take 35 to 40 percent of their exports? Who is going to buy them? Their exports to the United States are what sustains the regime--the funding and the jobs. They cannot have those people out of work. They have to be at work exporting to the United States. So we have a situation where again I say human rights, while others think they should not be linked, I think they are linked. We all agree, China will be large, it will be powerful, it is in our interest that they be free. For those who say that economic reform will lead to political reform, I reject that notion of trickle-down liberty. It has not worked. In fact, even by the Clinton administration's own country report on China, it has said that economic reform, and the quote is in my full statement, has not led to political reform because the government has not allowed that to happen. I would like to quote from a China scholar, and I will read from this: David Shambaugh, editor of China Quarterly, the leading academic journal on Chinese affairs, recently wrote: Let us not deceive ourselves. China's political system remains authoritarian and repressive. In fact, it has become significantly more so in recent years. The Chinese regime is one of the worst abusers of human rights and basic freedoms. It maintains itself in power in part through intimidation and coercion of the population. It tolerates no opposition. The third issue of concern is proliferation, the most dangerous issue of all. Both in the Bush administration and in the Clinton administration, our administrations have waived sanctions over and over for the proliferation of nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan and nuclear missile and chemical and biological technology to Iran and all of the above other rogue States. Mr. Speaker, how dangerous does the transfer of weapons technology have to be, I would ask my colleagues, to stop us from putting our seal of approval on this policy? We are not legislating here today. The President will call the shot on most-favored-nation status. But what we are doing is either putting our name down in support of the status quo or calling out for change. Mr. Speaker, as we approach our own Fourth of July, I hope that Members in this body will remember others who have studied the words of our Founding Fathers. Others who were inspired by them, who quoted those words in Tiananmen Square and were arrested for doing so, particularly Wei Jingsheng. He is the father of the democracy movement in China and is in jail for his second 14-year term because he has spoken out for freedom. My dear colleagues, today we will have a chance to make the world safer, the political climate freer and the trade fairer. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on MFN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to President Clinton's request for a special waiver to grant most favored nation status to China. The debate over China MFN is an important one for the American people. Nothing less is at stake than our economic future, our democratic principles and our national security. That is why I regret that the Republican leadership has chosen to railroad this legislation through the House. This action deprives our constituents, who cannot afford to come to Washington, of expressing their views over the July 4 break. That has always been the situation. This is a departure. What are the proponents of MFN for China afraid of? Are they afraid of the truth? Are they afraid that Members may have to answer to their constituents for siding with the multinational corporations? Are they afraid of the 100,000 young people who gathered in Golden Gate Park on June 15 and 16 to support a free Tibet? Today Members will be asked to give their seal of approval on the status quo in United States-China relations. The business community may overwhelm Capitol Hill, the President may tell you that he really needs you, but it is our vote and our constituents who will judge us on how we voted--not on who made us do it. Let us see what the business community is asking you to put your good name to: Let us start with the truth about the trade situation--the hoax that the United States-China trade relationship is a job winner for our country. The facts are to the contrary: trade China does not play by the rules. On a strictly trade-for-trade basis, China should not receive MFN because it does not reciprocate the trade benefits we grant to them with MFN. The average United States MFN tariff rate on Chinese goods is 2 percent. The average Chinese MFN tariff rate on United States goods is 35 percent. Despite the fact that over one-third of China's exports are sold into the United States market, China's high tariffs and nontariff barriers limit access to the Chinese market for United States goods and services. Only 2 percent of United States exports are allowed into China. The result is a $34 billion United States trade deficit with China in 1995. Ten years ago, in 1985, our trade with China was only $10 million. The huge trade deficit, which is expected to exceed $41 billion in 1996, does not include the economic loss from China's piracy of United States intellectual property, which cost the United States economy $2.4 billion in 1995 alone. It does not include the loss to our economy from Chinese insistence on production and technology transfer which hurts American workers and robs our economic future. And, it does not include money gained by China in the illegal smuggling of AK-47's and other weapons into the United States by the Chinese military. You will hear that trade with China is important for United States jobs. President Clinton's statement accompanying his request to renew MFN, claims that ``United States exports to China support 170,000 American jobs.'' These jobs are important, but they must be seen in a larger context. Other trade relationships of comparable size to the United States- China trade relationship support more than twice as many jobs in the United States as United States-China trade. For example, the United States-United Kingdom trade relationship, totalling $2 billion less than the United States-China trade relationship, supports 432,000 jobs. The United States-South Korea relationship, totalling $8 billion less than the United States-China trade relationship, supports 381,000 jobs. United States-China trade generates over 10 million jobs in China. Ten million jobs and a $34 billion and the business community says China will walk away. Where will they take one-third of their exports? We must also be concerned about the harm to our economy of the technology transfer and production transfer which is accompanying United States investment in China and United States sales to China. The Chinese Government demands that companies wishing to obtain access to the Chinese market not only build factories there, But also transfer state-of-the-art technology in order to do so. The Government then misappropriates that technology to build China's own industries. The companies have little choice, in light of the high tariffs for their products to reach the Chinese marketplace. This is a $100 billion problem. A recent Washington Post article, ``A China Trade Question: Is It Ready for Rules?'' May 19, 1996, outlines a number of serious questions about China's willingness to abide by the rules that govern international trade. On the critical issue of technology transfer, this article states that: As vital as the Chinese market is, the appropriation of foreign technology by the Chinese poses a serious problem for the industrialized world--``much more serious than CD pirating,'' said Kenneth Dewoskin, a professor at the University of Michigan and adviser with Coopers & Lybrand's China consulting business. ``Think of telecommunications, automotive, electronics, very high technology chemicals-- there's enormous value in that technology. You're talking hundreds of billions of dollars.'' Dewoskin continued: ``When you provide technology to your Chinese venture, it has to be certified by one of these research and design institutes,'' he said, ``but unfortunately, those are the same institutes whose job it is to disseminate technology to domestic ventures.'' The Chinese Government is using our technology to build its own industries to the detriment of United States industries and we are not only letting them do this, our policies are encouraging them in this practice. Some people argue that trade should not be linked to violations of human rights and proliferation. I disagree. However, even if we consider the United States-China relationship solely on economic grounds, China should not receive unconditional MFN.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for being so generous in yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this issue of granting most-favored-nation status to China is a very important one for the American people. It is about nothing less than our economic future, our national security, and our democratic principles. As Members know, the debate in the House of Representatives and our disagreement on this issue has centered around the issues of trade, proliferation, and human rights. That is why I am so disappointed that we have so little time to debate this issue today and I can only ask the Republican leadership of this House and all of those who are so eager to move this along on both sides of the aisle, what are you afraid of? Are you afraid of the facts? Are you afraid over the Fourth of July break of constituents who cannot afford to travel to Washington who would have time to express their views to their Members of Congress? Are you afraid of 100,000 young people in Golden Gate Park gathered together to support a free Tibet? I wish our colleagues were here and not away to a funeral or, without votes, off of Capitol Hill, because they must hear the facts. Because today Members of Congress will be asked to set down a marker: How far does China have to go? How much more repression, how big a trade deficit and loss of jobs to the American worker, and how much more dangerous proliferation has to exist before Members of this House of Representatives will say, ``I will not endorse the status quo''? As I mentioned, it is about jobs, proliferation, and human rights. There are those who say we should not link human rights and trade and proliferation and trade. I disagree. But if we just want to take up this issue on the basis of economics alone, indeed China should not receive most-favored-nation status, for several reasons that I would like to go into now. I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to this chart on the status quo that the business community is asking each and every one of us to endorse today. Right now we have a $34 billion trade deficit with China, the 1995 figure. It will be over $40 billion for 1996. Since the Tiananmen Square massacre, this figure has increased 1,000 percent, from $3.5 billion then to about $34 billion now. In terms of tariffs, I think it is interesting to note that the average United States MFN tariff on Chinese goods coming into the United States is 2 percent; whereas the average Chinese MFN tariff on United States goods going into China is 35 percent. Is that reciprocal? Exports. China only allows certain United States industries into China. Therefore, only 2 percent of United States exports are allowed into China. On the other hand, the United States allows China to flood our markets with one-third of their exports, and that will probably go over 40 percent this year, and it is limitless because we have not placed any restriction on it. In terms of jobs, this is the biggest and cruelest hoax of all. Not only do we not have market access, not only do they have prohibitive tariffs, not only are our exports not let in very specifically, but China benefits with at least 10 million jobs from United States-China trade. The President in his statement requesting this special waiver said that China trade supports 170,000 jobs in the United States, whereas our imports from China support at least 10 million jobs.

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today Congress will debate the issue of granting a special request to the President for a waiver to grant most- favored-nation status to China. This is an important issue to the American people. Nothing less is at stake than our economic future, our national security, and our democratic principles. That is why it is so distressing to see the absurd rule that the Republican majority has put forth for this legislation. They want to railroad this legislation through the House in an untimely fashion. Our tradition has always been to have the Fourth of July week for our constituents to express their views to Members. Many constituents cannot afford the expensive trip to Washington, DC, that the business community has readily available to them. What is the Republican majority afraid of? Are they afraid of the truth? Are they afraid of 100,000 young people gathered in Golden Gate Park to promote a free Tibet? Are they afraid that our colleagues will learn the facts about United States-China trade and that it is a job loser for the American worker? It is absolutely a shame that on this most important issue the Republican majority is moving to stifle dabte.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for recognizing me, giving me this time, and for his kind words. This is probably our last MFN fight together, Mr. Chairman. As I said on the day we had our special order for the gentleman, he is truly a gentleman from Florida and we have all benefited greatly by his service here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of what the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] referred to as the well-intentioned resolution presented by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox]. I call it the fig leaf. I said if there were ever a national flower specific to the Congress of the United States, it would be the fig tree, because we just have fig trees all over the place. It is beginning to be Mediterranean around here. This fig leaf is even a transparent one, but it could be something if everyone has the resolve of the gentleman from California. Mr. Cox has been a great leader on human rights throughout the world and on this China issue. If the leadership of this House is serious about this resolution and it is not just using it as a fig leaf, it is a fig leaf until it is something else in my view, then this could make the real difference, I would say to the gentleman. Once again, he will have provided a service. One of the joys of working on the most-favored-nation status with China, human rights issues in China, trade, proliferation, et cetera, is the bipartisan coalition that we have formed, the relationships that have developed to help us solve other problems as well in the House. And the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], I see over there, and you know the list, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the list goes on and on, it has been my pleasure to work with all of these gentlemen. I want to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker. Of course I support the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I think we have to make sure that it has teeth and it is real. But the fact is that those of us who have been working together all this long time on this issue did not start with using MFN as a tactic. We started with World Bank loans, we started with conditional renewal or targeted sanctions or every possible kind to relationship that we have with China in a financial institution or a financial relationship. So it would be interesting to see what the committees of jurisdiction come up with, which has not already been rejected over and over again by this House. Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the focus will be on a prohibition on products made by the People's Liberation coming into the United States, or raising the tariffs at least on those products. The People's Liberation Army occupies Tibet, crushes dissent in China and Tibet, proliferates nuclear, biological, chemical, and missile technology to rogue countries. The PLA has been for many years selling and now smuggling AK-47's and all kinds of other more dangerous weapons into the United States for use here or to be transshipped to other countries. With all due respect to those who have talked about human rights here today, and with great respect, as I have said, for the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], he said he knows I feel very strongly and he shares some of those feelings. Yes; I feel strongly, but I think about it a lot, too, and I make a distinction there. This is not about feeling. It is about analyzing what our options are and giving them priority. Yes; we all care about human rights. Let us stipulate to that. Who cares enough to give it some priority? Who cares enough to say to a country like China, repressing its people, and that repression has increased since President Clinton delinked trade and human rights, that this is important in our relationship. The administration does not really talk about it much anymore. They talk about larger issues. In fact, the more time goes by, the older their thinking is on how we deal with China. We must insist that in all of our relationships we make the trade fairer, the political climate freer, and the world safer. The Clinton policy is doing just the reverse. I also want to make a comment about our colleagues who have said well, we give MFN to Iran and Iraq. We have an embargo on Iran and Iraq. We do not trade with them. Not only that, we have a secondary boycott on countries that would invest in petroleum in Iran. So this whole thing of we give MFN to everyone, so why not China. If we have a special situation as China is, where the President must request a waiver, and that is what gives us standing on the floor, and that country represses its people, violates our trade relationship, does not allow, by and large, most of our products in, does not play by the rules, uses prison labor for export, steals our intellectual property, misappropriates our technology and copyrighted items for use for manufacture to their own, industries with our copyrights. If a country does all of this, and at the same time has a $35 billion trade deficit with us, that is an opportunity where we can use our leverage. To those who say well, some of that trade deficit came from other countries, those jobs used to be in other Asian countries, well, they are in China now and that is why we have leverage. It does not matter where they were before, it is where they are now. The Chinese Government cannot afford to lose 10 million jobs that spring from United States trade. They cannot afford to lose $35 billion, trade surplus that will be over $40 billion this year. In my final minute, Mr. Speaker, in putting some of these thoughts on the Record, I do want to put a couple letters in the Record. One is a letter from Adam Yauch. Adam is with the Beastie Boys. He has been working very hard, lobbying Members to vote against MFN for China. A couple of weeks ago in San Francisco, he had 100,000 people gathered to support Chinese and Tibetan human rights and to oppose the brutal oppression of the Chinese Government. Maybe the leadership of this House is afraid of what is going on out there, that people are catching on to this issue. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention as we go into the Fourth of July, a great champion of human rights and of liberty, hopefully inspired by the United States, certainly his thinking is in line with our Founding Fathers', Mr. Wei Jingsheng. Nothing drives the Chinese crazier than our talking about Wei Jingsheng, because he speaks the truth. He served a 14-year sentence. They let him out for a few months because they wanted the Olympics. As soon as he spoke up again, they arrested him for another 14 years. And here is what he said to get arrested: From the moment he is born, a human being has the right to live and the right to strive for a better life. These are what people call God-given rights, for they are not bestowed by any external thing. They are bestowed by the fact of existence itself. Without equality, human rights must lose their real meaning. Without the protection of human rights, equality can only be an empty slogan. In the spirit of our Founding Fathers, as we approach the Fourth of July, I want to commend to our colleagues the plight of Wei Jingsheng and hope that one of our priorities is to tell the Chinese that we insist upon his freedom. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter referred to previously. The information referred to is as follows: June 26, 1996. Dear Member of Congress: I am currently in Washington, DC where I have been lobbying Congress not to renew Most Favored Nation trading status with China. Last weekend I participated in the Tibetan Freedom Concert where over 100,000 people gathered to support Chinese and Tibetan human rights and to oppose the brutal oppression of the Chinese government. Twenty of America's most influential bands took the cause to heart and spoke about it on stage. 30,000 of the participants signed a letter to President Clinton demanding that he not renew Most Favored Nation status to China. The concert also helped to spread the word of a rapidly growing boycott of all Chinese goods. This boycott is endorsed by over 150 organizations including the AFL-CIO. This is a small example of a rapidly growing awareness amongst youth about our US government and US corporations' direct involvement and perpetuation of human rights abuses by continuing to trade with the Chinese. By investing US money we are financing the Chinese government's continued genocide of the Tibetan people. As world leaders your responsibility is to all of humanity, not just your constituency, not just the Republicans or the Democrats, not the people from your state, not even just all Americans. You represent and affect all of humanity and are thereby responsible for your actions. It is your responsibility to cut through the bureaucratic rhetoric that has perpetuated the most unimaginable suffering and human rights violations that are still occurring today. Because the Tibetan struggle is non-violent it exemplifies the most clear-cut distinction between brutal violence and compassion that exists in the world. We must all join together and use the freedom that we have as American citizens to bring freedom to the rest of the world. The lies that having US business in China will help to change their policies on human rights have gone on too long. Many people are asking the question if the US takes a stand will other countries follow us. It is our responsibility to act first and other countries will follow. Regardless of what other countries do we must act in the interest of humanity and not our greed motivated corporations. We the people of America call on you as our world leaders to act now. Do not renew Most Favored Nation status to China. Adam Yauch--Beastie Boys.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, is this not the gentleman's amendment on the Presidio Leadership Center?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Roemer amendment to cut $75 million from the Space Station Program. I support the concept of space exploration, and in better fiscal times would support the space station, but the time is now, Mr. Chairman, and the space station raises a question of priorities. We are all in agreement that Federal dollars need to be stretched farther and work harder. The only question is which programs we choose to fund and which we choose to cut or eliminate. The United States can no longer afford to fund a budget-busting project which has run out of control. Mr. Chairman, the VA-HUD appropriations bill before us provides $2.1 billion for the Alpha Space Station for fiscal year 1997. This money is in addition to the $16.5 billion taxpayers have already spent since 1984. The General Accounting Office [GAO] indicates that the final bill for the space station will be in excess of $94 billion, a 1,075 percent increase from the original $8 billion price tag. How are we to pay for the space station? The Republican majority has passed a budget bill which freezes NIH funding until 2002 at $11.9 billion per year. The total NASA budget for fiscal year 1997 is nearly $20 billion. What does it say about our national values that we prioritize space exploration over medical research? Mr. Chairman, the question is simple: Can we afford a $94 billion project at this time? We still have too many people without adequate housing, food, and medical care to be funding soda fountains for astronauts. This Congress cannot pay for space exploration when so many more pressing needs remain unmet here at home. I urge my colleagues to support the Roemer amendment to reduce funding for space station alpha. I hope that the day will come when we will be able to fund a space station, but not at the expense of our poor, our sick, our elderly, and our children. It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that if we choose to look at the stars, we must first make sure we have our feet firmly on the ground.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to decrease AmeriCorps funding. The AmeriCorps National Service Program gives Americans of all backgrounds the opportunity to serve our country and defray the cost of a college education. It is not a wasteful program, as some critics contend, unless you truly believe that public service and increased educational opportunity are wasteful. In response to Mr. Hostettler's contention that the AmeriCorps Program represents coercive volunteerism, I remind him that members of the U.S. armed services are also compensated financially and are praised, as they should be, for their volunteer efforts to protect and defend our country. AmeriCorps members increase volunteerism. Harris Wofford and the Corporation for National Service are committed to maintaining a cost- effective, productive program through public-private partnership. This innovative program has produced impressive results in increased volunteerism and access to higher education. More than 20,000 AmeriCorps participants each year have met needs in communities while realizing the dream of a college education. This program represents a solid investment in our young people, who represent the future of America. In a Congress determined to slash education funding, we must recognize the AmeriCorps Program as a student financial aid program that reaps significant rewards for local communities.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the gentleman would consider first of all supporting the National Service and AmeriCorps but specifically in terms of Presidio Leadership Center, when we get to that particular amendment, the language that I have just stated.

Mr. PELOSI

Mr. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time and rise in opposition to the rule, with all the greatest regard for the chairman of the Committee on Rules and our distinguished ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the following reason. This issue before the House of Representatives this evening is a very important one to the American people. Nothing less is at stake than our economic future, our democratic principles, and our national security. That is why I oppose this rule, because this rule says that tomorrow, while Members are away during a funeral and votes are not going to happen until 3 o'clock, we will have our chance to debate the rule while Members are not here. Then, after Members return, we will be given 15 minutes to make our case against MFN for China. I cannot support the curbing of debate that is happening in the House of Representatives under this rule. I know the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee did his best, but I think that this rule is an arrogant act on the part of the Republican leadership to stifle debate here on this issue. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of the truth? Are the afraid of the American people weighing in? Are they afraid, as we had hoped, that this debate would take place when it always has in July? Are they afraid of 100,000 young people who gathered in Golden Gate Park to promote freedom of expression in Tibet, who heard from a monk who had been imprisoned by the Chinese for 33 years describe his torture by the Chinese, and who was freed only by international pressure led by the Italian government? Are they afraid of those people? Why can we not have this debate while Members who here in Congress? Why can we not have the appropriate time, as we have always had, for the grassroots people to weigh in? They believe, and I hope they are always right, that their opinion makes a difference to their Member of Congress and that they should have the opportunity for public comment that the fast track of MFN allows, provides for, but that this leadership in this House of Representatives has decided to curtail. That is why I oppose the rule. Let us talk about what is at stake. The previous speaker talked about economic reform leading to political reform. Well, let us quote directly from not my word but this administration's own country report on China, on the subject of repression in China. The State Department country report says, ``The experience of China in the past few years demonstrates that while economic growth, trade and social mobility create an improved standard of living, they cannot by themselves bring about greater respect for human rights in the absence of a willingness by political authorities to abide by the fundamental international norms.'' It went on further to say that by year's end, this is 1995, almost all public dissent against the public authorities was silenced. Why is this important also in terms of proliferation? I said first about our democratic principles being at stake. We talk about democratic principles. We want to ban investment in Burma, no business going on there. But when it comes to China, we cannot even raise a tariff because some businesses might lose a profit on their bottom line, because it is certainly not about American jobs. This is a job loser for America. We can see by this chart, Mr. Speaker, maybe you cannot, the trade balance with China, when we started this debate in 1989, was reported for 1988 to be $3,479 million. In that time, it has increased 1,000 percent. The trade deficit for last year as reported in this 7-year period is $34 billion. Yes, that gives us leverage. It is not about any country that has human rights abuses, dear ranking member. It is about a country that has a $34 billion trade deficit with the United States, which gives us leverage, which should give us leverage. Certainly we are not going to revoke MFN for China; the President will not allow it. We should certainly use our voices and our leverage on that issue to send a strong message from this Congress at least that we will stand for human rights. It is not enough to say they have merit or that even they have priority but they are important enough for us to use our muscle on them, our economic muscle on them. In addition to this trade deficit, we have the transfer of technology to China which businesses are doing. We are almost encouraging it so they can access the market. We have the ripping off of our intellectual property. That piracy is not even counted of the billions of dollars in the trade deficit. So it is a better economic future. Where are our jobs? If Boeing is transferring the production of the tail section of their planes to China to be produced by workers who make $50 a month, how can that be a job winner for us? On the issue of proliferation, I said it undermined our democratic principles, our moral authority to talk about human rights any place if we cannot talk about it where some business is at stake. Second, I talked about how this trade with China is robbing our economic future. You want to do business in China? You open up a factory there. You give your technology plans to the government, they open up factories with your technology plans and tell you to create an export plan for the products that you make in China. This isn't about United States products made in China. Only 2 percent of our exports are allowed into the Chinese market. Over one-third of China's exports flood United States markets. Is this going to isolate China? Where are they going to take one-third of their exports? Let us be reasonable to the American worker. The third issue is proliferation. I do not have too much time to go into all of that except to say that this administration and the administration before it has looked the other way on the proliferation of missile technology and nuclear technology to Pakistan, of missile technology, nuclear technology, biological technology and chemical technology to Iran, at the same time as we are having nice little resolutions about boycotting Iran and having a secondary boycott on companies that invest in petroleum in Iran until Iran stops its production of weapons of mass destruction. But we do not want to go to the source, the source of that technology to Iran, because some big businesses might lose a little bit of their access. So this, I repeat, undermines our democratic principles, threatens our economic future, and threatens our national security. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote no on the rule and no on MFN for China.