{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1994-10-08-pt1-PgE29", "1994-10-08", 103, 2, null, null, "CODE OF CONDUCT FOR U.S. BUSINESSES IN CHINA: NEW LEGISLATION INTRODUCED", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "FRONTMATTER", "E", "E", "[{\"name\": \"Tom Lantos\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "140 Cong. Rec. E", "Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]\n\n     CODE OF CONDUCT FOR U.S. BUSINESSES IN CHINA: NEW LEGISLATION\n                               INTRODUCED\n\n                                 ______\n\n                            HON. TOM LANTOS\n\n                             of california\n\n                    in the house of representatives\n\n                        Friday, October 7, 1994\n\n  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, with President Clinton's decision last May\nto renew MFN for China and to cease the linkage between China's human\nrights performance and United States trade benefits, a turbulent issue\nin United States foreign policy has supposedly been laid to rest. I\nsuggest to you, however, that it has merely been side-tracked. It will\ncome back to haunt us because the Chinese regime has no intention of\ntolerating any independent political activity and continues to suppress\nbrutally all attempts at freedom of expression, assembly, or worship.\nIndeed, in recent months both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty\nInternational have offered ample documentation of deteriorating human\nrights conditions in China.\n  Yet opponents of the linkage policy insist that trade provides an\navenue for constructive engagement with repressive regimes. They cite\nthe Asian miracle as proof that over the long-run, China's economic\ndevelopment will foster political liberalization. In China, however,\nthe long-run appears to be very long. Thus, the country with the\nworld's fastest growing GNP, also runs a massive forced labor camp\nsystem, in comparison to which the Soviet Gulag pales. Change will come\neventually, but can that allow us to be complacent in the face of\nenormous agony and suffering today and for the foreseeable future?\n  Mr. Speaker, let's be honest about the trade-as-the-vehicle-of-change\nargument, and acknowledge that it lacks credibility in the case of\nChina. More persuasive is the pragmatic concern raised by the business\ncommunity: since the Europeans and Japanese are unwilling to condition\ntrade with China on human rights, why should the United States\ndisadvantage itself by doing so unilaterally?\n  This is a serious issue, and it ultimately swayed the President. But\nI disagree with the President because I don't think that helping the\nPLA to modernize its weaponry and to boost its arms sales to rogue\nregimes is in the interest of the United States. It seems to me that we\nhave allowed short-term commercial gain to blind us to long-term,\nfundamental security concerns.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-1994-10-08-pt1-PgE29"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 5.89260901324451, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}