in 1995 and 1996, I voted for MFN. This year I will not. I will support this resolution. Why the change? Well, it is not just one reason. I think that China's human rights record is no better and it may be worse. Second, I know for sure that our trade deficit is worse because we are not making any progress on bringing down their import tariffs. And we are losing American jobs because of it. Third, we just learned that the Chinese sold cruise missiles to Iran. This places American troops in harm's way. And how about Chinese sales of nerve gas technology to Iran? Finally it appears that the Chinese have tried to influence our own elections with illegal contributions. United States-China policy made in China. Mr. Speaker, we need to send China a message. First, lower your tariffs. Second, stop persecuting religious freedom of speech. Third, stop selling weapons of mass destruction to terrorist states and, fourth, do not ever meddle in our elections again. Vote ``yes'' for this resolution.
Greg Ganske: “in 1995 and 1996, I voted for MFN. This year I will not. I will support this resolution. Why the change? Well, it is not…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the decision to not support MFN trade status for China due to human rights and security concerns.
Share
More from Greg Ganske
I stood on this floor arguing for medical malpractice reform, and I continued before that, but not on this bill. Let me read to my colleagues from a letter from the AMA on this. "AMA policy has long supported medical liability reform, and…
hats are off to all the kids who qualify for their State high school wrestling tournaments across the country. We ex-high school and college wrestlers now in Congress know the hard work those accomplishments take. However, I want to…
the economy is sick. Unemployment is going up. The economy does need a shot in the arm. This bill contains provisions to help the unemployed with health care coverage, provisions to encourage business investment and deductions for capital…
So he stands by his statement that HMOs are treated better in his amendment than others. Now, is it the gentleman's understanding that his bill would abrogate State laws on patients' rights?





