[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 32 (Monday, March 21, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS FOR CHINA SHOULD BE DENIED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Florida). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of February 11, 1994, the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of 
the majority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss with my colleagues 
the subject of China.
  As you know, recently Secretary Christopher made a trip there. I want 
to rise in support of the actions that he took on that trip. He very 
forthrightly presented the Clinton administration proposal. He 
delivered to the leadership in Beijing a letter, signed by 275 of our 
colleagues, which showed support for the Clinton administration 
Executive order basing renewal of most-favored-nation status on 
improvement of human rights in China.
  This is an issue that has been before this Congress for a number of 
years. Last year we were poised to send a piece of legislation to the 
President of the United States. Instead, the President suggested an 
Executive order which, though our concerns include the trade imbalance 
with China, the proliferation and human rights issues, in the Executive 
order the President said that he would deal with proliferation and 
trade under the laws that we had in existence and that he would 
condition the renewal of MFN on the reasonable and achievable 
conditions contained in that Executive order.
  Secretary Christopher brought that message to China. He had the 
support of the Members of this House of Representatives in doing so.
  Tonight some of my colleagues have gathered here to talk about the 
trip, talk about the Executive order, and to talk about issues of our 
concern in our relationship with China.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] has been 
patiently waiting. I know he is going to quickly take the floor to 
address the House on this issue of Secretary Christopher's trip.
  Mr. Speaker, he has been a leader in the House of Representatives on 
many issues. A subject of particular concern to him where he has 
educated Members is on the issue of proliferation. As you know, Mr. 
Speaker, the Clinton administration has issued sanctions against China 
for the proliferation of weapons. Let me be very specific: The delivery 
systems to Pakistan. This is a very dangerous action on the part of the 
Chinese.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, who, as I mentioned, has been a leader on this issue.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlewoman for having this special order, 
and I thank her for conducting it tonight. I again compliment her for 
her nationally and internationally recognized leadership on the subject 
of human rights in China.
  You know, one of the problems that historically has been the issue of 
our relationship not only with China but also with the former Warsaw-
bloc countries is that while we raise and sanctify a certain set of 
issues, human rights, and nonproliferation of weapons, as the ultimate 
primary objectives of our foreign policy, the truth of the matter is 
that we have always allowed those objectives to be subordinated to the 
short-term political or diplomatic agenda of a particular President or 
Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense.
  Now, finally, Warren Christopher has made the decision that he will 
stand up on human rights, he will deal with the Chinese in a way which 
presents the American perspective on the subject.
  And what do we hear from critics? We hear that it could jeopardize 
trade with China, it could jeopardize the economic or political short-
term interests that we have with this country, and we, as a result, 
should be more careful, and the Secretary should be more careful if in 
fact the United States is not going to stand up for those principles 
which they believe in.
  My belief is that the Secretary should be complimented, that rather 
than being undermined, he should be praised.

  Just in the last week, we have learned that the Chinese have 
exported, just in the past year, 1 million semiautomatic military-style 
rifles into the United States. On average, they are selling on the 
streets of America for $100 to $130 apiece. So the very same Chinese 
Government which proliferates nuclear materials around the globe, which 
still engages in human rights abuses domestically within their own 
country, now we find that in addition to being the butchers of Beijing, 
they also are, in fact, leading a butchery on the streets of America; 1 
million semiautomatic rifles, a very slight but important loophole 
constructed in a 1989 regulation set by the Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms Agency, which the Chinese Government is exploiting.
  Now listen to this.

                              {time}  2150

  Who is running this trade into our country?
  Interesting. It happens to be the Chinese secret service and the 
Chinese Army.
  Where do the revenues for the sales go?
  They go back to the Chinese secret service and to the Chinese Army 
for their use.
  Now what a circle being constructed by these butchers of Beijing that 
now infects our society with 1 million assault weapons, and unless we 
close this loophole, by the way, we will see a proliferation of these 
weapons on the streets of our country.
  My feeling is that we have to be honest with the Chinese, and we also 
have to be willing to walk away from some potential economic or 
political short-term benefits if, in fact, human rights and nuclear and 
conventional weapons proliferation is more important to our country, 
and I think that Warren Christopher is a good man who took American 
values and presented them to the Chinese Government in an honest way, 
and he needs to be praised, and I think that the Chinese Government 
should understand that to a very large extent the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] holds the balance of power in her hands with 
regard to how we are going to be handling our economic relationship 
with them over the next several years and that they should listen very 
carefully to her and to Warren Christopher as they tell that Government 
how important human rights and respect for human dignity is to the 
people of the United States of America.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Markey] for his remarks. Certainly the dangers that he described 
in the export of these slightly modified AK-47 rifles poses a danger on 
the streets of America in addition to the danger from the proliferation 
of weapons worldwide. Our policy should be to make the trade fairer, 
the world safer, and the people freer. And so in terms of what he had 
to say about my role in all of this, Mr. Speaker, it is not my role. I 
have a great interest in it, but Congress, especially this House of 
Representatives, has been a bulwark of support for promoting democratic 
values, American values, but they are international values, not just 
American. And some of the issues that have built the coalition in this 
Congress are issues of proliferation, the issue of trade violations and 
the issue of human rights.

  I am now pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] 
who is the Chair of the Tibetan Caucus in the House of Representatives. 
This is an issue of concern to many people in the House and Senate, and 
I thank him for his leadership on it and human rights, not only in 
China and Tibet, but throughout the world. So, I yield to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] for yielding to me, and I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
arranging this special order tonight. I commend her for her dedicated 
leadership on the issue of human rights in China and occupied Tibet.
  Mr. Speaker, the New York Times ran a front page article today 
entitled, ``Beijing Says It Could Live Well Even If U.S. Trade Was Cut 
Off.'' That article states that Communist China's Foreign Minister said 
this weekend that the importance of China's trade with the United 
States has been overstated, and that China was prepared to return to 
the cold war status of no trade relations with Washington if the 
dispute over China's human rights record could not be resolved. Mr. 
Speaker, if the Chinese Government does not make significant progress 
in human rights as defined by President Clinton's Executive order, then 
the Foreign Minister will have an opportunity to prove his point. 
Candidate Clinton took a very strong opposition against President Bush 
on this issue. As one of the many Republicans who did not support the 
former administration on MFN, I want this administration to know that 
many of us in the Congress will be very closely monitoring President 
Clinton's action on this issue.
  It is difficult to perceive how the Chinese Government could be 
extended MFN again in June. If we look at only one of the previously 
adopted conditions, religious freedom for example, laid down in the 
administration's Executive order, it becomes apparent that the Clinton 
administration will have to be highly imaginative in certifying any 
progress in that area.
  Religious worshipers in China and Tibet continue to suffer from 
government-sponsored persecution. In early February, China took its 
first reported action to enforce new rules aimed at stopping activities 
by foreign missionaries. It expelled seven overseas evangelists from 
Henan Province. Late last year, relatives of Bishop Stephen Liu Difen--
after being summoned to pick up their uncle--found him lying 
unconscious in a hospital, where he died 3 days later. When they 
dressed his remains for burial, they were horrified to discover 
puncture wounds all over his body. Last year Bishop Joseph Fan of Hubei 
also died while incommunicado in administrative detention, and showed 
bruises on his body and injury to his legs.
  Just a little over 1 month ago, Chinese authorities arrested three 
Catholic bishops, seven underground Catholic priests and seven 
evangelical house-church preachers. At least six of them have been 
sentenced to ``reform through labor'' for between 1 and 3 years, and at 
least five of these six sentences were handed down administratively--
i.e., without trial or other due process guarantees. And, Christian 
Solidarity International reported last month that one of their pastors 
was recently killed by authorities in Hubei Province.
  In Tibet, on February 12, nuns, including a 15-year-old girl, were 
given sentences of up to 7 years in prison for demonstrating in June 
1993. In addition, in late February, the sentences of 14 other nuns who 
were already in prison were doubled and tripled for singing pro-
independence songs in prisons.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, under these tyrannical conditions, if the 
Chinese Foreign Minister believes he can live without us, I believe the 
feeling in this Congress is mutual.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] for his very eloquent remarks and putting in perspective what 
the Chinese have at stake here. I think that the references that the 
gentleman has made to religious persecution are very important. They 
are important to the American people, and the list, as the gentleman 
knows, goes on and on both in China and in Tibet, and it is for that 
reason, and that is just one of the reasons, that we have very serious 
concerns about China making overall significant progress in meeting the 
conditions of MFN in an executive order relating to the Uniform 
Declaration of Human Rights.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are asking China to do is almost everything is 
something they are a party to already. They were founders of the United 
Nations. They signed the Declaration of Human Rights, and it is that 
Declaration of Human Rights that we are asking them to respect. Their 
Constitution even guarantees some rights to their people, and it is 
that Constitution that we are asking them to respect in regard to 
accounting for prisoners arrested for speaking out peacefully at the 
time of Tiananmen Square and Democracy Wall.
  I next, Mr. Speaker, will yield to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Rose]. He has been a relentless advocate in the Congress on the 
issue of Tibet. He has a personal friendship because of his leadership 
with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and he has educated the Members of 
this body and the country on what is happening there, and how we can 
ignore it I do not know. But suffice to say that His Holiness 
recognizes both the role of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] 
and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose], and I hope that the 
American people will become more aware of the terrible tragedy that is 
Tibet and the opportunity that this executive order presents for 
improving that unfortunate situation.
  So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield with great respect and admiration 
to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose].

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleague from California to commend 
the current administration and Secretary of State Warren Christopher 
for their firm and clear stand on human rights in China and Tibet. I 
will put the remainder of my comments in the Record.
  But I want to make a few comments about the things that the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] said, along with many of her 
colleagues and my friend Ben Gilman, who came here many years ago with 
me in the 93d Congress and who shares with me our concern about human 
rights in Tibet, and share an article recently in the Los Angeles Times 
by Mr. Fang Lizhi, the very prominent dissident that, after the 
Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4, 1989, took asylum in the embassy 
in Beijing and stayed there until the summer of 1990.
  In this March 16 article in the L.A. Times, it says:

       As much as President Clinton may want to satisfy American 
     businessmen and create jobs in a time of fledgling economic 
     recovery, it would be shortsighted to sell East Asia down the 
     tube in the bargain.

  I am very optimistic about what I think the President is going to do. 
I really believe from conversations that I have had with him last week, 
and he did not tell me directly what he was going to do, with members 
of his Cabinet who feel very close to him, I believe our President is 
going to deny MFN status to China. Here we stand several months before 
that final decision, but I firmly believe if the decision were today, 
he would say no to a continuation of MFN.
  When I go to Russia, my colleagues in the Russian Parliament say to 
me, ``America preaches to us that we must have institutions of self-
government in Russia before we can truly understand and learn the 
capitalist system.'' They say to me, ``Why don't you say that to the 
Chinese? Why is it that you participate in vigorous trade with China, 
when they have the kind of dictatorship that they do in that country 
and not even the hint of Democratic self-government?''
  It would be nice if I had a straight answer to give my friends in 
Russia, but the simple truth is that we are hypocrites. We see a market 
to exploit, American business sees opportunities to make a great deal 
of money with both an expanding market and with cheap labor, and the 
principles of Jefferson and Madison go out the window.

  But the business community says to those of us who feel this way, 
that China is not deserving of MFN, why not do business with a country 
that needs our help and that needs us to buy things from them and to 
sell us things?
  MFN is a gift from this country. It is a very special relationship 
with a nation that was founded over 200 years ago on the basic premise 
that our reason for being was to preserve freedom and liberty in a 
world that had little knowledge of freedom and liberty.
  To me, standing up for human rights as a precondition to granting MFN 
to any country in the world is purely and simply a matter of being true 
to our roots, true to our heritage.
  There is no other country on the face of this planet that has the 
same heritage about freedom and liberty that we have. When Lafayette 
went back to France after the revolution, he said to the world in a 
speech, ``Liberty and freedom have found a home, and it is in 
America.'' And if Bill Clinton denies MFN, as I believe and hope that 
he will, in the absence of substantial progress in both Tibet and China 
in the area of MFN, Bill Clinton will be following the true course that 
this nation has always taken.
  The Dalai Lama says that he is a simple monk, that he comes to us in 
American and asks that we understand the plight of Tibetans. I have 
said that this man has asked us to shine the light of freedom in his 
country of Tibet, and for us to stand up for our heritage.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleague from New York, Mr. Gilman, and my 
colleague from California, Ms. Pelosi, who believe as I do that human 
rights and America standing true and tall for tits heritage, are more 
important than making money off the backs of cheap worker labor. I 
thank you for this special order.
  The gentlewoman from California [Mr. Pelosi], who has gone to the 
well time and time again, has gone to the President personally time and 
time again, who has gone to Cabinet members, friends that she has known 
for years time and time again when being social and nice, would be more 
pleasant, but who has spent her political capital on saying to the 
world, human rights in China must come before big business concerns. My 
hat is off to you, Ms. Pelosi. You are a beacon of honor, of dignity, 
of freedom and liberty for all of us to admire.
  So Mr. Gilman and I and you as well may have known His Holiness the 
Dalai Lama for many years, but I want to salute you tonight for your 
tireless effort in behalf of freedom and justice in China. I thank you 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join my colleague from California to 
commend the current administration and Secretary of State Warren 
Christopher for their firm and clear stand on human rights in China and 
Tibet.
  Since the 1987 massacre of Tibetan demonstrators by Chinese 
occupation forces in Lhasa, Tibet, the United States policy of 
constructive engagement through trade has not yielded even the 
slightest improvement of human rights conditions in China or Tibet. 
United States business interests were the prime reason for not imposing 
MFN sanctions in 1987; as they were after the 1988 killing of scores of 
Buddhist protesters in Tibet's holiest shrine and the 1989 Tiananmen 
Square massacre in which thousands of people were brutally destroyed by 
the so-called enlightened, modernizing, and trade-oriented leadership 
in Beijing.
  Under the cover of constructive engagement with Beijing, many U.S. 
corporations collude with a Communist tyranny to exploit a workforce 
that lives without freedom, without a voice and without mercy. In the 
absence of decisive action to advance the cause of democracy in China, 
our investments only serve to bolster a regime that is in direct 
contradiction to the funding principles of our Nation.
  My message today is that it is not President Clinton not is it 
Secretary of State Warren Christopher that deserve to be scorned. The 
Administration and many of us here in Congress wish to end tyranny; not 
to make excuses for Beijing or to ignore injustice. Those parties that 
deserve our condemnation are the Chinese Government which grossly 
abuses even the most fundamental human rights and those United States 
businesses entities which neglect human rights in their blind and 
unprincipled pursuit of the dollar.
  Individuals who press for delinking MFN and human rights offer no 
real alternatives to bring about positive change in China. Since the 
1987 massacre of peaceful Tibetan demonstrators, many United States 
business interests and their allies in Washington and Beijing have 
engineered a United States Government policy that has placed trade over 
human rights. For 7 years, this approach has failed. It is time to 
change our course of action with the Chinese Government. The future of 
Asia and the trade of the United States should be inextricably linked 
to the nurturing and development of human rights and democracy.
  I fully support the decision by this Congress and by President 
Clinton to link China's MFN-trading status with substantial progress in 
human rights in China and Tibet. I commend the President for his 
faithful implementation of this policy and for the administration's 
strong stance with Beijing. Should June come without substantial human 
rights progress in China and without actions to preserve the culture of 
Tibet, I will support the President in his decision to revoke Beijing's 
preferential trade status.

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 16, 1994]

                          Standing Up to China

       When dealing with China, it sometimes helps to see matters 
     through Chinese eyes. As Beijing views it, a great power must 
     always insist on being treated with due respect. To behave 
     otherwise is to acknowledge inferiority and therefore to 
     forfeit influence.
       During Secretary of State Christopher's weekend visit to 
     Beijing, Chinese leaders aggressively asserted what they see 
     as the prerogatives of China. They deliberately humiliated 
     America's highest-ranking diplomat by temporarily rounding up 
     some of the country's most prominent dissidents, and by 
     detaining several Western correspondents trying to report on 
     the crackdown.
       The purpose of the roundup was to prevent Mr. Christopher 
     from hearing any independent views on the human rights issues 
     he is required to evaluate before making a recommendation by 
     June on renewing China's access to the most favorable 
     American tariff schedules.
       For the sake of a healthy U.S.-China relationship, 
     Washington is now obliged to respond with equal firmness. To 
     kowtow to Chinese bullying would be to repeat the mistakes of 
     the Bush Administration, which squandered American influence 
     by its consistent refusal to press human rights issues. That 
     was what first provoked Congress to force annual showdowns 
     over linking continuation of China's trade privileges to 
     progress on human rights.
       The Clinton Administration needs instead to be forthright 
     about its continued determination to insist on human rights 
     progress. It especially needs to dispel China's impression 
     that it can exploit differences between various policy makers 
     in the Administration, Congress and the business community. 
     Such miscalculation can only increase the likelihood of a 
     rupture both sides would prefer to avoid.
       China, despite its pose of cool indifference, desperately 
     needs the $20 billion hard currency surplus it earns from its 
     trade with the U.S. to carry on with its ambitious economic 
     development plans. And U.S. business frankly wants to 
     maintain access to one of the world's largest and fastest-
     growing economies. For their part, human rights advocates 
     recognize that China's continued economic growth and openness 
     contribute to domestic pressures for more responsive, less 
     dictatorial government.
       Even so, the Clinton Administration has a clear right under 
     international law, and an obligation under U.S. law, to link 
     China's trade status to minimum human rights goals. The 
     Administration has demanded nothing unreasonable or 
     demeaning, for the most part asking only compliance with 
     international agreements to which China already subscribes. 
     Washington seeks an end to the export of goods produced by 
     slave labor, freer emigration for relatives of exiles and 
     detainees, humane and lawful treatment of prisoners, and 
     respect for the cultural traditions of Tibet. On most of 
     these issues it has not set rigid benchmarks but is looking 
     for ``overall significant progress.''
       The Administration can use the remaining two and a half 
     months provided by last year's executive order to give China 
     the greatest possible incentive to demonstrate progress. But 
     Mr. Clinton must make clear that if Beijing continues to try 
     to blow past the whole issue with deliberate human rights 
     provocations, it will be making a very big mistake.
                                  ____


              [From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 16, 1994]

      Calling Beijing's Bluff: Put Universal Values Ahead of Trade

                            (By Fang Lizhi)

       China's leaders have slammed the door from the inside and, 
     unless the United States responds now with the revocation of 
     most-favored-nation trade status, Beijing will see the United 
     States as the ``paper tiger'' that Mao always said it was.
       Failure to react to China's intransigence on human rights 
     will show to the East what the failure to act in Bosnia has 
     meant elsewhere. When push comes to shove, the West does not 
     have the will to stand up for the values it purports to stand 
     for.
       That perception will be dangerous in the long run. Feeling 
     free to flout human rights, develop its military might and 
     sell weapons to the world in any way it sees fit, an 
     economically powerful China will then pose a threat to the 
     stability of all of East Asia.
       By detaining and harassing dissidents on the eve of the 
     visit by Secretary of State Warren Christopher, whose very 
     purpose was to discuss human rights, China's rulers were 
     trying to show their strength and demonstrate that they will 
     not be bullied by the West. They were trying to show that 
     they will not blithely surrender to a new hierarchy of the 
     world order with the United States on top. When Chinese 
     leaders ignored a U.S. plea several months ago not to test a 
     nuclear device, thus upsetting a worldwide moratorium on 
     testing, they were putting the United States itself to a test 
     of wills.
       Their affront to Secretary Christopher in recent days was 
     another test of that sort, which they think they can get away 
     with because of President Clinton's political troubles over 
     the Whitewater scandal. China's rulers are banking on 
     Clinton's perceived political weakness and America's 
     commercial interests in trade with China to win their bluff.
       Already, the argument is common in business circles that 
     China is ``different'' from the West because of its 
     Confucian culture and thus should not be subject to the 
     same human-rights standards as the rest of the world. 
     Well, Taiwan is a Confucian society and its human-rights 
     record is far better than Beijing's.
       The truth is that China's leaders, starting with Deng Xiao 
     Ping, are more Leninist than Confucian. Their power is based 
     not on learned authority or respect for elders, but on the 
     brutal ideology of one-party rule.
       No matter how open the market has become, China's communist 
     rulers have not departed one iota from this principle. They 
     fully understand that to allow the kind of freedom implied by 
     the American pressure for human rights is a direct threat to 
     their hold on power.
       The other common argument against revoking MFN status for 
     human-rights reasons is that greater trade with the United 
     States will bring a more generalized prosperity to China and 
     that, in turn, will be the basis for more widespread 
     democratic practices. Here we need only remind ourselves 
     that, in addition to the Leninist element, China's rulers are 
     also invoking nationalism to protect themselves. And, as 
     Japan and Germany bloodily illustrated in this century, 
     nationalism plus economic might without human rights is not 
     the road to democracy; it is the road to fascism.
       Former President Richard M. Nixon has often said that good 
     relations must be maintained with China because the West can 
     be better heard talking quietly inside Zhongnanghai (the 
     compound near the Forbidden City where China's leaders live 
     and work) than shouting from beyond the Great Wall. That may 
     have worked at some point in the past, and it may be true at 
     some point in the future.
       For now, though, China's leaders aren't listening to voices 
     from either location. The best way to get them to listen is 
     to revoke MFN status while maintaining diplomatic relations 
     so that channels of communication remain open. We must 
     remember that MFN status did not precede diplomatic 
     relations. It was the other way around. First, Nixon met with 
     Mao in the early 1970s; then, later on, MFN status was 
     bestowed.
       In the end, China will recognize its own interests and 
     return to the table. To maintain MFN relations with China 
     under the current circumstances is tantamount to letting up 
     on the pressure. If that pressure is gone, China's leaders 
     will do anything. Harassment of dissidents will be the least 
     of their crimes.
       From my perspective, the current confrontation between the 
     United States and China is akin to the Cuban missile crisis 
     during the Cold War. If the United States had not forced the 
     Soviet Union to back down in Cuba, global stability would 
     have been threatened. If the world wants stability in East 
     Asia over the longer term, as that region becomes an economic 
     powerhouse, China's bluff must be called today.
       As much as President Clinton may want to satisfy America's 
     businessmen and create jobs in a time of fledgling economic 
     recovery, it would be shortsighted to sell East Asia down the 
     tube in the bargain. What is at stake today is the future 
     stability of East Asia and the credibility of the West in 
     defending the values that are the essence of its leadership 
     role on the world stage.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his very important remarks and 
kind remarks at the end. I accept any compliments from my colleagues on 
this issue on behalf of the congressional working group on China, of 
which my colleagues are members, and for the hard work that has been 
done, both Member to Member here and in working with some of the 
outside groups and in helping to get some people free who are in China.
  One of the ones that Mr. Rose mentioned, Fang Lizhi, is a great 
leader for democratic principles in the world. Working in this House of 
Representatives, I have the honor, as you do, Mr. Speaker, of being a 
colleague to many great people who care very much about our country and 
its values and its principles and its well-being. Sometimes on issues 
we have the opportunity to work with exceptional people in history even 
outside of this great body.
  I must say, and I think my colleagues would share the view, that one 
of the great rewards of this effort that we have made is that we have 
been able to work with people who are colleagues not to us, but to our 
Founding Fathers, who with great courage have spoken out for democracy 
in their oppressive country and at risk to their personal security and 
in some cases to that of their families.
  One such individual is Fang Lizhi. Mr. Rose mentioned him in his 
remarks. He cited a recent op-ed that Prof. Fang Lizhi had in the Los 
Angeles Times. I would like to read from another part of his statement.
  To reiterate, as Mr. Rose said, Dr. Fang Lizhi is an astrophysicist 
who was in China. He and his wife were great leaders in the pro-
democracy movement. At the time of Tiananmen Square they were sought by 
the Chinese authorities. They fled to the American Embassy where they 
received refuge. They remained there for over 1 year and then were 
expelled from the country. But through the good offices of the American 
Embassy, they were able to safely come to the United States.
  Doctor Fang Lizhi is an astrophysicist, a highly regarded scientist. 
But in addition to that, he has advanced the cause of democracy, pro-
democratic principles in China.
  In his article he says, giving some advice, Prof. Fang Lizhi has 
taken the long view on the China issue, as I am sure President Clinton 
will do. In his article he said the Chinese do not think that we will 
live up to our values. Paper tiger, that is what Mao Tse-tung called 
us, and after Tiananmen Square, the butchers of Beijing referred to us 
again. They said we will not do anything. They are driven by money and 
they are a paper tiger when they want to talk about values and 
democratic ideals.
  I quote Prof. Fang Lizhi when he says that perception will be 
dangerous in the long run. Feeling free to flout human rights, develop 
its military might and sell weapons to the world in any way they see 
fit, an economically powerful China will then pose a threat to the 
stability of East Asia, as Mr. Rose mentioned.

                              {time}  2210

  It goes on to say:

       Although the argument in business circles is that China is 
     different from the West because of its Confucian culture and 
     thus should not be subjected to the same human rights 
     standards of the rest of the world, the truth is that China's 
     leaders, starting with Deng Xiaoping, are more Leninist than 
     Confucian. Their power is based not on learned authority or 
     respect for elders but on the brutal ideology of one party 
     rule. China's present leadership is a corrupt remnant 
     leftover from communism.

  Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting article, and I will read more 
from it in the days ahead.
  I would also like to point out that I believe one of our colleagues 
has sent that out as a ``Dear Colleague.'' Our colleagues should be 
aware of it. That is what Dr. Fang Lizhi says.
  I would like to quote, because so much has been said about what the 
business community thinks about this issue and how the business 
community treated Secretary Christopher in Beijing. Frankly, I thought 
that the Chinese discourtesies to Secretary Christopher were appalling, 
but they were not surprising. It is a regular routine of the Chinese to 
be harsh in the beginning, mellow out a bit and then make sure that 
some communication takes place. Because, indeed, as Mr. Gilman said, 
they do need access to our markets. If they want to pretend that they 
do not, they may find out just how much they do. But let us assume for 
a moment, and I know I am speaking for my own self, that we would all 
like to see most favored nation status renewed, but only if they meet 
the conditions of MFN.
  I said the Chinese behavior was appalling. Equally appalling, if not 
more so, I believe, is the behavior of the business community in China, 
the United States Chamber in Beijing. While it is obviously perfectly 
appropriate for all of us to disagree on approach and tactic, we 
certainly had hoped at the very least as a courtesy to our Secretary of 
State, once he had been discourteously treated by the Chinese regime, 
that they would have stood by him in terms of the message he brought 
about human rights.
  Would it not have been wonderful to see the American business 
community in Beijing say, while we disagree, Mr. Secretary, with the 
policy and the approach and the use of MFN, we want to remove all doubt 
from anybody's mind that we stand with you in advancing American values 
and promoting human rights. Our differences are not about that.

  Instead, they chose to lecture the Secretary of State, and I thought 
in an inappropriate way.
  Let me put the words in someone else's writings. There is a writer 
for the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Flanigan, a business writer for the Los 
Angeles Times. He writes:

       Right now China's leaders are pushing American companies to 
     lobby the U.S. Government, and U.S. business seems a bit too 
     ready to cooperate. Some of them lectured Secretary 
     Christopher at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at Beijing, 
     criticizing his emphasis on human rights.

  And he calls--this business writer for the Los Angeles Times, not 
this prodemocratic advocate, this business writer for the Los Angeles 
Times--he called that action ``distasteful, disloyal and dumb.''
  ``Aside from morality, there is good economic reason for U.S. 
emphasis on democratic reforms and human rights.''
  Mr. Speaker, I will include Mr. Flanigan's article in the Record.
  Just a few days before Mr. Christopher arrived in Beijing, the 
Chinese engaged in a roundup of dissidents. One of the Chinese leaders 
very candidly said, at the end of Mr. Christopher's visit, we would not 
have rounded them up, if we thought you were not going to want to talk 
to them.
  Here was an admission on the part of a Chinese leader that there was 
no cause to round these people up. They had not broken the law, but for 
fear that Secretary Christopher might speak with them and hear their 
view of what was going on in China. Anyway, my point is, Mr. Speaker, 
that just before Secretary Christopher got there, seven leading Chinese 
dissidents very courageously came forward and wrote a letter to the 
Beijing leadership expressing their concern about the rounding up of 
the other dissidents.
  I believe that these seven dissidents who wrote the letter were 
encouraged by the Congress of the United States, by our President of 
the United States and the visit of Secretary Christopher that the world 
was watching and that there was some sense of security in their coming 
forth with their message.
  I also believed that they were encouraged by the actions of Wei 
Jingsheng who was considered the leading dissident in China. He served 
a long, long sentence for criticizing Deng Xiaoping. He was released a 
few months before his turn was up in order to make points, the Chinese 
readily admit, before the Olympic Committee vote on assigning the 
Olympics, which Beijing, as you know, wanted. And in their cynical act, 
they released him a few months sooner, but they rearrested him before 
Secretary Christopher came.
  They have since released him, but I think that after serving nearly 
14 years in prison for attempting to speak freely, for speaking his 
mind, it did not happen to be freely, because he went to jail for it, 
even after coming out of prison he still spoke about human rights and 
promoting democratic principles and criticized the regime. So he has 
been in and out of prison since even the last few months.
  But anyway, these seven dissidents, as I say, encouraged by our 
position and by particularly Wei Jingsheng, that courageous man, they 
wrote a letter, an appeal and a warning from seven Chinese.
  ``The following is the text of a petition to the Government issued 
today by a group of Chinese intellectuals,'' and it is translated by 
the New York Times.''

       So lately there have been many incidents in which people 
     have been arrested or detained in Beijing and Shanghai for 
     interrogation because of their ideas and their exercise of 
     free speech. World public opinion has reacted strongly. 
     People of insight who are concerned with the fate of the 
     Nation and who are dedicated to the cause of our country's 
     modernization are shocked, upset and worried. In looking at 
     history, we find that modern civilization began when humans 
     awoke to eliminating the ideological confinement of ancient 
     and medieval dictatorship and to becoming aware that humans 
     should have independent personalities and dignity and enjoy 
     unalienable and inviolate basic rights, the first of which is 
     freedom of ideas and speech. To talk about modernization 
     without mentioning human rights is like climbing a tree to 
     catch a fish. Two hundred and five years ago, the French 
     Declaration of Rights of Man stated clearly that being 
     ignorant, neglectful and disdainful of human rights is the 
     sole cause of the general public's misfortune and corruption 
     in government. China's history and reality have verified that 
     long-standing truth.
       In the 1940's, with the victory over the fascists, it 
     became common thinking for people the world over to 
     diligently seek an end to preventing human rights. In 1948, 
     the United Nations adopted the Declaration of Universal Human 
     rights,

  I depart from the letter for a moment to make the point, Mr. Speaker, 
that what we are talking about in Executive order and on this floor is 
not about inflicting American views on China. It is about the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights and the idea that we subscribe to that 
human rights know no boundary. They are universal.

                              {time}  2220

  China, by the way, is a signatory to the declaration of human rights, 
as I mentioned earlier.
  The letter goes on to list what those rights are, which are basically 
freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right of workers 
to organize.

       China was a founder of the United Nations, and is a member 
     of the Security Council. It should be a pioneer in abiding by 
     all United Nations conventions instead of a target of 
     international blame because of the issue of domestic human 
     rights.
       For this reason, we appeal to the authorities to bravely 
     end our country's history of punishing people for their 
     ideas, speeches and writings, and release all those 
     imprisoned because of their ideas and speeches.
       We believe that only after human rights are respected and 
     all rights of citizens are secure will society achieve true 
     stability. Otherwise contradictions will intensify, causing 
     unmanageable turmoil.

  It was signed by seven intellectuals, seven dissidents in China. One 
of them, Xu Lianying, is a gentleman who translated the works of Albert 
Einstein. We are talking about some of the great minds of China, who 
understand that a society can only succeed if free inquiry is allowed 
to happen, and freedom of speech.
  One of the tragedies in China is that many of these dissidents, when 
they are imprisoned and they have to sit on a stool for 14 hours a day 
and they are tortured and all of the rest, one of the reasons they are 
tortured is they will not tell their guards and torturers what they are 
thinking, so it is not only that you cannot speak freely when you are 
living in China, or you cannot exercise the right of freedom of the 
press or worship or assembly or the right of thought. They insist on 
knowing what you are thinking, so that they can try to change your 
mind.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a wholesome attitude, I think anyone would 
agree.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to--I think he will save this one until we 
get toward the end. Mr. Speaker, I just want to get back to where we 
started on this. I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for 
staying here. I know the hour is late.
  I said earlier, very briefly, that how we got to where we are in 
these last couple of months before the President must make an 
announcement about China-MFN, many business people will say, 
``Everybody has MFN, so why should not China?''
  First of all, everyone does not, and China does not unless by June 3 
of each year the President requests a special waiver granting most 
favored nation status to China. This is because China is still 
considered a centralized economy, and part of our most favored nation 
status law has in it the Jackson-Vanik requirement. It is on the basis 
of that that we base the conditionality on human rights, improvement in 
human rights for the renewal MFN.
  Mr. Speaker, in the Congress of the United States, in both houses, we 
have had overwhelming votes in support of conditioning MFN. In fact, we 
have votes in favor of revoking most favored nation status, but I think 
generally most people say we want MFN to continue if we can use it as 
leverage to improve the situation in China.
  Mr. Speaker, however, President Bush vetoed the bill every year and 
we could not override on the Senate side. We always did on the House 
side, had the votes, but not on the Senate side; but nonetheless, 
always a strong, strong majority in favor of conditioning MFN.

  Mr. Speaker, Senator Mitchell on the Senate side, if I may refer to 
the Senate side, and I in the House, introduced the legislation last 
year. President Clinton preferred the executive order, and frankly it 
was a good idea, I think, that the administration had, because it gave 
us the opportunity to speak with one voice, the House, the Congress, 
and the administration, on a policy which contained reasonable and 
achievable conditions for the renewal of MFN. We must obey our law 
about Jackson-Vanik, freedom of emigration, and the laws prohibiting 
prison labor for export. Those conditions we could not weaken. They are 
American law, so they are ``must meet'' conditions.
  In addition to that, the President's executive order said that China 
must make overall significant progress, which gives the President some 
latitude, and frankly the Chinese some latitude, too, to improve human 
rights in China and Tibet; specifically, that they should move toward 
abiding by the universal declaration of human rights of the U.N., of 
which they are signers; that they must stop jamming Voice of America, 
and they told Secretary Christopher on his visit that they were not 
intentionally jamming Voice of America but there were some technical 
difficulties that made the jamming happen, so hopefully we can work out 
those technical difficulties. That does not seem to be a big problem to 
the Chinese, as they said to Secretary Christopher. We will see in the 
implementation of removing the technicalities, the technical 
difficulties.
  They have to cease to threaten the culture of Tibet, and one form 
that could take would be to agree to meet with His Holiness, the Dalai 
Lama, as he has requested. They said they do not want to talk to him 
about independence. Since I have been in the Congress, since 1987, he 
has been talking about autonomy, not independence, and many of us here 
who worked on the Tibet issue believe that there is progress to be made 
there that is reasonable and achievable.
  It also talks about the--I mentioned the prison labor, but it talks 
about accounting for and releasing those people arrested in Tienenmen 
Square and Democracy Wall, while peacefully demonstrating. In addition 
to that, that relates to the declaration of human rights, because it 
talks about freedom of speech, press, religion.
  My colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] very carefully 
and scientifically spelled out some of the harsh penalties and the 
violations of people's right of freedom of worship in China, as I said 
earlier. That is part of it. We cannot go into all of it in one special 
order, but it is a very, very, very--an issue of concern to many people 
in the Congress, whether they are--of whatever denomination, as well as 
the repression of the Buddhist priests and nuns in Tibet.
  The point is that the conditions in the most favored nation are 
reasonable and achievable. That is why they are in there. If they were 
not achievable, it would be cynical to put forth an executive order 
that said, ``We are putting forth conditions which are not 
achievable.'' We purposely designed our bill, calibrating it for 
renewal, and the President took some of the conditions that we had and 
put in the bill. As I mentioned earlier, he wisely put the trade issues 
and the proliferation issues in a separate category, where he said we 
would forcefully enforce our laws on that.
  Even though they are not part of the conditions of the bill, they 
were part of the text of the executive order, and for that reason, I 
want to spend a moment on it.
  Mr. Speaker, why do we think we have leverage with the Chinese, and 
what is the situation with trade, United States-Chinese trade?
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the American people, 
particularly American workers, to know that we are--the Chinese, as the 
expression goes, are eating our lunch on trade. They have preferential 
access to our market to the tune of--let me just read from the 
Washington Post--I do not even have to read it, because I know the 
fixtures. There is about 31 billion dollars' worth of trade. Of that, 
they buy about $8 billion from us, and we buy the $31 billion from 
them, giving them a $24 billion trade surplus. That means hard currency 
for the regime to stay in power.
  What the American people and the American worker should know is that 
we have no reciprocal access to the Chinese markets. For the most part, 
most American products made in America are not--do not have market 
access into China. They want aerospace, electronics, wheat, some 
refrigeration. These are good, and those industries have been lobbying 
the Congress and the President for the renewal of MFN without any 
conditions, which is fine for them, but what about the rest of the work 
force in America? Why should our products not have access to the 
Chinese market?
  Mr. Speaker, when we hear people talk about this great, growing 
market, for the most part it is about products made in China. An 
American business goes into China, accesses cheap labor, the minimum 
wage in most areas in China is $24 a month, a month; they access the 
cheap labor, and they want to have access to the Chinese market, or 
they sell those products back into the United States.
  That is the marketplace, but it is not the marketplace if our 
products do not have the nontariff barriers, they do not have the 
access back into China for products made in America. So this whole 
thing about jobs is confined to a very narrow spectrum of jobs to the 
exclusion of a very broad spectrum of the American work force, so there 
is great concern in this body about the issue of trade, and that is 
just about market access.
  In addition to that is the issue of transshipments in which the 
President, the Clinton administration, very forcefully issued, 
threatened to issue sanctions against China at the end of December, and 
guess what, China complied and reached an agreement on transshipments.
  Transshipments means, as most of the Members know, that when a 
country's quota is exhausted--in other words, we allow x amount of 
Chinese sweaters into the United States. If they have exhausted their 
quota, they have filled their quota, they will simply sew in a label 
that says ``made in wherever,'' some other place, probably a place that 
does not make sweaters because they would have already used up their 
quota into the United States, so they transship to another country, but 
they have gotten a little more arrogant and have just been sending them 
directly with the labels, but they are called transshipments for the 
reason I describe.
  This is a billion-dollar business. The United States got the goods, 
literally, on China, and with the threat of sanctions at the end of 
this year, finally, the Chinese came to the table and agreed to 
negotiate, but it was a very tough negotiation, and I frankly think 
that absent this debate on MFN, the Chinese would not have been so 
willing, because they knew this was at risk and at stake.
  Mr. Speaker, the other thing is prison labor for export. We will 
probably have a special thing just on prison labor. This is one of the 
vilest traditions because it is twofold. They round up people. They put 
them in reform through labor camps to reeducate them and change their 
thinking, and then they have them make these products and we say, 
``Those products should not come into the United States.''

                              {time}  2230

  First of all, they are made by prison labor which is against our 
laws. We cannot have our workers competing with slave labor in China.
  But in addition to that, the immorality of having this slave labor, 
of people who are now in the prison labor camps, and the slave labor 
camps, and the reform-through-labor camps, there are people who are 
there for offenses other than expressing their political and religious 
views. But there are those who are there for that reason. So the list 
goes on and on about how they violate our trade relationship.
  The Chinese people's liberation army and its companies have thriving 
businesses in the United States. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Markey, talked about the AK-47s slightly changed just a little bit to 
get through Customs, through some letter that they got from the 
Treasury Department. And we are writing to Secretary Bentsen about 
that. And I think he seems willing to review that issue. But a million 
of those AK-47 rifles are sold on the streets of our country for $129. 
That is about one-tenth of the cost it would be for a similar weapon. 
It has become the weapon of choice for gangs, for drug dealers, for you 
name it.
  We talked about weapons proliferation, and we were really talking 
about nonconventional, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. But 
in this case we are talking about arming to the teeth the teenagers of 
the country. It is cheaper to buy one of those than some of the high-
falutin sneakers that teenagers like today.
  So we have major problems with how they abuse our good nature that we 
have given them.
  Why again do we have the leverage?
  Back at the time of Tiananmen Square in 1989, they were making $6 
billion off of our trade, almost $9 billion in 1990, $12 billion in 
1991, $18 billion in 1992, $24 billion in 1993, and it will be into the 
$30 billions this year of profit they make off of our trade. They do 
not like capitalism. They abhor democracy. But they love money, and 
they need hard currency. It is up to nearly 40 percent of the Chinese 
exports which come to the United States. They need those exports to 
fuel their domestic economy growth.
  We have been told by their trade people that they need to increase 
their exports in order to continue to fuel that growth. So they need 
access to our markets regardless of what their bullying tactics are and 
their brinksmanship has attempted to put forth. Why the fuss? Why have 
they hired many lawyers in Washington, DC? Almost every law firm has 
something going with China. Why have they hired so many public 
relations firms over and over?

  When I was in China once, the Foreign Minister said to me, ``We 
consider MFN your domestic issue. We're not involved in it.'' I said, 
``Well, that's interesting. Then why pay over $1 million to a public 
relations firm to lobby Congress to defeat the override of the 
President's veto if you consider it such a domestic issue?''
  It is not a domestic issue for them. It is just not the United 
States, it is a domestic issue for them in their own country.
  Sure, there are human rights violations all throughout the world. But 
when we have an opportunity to make a real difference in a country 
about how it treats its people, and how it allows freedom of speech and 
thought and religion, et cetera, and we do not use that leverage, then 
we lose the moral authority to go out and to say to people, ``You 
should correct your human rights,'' because what we were saying if we 
walk away from the situation is we want to promote human rights, but we 
do not want to do it if there is any squawking from the business 
community.
  And we do not want to do it if the other country objects. Well I 
mean, we are a very mature democracy.
  We say that promoting human rights and democratic principles is part 
of our foreign policy, and indeed President Clinton, I am very proud to 
say, has reinforced that message. That is why I am so very, very proud 
of Secretary Christopher. He went there to deliver a message. He was 
strong enough to take what was inevitable from the Chinese, and anybody 
who has dealt with them a long time knows that this is act one, bully; 
act two, soften; act three, let us sit down and talk. He had enough 
self-confidence and the strength of his commitment to the promotion of 
human rights throughout the world that he was the person to do the job. 
And I am proud that he did it.
  The third issue that I touched on, and it was the issue of 
proliferation and that the Clinton administration has issued sanctions 
against China for the sale of the missile technology to Pakistan, 
giving them the capacity to launch a nuclear weapon. It seems ironic 
that everybody says oh, we cannot lift MFN in China or even threaten 
to, because they will not cooperate with our policy as far as North 
Korea is concerned and their developing a weapon. Well China has no 
interest in a nuclear Korean Peninsula. They have every interest in it 
being non-nuclear, so South Korea decides now that it wants a weapon if 
North Korea does, and Japan says well, I have to have one if they have 
one. So it is in China's interest to cooperate on North Korea.

  But at the same time people are saying we need their help there, they 
are forgetting conveniently that China is part of the problem by 
proliferating weapons to non-safeguarded countries, weapons that are 
very serious, and which our law requires sanctions, for which I am 
pleased that the Clinton administration did.
  Of course, obviously I could talk all night. I have a lot to say 
about this, as do many of our other Members, and they will be in the 
nights ahead. But I through it was important, as our colleagues did, 
that we stand up and say thank you, Mr. Christopher, for having the 
courage of your convictions, for being willing to come back here and 
take the attacks of the new China lobby in Washington, DC, including, 
may I say, some former Secretaries of State who made their reputation 
and their name as a part of the public sector in this country, and who 
are now extensively involved in business deals in China. That is their 
right, and I respect their opinion that they hold that they disagree 
about China MFN. But for them to criticize the Secretary of State for 
standing up for American values, while making big money, and this China 
thing is very big money, now they are personally financially benefiting 
from it, I think it is appalling.
  I think they owe the American people an apology, and I think also the 
press should really point out that while so and so is speaking as a 
former Secretary of State or a former National Security Adviser, he is 
also in theory doing business deals as we speak with China, and there 
is a direct conflict of interest. As I said, they have a right to do 
business, and they have a right to their opinion. The public has a 
right to know what their financial gain is when they speak as a 
Secretary of State and they are privately benefiting from the 
statements they are making.
  I will end, Mr. Speaker, and then we will do this another night and 
in the morning as well. In addition to thanking Secretary Christopher, 
I want to quote from the New York Times editorial this week entitled 
``Standing up to China.'' It supported the conditioning of MFN to 
China, and it says, ``To kowtow to Chinese bullying would be to repeat 
the mistakes of the Bush administration which squandered American 
influence by its consistent refusal to press human rights issues.'' The 
Clinton administration needs instead to be forthright about its 
continued determination to insist on human rights progress.

                              {time}  2240

  China, despite its cool indifference, desperately needs the over $20 
billion hard currency surplus it earns from its trade with the United 
States to carry on with its ambitious economic development plans.
  The Clinton administration has a clear right under international law 
and an obligation under United States law to link China's trade status 
to minimum human rights goals. The administration has demanded nothing 
unreasonable or demeaning, for the most part asking only compliance 
with international agreements to which China already subscribes.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman for her astute, thorough, eloquent 
analysis of the problems between our Nation and the People's Republic 
of China as we consider our trade relations with China.
  I think that what we are saying tonight is not so much China-bashing, 
not so much as trying to prevent favorable trade relations with China, 
but to remind the Chinese people that we have important values that we 
live by in our Nation, important values that other nations have joined 
with us in the Declaration of Human Rights for prevention of this kind 
of tyranny and this kind of atrocities that are being waged in China 
today.
  All we are saying to China by these conditions that we put in the 
prior Executive order that the President so clearly spelled out is 
abide by the international values that we all have for human rights, 
for religion, for equal trading rights, to prevent proliferation of 
arms, and we will be pleased to work with them as an equal trading 
partner. And I hope that those who may be listening tonight 
representing the People's Republic of China will take that as part of 
our important message to them. We want to trade with China. We want to 
be an equal trading partner with them. But, please, abide by these 
principles that we hold so dearly.
  I thank the gentlewoman again for arranging this hour and for her 
eloquent address.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for this 
and for your leadership as the ranking Republican on the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. You bring great honor to this issue by your attention 
to it and the information that you have provided to our colleagues.

  The respect with which you are held in this body is great, and it is 
because of your commitment to basic values and the hard work that you 
do in addition to the pronouncements which many people are willing to 
make, but you match it with hard work, and that is why I believe we 
have a chance to make a difference on this issue.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for her kind words.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank your constituents for allowing you to do this.
  In closing, I would just like to say the past 8 or 9 months, for the 
most part, those of us who have been advocating for this issue over the 
years have been fairly silent. We have not engaged in any China-
bashing. We have held our fire, because we wanted to give the 
President's policy a chance to work, and I believe that the President 
has a good policy, and I give him high marks for his implementation of 
it including Secretary Christopher.
  Make no mistake, I am blessed in my district with a 30-percent Asian-
American community, many of whom are Chinese-Americans. We believe we 
will have a brilliant future with China, diplomatically, politically, 
economically, culturally. I know anybody our age, when we were little 
people, said if you dig a hole in the sand far enough you will reach 
China, and we all felt this mystique and connection about this special 
place.
  We will have a very wonderful relationship with them. This is not 
about China-bashing. The conditions are in the executive order about 
renewal. They are not about revocation. And it is for that reason I 
believe the Chinese will meet the conditions, and I urge my colleagues 
to support Secretary Christopher, and thank them for all the support 
they have given to the President's policy.
  We will be back another evening and perhaps on morning business as 
well.

                          ____________________