[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 68 (Thursday, May 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
THE UNITED STATES AND ASIAN-PACIFIC AMERICANS: A BRIDGE FOR THE PACIFIC 
                                CENTURY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fingerhut). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, as you may know, this month, the month 
of May, is National Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month.
  I, along with the rest of my Asian-Pacific colleagues in Congress, 
have been giving speeches throughout the United States, honoring the 
deep and enduring legacy of those Americans whose roots extend from the 
soil of the nations of the Asia-Pacific. Certainly, the contributions 
of Asian-Pacific Americans have immeasurably enriched our great 
country, which has been blessed with a mosaic of cultural and ethnic 
diversity representing just about every country on this planet.
  Americans of Asian-Pacific descent are the fastest growing 
demographic group in the United States today. Over the last decade, the 
Asian-Pacific American community has more than doubled and this rapid 
growth is projected to extend well into the next century.
  In order to truly appreciate the 9 million Asian-Pacific Americans 
living in the United States today, however, I believe it is necessary 
to attain a perspective on the Asia-Pacific region and its importance 
to America.
  Let me share with you some of the highlights of our current 
relationship with the Asia-Pacific Region, and why it is in our 
national interest to maintain strong economic, social and political 
ties with this dynamic area of the world.


                     A PACIFIC CENTURY PARTNERSHIP

  As we prepare to leave the 20th century and enter what many have 
called the dawning of the ``Pacific century,'' it is imperative for the 
United States to dramatically reassess her foreign policy toward the 
Asia-Pacific region. Having served as a member of the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee for the past 6 years, I have argued that the United 
States has an unhealthy fixation with the affairs of Europe and the 
Middle East.
  This is unfortunate, as it has resulted in America's indifference--
some might even call it failure--to address the serious issues 
affecting our Nation's relationship with the countries of the Asia-
Pacific region. Although President Clinton has placed a higher priority 
on Asia-Pacific policy than prior administrations--and this is 
encouraging--much more needs to be done.
  Almost two-thirds of the world's population resides in Asia and the 
Pacific, and the region accounts for the production of two-thirds of 
the world's gross national product. In this decade and into the next 
century, the Asia-Pacific region will play an increasingly pivotal role 
in the economic, political, strategic and security needs of the world. 
It is evident that it is in our national interest to establish and 
maintain solid, healthy relations with this rapidly developing part of 
the world.


                        THE ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMY

  Japan no longer stands alone as the model of economic excellence in 
the Asia-Pacific. Known as the Four Tigers for their astoundingly rapid 
economic growth--South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore have 
been joined by a new waive of ``Little Dragons''--led by Indonesia, 
Malaysia, and Thailand--as the economic miracle has spread in the Asia-
Pacific region. All of these countries have vigorously expanding 
economies, some up to 11 percent annually, placing them among the 
fastest growing in the world.
  Joining this tidal wave of economic development has come the sleeping 
giant of Asia, the People's Republic of China [PRC]. By cultivating 
economic growth estimated at over 13 percent--the highest rate of 
economic expansion in the world in 1993--China may be the first example 
of a Communist system that will succeed in meeting the economic needs 
of her people. Feeding China's 1.3 billion hungry people--a population 
five times larger than America's--has by itself been a monumental 
accomplishment.
  Establishing numerous financial links with Taiwan and Hong Kong, with 
cross-border investments exceeding $36.5 billion over the past 12 
years, the PRC has emerged as a new economic entity termed ``Greater 
China.'' The combined gross domestic product of Greater China last year 
totaled over $626 billion. Due to the rapid blossoming of Greater 
China's integrated economy, it is foreseen that this will increasingly 
act as a counterbalance to Japan's considerable economic clout in the 
region.
  These facts paint a picture that has many analysts in international 
finance proposing that the Asia-Pacific Region has overtaken the North 
Atlantic as the center of world trade. I strongly concur with that 
view.


           u.s. economic interests in the asia-pacific region

  The United States has a substantial stake in the staggering growth of 
the Asia-Pacific economy.
  According to the recent U.S. Department of Commerce figures, America 
conducted over $370 billion worth of total trade with the countries of 
the Asia-Pacific last year--easily matching, and nearly doubling, the 
trade we conducted with Western Europe.
  Since 1981, U.S. trade with the Asia-Pacific region has expanded by 
150 percent, and is expected to increase to $400 billion by the end of 
this decade.
  Significantly, American exports to the region have increased by well 
over 130 percent in that same period. According to Commerce Department 
figures, Asia-Pacific countries purchased in excess of $135 billion 
worth of U.S. products in 1993, and over one-third of America's exports 
to the world were bought by nations of the Asia-Pacific.
  By way of illustration, it is interesting to note that Singapore, a 
nation barely the size of the Washington, DC, metro area, purchases 
more United States goods than either Italy or Spain; while Malaysia, a 
little heard-of southeast Asian country, buys more United States 
products than the former superpower, Russia.
  Today, over 2.6 million American jobs are dependent on trade with the 
region, and U.S. firms have over $62 billion invested there. These 
trade ties are rapidly escalating, and vividly point out that the 
future of America is inextricably linked to the Asia-Pacific.


      reassessing u.s. economic policy in the asia-pacific region

  Due to the unprecedented pace of economic development in this part of 
the world that is fast becoming the center for global trade, the United 
States can no longer expect to have unchallenged economic supremacy in 
the Asia-Pacific region.
  Neither can the United States afford a trade policy of protectionism. 
Erecting trade barriers, increasing tariffs and imposing more product 
quotas, as some have called for in Congress, will do little to 
revitalize and rebuild America's economy.
  As America's balance of trade deficit grows, there is need for the 
United States to reassess her policy priorities, especially toward 
Japan and China, the two engines driving the economic future of the 
Asia-Pacific region. America's much publicized conflicts with Japan and 
China, moreover, threaten to derail the bright promise of APEC, the 
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, which met successfully in 
Seattle last year.
  I join others in advocating that the first priority should be 
stopping the deterioration of the United States-Japan relationship. A 
solid and stable partnership between America and Japan is crucial. It 
is the centerpiece upon which the Asia-Pacific's continued peace and 
economic prosperity is built. New U.S. policy must be forged that will 
allow common ground to be reached on economic and political concerns 
with our longtime ally. Moreover, it is imperative that the United 
States start viewing Japan as an equal, rather than continue the little 
brother treatment.
  It is my belief that America's trade conflicts with Japan have been 
emphasized too much, to the point where many in the United States have 
lost sight of the big picture. Although certainly the United States 
trade deficit with Japan is important, this issue should not be 
permitted to dominate--poisoning the trust, the confidence and the 
mutual respect that have bound our two democracies in friendship for 
nearly a half century.
  However, if America is to increasingly view and treat Japan as an 
equal partner, Japan must also demonstrate willingness to shoulder 
greater responsibility for global affairs. With a surplus of over $130 
billion from global trade, Japan has profitted handsomely from free 
trade.
  To signal her good faith in assuming a position of world leadership, 
Japan could start by removing the country's multiple barriers to free 
trade. The recent lifting of Japan's protections over her rice markets 
was a noteworthy step. Additionally, the agreement reached on 
Motorola's expanded access to the Japanese cellular phone market was 
commendable. Japan's role in supporting GATT and conclusion of the 
Uruguay round of negotiations has also been encouraging.

  I am confident these trade disputes will be transcended. The United 
States and Japan can then turn to the broad range of interests that our 
two nations share not only in the Asia-Pacific region but in addressing 
the needs of the global economy.
  Another crucial priority for America involves the stabilization of 
relations with the People's Republic of China. Some Members in Congress 
have pointed accusing fingers at China, criticizing her for the lack of 
individual freedoms and democracy that we in the West take as God-given 
rights. Some have moved for economic punishment of China for alleged 
human rights shortfalls by withdrawing her most-favored-nation [MFN] 
trading status.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to learn that President Clinton has given 
favorable consideration to granting MFN status to China. I applaud the 
President's decision and I hope our colleagues in both Houses will do 
likewise.
  I join those Members of Congress that question the wisdom of a China 
policy linking trade with human rights. Restricting trade and access to 
the United States will not promote--but instead, undercut--efforts 
supporting democracy in China. It is of paramount importance that 
China's awe-inspiring progress toward a free market economy be 
supported by the United States. History has proven time and time again 
that economic success is a precursor to the growth of democratic 
reform, political pluralism and protection of individual rights. For 
proof, we need only look to the vibrant democracies flourishing today 
in South Korea and Taiwan; the wave of economic prosperity in those 
nations devoured the repressive regimes in power only yesterday.
  Even Chinese dissidents and students hold that extensive trade and 
business ties with the West are the ultimate forces for democratic 
change in China. Understandably, many of them oppose the withdrawal of 
MFN. They know that free trade fosters the creation of a superhighway 
of information, ideas and communication--whereby western values shall 
inevitably replace Communist ideology.
  There are many lessons to be learned from the failure of Secretary of 
State Warren Christopher's recent human rights crusade in Beijing. Most 
important, is that America must come to recognize and adjust to the 
fact that China is rapidly becoming a great and complete power--soon to 
become the most dominant country in the Asia-Pacific region. Given the 
nation's emerging stature, China can ill afford the perception that the 
United States continues to bully and dictate to her at will--often on 
totally internal, sovereign matters. This is neither appropriate nor a 
sound basis for forming a constructive relationship with a power of 
substance. As with Japan, America must exhibit greater diplomatic 
sensitivity and learn to negotiate with China as an equal.
  Threats to revoke China's MFN can often be counterproductive. More 
importantly, if America chooses to unilaterally apply economic 
sanctions with the goal of isolating China, we are only kidding 
ourselves. Increasingly, events have shown that such action will not 
gain the multilateral support of the nations of the Asia-Pacific nor 
the world. The international community simply does not agree with our 
one-dimensional China policy. The net result is that America is the one 
isolated.
  In the months after the Tiananmen Square tragedy, while the United 
States justifiably took the high moral ground and restricted contact 
with China, our European and Asian allies flocked to fill the vacuum of 
business interests. In America's absence, the ground for innumerable 
business ventures was broken by our competitors. As a practical 
consideration in this time of economic recovery in the United States, 
can we afford to further handcuff our access to the largest and most 
rapidly developing market on the planet.
  While I certainly do not condone the infringement of human rights 
that have been and perhaps are being perpetrated by Beijing, this must 
be balanced against recognition of China's sovereign right to control 
her domestic matters in nurturing the transition from a poor agrarian 
state to a diversified free market economy--all the while providing for 
the welfare of the world's largest population.
  Some have said that the right to subsistence--to have adequate food 
and shelter--is the most fundamental of human rights, and I certainly 
cannot argue against that in observing China's mission to feed, clothe, 
and shelter her masses. China is succeeding admirably; while Russia, 
with her premature rush of social and political reforms, has been 
reduced to an economic basketcase, who must rely upon international 
charity for survival.
  In recognizing that China's task is a difficult one, the United 
States must demonstrate restraint and patience. And we must also show 
vision by not limiting our focus on humanitarian concerns to the 
detriment of the vast, broad range of interests that America shares 
with China.
  It is imperative that the United States remain engaged with China. In 
addition to the sizable economic incentive, we need strong ties with 
China to address pressing global issues--including, protection of the 
environment, escalating arms sales and the spread of nuclear 
proliferation. On the last matter, controlling nuclear weapons, China 
can play a uniquely valuable role due to her influential relationship 
with the unstable regime in North Korea. It is no exaggeration to say 
that China's assistance could help avert a major war on the Korean 
Peninsula.

  It is only when fundamental interests of the United States are at 
stake with China that we should consider use of the ultimate economic 
sanction--withdrawal of MFN. In my opinion, the time for that has not 
come and we should change our present China policy. Rather than 
continue to hold China hostage to threats of isolation, the United 
States should strive to form a closer relationship based upon mutual 
respect and mutual benefit. Forging stronger, comprehensive ties 
between the West and China is in the best interests of the world 
community, and is the most effective way to promote democracy and 
protection of human rights in China.


           u.s. security interests in the asia-pacific region

  Despite the tremendous transformations taking place around the world, 
one thing that has remained unchanged is that the United States has key 
security interests in the Asia-Pacific that demand America remain a 
predominant military power in the region.
  There exist many sources for potential instability and flashpoints in 
the Asia-Pacific region that concern the United States.
  One of the most urgent threats is posed by Communist North Korea and 
her desperate quest for nuclear weapons. Acquisition of nuclear 
warheads, combined with a ballistic missile program and an intimidating 
military force numbering over 1 million soldiers, could lead to a major 
conflict on the Korean Peninsula. Needless to say, such a conflict 
would hold ramifications for the entire world.
  With North Korea's stated intent to withdraw from the nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty [NPT] after inspection disputes with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], a major escalation of that 
threat has occurred. The move has sent shockwaves through Asia and the 
global community. Nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea 
potentially threaten not only South Korea--but Japan, Taiwan, and even 
China. With development of a new generation of missiles with extended 
range, North Korea may be capable of delivering warheads as far away as 
Australia.
  Some in the Congress have called for surgical strikes to destroy 
suspected nuclear weapons facilities in North Korea before their 
nuclear capacity becomes more deadly. Cooler heads have prevailed, 
however, and I join them in urging that President Clinton use all 
diplomatic measures necessary to bring Pyongyang back to the 
negotiating table and into compliance with the NPT. With recent 
reports, I am hopeful that negotiations between the North Koreans, The 
IAEA, and the United States will allow this matter to be resolved 
peacefully.
  If necessary, However, the U.N. Security Council may have to move for 
economic sanctions to convince North Korea to fulfill her obligations 
under the NPT. With renewal of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on 
the table next year, the world community cannot permit North Korea to 
blatantly violate the NPT without punishment. To acquiesce here would 
set a terrible precedent, encouraging other rogue countries to join the 
nuclear club.
  The deadly diplomatic dance with North Korea exemplifies why a high 
priority for United States policy in the Asia-Pacific must be the 
halting of nuclear and missile proliferation. Effective nuclear and 
missile arms control regimes must be supported that will bring North 
Korea, as well as China, into the fold.
  The People's Republic of China, as noted earlier, has enjoyed great 
economic success. With her cash reserves, China has raised concern in 
the Asia-Pacific region by investing massive sums in high-technology 
military hardware. While the Soviet Union has collapsed and Japan 
remains pacifist, China has increased her military budget 
significantly.
  In so doing, China has purchased a number of advanced Soviet jet 
fighters and bombers, and has shopped around for an aircraft carrier--
the foundation for a blue water fleet in the South China Sea. China is 
also obtaining advanced missile guidance systems, which, seen in light 
of her nuclear test last year, her largest detonation ever, is worth 
noting.
  At the time when relative peace is at hand, many in the region and 
the United States question China's heavy military buildup. The 
aggressive assertion of claims by China to the Spratly Islands and 
Taiwan, and her conducting of well-publicized military offensive 
exercises, have fed fears that Chinese expansionism in the Asia-Pacific 
region may result.
  On the other hand, China's military investment is perceived in some 
quarters as being a reasonable modernization of their aging, obsolete 
defense systems. Witnessing America's state of the art, lightning-like 
devastation of Iraq in the gulf war has understandably made China feel 
inadequate and inferior. The advanced military hardware offered at fire 
sale prices by Russia and the Ukraine has provided China a rare 
opportunity to play catchup. It is fair to say the United States would 
act similarly if in China's position.
  Some analysts conclude fears of China's defense buildup and 
territorial ambitions may be overblown. Seen in light of America's 
military budget of over $250 billion per year and Japan's annual 
defense expenditure of $30 billion, China's official military spending 
of $7 billion last year appears relatively modest. Even if the figure 
is doubled, as some would argue is more accurate, China's defense 
spending is considerably less than ours.


       defending u.s. security policy in the asia-pacific region

  Before and since World War II, the United States has played and 
continues to play a paramount role in maintaining stability and peace 
in Asia and the Pacific. When critics say America doesn't contribute 
enough foreign aid to the region like Japan, I point to our billions of 
defense dollars spent to preserve peace in the Pacific. In my eyes, 
that is one of the truest forms of foreign assistance. Our 
participation in the affairs of the region has greatly laid the 
foundation upon which the Asia-Pacific's present property has been 
built.
  With the dynamic economic growth of the region, it is increasingly 
vial to the welfare of our Nation as well as the world that the United 
States continue to play a major role in the bilateral and multilateral 
security affairs of Asia and the Pacific.
  I strongly support the U.S. Department of Defense's strategic 
framework for the Asian Pacific Rim in the 21st century, and I concur 
with the Pentagon that our Nation's security policy in the Asia-Pacific 
region must be flexible yet premised on six basic principles.
  First, there exists the absolute assurance that America is committed 
to the affairs of Asia and the Pacific and will remain firmly engaged 
in the region.
  Second, the U.S. will continue to foster a strong system of bilateral 
security agreements with Nations in the region.
  Third, our Nation will maintain a reserve of forward-deployed forces 
in the Asia-Pacific, although reduced in number to reflect the 
realities of the post-cold war era.
  Fourth, America is committed to maintaining overseas bases and 
equipment necessary to support U.S. forces in the region.
  Fifth, our friends and allies in the Asia-Pacific must continue to 
bear greater responsibility for their countries' self-defense.
  Last, America's defense cooperation with her allies shall be 
complementary in nature and not duplicative.
  In applying this broad security policy in the Asia-Pacific, our 
Nation seeks to ensure that key security interests are protected.
  Foremost among these is the protection of the U.S. and her allies 
from attack. In addition to defending Alaska, Hawaii, the U.S. 
Territories, and their lines of communication and navigation to the 
continental United States, America has pledged to assist in the defense 
of her allies and their vital sea lanes.
  By so doing, another key security interest in the Asia-Pacific is 
achieved: Preservation of regional peace and stability.
  Other vital U.S. interests focus on preserving political and economic 
access to the countries of the region, while fostering the growth of 
democratic government and the protection of human rights.
  A final security interest pertains to averting the proliferation of 
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the Asia-Pacific region, 
while contributing to nuclear deterrence where necessary.


     facilitating dialog through a multilateral security framework

  A measure that is vitally needed in the Asia-Pacific and holds great 
promise for increased regional stability is the creation of a 
multilateral security framework.
  I strongly support and applaud Clinton administration efforts to 
pursue the formation of an Asia-Pacific regional security regime, 
whether or not it be shaped after NATO or the conference on Security 
and Cooperation in Europe [CSCE]. The lack of such a forum facilitating 
dialogue on security concerns has resulted in an escalating arms race 
in the region, as many of the smaller Asia-Pacific countries fear the 
defense buildup by China as well as the potential for Japan to 
unilaterally remilitarize.
  A new post-cold war defense arrangement in the Asia-Pacific would go 
a long way towards defusing regional security anxieties and the 
powderkeg of arms procurements. In a time of reduced U.S. military 
spending in the Asia-Pacific, such an arrangement could be a cost-
effective supplement to existing U.S. bilateral security treaties with 
our allies. Although such a regional security framework would never 
displace nor act as a substitute for America's bilateral defense 
treaties, the initiative could realize significant financial savings 
for the United States by spreading burdensharing among the numerous 
nations of the Asia-Pacific.
  A very encouraging development that may address this need has arisen 
from recent Asian post-ministerial meetings. A fledgling framework to 
discuss security concerns--the Asian Regional Forum [ARF]--has been 
proposed. The first meeting of the Asian Regional Forum will take place 
later this year in Bangkok, Thailand. The United States will be 
attending, along with China, Japan, Russia, Vietnam, Laos, Papua New 
Guinea, and the post-ministerial countries.
  I believe it is a breakthrough of major significance that these 
countries, some of which are in the center of controversy, are wiling 
to sit around a table and air their fears and concerns with security in 
the Asia-Pacific. Out of this open dialogue, it is hoped that 
collective expectations, and later on mechanisms, will emerge--both 
encouraging and facilitating the resolution of conflict by peaceful 
means.
  As the world's only superpower, U.S. support of the Asian Regional 
Security Forum is crucial and gives it credibility. Our participation 
will further the exchange and flow of security information between 
nations of the Asia-Pacific, easing much of the uncertainty and 
paranoia in the region about hidden agendas of fellow nations. By 
reducing regional tensions, a major benefit will be the freeing of 
capital in many Asia-Pacific countries. Funds from costly arms 
procurements can then be diverted to sorely needed programs fostering 
economic growth and societal improvements.


             the u.s. role in the asia-pacific renaissance

  Mr. Speaker, the Asia-Pacific region is immersed in a renaissance of 
economic prosperity and relative peace. For our great Nation to become 
a greater participant in and beneficiary of that dynamic process, we 
must adopt new approaches demonstrating flexibility and sensitivity to 
the needs and concerns of countries of the Asia-Pacific. If we can 
achieve these goals, the United States and the nations of the region 
will achieve greater harmony through a true partnership that befits the 
dawning of the ``Pacific Century.''


                  in honor of asian-pacific americans

  Mr. Speaker, as many of you are aware, immigrants from the Asia-
Pacific region are amongst the newest wave to arrive in the United 
States in recent years. However, they are merely the latest chapter in 
the long history of Asian-Pacific Americans in our Nation.
  During this month for celebration, it is only fitting that we honor 
our fellow citizens of Asian-Pacific descent--both from the past and 
the present--that have blessed and enriched our Nation. I submit that 
Asian-Pacific Americans have certainly been an asset to our country's 
development, and it is most appropriate that our President and Congress 
have proclaimed May as Asian-Pacific Heritage Month.
  The people of the Asia-Pacific have contributed much to America's 
development in the sciences and medicine. For example, in 1899 a 
Japanese immigrant arrived on the shores of this Nation. After years of 
study and work, this man, Dr. Hideyo Noguchi, isolated the syphilis 
germ, leading to a cure for the deadly, wide-spread disease. For 
decades, Dr. Makio Murayama conducted vital research in the United 
States that laid the groundwork for combating sickle-cell anemia. In 
1973, Dr. Leo Esaki, an Asian immigrant to our country, was awarded the 
Nobel Prize in physics for his electron tunneling theories. And, in 
engineering, few have matched the architectural masterpieces created by 
the genius of Chinese-American, I.M. Pei.
  Major contributions to U.S. business and industry have also been made 
by Asian-Pacific Americans. Wang Laboratories, the innovative business 
enterprise in computer research and development, was founded in 1955 by 
Chinese-American, An Wang. This Nation's largest tungsten refinery was 
built in 1953 by industrialist K.C. Li and his company, the Wah Chang 
Corp. And, in 1964, an immigrant from Shanghai, China, Gerald Tsai, 
started from scratch an investment firm, the Manhattan Fund, which 
today has well over $270 million in assets.
  In the entertainment and sports fields, American martial arts expert 
Bruce Lee entertained the movie audiences of this Nation, while 
destroying the stereotype of the passive, quiet Asian male. World-class 
conductor Seiji Ozawa has lead the San Francisco Symphony through 
several brilliant performances over the years.
  A Native-Hawaiian named Duke Kahanamoku shocked the world by winning 
the Olympic Gold Medal in swimming 7 decades ago; followed by Dr. Sammy 
Lee, a Korean-American who won the Olympic Gold Medal in high diving. 
Then there was Tommy Kono of Hawaii, also an Olympic Gold Medalist in 
weightlifting. And, yes, perhaps the greatest Olympic diver ever known 
to the world, a Samoan-American by the name of Greg Louganis--whose 
record in gold medals and national championships will be in the books 
for a long time. Japanese-American Kristi Yamaguichi's enthralling gold 
medal ice-skating performance at the 1992 Winter Olympics continues the 
legacy of milestone achievements by Asian-Pacific Americans.
  In professional sports, of course, we have Michael Chang blazing new 
paths in tennis, Pacific-Islanders Brian Williams and Michael Jones of 
world rugby, and the tens of dozens of Polynesian-Americans--like all-
pro Samoan linebacker, Junior Seau, and Jesse Sapolu of the San 
Francisco Forty-Niners--who have made their mark as players in the 
National Football League.
  We also have Asian-Pacific Americans who are making their mark on 
history, not in our country, but in the Far East. Samoan-American 
Salevaa Atisanoe is A 578-pound Sumo wrestler in Japan who goes by the 
name of Konishiki. Salevaa, or Konishiki, incidentally, also happens to 
be a relative of mine. Konishiki was the first foreigner in Japan's 
centuries-old sport to break through to the ratified air of sumo's 
second-highest rank. Another Samoan/Tongan-American, Leitani Peitani--
known in Japan as Musashimaru--has also gained prominence as a sumo 
wrestler.
  Native-Hawaiian Chad Rowen, or Akebono as he is known in Japan, has 
scaled even greater heights by attaining the exalted status of Yokozuna 
or grand champion. Until this Polynesian-American arrived on the scene, 
no foreigner had ever been permitted to fill this sacred position, as 
the Japanese associate the Yokozuna with the essence of Shinto's 
guardian spirits. The ascendancy to grand champion status goes to the 
heart of the Japanese religion and culture.
  In honoring Asian-Pacific Americans that have served to enrich our 
country, I would be remiss, as a Vietnam veteran, if I did not honor 
the contributions of the Japanese-Americans who served in the U.S. 
Army's 100th Battalion and 442nd Infantry combat group. History speaks 
for itself in documenting that none have shed their blood more 
valiantly for America than the Japanese-Americans that served in these 
units while fighting enemy forces in Europe during World War II.
  The records of the 100th Battalion and 442nd Infantry are without 
equal. These Japanese-American units suffered an unprecedented casualty 
rate of 314 percent, and received over 18,000 individual decorations, 
many posthumously awarded, for valor in battle.
  With the tremendous sacrifice of lives, a high number of medals were 
given the unit. I find it unusual, however, that only one Medal of 
Honor was awarded, while 52 distinguished Service Crosses, 560 Silver 
Stars and 9,480 Purple Hearts were given. The great number of Japanese-
American lives lost should have resulted in more of these ultimate 
symbols of sacrifice being awarded. Nonetheless, the 442nd combat group 
emerged as the most decorated combat unit of its size in the history of 
the U.S. Army. President Truman was so moved by their bravery in the 
field of battle, as well as that of black American soldiers during WW 
II, that he issued an Executive order to desegregate the armed 
services.
  I am proud to say that we can count the Honorable Daniel K. Inouye 
and the late, highly-respected Senator, Spark Matsunaga. Both from 
Hawaii, as Members from Congress that distinguished themselves in 
battle as soldiers with the 100th Battalion and 442nd Infantry. It was 
while fighting in Europe that Senator Inouye lost his arm and was 
awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest medal for 
bravery.
  These Japanese-Americans paid their dues in blood to protect our 
Nation from its enemies. It is a shameful black mark on the history of 
our country that when the patriotic survivors of the 100th Battalion 
and 442nd Infantry returned to the United States many were reunited 
with families that were locked up behind barbed-wire fences, living in 
concentration camps. You might be interested to know, my colleagues on 
the Hill, Congressmen Robert Matsui and Norman Mineta, were children of 
the concentration camps.

  The wholesale and arbitrary abolishment of the constitutional rights 
of these loyal Japanese-Americans will forever serve as a reminder and 
testament that this must never be allowed to occur again. When this 
miscarriage of justice unfolded during WW II, Americans of German and 
Italian ancestry were not similarly jailed en masse. Some declare the 
incident as an example of outright racism and bigotry in its ugliest 
form.
  After viewing the Holocaust Museum in Washington, I understand better 
why the genocide of 6 million Jews has prompted the cry, ``Never 
Again.'' Likewise, I sincerely hope that mass internments on the basis 
of race or religion will never happen again in our great Nation.
  To those that say, well, that occurred decades ago, I say we must 
continue to be vigilant in guarding against such evil today.
  Just weeks ago on Capitol Hill, an Asian-Pacific American, Bruce 
Yamashita, received his commission as a captain in the U.S. Marines at 
a congressional ceremony held in the House Armed Services Committee. 
Why the special treatment?
  Four years ago, this Japanese-American, born and raised in Hawaii and 
a graduate of Georgetown University law school, was discharged 
arbitrarily from the Marine Corps when on the verge of receiving his 
commission as a second lieutenant. After years of perseverance and 
appeals, Mr. Yamashita was finally vindicated, after proving he was the 
target of vicious racial and ethnic harrassment during his 10-week 
officer training program.
  According to official records, Marine Corps instructors incessantly 
taunted Mr. Yamashita about his heritage, referred to him using ethnic 
slurs, and at one point told him: ``we don't want your kind around 
here. Go back to your own country.''
  This attitude of discrimination, unfortunately, is not limited to the 
lower ranks but extends to the highest level of the Marine Corps. Last 
October, when the Yamashita case was still in controversy, the 
Commandant of the Marine corps, Gen. Carl E. Mundy, appeared on 
television's ``Sixty Minutes'' and stated, ``Marine Officers who are 
minorities do not shoot, swim or use compasses as well as white 
officers.''
  Although General Mundy has since apologized for his remarks, I am 
deeply troubled that a military officer of his caliber would hold such 
opinions and show no reservation in voicing them to an international 
audience. It is a sign of the depth of the problem.
  It is also ironic to note that Captain Yamashita is a descendant of 
those Japanese-American soldiers from Hawaii that distinguished 
themselves in battle during WW II with the legendary 100th Battalion 
and 442nd Infantry combat group. When General Mundy says soldiers like 
Captain Yamashita ``Can't shoot straight'' it is these brave Japanese-
Americans--Yamasita's people--that he belittles. They ``can't shoot 
straight'' but they can spill blood in defense of this country to merit 
52 Distinguished Service Crosses, 560 Silver Stars and over 9,400 
Purple Hearts. Please, give me a break.
  The significance of Captain Yamashita's case extends far beyond his 
personal plight. His challenge prompted the Marine Corps to discover, 
during a review in 1992, that minority candidates drop out of its 
officer training program at a higher rate than white officers. Some 
hold that the record reveals there has been a deliberate effort on the 
part of the Marine Corps to discourage minorities from becoming 
officers.
  I commend the Secretary of the Navy, John H. Dalton, who after 
reviewing the record, overruled the Marine Corps and ordered that Mr. 
Yamashita receive his officer's commission. I also commend Senator 
Daniel Inouye for his tenacity in fighting on behalf of Captain 
Yamashita and in addressing this latest injustice and racism against 
Asian-Pacific Americans. Senator Inouye has always responded to the 
battle call against the forces of bigotry and racism.
  In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I think the Yamashita case bears 
implications not just for the military but for our society as a whole. 
It asks the question, how long do we have to endure the attitude of 
those who consider Asian-Pacific Americans and other minorities as 
lesser Americans?
  I applaud Captain Yamashita for his tremendous courage, commitment 
and determination in seeing that racial discrimination is not 
tolerated. During this month as we recognize the diverse experiences 
and contributions of the Asian-Pacific American community to our great 
Nation, I would hope that we all take inspiration from his example.
  With that in mind, I would like to close my remarks by asking what is 
America all about? I think it could not have been said better than on 
the steps of the Lincoln Memorial when Martin Luther King said, ``I 
have a dream. My dream is that one day my children will be judged not 
by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.''
  That is what America is all about, Mr. Speaker, and Asian-Pacific 
Americans wish to find a just and equitable place in our society that 
will allow them--like all Americans--to grow, succeed, achieve, and 
contribute to the advancement of this great Nation as we enter the 
``Pacific Century.''

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Maine [Mr. Andrews].


                  most-favored-nation status for china

  Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak this evening to the statement of 
the President of the United States of just a few hours ago regarding 
the most-favored-nation status for China. I, as many Americans across 
the Nation and many Members of this body, just learned of this decision 
just a few hours ago. I have not read the President's statement. I have 
not studied the text of his thinking with regard to this decision, but 
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it does warrant a response from those of 
us who have deep concerns about our relationship with China in light of 
extensive human rights violations.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important for we in Congress and we as 
Americans to ask ourselves some fundamental questions about who we are 
as a Nation, what we stand for, what is the foundation of this country, 
what should be the foundation of our foreign policy, and what is it 
that we mean by ``human rights.''
  Indeed, do we as Americans believe what we say, and do we stand by 
what we say with respect to human rights?
  I believe respect for human rights, human dignity, is a fundamental 
value that we as Americans share.

                              {time}  1930

  It is something that is extremely important to all of us regardless 
of our political persuasions, regardless of where we come from in this 
great country.
  I truly believe that deep down inside of us we have a very deep and 
firm commitment to the rights and the dignity of human beings in our 
country and outside of our country.
  There is a thing called most-favored-nation status, and it is what it 
suggests, a declaration that certain nations on this planet are most 
favored in the eyes of the United States and in the eyes of Americans. 
And so it is when we look at the human rights abuses at the hands of 
the Chinese, of the repression at the hands of the Chinese, when we 
look at the evidence of torture, of imprisonment, of people for 
standing up and expressing their political views, it becomes of great 
concern to all of us as Americans because it violates that fundamental 
principle and value that we share.
  So it has been that the question of whether or not we declare a 
nation such as China with the record that China has on abuse of its 
citizens and others, clear violations of human rights, whether we 
should extend most-favored-nation status to such a country, whether we 
should declare a nation that engages so systematically in violations of 
human rights, a most favored nation.

  Last year the President of the United States declared that if China 
was to have most-favored-nation status extended in 1994 that it had to 
make overall significant progress in the areas of human rights. What 
has happened in that year's time?
  I know of no one who can say with a straight face that China has made 
overall significant progress toward human rights in this past year, no 
one who I know who is familiar with the situation in that nation and no 
one I know who is familiar with the situation in Tibet would suggest 
that overall significant progress has been made with respect to human 
rights by the Chinese.
  Asia Watch provided testimony to this country and to this Congress 
that last year, as a matter of fact, was the worst for political 
arrests and trials. They cited evidence upon evidence upon evidence of 
repression in every province in China, and then they turned their 
attention to Tibet, the people who are seeking dignity and respect, 
seeking the basic, fundamental right to live as Tibetans, to practice 
freely their religion and their culture, to not be the objects of 
systematic torture and repression by the Chinese. And we find there are 
now more prisoners in Tibet than in every province in China combined. 
And we find strong evidence of a systematic attempt by the Chinese to 
repress if not annihilate the religious traditions and culture of the 
Tibetans.
  So in light of all of this evidence, in light of all of this 
testimony, in light of the hearings that we have held here in Congress, 
in light of evidence and testimony that experts have brought to us of 
the systematic repression at the hands of the Chinese, the clear 
evidence that the Chinese have failed to meet the condition that we as 
a Nation established for extension of its most favored nation status, 
the question for us becomes what are we to do?
  Well, the President of the United States today has announced that 
despite these facts and this evidence he believes that we should in 
fact extend most favored nation status to China, that we should through 
that policy declare that this nation is a most favored nation of the 
United States.
  I was pleased to learn just a short time ago that the Senate majority 
leader of the other body, Senator George Mitchell, indicated that he 
disagrees with the President's decision. He made a statement just a 
short time ago in which he said that the experience of recent years has 
been that each concession to the Chinese communist regime encourages 
its intransigence.
  And he went on to say, ``I believe this will be the unfortunate 
result of this decision. It will confirm for the Chinese communist 
regime the success of its policy of repression on human rights and 
manipulation on trade.''
  Ladies and gentlemen, I believe very strongly that two things need to 
happen. No. 1, this Congress needs to engage in a debate over whether 
or not we should declare China a most favored nation of this country. I 
believe that if we have a fair, and honest and thorough debate this 
Congress will respond, if it hears from the people of this country as 
Members of Congress go back to their districts, when they hear from the 
people of this country about our belief if human rights and the 
principles and values that we hold dear, that they will come back to 
this body and we will have a debate, and we will recognize that human 
rights means something, and most favored nation status should mean 
something as well, and that we should not stand idly by and declare 
China a most favored nation.
  But there is something else that I think that we as Americans need to 
do in light of today's announcement by the President. I think we all 
have to ask ourselves: Who are we as a people? What do we stand for? 
What should be the foundation of America's foreign policy? When we tell 
the world that we believe in human rights, do we really mean it? When 
we declare to the world that our foreign policy decisions are going to 
be based upon the recognition that human rights should be respected 
everywhere in the world, do we really mean it?
  What happens, ladies and gentlemen, when the United States says one 
thing and does another, when we stand up and declare our support for 
human rights, our support and respect for His Holiness, the Dalai Lama 
in Tibet, for the people of Tibet, and then declare China a most-
favored-nation status? What does it all mean? What does our rhetoric 
mean? What do we really stand for? What in fact drives American 
foreign policy? Is it human rights, is it respect for individuals, is 
it the values that we cherish, or is the bottom line the bottom line, 
pure economics, pure trade, pure opportunities for profits?

  Ladies and gentlemen, we are embarked on a very new and important era 
in world history. The cold war is over. The old ways of defining our 
planet and aligning our Nation have changed. We are engaged in a new 
challenge and a new opportunity. We have to establish at this time in 
our country's history what is the rudder beneath this ship of State, 
what is the foundation of this country's foreign policy? Where are we 
going and how does it reflect our values and our principles as 
Americans?

                              {time}  1940

  And are economics and profits the only foundation on which we stand?
  I believe that many in this body, I believe that the President of the 
United States believes in human rights, is deeply committed to the 
principles that we cherish as Americans. But it raises a fundamental 
question. What in this new era are we to do about those beliefs, about 
those principles? What are we to do when we see nations engaged in such 
systematic repression as we see in China? What are we to do when we 
draw a line in the sand and make it very clear to the world that we are 
going to condition most-favored-nation status on human rights and then 
clearly see that the progress that we called for was not achieved and 
then extend most-favored-nation status anyway? What are the 
implications for all of the despots of the world, all those who are 
engaged in human rights violations and tyranny around the world? What 
is the message that we are giving them?
  And what is the long-term implications for the values and principles 
that we cherish?
  I believe these are questions that we have to ask ourselves as 
Americans. I believe these are questions that we have to ask ourselves 
as a Congress, and I believe that the answers that we give to these 
questions will not only affect our relationship to this particular 
country and this particular trading status but will affect our 
relationship to nations all around the world and will lay the 
groundwork for future policies and potential future repression for 
generations to come.
  I encourage my fellow Members of Congress, as they travel home, to 
engage in a discussion of these questions with their citizens, their 
constituents; I encourage those across this country to likewise engage 
in those discussions with their Members of Congress, and I call upon 
this Nation and this Congress to engage in a debate as to what we 
believe in as a nation, what we stand for as a nation, and whether or 
not human rights should be a part and a foundation of our foreign 
policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman.
  I really appreciate the comments and the concerns that he has 
expressed concerning the President's recent decision to grant MFN 
status to China. I look forward to debating the issue with the 
gentleman. I think it is a worthwhile issue that our country should, 
and the Members of both Houses should debate openly certainly for a 
better understanding of our people concerning this important issue.

                          ____________________