[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 71 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5293-H5296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1415
                   CHINA'S MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Laughlin). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Viringia [Mr. Wolf] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I hope all the Members listened to what the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] said on the trade issue. We 
are losing big time. I thank the gentlewoman from California for her 
statement and letting the Members take a focus on that.
  As the gentlewoman said today, the President announced before the 
Pacific Basin Economic Council that he is going to extend most-favored-
nation trading status to the butchers of Beijing, who have done so many 
things. We are not surprised that he made that announcement, because 
this administration has flip-flopped on this issue of human rights, but 
I want the American people, but more important, everyone, to focus as 
they are listening to the President and they talk about MFN on what 
they should think about when they hear the words ``MFN.''
  When we hear MFN, and we will hear the business community and the 
Clinton administration and we will hear others in certain Republican 
leadership positions say they want MFN, we have to think of the 
following: We have to think MFN, then think of the suffering 
evangelical Christians in China who, according to Freedom House, have 
said ``This is the most repressive period since the pre-Deng period in 
the late 1970's.'' So when you think of MFN, think of the evangelical 
Christians that are being persecuted.
  Mr. Speaker, we should also remember that in 1995 the Chinese 
Government intensified its crackdown on religious believers by enacting 
strict new laws restricting religious worship. I know you did not hear 
that in the President's speech, and I know you will not hear that by 
the leadership of both sides of this Congress; but when you hear MFN, 
think of religious crackdowns.
  Mr. Speaker, did my colleagues know that the officials in China's 
Religious Security Bureau said that house churches, China's system of 
unofficial Protestant and Catholic churches, should be pulled up by 
their roots, and a Hong Kong newspaper reported last month on many new 
reports of harassment of Protestants and Catholic believers in certain 
areas of China. Think of that when you think of MFN. Remember that the 
police have vowed to hit and eradicate five Christian-based religious 
groups in the Anhui Province in China. When you think of MFN, think of 
that.
  My colleagues should also know that an American missionary reported 
earlier this year that the Chinese Government was circulating an arrest 
warrant with the names of 3,000 Chinese evangelical preachers and 
house-church movements. When Members on both sides think of MFN, think 
of that.
  Remember that in February and March of 1996 in the Baoding region of 
the Hebei Province, authorities went school to school weeding out 
Catholic students and teachers, and ordering them to join the State 
church. Students who refused were kicked out of school, and teachers 
who refused were demoted or fired. You did not hear that in the 
President's statement today before the Pacific Economic Council, oh, 
no, but you should remember it as you think of MFN.
  Remember that in November 1995, 150 public security officers 
destroyed a newly built Catholic Church in Baoding Province and 
severely beat 7 Catholic construction workers. This was the fourth 
incident in 16 months. You did not hear that in the President's speech, 
but Members on both sides of the aisle should remember that when they 
think of MFN.

  Remember that scores of priests and religious believers were detained 
during the First Lady's visit to Beijing in September 1995 in order to 
silence them. We never heard anything about that from anybody in this 
Congress who is concerned, talking about giving MFN. When you think of 
MFN, think of Bishop Jingmu, a 76-year-old Catholic bishop who was 
arrested in November and secretly sentenced to 2 years in prison 
without a public hearing.
  When you think of MFN, think of Bishop Su Chimin, a Catholic bishop 
in the Baoding diocese, who was rounded up in 1994, after the gentleman 
from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, visited him in China, and beaten 
severely in prison. He was rearrested in March 1996, this year, March 
1996, and is being held incommunicado without charge.
  Think of these things, I would urge my colleagues on both sides. If 
the administration has forgotten about them, we should not forget about 
them. Think of these things.
  So when you think of MFN, think of religious persecution. Then, when 
you think of MFN, think of Tibet. When you think of MFN, remember that 
the Government of the People's Republic of China tightened its grip on 
Tibet in 1994 and 1995 by restricting religious practices of Tibetan 
Buddhists. Remember that Tibetan monks and nuns were reportedly 
required to strip off their clothes before beatings, and are routinely 
raped in jail. Over 50 percent of Tibetan prisoners of conscience in 
detention by Chinese authorities are monks and nuns. You did not hear 
that today when the President spoke. You will not hear that when 
Members of Congress get up and say they want MFN, but you should think 
of MFN persecution in Tibet.
  Remember that the Chinese Government restricts the number of monks 
and nuns allowed in Tibetan monasteries, sharply restricts teachings in 
the church, and sharply curtails renovation of buildings and 
monasteries.

[[Page H5294]]

So when you think of MFN, think of what goes on in Tibet.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I want to support the gentleman's very 
strong statement about human rights in China. Unfortunately, in the 
President's speech today, he made a statement which I think, while his 
statement about most-favored-nation status for China was no surprise, 
it surprised me that he would go to the length of saying, ``Where we 
differ with China, and we will have our differences, we will continue 
to defend our interests. We will keep faith with those who stand for 
greater freedom and pluralism in China.'' I have not seen that happen, 
but the President declared that.
  But this is the discouraging part: ``As we did last month, in 
cosponsoring the U.S. resolution condemning China's human rights 
practices.'' Something else you did not hear in the President's speech 
was that the administration's resolution was a total failure; that the 
administration failed to rally the vote to even get the resolution to 
be heard; that the Chinese succeeded in using, with their economic 
leverage, other countries to join them in tabling that resolution. That 
is something else we did not hear in the President's speech.
  Frankly, with all the respect that I have for the President, and I 
think he is a great president, I was embarrassed for him, that he would 
even bring that up and think that that would be something that he could 
boast of as promoting human rights in China.
  It would be interesting to see, where he says they are going to stand 
with those who stand for greater freedom and pluralism in China, that 
simply has not happened yet. That is probably what this debate is 
about, is to say to the administration, let us see what you are going 
to do.

  We know that it is almost impossible to override a Presidential veto 
on most-favored-nation status, so China will have most-favored-nation 
status. So this debate is not about isolating China and cutting off 
MFN, as others will characterize it. It is about who we are as a 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, if we say, as this President does, that he should have 
an embargo on Cuba, which I do not agree with, that we should have an 
embargo on Cuba and that is going to create democracy in Cuba, how can 
he then say that we cannot even raise tariffs on certain products 
coming in from China in order to use our leverage?
  As the gentleman knows, over one-third of the products for export 
made in China come into the United States, so China needs our 
marketplace. They need the preferential treatment MFN, most-favored-
nation status, gives them, and the President could use that 
considerable leverage as a way of shining a light on pluralism and 
democratic reform in China.
  It is not up to us to decide what form of government China has, but 
it is a universal tenet that we believe that people are worthy of 
respect and have a right to practice their religion. I want to get back 
to your point about religious repression in China, which is rampant, 
and Tibet, which is rampant.
  Actually, the most recent report that I saw was in yesterday's paper 
about the Chinese Government cracking down on the Tibetan monastery 
right outside of Llasa. The Chinese Government decided it will choose 
the Panchen Lama and intervene in the succession in a religion. Imagine 
if the government of Italy decided they were going to choose who the 
next Pope was, the uproar that would go up around the world. But the 
Chinese Government is trying to intervene in the succession within the 
Buddhist religion. Of course, as we all know, they have a full-fledged, 
full-blown public relations campaign to undermine His Holiness, the 
Dalai Lama.
  So for issues of what is going on in Tibet and what is going on in 
China, it is clear that we must, as a country, be true to our values 
and speak out on these issues, and demand in the course of a debate on 
whether China will have most-favored-nation status what our Government 
is tangibly going to do to advance freedom throughout the world, 
including China and Tibet.
  The other point is that freedom does exist in parts of China now. if 
you believe in the one-China policy, then Taiwan has a thriving 
democracy. And just today, but yesterday in terms of the international 
clock, the Chinese on Taiwan inaugurated their first democratically 
elected President in the history of China. Hong Kong, as we know, is 
going through a transition. Democratic freedoms exist there.
  In 1 year China will take over the governance of Hong Kong. It will 
be incorporated back into China. Let us see what this administration 
and this Congress is willing to do to preserve democratic freedoms 
where they exist now, in Hong Kong and in Taiwan, and what kind of 
leverage we are willing to step up to the bat and use in order to 
preserve those freedoms, and in doing so, validate the whole idea of 
freedom in China.
  From my own personal observation, I know that the most discouraging 
part of the President's announcement today was that he was ill-advised 
by his advisers or somehow thought that it was OK to say that our 
commitment to pluralism and democratic reform in China was served by 
our offering a resolution which we did not get behind sufficiently, 
which we allowed the Chinese to use economic leverage against, which 
was tabled, which was a humiliation for the United States and for the 
Western allies in the United Nations. It calls into question the very 
need for a U.N. Commission on Human Rights, if the Chinese can exploit 
the situation to that extent, that there is not even a resolution that 
can be heard there.
  Mr. Speaker, in terms of human rights, even the President's own 
country report of the State Department this year has stated very 
clearly that economic reform has not led to political reform; that the 
repression continues, and my reading of that is that this policy has 
not worked in terms of promoting human rights in China.
  But we are going to have a month or so, I say to the gentleman from 
Virginia, where we can put the facts on the table for the American 
people and this Congress to see. People will have the opportunity to 
vote. It does not mean if you vote for MFN or against it that you are 
for or against human rights in China, but it does say how far you would 
be willing to go on that issue.
  As I say, fundamentally, if we just argued this on the trade issues, 
China should not have most-favored-nation status, because they do not 
give it to the United States, because they have barriers against our 
products, they pirate our technology and intellectual property, they 
insist on the transfer of technology, in the course of trade they 
insist on a plan for export on anybody manufacturing in China in joint 
ventures, and they export products made by slave labor to the United 
States. All of this undermines our international competitiveness.
  So this administration can no longer say they are shining the bright 
light of freedom on China, instead of using MFN. They can no longer say 
this is about jobs, because the figures simply do not lie in that 
direction. America has been losing jobs on the basis of its policy with 
China.
  Then on the issue of proliferation, that is just really a sad one, 
because in any given day the most serious thing that could happen is 
that there will be proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. The 
Chinese Government has not been taken to task on this. This 
administration has taken a sort of a silent, tacit agreement that they 
will not proliferate nuclear technology to unsafeguarded countries, and 
called that a great diplomatic victory. That is the reason they said 
they did not put sanctions on the Chinese national nuclear corporation, 
which is the company that transferred the magnet rings.
  The administration wants to believe that the Chinese Government did 
not know about the transfer of the magnet rings. Let us agree with them 
for a moment. Maybe they did not. I believe they did, but let us take 
the administration's position for a moment. There is no question, and 
it is an undisputed fact, that the Chinese national nuclear corporation 
knew exactly what it was doing when it sold the ring magnets for 
centrifuge to enrich uranium to Pakistan for their nuclear program, 
making the world a less safe place.
  In doing so, the administration called the Eximbank and said to the 
Eximbank, ``You are now free to provide loan financing with American 
companies doing business with the Chinese national nuclear 
corporation.'' A

[[Page H5295]]

deal was in the pipeline that went forward. Imagine, it was well known 
that they had transferred the nuclear technology, and right now, today, 
American taxpayer dollars are subsidizing a deal with that very 
corporation because the administration did not want to sanction them.

                              {time}  1430

  Then of course the list goes on about Iran. Our country has an 
embargo on Iran, yet looks the other way as China, undisputed fact, has 
transferred missile technology to Iran and chemical technology, making 
the Middle East a much more dangerous place. As we spend billions and 
billions of dollars to promote and preserve the Middle East peace, we 
are looking the other way and not taking China to task.
  It is always a special case. I do not think China should be treated 
any better or any worse than any other country, but I do think it is 
important for us to understand how they are being treated and how 
dangerous it is to the world.
  Over and over we have said on this floor that our policy with any 
country should be to make trade fairer, people freer and the world 
safer. On none of those scores has this Clinton administration and the 
Bush administration policy before it met that test.
  So I would say that as we go into this time, we have been given a 
free ride, almost. Because Senator Dole and President Clinton, the two 
candidates, the leaders of the parties going into that race, both agree 
on the same policy, that frees us up not to be taking sides within the 
Presidential race on China MFN, for Members to follow their conscience, 
follow the facts.
  As I have said before, the President has the power, the businesses 
have the money, we have the floor and we must use it to shed the light 
of our great democracy on the repression in China, to shed the light on 
the unfair trade practices, and to shed the light on the proliferation 
issues making this world a much more dangerous place.
  With that, I thank the gentleman for his great leadership. Those who 
aspire to practice their religion in China have no greater friend than 
my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Wolf. I am pleased to participate in 
his special order, and yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I will go with my 
statement, but I do want to comment on one thing. She is exactly right, 
and look how far we have slipped in this country, in both Republican 
and Democratic Parties, on the issue of human rights.
  In 1984 and 1985, if any Member of Congress had gotten up on the 
floor of the House and said that the Soviet Union should get the most-
favored-nation trading status, when Scharansky was in Permanent Camp 35 
in the gulags in the cold, snowy Ural Mountains. And when Sakharov was 
under house arrest, no Member of Congress, no administration would have 
had the courage, the guts, the stupidity or whatever to ever get up and 
say that they felt that the Soviet Union should get the MFN.

  Now we see people in both parties now saying that China should get 
MFN, when we see all of these things that have taken place and many 
more that I will go through before I finish.
  The second point is, the gentlewoman makes the case about Hong Kong. 
What will the Congress and the administration say next year when the 
Chinese troops come marching into Hong Kong, almost like a World War II 
movie? What will they say then? I will be interested in what Members of 
Congress of both parties will say and what this administration will 
say, or the next administration, if there is a change.
  Third, the American people are farther along on this issue than is 
the Congress or the Clinton administration. The latest surveys and 
polls show how strongly and deeply the American people care about MFN 
and China and human rights and nuclear proliferation. I think the 
latest survey had it will over 70 percent of the Americans were 
concerned, and yet I wish 70 percent of the Clinton administration was 
concerned. I wish 7 percent of the Clinton administration was 
concerned.
  So what will they say? And, frankly, if the American people could 
vote on this issue, China would not get MFN.
  Let me move right along. This photo I have here, which I would like 
to cover, when you hear the President talk about MFN, you must 
remember, I tell my colleagues, this photo.
  When you think of MFN, remember that public executions are taking 
place in China, where the Government of China routinely executes so-
called criminals by shooting them in the back of the head in front of 
crowds. Remember that school children are herded to execution sites in 
buses to watch the killings and the workers are given the day off. And 
remember the executions are carried out as part of an official effort 
to quiet the masses.
  What you have here are security police lined up in back of young men 
who have been convicted. They are pulling out their pistols, almost 
reminiscent of a World War II movie of Nazi Germany, and they put the 
pistols in the back of the heads of these men and they shoot them. They 
kill them.
  I would urge any Member of Congress who wants to know more about 
this, I have the video, the actual video in my office that we will give 
to any Member's office to look at this video. What they then do is 
after they kill these individuals, they take the corneas and their 
kidneys for transplantation. If the Soviet Union had ever done that, 
who would have ever gotten up saying that they should get MFN?
  Yet we have it on film, and actual shots of soldiers and police 
killing these people and taking their kidneys out for transplantation. 
No Member of Congress on either side, whether you are for MFN, whether 
you are against MFN, whether you are undecided on MFN, no Member of 
Congress should vote on this issue without seeing the film and the 
video where the Chinese police and army are killing these people by 
putting a pistol in the back of their head and shooting them, and later 
taking them and using their kidneys for transplantation.
  Remember when you hear MFN that the kidneys and corneas are taken 
from the dead bodies minutes afterward and are sold for transplantation 
for profits for those in the Chinese Government, some as high as 
$30,000 apiece. I know you did not hear about that in President 
Clinton's statement. He would not have the courage or the guts to talk 
about that.
  But when you think of it, Members of Congress, on both sides, you 
have to think in terms of these violations of human rights and 
executing people before you vote on this issue.
  When you think of MFN, remember that the Chinese Government continues 
to force women to have abortions in an attempt to keep down the 
population, and deny health and medical care and economic opportunity 
to families that refuse to comply with these draconian policies.
  Remember when you think of MFN, the credible evidence of children 
each year in Chinese state-run orphanages being denied food and medical 
care and tied into their cribs to die. I know that was not in President 
Clinton's statement. I know it was not in his statement, but just 
remember when you vote on MFN, this is one of the issues that you are 
dealing with, whether you like it or not.
  And proliferation. When you think of MFN, remember that the Chinese 
Government sold ring magnets to Pakistan that can be used to make 
nuclear weapons, yes, nuclear weapons that can be pointed against this 
country or other innocent people around the world.

  Remember that the United States Government found out about these 
controversial sales and urged the Chinese Government to cut it out. 
They have refused twice. They have said they did not know about the 
ring magnets. Some confusing signals were sent. Some confusing 
statements were issued.
  In the end, embarrassingly so, the Clinton administration said it 
reached a deal, a promise from the Chinese Government, a promise from 
the Chinese Government that they would not do it again, a promise from 
the Government that has executed people like this that they would not 
do it again; a promise from the Government that is tracking down women 
on forced abortions that they would not do it again; a promise from the 
Government that is putting Catholic priests and bishops in jail, some 
for up to 35 years, they promised they would not do it again; that is 
raiding house churches and persecuting evangelicals, that they would 
not do it again. How much do you

[[Page H5296]]

think that promise from the Chinese Government is worth?
  And remember when you think of MFN that the intelligence sources 
indicate that the Chinese Government also sold M-11 missiles to 
Pakistan and patrol boats to Iran, and remember no sanctions were 
imposed for these actions. Remember, no sanctions were imposed for 
these actions.
  Remember that on April 17, 1996, the Washington Times reported that 
Chinese nuclear technicians would be going to Iran to help build a 
uranium plant that will ``help Tehran's nuclear weapons program.'' 
Remember that, Members on both sides, when you think of MFN, remember 
that.
  And also remember Taiwan. When you think of MFN, remember that the 
belligerent Government of the PRC conducted missile tests, military 
exercises, off the coast of Taiwan just weeks before the first 
democratic Presidential election in Taiwan's history.
  So when you think and hear the words MFN, MFN, it is like a free word 
or term thrown around this town. Oh, some of the big, large K street 
law firms will do pretty well representing a few handful of businesses 
that are doing business in China but, as the gentlewoman from 
California has stated, it is a bad deal for us.
  Economically, trade, blue-collar workers all over the country, from 
New England to the South, textile workers from the Midwest all the way 
to the west coast are losing jobs because of this trade.
  Our Members should know that Windows 95 was available in pirated 
version in the streets of Beijing before it was available here, the 
intellectual property that the Chinese Government are exploiting with 
regard to American businesses. Remember those things.
  And remember all of the other things, that the economic 
liberalization has done nothing to improve our relations. Remember 
Harry Wu, how he documents that there are more slave labor camps and 
gulags in China than there were in the Soviet Union.
  I visited Beijing Prison No. 1, where we saw workers working on socks 
for export to the United States, and they were making jelly shoes that 
youngsters wear in the United States for export to the United States. 
Do you think an American company could compete with Tiananmen Square 
demonstrators working for nothing in a cold, snowy prison where there 
is no OSHA requirements, there is no EPA requirements, there are no 
minimum wage requirements? There are no requirements except you meet 
your quota or else.
  So as we think of the word MFN, I hope we will think in terms of all 
the different issues, from religious persecution, Catholic priests and 
bishops in jail, evangelical pastors in jail, prisoners working in 
slave labor, even people working in sweat shops for 12 to 15 hours a 
day at 9 cents an hour that are taking away American jobs. Yet this 
administration and some in Congress on both sides of the aisle are 
clamoring to see that this Congress and this administration gives MFN 
to China.
  I hope and pray that when the Congress votes on this issue this 
summer there will be a majority of men and women on both sides of the 
aisle that would join hands and vote to deny MFN for China, even though 
Clinton may veto the bill. Let it be on his conscience, not on ours. 
Even though Clinton may allow it to go through and we may not override 
the veto, let it be a burden that he has to carry, not that we have to 
carry.
  This is, I think, one of the leading moral fundamental issues that 
this Congress will have to deal with in this country, because we all 
quote in these speeches we give on July 4 what the Declaration of 
Independence says. It says, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, 
that all men and women are created equal, endowed by their Creator with 
inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''
  They did not come from Congress. It said ``by their Creator,'' their 
God. These are God-given rights. An individual, a Chinese person, man, 
woman, or child in China, is as entitled to the rights of freedom of 
speech and freedom of worship and life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness as somebody in any other part of the world.

                              {time}  1445

  It says in the Bible: To whom much is given, much is expected. And 
much has been given to our country, because we have stood firm on these 
fundamental values on both sides of the aisle. I remember when the 
persecution took place in the Soviet Union, it was Senator Jackson, a 
Democrat, and Charlie Vanik, a Democrat, that passed Jackson-Vanik to 
put tight restrictions on the Soviet Union that would not give them 
MFN. We joined hands in a bipartisan way.
  Let us hope when the roll is called, when the roll is called and we 
are given the opportunity to vote, let us hope that an overwhelming 
majority, not everyone, we are not going to get everyone, but an 
overwhelming majority will vote to deny MFN, most-favored-nation 
trading status, for a country that should not be given a most-favored-
nation trading status because of all the very bad and very evil things, 
not only that it has done, but it continues to do and appears that is 
will do in the future.

                          ____________________