[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 82 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5943-S5945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Mack, and Mr. 
        Smith):
  S.J. Res. 56. A joint resolution disapproving the extension of 
nondiscriminatory treatment--most-favored-nation treatment--to the 
products of the People's Republic of China; to the Committee on 
Finance.


  the china most-favored-nation treatment disapproval joint resolution

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, inasmuch as I believe Senators ought to 
take a position on the very significant question of a most-favored-
nation designation of China by the United States, I, today, along with 
Senator Feingold, Senator Mack, and others, offer a resolution of 
disapproval of President Clinton's renewal of most-favored-nation 
treatment for China.
  As I indicated earlier, Senator Feingold, Senator Mack, Senator Smith 
of New Hampshire are principal cosponsors of this resolution of 
disapproval.
  Now then, if there is somehow a valid reason for the United States--
the world's leader in freedom--to offer the same trading terms to China 
that the United States offers to other nations that do honor their 
citizens' human rights and that do respect the rule of law, I cannot 
think of such a reason. None come to mind.
  Mr. President, this is President Clinton's fourth renewal of MFN 
status for China. The President has covered the waterfront on this 
issue. He has been all over the lot. He has had his customary array of 
positions on MFN, as with countless other issues, and it is almost 
impossible to follow the President's ever-changing position without, as 
the saying goes, a printed program. As a candidate running for the 
Presidency in 1992, Mr. Clinton condemned the Bush administration for 
what candidate Clinton alleged was ``coddling dictators.'' But when Mr. 
Clinton took office in 1993, he decided, no, it was all right with him 
to support MFN to China--provided that China ``made progress'' in 
respecting human rights. The following year, 1994, when the President 
was forced to acknowledge that there had been no progress by China in 
human rights, President Clinton decided that human rights should not 
even be a factor in the annual MFN renewal.
  Instead, the President said that he would advance human rights 
through a set of principles for United States businesses, enhanced 
international broadcasting to China, and what the President described 
as ``increased support for nongovernmental organizations working on 
human rights in China.''
  That was 2 years ago, and we are still waiting for any evidence 
whatsoever that any of the Clinton initiatives have gone anywhere or 
accomplished anything. The business principles announced by the White 
House did not even mention China or its flagrant labor abuses.
  We are still waiting for Radio Free Asia, which the administration 
has apparently renamed and is now calling it the Asia Pacific Network, 
or some such thing, because apparently somebody in the Clinton 
administration perhaps decided that the name Radio Free Asia may be a 
little bit confrontational insofar as the Communist Chinese are 
concerned. Well, as for the aid to nongovernmental groups supporting 
human rights in China, perhaps the administration would be willing at 
least to give us a hint as to what, if anything, has been done. They 
certainly have made no report on the matter one way or the other. I do 
not believe one thing has been accomplished.
  This year, when the President announced his intention to renew MFN, 
he said the MFN decision ``isn't a referendum on all China's 
policies.'' I say, the heck it is not. Whether Mr. Clinton likes it or 
not, when the United States extends MFN to China, we are treating China 
like virtually all of our other trading partners. There are, of course, 
many other countries that deserve a stern line from the United States, 
but China is in a class by itself when it comes to the violations of 
human rights.
  The fact is, Mr. President, that China's record on human rights, 
since the most recent MFN renewal, has continued to be disgraceful. 
Even the State Department's latest annual report on human rights stated 
that the Chinese regime ``continued to commit widespread and well-
documented human rights abuses,'' abuse, I might add, which affect 
every kind of fundamental human rights imaginable.
  According to many observers, religious persecution in particular 
intensified with the Government moving against independent Christian 
churches and Muslim groups. Challenges to the regime were not 
tolerated. Quoting the State Department, ``By year's end, almost all 
public dissent against the central authorities was silenced by 
intimidation, exile or imposition of prison terms or administrative 
detention.''
  The annual MFN debate has become more than a mere referendum on 
China's policies; it is now a referendum on the Clinton 
administration's policies, and President Clinton made it so. In the 
future, in addition to requiring report on China's human rights record, 
perhaps we should consider an annual report on the Clinton 
administration's China policy.
  During the past year alone, the Clinton administration decided to 
look the other way while China sent nuclear material to Pakistan 
because, the administration says, the Chinese leadership didn't know 
anything about it. Now come reports that China is seeking to acquire 
components of SS-18 missiles from Russia and the Ukraine. And I 
discussed that subject on this floor this past Tuesday.
  China has fired missiles over the Taiwan Strait in a reckless and 
bellicose attempt to intimidate Taiwan's people as they established the 
first Chinese democracy. Despite explicit commitments to preserve Hong 
Kong's institutions and autonomy after 1997, the Chinese Government has 
announced it will abolish the elected legislature and made threats 
against the independent judiciary and civil servant of Hong Kong.
  On Trade, it is the same story. Last year, the administration agreed 
to let China have a year to crack down on dozens of pirate compact disk 
factories. In April, the administration let it be known in news reports 
that President would be hard pressed to renew MFN if Beijing didn't 
follow through on its promise to end the pirating of copyrighted 
material. The regime has not followed through and the President renewed 
MFN anyway. Now we are waiting to see if the administration imposes $2 
billion in sanctions against Chinese products, imported with United 
States.
  Despite all of these egregious examples of Chinese misbehavior, we 
still pay China's bills. Our trade with China is one-way. The United 
States buys 40 of China's exports, but China severely limits United 
States access of United States exports to their markets. Last year, our 
exports to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and even Belgium were greater than our 
exports to China, even though those countries have a tiny fraction of 
China's population.
  Still some businessmen contend that we need to trade with China. It 
will open up their society, they say. But what is going on in China is 
not free trade. The regime is turning over enterprises to the military 
so it can make money for itself and acquire technology from foreign 
businesses.

[[Page S5944]]

There is no rule of law to protect Chinese or foreign investors. 
Official corruption is widespread. A disagreement with a business 
partner who has official connections can land you in jail.
  Renewing MFN again this year will be a sign to Beijing that the 
United States will do business as usual with China no matter what the 
consequences. I trust that Senators will bear this in mind as the days 
go by.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, the Senator from North Carolina, for his 
leadership on the MFN issue and for the bipartisan effort which is 
needed because we have a bipartisan problem on the other side of this 
issue.
  Mr. President, on May 31, President Clinton announced his intention 
to extend for another year most-favored-nation trading status to China, 
a decision I regret as objectionable and truly perplexing. Our previous 
President, former President Bush, took that position, and regrettably 
the majority leader who obviously seeks to be President, also takes the 
same position. So we have a very serious problem with a past 
administration, a current administration, and potentially another 
administration all turning away from this issue of whether or not China 
deserves most-favored-nation status. I think that is objectionable 
because it reaffirms an erroneous and even illogical choice made by the 
administration in 1994: that trade rights and human rights are not 
interrelated and, yet, that through ``constructive engagement,'' 
including easy trade terms, human rights will improve. The chairman of 
the committee and I argued then that this approach was naive and 
predicted that the dismal human rights situation in China would remain 
unchanged. Unfortunately and sadly, I and others concerned with the 
Beijing regime's callous disregard for the basic rights of any 
individual, have been proven right. De-linking MFN to improvement in 
human rights has resulted only in despair, prison, and abuse for those 
struggling in China to guarantee basic freedoms. The President' 
decision is perplexing because it seems so very clear to me and other, 
more expert, observers that the Chinese covet and need trade with the 
United States and that the only pressure they apparently respect is the 
prospect of economic sanctions. Words and exhortations to improve, to 
act decently and in conformity with international norms, are pocketed 
and ignored. It is not working. In fact, things have gotten worse.

  So I rise today, Mr. President, to join in offering a resolution of 
disapproval of the President's action, an option available to the 
Congress under the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment. I recognize that this 
resolution will draw strong opposition. I know that the leadership in 
both Houses has already indicated its support for the President's 
announcement and we will soon be witness to a heavy lobbying effort by 
the administration and its allies in business and in the Congress to 
prevent our resolution from prevailing. So the odds are difficult. Of 
course, the odds are even more difficult for overriding a Presidential 
veto should we succeed. Nevertheless, I believe denying MFN-status to 
China is the right thing to do and should be pursued, not just for 
those suffering at the hands of the Chinese regime, but because it is 
in our national interest on many fronts: political, economic, and 
moral.

  Let me turn first, Mr. President, to the state of human rights in 
China which the Senator from North Carolina has discussed in some 
detail. Two years after the administration's de-linking decision, the 
State Department's annual report on human rights described an abysmal 
situation, marked by increased repression. I quote here verbatim:

       Abuses included arbitary and lengthy incommunicado 
     detention, forced confession, torture and mistreatment of 
     prisoners. Prison conditions remained harsh. The government 
     continues severe restrictions on freedom of speech, the 
     press, assembly, association, religion, privacy, movement and 
     workers rights. The report continued that by the end of 1995 
     almost all public dissent had been silenced by intimidation, 
     exile or imposition of prison terms or administrative 
     detention.

  In December 1995 we were witness to a concrete example of how little 
constructive engagement has accomplished. Wei Jingsheng, a prominent 
dissident who has dedicated his life to speaking out against the 
Chinese Government's repression of its own people, was hauled before a 
show court on charges of subversion. Wei Jingsheng had already spent 16 
years looking at the inside of Chinese prison walls, but when he was 
finally released in 1993 he immediately and courageously took up again 
the cause of freedom. For his bravery and unstinting devotion to human 
rights Wei Jingsheng--after a 6-hour court proceeding--was sentenced to 
another 14 years. The administration issued a condemnation, of course, 
and an appeal for clemency. It is any surprise, Mr. President, that the 
Chinese took this statement for what it was--mere words--and that Wei 
Jingsheng languishes today in an abusive prison system?

  The impunity with which the Chinese Government acts--and knows it can 
act--has a debilitating effect on dissent. We know from our own 
contacts that prominent intellectuals and common citizens temper their 
statements, carefully refraining from pronouncing on political topics.
  I anticipate that administration apologists will point to recent 
reforms in the Chinese legal system as evidence that engagement is 
reaping benefits. But in a way that is like a Trojan Horse. Many of the 
reforms are meant to facilitate foreign investment by making clear the 
rules of the game and providing legal recourse for settling disputes. I 
imagine, however, that Wei Jingsheng and others take cold comfort in 
China's version of the Uniform Commercial Code. To be sure, reform of 
prison procedures and criminal laws are welcome developments. Perhaps 
they do point to an evolution in the rule of law in China. But unless 
they are put into practice--and they clearly are not if, as is the case 
in China, officials can detain individuals without charge or even 
acknowledgment of detention--the reforms are merely paper promises.
  The list of human rights horrors goes on. In the past year, we have 
been witness to a well-documented report by Human Rights Watch/Asia 
detailing fatal neglect and abuse in Chinese orphanages. Tibetan 
religious sensitivities were trampled on when Chinese authorities 
usurped and gave to themselves the right to choose the Panchen Lama, 
second only to the Dalai Lama in Tibetan Buddhism, continuing a nearly 
50-year pattern of persecution and repression of the Tibetan people. In 
fact, the Chinese admitted only on June 1--and here we have truly the 
phenomena of a wolf in sheep's clothing--that they were holding under 
house arrest ``for his own protection'' the 7-year-old boy designated 
by Tibetan Buddhists as the true Panchen Lama.
  Chinese contempt for construction engagement is evident in other 
fora: thee bald-faced attempted intimidation of Taiwan in March, sales 
of nuclear equipment to Pakistan, the utter disregard for agreements to 
end violation of U.S. intellectual property rights.

  Is it possible to come to anything but this self-evident conclusion: 
``constructive engagement'' has failed so far to improve Chinese human 
rights behavior. I would say the evidence justifies the exact opposite 
conclusion: human rights have deteriorated and the regime emboldened to 
act recklessly in other areas vital to U.S. national interest.
  In announcing his intent to extend MFN, President Clinton said that 
the decision, as the chairman has pointed out, ``was not a referendum 
on China's policies.'' That is what the President indicated. And, of 
course, I believe firmly that the President abhors the daily repression 
and abuse in China. That is not the issue. What is the issue is how a 
tortured United States policy is perceived in Beijing. Recently, the 
administration announced it was taking the Chinese regime at its word 
that it had no idea that a Chinese firm--operated by the military--was 
selling ring magnets to Pakistan for use in that country's nuclear 
weapons program. This announcement--coming on the heels of tough talk 
of sanctions for what seems to me to be a clear violation of China's 
1992 pledge to abide by the obligations of the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty--must have evoked self-satisfied smiles in Beijing.
  Why? Because the threat of sanctions for ignoring our policies on 
nonproliferation--at least in this instance--went by the boards, just 
as our insistence that China respect human

[[Page S5945]]

rights in return for normal trade relations were jettisoned in 1994. 
Looming on the horizon is the ballyhooed trade war over our threat to 
impose higher tariffs on some Chinese goods, in retaliation for China's 
blatant continuing violation of United States intellectual property 
rights, IPR. We have been down this road before. It was only in 
February 1995, when threatened with higher tariffs on $1 billion of its 
goods, that China signed an agreement to curb IPR piracy. In the 15 
months since, by the estimate of the Motion Picture Industry 
Association, the harm to U.S. copyrighters has actually increased.
  Let us see if we can briefly discern a pattern here. In 1992, the 
administration promises to link trade preferences to improvement in 
human rights. Two years later, that policy is abandoned. In 1995, our 
intelligence agencies discover Chinese violations of nonproliferation 
obligations. Sanctions are threatened and then abandoned in the face of 
promises to do better. Also, in 1995, the Chinese promise to do better 
on IPR and the problem worsens. Our response: more tough talk, and this 
time ``we mean it.'' If I were sitting in Beijing, I would come to the 
conclusion that the threats are empty, the rhetoric hollow.
  Constructive engagement has failed to alter Chinese behavior to the 
good. So let us drop the pretense and cut to the quick. We trade with 
China and extend to it normal trading privileges because our Government 
believes it benefits American business, the United States economy, and, 
therefore, the national interest. We look the other way, in practice if 
not in word, on Chinese violations of human rights, nonproliferation--
perhaps in the end even on IPR--because it is good for business. As I 
said at the outset, I find this rationale perplexing.
  Our trading relationship with China is really quite one-sided. 
Writing in the New York Times, May 16, Alan Tonelson, a research fellow 
at the U.S. Business and Industrial Association, argued that our $34 
billion trade deficit with China depresses job creation, wages and 
growth of the United States economy. This tremendous deficit--which has 
helped China amass more than $70 billion in foreign reserves, a war 
chest useful to riding out any trade war--is not the result of fair-
trading practices. China is a protectionist nation, Mr. Tonelson notes, 
with some of the highest tariffs in the world. It dumps artificially 
low-priced goods--products manufactured by children and convicts--on 
American markets, hurting U.S. competitors. According to Mr. Tonelson, 
China extorts know how and high-skill jobs from American companies, 
such as Boeing, seeking to set up shop in China. Certainly China is a 
vast market, with tremendous potential. But our 1995 exports to China 
of $11.7 billion--only 0.12 percent of our GNP--were less than what we 
send to Belgium or Hong Kong.
  On the other hand, we buy up to 40 percent of China's exports and 
that allows China to finance its industrial and military modernization 
program. We have the leverage to make them play by the rules of the 
game. Does it not make sense to use that leverage now, from a relative 
position of strength, than try to make the Chinese play fair 10, 20, or 
30 years from now when by many projections it will be a legitimate 
superpower? As Mr. Tonelson notes, even the higher tariffs imposed on 
China under a non-MFN scheme would still be lower than China's tariffs 
on our products.
  Mr. President, if mortal outrage at blatant abuse of human rights is 
not reason enough for taking a tough stance with China--and I believe 
it is and that the American people do as well--then let us do so on 
grounds of self-interest.
  United States credibility is at stake; a firm stance which refuses 
China the privilege--not the right--of MFN will enhance United States 
stature and, in the long run, benefit United States business, the 
American consumer, and, we can hope, ultimately leads to an improvement 
in China's economic and political behavior.

                          ____________________