[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 64 (Thursday, May 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4581-S4582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today because a bill is being 
introduced by Senators Roth, Moynihan, and members of the Finance 
Committee which seeks to amend trade laws and provisions referring to 
``Most Favored Nation'' [MFN] trading status. They seek to rename MFN, 
``Normal Trade Relations.''
  I am not joining my Finance Committee colleagues on this bill today. 
But I would gladly support this initiative once the United States has 
an effective China policy.
  Mr. President, the reason we annually consider China's trade, human 
rights, and national security behavior during the MFN renewal debate is 
because we do not have an acceptable alternative. The goal, therefore, 
of this year's debate should not be to simply extend or revoke MFN for 
the PRC. I suggest, instead, that we endeavor to address the 
shortcomings of our China policy so that we do not need the annual MFN 
issue to debate China.
  Mr. President, we need a real China policy to replace the MFN 
revocation threat, not a name change. If the issue were just about the 
name, Americans would not voice such strong opposition to trading with 
China as if it were a normal country. The fact is, Mr. President, China 
is not like other trading nations. It is perhaps the worst violator of 
human rights and weapons nonproliferation standards in the world. The 
PRC trades unfairly, persecutes people of faith, imprisons and tortures 
democrats, proliferates weapons technology, sells arms to street gangs 
in the United States, and disbands democratic institutions in Hong 
Kong. The PRC does this while receiving international aid, American 
technology--much with military applications, and free access to the 
American market. This so-called engagement policy seems hollow and 
dangerous. Merely changing the name of MFN will not change this 
reality.
  Mr. President, I traveled to Hong Kong and China in late March this 
year with my colleague and fellow co-chair of the Senate's Hong Kong 
caucus, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut.

  I returned from this mission more concerned about Hong Kong than when 
I departed. The Chinese leadership tried to put to rest my concerns for 
Hong Kong by reassuring me that democracy would be returned to Hong 
Kong once the people received proper civic education. This distrust of 
people is apparent in China's actions toward Hong Kong's civil and 
political freedoms.
  It also caused me to renew my concern for our China policy. My 
position on this bill, and on the MFN debate in general, arises from my 
desire for good relations with China. I know this is in the best 
interest of America, China, and the world.
  There are a tremendous number of issues which Americans wish to raise 
with China. In 1997, these include Hong Kong reversion, weapons 
proliferation, religious persecution, PRC-Taiwan relations, human 
rights, involvement in U.S. elections, and our unequal trade 
relationship.

[[Page S4582]]

  Many people advise, however, that opposing MFN represents a hollow--
essentially meaningless--threat. And yet, without a responsible 
alternative, Members of Congress must choose between voting to revoke 
MFN or taking no action. Neither option is acceptable. Neither choice 
is in our Nation's best interest.
  So that our children and the children of China do not inherit an 
adversarial relationship, we must do two things in 1997. First, we must 
engage in a domestic debate on China; we must get beyond hollow 
engagement and hollow threats. Second, we must ensure our policy 
demonstrates to China that their actions have consequences: That they 
are a member of the world community and actions which violate 
agreements and norms are not merely internal matters.
  As many people know, I had discussed an idea to extend the current 
MFN status for the PRC for an additional 3 months in 1997. In offering 
this idea, I sought to accomplish the above two goals. It is too late 
for the House to take action on the 3-month extension as I had proposed 
it, but it is not too late for us to unite behind a call for action.
  Mr. President, I agree with my distinguished Finance Committee 
colleagues who believe we must get beyond the annual MFN revocation 
threat. But the way to do this is not to change the name of MFN; we 
must address the real problem. We must develop new instruments which 
address our interests with China.
  I fear, Mr. President, that the name change does not accomplish this 
most important goal; in fact, to the extent that it decreases our 
resolve to discuss China, this bill jeopardizes our national interests. 
It is for this reason that I do not join my colleagues today in 
offering this name-change legislation.
  Instead, I invite the Congress and the President to join me in making 
the best use of this year's debate. We must utilize this time to 
develop and advance our China policy, not merely put it off for another 
year.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________