[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 86 (Thursday, June 19, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5955-S5956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           OPPOSITION TO MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS FOR CHINA

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I rise in opposition to extending most-favored-nation 
status to China. I was deeply, deeply dismayed at the recent revelation 
that a State Department report on religious persecution in China and 
human rights conditions in China, originally scheduled for release back 
in January, was postponed, originally until June, and then it was 
announced that it would again be delayed and postponed until after the 
vote on most-favored-nation status, that vote that would take place now 
in the House next week.
  I think it is unconscionable, when we consider the seriousness and 
the import of this vote, for a report from the State Department that 
has relevant and pertinent information regarding what is going on in 
China today in regard to human rights and in regard to religious 
persecution, that that report should not be made available to the 
American public and to Members of the House of Representatives and to 
the U.S. Senate prior to our vote on MFN.
  Yesterday, I wrote the President and Secretary of State Albright, 
asking them for an immediate release of that State Department report so 
that Members of the House who are yet undecided on how they are going 
to vote on MFN will have that very important report at their disposal.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that letter to the 
President printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 1997.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     The President,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our grave 
     concern regarding the recent reports that suggest the U.S. 
     Department of State is deliberately delaying the release of 
     its findings on religious persecution throughout the world. 
     This report places specific focus on the persecution of 
     Christians and other religious minorities around the world, 
     and singles out china for especially tough criticism.
       As the Congress begins to debate whether to renew Most 
     Favored Nation (MFN) trade status for China, it is vital that 
     all information critical to the debate be in the public 
     domain. It is our understanding that the report was to be 
     released January 15, 1997. However, it has been brought to 
     our attention that it will not be released until after the 
     Congress votes on MFN. Furthermore, State Department 
     officials have said that the report is being held up to 
     broaden its findings.
       The oppression and persecution of religious minorities 
     around the world, specifically in China, have emerged as one 
     of the most compelling human rights issues of the day. In 
     particular, the world-wide persecution of Christians persists 
     at alarming levels. This is an affront to the morality of the 
     international community and to all people of conscience.
       The 1996 Department of State's Human Rights report on China 
     revealed that the Chinese authorities had effectively stepped 
     up efforts to suppress expressions of criticism and protest. 
     The report also states that all public dissent was 
     effectively silenced by exile, imposition of prison terms, 
     and intimidation.
       As the original co-sponsors of the resolution of 
     disapproval on MFN for China, it is our view, and that of 
     many others, that serious human rights abuses persist in all 
     areas of china and that the delay of this year's report on 
     religious persecution demonstrates the Administration's 
     unwillingness to engage in an open discussion of the effect 
     of U.S. policy on human rights in China. We strongly urge 
     that the State Department report be delivered in a timely 
     manner to ensure its full disclosure and debate prior to a 
     vote on the extension of MFN to China.
           Sincerely,
     Tim Hutchinson,
       U.S. Senator.
     Russell Feingold,
       U.S. Senator.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think to postpone the release of that report 
indicates that the likelihood that conditions in China have improved 
over the course of the last year are remote.
  The last State Department report, the China country report issued in 
1996, was a blistering condemnation of the Chinese Government's 
repression of their own people and the new wave of the religious 
persecution that has spread across the country inflicted by this 
current regime:

       The administration continues to coddle China despite its 
     continuing crackdown on democratic reform, its brutal 
     subjugation of Tibet, its irresponsibility in nuclear missile 
     technology.

  Mr. President, those are not my words. Those were the words of then 
Candidate Bill Clinton in a speech to Georgetown University in December 
1991. Then Candidate Clinton was exactly right, and those very words 
are equally applicable to the policy of appeasement that has been 
promoted by the Clinton administration.
  President Clinton, then Candidate Clinton, went on a few months later 
in March 1992 and said:

       I don't believe we should extend most favored nation status 
     to China unless they make significant progress in human 
     rights, arms proliferation and fair trade.

  He was right then. He is wrong now. They have not made significant 
progress in any of those categories, human rights, arms proliferation 
or fair trade.
  And then in August 1992, then Candidate Clinton said:

       We will link China's trading privileges to its human rights 
     records and its conduct of trade weapon sales.

  Of course, we all know that that strong position taken as a candidate 
was repudiated after he was elected President. What a difference an 
election makes.
  So today, Mr. President, I called for the immediate release of this 
State Department report so that an intelligent and informed decision 
can be made by this Congress when they vote in the House and, 
hopefully, when a vote yet in the future, in the coming weeks, in the 
Senate takes place.
  I believe that the change that occurred by this administration was 
ill-advised and has led to both a failed and flawed policy toward 
China.
  Not long ago, in the last hour, I had a conversation with former 
Secretary of State Eagleburger, who is an advocate of most-favored-
nation status, favors extending that trading status to China once 
again. I said, ``Things are worse in China since we adopted this 
constructive engagement policy.'' He said, ``In what regards?'' And I 
said, ``In every regard.'' Whether it is human rights, whether it is 
religious persecution, whether it is military expansionism or the 
export of weapons of mass destruction, you name the measure, you name 
the standard, and conditions

[[Page S5956]]

and situations in China are worse today than they were when we adopted 
this policy of so-called constructive engagement.
  One might argue that denial of most-favored-nation status is a blunt 
instrument and is not the best way to achieve our goals, as Senator 
Thomas argued a few moments ago. One might argue that. One might argue 
that we should look at other options, that we should seek other tools, 
other instruments to convey this message to the Chinese Government. But 
few, I believe, can stand and say that the current policy of this 
administration has been anything other than an abject failure.
  Some will say that it will be worse if we deny MFN. A person can 
argue that, but you cannot prove that. What can be demonstrated in all 
these now many years of MFN is that, rather than responding by 
expanding trade opportunities and trade relationships with the United 
States, rather than responding by improving the conditions of the 
Chinese people, they have responded by a new wave, an unprecedented 
wave, of repression upon those who would dare to express their own 
political opinion or their own religious faith. The logic behind the 
administration's policy of engagement is, No. 1, that it will improve 
conditions in China. It clearly has not. According to the State 
Department report, this administration's own report, it has not 
improved conditions. They have become more deplorable.

  Then the administration argues that if we link human rights 
conditions in China with trade, the result will be that China will be 
isolated and the United States companies will lose markets and trade 
opportunities. I think that is interesting. In fact, Bill Clinton, in 
November 1993, said, ``Well, I think, first of all, I think anybody 
should be reluctant to isolate a country as big as China with the 
potential China has for good, not only for the 1.2 billion people of 
China who are enjoying unprecedented and economic growth, but good in 
the region and good throughout the world. So our reluctance to isolate 
them is the right reluctance.''
  So this administration argues that if we link what is going on within 
China to our trade opportunities with this Nation, this vast nation, 
that we will isolate them, and that American companies will lose this 
opportunity for this huge bargain.
  Now, how do they argue that? They say that other countries, European 
countries, for instance, will rush in and fill the vacuum that is left 
when we pull out. They are probably right. But there is a non sequitur, 
there is a self-contradiction, in the argument of the administration 
that we somehow will isolate China and at the same time the other 
nations will come in and take the trade opportunities that otherwise 
would be afforded to our companies.
  The fact is, and everyone knows it, that less than 2 percent of our 
world trade goes to China. Being removed from China will in no way 
isolate this great vast nation. In fact, it is impossible for us, 
today, to isolate China. There will be other nations who go in, just as 
we will find other markets for our products.
  But what is just as certain is that denying the privilege of MFN to 
this Nation, which is so repressive toward its own people and so 
expansionist in their military policy, by denying MFN, we can send a 
powerful and meaningful message to the tyrants in Beijing. I know of no 
other way that we can send that powerful message, and those who favor 
the extension of MFN, to me, have not yet offered a significant and 
meaningful alternative.
  Now, let me just return to my call for the administration to release 
this report. I think it is absolutely critical that the House of 
Representatives have before them that report before they are asked to 
cast this very important vote next week. The coming MFN vote is not 
just a vote on trade, Mr. President. It is not just a vote on what we 
stand for as a nation, though it is very much that kind of a vote. Are 
we going to stand for anything? Are we still going to represent the 
last best hope for freedom-loving people in this world, or are we not?
  But it is not just a vote on that. It is not just a vote on Chinese 
military expansionism, though if we have a great national security 
threat in the decades to come, it will be from China, and it is a vote 
as to our concern about that expansionism. It is not just a vote on 
religious persecution in China, though that ought to concern every 
freedom-loving American. But, Mr. President, it is also a vote on this 
administration's China policy, a policy that is, I believe, by every 
measure, flawed and failed.
  Mr. President, I believe this administration deserves a vote of no 
confidence on their China policy. That can best be given by a no vote 
on extending MFN to China.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________