[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 24, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


        WHERE IS THE SUCCESS IN OUR CURRENT POLICY TOWARD CHINA?

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEPHEN HORN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 24, 1997

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I have voted against MFN status for China 
every year since becoming a U.S. Representative in 1993. I will vote 
against MFN status for China again today.
  The economic reforms initiated by the Chinese Government in 1978 have 
vastly improved the lives of the Chinese people. I understand the 
argument that this improvement has led to better opportunities for the 
people of China and I hope that China's economy will keep growing and 
the lives of its people improve. However, I cannot ignore the fact that 
this economic liberalization has been carried out under a politically 
repressive regime that does not respect the basic rights or dignity of 
its people. Hopefully, in the years to come, more economic freedom will 
lead to political freedom. But, until that day comes, we cannot close 
our eyes to the Chinese Government's unpardonable behavior.
  The United States has much to gain by engaging the leaders of China 
on a broad range of issues. Nonetheless, engagement must not become an 
excuse for a lack of principle or a lack of will on the part of the 
United States to stand up for American beliefs. Respect for Chinese 
sovereignty does not mean that the United States must ignore behavior 
by the Chinese Government that we regard as reprehensible.
  For many years, the debate on MFN served as a useful inducement for 
the Chinese Government to improve its human rights record. There are 
good people in the United States who believe that the annual debate now 
does more harm than good. They believe ending China's MFN status would 
serve no useful purpose. I disagree. One compelling reason the debate 
carries little weight with the Chinese Government now is that China has 
come to take annual extension of MFN status for granted. I question 
whether the leaders of the Chinese regime would treat American concerns 
so cavalierly if they believed that China would suffer an economic 
disadvantage because of their behavior.
  Since President Clinton delinked human rights from the extension of 
MFN, China has exported nuclear weapons technology and ballistic 
missiles in violation of its treaty commitments. It has supported 
nations hostile to the United States and continues its military threats 
against Taiwan. China has also failed to enforce bilateral agreements 
with the United States on intellectual property which costs American 
businesses and workers billions of dollars in lost profits and wages.
  But even worse, China has imprisoned still more domestic critics and 
threatened foreign individuals and organizations who rightly criticize 
the government in Beijing. China increasingly jails those who practice 
their faith. In short, China has failed to comply with human 
rights conventions it has agreed to in international treaties and it 
has flagrantly disregarded attempts by the United States to achieve a 
better footing for bilateral relations. The delinking of human rights 
from MFN has caused more harm than the much-needed Congressional debate 
on Chinese behavior.

  Although China does offer an important and growing market for 
American goods, the American business community has seen minimal gains 
in many Chinese markets--and suffered in others--as China plays one 
nation off against another in an attempt to affect policy. I agree that 
trade with China is a matter of great importance, not only to our 
trade-based economy and our national security, but also to the future 
development of China and the rights of its people. But trade, and our 
overall relationship with China, must be a two-way street. American 
policy cannot be based on what Beijing wants. Our policy should reflect 
what is in the long term interest of our fellow citizens.
  Soon, Hong Kong will be controlled again by China. What will the 
United States do if freedom is smothered by the Chinese authorities? 
What will this House do? The current U.S. position on engaging China is 
more hope than policy. I applaud the efforts of many of my colleagues--
including David Dreier, Chris Cox, Robert Matsui, John Porter, and 
others--who are working on legislation that will establish a meaningful 
policy of engagement with China. We need a framework that will propose 
real actions to engage and respond to China and a policy that China 
cannot take for granted.
  Whether or not the United States and China can coexist peacefully in 
the next century is one of the great questions we must all consider. If 
we are to live in peace, how will we establish a relationship to do so? 
The United States must develop a plan for working realistically and 
constructively with China to solve the many issues of concern to both 
countries. The United States and China need to establish a relationship 
based on mutual trust and respect. Unfortunately, I do not believe such 
a relationship exists today. I cannot vote to support MFN in good 
conscience because of the many serious concerns I have stated. However, 
I strongly support efforts that offer the promise of a real dialogue 
with China about fundamental American beliefs regarding dignity and 
fairness. I also strongly support the creation of a relationship in 
which American concerns are treated with the same sensitivity as 
America has treated China's concerns.