Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 90 (Tuesday, June 24, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4234-H4257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DISAPPROVAL OF MOST-FAVORED-NATION TREATMENT FOR CHINA

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of yesterday, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 79) disapproving the extension of
nondiscriminatory treatment--most-favored-nation treatment--to the
products of the People's Republic of China, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 79 is as follows:

H.J. Res. 79

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
Congress does not approve the extension of the authority
contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974
recommended by the President to the Congress on May 29, 1997,
with respect to the People's Republic of China.

The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. Pursuant to the order of the
House of Monday, June 23, 1997, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Crane], and a Member in support of the joint resolution each will
control 1 hour and 45 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].

General Leave

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous matter on House Joint Resolution 79.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield one-half of
my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] in opposition to
the resolution, and I further ask that he be permitted to yield blocks
of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark]
in favor of the resolution?
Mr. STARK. I am, Mr. Speaker.
I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded half of the time and that I
be permitted to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of my
time to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], and
that he in turn be permitted to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee
on Rules and that he be permitted to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Crane].
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 79
because revoking China's MFN trade status would have the effect of
severing trade relations between our two countries. My firm belief is
that the free exchange of commerce and ideas offers the best hope we
have to project the

[[Page H4235]]

light of freedom into Communist China.
In deciding whether to continue MFN trade treatment for China, we
must keep two objectives firmly in mind: First, improving the well-
being of the Chinese people; and, Second, protecting the U.S. national
interests with respect to a country that possesses one-fifth of the
world's population and exploding economic growth.
This year we have the added responsibility of ensuring that United
States policy does not undermine the transition of Hong Kong from
British to Chinese sovereignty. All would agree some of the world's
most flagrant abuses of human rights and violations of religious and
political freedom occur in China.
My message today is simple. Change is not coming quickly to this huge
nation, but historic advancements are being made. For 20 years after
the Communists seized power in 1949, China was largely isolated. This
was the era of the Great Leap Forward, when 35 million died of
starvation and the Cultural Revolution, which saw hundreds of thousands
of Chinese killed in political purges and forced internal exile.
Since the economic opening of China by Deng Xiaoping in 1980, living
conditions in China have improved vastly. To give some perspective, in
1980, 260 million of China's 1.2 billion people lived in absolute
poverty.

{time} 1100

In 1993 that figure was reduced by about 40 or over 40 percent to
$160 million. Chinese citizens can now seek out their own jobs, move
around the country, and discuss political matters, as long as they do
not directly challenge the Government.
Focusing on freedom of worship for a moment, the virulently
antireligious policies of the 1960's and 1970's have given way to a
society that is open in large measure to the Christian message.
Concerned that a few United States Christian organizations are actively
advocating the revocation of MFN, a huge coalition of Christian
missionaries and evangelical groups with years of experience actually
serving in China have sent a powerful message to Congress. Their view
is that by severing trade relations in China, it would result in a
backlash against the Christian ministry in China, seriously harming
their ability to reach the Chinese people.
Many would say today that preserving most-favored-nation status puts
profit ahead of principle. This viewpoint contradicts what can be
observed in the relationship between economic development and the
expansion of democracy. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong,
to name a few Asian tigers, experienced economic success and rising
living standards after opening their economies to international trade.
In these countries, the elimination of severe poverty and the emergence
of a middle class came well ahead of democratic political reform.
President Lee Teng-Hui of Taiwan has said:

Vigorous economic development leads to independent
thinking. People hope to be able to fully satisfy their free
will and see their rights fully protected. And then demand
ensues for political reform . . . the model of our quiet
revolution will eventually take hold on the Chinese mainland.

Clearly China is a special case, but expanding United States
commercial relations with China makes Chinese citizens less dependent
on the central government for their livelihoods and in a better
position to strive for freedom. As wealth is distributed throughout
Chinese society, so is political power, away from the central
government. Americans doing business in China have contributed to
prosperity and at the same time they are continually able to transfer
the values and ideals of freedom and democracy through direct contacts.
While preserving MFN trade status for China offers hope for improving
the welfare of the Chinese people, it is also squarely in the United
States national interest. With a fifth of the world's population,
China's emergence as a global power early in the next century is a
development of immense historical significance. Sharing borders with
more countries, 14 to be exact, than any other country in the world, a
peaceful China will be key to preserving stability in the Asia-Pacific
region.
In order to protect national security interests into the next
century, the United States must develop a policy that encourages China
to be a friend and a valued trading partner, rather than an adversary
isolated by comprehensive economic sanctions. Confronting China by
revoking MFN would be interpreted by the Chinese leadership as an act
of aggression. This would further strengthen the hand of those in China
who oppose further reform, prompting behavior we seek to avoid.
If House Joint Resolution 79 were enacted into law, relations with
the Government of China would deteriorate to the point that virtually
all United States influence for the good would be lost. United States
businesses which need a presence in China to support a successful Asian
strategy would withdraw. Mirror trade sanctions would threaten the
paychecks of 180,000 U.S. workers whose jobs are directly dependent on
exports to China. Our foreign competitors in Japan and Europe would
move briskly into the void created by this bill.
The alternative strategy which I support is to maintain trade
relations and preserve a basis upon which to negotiate improvements in
our relationship with China. Ambassador Barshefsky's successful
resolution of the section 301 case against China for failing to protect
United States intellectual property rights illustrates the value of
preserving normal trade relations. Armed with the authority to raise
tariffs in a selective, calibrated manner, Ambassador Barshefsky
threatened $2 billion in targeted trade sanctions directly tied to
specific, well substantiated violations. The result was an agreement by
the Chinese Government to shut down 32 pirate plants and a commitment
to undertake expanded enforcement drives in regions where violations of
United States intellectual property rights are known to be the highest.
Finally, the unanimous view of leaders in Hong Kong, from Governor
Chris Patten to the respected activist and chairman of the Hong Kong
Democratic Party, Martin Lee, is that any reversal in China's MFN
status would strike a devastating blow to the territory.
In 1996, over 56 percent of China's exports to the United States and
49 percent of United States exports to China passed through Hong Kong.
Denying MFN to China would threaten 70,000 jobs in Hong Kong. At this
extraordinarily delicate time, the people of Hong Kong deserve our
steady and strong support for renewing China's MFN status.
Mr. Speaker, we should continue to participate in the dramatic and
historic change that is taking place in China, so we can help shape it
in our favor and in a way that supports our allies in Hong Kong and
Taiwan in their struggle to preserve freedom. The Reverend Billy
Graham, whose son Ned labors as a missionary in China, wrote last week:

I am in favor of doing all we can to strengthen our
relationship with China and its people. China is rapidly
becoming one of the dominant economic and political powers of
the world, and I believe it is better to keep China as a
friend than to treat it as an adversary.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 79.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 9 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], who has been a leader on the
issue of trying to bring human rights and reasonable policy to China.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that we all agree that the United
States-China relationship is an important one, and that we want a
brilliant future with the Chinese people, diplomatically, culturally,
economically, politically, and in every way. However, the
administration's policy of so-called constructive engagement is neither
constructive nor true engagement.
President Clinton has said promoting Democratic freedom, stopping the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and promoting U.S.
exports are pillars of our foreign policy. In each of these important
areas, the administration's policy of so-called constructive engagement
has not succeeded. In fact, there has been a marked deterioration, not
improvement, under the administration's policy.
Certainly, we must have engagement. But I contend that our engagement

[[Page H4236]]

must be sustainable engagement, engagement that enables us to sustain
our values, sustain our economic growth, and sustain international
security.
In my remarks this morning, Mr. Speaker, I want to debunk three myths
about MFN and trade and human rights.
The first myth is that United States-China trade is a job-winner for
the United States. This is an out-and-out hoax. This year President
Clinton stated trade with China supports 170,000 United States jobs.
That is the exact same number he cited last year. In 1995, it was
150,000 jobs, in 1994, it was 150,000 jobs, in 1993, it was 150,000
jobs. This is an economy with 127,850,000 people. This represents one-
eighth of 1 percent of jobs in America and it is not growing, while our
trade deficit continues to grow.
United States jobs are being lost through the Chinese Government's
practices of requiring technology and production transfer. The Chinese
Government is carefully and calculatingly building its own economic
future by acquiring United States technological expertise. It allows
into China only the goods it wants, and then through mandatory
certification of the technology by Chinese research and design
institutes, the technology is disseminated to Chinese domestic
ventures. Not only does this practice not benefit U.S. workers who are
left behind as the companies lose their own market share, but we are
surrendering our own technology in the meantime.
As a condition of doing business in China, United States companies
are often required to agree to export 70 to 80 percent of their
production there. This, too, translates into a loss of U.S. jobs.
In the realm of intellectual property piracy, as Members know,
despite the agreement the piracy is rampant, to the cost of $2.6
billion in 1996 alone. And that is not even figured into the huge trade
deficit, which is projected to be $53 billion this year.
Others say that the jobs that are created in the United States are in
the production here that goes to China for assembly. Not so. Do not
take my word, but the word of Ken Lodge, the manager of Hewlett-
Packard's Beijing subsidiary, when he says, ``Over time, the use of
North American suppliers will be turned off.''
Experts tell us our intellectual property is our competitive
advantage. We see what the Chinese are doing to our intellectual
property. It is estimated that 97 percent of the entertainment software
available in China is counterfeit. It is interesting that since 1996,
Chinese capacity to produce pirated products has increased
dramatically. In conclusion, the United States-China trade relationship
is a job loser for the American worker.
Second, China is halting its proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, myth No. 2. The truth is that China continues to
proliferate dangerous weapons of mass destruction technology to Iran,
Libya, Iraq, Syria, and other dangerous countries, destabilizing
regions of strategic importance to the United States. The transfer of
this technology is a threat to United States troops based in the
Persian Gulf, and a threat to the security of Israel. We spend billions
of dollars to promote the Middle East peace, and that peace is
jeopardized by this export policy on the part of China, which we are
choosing to ignore.
In the case of Iran, 15,000 service men and women are within range of
the C-802 missiles recently transferred by China to Iran. The C-802
batteries will give Iran a weapon of greater range, reliability,
accuracy, and mobility than anything in their current inventory. This
missile technology is in addition to biological and chemical warfare
technologies recently transferred to Iran from China.
Mr. Speaker, I want to call to my colleagues' attention this quote,
this cover piece from a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence,
March 1997. It states:

Discoveries after the gulf war clearly indicate that Iraq
maintained an aggressive weapons of mass destruction
procurement program. A similar situation exists in Iran, with
a steady flow of materials and technologies from China to
Iran. This exchange is one of the most active weapons of mass
destruction programs in the Third World and is taking place
in a region of great strategic interest to the United States.

In terms of Pakistan, the administration continues to turn a blind
eye on China's proliferation of missiles to Pakistan. For 5 years the
CIA has been carefully tracking the flow of China's M-11 missile
components to Pakistan. The agency, the CIA, concluded that not only is
China selling missiles, but it is also helping Pakistan build a factory
to manufacture them. For the CIA, uncovering the plant represented a
``first-class piece of spying,'' says a senior agency official, but
because it does not want to disrupt the so-called improving
relationship, the Clinton administration does not want to deal with
this secret.
The CIA also turned up evidence that Beijing was reneging again on
its promise not to spread these missiles into Pakistan. The agency
maintains a vast network of informants in Asia who report on the
movement of these weapons into the region. Last summer the CIA
concluded that China had delivered to Pakistan not just missile parts,
but also more than 30 ready-to-launch M-11's that are stored in
cannisters at Sargodha Air Force base west of Lahore.
There is more on this I will submit for the Record, but other
agencies of the intelligence community have all agreed on a Statement
of Fact: A top secret document that has recently been in the press that
concludes that China is helping to build this missile technology.
The third myth to debunk, Mr. Speaker, is that trade is improving
human rights in China. Pro-MFN advocates continue to advance this
notion of trickle-down liberty, even though the facts are to the
contrary. Since Tiananmen Square, the State Department's own country
reports have been dismal on this subject, and its own report in 1996,
which was released this spring of 1997, contains an excellent
description of the current state of human rights in China, but it is a
sad one.
Mr. Speaker, I would draw Members' attention particularly to the
statements in that report that--

The (Chinese) government continued widespread and well-
documented human rights abuses, in violation of
internationally accepted norms, stemming from the
authorities' intolerance of dissent * * *.
Overall in 1996, the authorities stepped up efforts to cut off
expressions of protest or criticism. All public dissent against the
party and government has been effectively silenced * * * even those
released from prison were kept under tight surveillance and often
prevented from taking employment or resuming a normal life.

Mr. Speaker, there is a report on religious persecution which the
administration is sitting on until after this vote, which documents the
violations of religions of the Buddhists, Catholics, Christians,
Muslims, and the people of Tibet.
On MFN, the debate today is necessary because the administration has
refused to use the tools at its disposal, and because the Chinese ship
one-third of their exports to the United States, while allowing only 2
percent of our products into China. We have leverage. The Chinese
regime cannot take their business elsewhere. One-third of all of their
exports cannot find another market.
A vote for MFN today is a vote of confidence in a failing policy.
Opposing MFN says that you believe that the status quo is not
acceptable. Instead, we must have a policy of sustainable engagement
with China, engagement which makes the trade fairer, the world safer,
and the people freer. I urge my colleagues to oppose MFN by voting
``yes'' on House Joint Resolution 79.

{time} 1115

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I just want to see if there is not one other
myth. There has been a myth that we have a different policy for Cuba
than we do for China. But I do not think that is true, because I think
the President continues to deny medicine and food to the children in
Cuba at the same time that the President countenances children who are
selected for starvation in China. So I see a very consistent policy in
our administration toward both Cuba and China, and that is to ignore
the plight of children in both of those countries.

[[Page H4237]]

Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman agree?
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would agree. I want to emphasize that we
are not advocating an embargo on China but threat of increased tariffs.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], who has been a leader on welfare reform,
tax policy, trade policy, and health care.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
House Joint Resesolution 79 and speak in favor of our normal trading
relationship with the People's Republic of China. Today's debate will
have a complexity that goes far beyond what is in front of us, trade
and emigration. On both sides, economic, political, strategic, and
humanitarian differences abound, and yet we have allowed this one
issue, most-favored-nation status, to be a referendum on U.S.-China
relationship.
It has become the lens through which most Americans look and view the
entire United States-China policy. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed
unfortunate, because not only is China the largest emerging market in
the world, it is also a potent political and military force. China's
new leadership will shape, whether we like it or not, for better or
worse, what happens in the Pacific rim, from Indonesia to Korea, from
Australia to Japan, the course of events will be influenced daily by
China.
So we must influence what happens in China. We will undermine our
ability to shape not only our future but China's future if we withdraw
from this situation. Without our influence, how will democratic values
come to be accepted in China? Without our example, how will dissent
come to be tolerated? Without our presence, how will religious
liberties come to exist, without our active engage? How will human
rights come to be respected? To the extent the United States has been a
positive influence on China, it is because we have been there. We have
been on the ground. We have been there to demonstrate to people who
have been isolated from the world that there is another way.
And just as surely, Mr. Speaker, if we isolate China, so the Chinese
people will lose, because they have benefited from a more open market,
from exposure to cultural and ideological differences, from experience
with Western business with better working conditions. There is no
debate here today whether we must continue to highlight human rights
abuses or point out that China will never be the world leader that it
so craves to be if it continues to persecute its own people. Of course
we must debate this. The debate though is how best to do it.
My answer is, we do it best by engaging with the Chinese, not from
withdrawing from them. Change is occurring in China. Mr. Speaker, I was
there earlier this year. I saw a nation, a nation that is vibrant, a
nation that is colorful, a nation that is on the move. I saw people who
were demanding, millions and millions of people demanding to be part of
the marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, China is emerging. China is going to be a power. We have
a duty here in this body to make sure we are an influence on China. We
cannot withdraw from this debate. We cannot withdraw from China. Mr.
Speaker, we might not like what is going on in all ways and aspects,
but, Mr. Speaker, we have a duty to influence China.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution
79, the resolution of disapproval. We should definitely deny most-
favored-nation trading status to China. The debate today is not just
about China and the Chinese Government and its failure to live up to
accepted standards of civilized nations. This debate is also about our
own country, about what we are willing to stand up for. This debate is
about principles, human rights, human decency. This debate today is
about whether or not we as a Nation put trade before people and profits
above principles. Where do we start a debate like this? Since the
President initiated the recommendation to renew most-favored-nation
trade status for China, let us start with his own State Department's
findings.
In the country report on human rights for 1996, the State Department
said, and I quote, the Chinese Government continued to commit
widespread and well-documented human rights abuses in violation of
internationally accepted norms, stemming from the authority's
intolerance of dissent, fear of unrest and the absence or inadequacies
of laws protecting the basic freedoms, unquote. It starts out pretty
bad and things go downhill from there.
The supporters of MFN for China insist that we must stay engaged with
China. We must be patient and engage China through continued trade.
They will also be bringing up Hong Kong and the Chinese takeover on
July 1 as a reason to stay engaged. From where I sit, China is a little
too engaged already. It is engaged in transferring dangerous
technology, enabling rogue nations to develop weapons of mass
destruction.
The Chinese Government is engaged in providing Iran's advanced
missile and chemical weapons technology, providing Iraq and Libya
materials to produce nuclear weapons. It is engaged in providing
missile related components to Syria and providing Pakistan's advanced
missile and nuclear weapons technology. It is engaged in selling over
$1.2 billion in arms to the military rulers of Burma. How much
engagement do we need? But it does not stop here. There is much more.
The Chinese Government is engaged in a massive expansion of its own
military machine, taking up where the Soviet Union left off, using the
profits from trade with us to pay for it. The Chinese Government is
engaged in brutal suppression of human rights at home. Evangelical
Protestants and Catholics who choose to worship independently of state-
sanctioned churches are harassed and in prison. The Chinese Government
continues its brutal repression of the religion, people and culture of
Tibet; slave labor, prison camps, forced abortions. If the government
of China were any more engaged, the people of China simply would not be
able to take it.
Nobody really disputes any of this. The big question is, what do we
do about it? No one believes that simply denying most-favored-nation
status is going to solve everything. Let us be honest about it. Denying
MFN might not solve anything. But I do know that, if we believe in
human rights, if we believe in human decency, we must respond somehow.
We cannot allow such abysmal treatment and such callous disregard for
human rights to go unnoticed or unanswered.
Denying MFN might not be a great answer, but it is the only one we
have at hand today. We have to send a very strong message, even if it
is a weak one; we have to stand for something, even if it is imperfect.
And MFN is the only game in town.
This debate is not really that hard for the American people. In a
poll taken by the Wall Street Journal and NBC news on June 10, it was
discovered that 67 percent of American adults believe that the United
States should demand improvement in Chinese human rights policy before
granting an extension of MFN trading status to China. If Members choose
today to oppose this resolution, if they choose today to vote for
renewal of MFN, they have to first ignore the pain of the Chinese
people and then they have to ignore the opinion of the American people.
Please do not put profits over principle, vote for the resolution of
disapproval.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following:

U.S. Is Financing China's War Plan

(By Timothy W. Maier)

Recent intelligence reports obtained by Insight indicate
China's People's Liberation Army is picking up where the
Soviets left off, moving to create a military leviathan
designed for fighting in the South China Sea and built to
destroy U.S. ships and aircraft. The Red Chinese are using
the U.S. bond market to finance their military expansion.
China is making a statement in the Pacific that threatens
several of America's most important allies and could force a
showdown with the United States. The Red Chinese plan, say
U.S. intelligence sources, is to expand its military hegemony
to dominate trade in the South China Sea. It's called ``power
projection,'' and Pentagon officials, China experts and
senior intelligence specialists privately are saying that it
could erupt in bloodshed on the water.
These experts say the United States is facing a
multibillion-dollar military threat.

[[Page H4238]]

And, to complicate matters, it is being subsidized by the
U.S. bond market, senior national-security officials tell
Insight. It is money from American pension funds, insurance
companies and securities that may never be paid back.
China's plan is militarily to dominate the first tier of
islands to the west of Japan and the Philippines and then
project its force to the next ``island tier,'' leaving
America's most important allies in the Pacific surrounded by
the Chinese military and, short of nuclear war, defenseless.
Foreign diplomats tell Insight the move toward the second
tier started two years ago when China's People's Liberation
Army, or PLA, set up command posts on uninhabited islands
near the Philippines. ``They are drawing their line,
basically saying this area is Chinese territory,'' a
Philippine diplomat who is monitoring Chinese military
movements warns.
An ancillary motive behind China's plan to expand its
military hegemony by more than 1,000 miles to the southern
part of the South China Sea, say regional experts, revolves
around the Spratly Islands, believed to be rich in oil and
natural gas. Countries already claiming part of the Spratlys
include Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam. In
addition, China has shown interest in Guam and a set of
islands north of the Spratlys, which Japan claims. A further
target, says the Philippine diplomat, is control of the
Kalayaan Island group, dominating the supply routes to the
Philippines and important logistically to resupply other
islands.
``They are setting the building blocks to eventually make
that power projection,'' says the diplomat, who asked not to
be named. ``These are the building blocks for controlling the
sea lines on which all the countries in the region such as
Taiwan and Japan rely for economic vitality. The Chinese want
to constrict trade to break Taiwan and Japan be being able to
cut off the oil supply. While they may not be a direct threat
to the U.S., they are more than enough of a threat to smaller
weaker countries including ourselves and Japan. . . . The
U.S. has done nothing because there is no blood on the
water--yet.''
A Japan Embassy official, who spoke for the record but
asked not to be named, says Japan has no intention of
surrendering claims to its islands in the region. ``It is
clear the islands [Beijing wants] belong to us,'' the
official says, adding that if China moves in this way Japan
expects the U.S. to intervene. ``We have been watching
China's military very closely,'' says the official.
Arthur Waldron, a China strategy expert at the U.S. Naval
War College in Newport, RI, says China has wanted to reclaim
the South China Sea since 1950, but placed that mission on
the back burner because it was trying to defend itself from a
possible Soviet invasion. Most of China's troops were
deployed along the Soviet border or near Tibet and Vietnam,
countries that were armed by Moscow. But now that the Russian
threat has been greatly reduced, Beijing strategically has
revised its military strategy and reorganized the PLA
aggressively to pursue its maritime expansion mission, as was
evident last year when Red Chinese missiles were fired
over Taiwan as a means of intimidating both Taipei and
Washington.
``I think it's absolutely delusionary to think they can
achieve that goal by military force, but for us not to take
China's military seriously is extremely dangerous,'' Waldron
warns. ``That is exactly what the Chinese want us to do. This
is such a very dangerous situation that [protection of the
South China Sea] should be negotiated and settled by all the
parties concerned.''
In April, the House Intelligence Committee released a
Department of Defense report called ``Selected Military
Capabilities of the People's Republic of China'' which
highlights similar concerns. The report claims China has
focused on developing nuclear-weapons systems and advanced
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to
``develop a capability to fight short-duration, high-
intensity wars in the region'' and defeat the U.S. Navy.
The report concludes that China will have the capacity ``to
produce as many as 1,000 new [ballistic] missiles within the
next decade'' and is developing land-attack cruise missiles
as a high priority for strategic warfare.
A naval-intelligence report released in February warned of
Beijing's emphasis on obtaining a sophisticated blue-water
navy technology to achieve four objectives: First, safeguard
what the PRC calls China's territorial integrity and national
unity--this includes China's claim over Taiwan; second,
conduct a possible blockade of Taiwan; third, defeat seaborne
invasions; and fourth, create intercontinental nuclear
retaliatory forces. Meanwhile, two Red Chinese fleets patrol
the area--one within 20 nautical miles of the coast targeting
the first tier of islands, and another patrolling the outer
reaches of the East China Sea in the area of the Taiwan
Strait, the February report says.
In a country with nuclear attack submarines, this could
mean trouble. Also, China possesses accurate and stealthy
ballistic and cruise missiles with multiple warheads--some of
which are aimed at Los Angeles and either Alaska or Hawaii,
according to U.S. intelligence officials. China's force-
projection plans also include building modern aircraft
carriers.
The architect behind this buildup, say Western intelligence
sources, is the Soviet-educated Chinese navy commander, Gen.
Liu Huaqing, 79, a hardliner whose family is reported to be
heavily involved in international power-projection through
trade with the West in the manner of V.I. Lenin's New
Economic Plan. To China's neighbors Liu is the ``power broker
who calls the tunes,'' which fits with the widespread opinion
among security experts that the PLA is the power behind the
Chinese government.
Former Time journalists Ross Munro and Richard Bernstein
claim in their recently published book, ``The Coming Conflict
With China'', that Beijing's primary objective is to become
``the paramount power in Asia'' by tapping U.S. technology
and using Russian military experts. The authors contend China
has proceeded in its plan with the help of about 10,000
Russian scientists and technicians--some of them in China and
others communicating through the Internet. Though some of
this is official, the Russian government is known to be
sharing some very sophisticated weapons technology to assist
the PLA, not all of it is. ``The Russian military-industrial
complex, staffed by some of the world's best (suddenly
underemployed and underpaid) minds in military technology, is
so corrupt and so desperate for cash that everything seems to
be for sale,'' Munro and Bernstein write. ``In 1995, for
example, there were reports that Chinese agents, paying
bribes to staff members of a Russian base near Vladisvostok,
obtained truckloads of plans and technical documents for
Russia's two most advanced attack helicopters.'' The Chinese
since have obtained intact nuclear weapons from Russia,
according to intelligence reports.
Adm. Joseph W. Prueher, chief of the U.S. Pacific Command,
testified before a House National Security Committee in March
that China is not yet a threat because its military is about
15 years behind that of the United States. In light of the
blow that the U.S. military might have delivered even 15
years ago, say defense experts, that hardly is comforting.
And, Waldron says, this can be a dangerous presumption
because history indicates it didn't stop Japan in 1941 or
Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War. In 1994, a war
game at the Naval War College conceptualized a sea battle
between the U.S. Navy and the PLA navy off of China's shores
in the year 2010. The battle hypothesized that China
continued to acquire military technology at a rapid pace. The
game, which Pentagon officials have refused to talk about,
ended with a PLA victory, according to reports in Navy Times.
``The U.S. Navy is very angry at the Clinton administration
for not taking a more robust approach,'' Waldron says. ``We
should pay a lot more attention. It's a great mistake to
think a country with a military only comparable to ours will
not attack. I worry very much about what China will do.''
China analysts and national-security officials say the
operating officer at the heart of Beijing's master plan to
seize hegemony over Taiwan, Japan, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan,
Guam and the Philippines is Wang Jun--Clinton's Feb. 6, 1996,
coffee-klatsch guest who has taken advantage of corporate
greed by persuading American investors to pour billions of
dollars into joint-venture projects that allow Wang to tap
into the U.S. bond market, borrowing millions from American
mutual funds, pension funds and insurance companies to
support the war chest.
Wang chairs both PolyTechnologies, or Poly, the arms-
trading company of the PLA, and China International Trust and
Investment Corp., or CITIC, a $23 billion financial
conglomerate that Wang says is run by China's government, or
State Council. His dual control of CITIC and Poly (the PLA
company caught last year allegedly smuggling 2,000 AK-47
assault rifles to U.S. street gangs) makes it difficult for
American firms to know whose hand they are shaking. ``He's a
master of muddying the waters,'' says James Mulvenon, a China
researcher at California-based Rand Corp. ``American
companies are playing a shell game.''
Not surprisingly, CITIC officially has controlled Poly. The
relationship dates back to 1984 when the PLA created Poly for
arms trading and structured it under the ownership of CITIC
in part to conceal Poly's link to the PLA, according to
Western analysts. Wang is the son of Red China's late vice
president and Long March veteran Wang Zhen. The president of
Poly is Maj. Gen. He Ping, son-in-law of the late Deng
Xiaoping. A former defense expert for the Chinese Embassy in
Washington, He Ping is director of PLA arms procurement and
chairs CITIC-Shanghai. A second major subsidiary of CITIC is
CITIC-Pacific in Hong Kong, chaired by Rong Yung, son of
China's vice president, Rong Yiren, who founded CITIC. In
short, this is a high-level operation of the Beijing
government directly connected to the men in charge.
With the help of CITIC-Beijing, He Ping engineered the
billion-dollar sale of Chinese arms that included missiles to
Saudi Arabia and short-range cruise missiles to Iran during
the mid-1980s. That deal was assisted by the government-
controlled China Northern Industrial Corp., or Norinco, which
now is under investigation in the West for selling chemical-
weapons materials to Iran for weapons of mass destruction,
according to April testimony before a Senate Governmental
subpanel. China's sale of nuclear and chemical weapons to the
Middle East all are part of a strategic plan to spread out
deployment of the U.S. Navy so the PLA can concentrate on the
South China Sea, according to intelligence and diplomatic
officials.

[[Page H4239]]

But take Wang's word for it, he is far removed from Poly,
according to a rare and exclusive interview he gave to the
Washington Post. The Post did not question Wang's assertion
that he only spend 5 percent of his time with Poly. But
Mulvenon, who is researching the PLA empire, laughs at that
estimate. ``It is more likely 15 to 20 percent,'' he says.
And some defense-intelligence sources tell Insight CITIC is
so closely linked to the PLA that professional observers have
little doubt that the PLA is calling the shots.
Wang's ability to mask Poly by show-casing CITIC has paid
off handsomely for his other enterprises on behalf of
Beijing's war plans. In particular, the U.S. bond market
already has been an attractive target for CITIC to the tune
of $800 million in borrowing. That, of course, begs the
question: Why is the high-level Beijing operative Wang Jun
allowed to borrow huge sums from Americans when President
Clinton says it is ``clearly inappropriate'' even to meet
with this PLA arms dealer? The White House assures that
questionable visitors such as Wang no longer will have access
to the president because FBI and National Security Council
background checks now will expose them in advance. Yet, there
is no national-security screening of foreign borrowers in
U.S. securities markets from which huge sums are being
allowed to float into China's war chest.
Sound incredible? A new booked called Dragonstrike: The
Millennium War, by British Broadcasting Corp. and Financial
Times journalists Humphrey Hawksley and Simon Holberton,
presents a scenario on how the Red Chinese military might
manipulate the international financial market to raise
capital. It's what Roger Robinson, former senior director of
International Economic Affairs at the National Security
Council, warns already is happening. Robinson, described by
President Reagan as ``the architect of a security-minded and
cohesive U.S. East-West economic policy,'' claims that these
enormous sums may never be paid back.
``This is cash on the barrel,'' Robinson says. ``This
totally undisciplined cash with no questions asked concerning
the purpose for the loans. This could be used to fund
supplier credits, strategic modernization, missiles to rogue
states like Iran and to finance espionage, technology theft
and other activities harmful to U.S. securities interests.''
Some of the bond money ``undeniably'' is supporting PLA
enterprises, says Orville Schell, a China expert who is dean
of the journalism school at the University of California at
Berkeley. Schell says that's because ``there is no division
between government and business'' in the PRC, making it
nearly impossible to distinguish PLA companies from
government-controlled companies. ``It means China is going to
be exporting and docking at facilities in Long Beach
[Calif.]'' at the former U.S. Navy base there, notes Schell
in reference to what some regard as a military concession to
go along with its acquisition of control of ports at both
ends of the Panama Canal. ``It means China is going to be
buying U.S. companies. It is going to be doing all of the
things that everyone else does. Whether it is a security risk
depends on your assessment of China,'' says Schell. ``But one
thing for sure. China is the most unsettled country in
Asia.''
Thomas J. Bickford, a PLA expert and political-science
professor at the University Wisconsin at Oshkosh says
accessing the U.S. bond market is just one way the PLA can
rise the money to purchase the most modern military
equipment. ``But it's not in just the bond market, it's also
in consumer sales,'' with 10,000 to 20,000 companies, he says
(see ``PLA Espionage Means Business,'' March 24). Many of
those PLA enterprises are losing money and in essence
promoting corruption in the ranks, says Bickford, as some
PLA business operatives personally are pocketing profits
to purchase luxury cars or resorts, while others are fully
engaged in smuggling operations. ``The corruption is so
high it goes all the way up to the generals,'' Bickford
says. ``That gives you an idea how much rot exists.''
Where large profits from PLA companies do occur, much goes
toward purchasing food and housing for some 3.2 million Red
troops, says Bickford. This suggests the bond market may play
a bigger role for the PLA than most people expect because
that money could be going to support a defense budget the
U.S. government claims to be as high as $26.1 billion a year.
And Munro and Bernstein claim it really is about $87 billion
a year when profits from PLA businesses are calculated in the
total.
Deeply concerned about all of this, Robinson advocates
creating a nondisruptive national-security screening process
to help the Securities and Exchange Commission identify and
exclude PRC fund-raising operations disguised as business
ventures. The process would be similar to security checks now
conducted at the White House, or the seven-day waiting period
for a background review required to purchase a handgun. He
says it would weed out dangerous foreign business partners
such as PLA gunrunning companies and the Russian Mafia.
``Russia thinks the water is fine,'' Robinson says. ``They
are going to have as many as 10 to 12 bond offerings in the
next 18 months--and some of those might involve organized
crime. So there is every reason to be concerned because there
might be bad actors among the Russian bond offering. We don't
want terrorists, drug dealers, an organized criminal
syndicate, gun smugglers or national military establishments
borrowing on the U.S. securities markets with impunity.''
Bickford says Robinson's solution would ``catch the
obvious'' PLA players, but it won't stop all the diverting of
money to the military because many of the PLA enterprises
have joint ventures with Chinese government-controlled
companies--making it nearly impossible to track the bad seed.
``The PLA businesses are very good about hiding themselves,''
Bickford warns.
But Robinson says the National Security Council knows who
the bad actors are and could effectively knock out the
threat. ``We need to get national security back in the
picture,'' Robinson insists. ``We are not trying to
discourage investing in the market, but this is too fertile a
territory for potential abuse. We just need to get additional
protection for the American investment community via U.S.
intelligence in a secure, nondisruptive manner.''
Robinson has uncovered $6.75 billion in Chinese government-
controlled bonds floated on the U.S. and international
securities markets between September 1989 and December 1996.
China also has placed $17.2 billion in bonds with Japan.
About 65 percent of the U.S. money, or $4.4 billion, was
issued to the PRC, the Bank of China and Wang's CITIC. The
PRC raised $2.7 billion on six bond issues from October 1993
to July 1996. The Bank of China raised $850 million on four
bond issues from October 1992 to March 1994. CITIC raised
$800 million on five bond issues from March 1993 to October
1994.
Robinson says all three areas could be suspect: The PRC
because that money could go anywhere, Wang because of his
direct link to the PLA and the Bank of China--a company
that has flooded the Washington radio market with an
advertising and public-relations campaign--because it now
has been directly linked into the Clinton fund-raising
scandal.
What is the link? For one, the Wall Street Journal recently
reported that the Bank of China transferred hundreds of
thousands of dollars in $50,000 and $100,000 increments to
Clinton friend Charlie Trie in 1995-96. Trie and Harold
Green, another Clinton friend who assisted Wang with getting
security clearance, dumped similar amounts of cash into the
Democratic National Committee and Clinton's legal defense
fund shortly after Wang was permitted access to the
president.
John N. Stafford, chief judge of the Department of Interior
in the Reagan administration who publishes a highly respected
national investment newsletter, says the relative ease with
which China can tap into the U.S. bond market by using
intermediaries such as the Bank of China is based largely on
American greed. Stafford says businessmen are following the
lead of Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig who are players in
U.S.-China trade (see ``Lion Dancing With Wolves,'' April
21).
Stafford says, ``We are providing funding for our own self-
destruction, especially when money is being used to
facilitate efforts to build up China's military and provide
weapons of mass destruction to known terrorist countries and
sworn enemies of the U.S.'' A onetime supporter of Robert
Kennedy and Scoop Jackson, Stafford turned his support to the
Republican Party because he says under President Carter the
Democrats gutted national security and had a dismal economic
record. He compares China's activity in the bond market to
Soviet operations during the Cold War, when he says the USSR
diverted billions of dollars of borrowed Western funds to
support military activities contrary to U.S. interests.
``This is a replay of Russia in the mid-seventies,'' he
says. ``This is business vs. national security. It is a case
where money is more important than human rights. Lenin was
right when he said the capitalists will sell us the rope with
which we will hang them. That's what is happening here.''
____

[From the Wall Street Journal June 10, 1997]

China Clash

Question: Should we maintain good trade relations with
China despite disagreements over human rights, or demand that
China improve its human rights policies if it wants to
continue to enjoy its current trade status with the United
States?
Percentages of groups saying the U.S. should first demand
improvement in human rights policies.
All adults, 67 percent.
Men, 63 percent.
Women, 70 percent.
Age 35-49, 64 percent.
Age 65+, 72 percent.
Under $20,000 income, 76 percent.
Over $50,000 income, 63 percent.
Democrats, 73 percent.
Republicans, 61 percent.
____

U.S.-China Trade: The Status Quo

1996 trade deficit: $40 billion.
1997 trade deficit: $53 billion.

tariffs

Average U.S. MFN tariff on Chinese goods: 2 percent.
Average Chinese MFN tariff on U.S. goods: 35 percent.

Exports

Percent of U.S. Exports allowed into China: 1.7 percent.
Percent of Chinese Exports to the U.S.: 33 percent.

Jobs

Chinese jobs supported by U.S. trade: 10,000,000.

[[Page H4240]]

U.S. jobs supported by Chinese trade: 170,000.

Trade Growth

Exports to China have grown: 3 times.
Imports from China have grown: 13 times.
____

China's Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

The Chinese government is engaged in transferring dangerous
technology enabling rogue nations to develop weapons of mass
destruction, including: providing to Iran advanced missile
and chemical weapons technology; providing to Iraq and Libya
materials to produce nuclear weapons; providing missile-
related components to Syria; providing to Pakistan advanced
missile and nuclear weapons technology; and selling over $1.2
billion in arms to the military rulers of Burma.
____

The Chinese Government's Violations of Human Rights

The State Department's ``Country Reports on Human Rights
for 1996'', states that ``The (Chinese) Government continued
to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses,
in violation of internationally accepted norms, stemming from
the authorities' intolerance of dissent, fear of unrest, and
the absence of inadequacy of laws protecting basic
freedoms.''
The report also notes that: ``Overall in 1996, the
authorities stepped up efforts to cut off expressions of
protest or criticism. All public dissent against the party
and government was effectively silenced by intimidation,
exile, the imposition of prison terms, administrative
detention, or house arrest. No dissidents were known to be
active at year's end. Even those released from prison were
kept under tight surveillance and often prevented from taking
employment or otherwise resuming a normal life.'' (emphasis
added).
Since the State Department report was released in February,
additional information has been provided to Congress about
the Chinese government's repression of basic freedoms and
human rights, including: The persecution of evangelical
Protestants and Roman Catholics in China who choose to
worship independently of the government sanctioned (and
controlled) church; forcibly closing and sometimes destroying
``house churches,'' and harassing and imprisoning religious
leaders; the threat to currently-existing democratic freedoms
in Hong Kong. The takeover of Hong Kong by China is scheduled
for July 1, 1997. Already, the Chinese government has moved
to disband Hong Kong's democratically elected legislature and
to repeal its bill of rights; the brutal repression of the
religion, people and culture of Tibet; and the regulation of
the free flow of information, including restricting access to
and use of the Internet and restricting basic economic and
business data.
____

Open Letter on China's Persecution of Christians

Dear Members of Congress: Recently, letters have circulated
on Capitol Hill from some groups and leaders involved in
missions in China. These letters urge Members not to vote to
revoke China's Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) trade status. They
cite potential dangers to the missions if the U.S. responds
to Beijing's terrible record on human rights, national
security and workers' rights.
There are points of agreement between us and those missions
organizations. We can agree, for example, to put no
individual at risk of retaliation. We should take great care
in dealing with a regime that has demonstrated its
willingness to settle disagreements with tanks and with
bullets in the back of the head. We can also agree that those
Christians directly involved in work in China are not
necessarily the ones to lead the fight against MFN. They may
be too close to the situation for prudence or safety to
permit open opposition to the regime.
But the letters make other arguments. They suggest that a
forceful response by the United States government to what
everyone acknowledges is an appalling Chinese government
record would be counter-productive. We cannot accept those
arguments. As deeply as we respect Christian missionaries in
China and throughout the world, we must disagree with a
policy which allows China's rulers to manipulate the United
States of America simply by threatening reprisals against
these innocent, godly people. It is a form of hostage-taking.
For the U.S. to surrender to such threats would be to
assure that Beijing will use threats whenever Americans cry
out against the cruelty and injustice of the communist
Chinese regime. Should we all keep silent about China's
massive campaign of forced abortions and compulsory
sterilizations? Should we avoid criticizing China's use of
slave labor in the Laogai? Should we turn aside from China's
latest violations of chemical weapons agreements, including
shipment to Iran of poison gas? Is the United States truly
the leader of the Free World? Or are we merely the ``moneybag
democracy'' the Chinese rulers contemptuously call us?
There is a real danger that the arguments made by some
U.S.-based missions may be seized upon by those whose only
interest in China is profits. Some multi-national
corporations have allowed the brutal Chinese birth control
policies to be run in their factories. Some have also
accommodated Chinese repression by banning religion in the
workplace. And some have exploited prison laborers.
We wholeheartedly support missions throughout the world,
and especially in China. We think it's necessary, however, to
take a clear-eyed view of the conduct of the Chinese
government. While missionaries seek no conflict with the
government, the reality is that China's rulers do not view
Christians so benignly.
Paul Marshall, in his well-received book ``Their Blood
Cries Out,'' describes the attitude of China's elites. ``In
1992, Chinese state-run press noted that `the church played
an important role in the change' in Eastern Europe and
warned, `if China does not want such a scene to be repeated
in its land, it must strangle the baby while it is still in
the manger.' ''
We are proud to note the consistent and principled stance
of the U.S. Catholic Conference in opposing MFN for China.
Catholics are brutally repressed in China, as are
Evangelicals, Muslims and Buddhists. But the USCC has never
allowed Beijing's threats to deter it from its duty to speak
up for the oppressed. Nor should we.
We know that we are not on ``the front line'' in
confronting Chinese repression. Because we have a freedom to
speak out that is not granted to those on the Mainland, we
must use our God-given freedom to speak out for those who
cannot speak for themselves. When it is argued that the
situation will be worsened if America takes action, we must
ask candidly, how can it be worse for the Chinese dissidents?
Our own State Department reports that all dissidents have
been either expelled, jailed or killed.
We rejoice in the fact that American missionaries hold U.S.
passports. We pray that a strong United States will help to
safeguard our fellow Americans' lives while they do the
Lord's work in China. But Chinese Christians are not so
protected. For Pastor Wong, leader of 40 Evangelical
churches, MFN has brought no benefits. He has been arrested
four times for spreading the Gospel. The last time he was
jailed, his fingers were broken with pliers. While Vice
President Gore was preparing to visit Beijing in March,
Chinese secret police invaded the apartment of Roman Catholic
Bishop Fan Zhongliang in Shanghai, seizing Bibles and other
religious articles. The move against the nation's highest
Catholic prelate was clearly intended to intimidate millions
of faithful Chinese Catholics. MFN has only made the Chinese
police more efficient in denying basic human rights to Bishop
Fan and his flock.
President Clinton's 1994 ``delinking'' of trade and human
rights concerns has actually increased repression in China.
Now, even if missionaries plant churches, the Chinese secret
police can disrupt them. This view is affirmed by New York
Times editor A.M. Rosenthal. He has written:
``Knowing Washington would not endanger trade with China,
even though it is mountainously in China's favor, Beijing
increased political oppression in China and Tibet--and its
sales of missiles, nuclear material and chemical weaponry.''
Rosenthal refers to the president as Beijing's
``prisoner.'' Let us assure, by our steadfastness, that the
rest of us do not wear such chains.
From the beginning of this debate, we have recognize that
the argument over MFN is not just about what kind of country
China is, it is also a dispute about what kind of country
America is. We believe Americans have a moral obligation to
stand up for human rights, for the rule of law and for the
rights of workers. We know, from long and tragic experience
in this blood-stained century, that a regime which brutalizes
its own people is virtually certain to threaten its
neighbors.
Sincerely yours,
Gary L. Bauer, President, Family Research Council; Ralph
E. Reed, Executive Director, Christian Coalition; Rev.
Richard John Neuhaus, President, Institute for
Religious and Public Life; Keith A. Fournier, Esq.,
President, Catholic Alliance; D. James Kennedy,
President, Coral Ridge Ministries; Joseph M. C. Kung,
President, Cardinal Kung Foundation; James C. Dobson,
Ph.D., President, Focus on the Family; Phyllis
Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum.
Chuck Colson, President, Prison Fellowship Ministries;
Gov. Robert P. Casey, Chairman, Campaign for the
American Family; Steve Suits, South Carolina Family
Policy Council; William Donohue, President, Catholic
League for Civil and Religious Rights; Richard D. Land,
President, Christian Life Commission; Steven W. Mosher,
President, Population Research Institute; Gerard
Bradley, Professor, Notre Dame Law School; John
DiIulio, Professor, Princeton University.
Robert P. George, Professor, Princeton University; John
Davies, President, Free the Fathers; Kent Ostrander,
Director, The Family Foundation (KY); Matt Daniels,
Executive Director, Massachusetts Family Institute;
Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, President, American Family
Association; Deal W. Hudson, Publisher & Editor, Crisis
Magazine; Bernard Dobranski, Dean, Columbus Law School;
Rev. Steven Snyder, President, International Christian
Concern.
Ann Buwalda, Director, Jubilee Campaign; P. George
Tryfiates, Executive Director, The Family Foundation
(VA); Randy Hicks, Executive Director, Georgia Family
Council; Marvin L.

[[Page H4241]]

Munyou, President, Family Research Institute (WI);
William T. Devlin, Executive Director, Philadelphia
Family Policy Council; William Held, Executive
Director, Oklahoma Family Council; William A. Smith,
President, Indiana Family Institute; Thomas McMillen,
Executive Director, Rocky Mountain Family Council.
Michael Heath, Executive Director, Christian Civic League
of Maine; David M. Payne, Executive Director, Kansas
Family Research Institute; Gary Palmer, President,
Alabama Family Alliance; Jerry Cox, President, Arkansas
Family Council; Dennis Mansfield, Executive Director,
Idaho Family Forum; Michael Howden, Executive Director,
Oregon Center for Family Policy; William Horn,
President, Iowa Family Policy Center; Joseph E. Clark,
Executive Director, Illinois Family Institute; John H.
Paulton, Executive Director, South Dakota Family Policy
Council; Mike Harris, President, Michigan Family Forum;
Mike Harris, President, Michigan Family Forum.
____

Independent Federation of

Chinese Students and Scholars,

Washington, DC, April 25, 1997.
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC.
Dear Members of Congress: The Independent Federation of
Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS), the sole national
umbrella organization of Chinese students and scholars in the
U.S., is taking this opportunity to express its opinion on
the extension of most-favored-nation (MFN) status to China.
The IFCSS reiterates its support for the U.S. and other
western countries in conducting trade with China. We believe
economic exchange and commerce will mutually benefit people
in all countries conducting such trade; however, China is
governed by an authoritarian and repressive regime, lacking
in fundamental respect for the basic rights and freedoms
which U.S. citizens so highly value.
The IFCSS, therefore, urges the U.S. to adopt a more
responsible trade policy. The rights and freedoms cherished
in this nation should be linked to trade in order to make
U.S. trade policy more responsible and accountable.
We believe human rights is a fundamental issue, inseparable
from the construction of a modern and humane society in our
country. The Chinese government must learn to respect the
rights of its 1.2 billion citizens as they strive for
economic prosperity in the 21st century.
That the Chinese government has increased its control of
Chinese society, both politically and ideologically, is well
documented. For instance, the government has cracked down
severely on dissidents, curtailing their activities and
depriving them of their right to earn a living, as reported
in U.S. State Department Report '96. The result is that no
single active political dissident's voice remains in China:
leading dissidents Liu Gang and Wang Xi-zhe were forced to
flee the country after consistent torture, harassment, and
nationwide pursuit by the police; Liu Xiaobo, Li Hai, Guo
Haifeng and a dozen other dissidents have been imprisoned
once again for their peaceful expression of opinions and
criticisms; Nobel Peace Prize nominee and the most prominent
dissident Wei Jingsheng is still in jail, with deteriorating
health. We were outraged to see student leader Wang Dan, who
gained prominence in the prodemocracy movement of 1989, held
in illegal detention for 16 months, finally charged with
conspiracy to overthrow the government and sentenced to 14
years in prison. This was done without solid evidence or a
fair trial, by a legal system at the beck and call of the
Communist Party, and in defiance of the international
community's concerns.
While ordinary Chinese citizens are encouraged to become
rich, they cannot express political views dissenting from the
government. Freedom of the press, expression, association and
assembly remain extremely forbidden. Like all authoritarian
regimes, the government of China keeps its citizens under
tight control in these aspects in order to maintain its
governance.
Unfortunately, the weakening of pressure from foreign
governments in the past several years, as evinced by
President Clinton's decision in 1994 to delink human rights
from MFN, has encouraged the Chinese government to increase
political repression. President Clinton has admitted the
failure of this policy but the U.S. government continues to
pursue it. Further proof of this lack of concern over human
rights abuses in China can be seen by the collapse of the
coordinated efforts by democratic allies to condemn the
Chinese government at the 1997 U.N. Human Rights Commission.
We strongly denounce China's blatant retaliation threats
against those western countries supportive of the resolution.
We also urge the U.S. government to reconsider its weak and
passive policy toward China, which gravely undermines its
commitment and obligation, as the most powerful nation in the
world, to work to advance human rights and democracy
globally.
The IFCSS stresses its belief that the conditional MFN was
an effective policy in the past. Unfortunately, we've all
seen how aggressively the business community attacked this
policy for their own commercial interests and, worst of all,
how successfully they were able to influence both the
Congress and the Administration. Despite assurances to the
contrary, however, the unparalleled economic growth in our
country has not in any way resulted in a more humane society,
more respect for basic rights or less repression. Sadly, the
opposite has occurred. China's leaders have learned a lesson
from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern-Europe
bloc and the result is a mutant form of communism, but
communism nonetheless. China is now a nation that encourages
economic prosperity through foreign investment, the use of
advanced technology and capitalist management styles. On the
other hand, the Communist party continues to exert political
and ideological control through its one-party monopoly. This
clearly demonstrates that economic prosperity does not bring
about ``automatic'' democracy, as predicted by so many.
Whether or not this hybrid eventually succeed remains
uncertain. What is certain is the continuing political
repression, depriving Chinese citizens of basic rights and
denying the international community's effort on behalf of
human rights and freedom in China. With increasing wealth,
the Chinese government is becoming less, rather than more,
accountable. International pressure has played a critical
role in pushing China to be more open, but western nations
are also morally obliged to keep applying this pressure,
particularly at a time when the system in China has become
more intolerant and repressive. It is shameful to see western
business interests being held hostage by the Chinese
government in order to evade international condemnation for
its repressive policies.
We hereby urge the members of Congress to give this issue
the serious consideration it deserves. The IFCSS particularly
appreciates the U.S. government's consistent claim that human
rights issue is one of the cornerstones of its foreign
policy. We respectfully appeal to the members of Congress to
make improvements in human rights a condition of extending
MFN status to our country.
Sincerely,
Xing Zheng,
President.
____

Statement of John Carr, Secretary, Department of Social Development and
World Peace, U.S. Catholic Conference

catholic bishops oppose renewing mfn

The U.S. Catholic Bishops lead a community of faith, not a
political or economic interest group. The Bishops' Conference
opposes renewal of MFN for China because it is the only
available means to send a clear signal to the Chinese
government that the United States will not ignore pervasive
violations of religious liberty, human dignity and workers
rights.
The Bishops are not newcomers to this important cause and
we welcome those who join with us from diverse political,
religious and ideological communities. We come together,
despite our differences, to insist that U.S.-China policy
must more clearly reflect fundamental moral principles. From
across the political spectrum, we are affirming that there
are ties of common humanity that are deeper and stronger than
those of trade. We are joining in solidarity with those who
are persecuted for their faith or their political courage; we
are affirming the rights of workers to labor freely; we are
standing profiteering from slave labor, and we are defending
married couples from the inhumanity of coercive abortion
policies.
In urging the Congress not to renew MFN for China, the U.S.
Catholic Conference recalls that religious liberty is a
foundation of our freedom, and that hard experience has shown
that a free society cannot exist without freedom of
conscience. Freedom for markets without freedom of worship is
not really freedom at all. Despite the claims and hopes of
the Administration and others, religious persecution in China
is serious and apparently growing. As a result of recent
laws, regulations and practice, many believers in China--
underground Catholics, Tibetan Buddhists, Protestant House
Churches and others--are denied their right to practice their
faith without government interference, harassment or
persecution.
Our Church seeks a constructive and positive relationship
with China and its people. We support reconciliation and
dialogue between the U.S. and China and among the Chinese,
but these vital tasks must reflect fundamental respect for
human life, dignity and rights. The U.S. must reorder its
priorities in China policy insisting that protecting the
rights of believers, workers and dissidents is as important
as combating piracy of CD's and videos. Let us send a message
so clear that those who wish to do business in China will
spend less effort lobbying the U.S. Congress to protect their
economic interests and more effort to help China understand
that U.S. concern for human rights will not go away.
Current policies have failed; it is time to send a clear
message. MFN may not be the perfect vehicle but it is our
best chance to insist we will no longer ignore religious
persecution, violation of worker and human rights, and
coercive abortion policies.
____

International Campaign for Tibet,

Washington, DC, May 21, 1997.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Pelosi: I wish to submit, for the May 21
press conference on most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status
for China, a brief description of the difficult situation in
Tibet and, in particular, China's

[[Page H4242]]

repression of religious freedom which has worsened in recent
years.
In 1994, President Clinton abandoned the use of trade
privileges as a mechanism to move China into compliance with
internationally-recognized human rights norms. It is now
evident that China consequently accelerated its course of
repression in Tibet from a negative direction to an extreme
degree. In the place of linkage, the Clinton administration
has chosen to pursue a policy of ``engagement'' with China
while, ironically, China has taken up the policy of linkage
and blatantly doles out significant economic favors to all
who are willing to halt criticism of its human rights record.
At this year's U.N. Human Rights Commission meeting in
Geneva, important U.S. allies in previous efforts to condemn
China's human rights record, withdrew their support for
lucrative trade contracts with China. Three years after the
U.S. delinkage of trade and human rights, President Clinton
himself has judged the U.S. engagement policy a failure as
China has completely silenced its dissidents and has given up
all pretense of tolerance for the distinct cultural,
linguistic and religious traditions of the Tibetan people.
We do not know how many political prisoners there are in
Tibet today, although some 700 have been at least partially
documented. One young Tibetan, Ngawang Choephel, was
sentenced in December 1996 to 18 years for videotaping
traditional Tibetan music. This extremely harsh sentence was
handed down in spite of personal appeals to the Chinese
leadership by U.S. Government officials, including Members of
the U.S. Congress. It even appears that Ngawang Choephel's
status as a Fulbright scholar was used against him by the
Chinese authorities who, on this basis, added collusion with
the West to his list of so-called espionage charges.
There are reports from Tibet that popular and successful
Tibetan language programs at middle schools and universities
have been discontinued. While these programs were few in
number, they removed the enormous and unfair obstacle of
Chinese language proficiency for some Tibetans. Indeed, those
children in Tibet who are schooled in their mother tongue
in the primary grades are blocked from continuing
education by obligatory tests administered in Chinese
only. This Chinese language-only policy exacerbates the
increasingly high drop-out rate for Tibetan children whose
schools have taken the brunt of government cut-backs and
must operate without resources, including heat. Money for
blankets has come to mean no money for food in most
Tibetan schools.
It is, however, the lack of religious freedom that is the
most revealing of China's malicious intentions in Tibet. The
State Department, in its ``Country Report on Human Rights
Practices for 1996'' mistakenly qualifies China's actions in
Tibet by stating that ``the Government does not tolerate
religious manifestations that advocate Tibetan
independence.'' The trust is that China has determined to
eradicate completely Tibetan Buddhism as an enduring threat
to the Chinese communist state. This was China's original
motivation for going into Tibet, temporarily laid aside by
the threat of international scrutiny, and taken up with
renewed verve at the time of delinkage in 1994. The abduction
of the child Panchen Lama is yet the most recent symbol of a
conscious choice by Li Peng and Jiang Zemin articulated over
the last three years, to crush Tibetan Buddhism.
Last month, His Holiness the Dalai Lama visited Washington
where he was received in the Congress, the State Department
and the White House. At each stop, he was given assurances of
support for his proposed negotiations with China on the
future of Tibet. Thus far, China has resisted calls for
negotiations, and the United States has demonstrated a lack
of resolve in pushing China to make concessions in the area
of human rights. I would urge the U.S. Government in 1997 to
take the kind of stand against China's policy in Tibet that
would be experienced in Beijing with the same intensity as
was the President's MFN delinkage in 1994. If it is the case
that U.S. dollars fuel China's power and its powerful, then
U.S. leverage must be of the economic kind to be appreciated.
While the world's sole superpower pursues a China policy
that takes the position that the engagement of Western and
Chinese businesses will bring about gradual changes in
China's human rights policies, it is providing a fig leaf for
every Western nation to do business with China regardless of
its human rights practices. I urge the United States to go
beyond its diplomatic rhetoric, assert its world leadership
and elicit significant and positive changes in China's Tibet
policy.
Sincerely,
Lodi G. Gyari,
President.
____

[From the Freedom House News, June 3, 1997]

China's Persecution of Underground Christian Churches Continues to
Intensify as Authorities Seek Their Eradication Finds Human Rights
Mission

new trend noted to arrest house church leaders; torture reported;
annual underground catholic procession suppressed

Washington, D.C.--Today (June 3, 1997) Freedom House
released the findings of its mission to China during the last
two weeks of May that investigated state persecution against
underground Christian churches. The investigation revealed
that China is continuing and intensifying its campaign
against the Christian underground.
``Some Provinces are more repressive than others, but
repression has intensified in all the Provinces from where we
received reports,'' reported Dr. Marshall who conducted the
fact-finding in China for the Puebla Program on Religious
Freedom of Freedom House. In addition to closing unregistered
churches (Christian gatherings that occur without government
sanction), authorities are now aggressively seeking out and
arresting members and leaders of the Christian underground.
Eighty-five house-church Christians were arrested in May in
Henan Province alone. New incidents of torture by beatings,
binding in agonizing positions, tormenting by cattle prods
and electric drills and other brutal treatment by Public
Security Bureau police against Christians were reported to
the Freedom House representatives.
Ninety percent of the underground Protestant church members
interviewed by Dr. Marshall said the repression is the worst
since the early 1980's. Repression against the underground
churches began to rise in 1994 after Beijing issued decrees
144 and 145 mandating the registration of religious groups,
with a marked increase from the summer of 1996.
Puebla Program Director Nina Shea observed, ``The ferocity
of China's crackdown against the underground Christian
community can be explained by the fact that these churches
constitute the only civic grouping that has survived outside
of government control in China proper. Even in the
underground in China there are no independent human rights
groups, labor unions or samizdat presses. These underground
churches by their very existence defy the state and cannot be
tolerated by the aging communists in power.''
The Freedom House team met with 15 underground church
members, 12 of whom are pastors or in other leadership
positions and are viewed as highly credible. It received
reports from over half of China's Provinces and regions
(Henan, Hubei, Sichuan, Heilongjiang, Xisang, Shanxi,
Guangdong, Anhui, Hunan, Shandong, Liaoning, Hebei, Inner
Mongolia, Jilin, Guizhou, Beijing and Shanghai.)
House church leaders interviewed by Freedom House
representatives reported the following:
The standard sentence for illegal church activities is now
three years of ``re-education through labor'' in a labor
camp. This is applied on the third offense for ordinary
church members, often to leaders on the first offense, and is
usually applied to preachers who are out of their home area.
In Henan Number One Labor Camp (laojiao) approximately 50
out of the 126 inmates are imprisoned for underground church
activities. A ratio of about forty percent holds for Henan
generally, evidencing that Henan Province is where house-
church evangelicals are experiencing some of the harshest
repression.
In Louyang, approximately 300 underground Protestants have
been detained since July 1996.
On September 24, 1996 in Tenghe, Henan, a Public Security
Bureau raid arrested Elder Feng, Brother Zheng, Brother Xin,
Sister Li and Sister Luo. Several of these who were in
leadership positions were beaten and tortured during
interrogation to force them to reveal more names of those
involved in the house-church organizations. Sister Luo had
her arms tied tightly behind her back in an excruciating
position, and was beaten unconscious, leaving her in a coma
for several hours. One of the other detainees was beaten
almost to death over a period of nine days. They were also
abused with electric cattle prods, often in a bound position.
Since Elder Feng is 72-years-old and not able to perform hard
labor, he is being detained indefinitely. The other four have
been sentenced to three years of ``reeducation through
labor'' in Luoyang, Henan.
Other forms of torture widely used by police against
Christians entail forcing underground Christians to kneel
while police stomp on their heels. One detained underground
church member in Shanxi was beaten with an instrument that
pulled out flesh. He was also bound and tormented with an
electric drill. In December 1996, in Langfang, Hebei, several
underground Christians were caught at the train station
carrying imported Bibles. They suffered crippling beatings at
the hands of the Public Security Bureau police and they
remain unable to walk without assistance.
In Zhoukou, Henan, 65 underground Christians were arrested
on May 14, 1997. An accompanying raid resulted in the arrest
of 20 other Christians. Since all 85 underground evangelicals
had been previously arrested at least two other times, their
fellow congregants anticipate that their sentences will be
three years of ``reeducation through labor.''
The annual pilgrimage to the Marian Shrine at Dong Lu in
Hebei Province by underground Catholics was prevented by
government authorities from occurring this year. In 1995,
according to the Far Eastern Economic Review, the procession
attracted some 10,000 Catholics loyal to the Holy Father. The
event was crushed in 1996 and the priest in charge of the
Shrine, Rev. Xingang Cui, remains in prison after his arrest
in Spring 1996. The Shrine itself has been desecrated. A
foreign journalist who attempted to visit the area was
immediately stopped and detained for nearly a day before
being expelled from the area.

[[Page H4243]]

The underground Catholic bishop of Shanghai, Bishop Joseph
Fan Zhongliang, whose home was raided before Easter is under
virtual house arrest with heavy police surveillance. He is
effectively prevented from meeting with foreigners. [As has
previously been reported, four other underground Catholic
bishops are detained, imprisoned or their whereabouts are
unknown at this time.]
All the church representatives (both registered and
unregistered, Catholic and Protestant) gave reports of a
three- to four-fold increase of members since 1990, and a
greater than ten-fold increase since 1980. Freedom House
estimates that China's Christian population numbers about 60
million. In many areas, the boundaries between registered and
underground churches are blurred, as members and even leaders
move back and forth between both. Dr. Marshall observes:
``Ironically, the very campaign to eradicate the underground
churches by the government may be spurring their growth.
Underground leaders say the commitment required to practice
one's faith in China leads to a strong, disciplined and
growing church.''

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad], our distinguished colleague.
(Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the bipartisan effort to renew normal
trade relations with China and oppose the disapproval resolution we are
considering today. United States engagement in China through continued
trading relationships is clearly, clearly the best way to influence
China's policies. How can we be a force for change in China's human
rights policies if we are not there?
We learned during our Committee on Ways and Means hearing last week
that many evangelical Christians and humanitarian groups which actually
work in China strongly support MFN renewal. Let me quote from two.
First, Joy Hilley of Children of the World, which is a nonprofit
international relief and adoption agency operating in China, said that
her group's concern for continued access to China is based on their
belief that their presence in China has not only enriched the lives of
the children who have been adopted but has actually helped save the
lives of those children who remain in orphanages in China.
MFN renewal is also supported by the Rev. Ned Graham, son of another
well-known minister, the Rev. Billy Graham, who heads a ministry which
works with the churches in China.
With all that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I must say that we do not need to
apologize for recognizing that the United States-China trade
relationship is also very important to jobs and to businesses in this
country.
An aggressive free trade policy is absolutely essential to our
economy and our workers. We in Minnesota know what this means. In 1996,
we exported over $60 million worth of goods to the growing Chinese
market. We are currently working on improving that figure through the
Minnesota Trade Office's Minnesota China Initiative. In fact our State
legislature just authorized $350,000 for this effort to establish
Minnesota companies as known and preferred vendors in China.
The workers understand what this MFN means in terms of jobs. Let us
hope the Congress understands. Vote down this disapproval motion.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and congratulate him on his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I heard all these arguments before against United States
involvement on human rights issues. We were told with the Soviet Union
that the United States would be alone. Just the opposite was the case
when we stood up and denied most-favored-nation status to the Soviet
Union. Other countries followed the United States leadership. I heard
the same arguments about South Africa, that would hurt the blacks of
South Africa. By standing up for human rights, we have brought down
that apartheid government of South Africa. We said that we were going
to hurt our own interests because of the richness of South Africa and
their natural resources. We stood up and we changed South Africa. When
the United States leads, the world will follow.
China's human rights record is horrible. Listen to our own State
Department. I quote:

Overall in 1996, the authorities stepped up efforts to cut
off expressions of protest or criticism. All public dissent
against the party and government was effectively silenced by
intimidation, exile, the imposition of prison terms,
administrative detention, or house arrest. Nonapproved
religious groups, including Protestant and Catholic groups,
also experienced intensified repression as the government
enforced the 1994 regulations. Discrimination against women,
minorities, and the disabled, violence against women, and the
abuse of children remain problems.

China's human rights records are horrible. Listen to what Professor
Nathan of Columbia said: Human rights in China are of our national
interest to the United States. Countries that respect the rights of
their citizens are less likely to start wars, export drugs, harbor
terrorists, produce refugees. The greater the power of the country
without human rights, the greater the danger to the United States.
I have heard all the arguments against involvement. MFN is supposed
to be for immigration only. MFN is for nations that respect human
rights. China does not respect human rights.

{time} 1130

We never have to apologize for this Nation standing strong against
nations that abuse human rights. Let us stand up for what this Nation
believes in. Vote to deny China MFN. They do not deserve it.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House
Joint Resolution 79, disapproval of most-favored-nation trade treatment
for China.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of those fascinating arguments that
confronts this institution, where there is some truth to what everybody
says. But it is ironic that we opened this century with the Boxer
rebellion and now we close the century with MFN; and it highlights how
this relationship between our Nation and China has been mishandled for
the better part of one century.
I think that the issue for us today is really to take the long view
of our relationship with China. Every year since 1980, Presidents have
requested waivers from Jackson-Vanik in an effort to discuss MFN status
as it relates to China. The Jackson-Vanik amendments were enacted to
address the freedom of immigration issue. But through most of the
1980's, Presidents have indeed requested this waiver of MFN for China
and the waivers, for the most part, were noncontroversial.
Now, I acknowledge that after 1989 and the massacre of Tiananmen
Square that the situation changed. But, as we all know, the United
States-China relationship remains precarious, and we have to decide the
best manner in which to improve this relationship.
In May 1994, President Clinton decided to delink human rights from
China's MFN status and to establish new programs to improve human
rights in China. This decision was based upon the belief that linkage
was no longer useful. I agree with President Clinton's decision.
This does not mean that we have forgotten about the students in
Tiananmen Square and we have not forgotten about China's human rights
record. We constantly raise these issues with China, and the Tiananmen
Square sanctions are still in place. We continue to enforce United
States laws banning prison imports.
But the sincere question in front of this House today is, how do we
best engage China and to encourage those structural reforms that will
retain and bring China further into the relationship of civilized
nations? We have gotten away from the original intent of the Jackson-
Vanik amendment. None of us endorse all of our actions as they relate
to China. But if we want to improve our relationship with China, the
best way to do it is to continue to engage them through current actions
of trade.
We are not asking to condone China's egregious actions of the past,
but we need to remember that renewing MFN is not providing China with
special trade provisions. MFN is the normal trade treatment we provide
to almost

[[Page H4244]]

every other country. I believe that if we engage China, we can make
China take actions and move toward familiarizing them with
international standards.
In recent Chinese history, the worst human rights violations occurred
in times of international isolation. Engagement is working. China is
making improvements. Even though it seems as though these steps are
baby ones toward conforming to international standards, these are steps
in the right direction.
I am going to close the way I opened. In this argument, there is
truth to what everybody says in this institution. But let us not
retreat today from MFN status for China.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in rising in support of the Solomon resolution, let me
just say that enough is enough is enough. If ever there was a policy
out of touch with reality, it is our current policy of appeasement
toward Communist China. And, of course, the continuous unlinked
granting of MFN is the cornerstone of that appeasement policy; and that
is why I have introduced this legislation, which would revoke MFN for
China temporarily until the communist Chinese Government decides to
change it, to change its ways by stopping its religious persecution,
its human rights atrocities, and selling deadly missiles and poison gas
factories to rogue nations like Iran. That does not even mention its
trade discrimination, costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
Mr. Speaker, hardly a day goes by when the economic and trade picture
with China does not get worse. We have heard it alluded to earlier
today. China's refusal to grant fair and open access to American goods
has resulted in our trade deficits with that country skyrocketing to
$38 billion last year, and it is going toward $50 billion this year
because our goods are not allowed in China.
Mr. Speaker, engagement theorists claim that United States exports to
China currently support 170,000 United States jobs, which they say
would be jeopardized if we cut off most favored trade status for China
and China then retaliated against us. Well, Mr. Speaker, leaving that
aside, this 170,000 figure has not changed since last year and the year
before and engagement theorists say it should be going up, it should be
creating more U.S. jobs. Considering that over one-third of China's
exports come to us, versus 2 percent of ours going to them, does it not
seem rather odd for us to be afraid of a trade spat with China? Two
percent of our total exports go to China, and 33 percent of theirs come
here. We clearly have the upper hand, my colleagues. But the engagement
theorists do not have the guts to truly engage China and let them know
that their behavior is disgusting.
More importantly, hardly a day goes by without reading of yet another
act of aggression, another act of duplicity, or another affront to
humanity committed by the dictatorship in Beijing. Consider human
rights, the same people who conducted the massacre in Tiananmen Square
and the inhumane oppression of Tibet have been busily eradicating the
last remnants of democracy in China. And as we speak, they are
preparing to squash democracy in Hong Kong.
I invite all my colleagues to go with me in about 3 or 4 months and
see what is over there. According to the U.S. State Department's annual
human rights report, and I quote, and my colleagues ought to hear this
because it is coming from this administration.

Overall in 1996, the authorities stepped up efforts to cut
off expressions of protest and criticism. All public dissent
against the party and government was effectively silenced by
intimidation, by exile, the imposition of prison terms,
administrative detention, or house arrest.

That is what they say, Mr. Speaker. And I emphasize the words
``stepped up'' because human rights violations in China are getting
worse, according to the report I just read you. And that is the exact
opposite of what is supposed to be occurring, according to the
proponents of engagement theory.
China has also ramped up its already severe suppression of religious
activity having, among other things, recently arrested the co-adjutor
Bishop of Shanghai. We all know this is happening. Engagement theorists
on both sides of this aisle know it. They know that this is happening,
and all they can talk about is dollars for multinational corporations.
It is enough to make you throw up sometimes.
Just read all these newspaper ads that have been appearing all over
the country. We have a right to stand up for America and not business
interests in this country, Mr. Speaker.
And even worse, in the field of national security, and I would hope
that everybody is listening to this, in the field of national security,
the engagement theorists completely ignore our national interests by
appeasing the communists in Beijing. They totally ignore the relentless
Chinese military buildup, ever more frequent exports of technology for
weapons of mass destruction, and an increasingly belligerent Chinese
foreign policy.
While every other major country has reduced its military spending,
Communist China has increased its military spending by double digits
each year, increasing their military budget by more than 50 percent in
the 1990's alone, when every other country in the world has been
cutting back.
What are they buying with all that money that is being financed by
the trade deficits in this country? Soviet-made Sunburn missiles from
Russia, that is what. We debated that on the floor here last night. The
Sunburn was designed with the express purpose of taking out United
States ships and killing American sailors, and Communist China is
buying it with the express purpose of intimidating the United States
Navy in the Taiwan Strait and in the Asian-Pacific theater. Or they are
going to give it to Iran to attack American ships, as Iran did when
they killed 37 American sailors aboard the USS Stark a few years ago.
Meanwhile, China's irresponsible missile proliferation activities
continue unabated. Are my colleagues not concerned about that? I know
some of them are. I have talked to some on that side of the aisle who
are formerly for MFN and now they have changed their mind for this very
reason. Despite engagement, or because of it, China continues to export
ballistic missiles and nuclear technology to Pakistan--do my colleagues
not think something is going to happen over there?--and missile,
nuclear and chemical weapons technology to the avowed enemy of America,
Iran. I did not say they are our enemy. They said they are our enemy.
Let me repeat. Has anyone around here thought about who these
missiles that the Iranians are buying, who they will be used against?
They will be used against the U.S. Navy because we will be called in
over there, the same as we were in the Persian Gulf. And it is going to
be used against Israel and a lot of other decent human beings over in
the Mideast who will not be able to protect themselves against this
nerve gas and the poison gas and the missiles.
Every Member of this body that claims to be a supporter of Israel
should come over here today and vote for this resolution. Because if
they do not, Iran's chief weapons supplier, Communist China, will be
off the hook once again, and once again we will be back here next year,
as we were last year and the year before.
Let me just note that the denial-inducing effects of the engagement
theory are especially visible in the case of China's nuclear transfers
and C-802 missile sales to Iran. These transactions are in clear
violation of the 1992 Iran-Iraq Nonproliferation Act and should
initiate sanctions against China, not more appeasement.
The principal author of this legislation is none other than Vice
President Al Gore, but the numbing effects of the engagement theory
have precluded the administration from invoking the Vice President's
own legislation.
If it were not so serious and so sad, Mr. Speaker, it would be a
laughable matter. These are the very bitter fruits of engagement. And I
want to know just how long it is going to take for the engagement
theorists to wake up. We will be going on here for another 5 years.
To show just how much the engagement theory seals its proponents off
from reality, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a recent ``Dear
Colleague'' signed by four senior members of the Committee on Ways and
Means, all of whom are card carrying engagement theorists. They say,
and I quote,

[[Page H4245]]

``The Chinese would interpret the severing of normal trade relations as
an unfriendly act.''
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether to laugh or to explode in anger
when I hear such statements. This rogue, vicious dictatorship commits
murder, it commits rape, and intimidates countries with missiles. It
makes aggressive land grabs, makes veiled threats of nuclear attacks
against Los Angeles. Did we just overlook that? It sells deadly
missiles to our archenemy Iran and buys missiles designed to kill
Americans.
And the proponents of engagement are worried about us making
unfriendly acts. What an outrage, Mr. Speaker. What a deep offense
against the victims of this regime, both inside China and, God forbid,
without. And what a deep offense against the United States military
personnel that are on watch in the Pacific and in the Middle East, who
may one day be a victim of China's military aggression or of China's
irresponsible missile proliferation policy.
What has to happen? Does China need to commit a second Tiananmen
Square in Hong Kong or elsewhere? Do they have to invade Taiwan? And if
so, what is Congress going to do about it, Mr. Speaker? More
appeasement? Do they have to take out American ships and kill American
sailors with Sunburn missiles? Then what are we going to say? ``Oh, my
goodness, you should not have done that, China''?
Mr. Speaker, it is nothing short of a disgrace that we would even
consider waiting that long. But that is exactly the fix that the
engagement theorists have put us in. And I resent it. Mr. Speaker, we
owe it to this country to temporarily cut off MFN, now it does not have
to be permanently, to temporarily cut it off until China becomes a
responsible member of the international community. Is that not what we
want?

{time} 1145

Is that not what we want? Because if we do not, Mr. Speaker, the
proponents of engagement may very well be responsible for the lives of
Americans 5 or 6 or 7 years down the line. I do not want Members coming
back to me and saying, ``Oh, my gosh, I made a mistake,'' because then
it is too late.
Mr. Speaker, no MFN was given to the Soviets under Ronald Reagan.
Peace through strength brought down the Iron Curtain and brought an end
to that deadly atheistic communism in that part of the world. At the
same time we were giving most-favored-nation treatment to China. Some
of my colleagues will say, ``Well, we were playing the China card''
and, yes, maybe we were but the China card is over. Now is the time to
stand up to this rogue regime in Beijing and let them know we are not
going to take it anymore.
That is why Members ought to come over here and vote to send a
message that we are going to protect American lives and American
interests around the world and that China had better become a decent
actor in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English].

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will remind all
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is a
violation of the rules of the House.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in the debate on whether to
continue normal trade relations with China, the opponents of trade have
failed fundamentally to answer one question: What will ending our
engagement with China accomplish? It will not improve human rights or
political rights on the mainland. It will not benefit American security
interests in Asia or stabilize the Pacific rim. It certainly will not
improve trade opportunities for American companies and American workers
in the world's largest and fastest growing market. Our severing of
normal trade relations with China would be the greatest windfall that
we would have bestowed on our European competitors since the Marshall
plan. American companies would likely lose their favored position in
the Chinese market permanently.
So what would ending normal trade relations with China achieve? For
one thing it would devastate our longtime trading partners in Hong Kong
at a sensitive time when they are returning to Chinese sovereignty but
seeking to retain their autonomy. Ending MFN would undermine Hong
Kong's economy and potentially their liberties as well.
Mr. Speaker, the best way for America to influence Chinese society is
to pursue a policy of constructive and comprehensive engagement with
China utilizing our economic role to leverage reforms that benefit
individuals on the mainland. In this way we can stimulate market
activity and growth on the mainland which has proven subversive of
totalitarian bureaucracies worldwide.
Oppose this resolution.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
(Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution of
disapproval. For me it is a very difficult decision and a very close
call. I regret having to oppose the administration on this issue. As a
general proposition, I favor engagement over containment. While we have
many contentious issues with the Chinese in the area of treatment of
political dissidents and religious minorities and the curtailment of
democracy and civil liberties in Hong Kong and the treatment of Tibet
and our growing trade deficit and the creation of artificial trade
barriers, none of these cause me to reach the conclusion that I should
oppose the continuation of MFN. My decision instead is really based on
the Chinese failure to abide by their international commitments in the
area of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, a
proliferation which threatens world peace and stability. I am voting
against MFN because China has not lived up to its commitments not to
promote the export of these weapons. I am voting against MFN because
preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the most
serious immediate challenge for the future for all of us.
China has ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical
Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons Convention. They have
announced stronger nuclear export controls and adherence to the Missile
Technology Control Regime. But commitments without compliance mean
nothing. They have made many excuses for their failure to keep these
international commitments. ``How can we monitor every businessman
exporting millions of dollars of chemical weapon production materials
to Iran?'' But they can find every dissident working secretly on a
subversive pamphlet and imprison that person.
``We adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime. We just don't
recognize the Annexes'' which give that commitment any meaning
whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, what I want is for this administration to scream as
loudly about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as it has
about the manufacturing of counterfeit CD's and stolen computer
software and video games. I want this administration to threaten the
import controls and higher tariffs on key products imported here from
China as forcefully and effectively as it has waved and wielded that
weapon to remedy violations of intellectual property agreements. What I
want this administration to do is to hound and to badger our key allies
like Japan and Germany and France and Britain to pursue meaningful
multilateral export controls that tell China that their movement to a
fully modern society depends on stopping the weapons of mass
destruction and their export.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution
before us today. I think this annual debate on trade with China is
healthy, for through our voicing our dissatisfaction with not only
human rights but other activities in that country, I think we make them
aware of our posture as a

[[Page H4246]]

nation. However, I think it is important to restate that this is not a
special privilege to China. This is the same type of trade relations
that we give to 184 other nations around the world. Let us set that out
and it should be repeated over and over again. This is not privileged
trade for that country.
Know full well that in the last decade, we have had some $12 billion
in exports to China and the author of the resolution indicates that
this might not be accurate but, yes, there are 170,000-plus jobs,
American jobs, connected to those exports.
In my State of Wisconsin, major companies like ABB Drives and
Rockwell--Allen-Bradley--have penetrated the Chinese market and over
the last year we have seen a 29-percent increase in exports to China.
Our colleagues in support of the resolution indicate that going it
alone will work, and I say to them, it will not and it has never worked
on behalf of this country. I cite the grain embargo against Russia
because of their activities in Afghanistan. Know full well that there
were countries waiting at the door to pick up those grain sales, grain
sales that to this day we have not gotten back. The same is true for
any and every export to China. The European Community is just waiting
at the door. Japan is waiting at the door. Those trading items are
lost. Those American jobs connected to that trade is lost forever. Let
us continue the engagement like we have over the years. Let us keep the
pressure on, but let us look to people on the ground in China like
missionary groups which indicate that it would hinder the cause of
human rights if we were to stop our trading activity.
The China Service Coordinating Office, an organization serving over
100 Christian organizations in service and witness there, fear that
ending MFN would close the doors to China through all sorts of
educational and cultural reforms. Let us defeat the resolution. Let us
continue normal trade with this country.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, those who support most-favored-nation status
for China argue that maintaining open trade with China would spur
economic growth, as well, and have a consequence of social reform.
While I sympathize with this position, I am opposed to extending MFN
status to China, and instead favor imposing conditions upon our future
trade designation.
China has a continuing legacy of human rights violations and
oppression of its citizens which cannot be ignored. The events of
Tiananmen Square provided the world with a clear picture of the Chinese
Government's ruthless and immoral nature. Year after year we have been
told, ``Give most-favored-nation status to China and we can win them
over.'' We heard that during the Bush years. We hear it during the
Clinton years.
Let us look at the score card a little bit regarding this strategy.
We gave most-favored-nation status and they continue their policy of
population planning with forced abortion. We gave most-favored-nation
status and they continue not to tolerate any dissent of any kind, and
the imprisonments, the torture, and the killings go on. We gave most-
favored-nation status and they continue to try to stamp out any
religion that is not state-supported religion, and the murders of
priests and ministers continue.
We gave most-favored-nation status and they throw out the elected
legislators in Hong Kong and replace them with handpicked Beijing
lackeys. We gave most-favored-nation status and they made plans to
invade Taiwan. When we stood in their way of that, they threatened to
send nuclear missiles to our west coast.
We gave most-favored-nation status and they tried to smuggle
automatic weapons into the United States to supply gangs in this
country. We gave most-favored-nation status to them, and they have the
biggest buildup of nuclear missile development of any country on the
face of the earth.
Let us look at the score card. Do my colleagues suppose maybe that
strategy is not working? How long before we get a new strategy?
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Boehner], our distinguished conference chairman.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to support
continued normal trade relations with China. We have heard before the
term most-favored-nation status, which I do not think really says the
true story. Most nations of the world, almost all the nations of the
world, have most-favored-nation trading status. The fact is, what we
are looking for is the same status for China.
Mr. Speaker, I understand my friends on both sides of the aisle are
concerned about the issue of human rights, religious persecution and
other abuses that go on in China. I and those who support MFN and
normal trade relations with China are as concerned as they are. The
issue is, how do we best address those? By delinking ourselves from
China, by walking away from East Asia, or by staying engaged with them
economically?
I think the best two examples that I have seen are what has happened
in Taiwan and what has happened in South Korea. Twenty years ago both
of those countries had brutal dictatorships, lack of religious freedom,
lack of any kind of democratic freedom. Today both nations have
popularly elected Presidents of their countries, real democracy.
Where did the democracy in those two countries come from? It came
through expanded trade, expanded economic freedom that was engaged
because the United States was engaged economically with those parts of
the world.
Second, I would point out to my colleagues that when we talk about
normal trade relations, if we want to delink this and we want to say
no, who are we really hurting? Those in East Asia, those in China? Or
are we really hurting the people in our own country, the people in my
district?
Let us talk about agriculture, our country's No. 1 export, some $50
billion a year of exports going all over the world, and China being one
of the main customers of our agricultural products. How about Procter &
Gamble in Cincinnati? It has a huge presence in my district. Or Parker
Hannifan in Eaton. French Oil Co. These are jobs in my district. Let us
not hurt our people in order to raise our case about human rights in
China.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Stark County, OH [Mr. Traficant], one of the experts on
foreign trade in this House.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Traficant].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I also yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out, as I listen to this debate,
that it becomes very clear what the issues are. The issues are, do you
believe in human rights? And everybody does. But there are some who
believe in making money more, and feeling that trade and money and
campaign contributions from major corporations in this country are more
important than human rights. So that while we all believe in human
rights, are you willing to forgo the money to enforce them?

{time} 1200

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, China sells missiles to our enemies,
China threatened to nuke Taiwan and Los Angeles. China is buying
intercontinental ballistic missiles, attack aircraft, and nuclear
submarines. Congress, China is literally building a military juggernaut
with American dollars.
China enjoys a $50 billion trade surplus, they have a 17-cent an hour
labor wage, they deny most American products, and they impose up to 30
percent tariffs on nearly all of our products.
In addition, China shoots their own citizens, treats their women like
cattle, laughs in the face of the United States.
And finally, China is a Communist dictatorship, and American law,
current law, says no Communist nation shall get MFN.
Now the President wants to waive that. I ask the Congress, what did
China do to deserve this waiver?
Now the President talked about building a new bridge to the future. I

[[Page H4247]]

was always under the impression that new bridge was in America. It is
evident to me the President was talking about building a new bridge
over the River Kwai here.
I am opposed to this madness. We are, in fact, empowering a super
dragon that is powerful enough some day to eat our assets. I think we
are foolish.
China has become a powerful military problem. We better recognize it
now before we arm them to a degree where we may have trouble
reinforcing our freedom and national security in the future.
I commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], proud to join
forces with him. Vote ``no'' on MFN, vote ``aye'' on the resolution.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the disapproval
resolution. On critical issues relating to China we need a policy, not
a protest.
We do have serious problems with China; let us not paper them over:
human rights, national security, trade. But for too long we have gone
through the annual spasm over MFN only to more or less forget about
China the rest of the year. It is time for more sustained and serious
effort. Congress needs to roll up its sleeves, not throw up its hands.
On economics and trade, our problems with China are rooted in a
fundamental change that has taken place in the nature of international
trade. In earlier decades trade was mainly among industrialized
nations, and the focus of trade negotiations was on tariffs and later
market access. But today economic competition is increasingly between
industrialized and developing nations, often with centrally managed
economies with dramatically lower wage and salary levels sustained by
government intervention.
These fundamental economic issues with China cannot be addressed
through the annual MFN debate; they can be addressed directly through
negotiations about China's accession to WTO, and they can be addressed
as to other developing nations through comprehensive, hardheaded fast
track legislation.
I urge all of my colleagues to confront these key issues, persuade
the media to shine the light on them and help the administration play a
central role by addressing them as we take up fast track and China's
WTO accession. MFN has become a diversion rather than an answer. I
oppose this resolution.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
It has been brought up that we have normal trade relations with
China. That is absolutely not true. We did not have normal trade
relations with the Soviet Union because we did not grant most-favored-
nation status, and we do not have a normal trade relationship with Cuba
because we do not grant most-favored-nation status to Cuba. So it is
not true when people talk about normal trade relations.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 additional seconds as well to
the gentleman from California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher] is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking
about severing our trade ties with China, or talking about walking away
from China, or talking about isolating China. That rhetoric does not
meet the reality. What is being argued today is whether we should
extend most-favored-nation status to China.
Now we have heard today that we are really talking about normal trade
relations with China. Well, I too do not think it is normal trade
relations. What we have is an unfair trading relationship with China.
But, OK, a normal trading relationship with Communist China, yes, it is
an unfair, irrational, unbalanced relationship that is unfair, yes, to
the American people and putting our own country at risk. Why our
corporate elite keeps pushing to maintain MFN is easy to see, but we
have to get a little bit below the surface.
This is not about whether we should sell our products to China or
corporations can still sell their products to China. Extending MFN
means that these corporations will continue to get taxpayer subsidies.
That is what it is about. When these big corporations go to China to
use their slave labor or near slave labor, what they want is the
taxpayers of the United States to guarantee their interests on their
loans and guarantee the loans so it is easier for them to set up
manufacturing units using slave labor in China than to do it in the
United States.
This is an abomination, an attack against the well-being of the
people of the United States who are paying those taxes. We end up
putting them out of work so they can set up these companies and make a
bigger profit in China. It is a terrible policy; it is unfair to our
own people.
By the way, this unfair trading relationship burdens our goods when
we want to sell over there that are made by our laboring people with a
35-percent tariff. Their goods flood into the United States of America
with a 2-percent tariff. Yes, that is what we are talking about today,
not most-favored-nation status. What we are talking about is an unfair
trading relationship that we want to end by ending most-favored-nation
status with China.
The trade deficit with Communist China is expected to be $50 billion
this year. What are they using that money for? Again they are using
that money directly against the interests of the people of the United
States. They are buying weapons that could some day be used to kill
Americans.
This is an abominable policy. Our policy makers should have their
head examined for kowtowing to a Chinese dictatorship that is working
against the interests of the American people. Vote for this resolution.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], our distinguished colleague.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint
Resolution 79, the resolution calling for the United States to revoke
the so-called most-favored-nation status with China. I oppose it so we
can send a message to that nation about American principles and
American values. I agree with the proponents of this resolution, let's
send a message. Let us send a message to China, let us send a message
about hope, let us send a message about freedom and democracy, let us
send a message about prosperity, individual liberty, and the rules of
law.
I strongly support institutions and organizations that promote
American values abroad. I always have. I do so because I think America
can be a shining example to the world, and I think these groups send
powerful messages about America. When our people work abroad, they
carry with them the best of what America has to offer, principles of
fairness, of individual responsibilities and individual choice. Those
are embodied with American businesses and organizations when they work
abroad.
This is the best way for America to carry its message. Let us not
isolate ourselves. But do not listen just to my words. Listen to those
of others who have argued that a vote for MFN is a vote for religious
freedom in China. Listen to these words of Reverend Sirico, a Paulist
priest in China. Quote:

Sanctions won't bring freedom for religious expression in
China. They can only further isolate China and close off
avenues for greater Western influence.

A vote for MFN is a vote for the people of Hong Kong. Listen to the
words of Chris Patten, Governor of Hong Kong:

Unconditional most-favored-nation trade status is
unequivocally the most valuable insurance America can present
to Hong Kong during the handover period.

A vote for MFN is the best hope for democracy. Listen to these words
of Nick Liang, a former student leader in Tiananmen:

The spirit of the Tiananmen Movement is not one of
confrontation, not one of hatred, not one of containment, but
of engagement. As one of the students from Tiananmen carrying
on this spirit, I support MFN trade status, which is a very
primary and effective vehicle of engagement.

Mr. Speaker, let me end with this quote by Daniel Su, an evangelical
minister who spoke privately to some of us last week, and his words
rang in

[[Page H4248]]

my ears then and they ring here today. He was talking about why this
debate and the motives of those, who support or oppose MFN. Either way,
we should not question those motives. They are honorable, but Daniel Su
also urged opponents of MFN to think about the consequences of their
opposition. He said these words:

To sacrifice ourselves for a principle is heroic. To
sacrifice others for that same principle is insensitive.

Mr. Speaker, let us not sacrifice the Chinese people on our
principles. Let us support MFN. Oppose this resolution.
This past January 1 led a 22-member, bipartisan congressional
delegation on a factfinding mission to Hong Kong and China to see first
hand the impact that the United States policy of engagement is having
on the Chinese economy and the Chinese people. I was truly astounded to
see all the positive changes that have occurred since my first visit to
that country in 1994, and I returned more committed than ever to our
policy of economic and political engagement.
The changes we witnessed in China reflect many of the changes we have
seen grip other Asian nations. Over the past decade, economic
liberalization has generated powerful currents of democracy and freedom
that have rippled throughout Asia. These currents have reshaped the
socioeconomic landscape of the region.
Economic growth, driven by United States policies of free markets,
free trade, and peaceful dialog among nations, has allowed countries
like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan to emerge as prosperous
industrialized nations. Invariably, economic growth in these nations
has led to expansion of individual freedom and liberty. Today, these
countries have developed into true democracies characterized by
political pluralism, functioning independent political parties, and
greater respect for the rights of the individual.
Admittedly, these changes did not occur overnight. They were part of
a long-term, evolutionary process. I believe we are seeing the same
forces of change at work today in China. I am convinced that if we
remain steadfast in our policy of engagement, with confidence that
American values of freedom and democracy will ultimately prevail over
the tyranny of repression and the economic stagnation that accompany
state controlled economies, we will ultimately see the same economic
and political transformation in China that we have seen in Japan, South
Korea, and Taiwan.
Two decades ago, virtually every aspect of Chinese society was under
state control. Today, more than half of China's output is generated by
private enterprise. The development of a strong, vibrant, private
sector--particularly in southern China--continues to weaken centralized
control. This, I think, continues to represent the best hope for
political freedom to spring full-blown in China.
Economic liberalization and growth of trade and economic links with
the United States over the past two decades already have enhanced
freedom for the Chinese people. That is undeniable. Millions of Chinese
citizens are now employed in non-state enterprises, and they have the
basic freedom to select their own employment and to change jobs when
they are dissatisfied with working conditions or wages. This
environment is the direct result of our policy of engagement.
Clearly, civil liberties and personal space have increased over the
past two decades as the Chinese economy has improved. In my view, the
ongoing process of political reform in China would be severely
compromised if we were to erect barriers to trade and economic exchange
between our two countries. This is reason enough to support renewal of
China's most-favored-nation trading status.
But there are other reasons. In just a few weeks the world will watch
as Hong Kong undergoes the peaceful transfer of sovereignty from
Britain to China. If we pass the resolution of disapproval in the House
of Representatives on the very eve of this transfer, what message will
we send to the world and the people of Hong Kong? That America wants to
turn its back on them, break economic and political ties with that
region, and abandon its citizens at the precise hour of their greatest
need? I do not think that is what the United States stands for.
I also fear that passing the resolution of disapproval in the House
will result in a backlash against American goods and American values.
It would be nothing less than a unilateral declaration of political and
economic war, providing just cause to hard-line elements in the Chinese
Government who advocate more state control and less foreign influence.
I fear the result will be the exile of groups associated with the
United States who promote western values. Groups such as the
International Republican Institute, which works to develop the rule of
law in China and strengthen the nascent village democracy movement,
would be discredited. Missionary organizations, like the Evangelical
Fellowship, would no longer be welcome. We would be extinguishing some
of the brightest rays of hope to the Chinese people, ultimately hurting
the very people we are trying to help.
Maintaining normal trading relations with China does not mean that we
can't also speak frankly and firmly to the Chinese Government about
issues and values important to us. There are opportunities where we can
and should let our concerns about human rights, trade, and nuclear
proliferation be known. I have certainly done so in my meetings with
top Chinese leaders. But if we disengage, if we pull back our most
effective resources, what incentive will those Chinese leaders have to
listen to, or care about, what we have to say?
I certainly think there is more that we can do. For example, I favor
bringing China into the World Trade Organization on commercially viable
terms. I think doing so would oblige the Chinese leadership to
implement difficult domestic economic reforms while providing the
United States with a strong multilateral vehicle for dealing with
issues such as market access in China.
I also favor accelerating and funding efforts to work with the
Chinese to promote the rule of law and encourage and support the
village election process. In fact, I am currently working with
Representatives John Porter of Illinois and David Dreier of California
to examine just such an approach.
But one thing is clear. The United States must remain a major
influence in Asia. We must strengthen our relations with our allies and
maintain a strong military presence in the region. And we must be clear
and consistent in our message to the Chinese Government. This annual
debate over whether we will continue our political and economic
relations with China destructive and counterproductive. It hampers our
ability to formulate a comprehensive and effective policy toward the
region. And I think it is time for it to end.
Thus, I strongly urge my congressional colleagues to renew MFN status
for China. History has shown that economic growth is the most effective
catalyst for political change. The principles of freedom and individual
liberty embodied in economic liberalization will ultimately prevail--
but only if we have the political courage to allow them to flourish.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode
Island [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, let us see what the
appeasement strategy of MFN has gotten us.
On military aggression China sales of weapons to Iran are well-
documented. But even worse than being well-documented, China defends
their sale of weapons to Iran.
We have heard about the trade deficit approaching nearly $50 billion
a year. Those are jobs, my colleagues. Between 1989 and 1994, our trade
deficit with China increased tenfold. I wonder why. Well, maybe it is
because despite the fact that they have agreed to end trade and prison
labor it is estimated that between 6 and 8 million Chinese are enslaved
in labor camps. I thought they said they gave us their word they were
not going to engage in slave labor any more. Whoops, small detail
there. Well, according to Amnesty International, this is continued
every year. In addition, over 3,500 documented executions occur every
year in jails in China.
My colleagues, vote ``yes'' on the resolution and ``no'' on MFN.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the resolution to
disapprove. It boils down to whether my colleagues want China inside
the tent or outside the tent.
Now all of this China business, there is one segment of trade that
has not been discussed as thoroughly as it should, and that segment is
agricultural exports. So today I speak for the American farmer, I speak
for the rural Missourians who sell products abroad.
United States should again extend normal trade status to China.
Failure to do so will jeopardize American agricultural sales to that
country that last year topped $3 billion. Overall, our country enjoys a
substantial agricultural trade surplus with China of $2\1/2\ billion.
Moreover, agricultural exports to China stand to gross significantly in
the coming years as income growth in China leads to continuing dietary
improvement.
Let us look at some of the sales statistics that we have. Nineteen
hundred ninety-six corn sales to China topped 90 million bushels;
fertilizer, $1.1 billion; wheat, $426 million; cotton, $736 million;
soy beans, $414 million; soybean

[[Page H4249]]

meal, $116 million; soybean oil, $104 million, and poultry, $408
million.
China is already a major market for American agricultural exports and
has the potential to become an even bigger customer as the economy
continues to grow. So for the American farmer, for the Americans and
those who live in rural Missouri and rural America, I say let us
continue to sell agricultural products to that country.

{time} 1215

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon].
(Mr. PAXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAXON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to
oppose the renewal of MFN for China. This decision has been a difficult
one for me. I am a firm believer in free trade.
Trade is of vital importance to American jobs and the world economy,
but our foreign policy is about more than simply trade. There are sound
arguments on both sides of this debate. There are no black and whites
here, there are no absolutes, except one: the absolute failure of the
Clinton administration to effectively represent American interests and
values on the world stage.
I wish I could stand here today and support MFN. Each of the four
times that President Clinton has asked this body to renew, I have given
him my vote. But when the Clinton-Gore administration fails to use our
trade relationship to promote free and fairer trade, encourage human
rights improvements, or to limit the proliferation of arms, it is time
to try something else.
I will admit it: Trade for trade's sake is the closest thing this
administration has to a consistent foreign policy, but the world is
more complex than that, and American foreign policy is about more than
champagne toasts and caviar receptions.
This administration's failures are not limited to Asia. Their
debacles litter the globe from the Middle East to central Africa.
Clinton-Gore foreign policy has made a mockery of this Nation in the
eyes of the world. We have gone from being the world's policeman to its
Keystone cops. Today, bumper sticker slogans substitute for honest
dialog and fundraisers have replaced fact-finding.
America is best represented, I believe, by a cohesive, coherent, and
disciplined foreign policy executed by the President of the United
States. Sadly, the current administration refuses to address seriously
even the most basic of human rights, trade, and national security
concerns when it comes to United States-China relations.
I will be the first to admit it: Denial of MFN to China would be at
best a blunt, imprecise instrument, but I believe it would send a
message to China that the United States believes in something more than
the blind pursuit of trade.
Do I wish the President would step up to the plate and do his job?
Absolutely, yes. But absent that leadership, what choice does Congress
have? Denying MFN will not solve all of our problems with China, but at
least someone will have signaled to the leadership in Beijing that
trade with America is not just a right, but a privilege.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution to
deny MFN trading status for China. Many of us share great reservations
about the fate of Hong Kong under Chinese rule. Most of us also share
deep concerns about human rights abuses, whether those abuses are in
China or elsewhere. But denying MFN to China is the wrong way to
address these issues.
Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten has made it crystal clear that
denying MFN status will only hurt Hong Kong. His quote: ``For the
people of Hong Kong,'' he said, ``there is no comfort in the
proposition that if China reduces their freedoms, the United States
will take away their jobs.''
Christian missionaries are also pleading with us not to endanger
their work and their people by denying MFN. We cannot address the issue
of human rights in China, or anywhere, if we are not engaged, and we
cannot help Hong Kong retain its freedoms and its status as the center
of trade if we undercut our influence there and undercut Hong Kong's
economic health.
From my days as a real estate broker I can tell my colleagues that we
gain nothing if we are not at the table. We cannot serve our interests
or those of our clients by being absent during a closing. If we are not
in the room, we are not a player, period, and that goes for trade as
well.
I urge opposition to this resolution denying MFN trading status for
China.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to build a strong relationship
between the United States and China, but the most-favored-nation status
that China enjoys has done little to build a strong and mutually
beneficial relationship between our two Nations.
China has engaged in unfair trade practices, pirated intellectual
property, spread weapons and dangerous technology to rogue nations,
suppressed democracy, encroached on democratic reforms in Hong Kong,
and engaged in human rights abuses.
They have profited. They send one-third of their exports to the
United States and allow only 1.7 percent of American exports to crack
the Chinese market. The result? A $40 billion trade deficit which is
expected to reach a staggering $50 billion by the end of this year.
The United States should use our trade laws to pressure China for
greater access for American companies and goods. I am voting against
MFN for China because we need to let China and our trade leaders know
that more of the same from China is not acceptable. If our Government
wants support for free trade, then it must insist on fair and equal
standards and compliance with our trade laws. When that happens, there
will be broader support for MFN.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President's
decision to extend most-favored-nation status to the products of China
for another year, and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on House Joint
Resolution 79.
As most of my colleagues know, we are not really talking about giving
privilege or favorable treatment to the Republic of China; what we are
talking about is treating them as we would normal trading partners.
I think, too, one of the reasons I support it is because this is not
just a trade issue, it is a foreign policy issue, and I think the
President and the State Department should have more information as to
where we can go as a nation and what proper tools we have available to
use in order to bring the entire free world around to understanding
that democracy really and truly works.
It seems to me that boycotts and using trade as a weapon can only
work if we have a consensus among the world leaders that we are going
to be working collectively. Here we see a situation which should be
proven to us by the embargo against Cuba that there are too many
countries willing to fill the vacuum that America would leave, if we
just decided unilaterally that we had a higher sense of human rights
than the people that we were dealing with.
It is just hard to see what our history of doing business with
dictators in South America and around the world, including the former
Soviet Union, than how with China we find this new high moral standard
in dealing with them. It is not as though withdrawing and not
communicating is going to improve the situation. Most no one denies
that job creation in our country can be the difference in whether we
trade or whether we do not, or whether someone else gets the jobs.
Mr. Speaker, on the question of human rights, I would just like to
say that our great Nation exceeds the world in the number of humans
that we have incarcerated per capita. If we take a look at the profile
of those people that are locked up and have had their liberties taken
away from them, and knowing the fact that statistically people who look
like them will be ending up in jail, we would be hardpressed

[[Page H4250]]

on American soil to explain that we are not talking about political
prisoners.
Most all of these people, at least 80 percent of them, come from poor
communities; one way or the other they have been affected by drugs;
most of them of color; most all of them are uneducated, untrained, and
most of them do not think much about their lives and the lives of other
people. It would seem to me that if we really were concerned, we would
find out the source, the poverty that exists in communities, the
failure of our school system to work, and to see how close to 2 million
people could possibly enjoy the benefits of expanded trade which we
hope this great Nation will be looking forward to.
What I am saying is that we all are seriously concerned about the
human rights of every individual, and we should be, but I do not want
any country ridiculing or telling my country, the greatest republic in
the free world, what we are doing wrong. I do not want anyone setting
these standards for my country.
I think that the fights that we have, we are able to fight back
because we have the opportunity to do it. We have the ability to try to
impress each other, to make America better, and I think the only way we
can get this idea across to other countries is to be there and let them
see who we are, how we succeed to have a better life. I think it is
true in Cuba, if we went there and showed them what American capitalism
is like, and I think that the United States as an economic showcase has
changed the lives of many people in China.
Mr. Speaker, by continuing the dialog and creating the jobs on this
side of the ocean, I truly believe that is a better solution to the
problem than us determining what human rights should be in the Republic
of China.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, this Tickle-Me-Elmo made in China is more coherent than
the trade policy of the Clinton administration.
Let me turn this fellow off.
Trade is a balancing of interests. Whether we engage with a nation
with respect to trade is a balancing of interests.
What are we getting? We are getting a smaller export to China than we
get to Belgium. They are not a major trading partner except for the
one-way street, except for the $50 billion-plus coming back to China,
the trade surplus that they enjoy over us, the enormous sales
throughout our Wal-Marts and K-Marts with hundreds and hundreds of
products, many of which are made by the People's Liberation Army, and
what are we getting in return for that?
Have we stopped any of the poison gas sales to Iran by China? Have we
stopped any sales of ring magnets that are used to make ICBM's sold to
Pakistan? Have we stopped the purchase of the missile destroyers that
were purchased from Russia, that have one purpose, and that is to kill
American sailors and destroy American ships on the high seas?
My colleagues have spoken of the policy of engagement, but not one
CEO, not one president, not one trade negotiator can point to a single
case of technology transfer or military transfer that they have stopped
by engaging with the Chinese, nor can any of them really point to any
attempts that they have made to stop this amassing of military
capability in China and the transferring of military capability to
outlaw nations around the world.
So in the balancing of interests, we are getting about the same
exports that we get to Belgium, which is very little, and in return for
that we are making China strong with hard American dollars. They are
militarizing with their strength, and the same children, the 5- and 6-
year-olds playing with that made-in-China Tickle Me Elmo today, may
well be facing us on a battlefield in Korea when they are 17 or 18
years old. Vote against MFN for China.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California for yielding me this time.
I continue to believe that we must remain engaged in China; clearly
the power to be reckoned with both now and in the next century.
However, I have to say it is with increasing reluctance this year that
I am going to support these normalized trade relations. I have just
about had it.
As chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I have two major
concerns: First, China's flagrant and inexcusable weapons proliferation
activities; no denying it. Specifically, the provision of advanced
weapons systems, equipment, and technologies to nations, including some
that are hostile to America, that are known to have active programs to
develop weapons of mass destruction. I want to be sure President
Clinton knows how serious this is; I want to hear him say it, I want to
hear him say he is going to do something about it.
The other issue clouding the debate for me is the serious allegation
that Chinese officials engaged in improper and possibly illegal
activities to influence the outcome of U.S. elections.

{time} 1230

This matter is still unresolved, and it deserves cooperation, and I
hope also we will get the cooperation of the administration on this.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].
(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, let us not surrender to the China lobby. I
rise today to make known my strong support for House Joint Resolution
79, disapproving the extension of most-favored-nation trading status to
Communist China. The debate that this body is now engaged in is of the
utmost importance for American jobs today and the security of our
Nation tomorrow.
Let me say that I know my colleagues in this Chamber want nothing
more than for our trade deficit with China to narrow, for human rights
to improve, for the grave incidents of nuclear and weapons
proliferation to cease, and finally, for democracy to take root in
China. Let us be honest about this discussion. There is not a single
Member in this body who does not want to achieve these laudable goals.
But I have come to realize that the annual exercise of renewing
China's most-favored-nation status has been a complete failure in its
annual exercise of futility. In fact, continuing MFN treatment for
China has been based upon a series of broken promises. First, we have
heard that engagement is critical for the United States to achieve its
economic goals with China. We ought to engage the American worker, that
is what we need to engage, in America, to protect our jobs and stop
shipping them across the ocean.
We ought to visit China, but we should visit the shops and factories
in our own districts back home where those folks have to work, where
those folks need to be producing products that need to be sent to
China, not to have a 35 percent duty or tariff on it, and ours a 2
percent, so China can send goods to us and we cannot send goods to
them.
Mr. Speaker, our argument is not with the Chinese people, it is with
their authoritarian government. The China lobby which did us in in the
end of the Second World War is alive and well in Washington, DC. We
should make the decision for our workers and working Americans, instead
of shipping jobs across the ocean.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].
(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this is a high water mark for me in the
last 2 years I have been able to be in Congress, being able to be a
part of this discussion on our relationship with China. It is
bipartisan, it makes a difference, it is Congress at its best and its
most exciting.
Over the last 25 years, since President Nixon reversed our policy of
isolating ourselves from China and the rest of the world, we have seen
a safer

[[Page H4251]]

and more prosperous world. It helped hasten the end of the cold war, it
helps keep peace today on the Korean peninsula, where China is one of
the few countries that actually exercises some control over the North
Koreans. It has pointed toward more prosperity and freedom for the
Chinese. Even the progress with American missionaries on the ground in
China in the last half dozen years would have been unthinkable 20 or 30
years ago.
Most important, it has planted seeds for a dynamic change in the
future with access to information and to markets. The reason it sounds
to people today that we are talking about a multiplicity of countries
is the fact that China, although large and with an ancient culture, is
complex and it is not monolithic. We cannot treat it as such.
The notion that somehow MFN will force a monolithic Chinese ancient
society to change and accommodate us is misguided. It did not work
during World War II, when there were over 1 million Japanese soldiers
on Mainland China and we were giving them billions of dollars. The
Chinese risked nuclear war and fought us to a draw in Korea, and tens
of thousands of Americans needlessly died because we thought we could
force China. It does not even work with a two-bit dictator 90 miles
away with Cuba today.
We need to engage the world to work with us, not cutting ourselves
off from China, but to work cooperatively, providing leadership. This
Congress needs to support policies that enable the administration to
continue the process of engagement and progress. We need to defeat this
resolution.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the question can be summed up in two words:
self-aggrandizement. Is our interest in self-aggrandizement in this
Nation more important than the principles involved? Are we a Nation
whose purpose is expanding business at all costs, no matter what? Or do
we have a Nation where some principles are important to us? Is
expanding trade with China more important than the fundamental
principles that define the beginning of this Nation? Is the loss of
trade harmful to the economy, so harmful that we are willing to
sacrifice any principle, or is there a higher good in which to lead our
Nation in our trading practices?
I believe there is a much higher purpose today. How can we support
trade policy with a Nation that believes in the power of the State
rather than the power of the people? We are subsidizing through our
trade policy China's economic interests, which is controlled by the
State, and the people who are existing in that country get no benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to know all the answers. Maybe there is
a compromise. China in the very near future can become a strategic
threat, and this strategic threat is more important to us than trade.
The esteemed Frank Gaffney, the director of the Center for Security
Policy, this is what he said: ``China is utilizing most of the huge
trade surplus that it enjoys, thanks to this privileged trading status,
to mount a strategic threat to the United States and its vital
interests in Asia, the Middle East, and beyond.''
The United States trade deficit with China is $40 billion for 1996
alone. Because the State owns nearly all the businesses in China, the
hard currency they receive from the United States trade deficit is used
to purchase advanced military weaponry, such as advanced naval vessels
from Russia that can be a direct threat to the United States in the
western Pacific.
Our vote today is very important. Keep the principles in mind.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Metairie, LA [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, the people of China are light years better off today
than they were 15 or 20 years ago. There is a whole world of difference
between the way the Chinese people were treated by their own Government
back then and the way they are treated today. They are coming out in
the open. They are gravitating toward Western styles, and maybe they
will not even want to hear that, but to democracy. They are not open,
they are not perfect. Everything that everybody has said on the floor
today is right about the atrocities committed by the Chinese
Government. But they are moving in the right direction, and most-
favored-nation status is important to preserve normal trading relations
with China.
If we cut them off, isolate them, are we going to enhance the plight
of the Chinese people, or all the people they control? Not according to
Martin Lee, who is the leader of democracy in Hong Kong; not according
to Chris Patten, the former Governor of Hong Kong, who is on his way
out; not according to the Dalai Lama from Tibet. These three leaders
and proponents for democracy say that cutting off MFN for China is
going to increase the probability that people will be oppressed by the
Chinese Government.
If MFN is not extended, Hong Kong will stand to lose $20-30 billion
in trade and 60,000-85,000 jobs. Moreover, their economy will be cut by
over 50 percent and incomes will be reduced by $4 billion.
The United States has an estimated 170,000 jobs dependent on exports
to China.
United States exports have more than tripled over the last 10 years
and China is now our fifth largest trading partner, accounting for $12
billion of United States exports.
A number of religious groups in and out of China favor MFN. Taking
away MFN will only hurt the Chinese people, particularly those who are
persecuted because of religious faith.
Engagement does not mean we support all of China's policies. We
should, and will continue to, press China on proliferation, human
rights, religions freedom, and the rule of law. Revoking MFN?
What in the world are we doing? We have realized sanctions do not
work. They have not worked in other places in the world, and they are
not going to work against the most populous nation on Earth. The
Chinese people deserve to be free. The people in Hong Kong deserve to
be free. The worst thing we can be doing is cutting off MFN now, before
we find out what happens to the people of Hong Kong.
Six months from now, a year from now, if things go badly, maybe then,
maybe then we can cut off MFN, but not now. Let us give the only hope
for freedom to the people of Hong Kong that we have. Let us extend
normal trading relations.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to comment, I have been informed that the Dalai Lama did
not endorse MFN and suggest that it was necessary. Quite the contrary,
he supports our position.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Kucinich].
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to most-favored-
nation status for China. The American people have heard that trade at
all costs with China serves United States interests, but here are the
figures. The United States trade deficit with China has grown at a
faster rate than that of any other major United States trading partner.
The level of United States imports from China more than doubled between
1992 and 1996. The United States trade deficit was nearly $40 billion
in 1996, and it is on its way to surpassing that mark in 1997.
These figures mean lost jobs in the United States, and it is just
beginning, because United States-based multinational corporations are
investing to build new plants and new equipment in China. Contractual
agreements with the Chinese Government require that the supply of goods
for those new factories will have to come from China as well, and that
means more United States jobs lost.
Human rights are important in this. Why have we tolerated for so long
the United States double standard of fierce commitment to the rights of
intellectual property, important to multinational business, while the
rights of workers in the United States and independent thinkers in
China are cast aside?
Mr. Speaker, I say human rights are as important as copyrights.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Tauscher].

[[Page H4252]]

(Mrs. TAUSCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, this debate is what makes us different.
It is exactly what should be happening in this great country of ours.
America should never base its decisions solely on the power of
economics. I commend those Americans, particularly those Members of
Congress, particularly my good friend, the gentlewoman from California,
Ms. Nancy Pelosi, for raising so many of the important issues related
to extension of normal trade relations to China.
So it is with some reluctance that I oppose this resolution and
support extension of MFN to China. Secretary Madeleine Albright has
stated, ``Engagement does not mean endorsement.'' I believe engagement
does mean opportunity, opportunity to export our values and lifestyle,
and an opportunity to promote a better and more secure world for our
children and the children of China.
I worked on Wall Street for 14 years before I left to raise my
family. I recognize the opportunities economic integration can provide.
I believe there is no greater opportunity or challenge in American
foreign policy today than to secure China's integration into the
international system as a fully responsible member, not just in
economic terms, but in terms of human rights, the environment, weapons
proliferation, intellectual property protection, and other issues.
I believe we can better influence China's direction by exposing them
to our Democratic ideals through engagement. We can effectively move
the Chinese to change by increasing their exposure to the alternative
model. We can work to end human rights abuses by continuing the dialog
through trade and exchange. Revoking MFN would severely damage American
interests and undermine our ability to influence China's direction. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution and support
extension of normal trade relations to China.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct privilege of yielding 3
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of
the Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution,
House Joint Resolution 79, offered by the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon],
disapproving the extension of MFN trading status to China.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation sends a clear signal to Beijing that
our Nation does not reward unsavory economic and political practices.
Our Nation must do right and value principle over practice.
The regime in Beijing repeatedly has violated international trade
agreements, spread weapons of mass destruction, committed terrible
human rights abuses, both in China and in occupied Tibet, and
persecuted all those who pursue religious freedom, while at the same
time enjoying the privilege of an open trade agreement with our own
Nation.
The so-called constructive engagement policy favored by the
administration I think has been ineffective in moderating the Chinese
Government's policies. It has not brought about a level economic
playing field for American businesses and exports. The situation shows
no sign of improvement.
What have we achieved in return? A $40 billion trade deficit, which,
by the way, is likely to top $50 billion this year.

{time} 1245

Chinese tariffs on American exports average 23 percent, a bewildering
array of nontariff barriers to United States goods. The piracy of our
intellectual property and the intentional diversion and illegal
transfer of American dual use technology. The key to a successful
policy of engagement is supposed to be reciprocity. The
administration's advocacy for renewing MFN is a policy of appeasement,
not reciprocity. China's weapons proliferation practices are a source
of international concern and serve to embroil regional turmoil.
We must be willing to use our tremendous economic influence in order
to stop any nation from violating international nonproliferation
agreements. We should be willing to use our economic power to foster
measurable progress on human rights around the world. The government in
Beijing has a deplorable human rights record, and the administration's
decision to delink human rights from the MFN debate has not helped but
has contributed to a worsening condition in China.
A recent poll by a major United States news outlet showed that nearly
two-thirds of Americans believe that we should demand progress from
China on its human rights practices before extending any trade
privileges. I agree.
We should base our foreign policy on the values that have made a
great Nation of America: democracy, freedom, universal human rights,
and the rule of law. Accordingly, I strongly encourage my colleagues to
support this resolution. I invoke the words of the great American,
Dwight D. Eisenhower, who said a people that values its privileges
above its principles soon loses both.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Stupak].
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, how can we endorse products manufactured by
slave labor, child labor, and prisoners? We as United States citizens
and as citizens of the international community, we cannot, we should
not endorse these Chinese labor practices. We must reject trade
agreements whereby low-cost products of countries which lack effective
labor laws are sold in the United States at considerable profit for
these countries.
My second concern involves the trade deficit with China. This trade
deficit now stands at $40 billion. It is expected that our trade
deficit with China will exceed Japan's within the next 12 months. In
1989, it was only $3 billion. Less than 10 years later, it is now $53
billion.
Mr. Speaker, that is not a trade policy. It is a trade giveaway. I
hope we will all vote in favor of House Joint Resolution 79.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, every year that I have been in
Congress we have had this debate regarding China. The one thing that
has been very consistent and very constant is that all Members,
regardless of what their position is on China MFN, do agree that there
are serious problems with human rights in China, with nuclear
proliferation, with religious freedom. And there certainly are trade
barriers. But what there is great disagreement on is, how can this
country be most effective in addressing and improving upon those
problems?
I agree with what every President since the 1980's has agreed to,
that it is by maintaining economic engagement with China that we are
going to be more successful in empowering the citizens of China to be
able to be more successful in improving their human rights situation.
Since many of my colleagues have discussed many issues surrounding
the China debate, I want to spend a little bit of time talking about
agriculture. As a farmer from the most productive agriculture region in
the country, I believe that the most useful action the Federal
Government can undertake is to expand market access for agriculture
products.
Few people realize that China is currently the sixth largest export
market for United States agriculture goods. In 1996, China bought over
$1.9 billion of United States agriculture products. When we look to the
future with 1.2 billion people in China, with limited arable land, it
is now expected that China will consume almost 50 percent of the
increases in United States agricultural exports in the coming decades.
China is already No. 1, the world's largest wheat importer, and in
the last 4 years China's feed grain consumption has increased by over
50 million tons. We must ensure that this country can be a reliable
supplier to China. We must not repeat some of the mistakes of the past
when this country put in place a grain embargo, when we acted
unilaterally. The only people who suffered when we put in the grain
embargo

[[Page H4253]]

were United States farmers. If we do not choose to go forward with
China MFN policy, we will in fact be putting another embargo that will
also be unilateral which will ensure that it be will the United States
farmers who will have the most to suffer. Let us vote against this
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would advise all
Members that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] has 32\1/2\
minutes remaining; the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] has 30
minutes remaining; the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] has 30\1/
2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] has 17
minutes remaining; and and gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, almost exactly a year ago, I stood before
this body to oppose extension of most-favored-nation trading status for
the People's Republic of China. I did so with reluctance because I am a
strong supporter of business and I have a fundamental commitment to
free trade, also because I believe that the United States should remain
engaged with China, which is an emerging superpower.
However, I do not believe in commerce at all cost. I could not in
good conscious support normal trade relations with the PRC in view of a
number of the Chinese Government's activities. I had hoped to be able
to support MFN this year. But unfortunately, the actions of the Chinese
Government over the last 12 months and this administration's lack of a
coherent response to those actions leave me no choice but to oppose MFN
once again.
In addition to its egregious human rights violations, including the
use of slave labor, outrageous abuse and neglect of baby girls and
persecution of Christians, the PRC continues to actively engage in
weapons proliferation activities around the globe and to be a one-stop
shopping center for Third World nations hoping to acquire or develop
weapons of mass destruction. These proliferation activities pose a
clear and present danger to our national security and to our young men
and women in uniform, and the current administration has done little or
nothing to address this situation.
I believe that supporting MFN would amount to tacitly approving both
China's dangerous weapons and technology sales and this
administration's lack of a coherent policy for dealing with the PRC. I
can do neither and I will vote in favor of this resolution as a way of
sending a message that this Congress will no longer tolerate the
current state of affairs.
I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of MFN for China. I
rise in support of the common sense proposition that we continue to
normalize trade relations with the People's Republic of China. We live
in a global economy and it simply makes no sense to turn our back on a
nation of a billion people. It is in our own national security interest
as well as our economic interest that we have normal relations.
We are all concerned about human rights and individual freedom, but
the best way to promote those causes is to be present in China with our
values and our products. In my district alone I have heard from large
and small companies whose futures for products and jobs largely depend
on new markets. Mr. Speaker, I can think of no more important export to
China than each and every example of the American success story.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and to support MFN for
China.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Brown].
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, every year China promises to open its
market to American products. Every year Congress grants most-favored-
nation status to China. Yet nothing seems to change and we are about to
do it again.
MFN is a job killer for America. MFN is a job killer for America
because China refuses to open its markets to us. MFN is a job killer
for America because China uses slave labor in prison labor camps. MFN
is a job killer for America because it uses child labor to make things
like these Spalding golf balls or this Mattel Barbie doll. Twelve-year-
old Tibetan boys and girls in slave labor camps in China make these
soft balls for 12-year-old kids to play with on America's playgrounds.
Chinese children make these Barbie dolls in sweatshops--12-year-old
Chinese children make these Barbie dolls in sweatshops--so America's
12-year-olds can play with these Barbie dolls in their bedrooms.
Mr. Speaker, repression in China today is much more than an isolated
mock trial here, a closed newspaper there. Instead it encompasses the
arbitrary arrest, torture, and execution of thousands of prisoners of
conscience. It is systematic. It is wholesale. It is thorough, it is
complete.
When I hear the State Department say that no dissidents are known to
be active in the People's Republic of China, as it did in its 1996
human rights report, I am reminded of a line from Star Wars which is
chillingly applicable to China. It is as if millions of voices cried
out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], ranking member of the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services.
(Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, in January 1979, I was fortunate to be a
part of the United States congressional delegation that represented the
United States at the ceremonies reestablishing relations between the
United States and China. That was the first time I was in China. We met
extensively with Deng Xiaoping; we viewed China. It was a drab,
terrible place. But it was good that we reestablished relations.
This year, 18 years later, January 1997, I had occasion to go to
China again, met with President Jiang Zemin and saw China 1997.
Mr. Speaker, I doubt that any country in the history of the world has
advanced as much in an 18-year period as China has. I doubt that the
human rights condition of a people has advanced in any country in the
world as much in 18 years as China has. That would not have happened
had we not reestablished relations. That would not have happened had we
not established normal trading relations with China. So if Members want
to pursue the cause of human rights in China, continue normal relations
with China, do not make the single largest foreign policy mistake in
the history of the United States.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
(Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, in 1995 and 1996, I voted for MFN. This year
I will not. I will support this resolution.
Why the change? Well, it is not just one reason. I think that China's
human rights record is no better and it may be worse. Second, I know
for sure that our trade deficit is worse because we are not making any
progress on bringing down their import tariffs. And we are losing
American jobs because of it.
Third, we just learned that the Chinese sold cruise missiles to Iran.
This places American troops in harm's way. And how about Chinese sales
of nerve gas technology to Iran?
Finally it appears that the Chinese have tried to influence our own
elections with illegal contributions. United States-China policy made
in China.
Mr. Speaker, we need to send China a message. First, lower your
tariffs. Second, stop persecuting religious freedom of speech. Third,
stop selling weapons of mass destruction to terrorist states and,
fourth, do not ever meddle in our elections again. Vote ``yes'' for
this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
Today I vote on whether to extend most-favored-nation [MFN] trade
status to China. Everyone agrees that the United States-China
relationship is very important and I have spent

[[Page H4254]]

much time thinking about our country's relationship with the most
populous nation on Earth. I voted for China MFN the last time. This
year I will not. Why the change?
I believe our foreign policy should promote democratic freedoms, stop
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and promote U.S.
exports. Indeed, since the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, Congress
has been concerned about China's violation of trade agreements, sales
of weapons of mass destruction, and human rights violations. There is
new information available on abuses in each of these areas. In
addition, it appears that the Communist Chinese Government tried to
influence the outcome of our election in 1996. United States-China
policy made in China.
I believe that free markets around the world lead to higher standards
of living for all. However, free markets mean free markets. The United
States, under MFN for China, levies an average 2 percent tariff on
Chinese goods coming into the United States. The Chinese levy a 35
percent tariff on United States goods exported to China. Is it any
wonder that the United States trade deficit with China has soared from
$6 billion in 1989 to $50 billion projected in 1997? In January 1997
alone, imports from China were up 18 percent over the month before and
United States exports to China were down 28 percent.
Despite the 1995 and 1996 intellectual property rights agreements,
piracy of United States software and CD's continues in China. In 1996,
that piracy cost our economy over $2.3 billion. China wants our
technology, requires a ``certification'' of that technology by Chinese
research and design institutes, and then disseminates that technology
to Chinese domestic ventures. Is it any wonder that the CEO of one of
Iowa's largest seed companies told me that they won't do business with
China until his company's intellectual property is better protected?
Congress has had concerns about Chinese sales of arms, but just this
past week the State Department officially informed Congress that the
Chinese Government has sold cruise missiles to Iran that enhance Iran's
ability to disrupt Persian Gulf shipping and strike United States
forces there. In addition Chinese companies have recently sold Iran
chemicals and technology that help Iran make nerve gas. China has
provided Iraq and Libya with materials to produce nuclear weapons, have
provided missile-related components to Syria and have provided Pakistan
with advanced missile and nuclear weapons technology.
United States companies have sold supercomputers to China that allow
the Chinese to do small underground nuclear tests at the same time that
Chinese companies have exported AK-47's to be used by gangs in Los
Angeles.
The United States should not ignore Chinese transfer of weapons
technology to rogue nations like Iran when we are spending billions of
dollars a year to promote Middle East peace. Furthermore, just last
week United States military intelligence reported that the Chinese are
developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that will give Beijing
a major strike capability against the Western United States within 3
years.
In the human rights area, there was a recent report released by the
State Department in January 1997 stating, ``The (Chinese) Government
continued to commit widespread and well documented human rights abuses,
in violation of internationally accepted norms, stemming from the
authorities' intolerance of dissent, fear of unrest, and the absence of
laws protecting basic freedoms.''
Since the State Department release, additional information has been
provided to Congress about the Chinese Government persecuting
evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who choose to worship
independent of the government church, promoting a policy of forced
abortions, and brutally repressing the people of Tibet. The takeover of
Hong Kong by China is scheduled for July 1, 1997. Already, the Chinese
Government has moved to disband Hong Kong's democratically elected
legislature and to repeal its bill of rights.
The current policy of so-called constructive engagement has bolstered
the Chinese Government and has made little progress in promoting
Chinese-United States fair trade, stopping Chinese nuclear
proliferation to countries which are dangerous to us, and in promoting
the political freedoms we will be celebrating ourselves this 4th of
July. A ``no'' vote by the House of Representatives on MFN would send a
message to the Chinese regime and also to the Clinton administration
that the status quo is not acceptable.

{time} 1300

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Oxley].
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a productive engagement
with China, support of American jobs, in support of the people of Hong
Kong, in support of human rights, in support of religious freedom, and
against the resolution disapproval.
I have had an opportunity to visit China on three different
occasions. And as my learned friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
LaFalce], had said earlier, China has changed dramatically, has changed
dramatically much more than any of us could have anticipated in so many
ways.
I remember having a discussion with a young lady who was working in
this case for an American company in China on our most recent visit.
She had been educated here in the United States at a rather prestigious
university and then went back to China and began working for an
American company based there. She told me that about 20,000 Chinese
students are educated in the United States, a total now of over 250,000
of the bright, elite people in China, the people who are the future of
China, and that they have been educated in the United States, have gone
back to their home country, and have participated in changing China in
so many ways.
And I thought to myself as I spoke to this young lady that she really
represented the future of China, that China is changing dramatically
and continues to change in a positive way. And the fact that these
students are going back and working for American companies based in
China providing modern telecommunications, modern pharmaceuticals, and
the like, I think was a real eye opener for all of us who were part of
that delegation.
It would be a mistake, a huge mistake, if we are going to think
somehow that by revoking normal trade relations with China, the same
relations we have with everybody else, if we reject MFN, that we in
fact have made a huge mistake in our trading relationships with the
largest country in the world.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, no one will stand on this floor today to
defend China's arms trafficking to terrorist nations, Iran, Iraq,
Libya, Syria, America's enemies. But the apologists also say MFN is not
a tool to stop illegal traffic and weapons of mass destruction. No one
will stand on this floor today to defend the human rights atrocities of
the Chinese regime. But the apologists will say MFN should not be used
to defend human or labor rights. The apologists say MFN for China is
just normal trade relations. How can you have normal trade relations
with an outlaw regime? How can we have normal trade relations with the
most unfair trading nation on Earth?
The Chinese systematically exclude nonstrategic United States goods.
First, there is a 23 percent tariff, on average. Then they have their
discriminatory 17-percent value-added tax, which often only gets added
to United States goods, not Chinese goods. Then, if that is not enough,
they have nontariff barriers that make the Japanese nontariff barriers
look like the work of amateurs. And finally, something might somehow
get past that they have unwritten rules that change day-to-day, port-
to-port in China to keep out anything that might get past those
barriers.
The bottom line is, the only United States goods allowed in are those
that enrich China's corrupt leaders or add to their store of critical
technology and military weaponry. Yeah, it is about jobs. It is about
Chinese jobs, not American jobs.
With a $50 billion trade deficit this year, according to the Commerce
Department's own way of figuring exports and imports, we will export 1
million United States' jobs to China. Yes, this is free trade. One-way
Chinese free trade into America, the largest consumer market on Earth,
and not through their protected barriers into China.
Stop the apologies. Stop the appeasement. Send the Chinese a tough
message they will respect.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of normal trade status with
the

[[Page H4255]]

Chinese. Back in 1919, then-President of the United States Woodrow
Wilson said this, and I quote,

We set this Nation up to make men free and we did not
confine our conception and purpose to America.

Now I say that for two reasons. One, because in 1920, the United
States, after 140 years, extended the right to vote to women; 140
years. We did the right thing. We are still having problems in this
Nation at times doing the right thing. Yet Members of Congress parade
down here and they want to see China do the right thing in 1 year, in 6
months, in 2 weeks.
I think what Woodrow Wilson said in that quote was not only
recognizing that we stand up for human rights in this country, but we
should insist on it in other countries. And that is what constructive
engagement is doing slowly, day by day. And if we go back to when we
recognized China, they can now vote for somebody that is not a
Communist and not be thrown in jail. There is tangible progress.
Now I know we have a lot of experts here in this body on foreign
relations. But when we go to the real experts on foreign relations and
we are concerned about religious freedom, Billy Graham, the Reverend
Billy Graham has written, ``Do not treat China as an adversary but as a
friend.''
If my colleagues were concerned about human rights, ask Martin Lee,
who is over there in the trenches. ``Do not take away MFN,'' he says.
If my colleagues are concerned about Hong Kong, Gov. Chris Patten says,
``Do not take away MFN for Hong Kong or China.''
Finally, for us, if we go forward and revoke MFN, we will spend
billions of dollars in defense, with a new cold war era, we will spend
billions on environmental problems, and we will give up billions to
trade for the Japanese and the Koreans.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington, Mrs. Linda Smith.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give
voice to millions of Americans who have grave concerns about America's
relationship with China. I guess the rainbow to this long debate over
most-favored-nation status for China has ended with Americans realizing
that something is wrong, deeply wrong.
Americans know in their hearts and minds the difficult social, moral,
and economic issues involved. We knew something was wrong when we
watched our President change his mind and turn his back on the issue of
slave labor, which he said he would change if he were elected. We knew
something was wrong when he decided that it no longer made any
difference that we saw more labels ``Made in China'' that used to be
carrying proudly the ``Made in U.S.'' label.
Americans are weighing this issue, and they are thoughtfully,
thoughtfully but adamantly, against giving MFN to China. Just this
week, a poll came out and it is growing the opposition. It is now 67
percent against giving most-favored-nation status. It is not a third
for. Only 18 percent would support it at this point after this long
debate.
Furthermore, Americans are dissatisfied with the current status quo.
Recently, I got another letter from a union in my area, the Machinist
Union, and they echoed the concerns of this poll. They echoed the
concerns that China has to open up its markets. We have very few
products and very few commodities now going into China. But they really
had a loud voice in this letter, and also in the poll, that said a
country that tortures its own to keep the rest terrified is not
acceptable.
I would urge my colleagues to join the American people and vote
``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I am here today, of course, to talk about
most-favored-nation status. Much has been heard about our bilateral
trade deficit with China. It is the same argument that protectionists
use as a reason not to trade with Japan. These protectionists argue
that because we have a large trade deficit with a specific country, we
should erect trade barriers or force them to purchase more American
goods to level the playing field.
In the 1980's, Japan was the culprit. Today it is China. And if China
is treating us unfairly simply because of our trade deficits, then we
are treating nations like Australia, Argentina, Egypt, and Poland
unfairly and they should erect trade barriers to level the playing
field with American products.
The fact is, all Americans run up lifelong trade deficits with their
local restaurants, grocery store, department store. We do not demand
that our local grocer or retailer purchase something from us in return
for patronage. Of course, that is where I believe the so-called fair
traders are incorrect. It is difficult to find a majority of economists
who agree on anything, but they do agree erecting trade barriers hurts
the nation doing it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], a champion on this issue.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker I rise in support of the motion of
disapproval and ask the question: Why renew the terms of an abnormal
relationship that is not working? Have freedom and liberty of the
Chinese people expanded? No. Repression has increased. Has the United
States earned income from this trade deal? No. Our trade deficits with
China have exploded, as we watch China spend their dollar reserves to
arm themselves militarily while they keep their tariffs against our
goods at 40 percent, and give us no reciprocity in their market. For
America, freedom should mean more than selling fertilizer.
John F. Kennedy inspired the world when he said that human progress
is more than a doctrine about economic advance. Rather, it is an
expression of the noblest goals of our society. It says that material
advance is meaningless without individual liberty and freedom.
Exercising economic sanctions against South Africa's repressive
regime resulted in an advance of freedom. But in our Chinese
engagement, America's efforts have resulted in creating more powerful
oligarchs that feast off our misdirected trade policies.
Upend this abnormal trade relationship, support the motion to
disapprove.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Matsui] for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a more compelling argument made in the
U.S. House of Representatives today than the words of a very dear
friend and inspiration of mine, Dr. Billy Graham. As many of my
colleagues remember, last February we bestowed a great honor on Dr.
Graham and his lovely wife Ruth, the highest award, the Congressional
Gold Medal.
Dr. Graham is not a politician or a policymaker. He is not going to
be pulled into the political debate. But he understands China and he
understands the world because he has traveled it extensively. He said
recently, and I think he said it so well, ``In my experience, nations
respond to friendship just as much as people do.''
Dr. Graham is exactly right. MFN approval is not a vote or a
referendum on China's behavior. It is a vote on how best to promote
U.S. values. The only way to change China is to continue to engage
China, not to declare economic warfare.
Mr. Speaker, please look at the big picture. I firmly believe that
without MFN, human rights abuses will worsen and the dream of achieving
democracy in America will dim. Vote ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 79
and ``yes'' to the rising voices and change in China.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose MFN for China.
My reasons to defeat MFN.

human rights

Every year since 1980, when President Carter first extended China
MFN, supporters have argued that this action will help the United
States promote human rights in China.
It has failed. State Department's own Country Reports on Human Rights
(January 1997) admits:

The Chinese Government continued to commit widespread and
well-documented human rights abuses, in violation of
internationally accepted norms, stemming from the
authorities' intolerance of dissent, fear of unrest, and the
absence or inadequacy of

[[Page H4256]]

laws protecting basic freedoms. * * * Overall in 1996, the
authorities stepped up efforts to cut off expressions of
protest or criticism.

And from Clinton's Assistant Secretary for Asia:

Frankly, on the human rights front, the situation has
deteriorated * * * They're rounding up dissidents, harassing
them more.

In addition: Over 1,000 forced labor camps; harvest and sale of
organs from executed prisoners; forced abortions; and persecution of
religious believers.
Nongovernment churches are outlawed.
Independent worshipers of the government church are harassed and
imprisoned.
Their house churches are being forcibly closed or destroyed.

national security

Selling nuclear material, weapons and military technology to rogue
states (ex: Iran)
Purchased 46 American-made supercomputers which could design nuclear
warheads for missiles capable of reaching the United States.
COSCO lease of Long Beach Port gives PLA base of operations in the
United States.

trade

Economic espionage: U.S. workers lose when U.S. technology is stolen.
Violations of intellectual property rights: $40 billion trade
deficit; 2 percent of United States exports are allowed in China, 33
percent of China's exports come to United States.
China charges American products with huge tariffs:
Even if we would extend least-favored-nation [LFN] status to China,
their tarrifs would still tower ours.
China import tax on United States cars: 50 percent. United States
import tax on LFN cars: 25 percent, that is one-half the rate charged
by China.
China duty on shoes: 50 to 60 percent. United States duty on LFN
shoes: 35 percent.
Allegations of attempting to influence our Presidential elections
through campaign contributions. Vote ``yes'' for House Concurrent
Resolution 79.
Yet, the administration has chosen to stand up to China on only one
issue: intellectual property rights.
When they were faced with trade sanctions over this issue, they
backed down.
If this type of muscular action is justified for the music industry,
then it is justified for persecuted Christians, murdered infants, and
nuclear proliferation. We need to put away the carrots and break out
the sticks. The President's policy isn't just one of engagement, it's a
see-no-evil strategy.

{time} 1315

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia
and the Pacific, I oppose House Joint Resolution 79.
There is perhaps no more important set of related foreign policy
issues for the 21st century than the challenges and opportunities posed
by the emergence of a powerful and fast-growing China. However, today
we are not having a debate focused on those challenges. Instead, we are
debating whether to impose 1930-era Smoot-Hawley trade tariffs on China
that the rest of the world and China knows we will never impose.
This particular annual debate has become highly counterproductive. It
unnecessarily wastes our precious foreign policy leverage and seriously
damages our Government's credibility with the leadership of the PRC and
with our allies. It hinders our ability to coax the PRC into the
international system of world trade rules, nonproliferation norms, and
human rights standards. Moreover, Beijing knows the United States
cannot deny MFN without severely harming American companies and
workers, or without devastating the economy of Hong Kong or Taiwan.
It is true, as MFN opponents argue, that ending normal trade
relations with China would deliver a very serious blow to the Chinese
economy, but the draconian action of raising the average weighted
tariff on Chinese imports to 44 percent instead of the current average
of 4 to 5 percent would severely harm the United States economy as
well. And after China's certain retaliation, many of the approximately
175,000 high-paying export jobs related to United States-China trade
would disappear while France, Germany, Canada, and other major trading
nations would rush to fill the void.
But MFN is about much more than trade. China is an emerging power
with a potentially wide range of interests and influence around Asia.
Ending normal trade relations with the PRC would not only send that
economy into a tailspin, making China's neighbors especially nervous,
but would have a devastating impact upon Hong Kong and Taiwan. For
example, the Hong Kong Government estimates that as many as 86,000 Hong
Kong workers would lose their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, ever since President Nixon traveled to China, United
States policy has sought to promote a stable and peaceful Asia where
America's trade interests could be advanced without sacrificing
security. Successive administrations have made expansion of trade
relations and economic liberalization key tenets of our China policy.
The goal has been not only to expand United States trade, but also to
provide a means of giving China a stake in a peaceful, stable,
economically dynamic Asia-Pacific region. This approach has worked well
and protected not only our national interests, but also those of our
friends and allies. Immediately, U.S. dock workers, transportation
workers, and retail workers would be harmed until alternative sources
for Chinese manufactured goods could be found.
For example, the Hong Kong Government estimates that as many as
86,000 Hong Kong workers would lose their jobs if the United States
ended normal trade relations with China and, almost incredibly, they
project that Hong Kong's gross domestic product would decline by nearly
half. That is why Governor Patten recently stated in a letter to
Members of Congress that ``unconditional renewal of MFN is the most
valuable gift that America has within its power to deliver to Hong Kong
at this critical moment in its history.'' And Hong Kong is not alone--
Taiwan also quite appropriately, but too quietly, recognizes the
importance of MFN. Last year, key business leaders publicly supported
normal trade relations between the United States and China.
Mr. Speaker, the United States has convinced nearly every other
country in the region that the best way to avoid conflict is to engage
each other in trade and closer economic ties. Abandoning this basic
tenet of our foreign policy with China would be a serious shock and set
back what we have been trying to achieve in the entire Asia-Pacific
region. It would send many countries scrambling to choose between China
or the United States.
Opponents of MFN say that human rights in China have not improved and
that the human rights situation in China has deteriorated. I certainly
do agree that very serious human rights problems remain including
arbitrary detentions, widespread religious persecution, suppression of
nearly all political dissent, and coercive abortion practices. But, it
is simply wrong to ignore the fact that since the United States
embarked on normal trade with China, the day-to-day living standard of
the Chinese people has improved dramatically. Moreover, the denial of
normal trade relations with China will not directly improve the plight
of those courageous advocates of democracy and reform in China--indeed
it may worsen their plight and cause repressive action on many more
Chinese citizens.
In making somewhat of an exit assessment on January 1, 1994, then-
United States Ambassador Stapleton Roy said that in the history of
China ``[t]he last two years are the best in terms of prosperity,
individual choice, access to outside sources of information, freedom of
movement within the country and stable domestic conditions.'' Now, 3\1/
2\ years after Ambassador Roy's observations, those general trends
continue; the Chinese people enjoy even more personal choice concerning
their career, education, or place of abode. Just last year modest legal
reforms were advanced in the area of criminal procedures which make it
more likely that individuals will be considered innocent until proven
guilty, will have a right to a lawyer at the time of detention, and
will be able to challenge the arbitrary powers of the police. Although
these reforms have far too many caveats that permit the government to
suppress political dissent, they nonetheless represent progress toward
a rule of law in China.
There have been other positive developments in China. The National
People's Congress showed small but encouraging signs of assertiveness
by attacking a government report that failed to adequately address
corruption. Village elections, once the sole domain of local Communist
party functionaries, have suddenly become contested events--with
noncommunists elected in many places.

For these reasons, many human rights leaders support normal trade
relations. For example, Wei Jingsheng, a prominent dissident still
jailed for his eloquent and strongly held democratic beliefs, urges the
United States to continue MFN. Similarly, Martin Lee, a democratic
leader in Hong Kong, argued for unconditional renewal of MFN on his
recent visit to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Asia and the Pacific
Subcommittee, this member

[[Page H4257]]

has become convinced that the annual MFN process is counterproductive
and undermines United States foreign policy interests with respect to
China. However, the United States has other points of leverage where we
can encourage China's leaders to be responsible actors in the world
community.
For example, China's leaders will be faced with many difficult
economic reform decisions in the next several decades; Therefore,
rather than devoting attention to MFN, the United States should focus
on one of the most important foreign policy decisions for the United
States: China's accession to the World Trade Organization [WTO]. A good
way to maximize our trade leverage is embodied in legislation that this
Member and the gentleman from Illinois, Representative Tom Ewing
recently introduced. That legislation, the China Market Access and
Export Opportunities Act, requires China to pledge adherence to the
world's trade rules and accede to the World Trade Organization or face
``snap-back'' tariffs on goods imported to the United States. It would
induce China's leaders to join the WTO by eliminating our annual MFN
review upon China's membership in the World Trade Organization.
Alternatively however, the China Market Access and Export Opportunities
Act would require the President to impose realistic, pre-Uruguay Round
tariff increases--4-7 percent--on Chinese imports if the PRC continues
to deny United States exporters adequate market access or if it does
not make significant progress to become a member of the WTO.
The PRC's desire to get into the World Trade Organization represents
a historic opportunity for the United States to level the playing field
for United States companies and workers wanting to sell their products
in China. But we should act now. Recent press reports indicate that the
PRC's trade negotiators may be walking away from the currently
unproductive negotiating table. This news is especially disturbing
given that last year's U.S. trade deficit with China was nearly $40
billion and this year's imbalance has risen by 37 percent Secretary of
Commerce, William Daley, recently said that ``China remains the only
major market in the world where U.S. exports are not growing and this
despite significant economic growth in China.''
The China Market Access and Export Opportunities Act is a tough but
fair approach to China's WTO accession. The Congress should immediately
consider this legislation to accelerate the forces of change that have
been unleashed by the PRC's desire to become a part of the world trade
community. Economic and trade liberalization reforms in China, which
this legislation will promote, not only will reduce our enormous
bilateral trade deficit and benefit United States workers and
consumers, it will also continue to provide the most positive forces of
political and social change in China.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to House Joint Resolution 79.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Kentucky [Mrs. Northup].
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the resolution and
in behalf of continuing normal trading relationships with China.
We are all here today for one reason, because we are very concerned
about China. We are very concerned about human rights and civil rights,
and we are wondering in what way we can best reach out and change
China's current policy. The fact is that we recognize that China is a
growing power, and there are some things, Mr. Speaker, that no matter
what we do today in our vote, we are not going to change.
We are not going to change the fact that China is growing militarily.
We are not going to change the fact that technologically China is
advancing at a very rapid pace. We are not going to change the fact
that China is going to have a profound impact on our world in the
coming years.
And so, Mr. Speaker, the question before us is not how do we stop
those things which we cannot stop, but how do we most influence them?
Over the last 20 years, China has changed, China has grown, it has
become more aware of civil and human rights, and their citizens have
demanded more than they ever have before. Is it fast enough for us? No,
it is not. But the fact is, it is that relationship, it is that
continued relationship that gives us the most chance to affect China as
it inevitably grows and advances.
Mr. Speaker, we can do a lot from the outside, demanding and asking
for civil and human rights in China. But the way it will most change is
when the Chinese people begin to be able to think, because of
prosperity, about something more than where their next meal is coming
from and how to meet their basic needs. When they begin realizing what
is available in other countries in terms of their own civil rights and
human rights, they will also demand more from within as we are
demanding from without. Please, let us continue this relationship so
that they will be able to enjoy the civil and human rights that we do.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Lewis], a champion for human rights throughout the world.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose cutting off
relations with China, but I simply cannot accept the situation as it is
with China today. We cannot stand by while innocent people in China and
Tibet are fighting and dying for democracy. Thousands of innocent
Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists are dying in Chinese gulags.
Millions of Chinese women are not allowed to plan their own families.
They are not allowed to make the most basic, the most private
decisions. The Chinese Government intrudes on families, their beliefs,
their lives. They are desperate for our help. Yet we do not help. We
continue business as usual. The abuse of human rights continues. And
the United States renews MFN. China will not work with the community of
nations to stop nuclear proliferation. And the United States renews
MFN. Business as usual. Trade as usual.
We cannot accept and we must not accept what is happening in China.
To quote Gandhi, ``Noncooperation with evil is as much a duty as is
cooperation with good.'' We can never forget Tiananmen Square. Those
students bravely stood for democracy, and they were slaughtered. I was
a student once, fighting for what I believed, I was fighting for a
nation free of racism, free of segregation. During the 1960's, some
among us were jailed and beaten during that struggle. Some even died.
Schwerner. Goodman. Chaney. Three young men gave their lives so that
others could register and vote, so that others could participate in the
democratic process. They did not die in vain.
Now it is the 1990s and China is on the other side of the world from
us but their struggle is just as important. Their lives and their
struggle must not be in vain. In a real sense, Mr. Speaker, our foreign
policy, our trade policy must be a reflection of our own ideals, our
own shared values.
What does it profit a great nation, a compassionate and caring
people, to close our eyes and look the other way? As Martin Luther King
said, ``There comes a time when a Nation and a people must stand for
something or we will fall for anything.'' I feel that the spirit of
history is upon us. We must make a decision today and it should be on
the right side of history. We must stand with the people who are
struggling for freedom, struggling for democracy. If we fail to act, no
one will act. They are our brothers and our sisters.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe in trade, free and fair trade, but I do
not believe in trade at any price. I ask my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, how much are we prepared to pay? Are we prepared to sell our
souls? Are we prepared to butcher our conscience? Are we prepared to
deny our shared values of freedom, justice and democracy? Today I cast
my lot with the people in the streets, with the students of Tiananmen
Square, and with the people of this country who understand that a
threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
I urge and I beg of my colleagues to oppose MFN for China. I thank
the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time.

____________________