[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 97 (Thursday, July 10, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1391-E1392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         DISAPPROVAL OF MOST-FAVORED-NATION TREATMENT FOR CHINA

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. VINCE SNOWBARGER

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 24, 1997

  Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Speaker, during the past several months, I have 
listened carefully to the residents of the third district who took the 
time to contact me about renewal of most-favored-nation status for the 
People's Republic of China.
  To those who passionately oppose renewing MFN because of China's 
treatment of dissidents, let me say that we agree on everything but the 
solution. I have heard from many of my constituents that China's human 
rights record is an abomination--and I agree. Many have pointed out 
that China's repression of Christians and members of other faiths is an 
outrageous assault on the most basic of human liberties--and I agree. 
Others have suggested that the Chinese Government's policy of forced 
abortions and sterilizations cries out for condemnation from every 
civilized country--and I agree. Still others have expressed grave 
concern about China's involvement in the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction--and I agree.
  We disagree on one point. I do not accept the notion that the United 
States can effectively deal with human rights abuses in China by 
raising taxes on Americans. And that is what this issue is about.
  I have enormous respect for those, like Dr. James Dobson, who point 
to the need to address China's human rights violations. However, I also 
note that others whose moral vision I hold in equally high esteem, such 
as Dr. Billy Graham and many Christian missionaries in China itself, 
argue just as passionately against disengagement with China. The 
persecution of Christians and other religious minorities in China is 
appalling. Yet those that preach the gospel in China say that if 
America were to revoke MFN Christians would face even greater 
persecution.
  It seems to me the key test of the effectiveness of any sanction, 
such as withholding MFN, is whether the sanction is likely to produce 
the desired effect. Does anyone believe that a government that is 
willing to commit heinous crimes against its own people will be moved 
to reform its system as a result of a sanction aimed more at Americans 
than at China? Clearly, there is legitimate difference of opinion on 
how best to support those who suffer under the Chinese Government's 
oppression. I would hope that those who differ on the means would not 
vilify each other when they share the same ends.
  I have co-sponsored a bill that would target tough sanctions at the 
elements of the Chinese Government that are responsible for atrocities 
against their own people and threats to our country. Under this 
proposed bill, the Chinese companies responsible for the illegal 
importation of AK-47's into California would be prohibited from 
exporting to the U.S. and the Federal Government would be required to 
publish a list of all companies affiliated with the Chinese People's 
Liberation Army [PLA]. It would prohibit the granting of U.S. visas to 
Chinese government officials involved in the Tiananmen massacre. The 
United States would be required to reduce assistance to organizations 
that support China's so-called family planning program and to vote 
against all loans to China from international organizations to which we 
belong. Finally, the President would be required to encourage our 
allies to join us in these sanctions.
  Many Members of Congress--on both sides of this issue--have taken 
stands for their beliefs. It would have been easy to voice my outrage 
at China's transgressions by voting against renewal of MFN, regardless 
of whether doing so would have any impact on China's behavior.
  But I believe I owe it to my constituents to base my vote on the 
merits of the issue, not on the politics. My vote is based on what 
revocation of MFN would do to Americans. First, we should understand 
that most-favored-nation status is the normal trade treatment we extend 
to nearly every country in the world. In fact, there are only six 
countries that the United States does not extend MFN to: Cuba, Laos, 
Vietnam, Afghanistan, North Korea, and what's left of Yugoslavia. Even 
Iran, Iraq, and Lybia, on which the United States has imposed a total 
embargo on trade, technically have most-favord-nation status.
  Revoking MFN means that imports from that country are subject to 
dramatically higher taxes--taxes that are paid not by China, but by 
American companies and passed on to American consumers. A cut-off of 
MFN would increase the average tariff on Chinese imports from about 6 
percent more than 44 percent, resulting in $27 to $29 billion in higher 
costs to American consumers. The shoes Kansas

[[Page E1392]]

families buy would jump in price from $11 to possibly $20 to $25. This 
is the kind of sudden price increase that can blow a big hole in a 
family's budget
  I did not come to Congress to raise taxes--even import taxes--on 
American citizens, especially not a 74-percent increase.
  Moreover, China would likely retaliate against a loss of MFN status 
by restricting U.S. exports to and investment in China. Hong Kong and 
Taiwan would also be especially hurt: Hong Kong would lose at least 
61,000 jobs.
  But more important would be the effect on my Kansas constituents. One 
out of every seven Boeing 737's built in Wichita is sold to China and 
subcontractors in the Kansas City area would lose jobs if this trade 
were interrupted. China always has the option of buying Airbus; Boeing 
cannot so easily sell its airplanes somewhere else. And if Boeing can't 
sell its planes, many of my constituents will lose their jobs. And, of 
course, China is also a prime customer of Kansas farmers.
  There is also the question of what China would do to make up for the 
loss of hard currency that removal of MFN would cause. What else does 
China make that finds an international market? Arms--and technology 
that can be used for producing weapons of mass destruction. If China 
were to increase these sales, our security interests would be directly 
threatened.
  I do not intend to defend the Clinton administration's policy--if 
indeed it even has one--toward China. In fact, the many allegations 
involving illicit Chinese involvement in the American political system 
and how that involvement might be related to administration policy 
toward China has been a major concern of mine about the renewal of MFN. 
This administration's reluctance to address the potential security 
threat that China's military buildup could pose to the United States in 
the future has contributed greatly to the public's unease about trade 
relations with China.
  But I do not agree with those who believe this vote represents 
appeasement of an obviously hostile power. Unlike the case of the 
Soviet Union in the late 1940's, I do not see evidence that the Chinese 
Government has resolved to proceed with an aggressive military strategy 
to achieve their goals. What is certain is that our allies, both in 
East Asia and Europe, will not treat China as a military treat.
  Americans--especially farmers in Kansas and elsewhere--learned a 
painful lesson during the Carter administration about the futility of 
unilateral sanctions. Since clearly the United States cannot at this 
time--especially under the present administration--rally the rest of 
the world into an anti-China coalition, any move by the United States 
to isolate China would instead isolate us.
  I was frequently asked during my campaign last year about my position 
on this difficult issue. I responded then that I favored MFN not for 
China's sake, but for America's. Having weighed carefully the 
substantial evidence on both sides, I continue to believe that it is in 
this country's interest, and in the interest of the moral principles we 
represent, to maintain a normal trading relationship with China.

                          ____________________