[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H4965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          CONGRESS MUST NOT TURN A BLIND EYE TO CHINA'S ABUSES

  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, human rights 
activist and former political prisoner, Harry Wu, was interviewed on 
``This Week.'' When asked about America's relations with China, and 
specifically asked about President Clinton's assertion that one must 
accept the administration's position towards China or be seen as a 
backwards isolationist, Mr. Wu responded by stating, ``President 
Clinton said if you disagree with my engagement policy, that means you 
want to apply isolation. This is too cheap to argue. Okay, today there 
is nobody talking about isolation. Between isolation and engagement 
there is something in the middle.''
  Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Wu may not understand as a recent arrival in 
the United States of America is what actually underlies the China 
policy not only of this administration but also of many in this 
Congress.
  Why do we continue to embrace a regime that this President called the 
``Butchers of Beijing'' just a few years ago? Unfortunately, it is 
because of America's obsession with finance. Our obsession with finance 
and a Dow Jones over 9,000 points, absolutely mesmerizes politicians 
who are led to believe they can get away with anything, so long as the 
Dow is doing well and the economy is clicking along while constituents 
personal incomes are rising.
  The soaring Dow also mesmerizes the wizards of Wall Street, who have 
been stumbling over each other acting as apologists for the butchers in 
Beijing. One CEO has said there is actually more democracy in China 
than in America because, after all, more Chinese vote. The Wall Street 
Journal reported one defense contractor firm that sent their engineers 
over to China to train Chinese engineers how to make their jet fighters 
more competitive with American jet fighters.
  Well, unfortunately, I think we are making a grave mistake. I think 
we are turning our back on the idea that America is the last great hope 
for a dying world, whether it is us turning a blind eye to the horrors 
of Sudan where Christians are persecuted, and turning a blind eye 
simply because we want an oil pipeline over there. Or whether it is 
turning a blind eye to the Buddhists being brutalized in Tibet because 
we do not want to, after all, offend China. Or whether it is this China 
MFN debate where we find out that the Communist Chinese are funneling 
money to America to influence our elections.
  We hear nothing but silence because, after all, we do not want to 
offend the next great export market for the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is regrettable. And I think this false choice 
that we must somehow either believe in pure, unadulterated free trade 
with the Communist Chinese regime or risk being isolationists is a 
false choice that is very dangerous.
  Those of us that are opposed to MFN with China are being attacked not 
only by the President but by lobbyists downtown. BIPAC, a business PAC, 
has sent an angry memo around talking about backward isolationist 
Republicans who are not ``business friendly.''
  I am distressed that we are being attacked because of our concern 
with a regime that is the most oppressive in the world; because we have 
concerns with a regime that has killed 60 million of their own people 
since 1949; because we are concerned about a regime that continues to 
export nuclear technology to Pakistan and Iran; because we are 
concerned with a regime that continues to steal America's intellectual 
property; because we are concerned with a regime that continues to 
abuse human rights; because we are concerned with a regime that 
continues to persecute hundreds of thousands of Christians and 
Buddhists and other people seeking religious freedom.
  Let us reexamine our China policy.
  Russell Kirk once said, ``No matter the volume of its steel 
production, a nation which has disavowed principle is vanquished.'' And 
Winston Churchill, when asked about the current state of his party in 
the 1950s said, ``The old conservative party, with its religious 
convictions and constitutional principles, will disappear and a new 
party will rise . . . perhaps like the Republican party in the USA . . 
. rigid, materialistic, and secular, whose opinions will turn on 
tariffs and who will cause the lobbies to be crowded with the touts of 
protected industries.''
  Mr. Speaker, let us hope that does not happen to the Republican Party 
of the 21st century.

                          ____________________