[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 112 (Tuesday, August 3, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H6953]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              CHINA TRADE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Vitter). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, our relationship with China will always be 
extremely difficult and complex. We must continue the hard engagement 
process with China. But we do not need to sacrifice national security 
for trade. This has been and always will be a false choice.
  The Cox report was a good sturdy point for us to more realistically 
evaluate our relationship with China. We have already begun to 
implement many of the Cox committee recommendations, such as requiring 
Defense Department monitors at satellite launch sites. Let us also be 
vigilant by enforcing existing laws.
  If further reforms are needed to enhance national security, then 
Congress should not shy away from changing the law. But as we go 
through this process, we must not fool ourselves into thinking that 
more restrictions on our exports to China will protect us.
  When we think about trade sanctions and export controls, we should 
not go down this road alone. We only put our heads in the sand if we 
think we can enhance our national security by ignoring our foreign 
competitors. The world has changed and the U.S. is no longer the only 
manufacturer of high-technology products.
  Congress overreacted 2 years ago in placing unrealistic limits on 
computer sales abroad. Now China has a home-grown computer industry. 
Soon one penny and a chip the size of your fingernail will exceed the 
supercomputer definition. And European machine tool manufacturers have 
almost totally captured the high-end market in China because of our 
Government's export control policy. This at the same time domestic 
consumption of U.S. machine tools has dropped 45 percent.
  Europe sells the same machines to China that we could that do the 
same things, but we are barred by selling them because of our export 
policy. We only hurt ourselves.
  We are now learning the same lesson on commercial satellite exports. 
Last week, a major satellite manufacturer reported a loss of nearly 
$100 million because of delays in development and delivery of new 
satellites. This is an industry that has made a dramatic shift away 
from relying on Government procurement to commercial sales.
  They also compete against German, French, and Japanese satellite 
manufacturers of similar equipment. These foreign firms would eagerly 
seize export opportunities from U.S. satellite makers if they are 
denied permission to launch by our Government. We can protect our 
national security and our national economic interests while engaging 
China at the same time. But we should not put up walls that will block 
our high-technology industry and hurt our overall national interests.
  Let us solve the specific problems highlighted in the Cox report but 
keep our export options open in China.

                          ____________________