[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H541-H547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHINA'S STRATEGY TO ACCRUE GLOBAL POWER
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Higgins of Louisiana). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2017, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Yoho) is recognized for 57 minutes as the designee of the
majority leader.
General Leave
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the topic of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I chair the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee
on Foreign Affairs. I have been in Congress for 5 years, and what I
have noticed over the last, probably, 30 years is a growing China.
China is a culture that has been around for thousands of years. What we
have seen is a growing China, but, more recently, in the last 25 years,
a more aggressive China, in the policies and the different things that
they do around the world.
Twenty-eight years ago, Deng Xiaoping announced that China's strategy
to accrue global power would be to ``hide one's strength and bide one's
time.'' As I rise, today, in the House, this evening, it is clear that
China is done biding its time.
I can remember seeing a documentary several years ago from 1986,
where that leader, Deng Xiaoping, talked about that he could not
compete with the U.S. or the Japanese in the intellectual property,
computer manufacturing, or in IT.
What they said at that time was that they will compete by taking over
the rare earth metals that are required in all of that. So, from that
point forward, they led that charge to strategically set out a 100-year
plan.
At China's 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China
last October 2017, Xi Jinping announced a new era, in which China has
started to overcome the humiliations of colonialism and that it has
stood up, grown rich, and is becoming strong.
We talked about this. It came out in a meeting. Somebody brought up
that, through their whole adult life, China was just kind of this big,
stumbling child. But they had reached a point and grown through
puberty, where the hormones had kicked in, and they found out how
strong they were. Then they discovered how rich they were, and they
started to flex both of those.
He explicitly offered the Chinese model as an alternative to liberal
democracy. Liberal democracy, that is what the Western world and the
United States rests on: allowing people to be self-determining,
allowing people to be free-thinking, allowing people to be empowered.
This is something that is to the antithesis of the Chinese doctrine,
stating that ``the banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics is
now flying high and proud for all to see,'' offering ``a new option for
other countries and nations.''
Mr. Speaker, as the new year begins, we must decide how we want to
craft policy and legislation that will address not just Xi Jinping's
so-called new era, and China's. I say that we should welcome China's
effort to assume its rightful place on the world stage. But we must
also reject China's efforts to undermine the values, institutions, and
rules that generations of Americans have died for, along with other
countries, to establish and uphold. We must never allow a socialist,
authoritarian model of government, to supplant the primacy of
democracy, no matter how rich and how strong the authoritarians become.
China is not choosing to rise through the global order that the
United States and our allies have built with our blood and our sweat--a
global order made up of the international institutions that have held
the peace since World War II; of the competitive and rules-based
economic playing field; and of a free marketplace of ideas where
people, not governments, decide what they will think.
Instead, China has grown to become a revisionist power--not rising
within the current order, but seeking to change, subvert, or coerce it
to suit China's end--not playing by the rules, but rewriting the rules
to suit the needs of China.
China's foreign policy is rewriting the rules in three key areas:
First, China is replacing traditional soft power, which is based on a
nation's attractiveness, with ``sharp power,'' which leverages
coerciveness. The scale is astounding. China has used sharp power to
buy political influence in Australia, academic influence on American
campuses, and even bought off Panama's diplomatic alliance with Taiwan.
The National Endowment for Democracy, which coined the term ``sharp
power,'' has exhaustively documented China's efforts to turn Latin
America elites into ``de facto ambassadors of the Chinese cause''--
right in our own backyard.
The world will not tolerate these coercive influence operations. Last
month, Prime Minister Turnbull of Australia captured this indignation
best when he used Mandarin to play on a classic Mao Zedong quote, ``the
Chinese people have stood up.'' Turnbull said that ``the Australian
people stand up.'' Congress must, likewise, ensure that the American
people stand up to coercion in our politics, academia, and culture.
Second, China is rewriting the rules of engagement by using gray zone
tactics that erode the distinction between peace and conflict. In the
South China Sea, China has used what it has referred to as ``salami
slicing'' to gradually attain its military objectives without provoking
a confrontation, undermining the international mechanisms that are
supposed to decide territorial disputes. It goes back to the saying of
Deng Xiaoping: ``Hide one's strength and bide one's time.''
As I said, I chair the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and at
one of our hearings last year, one witness testified that ``by slowly
changing the situation on the ground, China hopes to transform `Asia
Mediterranean' into a Chinese lake.''
We can't keep standing idly by while China does these things. Xi
Jinping once stood next to President Obama at the White House and
pledged that he would not militarize the South China Sea.
As an aside, I was at a hearing. We were there with one of the
representatives of the Chinese Government. They were talking about how
everything they have done in the South China Sea was for peaceful
navigational purposes. I brought up that I wish I could feel the love,
or I wish I could feel the sincerity
[[Page H542]]
of that, because our military satellites showed a 10,000-foot runway,
our military satellites showed military barracks, our satellites showed
both offensive and defensive weapons, radar systems. Yes, there was a
lighthouse, but I didn't see a resort on there that showed peaceful
navigational purposes.
Then he built a network of air bases, missile emplacements, radars,
and ports that we had seen. Four thousand acres of the South China Sea
that were dredged, destroying the environment--coral reefs--and they
put in this today, which is militarized, and they don't hide it. We
should look to India's example rather than accept further lies. A
little resistance to China's encroachment along their disputed border
has prevented the same ``salami slicing'' from happening on land.
And, thirdly, China is rewriting the rules of trade and economics. At
a hearing before my subcommittee last year, one witness warned that
``China has doubled down on its unfair, mercantilist strategies, and is
now seeking global dominance in a wide array of advanced industries
that are key to U.S. economic and national security interests.'' These
zero-sum policies benefit China's domestic champions at the expense of
fairness and competition in global trade.
At home, China wields its massive market as a blunt instrument,
forcing foreign companies to divulge what it wants without giving them
a chance to compete. Abroad, China is acquiring or stealing the
industries of tomorrow, unfairly boosting its domestic innovation and
hollowing out our competitors. Throughout the developing world, China
has undertaken a massive infrastructure program that exports surplus
industrial capacity and aligns closely with military interests.
In 2018, the United States must stand up to China's revisionism in
these three key areas: sharp power influence operations, gray zone
warfare, and mercantilist economics.
Some important policy steps have already begun. For example,
Congressman Pittenger has introduced legislation in the House to
improve CFIUS, which is a review, and the Treasury Department has
undertaken a section number, called 301 investigation into China's
innovation of mercantilism.
{time} 2015
These actions will help protect the future of the U.S. economy. This
is a warning sign that we have seen that we must rise up to and
counteract, but more must be done.
We have to blunt China's sharp power in the United States by
countering Confucius institutes at schools and propaganda outlets in
our cities that spread communist propaganda. We have to respond to the
malicious state-sponsored activity in shared domains like the cyber
realm. We have to modernize our international development work to
compete with China in the developing world.
This year I will be introducing legislation to accomplish these
goals, and I hope my colleagues will join me in this important work.
We must also remember that standing up for American interests means
standing up for our values. Xi Jinping's leadership has turned to
creeping totalitarianism. He is building an unprecedented surveillance
state, increasing the communist party's ideological control of society
and the reconciliation of the party's authority over every aspect of
life. Human rights and civil liberties in China is worsening, and Xi
Jinping must be held accountable.
In the year ahead, I hope all of my colleagues would join me in
standing up for America's interests and values, and resisting China's
revisionism.
After the 19th Congress, the Communist Party Congress, Xi Jinping
stood up and said the era of China has arrived. No longer would China
be made or forced to swallow their interests around the world, nor
should they, but he also said the era of China has arrived and it is
time to take the center stage.
That is a threat, and not acceptable, I don't think, to the American
people. It sounds like it is a warning that they are going to throw us
off the stage. However, talking to people in the administration and the
rest of the world, I think we would be willing to share the stage, but
to think that they are going to supplant every other country is not
acceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who
used to be the chair of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee, and who
has brought up some important legislation on this topic that we are
talking about tonight.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also
thank him for pulling together this Special Order here this evening.
As the gentleman mentioned, I used to be the chair of the
subcommittee that he now chairs, and that is the Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. I have been on the Foreign
Affairs Committee for over 20 years now. We do a lot of important
things on that committee, and our view of China has evolved somewhat
over that time.
Do we want to have good relations with China?
Absolutely. It is in our best interests, it is in China's best
interests, it is in the world's best interests. We passed normal trade
relations some years ago. It used to be called the most favored nation;
now it is normal trade relations. We trade with them a lot.
Many would argue that American jobs have gone to China. They have
stolen our technology, our intellectual property secrets, and a whole
range of other things. So they haven't been terribly cooperative in
that area, yet they have benefited a great deal.
One of our strongest allies, Taiwan, the PRC--China--has been
bullying for years. Too often, China has gotten their way. They have
been able to keep Taiwan out of international health organizations that
would be helped by having the Taiwanese expertise in that. They have
done a whole range of things.
When I first came here, there were several hundred missiles in the
PRC--China--pointed at Taiwan. Now there are over 1,600 missiles, and
they threaten them on a whole range of things. So it is very important
that we continue to have strong relations with Taiwan.
Legislation that I have proposed and that we have passed here before
in our committee and that we hope to pass in the House as well--and
then we hope the Senate will take it up as well--is to allow high-
ranking Taiwanese officials to come here to the United States,
particularly to Washington, D.C., to meet with our officials here in
our Nation's Capital. That makes sense, and hopefully we will do that
in the very near future, but China has been very uncooperative,
obviously, with respect to Taiwan.
They have been particularly uncooperative with respect to one of our
greatest threats in the world right now, and that is North Korea. We
get a lot of lip service from China, but very little action.
North Korea is a threat. For a long time, they were a threat to the
region. We cared about that and we worked with our allies on that. But
now they are a threat to Washington, D.C., and Seattle and Los Angeles
and my home city, Cincinnati, and cities all over the United States,
because we believe they can now reach the United States with nuclear
weapons.
That is the first time. A lot of us were concerned about that day
ever coming. Previous administrations tried to get China to lean on
North Korea because China has the greatest clout with North Korea
because China provides most of their food and most of their fuel. About
90 percent of North Korea's trade is with China. China acts like they
are going to be helpful, and then they are not.
The last thing we want to see is military confrontation. You will
have some folks in our country that that is their principal priority,
they don't want any confrontation, but then they will be satisfied to
have North Korea have nuclear weapons.
We can't tolerate somebody as unpredictable, somebody as dangerous as
Kim Jong-un or his predecessors, his father or grandfather, people like
that to have nuclear weapons. It is just unacceptable to the United
States and most other countries around the world, but the rest of the
world looks to us to act.
This is a case where we really do need China to step up and do the
right thing. Thus far, they have not been willing to do that.
So the question is: How do we get China to do that?
In the past, a number of us thought the way you got China's attention
was
[[Page H543]]
to at least discuss with our allies in the region--South Korea, Japan,
even Taiwan, perhaps--to consider having nuclear weapon programs
themselves. And maybe even talking about that would be off-putting
enough to the PRC that they would lean on North Korea to back off their
program.
Well, we are probably beyond that now because North Korea not only
has a nuclear program, but they have one that could now hit the
continental United States.
I think the only thing at this point that works is any leverage that
we have with China itself, that if they don't act, then they can either
trade with North Korea or they can trade with us. That ought to be a
pretty easy deal for them to make. The economy in North Korea is in
shambles. The people are starving. The people are repressed by their
own illegitimate government. So there is not a lot of trade. It is not
of great import to China. In fact, their relationship with North
Korea--I think the way they look at it--it keeps us off balance. So
they can trade with North Korea or they can trade with us.
Now, trade with the United States is very significant to the PRC. It
means millions and millions and millions of jobs.
Are we willing to go that far?
Well, I think we should be when you are considering war, which is the
alternative to actually getting North Korea to back off their program.
So in this case, I think we ought to make it clear to China that we
are serious about this; whether it is the financial system,
international banking, cutting that off. We ought to fully cut that off
with North Korea and at least on the books we have, but China has ways
of getting around that and propping up their ally, North Korea.
So this is the time. It has got to happen soon. North Korea has, we
think, probably 20 or so nuclear devices at this point. You wait
another year or 2 years, they are going to have dozens and dozens and
dozens of them.
Not only is that dangerous because they have them, but it is
dangerous because they will sell those nuclear devices to
organizations, al-Qaida, perhaps even ISIS, or other organizations that
would love to smuggle those things into this country and use them. They
would use them in a heartbeat if they had them. We can't let that
happen.
So things that we talked about in previous administrations and that
administrations would negotiate--we had six-party agreements and we
would get together--and North Korea would agree:
Okay. For food and fuel, we will end our nuclear program.
On the books it was ended, but underground or in the mountains, it
was continuing.
Both previous Republican and Democratic administrations essentially
let that happen, and it was bad, but they couldn't reach the United
States. Now they can reach the United States.
So we are at that time now that years ago we warned about. We are
there now. So I would strongly encourage this administration to take
this seriously and do whatever is possible, short of war--we want to
avoid that if at all possible--to make sure that China finally leans on
North Korea to back down.
Mr. Speaker, I thank again the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), who
is doing a fine job as chair of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee.
I also thank him for the opportunity and pulling this together this
evening.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the kind words, and
I look to follow in his footsteps.
I want to also give a shout-out that the first version of the six
assurances, Mr. Chabot introduced to Congress on October 28, 2015, what
the six assurances were proposed to be, and we will read those later
on.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Poe). Judge Poe has been a strong supporter of the whole Asia-Pacific
region and he has got some wise words that I think we all can learn
from.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
appreciate the gentleman holding the Special Order on China.
It is important that Americans know who the Chinese are, what they
are up to, and what their plans are in the future.
We will start with North Korea. No question about it: China could
rein in North Korea and little Kim if China wanted to. They don't want
to. That is why he is a menace to not only that region, but to the rest
of the world. But China could rein in little Kim. They are storing
millions--maybe billions--of dollars in assets in China. They could
freeze those assets. They could cut off trade with North Korea.
China must understand that it is in their interest that North Korea
not get nuclear weapons; not necessarily our interest, but their
interest. When they come to that realization--which I think it is in
their interest that North Korea be reined in to make sure that they
don't use nuclear weapons or continue to develop nuclear weapons or use
weapons against any of their neighbors--then North Korea will cease its
belligerent activities.
The key lies with Beijing. If they make that decision, the world will
be safer. If they don't make that decision, the world and Beijing will
not be safer either.
Also, I want to point out kind of their philosophy, why they act the
way they do.
Beijing has, first of all, little regard for the lives of the
millions of Chinese citizens. China's communist regime shares more
values with the communist North Korea than it does the U.S.
For decades, Beijing's human rights record has been among the worst
in the whole world. It has persecuted not thousands, but millions of
people who are not followers of communism and Maoism.
Mr. Speaker, remember, communism--because China is a communist
nation, although it is not really politically correct to say that much
anymore, they are a communist nation that teaches against God, and
their God is the state and tells the people you have to worship the
state.
So when you have an atheistic regime in charge, you can see why they
persecute their own people and torture not only Christians and Muslims,
but Tibetans and other people who don't agree with their atheistic
philosophy.
We need to be sure, as a country built on religious freedom, that we
call China out for its abuse and persecution of its own people. I know
we trade with the Chinese. They are a big trading partner. I don't
think trade and money ought to get in the way of calling China out for
abusing the people who live in China and abusing their rights of
religious freedom. We can't turn a blind eye to that merely because we
trade with them as a major trading partner.
We have learned through history that regimes that oppress their own
people just seem to have ambitions beyond their own borders and
subjugate those people as well.
{time} 2030
The South China Sea, most Americans probably don't even know where
that is. South China Sea is an area, it is a trading lane, navigation
lane. It has been a trading area.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of this Special Order is to
draw attention to what China is doing, and I think, as Mr. Chabot
brought up, we are not against China. It is the practices that they are
doing that we need to make sure that the American people know, the
American people know what is going on, the amount of theft that we see,
intellectual property, that costs the American taxpayers between $300
billion and $600 billion.
I have been at expos held by the Department of Homeland Security
where they have counterfeit products that come from American
manufacturers that are in China on goodwill, good faith efforts to
create a good product, to create jobs in China, but yet that product
winds up being counterfeited by Chinese companies that we think the
Chinese Government--and we have evidence that they are complicit in it.
They are selling products against our own competition, our own
manufacturers in this country, and it is eroding the American economy,
and China gains from this. This is a practice that has to be stopped,
and we have to stop allowing this to happen.
One of the other things, if we look back over history, in the 1840s,
there were the opium wars between the United Kingdom and China. A lot
of opium and drugs flowed into China, and it hurt the Chinese
population. At one
[[Page H544]]
point, 90 percent of the males in China were hooked on opium.
Yet today, in the 21st century, we are seeing the reverse of that,
and we are seeing narcotics flow from China, or precursors of synthetic
opioids flow into Central America, to Mexico, to come into our borders.
There is no medicinal use for fentanyl other than pain control, or
heroin. Heroin has no medicinal use, very limited.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Donovan),
who, in the last Congress, introduced the Comprehensive Fentanyl
Control Act to combat illegal fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, coming from
China.
Not only do they send the precursors, they send the presses to create
the pills into these other countries. Again, it does not serve us or
the American people or our economy at all.
If you are a trading partner and you want to go by the rule of law
and you want to, hopefully, in trade, do what is best for your country,
but you also want to have a benefit for your trading partner, this is a
one-way street, and it is going to have to end.
Mr. DONOVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to demand action from our
Chinese counterparts in targeting fentanyl traffickers. This poison is
50 times more powerful than heroin and is responsible for thousands of
American deaths.
Street dealers import fentanyl from China and then mix it with heroin
and deal it on unsuspecting users in packages stamped with names such
as ``Pray for Death.'' That product was confiscated in my hometown
yesterday in Staten Island.
These mixes of deadly substances is why, as the gentleman mentioned,
I introduced the Comprehensive Fentanyl Control Act, asking our country
to prohibit the online sale of presses in which fentanyl is pressed
into these imitation tablets that unsuspecting users will take,
unknowing that fentanyl is part of that pill.
Fentanyl is dangerous even to our authorities. Police officers,
firefighters, first responders have overdosed from contact with
fentanyl during drug busts. I have spoken to far too many families who
have lost sons and daughters, first as the district attorney of Staten
Island and now as a Congressman.
The Chinese Government, as my colleagues have said, tries to control
their own citizens. Well, now it is about time they control the
fentanyl that is coming out of their country.
This past fall, President Trump extracted promises that the Chinese
would curb their export of fentanyl. Now it is time for the Chinese to
take action.
I thank the gentleman from Florida for his leadership in this area. I
thank him for yielding to me to discuss this important matter to every
part of our country. No one is immune from it.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work that the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Donovan) has done with the Comprehensive Fentanyl Control
Act to combat illegal fentanyl. I thank him for his participation,
being on the committee, and his passion for what he is doing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), a
good friend of mine and a good Member of Congress, to add to this
discussion.
Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Yoho), my good friend. I appreciate his work on this and for calling
this Special Order together tonight.
Once again, it is the time of year where I have the somber privilege
to come to the floor and extend happy birthday wishes to Chinese human
rights defender and prisoner of conscience, Zhu Yufu.
What should be an occasion for celebration remains marred by the fact
that, on February 13, Zhu Yufu will spend his 65th birthday in a
Chinese prison. This will mark his seventh consecutive birthday behind
bars, another birthday separated from his family and children.
Although isolated, Zhu is certainly not forgotten. He has been a
fervent champion for human rights in China for decades. He gives voice
to a very fundamental and foundational principle: all people everywhere
should have the basic freedom to determine the course of their lives
and express themselves according to their convictions without fear of
government repression. For living out that conviction, he languishes in
a Chinese prison in poor health and with irregular access to medical
care.
Stifling voices like Zhu's does not silence their cry nor weaken
their cause. On the contrary, it shines a light on their plight and
renews and strengthens the effort to end repression and injustice in
China, as well as in other places around the world.
As long as Zhu Yufu remains incarcerated, I will continue to call
upon the Chinese Government to provide him with sufficient food, care,
and medical attention, and I will continue to call on the Chinese
Government to release Zhu Yufu from prison.
In honor of Zhu Yufu, I would like to read a short poem that he
wrote, and it was this poem that led to his arrest and imprisonment. I
quote from his poem:
It's time, people of China! It's time. The Square belongs to
everyone. With your own two feet, it's time to head to
the Square and make your choice. It's time, people of
China! It's time.
A song belongs to everyone. From your own throat. It's time
to voice the song in your heart. It's time, people of
China! It's time. China belongs to everyone. Of your
own will, it's time to choose what China shall be.
Zhu, you are not forgotten. Happy birthday, and may God grant you the
strength and His presence and the hope that you will celebrate your
next birthday in freedom.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks by Mr. Hultgren. He
did a great job, and I hope that guy gets released.
The gentleman brought up a very good point, and this is something I
have noticed. I am so blessed, and I know we are so blessed to live in
this great country of ours. Our Founders got it right. I don't know how
they did other than divine intervention, that our rights come from a
Creator, not from government. Government is instituted by we the people
to protect our God-given rights and our core values of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.
Our government is a government that empowers the people. Empowered
people do great things. In the 19th Congress, it was said--the Chinese
Government has set up a Chinese United Front, which is to show soft
power in the world instead of doing the things they have done, where
they go into a country, put up infrastructure, suck out the resources,
and leave and don't care. So they have changed their tactics. They have
gotten smart, and they started the Chinese United Front.
But in that communique that they said, it said that the role of the
citizens of China is to serve the Government of China. It is the
antithesis of what we stand for, and that is why I feel confident in
our form of government because we believe in the people. We believe in
the greatness of people.
The greatest resource a country has is not their gold, their timber,
or any of that other stuff; it is the people. And our country values
that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Garrett), a
good friend of mine, a passionate speaker on China who sits on the
Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, it is humbling to have the opportunity to
stand in this Chamber to speak on so important a subject as China's
role in the world in 2018.
Having had the privilege also of leading American soldiers on foreign
soil, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the last resort in any
circumstance should be military action, and so I wish to make clear
that the strong words that will follow are not directed to be a threat
to the People's Republic of China but, instead, to be encouragement to
the people thereof.
We want peace and to work alongside all nations in a community of
nations, but it is our duty, as free people, to express the basic
rights inherent to our very existence in this world.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Chinese people today that we still
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal
and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--this
message directed, again, to the people of China because the oppressive
Communist, dictatorial regime seems hell-bent upon denying these very
rights not to nations across the world aside from China, but to the
[[Page H545]]
very people whom they purport to serve; and in so doing, they not only
oppress those people, but also perpetrate schemes that lead to a lower
quality of life and enhanced threats to people across the globe.
Industrial espionage costs the very livelihoods and well-being of
workers in every continent of the world. Intellectual property theft
isn't about the hundreds of billions of dollars stolen from those who
had the wherewithal, energy, and vision to create, but about the child
who won't have an opportunity to attend college because the job that
his or her parent might have had has been quite literally stolen by
Chinese malfeasance.
Propping up a regime in North Korea that literally engages, in the
year 2018, in the enslavement of their own citizens and turning a blind
eye on those practices, which, Mr. Speaker, I suppose shouldn't be a
surprise when you look at the human rights record of the People's
Republic of China itself, I don't have time, nor do my colleagues,
though I commend Congressman Yoho for this hour, to recount the number
of victims of human rights violations, of prisoners of conscience, of
victims of state oppression, of those who had the temerity to stand up
and suggest that individuals have certain basic fundamental human
rights only to reap horrific consequences underneath a totalitarian
Communist regime in the People's Republic of China.
But in the limited time that I have, forced abortions of human life,
to the tune of tens and tens and tens of millions; Mr. Speaker, child
labor laws drafted by the People's Republic of China that look
wonderful on the global stage, but practices that one recent survey
indicated would have the entire population of the State of Ohio worth
of 10- to 14-year olds working what one recent news story characterized
as 16 hours a day, 28 days a month in 2018.
Their laws indicate that they have ended the practice of organ
harvesting, and yet mathematical data indicates that, in China, if you
are part of the ruling class, it is not hard to find that kidney, that
bone marrow, that heart.
This sort of oppression is foisted upon the people of China, while
all too often the United States and other nations of the world turn a
blind eye not in the interest of respecting cultural differences, but
in the interest of our pocketbooks.
{time} 2045
We still hold these truths to be self-evident. And if I could do
nothing else while I am here, Mr. Speaker, but to speak and encourage
nations of the world, but, more importantly, the people oppressed by
regimes such as that of the Chinese dictatorial, Communist,
totalitarian state, and tell them that we understand, we have their
backs, they have our support, then I will have accomplished something.
I am of an age, Mr. Speaker, when one of the images permanently
seared in my memory is of a lone man standing in Tiananmen Square
facing down a main battle tank. And when I think of that image and then
I think of the United States, I think of Patrick Henry, who not only
said, ``Give me liberty or give me death,'' but also said, when someone
yelled from the back of the room, ``Treason,'' ``If this be treason,
make the most of it.''
I think of a 16-year-old girl in Farmville, Virginia, Barbara Johns,
whose family had to move because she had the temerity, after discussing
the Declaration of Independence with her uncle Vernon Johns, to
question why there was a school that only White kids could attend.
And I think of the charge in the Constitution of the United States
not to be a perfect Union, because we are not there yet, but to be a
more perfect Union.
So then I contemplate my responsibility not only as a Member of this
body, and it is obviously to serve the constituents of the Fifth
District of Virginia in the United States of America, but also to stand
up for human beings across the globe.
And China, we still hold these truths to be self-evident. We will not
turn a blind eye on policies that lead to forced abortions of living
humans, that lead to child labor policies of 16 hours of work a day, 28
days a month of a number of kids between the ages of 10 and 14 that
mirrors the population of the State of Ohio.
We will not turn a blind eye to policies and public statements saying
you have ended organ harvesting when all data indicates that you
haven't. And then we will not turn a blind eye to the oppression of any
minority, and particularly religious minorities, whether it is Falun
Gong or Christians or Muslims in the west of China.
So I know in this age of the internet, this age of the world wide web
and global communication, that the people of China, though their
government seeks to inhibit the flow of information, will hear this,
and the message is simple: You are my brothers and sisters. You are
human beings just like us. You have the same rights that we have. You
will not be given these rights by a government but by a creator or by
nature, depending on your belief structure. And if you have the courage
to stand up, understand this: We will support you.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, and if he
wants to participate in a colloquy back and forth, we have a few more
minutes. But I want to touch on some issues that I think we need to
draw out again. I want the American people to understand what is going
on.
When you buy something that says ``made in China,'' I want you to
understand what is happening. China has gone from where they were in
the 1970s and the 1960s. Richard Nixon went over there, kind of
normalized relationships in 1972.
We had a relationship with Taiwan prior to that. I don't want to go
into the history of the war between the KMT and Chiang Kai-shek back in
the 1940s, but there was a relationship we had with Taiwan. We had a
relationship with Great Britain on Hong Kong, and here we are in the
21st century.
Things have changed. Now we have got North Korea on the stage. It is
a different world than what it was. We had some longstanding traditions
that we stood by as a nation, and people respected that, and then I
look at the trade imbalance that we have with China.
Here is a country that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in 1971 and
1972 opened up the trade that we have today, that has led to what we
have today. And China has done great, and they ought to be applauded
for what they have done. They have raised a lot of people out of
poverty. But at what expense?
When I look at what is going on in the South China Sea, taking
islands that were just coral reefs right under the top of the sea, and
they have reclaimed over 4,000 acres--probably the largest ecological
disaster and insult to the environment that the world has ever seen--
the world stood idly by.
One country, Vietnam, stood up, took them to the court in The Hague,
the tribunals. The tribunal ruled against China, and again, the world
stood by, did nothing.
The previous administration had a policy of strategic patience. The
profession I come from, the veterinary profession, we call that benign
neglect. That is where you have a disease that is not life-threatening
and you hope it goes away if you ignore it.
But what was going on in the South China Sea could not be handled
with benign neglect. What happened is China militarized the islands
that they built, even though they said they wouldn't.
And if we look at the other things they said they would help us on
with North Korea, China has the biggest influence with North Korea of
anybody else. Ninety percent of the trade of North Korea goes through
China. China says they are there with us, but yet we know fuel is going
in there, coal is going in there. They are trading with them.
In addition, they are complicit in allowing other companies to have
shell companies that keep the Kim Jong-un regime afloat developing
nuclear weapons. They have a hand in bringing this to a close.
I look at the trade deficit we have with China. It is over $350
billion. Add to that the intellectual property theft, over $350
billion, some people say up to $600 billion. And China says: We are
going to get it under control. But just last month they had a trade
deficit of over $60 billion.
I want to pose a question to the American people: Do you want a
trading partner that is doing these things?
[[Page H546]]
They flood our borders with illegal drugs, as you heard Mr. Donovan
talk about. They erode our culture. They kill our citizens. They break
down our culture. Do you want a trading partner that steals the
intellectual property at the cost of American entrepreneurship,
American intellectual property, and American jobs?
Do you want a partner that does not honor their word when they said
they are going to do something? You talk to other countries around the
world and they say: We like doing business with America because you
have a rule of law and you will follow it. China does not.
They have halfheartedly agreed to help us with North Korea. And so
when you go into a department store and you buy cheap as far as cost
and it says ``China'' on it, ``made in China,'' I want people to think:
What are you selling? What are you buying, and what are you giving away
for your future generation--not just of your kids, but for the
posterity of this Nation?
And I would like to get Mr. Garrett's response on that or anything
else he wants to add as an afterthought here.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I would just, again, commend the Member
from Florida, Congressman Yoho, as it relates to this opportunity.
I think it is important to remember that, just like Americans,
whether it was the Revolutionary War or the civil rights movement, the
Chinese people have bled. They have sweated. They have paid the price
for the basic human rights that we all enjoy here.
And again, I would commend the American consumer to consider the
reality of child labor, of exploitative policies as relates to
industrial espionage, of exploitative policies that literally deprive
Americans of livelihoods perpetrated by the Chinese, and to shop with
that in mind until we see real reform from China.
I have been frustrated heretofore with the efforts sometimes of our
very own government as it relates to putting any force or its
proverbial money where its mouth was to this end, but I believe there
is power in the people of the United States.
And so I would encourage people, again, to shop with their
consciences until we see actual acts beyond words from a regime that
has a history of saying and doing all the right things in public but
allowing the perpetuation of horrific, horrific circumstances on their
very people at home, in private.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I need to make a correction. I said it was
Vietnam that took China to court. It was the Philippines.
But along these lines that you were just talking about, when you look
at the word of a nation, the integrity of a nation, I think of Hong
Kong. Great Britain and China came to an agreement in 1996, 1997 that
Hong Kong would revert back to China.
There was a 50-year agreement that China was to allow them to have
self-rule, the rule of law, self-determining, their own government, the
right to choose that. Twenty years into this, China has got a strong
influence. The freedom in Hong Kong is going backwards.
If we look at the Tibetan people, the Tibetan are probably one of the
most peaceful populations on Earth, but yet I can't travel there as a
U.S. dignitary or as a U.S. Member of Congress. They can't come here
and be recognized. The Dalai Lama can't come here and be recognized
because China gets mad. Beijing gets mad.
The Tibetan people have a way to pass on the Dalai Lama to the next
generation. China kidnapped the Panchen child and said: We will replace
it with who we think should be the next leader, and it is somebody they
are going to groom.
And I look at our country, being a Christian. That would be like one
of the kings of the Old Testament going in and stealing the baby Jesus
and saying: Well, we will put in who we think should be the leader of
Christianity.
It is ludicrous what is going on.
And then I think of Taiwan. Taiwan is our 10th largest trading
partner, and we have had an agreement since before Richard Nixon. But
during Richard Nixon's time, there have been three communiques that
talked about how we were going to deal with Taiwan.
And I just want to reiterate the six assurances that Ronald Reagan
and Steve Chabot talked about, and they are:
Number one, we did not agree to set a date certain for ending arms
sales to Taiwan. Robert Gates talked about this in his book, ``Duty.''
We had had this agreement for years, and during that time, about 2012,
we were having our arms sales agreement with Taiwan. China raised holy
heck about this, and our negotiators said: What is your problem? We
have been doing this since the 1970s?
China's response was this, and I think this sets the tone for the
future: Back then, we were weak. We are strong now.
I think that speaks loudly of China's intention.
Number two, we see no mediation role of the United States between
Taiwan and the PRC.
Number three, nor will we attempt to exert pressure on Taiwan to
enter into negotiations with the PRC.
Number four, there has been no change in our longstanding position on
the issue of sovereignty over Taiwan.
Number five, we have no plans to seek revision of the Taiwan
Relations Act.
And number six, the August 17 communique should not be read to imply
that we have agreed to engage prior consultations with Beijing on arms
sales to Taiwan. And we tend to stay with that in this administration.
So with that, does the gentleman from Virginia have any closing
remarks?
Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close.
I thank everybody for their participation, and I want the American
people, again, when you look at something that says ``made in China,''
how is that affecting the future of America?
And nothing against China. If they play fair, they play by the rules,
we wish them the best of luck, but we will not be supplanted from our
role in the free world.
And again, I feel confident about where America will be 100 years
from now because we believe in our people, we empower our people, and
we have a government that will stand and protect our constitutional
rights that come from a creator.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern over
China's worsening human rights record, a clear indicator of its
increasing authoritarianism.
With the consolidation in power of President Xi Jinping, the Chinese
authorities are making it more and more evident that they will not
tolerate any internal dissent or opposition to their rule.
I am not talking about armed opposition, but about loyal opposition--
the kind of opposition that takes China's constitution, its laws, and
its international human rights obligations at face value.
On July 1, 1997, Britain transferred sovereignty over Hong Kong to
China. Under a ``one country, two systems'' arrangement with London,
Beijing promised to allow universal suffrage as an ``ultimate aim,''
along with other freedoms.
Yesterday a Hong Kong court jailed democracy activist Joshua Wong for
three months for blocking clearance of a protest site, his second
prison sentence related to the Umbrella Movement's pro-democracy
protests in 2014.
Joshua was the public face of the Umbrella Movement, which called for
free elections for Hong Kong's leadership in the framework of the ``one
country, two systems'' agreement. He had already been on bail pending
the appeal of a separate six-month sentence for unlawful assembly. This
time around the judge made clear that he was making an example of him
because of his leadership role.
His fellow activist Raphael Wong was sentenced to four and a half
months, and several other activists received suspended sentences.
What's notable about this story is that after the protests, Joshua
and Raphael went on to run for seats in the Hong Kong parliament. They
didn't radicalize or take up arms. They stood up for their principles.
And now they're in jail.
I have often stood on the floor of this House to call for respect for
the human rights of the Tibetan people in China.
Just a few months ago the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which I
co-chair, held a hearing on the repression of religious freedom in
Tibet.
Tibetan Buddhists face extensive controls on their religious life--an
intrusive official presence in monasteries, pervasive surveillance,
limits on travel and communications, and ideological re-education
campaigns. Religious expression and activism have been met with violent
repression, imprisonment and torture.
As of last August, 69 monks, nuns or Tibetan reincarnate teachers
were known to be
[[Page H547]]
serving sentences in Chinese prisons--although the real number is
likely much higher.
And the Chinese government continues to claim the prerogative to
decide who will succeed His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the highest figure
in Tibetan Buddhism, who is now 82 years old.
This extreme Chinese interference in the physical and spiritual lives
of Tibetans occurs even though the Tibetans seek only to fully exercise
the autonomy guaranteed them by the Chinese constitution and China's
``Law on Regional Ethnic Autonomy.'' In the late 1980s the Dalai Lama
proposed the Middle Way Approach as a path toward Tibetan autonomy
within China, and he has pursued that path through non-violence ever
since.
Then there are the Uyghurs. Like the Tibetans, the Uyghurs are the
victims of restrictions imposed by the Chinese authorities on their
religious, cultural and linguistic practices.
The repression of Uyghurs has increased since July 2009, when a
police attack on Uyghur demonstrators led to rioting and nearly 200
deaths. Between 2013 and 2015, clashes involving Uyghurs and Xinjiang
public security personnel led to hundreds more deaths.
In the aftermath of these kinds of fatal encounters, the Chinese
authorities have claimed the Uyghurs were carrying out or preparing to
launch attacks against government property or civilians. But credible
human rights groups argue that many violent incidents began as peaceful
protests--again, a form of loyal opposition.
Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch has reported that Chinese authorities
in Xinjiang are collecting DNA samples, fingerprints, iris scans, and
blood types of all residents in the region between the age of 12 and
65.
For what purpose? Are we witnessing steps toward some kind of
ethnicity-based attack on the whole of the Uyghur people?
And there have been alarming reports regarding the detention and
possible mistreatment of some family members of U.S.-based Uyghur
rights activist Rebiya Kadeer, feared to be in retribution for her
human rights advocacy efforts. This could be another instance of
China's efforts to silence criticism through intimidation, detention,
and threats to the families of activists living abroad.
Unfortunately, I could go on and on.
But I want to close with recommendations.
I am guided by two principles. We as Americans must defend human
rights and democracy, values that have made us a great nation. And
there must be consequences for bad behaviour.
But as Chinese authorities consistently work to undermine democratic
participation within its borders and violate the human rights of their
peoples, I do not see any consequences. It is time to impose some.
I urge us to start by passing two pieces of legislation on Tibet that
have been introduced in the House: H.R. 1872, the Reciprocal Access to
Tibet Act, and H. Con. Res. 89, expressing the sense of Congress that
the treatment of the Tibetan people should be an important factor in
the conduct of United States relations with the People's Republic of
China.
I urge the full and robust implementation of the Tibet Policy Act of
2002--including the designation of the Special Coordinator for Tibetan
Policy, a statutory position that the Administration has yet to fill.
I urge the robust use of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights
Accountability Act to sanction Chinese officials responsible for grave
violations of the human rights of Tibetans, Uyghurs, and the many other
loyal opposition activists who have been targeted in recent years--
human rights lawyers, religious practitioners, writers, artists.
I urge a united expression of support from this House for the release
of Liu Xia. She should be allowed to leave China.
I urge this House to support the right of His Holiness the Dalai Lama
to return to his homeland.
I urge the U.S. Consul General in Hong Kong to speak out loudly and
forcefully on behalf of Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and other pro-democracy
advocates in Hong Kong. We must hold China strictly accountable for the
terms of the 1997 transfer of sovereignty.
These steps may not be enough to turn back China's increasing
authoritarianism. But they would be a start.
____________________