[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.

                          ____________________