[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 80 (Tuesday, May 14, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3775-H3781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CHINA IS ONE OF THE LARGEST THREATS IN THE 21ST CENTURY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Van Drew). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for being 
here, and I want to start tonight out.
  We are going to spend an hour highlighting what many of us on Capitol 
Hill view as one of the largest threats in the 21st century, and that 
is a China that has grown wealthy in building their military might.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), my 
good friend.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  To start off tonight, I just want to recognize that today is the 1-
year anniversary of the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. I was 
honored to be there in person last year for this very special moment. 
Jerusalem should be recognized as the undivided, unquestionable capital 
of the Jewish state.
  This was a bold move by this President not just to fulfill promises 
of Presidents past and to fulfill U.S. law; most importantly, it was 
the right thing to do.
  In addition to its religious importance, Jerusalem is also the 
capital, the home, the location of the Israeli Knesset and offices and 
residences of the Israeli Prime Minister and President.
  Moving our Embassy set an important precedent for other nations to 
follow as well.
  I commend the President. I thank him for following through on his 
support and commitment. I thought it was important tonight to highlight 
that today is the 1-year anniversary of that important opening of the 
Embassy in Jerusalem.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. 
Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Florida for hosting this important Special Order today.
  The United States is currently facing a very real and dangerous 
threat from the People's Republic of China. The Chinese Government is 
not just using a whole-of-government approach but, rather, a whole-of-
nation approach to achieve global influence.
  Today, I would like to focus on two areas of concern: Chinese 
military development, and its influence operations targeting U.S. 
academia and research.
  China is rapidly modernizing its military in order to improve its 
anti-access/area denial radius, power force projection, and nuclear 
capabilities, with the goal of complete military modernization by 2035. 
Investments in nuclear and power projection capabilities have expanded 
China's reach beyond the Pacific region and into other parts of the 
globe, demonstrating its desire to conduct offensive operations.
  Here are a few facts about China's military capabilities:
  China has the largest navy in the region, with more than 300 ships. 
To put this in perspective, the United States currently operates 289 
ships.
  China's first aircraft carrier will likely enter the fleet this year, 
and its second aircraft carrier is already under construction, paving 
the way for China to have a multicarrier force.
  China operates the third largest aviation force in the world, with 
more than 2,700 total aircraft.
  Its first fifth-generation stealth fighter entered service in 
February of last year.
  China maintains a stockpile of nuclear weapons and continues to 
modernize its arsenal.

  China has claimed to successfully test its first hypersonic aircraft.
  China is using the S-400 missile defense system, strengthening its 
A2/AD radius.
  These capabilities, coupled with territorial and maritime disputes in 
the South and East China Seas, pose serious concerns for the region. 
Not only do we have a commitment to our allies, such as Taiwan and 
Japan, but the Pacific is the most heavily trafficked region for trade 
and commerce. Aggressive maritime and military actions by China, such 
as building man-made islands, not only threaten regional stability, but 
also global stability.
  China is also expanding its military operations beyond the Pacific. 
In August of 2017, China opened its first overseas military base in 
Djibouti and is actively seeking other overseas military basing 
opportunities. According to a recently released Department of Defense 
report on China's military activities, China has sought to expand its

[[Page H3776]]

military basing access in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and the 
Western Pacific. China's improving military capabilities, evolving 
focus towards expanding its operational reach, and establishment of 
overseas bases will increase China's ability to sustain operations 
abroad and enhance deterrence.
  In order to combat China's military modernization aggression, the 
United States must continue to nurture our relationships with partner 
nations and protect our technological and military edge here at home. 
This brings me to the second area that I would like to discuss: China's 
influence operations that target and steal sensitive U.S. information.
  One of China's largest targets in the United States is our Nation's 
academic institutions. According to the Department of Defense, almost a 
quarter of foreign efforts to steal sensitive information happen 
through academic institutions. China targets U.S. universities by 
exploiting our student visa program in order to gain access and steal 
sensitive, proprietary, and classified information. Many of these 
universities are conducting research on behalf of the Departments of 
Defense and Energy.
  What is even more alarming is that, under Chinese law, citizens are 
required to provide data, information, and technological support or 
assistance to the Chinese Government upon request. This means that 
China can intimidate and coerce its citizens to provide information. 
This information is then funneled into China's military research and 
development.
  The Chinese Government is also using members of its military to 
collaborate with researchers across the globe. The report entitled 
``Picking Flowers, Making Honey: The Chinese Military's Collaboration 
with Foreign Universities'' revealed that, over the past 10 years, 
China's military, also known as the PLA, has sponsored more than 2,500 
military scientists and engineers to study abroad in countries 
worldwide.
  An analysis of peer-reviewed articles coauthored by PLA researchers 
found that they collaborate with researchers in the United States more 
than any other nation. These individuals often mask their PLA and 
Chinese Communist Party ties, allowing them to work at top universities 
without the schools' knowledge of military affiliation.
  In addition to stealing sensitive U.S. research, China has 
established more than 100 Confucius Institutes across the United 
States. These educational institutions are funded and run by the 
Chinese Government and teach Chinese language, culture, and history to 
American students. FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before 
Congress that China is actively using nontraditional methods, such as 
Confucius Institutes, as outposts of Chinese overseas intelligence and 
influence operations.
  Mr. Speaker, I have only highlighted two issues of concern. There are 
many other concerns that I hope my colleagues will discuss today.
  In order to address the challenges posed by China, we need a whole-
of-nation approach. This is not just a military concern. We need our 
universities and constituents to be aware that China is active in all 
corners of the globe, including the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank these gentlemen for bringing us here today to 
shed light on this very important topic on the challenges we face from 
China.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Missouri for her 
comments. Those are very well pointed-out facts that the American 
people, if they knew this was going on, would stop buying ``made in 
China.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my 
good friend.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and my colleague from 
Florida for leading this Special Order this evening because I am not 
quite sure that we talk enough about China here on the floor of the 
House.
  If you look at any time horizon, short-term or long-term, China is 
the most serious challenge to our Nation's interests. There are other 
challenges, to be sure, but let's take a look at what China is about.
  Geographically, it is similar in size to the United States.
  It is economically enormous, with more than $12 trillion GDP, which 
is second only to ours on an annual basis. And on this point, it is 
important to remember that they hold $1.1 trillion worth of U.S. debt.
  They are militarily mighty. The PLA, People's Liberation Army, is the 
largest force on Earth, with more than 2 million personnel.
  Gigantically populous, with more than 1.4 billion people, it dwarfs 
the size of our own Nation's 325 million people.

                              {time}  1945

  Is it possible that those numbers indicate a stronger China than is 
actually the case? Perhaps. After all, hundreds of millions of Chinese 
citizens who don't live in the nation's most prosperous cities are 
still living in poverty and probably will continue to do so for some 
time to come.
  It is also true that China's military today, while large in number, 
does not have the advanced capabilities of our own military. But these 
shortcomings are almost certainly temporary, and we should assume that 
China will continue to close these gaps relative to our own Nation's 
power.
  So what should we do? I want to highlight four areas of concern, vis-
a-vis China.
  First of all, the South China Sea. Perhaps most, importantly, we need 
to push back on any Chinese efforts to turn the South China Sea into a 
Chinese lake. They have been doing this for decades now.
  China is rapidly modernizing its naval capabilities and builds man-
made artificial islands near the Spratly archipelago.
  Well over $5 trillion worth of commerce passes through the South 
China Sea each year.
  We must continue to unequivocally assert U.S. rights to fly, sail, 
and otherwise operate in these international waters, and we also must 
make sure that our allies do, as well.
  Taiwan, we must continue to reject China's efforts to bully Taiwan 
into accepting a ``one-China'' policy.
  Taiwan has been a great friend to the United States for the past 40 
years that the Taiwan Relations Act has been in effect, and it is a key 
strategic partner.
  It is uniquely positioned to buffer China's eastward expansion into 
the Pacific.
  We need to continue to strengthen our critical relationship with 
Taiwan.
  Huawei and other Chinese technology companies jeopardize the security 
of our Nation's telecommunications network. I strongly support the 
Trump administration's efforts to prevent Huawei from participating in 
U.S. 5G modernization efforts, and I hope that Secretary of State 
Pompeo will be able to convince our Western European allies to do 
likewise.
  Finally, I will talk about trade. This subject is very much in the 
news today.
  I am cautiously optimistic that the Trump administration's carrot-
and-stick approach to trade negotiations will bear fruit, even if the 
tariffs are painful in the short term.
  At the very least, I appreciate the fact that we finally have a 
President who is willing to confront the Chinese about decades' worth 
of bad behavior.
  China has been a notorious currency manipulator ever since it began 
to modernize its economy in the late seventies. It also shamelessly 
rips off our Nation's intellectual property. We simply can't engage in 
mutually prosperous trade with China if that nation refuses to play by 
the rules.
  My last remarks on trade are important because they highlight an 
important point that I hope does not get lost in this discussion: Our 
Nation can and should aim for a mutually beneficial relationship with 
China. In fact, our two nations can continue to grow rich together.
  Just because China will be our geopolitical rivals in the coming 
years and decades does not mean that they will necessarily become our 
enemies. But having said that, we must not be under any illusions about 
China's great power ambition, and we must not give an inch when China 
challenges our own Nation's prosperity or our interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage our Members in this body and I encourage the 
administration to continue to do all we can to push back on China's 
unfair trade practices and attempt to turn the South China Sea into a 
lake controlled by China, thereby manipulating trillions of dollars 
worth of trade.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona, who pointed

[[Page H3777]]

out some great things. We are going to talk about the South China Sea, 
or the East Sea, and what China has done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
hosting this Special Order tonight on China.
  I was watching the news today like most other folks are, and part of 
the news says that the tariffs are the problem and the President is the 
problem. That is what they are literally saying in the United States of 
America today.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the tariffs aren't the problem and the 
President isn't the problem. China is the problem. They have been the 
problem for a long time, but nobody in the United States has been 
willing to confront it.
  For many years, China has pursued industrial policies and unfair 
trade practices that include dumping, discriminatory nontariff 
barriers, forced technology transfer, overcapacity, and industrial 
subsidies, all this to champion Chinese firms and make it literally 
impossible for American firms to compete. People say: Well, all these 
jobs went to China. All these jobs went overseas.
  How do you think that happened? It happened because China is not a 
reasonable actor. They are not playing fair. They have not been playing 
fair, and they have been taking advantage of the United States and 
other countries for a very, very long time. Finally, there is a 
President who is willing to confront them.
  Let's talk about China as the world's largest principal IP infringer, 
and their government actually encourages the theft of intellectual 
property.
  People talk about the value of these tariffs. Nobody likes the 
tariffs in the United States. We don't want to have to do this, but we 
have limited options.
  They said the cost of the tariffs. Well, how about the cost, 
annually, of IP theft, anywhere from $225 billion to $600 billion, 
including counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade 
secrets. That is every year, regardless of any tariff in the United 
States. That is just what the Chinese steal, sanctioned by the Chinese 
Government.

  Our IP-intensive industries support at least 45 million U.S. jobs. 
Are we going to wait until all those head to China as well? For every 
high-tech job in the United States, five jobs are created indirectly in 
a local economy.
  Actually, China accounts for 87 percent of counterfeit goods seized 
coming into the United States. It starts making you wonder why we allow 
any of their goods to come into the United States.
  China conducts and supports cyber intrusions into the United States' 
computer networks to gain access to valuable research and business 
information so Chinese companies can just literally copy products and 
processes. What are some examples? Well, just things like a vacuum 
cleaner to solar panel technology.
  Does anybody wonder why we buy so many solar panels from China? They 
stole them from us, and then they are selling them back to us. Who is 
the fool here?
  And how about the blueprints to the Boeing C-17? Anybody deployed 
around the world lately in military uniform? It is good to know that 
China has the plans.
  Hackers from China with ties to the government have been accused of 
breaking into gas companies, steel companies, and chemical companies. A 
Chinese Government company was indicted for stealing the secret 
chemical makeup of the color white from DuPont.
  China developed its J-20 fighter plane, a plane similar to Lockheed-
Martin's F-22 Raptor, shortly after a Chinese national was indicted for 
stealing technical data from Lockheed-Martin, including plans for the 
Raptor.
  In 2010, Google went public in announcing that it had been hacked by 
the Chinese Government; and in December of 2018, two Chinese nationals 
were charged with hacking more than 45 companies in coordination with 
China's state security service.
  These are just a few of the cases.
  Just a couple of months ago, in The Wall Street Journal, it was 
reported that 27 universities located across the United States were 
targeted by Chinese hackers due to their involvement in research of 
military-use maritime technology. You heard some of the speakers just 
recently talk about China's newfound military and naval prowess.
  Let's go into some of the CFIUS reports, the Committee on Foreign 
Investment in the United States. CFIUS ordered a Chinese health data 
analytics firm backed by Tencent to sell its majority stake in 
PatientsLikeMe, which helps connect people suffering from the same 
illness.
  Why would China hack that, you wonder? Well, if you can think about 
any data that you have--your very, very personal data, including 
sicknesses that you might have--China actually wants that kind of 
stuff, and they don't have good intentions for it.
  CFIUS blocked the $1.2 billion purchase of MoneyGram, a money 
transfer firm, by Ant Financial, an Alibaba affiliate, on national 
security grounds.
  In 2017, American officials warned that DJI, a leading drone maker, 
was probably sending data on critical infrastructure back to China's 
Government. The U.S. Army barred DJI drones from its bases. But if you 
don't know you have a DJI drone and you are operating on a military 
base, you can probably be self-assured that China is collecting the 
information and you are actually helping them.
  How about this? In 2018, American Government agencies were banned 
from using cameras made by Hikvision, the world's biggest manufacturer 
of closed-circuit TV kits. We actually had to ban them, and the 
government was buying them. They are spying on us in our own government 
buildings because we are buying their cameras, and we know it is 
happening.
  It is incredible, ladies and gentlemen. China is the problem. It is 
not the President and it is not the tariff. It is what China does.
  Then there is the race to 5G, which America must win. China is on 
pace to be the global leader in 5G technology. That is just how it is. 
They actually beat Ericsson, and now a spy state--a spy state--is on 
track to be the leader in 5G technology.
  We simply must work with our allies to stop the introduction of 
Huawei equipment--that is who is making it--into foreign networks. It 
threatens the integrity of personal data, government secrets, military 
operations, and democratic principles.
  When the United States military operates around the world, we use the 
backbone architecture oftentimes to communicate. If that backbone 
communications architecture has been made by Huawei, we might as well 
just be telling China exactly what we are doing. Our tactic, technique, 
procedures are all given up immediately to China.
  Social media, medical services, gaming, location services, payment, 
and banking information, every single thing that happens over the 
internet, if it is happening over a Huawei 5G network, they are knowing 
about it.
  The Pentagon, just last month, warned of ``near persistent data 
transfer back to China.'' Near persistent, so just continuous data 
transfer. And they use this information to coerce and punish not only 
their own citizens, but people in countries around the world.
  And again, the 2017 intelligence law in China requires any 
organization or citizen to support, assist, and cooperate with the 
security services of China's communist government.
  Now, let's be clear here. We are not talking about the Chinese 
people, but we are talking about the Communist Party in China. We are 
talking about their leadership, and we are talking about their 
government. That is who we are talking about there.
  Again, the Chinese dominance in 5G threatens future U.S. military 
operations. We will not be able to operate. We will have to set up our 
own network everywhere we go where Huawei is responsible for 5G 
networking. These are just national security risks that happen in 
Europe and across Africa.
  You need to know, as well, that Huawei's equipment does not 
interoperate with any other vendor. So if you are using Huawei 
equipment, even if it is 4G, it doesn't interoperate with anything, so 
you are forced to buy Huawei for 5G if you want to advance.

  Other people have talked about China's global influence--unrestricted 
warfare--in every single paradigm.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the tariffs are not the problem. Unfortunately, 
China has been in an economic war with us for about four decades.

[[Page H3778]]

  The President is not the problem. China and this malign behavior to 
us and democracies around the globe are the problem.
  I am glad we are finally talking about it. I hope that the rest of 
our colleagues here in the House of Representatives will join us in 
researching and becoming aware and informed about China's activities 
and then supporting policies that deal with China's malign activities 
in our universities, technology transfer, and--you name it.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania, who 
is a brigadier general, and he has been on the front lines, for those 
remarks.


                             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 on 
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 would like to continue on the rise of China 
and why it is important.
  I think we have heard some great ideas today and some great dialogue, 
but this is something the American people need to pay attention to. 
This is something that our legislators need to pay attention to. This 
is something that we hear over and over again.
  I have had the pleasure of being in Congress for 7 years, chairing 
the Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation Subcommittee in the last 
Congress, and I am the lead Republican in this Congress. The 
information we hear over and over again doesn't get better. In fact, 
what we find out is a more aggressive China that has raised all 
pretenses of the past, and I will talk about that.
  Before I go into this too much, I want to start with this: China has 
an amazing history that spans thousands of years. Its culture has 
stayed, for the most part, intact until the 19th century.

                              {time}  2000

  At one point, China and most of Eurasia was under the control of 
Genghis Khan and the Mongolian Empire for over 100 years before the 
Khan dynasty lost to the prevailing emperors in the 19th century. I 
bring this up to counter China's nine dashed historical lines that they 
are making claim in the South China Sea and now their claim that they 
are now making near Arctic territory.
  Later on in this dialogue, I want to talk about that because China 
predicates everything by saying: ``Well, we historically have sailed in 
the South China Sea; therefore, it is ours.'' Now China is saying they 
are near the Arctic, so being near that, they want to claim that as 
theirs when international law says it is not so.
  In fact, the Philippines took China to court over the South China 
Seas, and I will have some maps here that we will discuss later.
  China went from a major economic power in the 18th century to a 
nation addicted to opium and taken over by European colonial powers and 
Japanese imperialism. During the 19th century, China's ruling class 
allowed their country to be taken over by European colonial powers 
while over 90 percent of their male population became addicted to 
opium.
  And I want to highlight that because we are going to talk about the 
fentanyl and the opium that are coming into this country and what 
country they are coming from.
  The cultural heritage and social fabric of China decayed, and China 
entered into a peasant state isolated from the world, for the most 
part, during the next 70 years. This truly was a century of shame.
  The PLA, the People's Liberation Army, emerged in the twenties, in 
fact, in 1927. They will have a 100-year anniversary highlighting that 
in 2027.
  Mao Zedong was a favored member of the PLA. He later became the 
Chairman of the Communist Party of China. He promised communism would 
be the savior of China, but, unfortunately, for the 70 to 80 million 
people who died under Mao's policy, for them, it was a disaster.
  Mao did set a 100-year plan, though, for China to regain their 
stature lost. Maoism became a belief for many, which seems bizarre, 
knowing that history records millions of people's deaths were credited 
to his policies.
  Then, a foreign policy by President Nixon and then-Secretary of State 
Henry Kissinger invited China into the modern 20th century. Many today 
look back and realize that this was a massive misstep in foreign 
policy. The hope was that China would become a responsible partner in 
the modern world, but, unfortunately, China thrived at the expense of 
the United States and many other nations with heavily lopsided, one-way 
favored trade deals that favored China but nobody else. In the process, 
China became very strong and very wealthy.
  Maoism gave way to the era of Deng Xiaoping, who realized at the time 
China could not compete with the U.S. or Japan in intellectual capacity 
or in manufacturing, but he had the foresight to corner the market in 
rare earth minerals. Deng Xiaoping's saying was: Bide your time and 
hide your strength. Today, China has virtually cornered the rare earth 
market that Deng Xiaoping spoke of in the 1980s.
  In fact, the F-35s today, our highest tech fighters, the highest tech 
in the world, have been copied by China via intellectual theft. And the 
rare earth metals, the weight of an F-35 is approximately 10 percent. 
This is approximately 4,000 pounds.
  Now, get this. Ninety percent of these metals come directly from 
China. The other 10 percent come from countries that get these metals 
from China. So Deng Xiaoping fulfilled a promise he made.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
thank the gentleman for conducting this Special Order. I appreciate the 
gentleman inviting me to come down here.
  Just a few observations, if you will.
  As I have watched the speeches tonight, there has been a litany of 
concerns about China's aggression, China's positioning, China's covert 
activities, China's willingness to engage in intellectual theft, 
China's pervasive influence all around the world.
  I have been to China once. I found it to be highly engaging. I found 
the people that we were with to be very welcoming and warm. I am very 
grateful and try to be attentive to China's long-suffering and rich 
cultural history. And as China tells us, there is room enough in the 
Pacific for two superpowers, and I want to return to that point.
  When I looked out of the window of the place where I was staying in 
Beijing, it looked as though fog had set in. But it wasn't fog; it was 
pollution. The air was so thick, you could hardly see maybe 20 feet. If 
you live in Beijing, it takes 5 years off your life because of the 
pollution.
  In fact, I had one Chinese person whisper to me: ``What is the point 
of all this economic development if it kills you?'' And I really wanted 
to tell him: ``Please, don't say that too loudly.''
  The point is that China has engaged in a series of unfair subsidies 
that create an unlevel playing field for trade. China's very system, a 
capitalistic-communist hybrid system is very different than ours. They 
are state players that receive direct subsidies that we don't have. The 
indirect cost of not having environmental regulation is a form of 
subsidy to industry. Low labor standards, the exploitation of persons, 
is another, and on and on.
  So we can walk through the financial balance sheet as to who has what 
tariff and who doesn't, and who subsidized this and who doesn't, but, 
fundamentally, there are things in that equation that we, perhaps, 
haven't counted.
  Another reality here is China has as their reason for being, it seems 
now, an economic nationalism. Now, we do, too, in America. Economics is 
important to us, but it stands alongside a spectrum of values of 
personal liberty, the exercise of opportunity, and the ability to 
engage in communal activity, free associations. We don't even think 
about these things.

  These are very, very different propositions in China. One places 
himself at the service of the larger idea of the state. The person is 
subservient to the larger idea of the state.
  Mr. YOHO. Exactly.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. And the person can operate within a certain band of 
liberties.
  I saw it. People can move around. People can visit things.

[[Page H3779]]

  But it is a certain band of liberties that, if you violate that, step 
beyond it, you contradict the nature of the system and could pay a very 
heavy price.
  We see this in human rights violations, the lack of certain freedoms 
that we enjoy that we think are consistent with human dignity. And this 
is how it manifests itself.
  I know you, Mr. Yoho, are very attentive to the issue of development, 
sustainable economic development, particularly for the world's poor, to 
conserve our resources, to use the best of the market systems for 
empowerment of space, for the flourishing of the individual. That then 
creates the opportunity for just governance and a healthy nationalism, 
and that is our ideal.
  So, before the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, recently, Secretary 
Pompeo appeared, and I asked him a question. I said: Mr. Secretary, how 
much does China give in foreign assistance?
  He had one of those moments where he didn't exactly know how to 
answer. I wasn't asking a question in order for him to give an answer, 
because we all know the answer: It is pretty minimal.
  Mr. YOHO. It is.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. The United States gives away about $25 billion a 
year, and that is in non-security assistance alone: trying to help the 
poor, to feed the poor, trying to create a space for food security, 
sustainable agriculture, conservation, medical care for the sickest 
around the world.
  We do this because it is our impulse, our humanitarian impulse. We 
just don't sit around while other people die. We also do it because it 
facilitates relationships, economical and cultural. And, finally, when 
you have the factors that lead to stable societies, it is in our own 
security interest and the security of the world. So, for these reasons, 
we do these things.
  So I asked the Secretary: How much does China give? It might be a 
sprinkling here or there. I don't exactly know the number. But for a 
country with this size of an economy, with this amount of power, with 
this amount of growth, with this amount of pervasive activity all 
around the world, particularly in the developing nations, there comes a 
set of responsibilities along with that.
  I think that is really part of the attention here, underlying this 
current trade dispute. What are we both vying for?
  I agree with the Chinese that there should be room enough for two 
superpowers in the Pacific, but you have got to come to some alignment 
about what it means to be in a fair, reciprocal relationship.
  We have to do a better job of respecting the space of other people's 
history and tradition in the way they want to organize themselves 
around governance while, at the same time, upholding this fundamental 
principle of human dignity, without which things just collapse into 
transactional relations that can come and go, or worse, when they are 
gone, lead to potential conflict.
  We need a healthy relationship with China. We have gone through a 
litany of complaints about China tonight, but there are a couple other 
complaints I want to have, and it is looking inward at ourselves.
  I think it is time for American businesses to do business in America.
  Mr. YOHO. All right. You are singing a great song that I have shared 
with the AmChams, I have shared with other countries, and it is our 
philosophy of ABC. When you go to manufacture, it is anywhere but 
China.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. There is a small manufacturing facility in my 
district. They make a fairly generic, standardized product. I was a 
little surprised that they didn't have a relationship with the Chinese, 
and they said: ``Oh, no. That R&D is rip-off and duplicate.''
  Mr. YOHO. That is exactly right.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. ``That is why we won't deal with them.''
  That is a sad reality, because we ought to be able to deal, using a 
fair set of rules, with people who may be doing something better than 
we are and we do something better than they do, and we can benefit in 
reciprocal fashion.
  But it has gotten so disordered because we shifted manufacturing 
there, and a lot of big businesses around this country make a lot of 
money off of poor environmental standards and poor labor standards 
imposed on other people.
  Mr. YOHO. Exactly.
  Can I get you to yield?
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Sure.
  Mr. YOHO. You are leading into where I was going.
  In 1990, President Clinton recommended China's entry into the WTO on 
a developing nation status. Yet today, they are the second largest 
economy in the world--second to the U.S.--and they are still a 
developing nation status. Yet they have a blue-water navy.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. So ask ourselves why. What are the incentives around 
here to change this?
  Mr. YOHO. And they have a Moon program.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, why do we allow this to continue?
  Mr. YOHO. Why do we allow it?
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, could it be that there are a lot of big-time 
transactions going on in our system itself that benefit a few big 
multinationals that have taken their manufacturing and planted it over 
there? They make the stuff, and we buy the stuff.
  And this is the third point I want to make to you, which is, again, a 
little bit of self-reflection on our own role in this.

  They make the stuff; we buy the stuff. We run up debt; they have the 
cash; they buy the debt.
  So here we find ourselves in this very dysfunctional marriage of 
having shifted vast amounts of productive resources there because, 
supposedly, we can't make this more efficiently--supposedly. Really?
  Mr. YOHO. Right. I don't buy into that either, and I am glad you 
brought that up.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. So we run up the debt, and they hold the debt.
  And what is debt? Well, none of us around here really wants to face 
it--on our side of the aisle either, Republicans. It is a form of 
taxation.
  Mr. YOHO. It is.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. It is just hidden from everyone. And the 
manifestation of it is a wealth shift of our country's assets into the 
hands of other people.
  So we are talking about the military buildup. We are talking about 
the exploitation of resources, particularly in Africa, with no 
consideration of the environmental impact and no attacking of the 
subsequent problem of structural poverty that existed in a lot of 
places.

                              {time}  2015

  It is just taking things out and leaving not much behind, and that is 
not fair to the world's poor. The problem, again, is one of self-
reflection that we have to have both in terms of the responsibility 
that America's business has because we have provided the infrastructure 
and the systems, through very large public subsidies, so they can 
thrive. It is incumbent upon them to take responsibility. Maybe it is 
time for American businesses to do business in America.
  Secondly, is this issue of debt. Now, if this tension prolongs and 
the reality that China has a stick, and they start to refuse or dump 
treasuries, what is that going to do? Interest rates will go up.
  Mr. YOHO. That is right.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, that is an impact on us, but it is one 
we are going to have to live with because we have done it to ourselves. 
There are a couple of lessons here: fair trade, mutual respect, smart 
trade, both people benefit.
  Secondly, America's businesses will not get this public subsidy from 
us any longer through unfair trade practices that we allow.
  The third lesson is: an honest confrontation about what debt really 
is. It is a hidden form of taxes, shifting the wealth assets of this 
country elsewhere into places like China, which we are complaining 
about are not using those assets in a way that we would like to see in 
a productive manner.
  There is lots of blame to go around here, but I want to thank the 
gentleman for the opportunity to at least start to unpack this in an 
honest way.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman coming out.
  I see this as a series of Special Orders on China, because the 
American people need to know this. When they go to a

[[Page H3780]]

shelf and buy something that is cheap, and they look at that and it 
says, ``made in China,'' they are feeding this trade imbalance. So they 
are partly responsible for that.
  As the gentleman well pointed out, if I fast forward to Xi Jinping, 
to the current era right now, the estimate is that there is a $300-
plus-billion--I heard it was $400 billion--trade imbalance, I can't 
blame China for that. I blame our leaders since President Nixon.
  For the last 40 or 50 years, somebody has dropped the ball or taken 
their eye off the ball. If you allow a trade imbalance of $400-billion-
plus, and then add to that the theft of intellectual properties that we 
have heard up to $600 billion--I am sure you saw the DHS as they 
brought in products made by our manufacturers that went to China that 
are now coming from China, and it looks identical, yet, it is made by 
China. So it is robbing that profit and the jobs from American 
manufacturers that should go here, and it has to stop.
  I commend the Trump administration for standing up to that. I think 
the gentleman brought this out.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, the reckoning is here.
  Mr. YOHO. The reckoning is here.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. It has been hidden, but the consequences have been 
real. It is now on the surface. The day of reckoning is here.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, it is, and I hope the gentleman participates 
in these. Because that day of reckoning is here, and if we don't do it 
today, it is only going to get worse. So this is something that we have 
to come together as Americans. It is not President Trump out there. It 
is not some of the businesses that are bold enough to stand with him.
  We, the American people, need to stand behind him, and I think the 
gentleman brought this up that this is not a fight with the Chinese 
people. It is the system that is running unfair trade balances.
  Mr. Speaker, what I would like to bring up, going back to my notes 
here is, we are in the era of Xi Jinping. I don't think our 
disagreement is with the Chinese people, but it is with the policies of 
Xi Jinping and the Chinese or the Communist Party of China.
  The 2017 Congress of the Communist Party of China was held in October 
of 2017. During that time, Xi Jinping kind of came out and was very 
bold in his statements. He said: The era of China has arrived. No 
longer will they be made to swallow their interests around the world. 
It is time for China to take the world's stage.
  The gentleman brought this up. There is plenty of room on the world's 
stage if you want to be fair and balanced, and you want to play like 
everybody else, but you have to honor international law. You have to 
honor the rule of law, honoring contracts, honoring the beliefs that we 
have to be a respected trading partner.
  We penned an editorial that talked about Xi Jinping is leading--along 
with the Communist Party which is 90 million members--is leading China 
into a second century of shame, and it is because they are losing face. 
They are losing honor that the Chinese culture, over millennials, built 
up. They were respected. But they are getting ready to enter into the 
second century of shame, and I would like for Mr. Fortenberry to 
continue.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on a concept that I talked 
about earlier is this idea of human dignity, and where does culture, 
ideals, learning, and the pursuit of truth come from?
  It comes from this sacred space, if you will. And when that is 
subsumed to the larger interest of the state where you are compelled to 
act only within certain parameters, where you have to submit yourself 
to this bigger idea of economic nationalism, it can't define itself 
because it doesn't know where it is going, so it just churns and 
churns. It has to be more and more and more with environmental effects, 
effects on culture, and effects on relationships around the world.
  One final point before I leave you. The head of the United States 
Agency for International Development, Mark Green, a former Member of 
Congress, former Ambassador to Tanzania, had this to say before us 
recently: China, they are predatory lenders.
  Mr. YOHO. Yeah.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. They are acting, again, with their superpower status 
around the world, basically convicting leaders in tougher places around 
the world that are desperate for the right types of build-out and 
infrastructure to attack structural poverty and to help stop the types 
of injustice that are there when people simply do not have a system 
that allows them to reach their full potentiality.

  They are being forced to mortgage off various assets they have, 
rather than being in a robust partnership and alignment with a 
superpower who is interested in perhaps the right type of development, 
sustainability and conservation, and to build out a just governance.
  So countries are having to mortgage off ports and other pieces of 
infrastructure in order to get Chinese money. Again, there is a 
resource movement out of these places into the Chinese hands in order 
to feed, just continue to feed this economic nationalism which has no 
broader purpose.
  Mr. YOHO. Right.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. And that is the issue. So China, maybe they will see 
this. Our charge here is to try to do some self-reflection ourselves 
about the nature of our system and what we have done.
  But also, with the hand of friendship extended, say to the Chinese: A 
transactional relationship is not an architecture for the 21st century, 
for the thriving of civilization as the world gets smaller and smaller 
and more and more integrated.
  This predatory lending in the world's toughest places is a disastrous 
policy and completely inconsistent and contradictory to what a leader 
in the world, because of superpower status and economic power status, 
ought to be pursuing.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time.
  The gentleman brought up a good point about China. If you read about 
the Chinese Communist Party, the role of the individual is to serve the 
party. There is no higher entity in China other than Xi Jinping. 
Whereas in our government, we are so blessed in this country because we 
have a government that empowers their people. China suppresses their 
people, and that is why I want to talk about this.
  This comes from a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report where they 
deemed Huawei and ZTE to be a U.S. national security threat. I have got 
the results of that right here. So we want to talk about that.
  Huawei and ZTE, from 2012 until today, they have been a national 
security threat, but they have been able to do business in this 
country. This is something we need to bring to an end.
  Other speakers brought up how universities were falling prey to 
China. We had our own university in Florida that Huawei came in and 
offered to set up a cybersecurity program, and they were going to fund 
it. And we said: No way. And so we got them to stop that.
  If you just go to the headlines and you can hear how China is ramping 
up in intellectual property theft. They are paid to do this. This is 
something they want to go after, and they are doing it.
  They rail against the United States on GMOs, yet, they go to Iowa and 
steal corn seeds so that they can grow GMO and be in competition with 
us.
  The trade war with China and the problems with intellectual property 
rights, this is something that goes on every day. And as we buy cheap 
products made in China, this is benefiting them, not us. You can see 
the headlines here.
  What I want to do is move on to Hong Kong with Xi Jinping. Back when 
Great Britain gave Hong Kong back to China in 1997, under the rulers of 
China at that time, there was a 50-year agreement that Hong Kong would 
be an autonomous, self-ruled nation. Twenty-two years into the program, 
China has put their heavy foot down. China has disrupted the autonomous 
rule of Hong Kong to the point where Xi Jinping had the nerve to say 
this on the world stage; as far as he was concerned, that agreement was 
null and void.
  I want to bring that up because if we talk about if that agreement is 
null and void with Hong Kong, if we go back to the agreement of Taiwan 
under Nixon and Kissinger when they said that Taiwan is recognized as 
one country, two systems, and autonomous rule, if China and Xi Jinping 
can discount that agreement with Great Britain, does that give us the 
right to discount one country, two systems?

[[Page H3781]]

  Is it time to recognize Taiwan as an independent country, a thriving 
democracy, our eleventh largest trading partner?
  I want to bring up the South China Sea.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I will try to tighten this up.
  Mr. Speaker, China, in the South China Sea, has started claiming 
property that is not theirs. It goes off to nine historical lines that 
come from antiquity, from 300 or 400 years ago. And they said: Well, we 
used to sail here, so this is our property.

  So they started building these islands, and they went off the coast 
of the Philippines, and the Philippines took them to the Court of 
Arbitration in The Hague, and China lost the lawsuit. China ignored the 
ruling of The Hague, an international norm that we are all supposed to 
follow. They ignored it, and here you have the Spratly Islands that 
were little atolls sticking shallowly out of the water at low tide.
  China has gone in there, and it is probably the biggest environmental 
insult to this world, where they have dredged up over 4,000 acres of 
land and they have built these land masses. I refuse to use the word 
``island'' because that gives credibility to China.
  What they have done is built--illegally, against the environment, 
against the ruling of international law--land masses in the East China 
Sea.
  President Xi Jinping had the gumption to come here to the United 
States during President Obama's era in 2015, he went to the Rose Garden 
and claimed: We will never militarize these islands.
  Yet, today, there are runways on there that can accommodate military 
planes. Our satellites show that there are military barracks, offensive 
and defensive weapons, and radar systems. I think it is pretty well 
militarized. They are doing that again and again and again. There are 
four islands they have done now.
  Their goal is to go to the next chain of islands which is closer to 
our mainland. This is something the world has to stand up to. If not, 
they are going to keep continuing to march forward.
  This is a photo of when they started, and this is more of the 
dredging. We don't have the one that shows them completed, but you can 
find it on the internet.
  Now we are at the China of today. China has perfected 5G technology. 
China today has over 800 million CCTV cameras, closed-circuit 
television cameras, and they have put a system in place where they 
monitor their systems.

                              {time}  2030

  Today in China there are over 24 million citizens being monitored, 
and they get issued by the Communist Party a good citizen score. But, 
Mr. Speaker, you don't know what your score is. So when you show up to 
travel, if your score is not high enough, then you get denied travel. 
If you go to borrow money or use your banking system, you are denied 
your banking system. Your kids can't go to the colleges you want them 
to go to because you are denied because you are a bad citizen. They 
have extended this and offered this to Russia; they have extended this 
and offered it to Maduro in Venezuela; and Iran wants this technology.
  What better way for a despotic or authoritarian or Communist regime 
to control their citizens than the CC technology?
  China uses technology to suppress their citizens to fall in line so 
that they serve the Communist Party. Our government empowers our people 
to reach their full potential.
  I will close with this last thing, Mr. Speaker. China has interned 
over 2 million Muslim Chinese ethnic people, the Uyghurs, in what they 
call reeducation camps.
  I want to show you this poster here, Mr. Speaker. This is a 
reeducation camp. That means they just go there because they want to 
learn new skills. This is what China is doing with the Uyghurs, the 
Muslim population. Not only that but they have armed crematoriums that 
are in place in these camps.
  I've got to ask you, Mr. Speaker, when you have got a place that 
looks look a prison, I don't believe it is there for education. We went 
through World War II and the Holocaust. This Nation and all other 
nations said: ``Never again.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is happening right now in China. We need to pivot 
away from China buying stuff, and we need to encourage our 
manufacturers to go anywhere but China.
  I don't want a conflict with China. Nobody does. But if we stand up 
collectively together and we encourage manufacturers to go, then we can 
get China's attention via their pocketbook and we can change the course 
of the history of this world.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the threat to religious liberty and 
religious toleration in the People's Republic of China is of grave 
concern. Over the past several years there has been an ever increasing 
intolerance of religious minorities.
  Article 36 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China 
guarantees the freedom of religious belief. Yet the rights and safety 
of religious minorities in the country are very much in question.
  China is the home to nearly 90 million Christians, and the country is 
anticipated to be home to the most Christians in the world by 2030. 
Yet, over the last several years, the percentage of persecution cases 
have risen year over year. Furthermore, the government has increasingly 
required churches to be state approved, churches have been razed and 
worshippers subjected to detainment, physical interrogation, and 
thought reform conditioning.
  In the west, in Xinjiang Province, the United Nations has reported 
the government to be holding roughly one million Uygurs without charge. 
Those who have escaped have testified to being repeatedly told that God 
did not exist and that they would only be fed after acknowledging the 
greatness of communism.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage this Congress and our President to take 
appropriate actions to promote religious freedom of religious 
minorities in the People's Republic of China.

                          ____________________