[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1827-S1828]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 China

  Madam President, this body is also in the process of negotiating 
issues with China.
  I have had quite a few folks from Oklahoma who have caught me and 
have said: Hey, while the world is focused on Russia and Ukraine, have 
we taken our eye off the ball in China?
  I would pray we have not, and I continue to be able to encourage our 
Pentagon and officials across our government to not lose focus on 
Taiwan and to not lose focus on what is happening in trade agreements.
  Right now, the Senate is actually negotiating a bill dealing with 
China, and I have to tell you I didn't support this bill and don't. It 
is a quarter trillion dollars in new spending--a quarter trillion. It 
is enormous in size, but the basic philosophy is, the Chinese have a 
state-controlled system for how they are putting out semiconductors and 
research; so we should do that in America and invest a quarter trillion 
to try to keep up with them in the way they are doing it.
  Can I tell you? The United States and our free market system have 
raised up the greatest entrepreneurs the world has ever known in areas 
of research. There are quite a few areas wherein we have government and 
private sector cooperation, both in disease research and in technology. 
There are all kinds of research that have happened that have been very 
successful in transitioning into marketable products. Yet a quarter 
trillion dollars is a big number and philosophically shifts us into a 
very different structure of trying to be able to ``keep up with the 
Chinese.''
  Now, I do have to grant that the Senate bill is much better than the 
House bill. The House put together a bill dealing with China that is 
classic House of Representatives at this point. They sent over a bill 
to us that they called their China bill, but it actually uses the word 
``climate'' in it more than it uses the word ``China'' in it. It 
actually authorizes $4 billion a year into the U.N. Green Climate Fund, 
which actually gives grants to Iran, China, and North Korea to help 
with their green transitions.
  The House bill--also, again, their China bill--has a whole section in 
it on providing access to financial institutions for marijuana. Now, if 
you are wondering why marijuana banking is ending up in the China bill, 
so am I. The only thing I can come up with is, if you are nervous about 
China, smoke some weed, and you will be more relaxed, I guess. I am not 
sure why that ends up in the China bill--to have a whole marijuana 
section in the United States on it.
  A meaningful China bill would focus in on critical minerals, which 
neither bill does. All of us see the supply chain issues that are 
happening with China right now. We all see it, but neither bill 
actually deals with the serious

[[Page S1828]]

issues that we have with critical minerals and rare Earth minerals. As 
to some of the areas on critical minerals, China has access to 85 
percent of them, and we are not responding to that. That is a problem.
  The bill itself--the quarter trillion that is spent--actually exposes 
us even more to Chinese debt. Ironically enough, to be able to pay for 
this bill, we are going to have to borrow money from China to compete 
with China. I find that a little ironic.
  It doesn't address the Belt and Road Initiative. As China continues 
to be able to expand around the world by putting in airports, by 
putting in ports, and to be able to do its expansion through its own 
system, we are not addressing that nor even trying to focus in on just 
keeping a list. I even asked for the ability just for us to keep a list 
of all of the places into which China is actually expanding, and that 
is actually not included in the bill.
  Another area, like internet freedom for the people of Hong Kong, who 
are living under the oppression of China, is not included.
  Countering the Chinese influence in multilateral organizations, like 
the U.N., the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, as China 
moves to put key positions in place so they control these multilateral 
organizations--there is no push in this bill for this.
  There is no push to be able to push the Chinese off our college 
campuses, as they move Confucius Institutes onto our campuses in order 
to plant the Chinese influence on those campuses.
  It also doesn't deal with something as basic as agriculture. Now, why 
do I bring up agriculture? Because the Chinese are purchasing land all 
over the United States, especially in my State, as they snap up private 
land and start to do activities there wherein they own that land, 
control that land, and develop it. There are no CFIUS restrictions that 
deal with Chinese espionage dealing with agriculture at all, and this 
bill doesn't address that. I see that as a problem.
  We need expansive, very engaged issues to be able to deal with China. 
China is on the move. They are becoming more and more aggressive. They 
continue to be more and more aggressive as they deal with a multitude 
of issues--everything from agriculture and all the way through biotech 
engineering, chemistry, the ownership of intellectual property, the 
theft of intellectual property. They continue to be able to move across 
our supply chain to be able to dominate things worldwide. We need to 
address that. This fails to do those critical things.

  Now, does it take some steps? Yes, it does, but we are not even 
debating the other issues. We are not even discussing them. We are 
conferencing with a House bill that focuses more on climate than it 
does on China and that focuses on marijuana banking more than it does 
on the supply chain. We have got to get serious on these issues for the 
sake of our children and our freedom in the days ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.