[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 12004-12013]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO DENY COMMUNIST CHINA NORMAL TRADE 
                            RELATIONS STATUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend 
my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). We have 
worked together over these last 10 years while I have been a Member of 
Congress on many, many occasions, and I find Congressman Weldon to be a 
patriot, a man of integrity, a man of courage, and I think when all of 
this is said and done, when we find out the jeopardy that our country 
has been put in and take the measures that are necessary to correct 
this situation and to

[[Page 12005]]

make our country safe again, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon) will be on the list of real American heroes that came about to 
save the day, and I am just proud to serve with him.
  Madam Speaker, tonight it is fortuitous that I will be speaking after 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) because my remarks are in 
parallel with what Mr. Weldon has been talking about. It goes into a 
slightly different subject. Tonight I will be talking about Most 
Favored Nation status and our economic, as well as military and 
diplomatic, relations with China. But of course everything that Mr. 
Weldon has said today amplifies the need that I will be demonstrating 
for us to reexamine American policy towards Communist China.
  In fact, let me state right at the beginning that when it comes to 
Communist China, we have been treating a hostile power, the world's 
worst human rights abuser, as a strategic partner, that is what this 
administration has insisted on us calling Communist China, and I 
believe that Americans will pay a woeful price for this irrational, 
amoral and greed-driven policy if we do not change it, and that is what 
we need to do to change that policy that has been in place to some 
degree or another for 2 decades, but especially in these last 6 years.
  Yesterday I introduced legislation to do just that, to change that 
policy. It is a bill of disapproval of extending so-called ``normal 
trade relations,'' which was previously known as Most Favored Nation 
status, with Communist China. So what my proposal is is that we deny 
Communist China normal trade relations status with the United States, 
formerly called Most Favored Nation status.
  The time, Madam Speaker, is long since past when the United States 
should reexamine its fundamental policies toward the Communist 
dictatorship that now rules the mainland of China. Our commercial 
policies, as well as our diplomatic and military policies, for the past 
decade have worked against the interests of our own people and have 
not, as we had hoped, increased the level of freedom enjoyed by the 
Chinese people. In fact, some of the initial progress that we saw in 
China has now gone in the opposite direction, especially since the end 
of the Reagan administration and the tragic national reversal in China 
in 1989 at Tiananmen Square when they had the massacre at Tiananmen 
Square.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), one of our Republican leaders 
here in the House, defines ``insanity'' as doing more of the same, but 
expecting the results to be different. Well, for 10 years the cause of 
freedom in China has been in decline. Things are getting worse. So much 
for the engagement theory, the strategy of engagement, and what we hear 
from those people advocating normal trade relations and to continuing 
our relations with China is doing more of the same, but expecting that 
China is going to be different, that there will be different results 
now.
  Well, that makes no sense. It is the unreasonable and perhaps 
irrational optimism of some people to assume that continuing our 
fundamental policies toward China will bring about different results 
than the retrogression that we have seen in the past decade.
  In the past 10 years, the genocide, for example, has continued in 
Tibet. The Chinese democracy movement has been wiped out, and there has 
been increasing belligerence by the clique that runs China. The Beijing 
regime is modernizing and expanding its military power while 
threatening the United States and bullying its neighbors, especially in 
Taiwan and the Philippines.
  Big business falsely claims that China is a country that is 
liberalizing through commercial engagement. There is no evidence for 
that claim. So every time you hear it: Well, we have got to engage 
them, that is what will make them better; just be aware that there is 
every evidence to show just the opposite. In fact, the empirical 
evidence shows that China is going in the opposite direction, that 
engagement is not making things better, is not causing a freer China, 
but instead for the last 10 years has resulted in more repression, more 
militarization.
  Furthermore, the trade relationship is working against the people of 
the United States. So here we are in an economic engagement that is not 
helping us bring about a freer China, thus, less belligerent, thus a 
China that will be more peaceful. It is not doing that, but it is also 
not even helping us economically.

                              {time}  2245

  The Chinese are using their $60 billion annual trade surplus with us 
to modernize their Armed Forces, including building nuclear missiles 
aimed at the United States, and they are continuing to proliferate 
weapons of mass destruction. For example, Communist China is reported 
to be the power behind North Korea's space program. Get into that.
  North Korea has a space program. This is a country that has people 
who are starving by the thousands, that we are giving millions of 
dollars worth of food aid to, but they have a space program? You got 
it. Communist China is helping the North Korean regime with a so-called 
space program. In other words, they are helping them build rockets 
that, when tested, end up flying right over Japan and land close to 
Alaska.
  North Korea, of course, is not the only looney country Communist 
China is helping along with deadly weapons technology. You have got 
Iran, Libya, Pakistan, all have benefitted from Beijing's helping hand. 
Of course, some of the technology now being handed over is technology 
based on things that they have stolen, on ideas and engineering 
techniques that they have stolen from the United States of America.
  On April 15 the Washington Post cited a Pentagon study that verified 
China is continuing to ship weapons of mass destruction technology to 
the Middle East and South Asia, despite repeated promises to end such 
activity.
  A separate U.S. intelligence report found that China has recently 
provided North Korea with specialty steel used in the building of 
missile frames. However, the State Department officials, including 
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, have repeatedly avoided 
answering questions before the House Committee on International 
Relations hearings when asked about China's ongoing proliferation 
activities.
  When Secretary Albright was in China last summer with the President, 
China conducted its first successful test of a motor for its new DF-31 
ballistic missile that can strike the United States from the Chinese 
mainland. So here was the President of the United States, so eloquent 
in his presentation, there he was representing us, along with Secretary 
of State Albright, supposedly representing our interests. They were 
aware that this new missile engine was being tested, a missile engine 
that could threaten the people of the United States. They were also 
aware that weapons technology had been stolen from the United States 
that would permit Communist China to build warheads, nuclear warheads, 
that would be on the top of those new rockets, and these rockets could 
strike the United States.
  Yet there was no record of the Secretary of State or President 
Clinton raising this issue with their Chinese hosts. Instead, they 
continued on that visit to praise the increasingly, I would say 
increasingly brazen communist leaders, as being strategic partners, 
strategic partners, and the type of people that we can do business 
with.
  This is very sad. It is more than sad, it is frightening. The recent 
Pentagon report describes how Chinese Government owned companies are 
selling weapons technology and knowhow and providing training to 
countries such as Iran and Pakistan. An American military official 
familiar with the report said that the Chinese are skirting 
nonproliferation treaties with the United States.
  So they have agreed not to proliferate. This was the President's 
great accomplishment, supposedly, with Communist China. We were going 
to give them all sorts of things in trade benefits so they would not 
proliferate, yet we know now they are proliferating and developing 
weapons of their own and giving them to these hostile and

[[Page 12006]]

somewhat crazy states, states that are lacking in positive and 
responsible leadership. But Communist China is shipping them these 
weapons of mass destruction technology anyway, even though they have 
made these agreements.
  The Chinese are shipping these rogue nations missile components, some 
of which, of course, are American products as well as American knowhow, 
and they are shipping the components rather than shipping the whole 
missile. That way they are saying they are not really proliferating 
missiles to these other countries.
  But they are. They are proliferating on a routine basis, of course, 
without technically breaking the agreements with the United States, by 
just sending the parts to the missile. This nefarious behavior could 
be, we might call it the Mandarin version of a famous Arkansas homily, 
``smoke, but don't inhale.''
  After reading the Cox report, one is struck by the mind-boggling loss 
of our country's most deadly secrets. When you hear the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) explain the magnitude of the loss that we 
have seen, it takes your breath away and makes you wonder how our 
children will live, what type of lives they will live, whether or not 
America could be incinerated by a Chinese dictatorship that feels it 
can afford to lose hundreds of millions of people if it means wiping 
out its enemy, 100 or 200 million Americans.
  The theft of U.S. nuclear secrets by Communist China is surpassed 
only by the complete abandonment of security precautions at our 
Department of Energy under the Clinton Administration, as well as a 
brazen attempt by the Clinton Administration to keep the knowledge of 
this catastrophic transfer of weapons technology, to keep the news of 
this from the Congress and the American people.
  On May 30, the New York Times reported the utter cynicism and 
duplicity of the Clinton administration concerning our nuclear weapons 
programs. After the Cox committee released its report on Chinese 
espionage at our nuclear labs, Bill Clinton called protecting atomic 
secrets ``a solemn obligation.'' That is what President Clinton called 
it.
  However, in private, administration officials told reporters, and 
this is reported by the New York Times, that openness, a euphemism for 
giving away our nuclear secrets, has its advantages, despite the risks, 
and has been a potent force for international good.
  Hazel O'Leary, who the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has 
also quoted and talked about some of her policies, in fact Mr. Weldon 
was right on target and this will even add to what Mr. Weldon was 
saying, Hazel O'Leary, President Clinton's Secretary of Energy from 
1993 to 1997, was the grand poobah of nuclear openness, as we have seen 
by what Mr. Weldon told us this evening. In fact, she massively 
declassified secrets and put them on the Energy Department's web site, 
including the diagrams of some advanced nuclear weapons which we saw 
tonight in Mr. Weldon's presentation.
  When asked about that recently, Mrs. O'Leary said, ``we pulled off an 
impossible feat,'' and she recently boasted this while defending her 
action. She went on, ``To say that all of our efforts were negative is 
not to understand the benefits, not to see what we did in terms of 
building international trust.''
  See, the idea is if everybody had all this information, information 
about deadly weapons technology that we had spent hundreds of billions 
of dollars developing, that if everyone had it, well then, it might be 
a more peaceful world. This is worse than the Rosenbergs. This is 
looney tunes. This is someone who has a fanatical anti-American 
altitude in a position to hand over to our worst enemies secrets that 
put our young people and our country in jeopardy.
  Needless to say, most defense experts obviously disagree with Mrs. 
O'Leary's bizarre, and I would say strange, logic. It takes more than a 
postgraduate degree from an ivy league school to have logic like this. 
However, O'Leary could not have undertaken this massive giveaway of a 
decade of brilliant and costly weapons research that permitted the 
United States to be the arsenal of democracy, she could not have done 
this without at least the tacit support of the Commander in Chief.
  The New York Times surmised that the new age defense policy emanating 
from the White House explains why Mrs. O'Leary did this. It explains 
also the administration's slow response when confronted with very real 
evidence of Chinese spying and the loss of blueprints for frighteningly 
powerful weapons.
  In 1993, O'Leary told a news conference at the start of the openness 
process, ``The United States must stand as a leader. We are 
declassifying the largest amount of information in the history of our 
department.'' O'Leary also did away with a counterintelligence effort, 
security badges and effective security clearances. She eliminated all 
of these, as Mr. Weldon alluded to a few moments ago.
  Remember the promise to reinvent government? Remember that promise? 
Well, this is it. This administration reinvented our government policy 
towards its labs. You might say they turned our nuclear labs into a 
high-tech K-Mart, I guess in Arkansas you might say Wal-Mart, in terms 
of the giving away or making available to international missile 
technicians and spies information that we invested billions of dollars 
to develop.
  This was not a going-out-of-business sale on the part of the United 
States Government; this was a going-out-of-sanity sale on the part of 
the United States Government. Those who benefitted the most were the 
minions of the People's Republic of China, the Communist Chinese, our 
erstwhile constructive strategic partners.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from 
California and our colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who 
preceded us in the well of the House. If there have been two among the 
435 honored to serve in this chamber, it has been the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania and the gentleman from California who, together, have 
sounded the clarion call to the extent of the threat which affects our 
national security.
  Madam Speaker, I was honored earlier today to bring to this floor a 
measure that deals with the educational security of rural America, and 
it is worth noting that there was not a single member of this House 
present who voted against the legislation for the New Education Land 
Grant Act.
  Madam Speaker, I said at that time, this is an issue that affects us 
not as Republicans or as Democrats, but as Americans. Madam Speaker, 
the full House assembled worked its will in bipartisan fashion.
  How sad it is, Madam Speaker, to see what transpires in this town via 
smoke and mirrors and spin, when we are dealing with a problem that 
threatens the security of every American; to read in the Little Rock 
Democrat Gazette from one columnist that this is some form of red 
scare, to have those hurl verbal brickbats at a clear and present 
danger to the United States.
  As my colleague from California no doubt experienced during the 
district work period, Madam Speaker, I heard from countless 
constituents, from those who had borne the brunt of battle, from those 
who had worn the uniform of our country in peacetime and in war, from 
those who were concerned citizens, asking, what is this Chinese 
connection? What is this notion of a strategic partnership that would 
involve illegal political donations to those who would occupy our 
highest offices in the executive branch, what would possess business 
leaders to so jeopardize American security to grant technological 
prowess to the Communist China, and why would there be those within the 
administration who would turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the theft 
of our most precious secrets?

                              {time}  2300

  As my colleague from California pointed out, why would there be 
cabinet officials who had a curious notion of utopia who would open our 
national labs, expose our national secrets, create an environment in 
which an employee at Los Alamos could put on an

[[Page 12007]]

unsecured computer our legacy codes, the width and breadth of American 
nuclear knowledge and technological knowhow to fall into the hands of 
any foreign power, but especially the Communist Chinese?
  And how, Madam Speaker, could we have an Attorney General, given the 
number of wiretaps for national security that were authorized, fail to 
authorize the two wiretaps involving one Wen Ho Lee, the accused 
assailant who would surrender our nuclear secrets to the Communist 
Chinese?
  Again, Madam Speaker, as my colleague, the gentleman from California, 
as our friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, so eloquently pointed 
out, this is not a matter of being Republican or Democrat, this is not 
a matter of preening and posturing for the latest spin cycle.
  Indeed, Madam Speaker, this goes to the core of our national security 
and the security of every American family and our place in the world, 
and those who would oppose us and use our technology against us. That 
is what we deal with.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, perhaps the most disturbing part of 
this whole controversy is the response that we have had from people who 
are trying to protect the administration from being held accountable 
for certain things dealing with this controversy.
  For example, I heard in a committee hearing, those of us who were 
complaining about this were accused of vulgar partisanship, as if in 
bringing this up we were doing this out of partisan concerns.
  I certainly explained at that point that the only thing vulgar and 
the only vulgar partisanship going on was that certain people on the 
other side felt compelled to have to try to block those of us who were 
trying to investigate this, trying to hold those who have committed 
this sin against the American people accountable, claiming that we were 
being partisan in doing so.
  Even today we hear people who are apologists for this, and this has 
to be labeled a national security catastrophe of a magnitude that we 
have yet to experience. Even the Rosenberg catastrophe, where Josef 
Stalin got his hands on the first nuclear weapon, that was horrible, 
that was a bad thing. That affected the entire Cold War. It probably 
led to the war in Korea. But that probably was not as bad for our long-
term national security as what has happened here.
  But we are told even now by these people who are trying to say that, 
well, it is not really that bad, and how many times will we hear 
someone say, we spy, our allies spy, everybody spies, so how can we 
blame China? Yes, in a way, how can we blame China? We have to blame 
the incompetence or culpability of people in our government to let this 
happen.
  But let me point out, it is not the same when Great Britain or 
Belgium or Italy or a democratic country spies on us. If Great Britain 
were to receive these benefits of all of this research that we have had 
into these terrible weapons systems, no one would worry. It would not 
be a big problem. We would not like it, but it is a democratic country. 
Great Britain is not aiming its weapons at the United States. We cannot 
perceive and conceive of a situation where they will.
  But what we are talking about when someone says that, well, we spy, 
they spy, everybody spies, what they are talking about is a moral 
equivalency argument. This is the same moral equivalency argument that 
says there is nothing, no difference between a democracy and a vicious 
dictatorship.
  What this leads to is this, this leads to the type of actions that 
were taken by Mrs. O'Leary there at the beginning of the administration 
and probably consistent with the President's world theory that you can 
just shovel all this information out so every country can have it, 
regardless if they are a dictatorship or a democracy, and it will not 
make any difference.
  It is more likely, and this is the motive here if you have a moral 
equivalency argument, we can then let all of this information out and 
we can build a world authority, and perhaps that was the goal.
  Two things we should know about, moral equivalency and globalism. 
Moral equivalency and globalism, that is a formula for tyranny. It is a 
formula for the destruction of the United States of America. There is 
nothing morally equivalent about a democratic country that protects the 
rights of its people, permits people to worship as they see fit. And 
yes, we are not perfect, but we have freedom of speech, and where we 
have imperfections, we can work together and we can try to make things 
better. But when there is a corrupt official, those who complain are 
not shot, like they are in Communist China. They are not thrown into a 
Lao Gai prison system.
  There is no moral equivalency between dictatorship and a democratic 
government, especially the United States of America. It is this leftist 
concept that probably led Ms. O'Leary, Secretary O'Leary, to give this 
information out. Now it is being used right in front of our eyes to 
say, well, spies here, spies there, everybody spies. That is a 
fallacious argument.
  A country that is a dictatorship, unlike a country that is a 
democracy, cannot be a trusted partner of the United States and a 
friend of the United States. If we do so, if we put our faith in 
dictators and gangsters and people who commit these types of heinous 
abuses against their people, we will pay an awful price. We are paying 
that price today.
  Our administration continues to call it a strategic partner. I yield 
to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), and then I will give some 
reasons why China cannot be a strategic partner of the United States.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I would thank my colleague from 
California, who eloquently establishes the dynamic and the challenge 
which we confront as a Nation. Thank God that we are a constitutional 
republic with rights guaranteed by the first amendment.
  To those who would abridge those rights, to those who would turn a 
jaundiced eye to the abuses of others abroad, to those who would dare 
describe repressions, totalitarian regimes as strategic partners, it is 
time for a little straight talk.
  I know my colleague is familiar with the work of Bill Gertz, the 
Washington Times national security reporter who has authored a 
comprehensive evaluation of the extent to which our secrets have been 
stolen and leaked to hostile Nations. The name of the book is entitled 
``Betrayal.''
  I would say not only does Communist China present a problem, but 
North Korea, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, those nations with whom the 
Communist Chinese have shared the nuclear technology reaffirms the fact 
that even in this alleged post-Cold War era, the world remains a 
dangerous place.
  One other note I would point out to my colleague from California, 
Madam Speaker. When we assemble here in early January of the odd-
numbered year every 2 years to take our oath of office, we take our 
oath of office to the Constitution of the United States. We heard the 
President and Vice President take a similar oath, to uphold and defend 
the Constitution of the United States; not the U.N. charter, not the 
NATO charter, not a utopian notion of a strategic partnership, but our 
allegiance is to our Constitution, to our sovereignty and to our 
legitimate national interest.
  How tragic it is that it appears those national security interests 
have been bartered away for campaign contributions, or naively given 
away for global considerations.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I would like to go through a few 
reasons of why China is not our strategic partner. People have to 
understand, there is a lot of rhetoric about China being the worst 
human rights abuser. People do not understand the specifics of what we 
are talking about.
  What we have here is the world's largest dictatorship. According to 
Amnesty International, there are thousands of political prisoners who 
remain even today in the Lao Gai forced labor camps, which are a prison 
system where you have basically slave labor. Sometimes these are just, 
as we say, thousands of political prisoners who

[[Page 12008]]

are making some of these low-cost items, and this suit did not come 
from China.

                              {time}  2310

  But perhaps the suit worn by someone who is reading this 
Congressional Record or listening tonight is made in China. One must 
remember that that suit might have been made by someone who simply was 
a religious believer who was thrown into a prison system and forced for 
decades to work as a slave laborer because of his or her faith.
  There are at least 2,000 persons in prison for so-called 
counterrevolutionary crimes. Some 200 Tiananmen Square protesters, 
after 10 years, are still in prison for peacefully participating in pro 
democracy protests.
  During the past 2 months, the Chinese Communist government has issued 
new laws, this is just the last 2 months, that strengthen the Communist 
party and further restrict freedom of speech and the formation of 
political parties.
  Genocide continues in Tibet where hundreds of thousands have perished 
since the invasion of 1950. China's own statistics show that, during 
the 1959 freedom uprising in Tibet 87,000 Tibetans were ``eliminated.'' 
Today the Tibet Information Center in London cites at least 183 
political prisoners at the end of 1998, including 246 women. The 
Physicians of Human Rights have reported the brutal torture of Tibetan 
political prisoners by their Chinese jailers, and this torture by their 
Chinese jailers is rampant.
  The Chinese Government has recently issued a new law in Tibet 
eliminating religion in and promoting Marxism. This is the Chinese 
Government in Beijing that has kidnapped this young religious leader 
who would then take the seat of the Dalai Lama someday if he is still 
alive. What monstrous regime would take a little child who is nothing 
more than a pacifist religious loader, a figure of pacifism and a 
religion of Buddhism, and take him away and perhaps murder him.
  On May 29, the South China Morning Post Newspaper reported that, 
since March, Beijing has deployed extra troops to tighten control over 
Tibet. In addition, they have recruited former People's Liberation Army 
troops from China to migrate to Tibet to act as sort of a civil guard 
to assure China's control of Tibet by force.
  So here we are, here we are fighting and spending tens of billions of 
dollars to try to thwart ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, but we are calling 
the Communist Chinese regime our strategic partners when they are 
engaged in ethnic cleansing every bit as brutal and every bit as 
tyrannical as what is going on in Kosovo.
  When some people claim that China is not a threat to its neighbors, 
they conveniently forget that when Mao Tse Tung conquered China in 
1950, Tibet was a sovereign country with its own language, its own 
religion, and its own culture. There is no difference, as I say, 
between China's occupation and the genocide of Tibet than Japan's 
brutal occupation and the ethnic cleansing of Manchuria in the 1930s.
  The United States tried to pretend at that time in the 1930s that the 
Japanese were not committing an aggression. They had hoped that by 
trade and finance that the Japanese would be able to be turned, that 
the presence of Japanese students at our colleagues and universities, 
that dancing the Charleston would help the Japanese turn a different 
way, that Japan would be our friend with this type of engagement.
  In 1941, these delusions lead to the tragedy of Pearl Harbor. Given 
the lethal power of today's weapons of mass destruction, we would not 
have the luxury of months to build up our Navy and our military and our 
Air Force to respond to a devastating surprise attack by China's so-
called asymmetrical warfare plans.
  In the Xinjiang region, in the far regions known as East Turkestan, 
that is Xinjiang, the suppression of religion, and that is the Muslim 
religion and political arrests and executions parallel the systematic 
brutality in Tibet.
  In 1999, Amnesty International documented 190 executions of political 
prisoners in that province after unfair and summary trials. The report 
also cites 200 political prisoners known to be detained at this time 
with arbitrary arrests continuing.
  Whether it is Tibet or in East Turkestan, while the local populations 
continue to decline, part through forced abortion, part through 
sterilization, ethnic Chinese, as I have stated, the ethnic Chinese are 
moving in. Hordes of them are coming in and establishing these areas as 
colonies, as resource-rich territories.
  China is making major military moves, not only on the continent of 
Asia, but is moving towards places like the Spratley Islands, bullying 
our regional democratic allies, such as the Philippines and Indonesia, 
and threatening the vital sea lanes of the South China Sea.
  There are some people who claim that it is wrong to compare the 
Communist Chinese to Hitler and the Natzis. I agree maybe that that 
comparison is not right. But I do believe that there is a more accurate 
comparison; and that is, the Communist Chinese should be compared to 
the militaristic regimes in the Japanese era of the 1920s, perhaps the 
regimes of Tojo and Yamamoto.
  What was the goal of the Japanese in the 1920s? They believed 
themselves to be racially superior. They believed they had a right to 
dominate Asia and to conquer the Pacific. It is ironic that, in less 
than 10 years before the attack in Pearl Harbor, that Admiral Yamamoto 
attended graduate school in the United States at Harvard University and 
as a student in the United States was made aware of many American 
military strategies.
  The Spratley Islands lie close to the coast of the Philippines, 
Malaysia, and Indonesia. China is now building fortifications on these 
atolls and reefs while it builds up a blue water navy and a submarine 
force.
  Ironically, there has been no militarization of these islands, the 
Spratley Islands, since the Japanese used them as stationery aircraft 
carriers during the early stages of World War II. The Spratleys were 
turned in at that time, they were turned into military bases in 
preparation to invade the Philippines.
  It was incredibly eerie last December, on the eve of Pearl Harbor 
Day, when my special assistance Al Santoli and my good friend Jeff 
Baxter toured the battlefield and the tunnels of Corrigedor right 
outside of Manila. And on this pleasant tropical mountainous island, 
American military men and women held out as their ammunition ran out 
and they held out against overwhelming Japanese occupation force. In 
fact, my wife's Uncle Lou was captured by the Japanese in the 
Philippines. He was part of the Bataan Death March where he saw 
innocent civilians being bayoneted and horrible human rights abuses and 
abuses and horrible things that happened to those American prisoners.
  That was what happened because of our policy in the 1920s, ignoring 
what was going on in Japan. That was our policy of engagement with the 
Japanese, just as our policy is now to the Communist Chinese; and they 
have the same dream the Japanese had, dominating Asia and the Pacific 
basin.
  Two days later after my visit to Corrigedor, my friends and I, 
including Filipino Congressman Roy Golez, a graduate of the U.S. Naval 
Academy flew over the Spratley Islands in an antiquated Philippine air 
force C-130, which is around 150 miles from the Philippines over to the 
South China Sea.
  We dropped out of a thick monsoon cloud cover to about 500 feet over 
the Spratleys over an outcropping called Mischief Reef. In that lagoon 
at Mischief Reef, within this oval-shaped reef, there were three large 
Chinese warships. I witnessed hundreds of Chinese construction workers 
with sparks flying off their welding torches, building permanent 
military structures on that reef 150 miles off the coast of the 
Philippines, and bracketing the South China Sea and all of the routes, 
the trading routes that go through there. Half or three-quarters of the 
Japanese trade goes through those areas, that trading route, that 
waterway.

[[Page 12009]]

  Within 2 months after that flight, Congressman Golez sent me new 
photos showing me a three-story Chinese concrete command and control 
building on the very site that we overflew. This grab of territory and 
this bullying of the Philippines is a warning we ignore at our own 
peril.
  Again, it is time to fundamentally change our policies toward the 
Communist Chinese government that controls the mainland of China. We 
are not talking about isolating China. Those claiming that we are 
trying to isolate China are setting up a false dichotomy. We are 
talking about a rational policy towards a hostile dictatorship, not an 
isolationist policy of ignoring overseas threats.
  In fact, those of us who are advocating to have a strong and forceful 
policy toward China, we are exactly the opposite of those who want to 
overlook Communist Chinese aggressions.

                              {time}  2320

  Those are the ones who are more akin to the isolationists of the 
past. In fact, they are relying on wishful thinking instead of making 
the tough decisions that are necessary to avert war. We are the 
realists. We are not isolationists. We are the ones who are asking for 
a policy that makes sense when confronting a dictatorship. And 
dictators do not respect weakness. They respect strength, they respect 
purpose, they respect people who watch out for their own interests.
  I introduced a resolution, as my colleague is aware. I introduced 
this resolution yesterday and it is a resolution of disapproving the 
annual extension of normal trade relations, formerly Most Favored 
Nation status, and we would disapprove that. That is what my resolution 
states. And this is not intended to isolate China. Instead, it sends 
Beijing a direct message that the United States will not stand by and 
let them bully their neighbors and we will stand, instead, for our own 
Democratic principles, and we will protect the economic as well as the 
military interests of our country.
  And when we talk about our country, we are not just talking about a 
small business elite, a clique of billionaires who make a short-term 
profit at a time when the economic policies are hurting us economically 
and the military consequences are overwhelming.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and I 
am particularly pleased to be here with my good friend in the Speaker's 
chair. I do not speak often on the floor, and I welcome the chance to 
come down today.
  I, in particular, was sitting in my office listening this evening to 
the discussion on the floor and I thought of the Cox report that I have 
been reading, traveling back and forth to my district, and in volume I, 
on page XXIV, it talks about the basis from the Reagan years for the 
reaching out to China; that having been a decision on our part here in 
the United States to use our relationship with the People's Republic of 
China as a strategic offset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union and 
also to buttress our ability to launch space-based vehicles.
  The determination of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
and as noted here in the Cox report, again on page XXIV in volume I, is 
that that decision, contrary to what people might hear bandied about by 
many of our colleagues, no longer is applicable; that the consequence 
or the necessity of having Red China as an offset to the Soviet Union 
no longer exists because the Soviet Union no longer exists. So the 
strategic underpinning of our commercial interaction with China has 
evaporated.
  The reason I bring that up, is that in that same document, on XVIII, 
it talks about two companies in particular who have engaged in 
significant commercial interaction with the PRC, having to do with 
their missile defense and development programs, those being Hughes and 
Loral, and I just wanted to read to my colleagues some of the verbiage 
that was agreed upon by the bipartisan China commission that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) chaired, for the record, having to 
do with multiple independent reentry vehicles; having to do with 
accident investigation techniques; having to do with testing, modeling 
and simulation, hardware design and manufacture of these ballistic 
missiles.
  I quote. ``In both 1993 and '95, Hughes failed to apply for or obtain 
the required Department of State licenses for its activities, because 
Hughes knew that the Department of State would be unlikely to grant the 
license and that the licensing process would in any case be lengthy.''
  It goes on to say, and keep in mind this is a bipartisan unanimous 
report, ``Hughes also engaged in deliberate efforts to circumvent the 
Department of State licensing requirement.''
  Now, this is the part that I almost went myself ballistic on the 
airplane over. ``To this end, Hughes sought the approval of a 
Department of Commerce official for its 1995 activities and claims to 
have sought the approval of a Department of Defense monitor for some of 
its 1993 activities, although Hughes knew that neither official was 
legally authorized to issue the required license.'' They knew.
  This goes on. And it is not just Hughes, it was also Loral. Same 
page, page XIX, volume I of the Cox report, and these are not my words, 
this is a bipartisan unanimous writing of the report, ``Loral and 
Hughes deliberately acted without the legally required license and 
violated U.S. export control laws.'' This has to do with our most 
sensitive equipment, dealing with intercontinental ballistic missiles, 
targeted potentially on the United States.
  Where does this lead? Where does this lead? Where is the 
administration? Again, this is not put out with any singularity. This 
is a bipartisan report, a unanimously accepted report of the Cox 
commission.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time for a moment, Madam Speaker, the 
first point the gentleman made, one would understand that. During the 
Cold War, when we were in a contest with the Soviet Union, we used the 
China card. We played the China card. And, yes, just like during World 
War II, when we allied ourselves with Joseph Stalin in order to defeat 
Adolf Hitler, which was the major threat to peace and freedom at that 
time, that was a moral thing to do. We were allying ourselves with one 
bad group in order to defeat a greater threat. It was okay to defeat 
Adolf Hitler by working with the communists, but after Adolf Hitler was 
off the scene and defeated, it was no longer the right thing to do 
working with the communists. That is number one.
  When Ronald Reagan was President of the United States and continued 
to have this policy of working with China, because the Soviet Union was 
still our enemy, even then we were supporting a democracy movement in 
China. We were supporting those people who were struggling to build a 
free China. That is why there was a great surge of democracy at the end 
of the Reagan administration. And at Tiananmen Square, which, of 
course, happened right after Reagan left office, there was this great 
upsurge of democracy in China, and within a few months they were 
massacred. They were massacred at Tiananmen Square, which was just 10 
years ago.
  But let me go to this point about the companies that my colleague 
from California is talking about. I am the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Space and Aeronautics of the Committee on Science, and it was the 
activities of several of these American aerospace companies that first 
led me several years ago to investigate this issue.
  I spent 6 months of my life investigating that American companies 
were upgrading communist Chinese rockets. Perhaps my friend from 
Arizona remembers me stopping on the floor and saying something 
terrible is going on here and I am looking into it. I went around 
telling people, ``I investigated this. I went to the contractors and 
subcontractors.'' And, finally, I got enough information to prove 
exactly what the Cox report has verified and there was an official 
investigation launched by the Cox report.
  But what is significant here is these companies are part of an 
engagement

[[Page 12010]]

strategy. My colleagues have to remember we have set down the rules for 
these companies to go into China. The idea is that engagement will make 
China more liberal and will then pose less of a threat to the United 
States. But what are we reading? What is the gentleman telling us? What 
that report verifies is this policy has had the opposite impact. In a 
horrible way it has made us vulnerable like we never dreamed we would 
be vulnerable. Our children now are in jeopardy to be incinerated by 
these high-tech weapon systems we spent billions of dollars to develop. 
We could not have imagined that in our worst nightmare. It has been a 
wrong policy. We have to go back and reexamine it. We have to change 
that policy.
  And what has it done? It has made us less safe over here. It has not 
been good for us economically. Our companies are setting up factories 
over there to put our own people out of work. It is corrupting our own 
political process.

                              {time}  2330

  Those same companies and other companies are lobbying us. They are 
not over in China lobbying for democracy. They are lobbying us. They 
are giving us contributions in order to protect their slave trade and 
their blood money.
  I yield to my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleagues from California. I thank our new 
Member of the Congress for his perceptive abilities to go right to the 
bipartisan report and get to the heart of the matter. And as my more 
senior colleague from California points out, as I sit and hear my two 
friends reflect on this obscenity committed against our constitutional 
republic, I cannot help as a student of history step back and realize 
how prophetic were the words of our 34th President, Dwight David 
Eisenhower, in his farewell address when he told us to be mindful of 
the military-industrial complex, of those whose allegiance to our 
Nation could be subverted. And we have seen it in the case of Hughes 
and Loral, in the case of Loral, Bernard Schwartz, the top contributor 
to the Democratic National Committee, and it is tragic that this 
transpired. But facts are stubborn things. And to look beyond that, to 
the words of the bipartisan report, that these companies willfully 
circumvented American law and, Madam Speaker, this points out an 
affliction, a cancer that is infecting the body politic, when we have 
those who have sworn to uphold and execute our laws who refuse to 
enforce the law and apparently have broken those laws.
  My colleague from California, in the candor for which he is renowned, 
pointed a portion of the culpability at the Congress. But the 
inescapable fact remains that at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, 
there are those who willfully, willingly sought the contributions of a 
foreign power, of those who are not citizens of the United States, of 
those who are not eligible to participate in our political system to 
gain political victory.
  At this point, Madam Speaker, we must ask, what price political 
victory? The betrayal of our most sensitive technologies to put in 
harm's way the very children the President of the United States spoke 
of at this podium in his State of the Union address 2 years ago when he 
came here and bragged to the Congress of the United States that no 
American child lived or went to sleep that night under the threat of 
Russian missiles? What price victory, Madam Speaker? What price 
victory? When those who swear to uphold and defend the Constitution 
against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and provide for the common 
defense would allow such a perversion of priorities today to the point 
where we have not only the Communist Chinese but the outlaw nation that 
is North Korea and the extremist states of Iraq and Iran and the others 
who now possess nuclear technology and have within their grasp the 
ability to harm virtually every American family.
  These are questions that cause great unease. There is no partisan 
glee to this. But the strength of our constitutional republic 
throughout our history has been that we heed the call and understand 
the threats and understand the dangers. And we stand again, Madam 
Speaker, at that very juncture. How tragic the circumstance. But how 
compelling the call to action for this Congress and for the American 
people.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time for a moment, let me just state 
that the fight on this issue will be over normal trade relations. If we 
again renew normal trade relations with Communist China, this body is 
going to send the signal to not only Communist China but to the world 
that we are backing away, that we do not have the will to protect our 
interests, we do not have the will to be the world's leader, we do not 
have the will to even protect our own national interests and our own 
national security. All those who are listening, all those people, 
American people who are out in the hinterland wondering what can I do, 
what can we do, there are policies that we have to make. The Cox report 
outlined things that we have to do. First and foremost, we have to quit 
treating Communist China as if it is a friend, as if it is like Great 
Britain or a democratic society. First and foremost, we have to quit 
calling it our strategic partner, quit acting like it is our friend and 
we have to recognize that it is a hostile power. As a hostile power, we 
do not have their scientists combing through our laboratories, we do 
not have exchange programs with their military which I found out they 
were having exchange programs with our military. We were inviting them 
here, have been having them here to see how our military conducts its 
business and to train their own military in logistics and how to run 
military operations. We have got to quit treating them that way. We 
have to build a missile defense system. We have got to do it. We have 
now given them the ability to incinerate our people. Our only hope is 
to make sure that we rush ahead with technology development to protect 
them now that that genie is out of the bottle. We have got to make sure 
that the United States of America ends the trading relationship that 
gives the Communist Chinese $60 billion in hard currency.
  The Communist Chinese, these people who run Beijing, they understand 
what is going on. At the end of the year, they have $60 billion in hard 
currency to do with what they want, to modernize their weapons, to make 
alliances with dictators and gangsters and drug lords all over the 
world, $60 billion in hard currency to destroy us. We have got to end 
the rules of the game that gives them that $60 billion. By the way, it 
is not a free trade situation. The Chinese have high tariffs against 
any American products that we want to sell there. And we have permitted 
them to have those high tariffs while their goods flood into the United 
States at low tariffs. Is this good for American working people? No. In 
fact, what is happening when you hear about we have about $14 billion 
where they say, ``They bought $14 billion worth of goods from us.'' But 
if you look at what those goods are, those are mainly technologies and 
manufacturing units, so that we are building up their capabilities, 
their military capabilities and their manufacturing capabilities with 
that $14 billion, while they flood into our market with about $80 
billion worth of goods and services which they sell to us with almost 
no tariff. So, in other words, when they talk about, ``We can't isolate 
China, we have to trade with them,'' they are not selling our products 
over there, they are building factories over there and they are doing 
it by closing factories here. And here is the real stinger, which I 
mentioned earlier. Most-favored-nation status or normal trade 
relations, as they say, what does that really mean in terms of 
government policy? The real impact of it is, because even if we do not 
pass it, people can still sell things, we are not saying you cannot 
sell things to China, all it means is if someone is going to set up a 
factory in China, he has to do so at his own risk. When he takes his 
money over there, he does not get a subsidized loan from the Export-
Import Bank, or the IMF or the Asian Pacific Bank or any of these other 
multitude of financial institutions that receive U.S. taxpayer funds. 
All we are talking about is cutting off

[[Page 12011]]

these big businessmen from having their investments guaranteed by the 
taxpayers and these very same taxpayers are having their jobs taken 
away because they are setting up factories in China to export back to 
the United States.
  Now, who has it been good for? Who has this economic policy been good 
for? It has not been good for our security, we have already shown that. 
My colleague from California demonstrated that these companies ended up 
doing, what, doing something that strategically national security-wise 
is a nightmare, so it is not good for our national security. It is not 
good for us economically. They say, ``Oh, look at our big economic 
boom.'' Well, our good, big economic boom, yes, why do these Americans 
have to be investing overseas in Communist China for us to have a boom? 
They could invest in a democratic country like the Philippines, for 
example, they need investment there. No, they are investing in 
Communist China because they can cut one deal with a gangster and they 
think they are going to get a quick profit.
  So who has it been good for? It has not been good for our country, 
for our economy, for the working people. It has been good for a few 
billionaires. I call them Bill's billionaire buddies. That is who this 
China policy has been good for. We have got to have the courage to 
sever ourselves from the policies of the past and fundamentally 
reexamine those policies and strategies, not for isolation, not for 
isolation. We want engagement, yes, just the way we would engage Adolf 
Hitler or Tojo or someone like that. We engaged them in a way that 
showed them courage and determination and engaged them only in a way 
that would benefit the people of the United States and the security of 
the United States, not in a way that would make them think that we were 
whimpering cowards.

                              {time}  2340

  At the end of the day, when the President of the United States goes 
to Beijing and says, or Madeleine Albright goes to Beijing and mouths 
some cliche about human rights or talks about, oh, you have got to have 
a better trade barrier, lower those trade barriers, you got to do this, 
you got to quit persecuting Christians, you got to quit doing these 
things that get our Congressmen mad at you; the Chinese dictators, 
these gangsters, take that as a sign that we do not believe in a darned 
thing. They take that as a sign that even our President and even our 
leaders care more about these billionaires than they do about the 
American people and the national security.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The time of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has expired.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
the time until the top of the hour when we have to, by the rules of the 
House, adjourn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) for the remainder of the time until the top of the hour.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Illinois 
in the Chair, and I thank her for the adroit manner in which she is 
administering the rules of the House this evening, and I thank her for 
the indulgence to continue this conversation with my two colleagues 
from California until the top of the hour, which will be 9 p.m. in the 
Western States from whence we hail.
  But, Madam Speaker, it is worth noting that our words and 
observations tonight carry to the American people not a paranoia, not a 
panic, but a clear, strong resolve that at long last those of us who 
are given the constitutional authority to provide for the common 
defense understand the clear and present danger that confronts our 
constitutional Republic.
  We take no glee in it, we wish it were not so. But as former 
President Reagan said, facts are stubborn things, and as my junior 
colleague from California points out and the bipartisan words of the 
Cox committee report, there are disturbing conclusions drawn that force 
us to reassess our national security, that force us to reassess our 
trade policy, that force us to reassess the affairs of state that 
ofttimes come under the heading of foreign policy.
  The challenges are real. No amount of spin, no amount of economic 
prosperity, no amount of lip-biting and empathy can obscure them from 
any quarter. And again we offer this because, as I was taught again 
during our district work period when I had the chance to stand 
alongside veterans in Flagstaff, Arizona, when more than 200 residents 
of that city came together to commemorate the sacrifices of our war 
dead, I was reminded that the words of our Constitution are more than 
verbiage strewn on parchment. They are a living, breathing part of us 
as a people, and we dare not, we dare not ignore our duties and our 
responsibilities. And citizen after citizen came to me expressing their 
real concerns.
  Oh, we do not hear about them from the 24-hour news networks, we do 
not hear about them except in scant effort by the three major news 
network anchors, but the American people understand that Abraham 
Lincoln, whom history predestined would preside over the most divisive 
bloody conflict in our history, understood full well that the American 
people, once fully informed, would make the correct decision; and our 
role is to fully inform and to answer this threat and this cause.
  And I am so pleased that our colleague from California joins us in 
his first term that he brings this report; and I would note, Madam 
Speaker, that those who may hear these words can gain access to the Cox 
committee report via my office Web site, and I think my colleague from 
California has more he would like to share from that report and other 
observations.
  I would yield to him at this time.
  Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, it is ironic that we find ourselves here 
talking about rocket scientists, because under no circumstances do I 
pretend to be a rocket scientist. However I think, like so many things 
we are involved in, whether it be running our families with our spouses 
or raising our children or running our businesses, the devil of doing 
anything is in the details that are involved. And I want to run through 
a few things that are in the Cox report in particular related to what 
used to be the United States' quantitative and qualitative edge in 
technology and what damage has occurred as a result of the loss of 
these secrets.
  As many people know, the United States has continually improved its 
ability to deliver intercontinental ballistic missiles, whether it be 
telemetry or design or payloads or what have you; year after year after 
year, compared to the situations in other countries where the 
technology available, for instance to the People's Republic of China or 
others, was either based on 1950s design or was wholly unavailable, 
period. And the reason these things are so important and particularly 
related to the most current news we hear about the loss of secrets from 
Los Alamos and other laboratories is that the design warheads and the 
manner in which they are delivered are significantly improved, both in 
terms of payload and efficiency, by virtue of having one country steal 
from us that technology that we have created by virtue of investment 
over tens of years and billions of dollars.
  For instance, what used to be our technology in the 1950s could 
deliver arguably a relatively small payload accurately. Over the years 
we have been able to create technology and implement technology that 
allows us to shrink the size of our warheads, improve the delivery 
system on a ballistic missile basis and put multiple warheads in a 
single delivery system as opposed to one warhead per delivery.
  The tragedy of the theft of these secrets is that our ostensible 
trading partners now possess the same ability, as compared to as few as 
10 years ago, in the late 1980s, when they were totally incapable, 
incapable of delivering that kind of a weapon on the United States. And 
the reason that is important is that, as we go forward, as the House 
wishes and has adopted with its national ballistic missile defense 
plan, as we go forward, putting that in place, if we have a missile 
come to our shores

[[Page 12012]]

with multiple, independent reentry vehicles, the difficulty of 
preventing those weapons from detonating are multiplied 
logarithmically. It is not arithmetic, it is not geometric, it is 
logarithmic because our ostensible trading partners, instead of having 
again one warhead per missile have shrunk the size of their warheads 
and loaded multiple warheads onto the missile, and as they come back 
into the atmosphere, will release them on target.
  This is something that affects every single one of us. It has nothing 
to do with economic trade in my opinion. This is a national security 
issue, and it is of great concern to me on this issue, as it has been, 
as you both know and as many of the others know here as to our 
intervention in Yugoslavia, that we, number one, are ignoring the 
national security interests in the case of these ballistic missiles and 
the information that has been stolen relative to technology and the 
like in one case, and we are unable to identify a national security 
interest in another case, that being Yugoslavia.

                              {time}  2350

  So the gentleman from Arizona's comment is well made about how to get 
access to this. I am sure that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) 
has it on his web site. I would encourage every American to at least 
read the forward summary in volume 1. It is frightening information. It 
is emblematic of the difficulty that we face and the dangers we face in 
the real world today.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. In fact, I thank my colleague for his comments.
  Madam Speaker, I would invite every member of this House, with the 
technological capabilities we all enjoy, to post this unanimous 
bipartisan report on their individual web sites so that, Madam Speaker, 
those in this country who are citizens, who are concerned, can have 
access to this information, full and unfettered, so that they 
understand the extent to which our national security has been 
jeopardized.
  I yield to my more senior colleague from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think we have certainly outlined tonight the 
magnitude of the problem, and my colleague from California has 
demonstrated that what we are talking about is the survival or the 
incineration of millions of Americans. I mean, again, it is worse than 
our worst nightmare could possibly have been 10 and 20 years ago. No 
one could ever have imagined that this would come about.
  But I worked for a guy in the White House who always said that what 
is important is not just to focus on the problem, but to make sure you 
always offer a solution, and then look towards the opportunities that 
you have. So I would just like for a couple of minutes talk about the 
options that we have and just say, what are they?
  Number one, first and foremost, we have to start off with a missile 
defense system. We have to move forward with missile defense. As my 
colleague from California just mentioned, it is going to be a lot 
harder now, because they not only have a missile with one warhead, and 
a missile that was pretty unreliable, but, thanks to some American 
companies using technology that we paid for, we paid for it, taxpayers 
developed that technology to protect us during the Cold War, now it has 
been given away and stolen and actually sold by our major corporate 
leaders, some of these major corporate leaders. So we have to go 
forward with missile defense, do it seriously, and do it as if the 
lives of our children depend upon it.
  Number two, we have to work closely and reestablish close ties and a 
trusting relationship with the democracies of the Pacific and Asia and 
the Philippines, Japan, Korea and Thailand, which no longer trust in 
the word of the United States, which see us kowtowing before this 
communist dictatorship in Beijing. The democratic peoples of the world 
have to know they can count on the United States, and especially in 
that area in Asia and the Pacific region.
  Again, we must go back to Communist China and we must alter our 
fundamental relationship, quit treating them as a friend and begin 
treating them as a hostile power, which means no more military 
exchanges, no more scientific exchanges, and especially no more 
subsidies for our businessmen going over there to invest and building 
up their economy and their capabilities technologically to build these 
weapons you are talking about. It is one thing to have the blueprints. 
It is another thing to have the machine tools and the computer 
technology in order to accomplish that.
  We can start, first of all, doing this by eliminating their ability 
to have an unfair trade relationship with us, by supporting my 
resolution of disapproval of normal trade relations in the next couple 
of weeks, which is going to come before the body.
  The American people, all of the veterans you saw and that I saw and 
you saw in your Memorial Day services, veterans from around the United 
States, should be here pounding on doors, demanding, demanding that we 
eliminate most-favored-nation status, that normal trade status with 
China be denied.
  This should be a goal of the American Legion and the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars. Patriotic organizations around the United States in the 
next two weeks should mobilize behind this and knock on every 
Congressman's door, and they will listen if the American people speak. 
Money talks maybe in these campaign contributions, but in a democracy 
the voice of the people talk louder, and we can be glad we live in a 
country where the people's will will be heard. We must invest in 
democracies and invest in democracy.
  What that means is this: How did Ronald Reagan win the Cold War 
without having to fight with the Soviet Union? We faced the same type 
of incineration, by the way, you are talking about, with the Soviet 
Union. The Soviet Union had MIRVed warheads too, did they not? They 
were a horrible threat to our well-being. For decades we lived under 
that threat.
  Ronald Reagan ended it in a number of ways. He rebuilt our military 
strength, which is something we need to do, not only missile defense. 
But what he did, most importantly, was support those people who believe 
in democracy around the world, whether it was in Nicaragua, where 
eventually the Nicaraguan freedom fighters, who people on the other 
side of the aisle did everything they could to prevent us from helping 
those people they called the Contras, and eventually there was a free 
election in Nicaragua, and those communists, the Sandinistas, were 
booted out, even though our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
said they represent the real will of the Nicaraguan people.
  If we support democracy around the world, and that means especially 
in China, we should be financing and working just like we did with Lech 
Walesa in Poland and freedom movements, what Ronald Reagan did all over 
the world. We should focus on China as if our very national survival 
depended on us reaching out to the decent freedom-loving people of 
China. If any message goes out tonight, it should be Communist China, 
Communist China, may be our enemy. That regime of gangsters may be our 
enemy.
  But our greatest ally, our greatest ally, is the people of China. The 
Chinese people are our friends. They are wonderful people. They long 
for the same type of human dignity and freedom and liberty and justice 
and opportunity for their families that we long for for our families. 
They do not hate the United States. They are not our enemies. We have 
to do everything to work for the freedom-loving people and build up 
that democracy movement that was wiped out by the Communist Chinese 
once Ronald Reagan left office.
  Let us work with them and build Radio Free Asia. Let us support the 
freedom movement. It is what is true to our principles. Do not let 
anybody say we are anti-Asian, anti-Chinese. We are not. We are pro-
freedom, and we believe that freedom is the right of every person of 
every color of every religion and every ethnic background. That is our 
strength.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, one can almost anticipate the reflexes 
action of those who man the spin cycles elsewhere in the sectors of 
this

[[Page 12013]]

capital city, those cacophony of critics that we are certain to hear.
  A couple of notes should be acknowledged as we conclude this time on 
the House floor. I thank both of my colleagues.
  Number one, it is not enough to say everybody does this, for, if that 
were the case, we would blame Lyndon Johnson for the John Walker Navy 
espionage spy ring that began operation in the late 1960s.
  No, the analogy may be somewhat quaint, but I think it is 
appropriate. It is one thing to lock your windows and doors and set an 
alarm and go on vacation and have folks cut that alarm off, somehow 
circumvent that system, come into what you thought was your secured 
home and steal your secrets.
  It is quite another thing for your neighbor next door to meet the 
truck of the would-be burglars, to let them in the House, to help them 
find your most valuable possessions, and then to disavow any knowledge 
of that action. And that is just how simple and just how sad the 
current dilemma we face in fact presents itself.
  A couple of final notes. It is sad that this administration has 
worked at cross-purposes. It has, on the one hand, deployed American 
forces to more locations than any other administration in the post 
World War II era, and, at the same time, it has denied the efforts of 
this common-sense conservative Congress to provide for our national 
defense, to provide the weapons systems, to provide the manpower and 
material. So you have a situation where there is work at cross 
purposes.
  Worse still, the actions of this Congress to provide a missile 
defense system at long last after the news of the Chinese theft, those 
on the left joined us in bipartisan fashion, and yet this President in 
subsequent correspondence has, pointed out by our majority leader, 
sought to reassure the Chinese that we would not mount a missile 
defense system.
  Madam Speaker, the American people deserve better. It should be the 
mission of this Congress to make sure we provide for the common 
defense.

                          ____________________