[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8555-8556]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           VOTE AGAINST PNTR

  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues 
William Safire's editorial from today's New York Times. Today, Mr. 
Safire writes that before Richard Nixon died, Mr. Safire had a 
conversation with Nixon about China. Safire asked Nixon if he had gone 
a bit overboard on selling the American public on the political 
benefits of the China deal. Nixon replied that he was not as hopeful as 
he had once been, saying, ``We may have created a Frankenstein.''
  They are telling words from Richard Nixon, the person responsible for 
the so-called engagement, which has resulted in more espionage against 
our government, the arrest of Catholic bishops and persecution of 
people of faith. On his deathbed, Nixon, the architect for our present 
China policy said, ``We may have created a Frankenstein.''
  The passage of PNTR will feed this Frankenstein that will come to 
haunt this country and haunt this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you William Safire's 
editorial from today's New York Times.
  Today, Mr. Safire writes that before Richard Nixon died, Mr. Safire 
had a conversation with Nixon about China. Safire asked Nixon if they 
had gone a bit overboard on selling the American public on the 
political benefits of their China deal. Nixon replied that he was not 
as hopeful as he had once been, saying ``We may have created a 
Frankenstein.''
  We may have created a Frankenstein. These are telling words coming 
from Nixon, the person most responsible for supposed American 
``engagement'' with China . . . an engagement that over the past 30 
years has refused to engage the Chinese with their gross human rights 
abuses, its espionage against the U.S., its proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction, its plundering of Tibet.
  On his deathbed, Nixon, the architect for our present China policy 
said ``We may have created a Frankenstein.''
  Congress can prevent this Frankenstein from further atrocities and 
bad actions by voting against giving China permanent normal trade 
relations.

                            The Biggest Vote

                          (By William Safire)

       Washington.--The most far-reaching vote any representative 
     will cast this year will take place next week. It will be on 
     the bill to permanently guarantee that Congress will have no 
     economic leverage to restrain China's internal repression of 
     dissidents or external aggression against Taiwan.
       Bill Clinton, architect of the discredited ``strategic 
     partnership'' with Beijing, is lobbying for H.R. 4444 as part 
     of his legacy thing. His strange bedfellow is the G.O.P. 
     leadership, fairly slavering at the prospect of heavy 
     contributions from U.S. companies that want to profit from 
     building up China's industrial and electronic strength.
       Clinton has been purchasing Democratic votes one by one. 
     The latest convert to pulling the U.S. teeth is Charles 
     Rangel of New York, who was seduced by last week's 
     legislation to benefit African workers at the expense of 
     Chinese laborers in sweatshops at slave wages. He is the 
     ranking Democrat on Ways and Means, which yesterday voted to 
     send the any-behavior-goes bill to the House floor.
       The president's tactics include frightening Americans with 
     ``dangerous confrontation and constant insecurity'' from 
     angry China if his appeasement is not passed.
       He also divides American farmers from workers with his 
     mantra, ``exports mean jobs.'' Of course they do; in the past 
     decade, our trade deficit with China has ballooned from $7 
     billion to $70 billion. That means China's exports to the 
     U.S. have created hundreds of thousands of jobs--in China. 
     Clinton's trade deficit is certainly not creating net jobs 
     for Americans.
       His trade negotiator, Charlene Barshefsky, has become 
     increasingly shrill, turning truth on its head this week by 
     telling Lally Weymounth of The Washington Post that 
     ``organized labor, human rights advocates

[[Page 8556]]

     and some environmentalists have aligned themselves with the 
     Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want 
     accession for China.''
       Not to be outdone in twisting the truth and kowtowing to 
     Communists, Republican investors and the Asia establishment 
     assure us that only by abandoning yearly review of China's 
     rights abuses and diplomatic conduct can we encourage 
     democracy there.
       I confess to writing speeches for Richard Nixon assuring 
     conservatives that trade with China would lead to the 
     evolution of democratic principles in Beijing. But we've been 
     trading for 30 years now, financing its military-industrial 
     base, enabling it to buy M-11 missiles from the Russians and 
     advanced computer technology from us.
       Has our strengthening of their regime brought political 
     freedom? Ask the Falun Gong, jailed by the thousands for 
     daring to organize; as the Tibetans, their ancient culture 
     destroyed and nation colonized; ask the Taiwanese, who face 
     an escalation of the military threat against them after the 
     U.S. Congress spikes its cannon of economic retaliation.
       Before Nixon died, I asked him--on the record--if perhaps 
     we had gone a bit overboard on selling the American public on 
     the political benefits of increased trade. That old realist, 
     who had played the China card to exploit the split in the 
     Communist world, replied with some sadness that he was not as 
     hopeful as he had once been: ``We may have created a 
     Frankenstein.''
       (I was on the verge of correcting him that Dr. Frankenstein 
     was the creator, and that he meant ``Frankenstein's 
     monster,'' but I bit my tongue.)
       To provide a face-saver for Democrats uncomfortable with 
     forever removing Scoop Jackson's economic pressure, Clinton's 
     bipartisan allies have cooked up a toothless substitute: a 
     committee to cluck-cluck loudly when China cracks down and 
     acts up. We already have a State Department annual report 
     that does that, to no effect on a China whose transgressions 
     have always been waived.
       Human rights advocates know the smart money in Washington 
     is betting on the appeasers. Our only hope is that the 
     undecideds in Congress consider that unemployment in their 
     districts will not always be under 4 percent, and that when 
     recession or aggression bites, voters will not forget who 
     threw away economic restraints on China.

                          ____________________

                              {time}  2015