Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, Tuesday, the New York Times stated that the State Department would issue its first report on the worldwide persecution of Christians and this report would be sharply critical of China. That report was, in fact, released this past Wednesday, and I urge all of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to read this report. This is the same report that the State Department originally promised to release to Congress on January 15, over 6 months ago. It is the same report that the State Department promised to release by the end of June, and the same report that the State Department promised to release before the House voted on China's most-favored-nation trading status. On June 18 of this year, my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and I sent a letter to both the President and to the Secretary of State, expressing our grave concerns about recent reports that suggested that the State Department was deliberately delaying the release of its findings on religious persecution throughout the world. It was my understanding that this report placed a specific focus on the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities around the world, and that the report singled out China for especially tough criticism. It is, in fact, the case, as the report has been issued and as I have surveyed that report, that that criticism is even more scathing than what had been anticipated. As I have stated on this floor many times, the 1996 State Department's human rights report on China revealed that the Chinese authorities had effectively stepped up efforts to suppress expressions of criticism and protest. This report said that all public dissent had been effectively silenced by either exile, imposition of prison terms, or intimidation. This latest report from the State Department, issued this week, further underscores the seriousness of the situation in China and the severity of the crackdown that has been imposed upon those who would express any opinion contrary to that of the Communist government. As an original cosponsor of the disapproval resolution on MFN to China, I believe serious human rights abuses persist in all areas of China today and that the continuous delay of this year's report on religious persecution raises the question as to this administration's willingness to engage in an open discussion of the effect of U.S. policy on human rights in China and around the world. I urge that the State Department report be delivered in a timely manner to ensure its full disclosure and debate prior to a vote on the extension of MFN to China. It seemed to be only right, only proper that the House and my Senate colleagues would have an opportunity to see the latest and most accurate information as to what is going on in China. That information was denied the House and it was denied my colleagues in the Senate, as we voted on the sense-of-the-Senate resolution last week. I even publicly made a request on the Senate floor for that report to be issued prior to any MFN debate and MFN vote. The State Department informed me that I would receive a copy of the report as soon as it was released. Mr. President, the fact was that the New York Times received a copy of this report before Congress did. This year's report states quite clearly that the Chinese Government has consistently violated its own constitutional guarantees of religious rights, cracking down on Catholic and Protestant groups, raiding worship groups meeting in private homes, and sometimes detaining and interrogating and even beating religious leaders. Furthermore, the report states: The government of China has sought to restrict all actual religious practice to government-authorized religious organizations. Some religious groups have registered, while others were refused registration. I want to commend and express my appreciation to Senator Ashcroft from the State of Missouri for his willingness to come to the floor of the Senate this week and express his own outrage at the continuing deterioration of human rights conditions in China. Mr. President, I raise this question on the floor of the Senate today: Why was the State Department's report on religious persecution delayed, delayed, and delayed again, so that it was only released after all congressional votes and all congressional debate on MFN was history? Mr. President, I have serious concerns that officials of this administration are not willing to engage in an open discussion about United States policy toward China, and I am deeply disturbed about the timing of this report, especially in light of the votes that have transpired in both the House and the Senate in recent weeks. The revelation that human rights abuses continue to worsen in China, while our policy remains status quo, I believe, gives our own tacit consent to the terrible atrocities that are occurring in that great country. To remain silent when evil is perpetrated and injustice is being inflicted, I think, is to become a participant in that evil. So I urge my colleagues to obtain a copy of this year's report issued this week, read it, study it, and decide what action we should take as a nation against this regime that continues to disregard basic human rights. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It is my understanding Senator Ashcroft from Missouri is on the way to the floor to speak in favor of my amendment. I reserve the final 1 minute and yield the floor to the opponents of the amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. It has been years since this body voted on the most-favored-nation status for China. It has been 8 years since the Tiananmen Square massacre, and it has been 4 years since this Nation embarked on a policy of so-called constructive engagement which delinked our China trade policy from human rights concerns. During these years, years since we last voted on MFN, years since the Tiananmen Square massacre, and the 4 years since we embarked upon constructive engagement, this is what has happened in these years: The struggling democracy movement in China has been thoroughly and completely squashed. Those students at Tiananmen Square, which we watched on television all over this Nation, are all either imprisoned or executed. All voices of freedom in China have since been silenced--all of them--according to the 1996 State Department Report on China. All voices of dissidents have been silenced. Chinese workers have been systematically exploited. Weapons of mass destruction have been exported around the world so that the export of those weapons from China now poses the greatest military risk in the world today. And people of faith in China have been persecuted and driven underground. In addition, during these years, all political dissent has been effectively oppressed, and now there is mounting evidence that, in fact, during these years when we were year after year granting most- favored-nation status, they were attempting to influence the American political process. There is mounting evidence that that was the case. So I believe this vote is a vote of conscience. I believe it is a vote that we must have in this body. The abuses of the Chinese Government beg to be protested. So when people ask me why this vote? I say because it is so egregious what is going on that we must vote, we must raise our voice, we must let the people of China know that there are people standing up for them in the United States.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I reserve my 3 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Might I inquire as to how much time my side has remaining?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent Senator Feingold be added as a cosponsor to my bill

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 1 minute 10 seconds. I yield the remaining time to the distinguished Senator from Missouri.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, Members can see the beautiful tie I am wearing today. It was manufactured in Little Rock, AR. It is a family business. The owner of the family business that manufactured this tie told me that the greatest threat to his economic viability is the unfair trade practices of Communist China. I ask you to vote for this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Suffering is not a term of economics. You cannot add it up, you cannot deduct it, you cannot redeem it in dollars. Arguments for MFN always come down to dollars and cents. But to the average Chinese person, you can't build a wall, you can't separate the economics from the human rights violations that are going on. A product of slave labor is inexorably tied and linked to the shackled hands that made it. I ask my colleagues, think about the enslaved, think about the oppressed, think about the imprisoned today, think about that voice of freedom that has been silenced, think about that voice of freedom in prison today, and speak for that one who cannot speak for himself. Please vote for this amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Ashcroft is on his way to speak in favor of the amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I would like to voice my support for the Smith amendment prohibiting foreign assistance to the Government of Russia, should it enact laws that would discriminate against religious minorities and religious faiths in the Russian federation. As you eloquently pointed out, on July 4, and ironically on July 4, as we celebrated our precious freedoms in the United States the Russian Federal Assembly gave final approval to a bill which would seriously undermine religious freedom in Russia. I was in Poland just 1 week ago, representing the Senate at an international conference, the Sixth Annual Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. At this conference, I had the opportunity to chair a bilateral meeting with the Speaker of the Russian Duma and we discussed this bill at length. In that bilateral meeting were a number of deputies from the Russian Duma. I found that their concept of rights and freedoms were strikingly in contrast to our concept of freedoms, as embodied in our Constitution and in our American tradition. Repeatedly, as we discussed the proposed law that the Russian Duma at that point had already voted on--the upper body had not yet at that point voted on it--it was clear that they viewed religious freedom, and in fact all rights, as being that which could be granted by the Government as opposed to our concept, embodied in our Constitution and our founding documents, that those rights and those freedoms are unalienable and endowed by our Creator--given by God. Therefore, as viewing rights as being something given by the Government, they saw no problem in removing the unlimited, unfettered right to freedom of religion. I was alarmed at the attitude and the intransigence that we found, not only from the Speaker of the Duma but the deputies who were present, and their concept. They said, and I paraphrase but very close to what was said in this bilateral meeting, that we must protect naive Russians from cults--cults being a broad definition to include all of the so-called new faiths. Of course, Russia today is experiencing a tremendous renewal of religious faith. In, I think, a misguided effort to protect the Orthodox Russian Church, this law has been proposed. I said very frankly and very bluntly--and may I say Congressman Clement from Tennessee, Congressman Dingell from Michigan, and a number of other Members of the U.S. Congress were present during this bilateral meeting and echoed my sentiments--that this law proposed, passed by the Duma, now pending before President Yeltsin, is antithetical to and irreconcilable with a true concept of liberty and religious freedom. Among the provisions in this bill that are most alarming is the requirement that religious groups list all of their numbers, their names, their addresses, a requirement that a commission be established--a commission of state experts--to review the doctrines and practices of groups applying for registration. It is unimaginable in this country, in which we have so enshrined the concept of religious freedom. There is a requirement under this bill that a religious group be in existence for 50 years in order to receive ``all Russian'' status, creating a division between religious associations and groups which could create a multitier religious hierarchy of different denominations. And then in this bill is a requirement that would deny for a 15-year period legal status to new religious groups, which could include those groups that refused to register under the Communist regime. Without legal status, these religious groups could not rent public space for services, they would find it difficult to conduct any financial activity, invite foreigners to Russia, or set up a church school for children. There is no justifiable reason to divide religious organizations into two categories, one with full rights and privileges and the others with limited rights, limited privileges. This new Russian law discriminates against religious faiths by establishing a hierarchy of religious groups under the law and denying legal status to communities of believers. When similar legislation threatened religious freedom in Russia only 4 years ago, Members of the House, Members of this body, the Senate, joined together in an urgent appeal to Boris Yeltsin to veto that legislation. Courageously, President Yeltsin stood firm. He refused to sign that bill into law. Now we have an opportunity, thanks to the amendment of Senator Smith of Oregon, to send a strong message to Russia that we will take concerted action to preserve this essential human right. This is potentially the greatest retreat on religious freedom and human rights since the fall of the Soviet Union, and it is an ominous sign about the future of that Republic. We must forcefully signal our grave concern by passing the Smith amendment. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. Senate will join with Senator Smith of Oregon in sending that signal to the Government of Russia, and add encouragement and solidarity with the people of the Russian Republic. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I offer amendment No. 890 to the foreign operations appropriations bill. This amendment which is a sense of the Senate, would disapprove the MFN status, most-favored-nation status, to the nation of China. I have opposed the renewal of MFN to China. On June 3 of this year I became an original cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 31, the legislation disapproving the extension of MFN. Unfortunately, because of the joint resolution of disapproval in the House, which failed to pass the House of Representatives on June 24, as in past years or at least recent years, the Senate has not considered and has not had the opportunity to weigh in on and to voice its concern about the conditions in China, and particularly to cast a vote on the MFN status for China. Today we will have that opportunity with this sense of the Senate. It has been almost 4 years, Mr. President, since the United States formally delinked the issues of trade and human rights with regard to China. Four years ago when we delinked, when we embarked upon our policy of constructive engagement, the logic was that greater trade, greater economic expansion within China itself, would result in political freedom, greater political freedom, less repression, more opportunity for the people of China. The fact is, by every measure, the record of the Chinese Government on human rights has worsened since the time that we embarked upon this policy delinking trade and human rights. Whether you look at the crackdown on people of faith within China, whether you look at the practice of forced abortions, forced sterilization of the mentally handicapped, the near extinction of the expression of any opinion that would be contrary to the established line of the Communist Government in Beijing, by any measure, conditions are worse, freedoms are less, oppression is greater than it was 4 years ago when we started this policy of constructive engagement. In fact, according to the 1996 country report issued by our own State Department, the U.S. State Department said that the Chinese Communist leaders have succeeded in silencing every known political dissident. Mr. President, that is every dissident, every free voice, every voice of dissent, every contrary opinion to the party line has now been extinguished in Communist China either through exile, through death, or through imprisonment. So, Mr. President, I feel very strongly that our current policy of continuing normal trade relations without regard to human rights conditions has been ineffective in stemming this very alarming trend in China by turning a blind eye to the atrocities or abdicating our responsibility as a great and a free nation. As we have continued to extend China's MFN status, insufficient progress has been made in opening the vast Chinese market to the American companies. The argument has been free trade, increased economic expansion. While our imports from China have increased dramatically during the last 4 years, the amount of goods we export to China has grown at a much, much smaller rate. Moreover, Mr. President, China utilizes a vast prison system manned with slave labor to produce many products which are exported to the West. It is unfair to ask American laborers, American workers, to compete with the slave labor of Communist China. I believe in free trade. This is not free trade that we have currently. Soldiers of the People's Liberation Army stand guard atop the towers of the slave labor camps, known as Laogai. The PLA controls, either directly or indirectly, a significant portion of the Chinese industry. In fact, according to our CIA, thousands of industries that we are trading with on a routine basis are controlled by the People's Liberation Army. That is not free trade. It is not fair trade. It is not right. Mr. President, it is believed that many of these industries are involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, arms smuggling, economic espionage, use of forced labor, piracy of intellectual property, and misinformation of sensitive military technology. Mr. President, I know some of my colleagues, perhaps many of my colleagues, feel that this amendment is something they would rather not vote on. This sense of the Senate is something they would rather not have to go on the record on. I think that we are dealing with foreign operations. Section 524 of this bill bars indirect assistance to many countries, including China. So it is relevant. It is germane. It is important that the U.S. Senate have an opportunity to voice our concerns. It is a sense of Senate. It is not binding. It is important we send that signal. We may not be able this year--we cannot, obviously, because of the House action--we may not be able to deny MFN status, but we can send a signal, and we should. To my colleagues I say there are people watching. The Chinese Government is watching what this Chamber does. The Chinese people are watching. We can send a message that we do not condone the practices, the oppressive totalitarian practices of this government. We can, at the same time, to the tens of thousands, yes, the tens of millions of Chinese who are facing that oppression today, we can say to them there are those in America who stand with them and who will support them in their fight for freedom. I know, Mr. President, that there are many bills that have been introduced to deal with China, and I hope that we will deal with that. I hope we will take those bills, whether Senator Brownback's, Senator Abraham's, or whoever may have introduced legislation to address the China question, and we will put that into some kind of omnibus bill in future weeks to send an even stronger message. Until then, this is our opportunity. This is our chance to, once again, give a voice to American foreign policy. This is our opportunity to say to the world and to say to the Chinese Government, America still stands for something, that we do not have a foreign policy void of value, that those values we espouse, which are embodied in our founding documents and in our very Constitution, live on, today, in the policy that we advocate toward China. I know there were many who breathed a sigh of relief in the U.S. Senate when MFN went down in the House of Representatives. There was a sense of ``we're off the hook.'' I say to all of those of my colleagues who have decried the conditions in China today, I say to all of my colleagues who in one form or another have said it is wrong what they are doing over there, to remember that while we may have been off the hook, there are tens of thousands of Chinese people in prison camps today who are still on the hook, this is our chance to give them the voice that their government has denied them. I ask my colleagues to look deep within their soul, to look at their conscience, and I ask them to vote in favor of this sense-of-the-Senate resolution disapproving of most-favored-nation status for China. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I will briefly respond to my distinguished colleagues from Kentucky and California. I feel compelled, as I listen to the arguments that have been raised over and over again, and particularly the phrase that ``it is a different China today.'' Well, it is not my opinion that I am citing today. It is our own State Department's 1996 country report on the conditions in China. So I remind my colleagues on the floor right now that our State Department, in looking at China, said, yes, it is a different China; the difference is that 8 years after the Tiananmen Square massacre, after those brave students stood in front of those tanks, there is not one remaining independent free voice in China today. That is our State Department. Every dissident has either been killed or imprisoned or exiled. There are none of those independent voices. That is the China that exists today. That is what our State Department has said. Now, the State Department had a new report they were going to issue. It was supposed to have been out months ago. It was delayed. It was supposed to have been out in June, and it has been further delayed until after the MFN votes were over. I wish the administration had ordered that latest State Department report to be issued so that the Members of the Senate could see what the latest evaluation of the conditions in China really are. The latest we have, in the 1996 country report, is that there are no free voices in China today. Now, they say we will isolate China. The same ones who say we are going to isolate China will say we can't deny MFN because they will send all of those goods to Europe, they will find markets for their products in Europe. Let me assure my colleagues, you will not isolate one-fifth of the world's population. And it is a self-contradictory argument to say we dare not isolate them or we will deny our American citizens these goods. Now, my dear colleague and distinguished friend from Kentucky said Mr. Clinton had changed his mind when he got elected. Indeed, he did. He commended him for his change of mind. Well, I criticize him for his change of mind. I think he was right when he was a candidate. He then said that it was intolerable that we, as a people of conviction and values, should stand by and close our eyes to what is going on in China. So I regret that he made that change, as he has made changes in many other policies. Well, then they say, ``It just takes time, just give them time,'' and if we will give them time, my colleagues say, we will see political freedom, an increase in their economic opportunities and, as sure as day follows night, political freedom will come. Mr. President, I have been waiting for 4 years. I have been waiting for 4 years for one scintilla of evidence to support that notion. If I could have found just the slightest indication that things were getting better in China, I would have voted for MFN to encourage those positive changes. But by every measure, it has gotten worse, and every objective observer, from Amnesty International, to Family Research Council, to our own State Department, has said it's worse. So how can we continue to say, well, business as usual, and if we keep on giving them time, it will get better, when, so far, every time they have thumbed their nose at what we have done. Then we hear that no one calls for it if you go to Hong Kong. I don't know about that, but I do know that if you were in mainland China today, you could not call for it because, if you dared, you would be imprisoned and you would risk your very life and the lives of your loved ones. There are no dissidents left. So to my colleagues I say, the vote on this amendment is very simple: to embrace the policy of profits and appeasement, or to embrace the policy of principle and principled challenge to those who would abuse and persecute and execute their own citizens. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for his leadership on this issue and for yielding his time. I rise today in strong opposition to the Murray amendment. During the Reagan and Bush administrations, abortions were prohibited at overseas Department of Defense medical treatment facilities, except in the cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life should be in danger. In 1993, just 2 days after taking office, President Clinton issued an Executive order to the Secretary of Defense that reversed this previous ban on abortions, which had been supported, which was reflective of our national priorities and our national policy of not using taxpayers' funds to provide abortions. So the President, President Clinton, issued that Executive order reversing the previous ban. This attempt to legislate by Executive order was soon met with fierce resistance, not only by Members of Congress who were greatly concerned about this reversal of position, but by the military's own doctors. After the administration's reversal, there were a number of articles that appeared, but two specifically from major media outlets challenging the President's Executive order. ``The Pentagon confirmed, all 44 military doctors in Europe have decided against doing the procedure on moral and religious grounds.'' I think that is a tribute to our military doctors and a reflection of their own moral concerns about this practice and their support for the traditional position that had been in place for many years. Additionally, one Air Force commander stated that all 10 obstetricians under his command expressed an ``unwillingness on a personal or moral basis'' to perform abortions and, furthermore, that he was not surprised at the doctors' response. Military treatment centers--which are, always have been, and should be dedicated to healing and nurturing life--should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent of human life: the child in the womb. We have a policy that has worked. It is a policy that is supported by our military doctors. It is a policy that is reflective of the position that we have held as a Nation, even during this era in which Roe versus Wade has sustained a woman's right to choose abortion--that policy that we will not ask Americans who morally and religiously object to the practice of abortion to subsidize that practice with their tax dollars. This is a law that has worked; it is a law that is effective. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing the Murray amendment and sustaining our existing policy and existing law, consistent with what we as a Nation have held and what our current policy is. I thank the Senator from Indiana. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I also want to commend Senator Roth. The $500 per child tax credit is truly the heart of this tax relief bill. I especially want to thank Senator Gramm for taking the lead in solving this problem, which is a very serious problem. There are 382,000 families in Arkansas who benefit from the $500 per child tax credit, but there are many teenaged children who are excluded because of the provision that is in the Finance Committee's bill. I believe parents should have the right to decide. They are better arbiters, they are better decisionmakers on the use of that money than bureaucrats and even lawmakers in Washington, DC. And no matter how good educational savings for teenagers may be, it is better to let the parents make that decision. I think I will have a hard time explaining to those parents of that 13-year-old why, when their child was 12 he was eligible or she was eligible for the $500 per child tax credit, but at the age of 13 they are not. Perhaps that 13-year-old will have an emergency. Perhaps that 13-year-old needs braces. Perhaps that 13-year-old needs a math tutor to enable that child to ensure that he or she is ready to go to college when they graduate from high school. The parents will not have the option, will not have the opportunity, will not have the eligibility under the current bill. That is why this amendment is so important that we ensure that the parents have the ultimate decisionmaking authority. Forty percent of young people who graduate from high school do not go straight on to college. They should not be excluded from the benefits of this tax bill. Parents should decide, not Washington, DC. I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I intend to speak about 15 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to the Senator from Iowa for being so understanding, allowing me to proceed. I would like for it to be clear that my 15 minutes would come from the majority's time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the House of Representatives votes tomorrow on whether or not to extend most-favored-nation trade status to China. In a more desirable world, revoking China's MFN status might be less advisable than handling national security and human rights as well as economic issues in more traditional ways. Unfortunately, the experience of the last 3 or 4 years, in fact experience going back much farther than that, has demonstrated that the administration's policy of constructive engagement has failed. The constructive engagement policy has in fact degenerated. We have seen conditions in China worsened annually. The logic behind constructive engagement is, indeed, appealing. It goes something like this. If we will expand trade with China, the result will inevitably be political liberalization and ultimately an improvement in the conditions of the Chinese people, there will be an expansion of human rights opportunities, there will be less repression, there will be less religious persecution, there will be a warmer and more cordial relationship between China and the United States. When I was first confronted with the issue of MFN upon my election to Congress in 1993, I was almost persuaded by that logic. In fact, I wanted to be persuaded by that logic, and I was looking for any indication that the policy of constructive engagement was, in fact, having the desired results and that, in fact, conditions were improving, treatment of the Chinese people had improved, there was less repression, and that trade, expanded trade, was in fact having that kind of result. Had there been any sign in the last 4 years that this policy of constructive engagement was having the intended result, I would be voting for MFN this year. Were I given the opportunity, I would be supporting most-favored-nation trade status for China. But the facts are very clear and the State Department's own report makes it abundantly clear that conditions have deteriorated, that the policy of linkage has not had the result that we all wanted it to have. So it is argued that economic freedom frequently leads to political freedom, and in fact it does frequently lead to political freedom. There are examples in which that has happened. But in China's case, market economics has become nothing but an utilitarian exercise to ensure the continuation of a totalitarian regime. They have seen if they keep the iron grip upon the Chinese people, that a market economy will help them accomplish that; that expanded trade, higher incomes, economic opportunities for Chinese people--that makes it easier for them to maintain an absolute repression of any kind of free expression within China. Proponents of MFN say we all have the same goal, expanded human rights, we just have a different approach on how we best attain that. Russia is often pointed to, the old Soviet Union, where there was a little hole in the dike called perestroika and from that little hole in the dike the floodgates opened and freedom could not be contained. But in China, perhaps they learned the lesson from the Russian experiment or from the Soviet Union's experience, for in China there has been no perestroika; there has been only repression. There are, I believe, many flaws in the policy of constructive engagement. First and foremost, it has simply not improved the status of the Chinese people; it has worsened it. The administration's decision not to consider human rights abuses when granting MFN status has proven disastrous for the people of China. As they have been removed from the threat of any repercussions in the trade relationship with the United States, the Chinese Communist leaders have succeeded in jailing or executing every last dissident in a country of over 1 billion people, according to the State Department's own 1996 China report. As we have turned a blind eye, the atrocities have escalated and the oppressive government has strengthened its hold on a full one- fifth of the world's population. The constructive engagement policy has produced more persecutions of Christians, more forced abortions, more sterilizations of the mentally handicapped, more incarcerations of political dissidents, and the near extinction of the expression of any opinions contrary to those of the Communist regime. I have on this chart, I think, a very clear illustration of the failure of the constructive engagement policy. On the left of this chart we see a dramatic increase of trade with China, a less dramatic increase of imports from the United States, and a very dramatic increase in exports. We see, in a very graphic manner, while trade has increased from 1987 to 1996, we have also seen that human rights abuses in China have increased almost in a parallel manner. Homeless children--in 1993 over 600,000, in 1997 almost three times as many homeless children, homeless children being the result of those who are incarcerated and those who are executed. Religious persecution in China--in 1993, 2.4 million believers, those people of faith persecuted. In 1997, 4 years later, under the policy of constructive engagement, 4.5 million, almost doubling. So, while trade increased--the logic of constructive engagement would say trade increasing, more trade opportunities will mean greater human rights and fewer abuses in China. Just the opposite has occurred. Reeducation camps--in 1993, 200,000 were in these forced reeducation labor camps; in 1997, over 5 million have been detained, according to Amnesty International and according to the Congressional Research Service. I believe this in fact demonstrates that constructive engagement has been very destructive. Second, this delinkage has also resulted in a loss of leverage with the Chinese Government. I want to pause to read from an editorial that appeared in my hometown paper today, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. It says: But they may not realize that a carrot-and-stick approach isn't likely to be effective if the carrot is always offered and the stick is always withheld. That has been the result of this delinkage policy. They would say, and they do say: Your words are empty because there is nothing to back them up. Delinkage has not worked because, in effect, there has been no stick. So, is it any wonder that, in effect, we hear the Chinese Government say we don't care what you say because in the end we get what we want and we can continue to do what we please? Mr. President, that delinkage has resulted in a loss of leverage is clearly evident in that State Department report of 1996, in which they said, ``No dissidents were known to be active at the year's end.'' When most-favored-nation status reaches the point that it is no longer conditioned, then it becomes absolutely meaningless. When we look at China and our own State Department says by every measure conditions are worse, yet we say we are still going to extend most- favored-nation trade status, then that annual exercise becomes nothing more than an annual joke that we play in Congress, where we go through the process, we go through the debate, all the time knowing most- favored-nation trade status will be extended, MFN will be extended regardless of what conditions may have occurred within China. In a flagrant act of intimidation, China effectively blockaded Taiwan during a missile testing exercise off its coast in March of 1996. Many examples could be given of where the Chinese Government acts with impunity toward our Nation because our policy has been one of coddling. Third, constructive engagement supposes a true free enterprise system in China and that system just does not exist. The logic behind constructive engagement is flawed because it assumes that in fact they have a free enterprise system. They do not have that. They have protectionist trade policies, they have an enormous trade deficit with the United States, and the People's Liberation Army controls many of the industries in China. So the assumption is wrong and the policy is flawed. Fourth, constructive engagement supposes a fair trade relationship that does not exist. How can you have a fair trade relationship when there are 5 million people in slave labor camps? Forced reeducation camps, the old gulag in the Soviet Union, the concentration camps, that's what they are, with prison industries. Though it is against the law, there is no way that we can totally detect what products are made in prison factories and what products are not. So there is no fair trade relationship with China. Then, fifth, constructive engagement ignores the military buildup in China. If you reject everything else, the fact is we have a compelling national security interest as we see China's defense budget growing. United States Ambassador to China James Sasser recently stated that fact. The Chinese themselves have announced an increase in that budget, which will bring total defense outlays to $10 billion and many believe it is closer to $40 billion. So I say, as you look at China's military buildup, their willingness to export weapon components, chemical weapon components, selling those weapon components to Iran, nuclear weapon technology to Pakistan, advanced jet aircraft to Russia and on and on, it is clear that our national security interest would say we ought not extend again most-favored-nation status to China. Sixth, constructive engagement is flawed because it assumes that gentle treatment will elicit good behavior while firmness will result in escalating tensions. Let me say that again. The assumption is that if we will give to China gentle treatment, it will elicit good behavior, but that if we dare to take a firm stand, it will escalate tensions. In an earlier day that philosophy was called appeasement, and it has never worked. It did not work in the days of Chamberlain, and it will not work in our day. There is no greater example of it, perhaps, or image of it, at least, than when Vice President Gore toasted Premier Li Peng. Arthur Waldron wrote in his essay ``How Not to Deal with China,'' he said: China is involved in disputes around the full circumference of its border, disputes which, like burners on a stove, Beijing may turn up or down, but never turns off. So they toy as we grant MFN. The logic behind this policy is flawed. I believe it deserves a vote of no confidence. I hope the Senate will have the opportunity to cast that vote. China has created a dichotomy. They say, on the one hand, give us trade. They say give us sales. They say give us dollars. And on the other hand, they practice political repression, slave labor, forced abortion and religious persecution. Between those two statements there is the great wall of China: Yes, market economy, free trade, but political repression and slave labor. To the extent that free markets lead to free minds, China, in recognizing that, built a wall between. And, as we continue to grant most-favored-nation status, we allow that wall to exist. Mr. President, 2 years ago, I was present, as many of my colleagues were, at the dedication of the Korean War Veterans Memorial, the latest war memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC. At the edge of the memorial is a low wall upon which is inscribed this reminder, I think a good reminder for all Senators, a good reminder for all our colleagues in the House of Representatives on this eve of the MFN vote. On that memorial is inscribed these words: ``Freedom is not free.'' To those who would say that profits are the ultimate arbiter of American policy, I say it is time that, once again, values and principles be the determinant of what our national policy is and what our trade policy should be. Freedom is not free. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I rise in opposition to extending most-favored-nation status to China. I was deeply, deeply dismayed at the recent revelation that a State Department report on religious persecution in China and human rights conditions in China, originally scheduled for release back in January, was postponed, originally until June, and then it was announced that it would again be delayed and postponed until after the vote on most-favored-nation status, that vote that would take place now in the House next week. I think it is unconscionable, when we consider the seriousness and the import of this vote, for a report from the State Department that has relevant and pertinent information regarding what is going on in China today in regard to human rights and in regard to religious persecution, that that report should not be made available to the American public and to Members of the House of Representatives and to the U.S. Senate prior to our vote on MFN. Yesterday, I wrote the President and Secretary of State Albright, asking them for an immediate release of that State Department report so that Members of the House who are yet undecided on how they are going to vote on MFN will have that very important report at their disposal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that letter to the President printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think to postpone the release of that report indicates that the likelihood that conditions in China have improved over the course of the last year are remote. The last State Department report, the China country report issued in 1996, was a blistering condemnation of the Chinese Government's repression of their own people and the new wave of the religious persecution that has spread across the country inflicted by this current regime: The administration continues to coddle China despite its continuing crackdown on democratic reform, its brutal subjugation of Tibet, its irresponsibility in nuclear missile technology. Mr. President, those are not my words. Those were the words of then Candidate Bill Clinton in a speech to Georgetown University in December 1991. Then Candidate Clinton was exactly right, and those very words are equally applicable to the policy of appeasement that has been promoted by the Clinton administration. President Clinton, then Candidate Clinton, went on a few months later in March 1992 and said: I don't believe we should extend most favored nation status to China unless they make significant progress in human rights, arms proliferation and fair trade. He was right then. He is wrong now. They have not made significant progress in any of those categories, human rights, arms proliferation or fair trade. And then in August 1992, then Candidate Clinton said: We will link China's trading privileges to its human rights records and its conduct of trade weapon sales. Of course, we all know that that strong position taken as a candidate was repudiated after he was elected President. What a difference an election makes. So today, Mr. President, I called for the immediate release of this State Department report so that an intelligent and informed decision can be made by this Congress when they vote in the House and, hopefully, when a vote yet in the future, in the coming weeks, in the Senate takes place. I believe that the change that occurred by this administration was ill-advised and has led to both a failed and flawed policy toward China. Not long ago, in the last hour, I had a conversation with former Secretary of State Eagleburger, who is an advocate of most-favored- nation status, favors extending that trading status to China once again. I said, ``Things are worse in China since we adopted this constructive engagement policy.'' He said, ``In what regards?'' And I said, ``In every regard.'' Whether it is human rights, whether it is religious persecution, whether it is military expansionism or the export of weapons of mass destruction, you name the measure, you name the standard, and conditions and situations in China are worse today than they were when we adopted this policy of so-called constructive engagement. One might argue that denial of most-favored-nation status is a blunt instrument and is not the best way to achieve our goals, as Senator Thomas argued a few moments ago. One might argue that. One might argue that we should look at other options, that we should seek other tools, other instruments to convey this message to the Chinese Government. But few, I believe, can stand and say that the current policy of this administration has been anything other than an abject failure. Some will say that it will be worse if we deny MFN. A person can argue that, but you cannot prove that. What can be demonstrated in all these now many years of MFN is that, rather than responding by expanding trade opportunities and trade relationships with the United States, rather than responding by improving the conditions of the Chinese people, they have responded by a new wave, an unprecedented wave, of repression upon those who would dare to express their own political opinion or their own religious faith. The logic behind the administration's policy of engagement is, No. 1, that it will improve conditions in China. It clearly has not. According to the State Department report, this administration's own report, it has not improved conditions. They have become more deplorable. Then the administration argues that if we link human rights conditions in China with trade, the result will be that China will be isolated and the United States companies will lose markets and trade opportunities. I think that is interesting. In fact, Bill Clinton, in November 1993, said, ``Well, I think, first of all, I think anybody should be reluctant to isolate a country as big as China with the potential China has for good, not only for the 1.2 billion people of China who are enjoying unprecedented and economic growth, but good in the region and good throughout the world. So our reluctance to isolate them is the right reluctance.'' So this administration argues that if we link what is going on within China to our trade opportunities with this Nation, this vast nation, that we will isolate them, and that American companies will lose this opportunity for this huge bargain. Now, how do they argue that? They say that other countries, European countries, for instance, will rush in and fill the vacuum that is left when we pull out. They are probably right. But there is a non sequitur, there is a self-contradiction, in the argument of the administration that we somehow will isolate China and at the same time the other nations will come in and take the trade opportunities that otherwise would be afforded to our companies. The fact is, and everyone knows it, that less than 2 percent of our world trade goes to China. Being removed from China will in no way isolate this great vast nation. In fact, it is impossible for us, today, to isolate China. There will be other nations who go in, just as we will find other markets for our products. But what is just as certain is that denying the privilege of MFN to this Nation, which is so repressive toward its own people and so expansionist in their military policy, by denying MFN, we can send a powerful and meaningful message to the tyrants in Beijing. I know of no other way that we can send that powerful message, and those who favor the extension of MFN, to me, have not yet offered a significant and meaningful alternative. Now, let me just return to my call for the administration to release this report. I think it is absolutely critical that the House of Representatives have before them that report before they are asked to cast this very important vote next week. The coming MFN vote is not just a vote on trade, Mr. President. It is not just a vote on what we stand for as a nation, though it is very much that kind of a vote. Are we going to stand for anything? Are we still going to represent the last best hope for freedom-loving people in this world, or are we not? But it is not just a vote on that. It is not just a vote on Chinese military expansionism, though if we have a great national security threat in the decades to come, it will be from China, and it is a vote as to our concern about that expansionism. It is not just a vote on religious persecution in China, though that ought to concern every freedom-loving American. But, Mr. President, it is also a vote on this administration's China policy, a policy that is, I believe, by every measure, flawed and failed. Mr. President, I believe this administration deserves a vote of no confidence on their China policy. That can best be given by a no vote on extending MFN to China. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 minutes in the morning hour.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as the House of Representatives begins the process of MFN disapproval today, I rise to once again voice my own strong opposition to the administration's proposed renewal of most favored nation status to China. The United States Ambassador to China, James Sasser, has recently stated--and of course Ambassador Sasser is a proponent, as a member of the administration, and he has favored MFN-- but Ambassador Sasser said China's defense budget is growing. The Chinese themselves have announced an increase in that budget which will bring total defense outlays next year to $10 billion and he says some suggest the amount is really closer to $40 billion. So there is nothing at all theoretical about China's military buildup. Even the administration, even those who are saying we should continue most-favored-nation status trading status for China, will admit that there is a dramatic and drastic buildup of military capability in China. Here is what we know about the Chinese military and its potential, based on the United States Government's own official estimates. The 1997 report by the Office of Naval Intelligence, entitled ``Worldwide Challenges to Naval Strike Warfare 1997,'' is devoted almost entirely to rapid increases in Chinese capabilities with Iraq, North Korea, and Libyan capabilities covered almost as an afterthought. China, it informs us ``is working on the development of at least six new tactical aircraft at a time when most nations are finding it difficult to finance even one.'' It continues, ``Overall, the Chinese hope to `leap' generations of technology with large investments in new air defense capability.'' Mr. President, from Beijing, the words of China's military planners themselves, such as this analysis from a paper prepared for senior Chinese officials titled ``Can the Chinese Army Win the Next War?'' ``While the conflict of strategic interests between China and the United States was overshadowed for a time by the tripartite great power relationship, it is now surfacing steadily since the breakup of the Soviet Union. China and the United States, focused on their respective economic and political interests in the Asia-Pacific region, will remain in a sustained state of confrontation.'' That is coming from the Chinese Government, predicting a sustained state of confrontation. The evidence concerning a Chinese military buildup is clear, it is crystal clear. Whether this evidence comes straight from the administration that would renew MFN to China or from Beijing, how can we reward this regime with a most-favored-nation status? Many who regard themselves as free traders and who argue against linkage of trade through human rights or any other domestic circumstance would admit that when our own national security is involved, when national security is raised to an issue, then trading is a legitimate leverage and a legitimate tool for us to use as a Nation. So apart from the abysmal human rights record, apart from the deplorable human rights conditions in China today, apart from the fact that human rights conditions in China have deteriorated over the last 5 years, in spite of all of that, we could look alone at the military buildup in China today and justify denial of most-favored-nation status for China. I believe that China's chemical and nuclear exports are the most serious proliferation threat in the world today, and China has held that title at least for the past decade and a half. Since 1980, China has supplied billions of dollars worth of nuclear and missile technology to South Asia, South Africa, South America, and the Middle East. China has done so, Mr. President, in the teeth of United States protests and despite repeated promises that they would stop. The chemical and nuclear exports continue, and while they do, they make it impossible for the United States and the West to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction, a trend that endangers everyone. Mr. President, China has been the leading proliferator of nuclear weapons in the world. China gave Pakistan nearly everything it needed to make its first atomic bomb. In the early 1980's, China gave Pakistan a tested nuclear weapon design and enough high-enriched uranium to fuel it. Mr. President, this has to be one of the most egregious acts of nuclear proliferation in history. Then China helped Pakistan produce high-enriched uranium with gas centrifuges. Now, Mr. President, China is helping Pakistan build a reactor to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, and helping Pakistan increase the number of its centrifuges so it can boost its production of high-enriched uranium. If we grant MFN trading to China, we tacitly endorse the weapons of mass destruction, we support our enemies in their own military buildup, and last Mr. President we set a poor example as the leader of the free world. This administration continues to forgive and to forget China for the abuse, the persecution, and the military buildup that it is continuing to employ. There is no reason to think that China's nuclear and chemical export patterns will change. I know the Presiding Officer is well aware of those trends and those practices in China today, but there is no evidence that those patterns will change as long as the United States follows its current policy of MFN trade status for China. China is now saying explicitly that it will not even talk to us about missile and chemical proliferation. As I have stated before, Mr. President, on this floor, there must be some things more important than expanded trade opportunities, some things more important than the almighty dollar. Today, as the House begins the process of marking up most-favored-nation status disapproval resolution, I think it is the time for this institution to say we will not continue business as usual with China. The administration's lobbying efforts to grant MFN trading status to China will most assuredly intensify in coming days. We as a country and we as an institution must set an example for the world to follow. If we grant this regime MFN, we set, I think, a continued example only of appeasement. Mr. President, I want to make one last point. The repressive Chinese Communist regime has established a blood-stained record of discrimination, detention, and death. The reeducation through labor camps are really no different at all from the old concentration camps or the gulag. But people seem to know less, they seem to care less, in the case of China. Let this institution show that it, in fact, knows, and it, in fact, cares. In my closing remarks I quote from an editorial that appeared in my hometown newspaper in Bentonville, AR, last week. The closing words of the editorial said this: ``Every time you buy a product labeled Made in China, send up a prayer for Chinese Christians who must live each and every day in fear that their long-suffering faith will cost them their families and their lives.'' Mr. President, I suggest it is past time that we stood as a Nation against the intolerable human rights record of the nation of China. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.